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.
The new theory will incorporate current QM insofar as it explains inanimate matter, but it will also predict the physical influences of qualia as they manifest in nervous tissue.
I forgot to mention: I can add a bit more to my prediction that the rules of "neo-QM" in the brain will need to be different than the rules of current QM in inanimate matter. In addition to the rules in brain tissue being simply different than standard QM, I suspect that the intra-brain rules will vary from brain to brain. There are actually two versions of my proposal: One with and one without a quality that I will loosely refer to as "individual will" for the lack of a better term at the moment.
What I'm basically suggesting is that if qualia are causal, then the laws of nature should be slightly different in sentient nervous tissue than in inanimate matter, and it could be that these laws vary from brain to brain. If this turns out to be right, it could give us a little different perspective on the concept of free will.
Bottom line: My "causal qualia" proposal falls within the underdetermination mentioned in the OP. Following the Brain Dare "set of formulae" metaphor: you could say that my proposal, so far, is one of many solutions that are compatible with the previous set of formulas, so to speak. When we can collect quantum data on sentient systems, we can narrow the range of possible solutions, and my proposal could be invalidated at that point. (Once we can study quantum rules in sentient systems, and if the behaviors of sentient creatures can be reduced to current quantum rules without the need for any significantly modified rules, then my proposal will be shown to be wrong - or, at least, it will be unnecessary, and discarded via Occam's Razor.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-14-2016 at 12:01 PM..
I certainly do engage in speculation. I doubt that many scientific problems have been solved without speculative thinking at some stage in the process. The first response to a speculative idea should not be "prove it with evidence." Ultimately, yes, empirical validation will be necessary, but at the point where an idea is speculative, the whole point of calling it a "speculation" is to imply that it is currently beyond the immediately available evidence. The proper response to a speculative idea is to point out logical inconsistencies and/or inconsistencies with current data. If the speculative idea fails at this stage, then there is no need to expend any effort thinking much further or trying to gather evidence. Thus I've tried to show, in each case, how my ideas are not logically or empirically invalid. So far as I can see, my proposals are consistent with current knowledge even if, speculative as they are, they go beyond current knowledge. It is hard to go anywhere interesting without taking at least a few steps into the unknown.
Another thing to keep in mind is that virtually every detail of almost every proposal that I've offered in these threads is something I've paraphrased from scientists themselves (who are, admittedly, engaging in speculation in many instances). In the case of physics: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Penrose, Feynman, Wheeler, Wigner, Susskind, Smolin... these are the types of folk I tend to paraphrase. I'm not saying that any of them advocates my whole proposal, but for the purposes of making sure that my ideas are not blatantly inconsistent with physics, I look to their formulations of essentially the same ideas, and/or their outlines of the gaps I'm trying to fill.
And, BTW, the gaps themselves are not speculative. All of the greatest minds today and in the recent past have written a lot about these gaps, and they've offered various speculations of their own for trying to fill them. In many cases, my speculations are just their speculations reapplied in slightly different ways.
I have been trying to impress this AND the bold in your post on the participants here with little success, Gaylen. I suspect they are not amenable to it and do not recognize that it is essential to furthering knowledge in ANY field. That is the essential aspect of obtaining a PhD.
The proper response to a speculative idea is to point out logical inconsistencies and/or inconsistencies with current data.
Which I did when I linked to examples of QM working as expected in biological systems rather than having it break down completely as we'd expect from your claims.
An yet science continues to advance at an incredible pace. It sounds to me like that means that these sorts of philosophical flights of fancy really don't make that much of a difference back here in reality of how actual scientists work.
I think you have got it backwards. Science continues to advance at an incredible pace precisely because some scientists have engaged in, as you say, "philosophical flights of fancy." Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger were able to bring modern QM (and, based on this groundwork, most of the rest of modern physics, cosmology, and technology) into our understanding because they recognized the need to go beyond the classical worldview.
Once Einstein saw where the revolution was headed, he tried to backpedal and save some of his favorite elements of classical thinking. His failures helped bring the weirdness of QM into sharper focus, but ultimately his days as a creative genius in the field of physics mostly came to an end when he failed to go beyond the type of "realism" that had characterized materialistic thinking up to that point. His conception of matter was that the properties of matter were out there to be measured prior to measurement. I've engaged in some speculation in this thread, but pointing out the flaws of classical materialism is not speculation. There are deeply logical reasons why classical physics failed, and moving beyond these failures is what has allowed modern physics to flourish. The term "materialism" can still be applied to the QM conception of matter because QM, in itself, does not force us to explicitly integrate subjective qualitative elements into the dynamics of physical systems, but many people (including many top physicists) have noticed that there is, as of yet, no way to eradicate the implicit role of subjectivity in measurement. Yes, you can "shut up and calculate" by sweeping the implicit subjectivity under the rug, but no one who works with QM in depth is totally comfortable with this sweeping process. The very reason that we have an expression like "shut up and calculate" is because everyone in uncomfortable with the implications that spill out all over the place if we don't.
My suggestion is that the next revolution will belong to those who grab the bull by the horns and face up to the uncomfortable implications head on.
Quote:
You can try and pitch idealism all you want, but just asserting it is possible doesn't mean that actual science is lacking anything by ignoring your speculation.
Idealism is certainly one of the options that can hide in the cracks of the underdetermination discussed in the OP, but if you think my speculations are a form of idealism, then it would be helpful if you could be more explicit about what you mean. I am not proposing that consciousness or intelligence must perceive things in order for them to be real. In another thread I've been suggesting that possibilities are real, but "possibilities" as such don't seem to be the sorts of things that need to be perceived to be real, so in light of this, what I'm proposing is more accurately characterized as a form of realism, rather than idealism.
Also, my talk of sentient experience acting as a mechanism of actualization could have been misleading. In saying that sentience is a mechanism of actualization, I don't mean to imply that sentence is the only mechanism of actualization. Unfortunately, in a previous post I used the word "the" in several places where I should have use "a" when referring to sentience as a mechanism. I'm sorry; I was being a bit careless in my wording. As I've said, what's missing at the moment is any detailed account of exactly how any "mechanism of actualization" works, so for now the most logical position is agnosticism concerning whether or not there are non-sentient mechanisms, or non-sentient aspects of sentient mechanisms. My inclination is to say that there are non-sentient mechanisms and/or non-sentient aspects of mechanisms, but until the details of the mechanisms are tease out, I have no strong opinion either way. (Which means I have no strong commitment favoring or opposing idealism.)
Bottom line: Thinking creatively beyond the classical conception of matter was crucial to formulating QM. The QM conception of matter implies a role for subjectivity/sentience, but as of yet the QM formalism provides no way to model these implicit aspects. In other threads I've sketched out ideas for how such models could be developed. I suggested identifying the physical correlates of consciousness along the lines of Dan Dennett's notion of "heterophenomenology" then hoping that some genius can see patterns in these correlates, allowing us to create something functionally similar to the "Periodic Table of Elements" for qualia. I've sometimes referred to this as a "qualitative map". My most speculative idea is that qualia will then be understood as causal factors in the evolution of neural states. Since qualia are not currently recognized as causal factors in QM, a new theory will be devised such that more or less current QM can be understood as a limited domain of application within the larger theory. You are welcome to call this new theory a form of materialism, if you wish. I have no strong commitment to terminology one way or another.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-16-2016 at 09:24 AM..
I think you have got it backwards. Science continues to advance at an incredible pace precisely because some scientists have engaged in, as you say, "philosophical flights of fancy." Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger were able to bring modern QM (and, based on this groundwork, most of the rest of modern physics, cosmology, and technology) into our understanding because they recognized the need to go beyond the classical worldview.
Once Einstein saw where the revolution was headed, he tried to backpedal and save some of his favorite elements of classical thinking. His failures helped bring the weirdness of QM into sharper focus, but ultimately his days as a creative genius in the field of physics mostly came to an end when he failed to go beyond the type of "realism" that had characterized materialistic thinking up to that point. His conception of matter was that the properties of matter were out there to be measured prior to measurement. I've engaged in some speculation in this thread, but pointing out the flaws of classical materialism is not speculation. There are deeply logical reasons why classical physics failed, and moving beyond these failures is what has allowed modern physics to flourish. The term "materialism" can still be applied to the QM conception of matter because QM, in itself, does not force us to explicitly integrate subjective qualitative elements into the dynamics of physical systems, but many people (including many top physicists) have noticed that there is, as of yet, no way to eradicate the implicit role of subjectivity in measurement. Yes, you can "shut up and calculate" by sweeping the implicit subjectivity under the rug, but no one who works with QM in depth is totally comfortable with this sweeping process. The very reason that we have an expression like "shut up and calculate" is because everyone is uncomfortable with the implications that spill out all over the place if we don't.
My suggestion is that the next revolution will belong to those who grab the bull by the horns and face up to the uncomfortable implications head on.
Idealism is certainly one of the options that can hide in the cracks of the underdetermination discussed in the OP, but if you think my speculations are a form of idealism, then it would be helpful if you could be more explicit about what you mean. I am not proposing that consciousness or intelligence must perceive things in order for them to be real. In another thread I've been suggesting that possibilities are real, but "possibilities" as such don't seem to be the sorts of things that need to be perceived to be real, so in light of this, what I'm proposing is more accurately characterized as a form of realism, rather than idealism.
Also, my talk of sentient experience acting as a mechanism of actualization could have been misleading. In saying that sentience is a mechanism of actualization, I don't mean to imply that sentence is the only mechanism of actualization. Unfortunately, in a previous post I used the word "the" in several places where I should have use "a" when referring to sentience as a mechanism. I'm sorry; I was being a bit careless in my wording. As I've said, what's missing at the moment is any detailed account of exactly how any "mechanism of actualization" works, so for now the most logical position is agnosticism concerning whether or not there are non-sentient mechanisms, or non-sentient aspects of sentient mechanisms. My inclination is to say that there are non-sentient mechanisms and/or non-sentient aspects of mechanisms, but until the details of the mechanisms are teased out, I have no strong opinion either way. (Which means I have no strong commitment favoring or opposing idealism.)
Bottom line: Thinking creatively beyond the classical conception of matter was crucial to formulating QM. The QM conception of matter implies a role for subjectivity/sentience, but as of yet the QM formalism provides no way to model these implicit aspects. In other threads I've sketched out ideas for how such models could be developed. I suggested identifying the physical correlates of consciousness along the lines of Dan Dennett's notion of "heterophenomenology" then hoping that some genius can see patterns in these correlates, allowing us to create something functionally similar to the "Periodic Table of Elements" for qualia. I've sometimes referred to this as a "qualitative map". My most speculative idea is that qualia will then be understood as causal factors in the evolution of neural states. Since qualia are not currently recognized as causal factors in QM, a new theory will be devised such that more or less current QM can be understood as a limited domain of application within the larger theory. You are welcome to call this new theory a form of materialism, if you wish. I have no strong commitment to terminology one way or another.
Now I believe you have provided sufficient education of the ACTUAL issues to enable moving the explanation beyond the "shut up and calculate" stage that Morbert adopted in our exchange on QM, Gaylen. I swear you have a gift and you should pursue it. I have been rather reticent to engage the non-professional stalkers and mockers again after my thread was closed. There was enough lack of understanding of the actual issues and so much focus on what proved to be a poorly crafted attempt to simplify using analogies that my frustration level got the better of me.
Clearly I do not have your talent for explanation, Gaylen. But to retain the topical relevance of this discussion for this particular forum, I will continue to champion my view as the conscious reality (God) as the source of everything we experience, particularly our consciousness. You obviously have decided to posit the existence of some as yet undiscovered non-sentient mechanisms for sentience in an attempt to retain atheism and some remnant of materialism. I am somewhat disappointed that you consider useful Dennett's attempt to assert objectivity for his clearly subjective third person method. There is nothing objective about textual exegesis or imagination in the case of animals, etc. Besides, his whole effort denies the very existence of qualia.
Obviously, I DO see consciousness, per se, as the mechanism for actualization but NOT in the solipsistic sense. We are the "namers" and "perceivers" of whatever manifests in our reality. (To keep the topical relevance to avoid moving this thread to the moribund philosophy forum, Adam "named" the creations.) In short, if we do not perceive or measure it, it remains only possibility. That is the central role of our consciousness and that is why its formation and manifestation is controlling.(Think Penrose, et al.) It is the very nature of the formation and manisfestation of our consciousness that gives the reality we experience its features, especially time and space. It is also what prevents most people from contemplating it as something to contemplate when contemplating things to contemplate.
How our consciousness forms and the duration of it is beyond our ken because it occurs in "quantum time" before we can "ken" anything. We experience an uninterrupted instantaneous "stream of consciousness" that is formed during the "creative advance of reality" (to use Whitehead's words). Everything that we experience using this "quantum-time-delayed" phenomenon of our instantaneous awareness is what enables us to measure and experience time and its correlate space. The features of our measured time and space are necessarily determined by the features of the "quantum time" that produces our consciousness. The duration of the formation of our instantaneous consciousness is what establishes the "constants" in our measurements, NOT because our reality is actually constrained by those constants. The values of the constants are established by the duration of the creative advance during which our consciousness forms.
The whole point of Gaylen's post is that there are two answers. The second one is 96.
The puzzle is this:
1+4=5 4x1+1 = 5
2+5=12 5x2+2 = 12
3+6=21 6x3+3 = 21
8+11=? 11x8+8 = 96
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.
