The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[RedStapler]

The post is addressed to MohamedTaqi, not you. I am just bumping it because all of the noise has put the on-topic stuff pages back.

As I said, why don't you start a "I hate philosophy" thread if you want to keep on with this?

I'm sure he will give you a well thought out answer instead of simply repeating his claims one more time.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

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.

Thank you Dave ! Sorry for not seeing your comments... This is the second time I write this reply , I lost internet connection on submit.

Yes, that's my claim, probably any level of knowledge won't do.

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.

No, that's not to say that the unknowable is magic .. it is simply material physical principles that we will never know. Magic is something that defies nature, that which I claim is probably unknowable, is within nature.

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.

Yes, if we want to know the answer to this questions : Does a photon have zero conscious experience, or just a near zero value.

Remember that physicists are concerned with tiny quantities too, like spin, mass...etc.

Suppose that a physicists wants to know : whether that "what-is-it-like-to-be-a-photon" property, is zero or , say 0.000000000000000001 .

There is no imaginable way to do that, we still don't know whether panpsychism is true or false (that matter has an intrinstic property that is equivalent to consciousness)

The physicist would have to turn into a photon.

But then, the knowledge would be lost, because what can a photon know? or report ? or even measure?

And when that physicist is back , he would not be able to measure that. He simply will say that he felt like in a coma, our scientist was out of existence for some moment.

Although when he was a photon, that conscious experience was 0.000000000000000001 , it was just negligible. And because it is negligeble, it is lost.

And the question : does a photon have some fundamental equivalent of consciousness , is forever unanswerable .

This is were logic leads me. And because I am an empiricist (not a rationalist) , I say that probably what comes from pure reason alone , is probably true (not certainly true).

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.

We would know if it is conscious, but only using a Heuristic , the same Heuristic that you use to conclude that I am (a different person) probably conscious. And say that since that brain is similar to ours, then it is probably conscious.

But we can never infer that from observation and deliberate study : (again, add probably to my statements , I am an empiricist and I don't take rationalist conclusions for certain, but only as probably, given that pure reason is the best tool I currently have).

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.



.......unless you understand what is required for a subjective experience. Again, that appears to be our disagreement.

Yes, because the problem probably is in the nature of the question , I will further explain another reason why I think so.

Suppose that you are watching all the neurons firing in my brain, when I see red.


- Neurons firing in my brain, is your subjective experience ...
- Red is my subjective experience.


Your subjective experience at that time is already busy seeing neurons firing in my brain.

Observing my brain, does not simulate your neurons to fire in such a way to see red, or imagine red.

It is already firing to see my brain.

At that moment, you are already the experience of seeing a brain , you cannot see my red from that.

Just like expecting a screen to know what red looks like just by showing #CC0000 on it.

A screen will show #CC0000 , and not red .

And if you want it to show red, you'll have to go back to the motherboard , change some data that connects to the screen...

Your brain is just showing #CC0000 when seeing my brain , and in order for it to see what I see, (if we assume that they use the same encoding) , We'll have to repeat what happens in my neurons inside your brain.

Yet you appear to say that with no doubt..........

No, anything I see comes from pure reason alone. I am an empiricist, so take anything I say relying solely on logic, as probable.

Knowledge is not certainly impossible , but probably impossible.

What logic is this defying exactly?

The deductive argument that we'll get to bellow.

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.

No, on my view, this is not a question of whether there are trillions of interactions. It is not a quantitative problem, but a qualitative one.

Even if we have just one system (an H2O molecule), we cannot possibly infer its lack of conscious experience just from observing it. Because it is possible that it has a near zero (negligble) conscious experience, that doesn't seem like anything.

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).

Probably yes is my answer. I already made it clear in a previous reply on this thread.

If we don't have experiments, the only tool we have to at least have a temporary limited judgement is pure reason ...

But reason is limited , so , to leave an area of agnosticism and doubt, I add probably.

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 respect that.

And, I think premise 2 is true, I think that there is probably no way to know that H2O is does not have a fundamental equivalent of consciousness.

Because, to check that, I have to turn into an H2O and see things from its perspective.

But when I do that, I cannot know, or check, or measure, or report anything.

In that case : if H2O has zero conscousness, or 0.000000000000001 consciousness , is totally the same from the perspective of a physicist .

How does this quoted part square with what you said right afterwards?:

....

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)

There is no contradiction my friend. The two statements are premises in my argument


Premise 1 : IF A then B
Premise 2 : not-B
Therefore : not-A


I am not claiming B and not-B at the same time ...

I claim the conditional "IF we can know about a complex brain being conscious from observing it ( A ) THEN we can know about an H2O molecule not being conscious ( B ) ".

And then I claim that B is false , we cannot know that an H2O molecule is not conscious just from observation.

Then I conclude A , that we cannot know about a complex brain being conscious just from observation.


Thank you Dave ! I appreciate your reply

 

[JoeMorgue]

Let's say you're doing a set of math problems. The ah, multiplication tables let's say.

You go through them. 1x1 = 1, 1x2=2... 2x3=6, 2x4=8... all fine and dandy.

And then you get to one random, arbitrary one, 5x7 let us say, and all of a sudden someone runs up to you, and asks you to prove that there is not a hidden number between 4 and 5 before you write down that 5x7 = 35. You have to prove that there's no number between 4 and 5, and you can't do it using math because you can't use math to prove itself. They will not explain why it is suddenly necessary in for doing this one equation to prove this. This will just insist that you do.

That's what this feels like.

 

[RedStapler]

I claim the conditional "IF we can know about a complex brain being conscious from observing it ( A ) THEN we can know about an H2O molecule not being conscious ( B ) ".

And then I claim that B is false , we cannot know that an H2O molecule is not conscious just from observation. Then I conclude A , that we cannot know about a complex brain being conscious just from observation.

When did you plan to back up the highlighted claims? So far you have only repeated them quite often.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

When did you plan to back up the highlighted claims? So far you have only repeated them quite often.

I don't plan to , any time soon. Suppose that H2O has negligble fundamental property that is equivalent to consciousness... , so that when intensifies in a highly complex structure (a brain) that property becomes what we call consciousness.

How can you possibly find an evidence for that property or the lack of it?

For I don't see any way to do that.

I only restate the argument because Dave agrees with the first premise, but not the second.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Let's say you're doing a set of math problems. The ah, multiplication tables let's say.

You go through them. 1x1 = 1, 1x2=2... 2x3=6, 2x4=8... all fine and dandy.

And then you get to one random, arbitrary one, 5x7 let us say, and all of a sudden someone runs up to you, and asks you to prove that there is not a hidden number between 4 and 5 before you write down that 5x7 = 35. You have to prove that there's no number between 4 and 5, and you can't do it using math because you can't use math to prove itself. They will not explain why it is suddenly necessary in for doing this one equation to prove this. This will just insist that you do.

That's what this feels like.

Ooof. I feel for you, Joe.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

Anyway, away from the derails and back to the topic. Maybe those who want to tell us how much they hate philosophy could get themselves a thread of their own, it is difficult to keep track of this with the noise.

My response:


Premise 1 needs to be supported.

I don't see how you can argue about the whole based on properties of the parts.

Thank you Robin !


The first claim comes from the observation that the conclusions :

- H2O lacks a conscious experience
- A brain has conscious experience

Are of the same nature. They are conclusions about the same phenomenon.

So, I claim that if one is possible to conclude from observation, the other must be too.

It is like saying that if you cannot tell that a simple two particle system obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics then you cannot tell that a heat engine obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics

You are right here, my analogy has certainly a weak point ...

maybe I am commiting the composition fallacy (that what is true for the part is also true for the whole).

It needs some reflexion ..

Thank you so much Robin !

 

[MohamedTaqi]

To be honest, Robin has the best point to counter my argument.

Assuming that we cannot know whether an H2O molecule is conscious , does not mean that the same applies for a more complicated object, like a brain.

You got me Robin hahaha.


An unsound argument, or an argument based on informal fallacies (even if it proves to be formally valid) , ought to be renounced.

 

[RedStapler]

I don't plan to , any time soon.

I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Suppose that H2O has negligble fundamental property that is equivalent to consciousness

No. Why should I?

... , so that when intensifies in a highly complex structure (a brain) that property becomes what we call consciousness.

What? That's sounds like a nice start to 'begging the question'.

How can you possibly find an evidence for that property or the lack of it?

For I don't see any way to do that.

Butchered logic.

Rest assured, there are people who have studied consciousness for decades. In this timespan, someone else would have got "your" ideas.
The fact that only a few people share your concerns tells us that not many people agree with your view. Maybe you should create a nice essay about your concerns and send them to one of these people who study consciousness all day for a living. Make sure to tell us what they thought of it.

So, you basically keep repeating your claims and your butchered logic of you can't not prove or whatever without any explanation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ooof. I feel for you, Joe.

Of course you do. Because you're the wise old philosopher talking down to the naive little 'ole student, benovolently sharing your wisdom with someone unenlightened who needs to open their third eye and ask themselves "Why do we call them Apple Jacks if they don't taste like apples?"

 

[David Mo]

This is getting beyong ridiculous. How about you ask the person who made the claim? And by the way this is the current topic being talked about.
For someone who wants to be seen as the wise old man on the mountain you are having serious problems following the current topic...

What is ridiculous is that you refuse to respond to a simple request for clarification. Let me put it another way:
Are you thinking of something like the soul? In that case you can read my comment #910

 

[MohamedTaqi]

I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Be assured that we share the same shock.

No. Why should I?

Easy !! then suppose the opposite, and try to give an evidence that supports it.

What? That's sounds like a nice start to 'begging the question'.

Calling fallacies does not make them genuine. Begging the question is when I suppose something that is also in the conclusion.

The assumption is something, and the conclusion is something else.

Rest assured, there are people who have studied consciousness for decades. In this timespan, someone else would have got "your" ideas.
The fact that only a few people share your concerns tells us that not many people agree with your view. Maybe you should create a nice essay about your concerns and send them to one of these people who study consciousness all day for a living. Make sure to tell us what they thought of it.

Check David Chalmers, Christof Koch, Colin McGinn..and others.

 

[David Mo]

And drugs. Another great alternative way to 'knowledge'.

You say that from experience? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Drugs are the opposite of knowledge.

 

[RedStapler]

What is ridiculous is that you refuse to respond to a simple request for clarification. Let me put it another way:
Are you thinking of something like the soul? In that case you can read my comment #910

As I said, ask the person who made the claim.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to what epistimology is allowed to pull itself up by its own bootstraps.

We're basically be challenged to prove that logic, reason, falsefiability, and reality itself exist without using logic, reason, falsefiability, or staying inside reality.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to what epistimology is allowed to pull itself up by its own bootstraps.

We're basically be challenged to prove that logic, reason, falsefiability, and reality itself exist without using logic, reason, falsefiability, or staying inside reality.

Yes, and whether that is a genuine question or not, is still debated among philosophers . Whether you like it or not, that does not change the fact that there are philosophers who write about that.

Some of them even go beyond and study the implications of Godel's Incompleteness theorem on formal systems, and what it means to mathematics and logic, and fields that depend on them.

That field is called : Metalogic

Just like Metaphysics is about what is beyond physics, Metalogic is of what is beyond logic....etc.

 

[RedStapler]

Easy !! then suppose the opposite, and try to give an evidence that supports it.

Nope. Why should I?

Calling fallacies does not make them genuine. Begging the question is when I suppose something that is also in the conclusion.

The assumption is something, and the conclusion is something else.

Hence the "start" for a begging the question.

Check David Chalmers, Christof Koch, Colin McGinn..and others.

How about you tell me directly what you think?

Throwing 3 names in front of my feet? Like "Here, 3 names, now you go and figure out what I wanted to say. It's a good exercise for you non-philosophisizing pleb"

Stop your "I have read philosophy books therefore everything I say has to be considered thoughtful and wise"

We already have a David Mo for that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Agains "It's all valid just because that's what philospohers do" is a bad argument. Although I'm sure that type of bad argument is a "valid philosophy" as well.

So here's a question I won't get an answer to. What can philosophy not do? What restrictions or structure or guidelines or guidences does it have to follow?

Because right now this is just a bunch of people playing Calvinball because they started losing at Poker.

 

[David Mo]

As I said, ask the person who made the claim.

I'm asking who he asked the question to. If you don't know what you were asking, it's impossible to answer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm asking who he asked the question to. If you don't know what you were asking, it's impossible to answer.

We're all figments of your imagination dancing on the walls of Plato's cave in the Matrix, you figure it the hell out.