Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Einstein was a paton clerk with nowhere to go. all experiments up to that point kept "time" constant. With nothing better to do and time he said. "what do I have to lose, let me change time". Well, that and he figured the test equipment was good enough with the measurments.
Anybody that truly thinks we will not make an "aware" machine does not understand what is going on.
We are getting good at correlating the presence or absence of various molecules with psychological experiences, but there is currently nothing in the concepts/defined terms/mathematical models of atoms or chemical bonds that implies the presence or absence of qualitative experiences. Roughly, the types of concepts we have at our disposal are electrical charge, electromagnetic radiation, mass, momentum, quantum spin, etc. We can use these types of concepts to describe the molecules and molecular interactions that occur in the nervous system, but there is nothing in the definitions of any of these terms that implies the possibility of the emergence of qualitative experiences. We can see the possibility for incredibly complex self-organizing processes, but even "complex" and "self-organizing" do not get us much closer to qualitative experience. At best we get potentials for behavior, but unless you are advocating Skinnerian behaviorism, this is not good enough.
the chemisrty part is called pathways ... and they are learning them. Just because we don't know them all we can't make stuff up.
It's not so much the "methods of scientific investigation" that are the problem, but rather the currently defined concepts being used in fundamental physics and/or materialist philosophies. The fundamental particles and laws of physics, as currently defined, do not address the elements of qualitative experience at all, and thus these concepts cannot exclude the logical possibility of zombies. Quantum mechanics gives us vague but tantalizing hints of how, maybe, "observers" might have to be written into the mathematical models of physics (the "projection postulate" of quantum mechanics), but it leaves us hanging and wallowing in controversy (e.g., "the measurement problem", "Schrodinger's cat", "Wigner's friend", etc.). My guess/hope/speculation is that, maybe, if we can find a way to link the qualitative phenomenology of experience to the projection postulate, we might bridge the "explanatory gap" or "the hard problem." I don't have time to spell these ideas out any further at the moment, but I'm trying to show the general direction of my thinking.
The amount of detail about what we DO know exceeds what is known by your interlocutors, Gaylen. That is why the bold is not fully appreciated by them. It makes the entire exercise appear to be wordplay. They really do not know that "the currently defined concepts being used in fundamental physics and/or materialist philosophies" can NOT account for qualitative experience. If you try to tell them that . . . they just think you are insulting them. They do not know enough to know that it is simply the truth. I admire your efforts but they simply do not know enough to know they do not know enough.
I hope you are wrong there. If you tell me that, I will accept it. Indeed it is pretty obvious that we have much to learn about consciousness. Where I demurred and did right from the time I finally caught up with Gaylen's explanation, was that it apparently meant that the unknown answer could not possibly be a materialist/monist one.
It still seems to me that, while in philosophical terms, materialism has failed to falsify dualism as presented in the logical zombies, it is surely wrong to suppose that the unknown answer will have to be a dualist one.
I get an idea that Gaylen may be suggesting the same idea - that a kind of modified (in the way we think about it) materialism/monism may be the answer in the end, but perhaps he can clarify that.
I hope you are wrong there. If you tell me that, I will accept it. Indeed it is pretty obvious that we have much to learn about consciousness. Where I demurred and did right from the time I finally caught up with Gaylen's explanation, was that it apparently meant that the unknown answer could not possibly be a materialist/monist one.
It still seems to me that, while in philosophical terms, materialism has failed to falsify dualism as presented in the logical zombies, it is surely wrong to suppose that the unknown answer will have to be a dualist one.
I get an idea that Gaylen may be suggesting the same idea - that a kind of modified (in the way we think about it) materialism/monism may be the answer in the end, but perhaps he can clarify that.
As I said before, you DO seem to intuitively grasp the real issues, Arq. Yes, Gaylen is endeavoring to redefine monism to make it encompass qualitative experience using "property dualism." Obviously I do not think he can succeed . . . but if he does he will have simultaneously solved the abiogenesis issue, IMO.
The amount of detail about what we DO know exceeds what is known by your interlocutors, Gaylen. That is why the bold is not fully appreciated by them. It makes the entire exercise appear to be wordplay. They really do not know that "the currently defined concepts being used in fundamental physics and/or materialist philosophies" can NOT account for qualitative experience. If you try to tell them that . . . they just think you are insulting them. They do not know enough to know that it is simply the truth. I admire your efforts but they simply do not know enough to know they do not know enough.
that is incorrect Mystic. We actually know enough to see through the fog. I know exactly what she is saying. It seems to me the less science people know the more valid this quali becomes. I think we are being insulted when we try to imply that qualitative expressions are not rooted in the material that expressed it and/or processing the inputs to have it. To leave out these "materials" as you call it steps out of what is known. you then can make stuff up, like zombies, free of natural constraints. Like getting resources to the brain that it is using to have the feeling.
The argument that "physics" does not have equations for "love" is true. Who said we didn't agree with that. What we are saying is that love, human love, is processed or expresses using the material that makes up the human body. That is what we are saying. If you do not have something "move" you do not have the "experience". That is all that can be said right now. I can put material in or take material out of you and you will love "diffrently". peroid.
Show me one event that takes place without a particle (or field) moving or interacting with another field? I will take just one. I admire Kc for giving gay the opportunity to work throw this stuff. He has been in many, many many circles. I stopped at the first.
The amount of detail about what we DO know exceeds what is known by your interlocutors, Gaylen. That is why the bold is not fully appreciated by them. It makes the entire exercise appear to be wordplay. They really do not know that "the currently defined concepts being used in fundamental physics and/or materialist philosophies" can NOT account for qualitative experience. If you try to tell them that . . . they just think you are insulting them. They do not know enough to know that it is simply the truth. I admire your efforts but they simply do not know enough to know they do not know enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
that is incorrect Mystic. We actually know enough to see through the fog. I know exactly what she is saying. It seems to me the less science people know the more valid this quali becomes. I think we are being insulted when we try to imply that qualitative expressions are not rooted in the material that expressed it and/or processing the inputs to have it. To leave out these "materials" as you call it steps out of what is known. you then can make stuff up, like zombies, free of natural constraints. Like getting resources to the brain that it is using to have the feeling.
The argument that "physics" does not have equations for "love" is true. Who said we didn't agree with that. What we are saying is that love, human love, is processed or expresses using the material that makes up the human body. That is what we are saying. If you do not have something "move" you do not have the "experience". That is all that can be said right now. I can put material in or take material out of you and you will love "diffrently". peroid.
Show me one event that takes place without a particle (or field) moving or interacting with another field? I will take just one. I admire Kc for giving gay the opportunity to work throw this stuff. He has been in many, many many circles. I stopped at the first.
No it is not incorrect, Arach. What you want to call some kind of material (particle, whatever) is consciousness itself which is a field phenomenon. I agree that there is one thing that comprises our material reality . . . but it is what we currently consider non-material (even illusory): consciousness. I agree it is "produced" (transformed) using the inputs from our material body and brain. But it is neither IN our brain nor any part of what we consider our "material" self. It is for want of a better term a "pure neural field phenomenon" resident within the unified field (consciousness field) that establishes our reality. We connect with it only while producing (transforming) consciousness and only after the fact as a "delayed playback."
No it is not incorrect, Arach. What you want to call some kind of material (particle, whatever) is consciousness itself which is a field phenomenon. I agree that there is one thing that comprises our material reality . . . but it is what we currently consider non-material (even illusory): consciousness. I agree it is "produced" (transformed) using the inputs from our material body and brain. But it is neither IN our brain nor any part of what we consider our "material" self. It is for want of a better term a "pure neural field phenomenon" resident within the unified field (consciousness field) that establishes our reality. We connect with it only while producing (transforming) consciousness and only after the fact as a "delayed playback."
first of all: I actually half agree with you about this universal thing. But I say it would use the laws the rest of the universe does. Like dark energy we just do not know everything yet so we can only use what we do to talk about it.
you post is a belief. I can only base my beliefs on what we do know. Not what we don't know.
What you are eluding to is "energy" We do not know what it is, only that it can do work or cause change. How does it do work? It causes change through a distance. When you "love" that emotion is doing work. (W=fxd here) There is a force applied through a distance. It is done through the mechanism in the brain with things like "ion exchange" and the Fo/F1 pumps. and other voltage potentials operators in your cells. we don't understand how all of them do it but they seem to be doing it. 10^14 times persecond..
This in no way claims that they know what "feelings are" because they do not know all the pathways are yet. They will some day. but making stuff up outside of what is known is risky business. I happen to believe that the universe is more likely alive than not. But if it is, we are in its image. That image is the periodic table. And all it implies.
again I ask you. Name one event, like "loving" or "seeing red", that does not exchange "particles" or force carry particles. Both of which are frozen energy by the way. For you and i, lets treat these events as fields. The collection of fields that is me, love your collection of fields (car fields)). What happens in my field region. Whats happen in yours? what is moving around?
Just as a side note. Fields have no "real" boundaries do they. So our fields over lap. Giving the appearance of one field.... think heloshpere. And thats a truth, that can be measured just using heat. Thats where monism fits observation very well. But I do not do phylospy I do engineering.
sorry for the writing skills. (lmao ... poor that is) I am much better with diagrams.
did that make any sense? I left a lot of basic stuff out. I just assume you know it or you wouldn't accuse me of not knowing.
Anyway, why would you look at the definitions of the terms for a complete description of everything they could possibly do? Heck, when I look up the word definition it doesn't say "an exhaustive list of all potential applications, functions and products of the term defined", so your argument is self-defeating.
I'm not looking for the definitions or models to provide “a complete description of everything they could possibly do.” I’m just aiming for the specific potential that is a problem for physicalism – namely, an explanation of the qualitative aspects of experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I get an idea that Gaylen may be suggesting the same idea - that a kind of modified (in the way we think about it) materialism/monism may be the answer in the end, but perhaps he can clarify that.
Yes, my goal is to achieve a better concept of ‘physical’. I think that the essential idea at the core of our concept of ‘physical’ involves the idea of energy. A physical entity is an entity that can causally interact with the physical world. This is the core aspect of the term ‘physical’ that I think we must keep. (To drop this aspect and still insist on using the word ‘physical’ would be a pointless exercise in wordplay.)
But, historically, another concept has been attached to the word ‘physical’ that I think is not essential. This is the idea of physical entities being objectively observable, where “objective” stems from the idea that an “object” is an entity that can be observed from multiple perspectives. But why should all aspects of a physical entity have to be necessarily observable from multiple perspectives? The fact that some aspect of an entity is only observable from a single perspective should not necessarily lead us to believe that it can't be real.
Another way to think about this: Generally speaking, all of our knowledge about the physical entities that constitute our world comes to us through the causal effects that these entities have upon us. When I look at a coffee cup, there is presumably some physical entity that is affecting my body, but I only observe the entity via these effects. I experience signs of the existence of the cup; I don’t experience the cup directly, as such. Over time, as social creatures, we have compared our various individual perceptions and built up abstract concepts (objectively knowable rules, etc.) about the physical entities that constitute our world, and in this way we can gain knowledge about these entities that we might otherwise never know if we only had our own perspectives to rely on. But this doesn’t change the fact that our knowledge of most physical entities stems from the signs of their existence – “tracks in the snow” so to speak. We see the tracks, but never directly encounter the object making the tracks (i.e., the "thing in itself").
Traditionally, physicalism has become associated with the idea that the ONLY way to know about entities is via the objective signs of their existence. Why can’t physicalists accept the idea that there could be some physical entities that are known directly – not through the intermediate signs of their existence, but known, rather, just directly as they are? If the central aspect of the concept ‘physical’ is the idea of an entity having causal effects on the world, then why should we add this extra layer of definition that says: “Oh,and by the way, physical entities can only by known via these intermediate objective signs of their existence – they can never be known directly.” Why should we insist upon that extra meaning added to the concept of ‘physical’?
I’m suggesting that we drop the tag-along concept of “only knowable through objective signs” and adopt a leaner, meaner notion of ‘physical’. All that should be required in order for an object to count as a ‘physical entity’ is that it can have causal effects on the world. I would then say that a quale is a physical entity that can be known directly; we don’t have to use inductive logic to posit the existence of a quale based on signs of its existence.
ALL physical entities can, in principle, be known via the objective signs of their existence. This goes for qualia too. Qualia – like all other physical entities – have objectively measurable causal effects on the world. But qualia are wild & crazy types of entities in one respect: In addition to being detected via the objective signs of their existence, they can also be known - to some extent - directly. Qualia are physical entities, but they are not ordinary objects. A physical object can only be known indirectly via the publicly accessible signs of its existence, whereas a quale can be known either indirectly via signs, or directly – if you happen to be a physical entity who has direct access to it.
I can study your qualia via the objective signs of their existence, and when I do this, I can potentially learn as much about your qualia as I can learn about any physical object. To know all that can be known about a physical object is to know all of the publicly accessible signs of its existence. With sufficient technology, I can study my own qualia in the exact same way. But with the qualia composing my own experience, I have access to a unique perspective. To gain this perspective on the qualia composing my own experience, I don’t need any technology at all. Instead, I just need to recognize that, when tracking the signs that indicate the existence of objects, the buck has to stop somewhere, so to speak. If the signs by which I come to know about the existence of physical objects were, themselves, physical objects that I could only know via signs, we’d run into infinite regress and never know anything. What we need to realize is that the signs by which we know about the existence of objects are not always ordinary objects. The signs are physical entities – they have causal effects on the world, and thus they CAN be studied objectively - but they can also be experienced directly. Continuing with the “tracks in the snow” metaphor, we might say that, when you are tracking a quale, you have the option of grabbing hold of the beast with your bare hands (so to speak) – but only if the quale that you are tracking happens to be your own.
"Yes, my goal is to achieve a better concept of ‘physical’. I think that the essential idea at the core of our concept of ‘physical’ involves the idea of energy. A physical entity is an entity that can causally interact with the physical world. This is the core aspect of the term ‘physical’ that I think we must keep. (To drop this aspect and still insist on using the word ‘physical’ would be a pointless exercise in wordplay.)"
I'm not sure I go along with that, if I understand your drift. You may have noted that I suggest that "Stuff" is what makes up the physical and what me might call non -substance energy. They just behave in different ways. One gives the effect of rays or waves of energy and the other gives the impression of more or less solid matter (give or take gases).
The 'Spiritual' I don't consider an existent entity at all. So 'Stuff' is (for all we can tell) all that makes up the cosmos.
To go over well -trodden ground, the idea of consciousness (including qualia) is suggested by materialists (including me, maintaining the materialist-naturalist default as the preferred theory) is that it is all biological activity, like thought, instinct reaction and indeed white corpuscles 'knowing' they have to fire antibodies at pesky viruses. That we can't as yet explain all these processes in physical terms really does not mean that we never can nor indeed that it isn't a physical (monism - materialist) answer even if we never discover it.
Now, I have expressed my doubts about this zombie argument, whether it applies in a practical way to the nuts and bolts world even if it is valid as a philosophical construct. The way to falsify it (there's a thing - the dualist claim is not falsifiable) would be (apparently) to explain how qualia are nuts and bolts physical and not 'something more' whatever the heck that might be, because frankly I cannot imagine qualia operating but in a way that is particles of matter and/or energy doing something. It is close to saying that we "Know" that the mechanics of qualia are physical.
Which would seem to falsify the zombies - except that I can't see why. Even if qualia have a physical/material mechanism and operation, how does that disprove the claim that zombies without that faculty are logically impossible? Or indeed that 'Limbies' (since we can imagine them) are logically impossible so that point does not invalidate Chalmer's proposition?
Let me say again, how much I appreciate your patience in explaining this to an obstreperous tyro. The point is quite interesting in itself and the relevance is because of Mystic's objection to the materialist default and Chalmer's argument for dualism, right back (as you will recall) at the beginning of the discussion. So it really is a rather fundamental question related to the logical validity of the atheist position, which is that 'God' is not an a priori 'given' and the burden of proof is on the theist.
This is relevant - indeed it is is the only reason - for this matter being debated in the A/A forum.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-20-2014 at 05:23 AM..
Reason: The usual tidy -up
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
