Wrong ,our understanding of physics .. not physics.
Thank you for qualifying that, but this is the first time you've said that what you are talking about is limited to only our understanding of physics. With that limitation, yes I certainly agree with you. But my disagreement was under the assumption that you are referring to ANY level of knowledge of physics, not just our current knowledge.
Magic is defined as something that is not subject to physical and natural laws ... Unless we have a theory of everything, you cannot say that such and such is magic.
But your claim appeared to be that even if we do have a theory of everything, things would still be unknowable to us. And those things would have to be magic.
I claim that there are physical material truths (not magic) that are forever hidden from us. why?
because logic necessitates that they be hidden from us.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't follow this. I do appreciate that you are willing to be this clear about your premise, and I will be equally clear on mine: I claim that there are no physical material truths that are forever hidden from us. Key word is
forever hidden from us, not
currently hidden from us. Of course there are things we currently don't know. I simply can't understand how you could claim that we would never know then.
Post by Dave241: Tell me, do you really believe that given unlimited advancement we still wouldn't be able to replicate or understand the human brain? Even 10,000 years from now? 10 million? 10 billion? Why
Your reply: I think we would be able to do that, and I even think that we will be able to even replicate consciousness in doing so.
But we will never be able to know that we did that. Even if we could do that. 'Can' does not imply "Know".
So if 100,000 years from now we would fully know how to build a brain, right down to each neuron and what each one does, know what consciousness is to the point that we can watch it emerge from a brain (natural or artificial), make changes to that consciousness at will in whatever regard we wish, and yet we STILL wouldn't be able to know that another consciousness was present? Again, I ask why.
To be clear, I claim that if we can construct an artificial mind then we would in fact know if that mind was or was not conscious.
Yes, but the problem is in what I highlighted, I simply claim (this is my claim) that such knowledge (such understanding) is impossible.
Why?
Because to know what is required for a subjective experience, you have to verify which conditions are met when a subjective experience emerged.
I agree fully with the highlighted part. I suppose you and I just disagree in that I think we will be able to verify those conditions, you claim we wont.
But you cannot know whether the system you are observing has subjective experience, you cannot verify that with certainty.
.......unless you understand what is required for a subjective experience. Again, that appears to be our disagreement.
There is always a room for doubt. That's why I say that knowledge is impossible here.
Yet you appear to say that with no doubt..........
Maybe there is a way to verify subjective experience in the lab, which defies logic, and which cannot be reasoned with using formal traditional logical arguments (like quantum mechanics).
What logic is this defying exactly?
Sure, it is the material interactions that produce that conscious experience. But how? I don't know.
But your claim is that we will NEVER know. We can study material interactions (you agree with this). We can understand material interactions (you agree with this). But you seem to claim that when there are a trillion material interactions, THEN we can't understand them. Is it just a matter of complexity for you? Like, if consciousness could be replicated with only 1 million material interactions, then we'd be able to understand it, but once it crosses 1 billion material interactions at that point it becomes impossible? Sorry, I'm just spitballing here trying to better understand your objection.
For example : if you take just two interacting atoms, it is impossible to conclude that they are "not conscious" from observing their interactions.
CURRENTLY impossible. CURRENTLY. That's mainly because we don't currently have a clear idea of what consciousness is. But when we do, the above situation will be trivially easy to give a yes or no to. So are you claiming that we will just never understand what consciousness is? (I think your answer will be yes, but I want to check).
This is my argument :
- Premise 1 : IF you can know the subjective experience (or the lack of it) of a complex system THEN we could know the subjective experience of a simple system.
- Premise 2 : We cannot know the subjective experience of a simple system
- Conclusion : we cannot know the subjective experience of a brain.
Again, I appreciate that you are clearly stating this, as it makes it obvious where our disagreement is. We both agree with Premise 1, that's good. And I disagree with premise 2, so that seems to be where we should be having this discussion.
I will further elaborate : Premise 1 , means that if we can know everything about the brain, and conclude that it is conscious , then it would be possible to use the same principles to conclude that two atoms interacting with each other are not a conscious system.
How does this quoted part square with what you said right afterwards?:
But we cannot know whether a simple system (a water molecule for instance) does not have conscious experience.
But you just said that if we fully understand the brain, then we can do exactly this. But....then you say we can't do exactly this. But previously you agreed that one day we will have a full understanding of the brain. And you agree that will allow us to conclude if 2 atoms are conscious. But.....then you say we can't do exactly this. <-----(I believe this is a contradiction)
