• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

Fudbucker said:
So suppose all intelligent life in the universe vanished. Would books still be meaningful? Would art? How would brushstrokes of paint on canvas embody meaning?

We've covered this ground before in the "world of the simulation" discussions. I'm in the camp that a simulation of a tornado is meaningless without someone to give it meaning. Without someone to observe it, it's just pixels flashing on and off.
Click to expand...

When I try to construct it that way, I run into trouble. In essence, it means that the thing (or event), "gets" meaning based on a particular type of context, so that without someone to appreciate it, no meaning is possible - the context is then a system with the thing + observer. But to me, that's just a larger system, and things haven't improved.

It's easier to see what I mean by working backwards. The tornado has meaning when I see it coming because I observe it. But I don't really observe it in any detail. I can't see the air pressure, individual molecules, the back side and so on. The majority of the tornado is invisible to me. And yet, without all these unobserved things, there wouldn't be any tornado or "meaning."

I think the mistake is in allowing the word only to apply to systems that include observers. Plainly, the long history of life on earth has meaning, even meaning to me right now - without it, I wouldn't be here. Yet, much/most of that cannot be observed. We may never know what the first lifeform was like, yet I believe there was such a thing and I think it matters a great deal.

And for a final example, I do not know what the ramifications of what I do today will be. Still, I think my choices will have meaning, perhaps exciting new meaning, in the future. In this case, I am observing, but the final meaning hasn't yet been created.
 
The Man said:
Actually it just takes a program or wiring. Pattern X-Z-Z starts subroutine or cycle Q while A-B-C triggers noting or perhaps an alarm state. Switches that can rewire themselves can alter that wiring and thus can create and alter associations. In a neurological sense it works as pathways that get utilized often tend to reinforce while those that don't get used tend to deteriorate.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_plasticity
Click to expand...

I thought about this for awhile. Of course, a program requires some outside agent to do the programming (similar to the outside agent that I claim gives meaning to whatever a simulation is doing), but you can get around that by having the environment do the prograamming for you, but I think you run into a problem.

So let's say we have a very powerful CPU and attach some appendages and sense organs to it, and turn it loose in a hostile environment. Every time it "dies", it tries out different sub-routines. Given enough time, it will have "evolved" and developed very efficient sub-routines for defense, resource gathering, and problem solving. If the environmental challenges are harsh enough, it might become very intelligent.

But aren't we talking about a P-zombie? At what point in all these evolving sub-routines does it develop consciousness? Maybe integrated information theory is correct and anything that integrates information (at some threshold level I guess) is conscious.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
When I try to construct it that way, I run into trouble. In essence, it means that the thing (or event), "gets" meaning based on a particular type of context, so that without someone to appreciate it, no meaning is possible - the context is then a system with the thing + observer. But to me, that's just a larger system, and things haven't improved.

It's easier to see what I mean by working backwards. The tornado has meaning when I see it coming because I observe it. But I don't really observe it in any detail. I can't see the air pressure, individual molecules, the back side and so on. The majority of the tornado is invisible to me. And yet, without all these unobserved things, there wouldn't be any tornado or "meaning."

I think the mistake is in allowing the word only to apply to systems that include observers. Plainly, the long history of life on earth has meaning, even meaning to me right now - without it, I wouldn't be here. Yet, much/most of that cannot be observed. We may never know what the first lifeform was like, yet I believe there was such a thing and I think it matters a great deal.

And for a final example, I do not know what the ramifications of what I do today will be. Still, I think my choices will have meaning, perhaps exciting new meaning, in the future. In this case, I am observing, but the final meaning hasn't yet been created.
Click to expand...

Let's say we have two universes: in each universe there's a library that has every book that can ever be written (based on the essay "The Total Library"). Of course the trick is in finding a book that isn't random gibberish (or just out-and-out wrong, like "Relativity- Einstein's Biggest Blunder").

So in universe A, there are no conscious beings. The library simply exists, and the books are randomly scattered throughout it. But in Universe B, conscious beings exist, they devote their lives to reading, sorting, and testing the content of the books, and they've created a new wing of accurate books.

Both universes contain the same amount of information, but doesn't universe B seem like the more meaningful one?
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Let's say we have two universes: in each universe there's a library that has every book that can ever be written (based on the essay "The Total Library"). Of course the trick is in finding a book that isn't random gibberish (or just out-and-out wrong, like "Relativity- Einstein's Biggest Blunder").

So in universe A, there are no conscious beings. The library simply exists, and the books are randomly scattered throughout it. But in Universe B, conscious beings exist, they devote their lives to reading, sorting, and testing the content of the books, and they've created a new wing of accurate books.

Both universes contain the same amount of information, but doesn't universe B seem like the more meaningful one?
Click to expand...

It does, but only because of a relative aspect. In other words, relative to the readers (which I identify with, being a reader myself), the readers' own existence is a necessary ingredient. But pull the camera back. Let's zoom out a bit and see if the meaning remains.

First zoom out will be for that portion of the library that no one living has ever read. I have books on my shelf I haven't got to, so this seems likely. Do the books on my shelf, which I have never read, have any meaning? They are, after all, in the same state as they are in the first universe.

Zoom out. Now it's 2.5 seconds after the Big Bang in each universe. One will go on to produce the library and the books, one will just have the books. At the 2.5 second mark, can we say that one is more meaningful than the other?

Zoom out some more. It's now the last several billion years before heat death. All life is long, long gone. Is one universe more meaningful than the other now?

One last iteration. I am here, in a universe with what I would call meaning. But the vast majority of the universe is unavailable to my inspection and comprehension. Is there meaning in the backside of a star in some distant galaxy no one is aware of? It seems odd that the universe might be meaningful, but that unknown part isn't.

A relative stance here, where we replace "meaningful" in the absolute sense with a the more parochial, "meaningful to me" surmounts this problem but introduces a few new ones. For example, do I have a duty to address global warming, since I won't be around to suffer the consequences? How can a future, where I'm not there to experience it, have meaning to me now? It seems like I want to sometimes slip out of the grip of relative meaning.
 
Last edited:
SOME PRECISIONS ADDED!!!


phiwum said:
This has nothing at all to do with philosophy of science, far as I can tell. It's about the fact that none of us learn most of our scientific beliefs by experiment, but rather by authority. You've tied objectivity to the method used to derive one's belief, so we have two choices:

(1) My belief that the Higgs Boson isn't objective.
(2) Certain beliefs derived from authority are thereby objective.
Click to expand...

Of course (1), if you use the word in the sense of scientific objectivity. But a fewer degree of objectivity can reached if we find a suitable method.

Added: To speak about the objectivity of an opinion sounds strange to me. Perhaps this means that an objective opinion is stated when subjective conditionings (religion, tradition, emotions, point or view) are pushed away but in a defective way. "Defective" compared to science.

I think a rational opinion is ever relative, that is to say ithas more support in rational (argumentative) reasons than other alternative opinion. Then, my confidence in science is based on an inductive reasoning: science has showed its power of prediction and control of facts. Yes, this is not an Absolute Argument. But it is a more valid argument than other based of the simple authority or subjective arguments (Dostoevsky).
It is clear that my confidence in science is in general and some particular conditions are needed when we are speaking of a particular law, prediction or similar. The consensus is a very important condition in any case.

phiwum said:
Recall, you have always said that objectivity is about actual utterances (unlike my position, which ties it not to what a person says, but to propositions themselves).
Click to expand...
I think I have not claimed this. Perhaps my Spainenglish… I think propositions are the meaning of sentences that can be true or false. (In a logical sense there is a difference).
(Underlined added).(To be continued).



phiwum said:
Look, let's pretend that we can speak of value-points. When I say that truth is intrinsically preferable to falsity, I mean that even if we ignore any advantages we get from believing one over the other, truth has more value.
Click to expand...

This is your opinion. Many people think that we prefer truth to falsehood because it is more useful or advantageous (in many different senses). But if the advantages of falsehood can be stronger than truth and make it preferable, then the truth is a smaller value than advantages and cannot be considered intrinsic.
Have you an objective or rational argument against this opinion?
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Or modeling for the purpose of planning ahead or testing scenarios.
Click to expand...

You don't need an observer for that. The only thing you need an observer for is communication.


In what way is it not real? Why can't something observe and model something that it's part of?
Click to expand...

GD,

Who, subjectively, is actually observing?
 
Fudbucker said:
So let's say we have a very powerful CPU and attach some appendages and sense organs to it, and turn it loose in a hostile environment. Every time it "dies", it tries out different sub-routines. Given enough time, it will have "evolved" and developed very efficient sub-routines for defense, resource gathering, and problem solving. If the environmental challenges are harsh enough, it might become very intelligent.

But aren't we talking about a P-zombie? At what point in all these evolving sub-routines does it develop consciousness?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question. It seems to me that you have to be careful with terminology here.

Human consciousness is a "3D workspace" that emerges from brain processing. We know how the brain looks in the workspace. We know about brain function in the terms of the workspace. We don't know how the brain actually is beyond this. And we don't know where consciousness actually is. Really it's a kind of metaspace, when we start to talk about recreating it or a machine developing it. Often I see people discuss consciousness as though it's taking place inside the brain. I don't think we know enough to say more than emerging from the brain.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
SOME PRECISIONS ADDED!!!




Of course (1), if you use the word in the sense of scientific objectivity. But a fewer degree of objectivity can reached if we find a suitable method.

Added: To speak about the objectivity of an opinion sounds strange to me. Perhaps this means that an objective opinion is stated when subjective conditionings (religion, tradition, emotions, point or view) are pushed away but in a defective way. "Defective" compared to science.

I think a rational opinion is ever relative, that is to say ithas more support in rational (argumentative) reasons than other alternative opinion. Then, my confidence in science is based on an inductive reasoning: science has showed its power of prediction and control of facts. Yes, this is not an Absolute Argument. But it is a more valid argument than other based of the simple authority or subjective arguments (Dostoevsky).
It is clear that my confidence in science is in general and some particular conditions are needed when we are speaking of a particular law, prediction or similar. The consensus is a very important condition in any case.


I think I have not claimed this. Perhaps my Spainenglish… I think propositions are the meaning of sentences that can be true or false. (In a logical sense there is a difference).
(Underlined added).(To be continued).





This is your opinion. Many people think that we prefer truth to falsehood because it is more useful or advantageous (in many different senses). But if the advantages of falsehood can be stronger than truth and make it preferable, then the truth is a smaller value than advantages and cannot be considered intrinsic.
Have you an objective or rational argument against this opinion?
Click to expand...

You posted to the wrong thread again.
:D
 
'At what point in all these evolving sub-routines does it develop consciousness?'

This is why I wrote this :

The hard problem(s) of consciousness. No satisfactory theory has yet emerged.

The evolution/complexity/many layers/subsystems etc. etc. etc. is a cop-out. We still have absolutely no clue about consciousness.
To me, consciousness looks like a necessary condition for existence. Can existence mean anything without consciousness?
 
Nick227 said:
You don't need an observer for that. The only thing you need an observer for is communication.




GD,

Who, subjectively, is actually observing?
Click to expand...

An observation is dependent upon definition, not ontology.

Observation can mean
-a perception
-cognition about data or perceptions
-many others

You false dichotomy is dependent upon your idiomatic definition. Only you are requiring some philosophical self.

I would say that a biological being capable of perception is observing.
 
TheAdversary said:
'At what point in all these evolving sub-routines does it develop consciousness?'

This is why I wrote this :

The hard problem(s) of consciousness. No satisfactory theory has yet emerged.

The evolution/complexity/many layers/subsystems etc. etc. etc. is a cop-out. We still have absolutely no clue about consciousness.
To me, consciousness looks like a necessary condition for existence. Can existence mean anything without consciousness?
Click to expand...

The HPC is the Problem of Vague and Magical Consciousness , if you don't insist on some magical definition of 'consciousness' then it isn't a problem at all.
 
'The HPC is the Problem of Vague and Magical Consciousness , if you don't insist on some magical definition of 'consciousness' then it isn't a problem at all.'

Dennett's Consciousness Ignored speaking.
 
What both GD and DD are doing is trying to answer the question objectively, from the outside.

But the observer appears subjectively, as a sense of there being a self which is "doing" the observing. It's not real. It's a memetic illusion. The mind when confronted, in the grip of this memeplex, invariably tries to pin this illusion on some vaguely real sounding phenomena. It's the body, it's says. Or it's the brain. Or it's the processor.

Just ask yourself - why is it doing this? Why doesn't it just say "I am observing?" I'll tell you why. Because it knows what's coming next if it does that.
 
Last edited:
TheAdversary said:
'The HPC is the Problem of Vague and Magical Consciousness , if you don't insist on some magical definition of 'consciousness' then it isn't a problem at all.'

Dennett's Consciousness Ignored speaking.
Click to expand...

The HPC relies on the notion of a persisting, observational self in order to be credible. Without this it's done for.

Dave Chalmers believes that there is an observer inside his brain which is experiencing consciousness, and that consciousness can be so intense that it can't possibly just be emerging from processing activity.

He's got everything the wrong way around. Consciousness exists. The observer doesn't.

The aging epistemologist takes to the lectern and intones with gravitas, "We may never know what reality really looks like." Knowing what reality looks like is the easy bit. Knowing who's looking - that's more tricky.
 
Last edited:
TheAdversary said:
'The HPC is the Problem of Vague and Magical Consciousness , if you don't insist on some magical definition of 'consciousness' then it isn't a problem at all.'

Dennett's Consciousness Ignored speaking.
Click to expand...

No,
I have not read your reason's for why teh HPC is serious, I mean really, we have a spectrum of life forms, psuedo-life like prions and viruses, various one celled organisms with organelles.
We have a spectrum of multi-cellular organisms and as an off shoot of those we have those with sense organs, and a spectrum of nervous systems to boot.

So what exactly is this HPC? please explain exactly what it is and where the exact gaps are in the use of the terms.

usually it comes down to a problem of Magical Thinking and Vague definitions, so see if you can really tell me what you think the HPC is.

You may have a coherent case, which would be cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom