The Hard Problem of Gravity

[Belz...]

We do have the technology, though.

We have the technology... but I don't want to spend a lot of money...

 

[Belz...]

The alternative is to assume that appearance necessarily represents falsehood.

No... that's YOUR black-and-white thinking at work. An alternative could very well be suspending judgment until evidence is presented, or assuming that it doesn't exist because it's not required to the theory. And since it's a case-by-case thing, we need not be so ... er... dichotomous.

As the evidence stands, human beings appear to be unique in the universe.

So are badgers.

Should we ignore the evidence and reject that on philosophical grounds.

Evidence for what ? Uniqueness ? Humans are unique, yes. Their consciousness might be the most developped amongst living species on Earth. Maybe. So what ? Consciousness exists in apes and dolphins and, to a lesser degree, ants, too. So what's your question ?

How can you not? Experience is the end of the line.

An interesting contradiction. In two back-to-back sentences.

I asked you HOW do you experience experience. Since experience is the "end of the line", whatever that means, you can't experience experience. So you CAN'T, but you just said "how can you not ?". I'm confused. Perhaps it's because you are, too.

There's nothing to intervene between you and experience. You are the experience.

Indeed. So, experience is not some gremlin. It's part of the machine. So the machine is experience. Any computer that reproduces the function will get the experience as well. Unless you're a dualist there's no way out of this.

If we're talking about computers, then let one pass the Turing test.

I suspect you wouldn't accept that as evidence, though. You've consistently rejected the examples provided thus far.

I'm distinguishing something we understand fully from something we don't understand at all.

A minute ago you said that it was BEHAVIOUR that tells us if other humans are conscious. Now you say it's understanding. Make up your mind, and please remember that it's YOU guys claiming that we DON'T understand human consciousness.

I think it highly improbable that rocks or thermostats have any degree of consciousness at all.

Interesting that you lump rocks and thermostats together as they were quite clearly distinguished by everyone here.

 

[westprog]

But what you're proposing is that it is not only unknown now, it is fundamentally unknowable by your definition.

I don't see why. If a physical process is discovered that is associated with consciousness, then we will be able to deal with it on that basis.

...but it was, and is falsifiable.

Yes, because evolution was a well-formed scientific theory. I certainly don't mean to imply that there are any theories of consciousness anywhere near as advanced.

I mentioned evolution as an example of a theory that lacked physical substance. It was sound biology, but didn't have an explanation for the physical mechanism.

No, what was significant is that falsifiable predictions followed from the theory and were vindicated by evidence. Your theory of consciousness cannot possibly produce any predictions that can be measured objectively.

What theory is that? I don't have a theory of consciousness. I've never claimed to have any such theory. I have an observation of consciousness and that's about it.

And why not? We can influence consciousness by influencing the information flows in and to the brain. This can be predicted from a physical theory of consciousness, is falsifiable, and has been done.

We can also influence consciousness by holding our breaths. We can observe that consciousness is always associated with airflow. Should the Dyson Institute be trying to create consciousness in vacuum cleaners?

When we have a phenomenon produced by a number of conditions, all of which are necessary, it seems premature to assume that just one - the handling of information - is the critical one.

One hunch is not as good as another. Ask Occam

Nevertheless a hunch is a hunch, not a theory.

I'm no expert, but I'm quite confident that you are wrong. Information processing is applied in physics, and probably not solely a question of trial and error.
.

You may be right there. Saying information is meaningless in physics might be overstating. However, if the term "information" is used then it has to be precisely defined.

 

[westprog]

No... that's YOUR black-and-white thinking at work. An alternative could very well be suspending judgment until evidence is presented,

I suggest that you read this entire thread over again, very carefully, and then you will see who is suggesting that we suspend judgement until evidence is presented, and who is claiming that the problem is essentially solved apart from a few details.

This thread started with Rocketdodger satirising the notion that consciousness represented a problem. Pixymisa has claimed that SHRDLU was a conscious program back in the 1960's. I'm the person saying we should suspend judgement.

 

[Gate2501]

I suggest that you read this entire thread over again, very carefully, and then you will see who is suggesting that we suspend judgement until evidence is presented, and who is claiming that the problem is essentially solved apart from a few details.

This thread started with Rocketdodger satirising the notion that consciousness represented a problem. Pixymisa has claimed that SHRDLU was a conscious program back in the 1960's. I'm the person saying we should suspend judgement.

Just to clarify your position, could you tell me if you are in favor of the HPC? That is the "problem" that RD was satirizing.

Do you think that things like P-Zombies are in any way legitimate and/or coherent concepts?

Because if you see the HPC as a legitimate problem that requires a solution, you are setting up that impassable barrier that I was talking about earlier. P-Zombies(if assumed to be coherent), have no solution outside of hard solipsism. I can understand your thinking that consciousness is not a settled matter. I do not agree with you, but it is understandable. I cannot understand why anyone would be in favor of the HPC however, unless they have a vested interest in consciousness never being "solved".

 

[PixyMisa]

This thread started with Rocketdodger satirising the notion that consciousness represented a problem.

No.

The thread is satirising so-called Hard Problem Consciousness specifically. Hard Problem Consciousness is explicitly dualistic, i.e. logically incoherent, and needs all the satirising it can get.

Pixymisa has claimed that SHRDLU was a conscious program back in the 1960's.

Yes. And do you have any coherent argument as to why we should think otherwise?

 

[yy2bggggs]

I cannot understand why anyone would be in favor of the HPC however, unless they have a vested interest in consciousness never being "solved".

This is an ad hominem (the proper kind, never to be confused with "insult").

The HPC, which I'm not quite sure has been fairly represented throughout this thread, is about the ability to account for something. The notion that there is no hard problem is equivalent to claiming that this something doesn't exist, or that it can be accounted for, or that it's not really different from easy problems.

Proponents of the HPC are such because this something seems to be real, and because it seems impossible or irrational to dismiss it. This is where the real issue lies.

A major argument against the notion that the HPC is a way to slip dualism under the door is to simply humor it, and consider what sort of dualism it would imply. It's quite a unique sort--something that may or may not even validly be called dualism. Introducing a spiritual realm, for example, doesn't help it one bit. If it's a backdoor way to slip in dualism, it's quite a strange way to go about it.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. If the HPC problem is legitimately an issue, and dualism creeps in, then, well, dualism crept in. So what?

Edit: Sorry, your post didn't directly accuse this of being a way to slip dualism under the door, but accused the HPC of, basically, being a hard problem--being impossible to solve. Still, the motivation sketch I have above applies to a legitimate proponent. Note that all you need is for the problem to seem real for a person to be motivated to defend the HPC. Furthermore, accusing it of being phrased as impossible sounds like the same exact thing the HPC proponents would say, only rephrased to sound different politically. That's not very satisfying as an argument against the HPC.

 

[rocketdodger]

I was thinking of a standalone, walking-around Data. That we can't do.

So was I.

Yes we can.

Give me the entire GDP of, I dunno, the EU, per year, and I will have him ready for you in less than 10 years.

I would bet my life on it.

I don't know why this would surprise you. With over 10 trillion per year we could have a mining station floating in Jupiter's atmosphere within 10 years. We could have a space elevator. We could cure cancer. We could have microwaves that heat food evenly.

 

[Gate2501]

This is an ad hominem (the proper kind, never to be confused with "insult").

The HPC, which I'm not quite sure has been fairly represented throughout this thread, is about the ability to account for something. The notion that there is no hard problem is equivalent to claiming that this something doesn't exist, or that it can be accounted for, or that it's not really different from easy problems.

Proponents of the HPC are such because this something seems to be real, and because it seems impossible or irrational to dismiss it. This is where the real issue lies.

A major argument against the notion that the HPC is a way to slip dualism under the door is to simply humor it, and consider what sort of dualism it would imply. It's quite a unique sort--something that may or may not even validly be called dualism. Introducing a spiritual realm, for example, doesn't help it one bit. If it's a backdoor way to slip in dualism, it's quite a strange way to go about it.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. If the HPC problem is legitimately an issue, and dualism creeps in, then, well, dualism crept in. So what?

Let me rephrase my statement then.

-The HPC creates at least one impossible to solve scenario (the P-Zombies). The only way to account for these P-Zombies(if they are assumed to be a coherent concept) would be hard solipsism, or some form of dualism.

-Therefore, any proponent of the HPC, should understand that it is disingenuous to pretend that there is a possible "solution" to this problem, without tacking on an immaterial aspect to the mind, or assuming that no one but yourself is actually conscious.

-Therefore, it is hard for me personally to understand (perhaps because I am dumb), why anyone who fully understood the questions asked by the HPC, would act as if there is any possible solution to this problem(outside of dualism/solipsism etc.).

 

[PixyMisa]

With over 10 trillion per year we could have a mining station floating in Jupiter's atmosphere within 10 years. We could have a space elevator. We could cure cancer.

Yeah, maybe, for the first one. But how do you effectively spend 10 trillion a year on materials science of cancer research? There aren't enough scientists in those fields to absorb that funding, and it takes a solid decade just to turn a high-school graduate into a post-doc.

We could have microwaves that heat food evenly.

Now you're just being silly!

 

[PixyMisa]

-The HPC creates at least one impossible to solve scenario (the P-Zombies). The only way to account for these P-Zombies(if they are assumed to be a coherent concept) would be hard solipsism, or some form of dualism.

Exactly right.

P-Zombies are a logically coherent concept only if either: (a) the Universe itself is not logically consistent (dualism), or (b) there really are no other consciousnesses (solipsism).

P-Zombies are considered an accurate presentation of the core concept of HPC, therefore HPC itself falls into the same trap. Indeed, Chalmers explicitly favours dualism.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yeah, maybe, for the first one. But how do you effectively spend 10 trillion a year on materials science of cancer research? There aren't enough scientists in those fields to absorb that funding, and it takes a solid decade just to turn a high-school graduate into a post-doc.

First, there are already many scientists. A portion of the money would simply go towards paying them to work on this problem instead of whatever else they were doing.

Second, one does not need to be formally educated to be a valuable contributor to scientific endeavors. In fact I wager we could teach intelligent adults all they need to know about their portion of the project in under six months.

Third, I doubt we would need more human minds than we already have available. If we spent large amounts to augment existing scientists and engineers with proper <automated> tools ...

Heck, my own personal productivity would be increased a few hundredfold with a) eye tracking software to control the cursor b) voice recognition software so I could execute stuff in the background while I am coding or reading c) some basic BCI for things like mouse clicks. Note that all this technology is actually already available, it just isn't integrated into a useable package that people like me can take advantage of.

 

[Apathia]

Actually, even SHRDLU could handle poorly-defined terms. It would make an assumption, and tell you what it thought you were asking.

Amazing! We've had AI since the Sixties, but the US Post Office's automated phone answering system still can't tell yes from no.

Me: "No."
System: "I don't understand you. Did you say 'yes.'
Me: "(Fragment of human waste!)"
System: "Press one for ..... Press two for ...."

But alas when I finally got to an example of human cognition,
she was no more help.

 

[Belz...]

I suggest that you read this entire thread over again, very carefully, and then you will see who is suggesting that we suspend judgement until evidence is presented, and who is claiming that the problem is essentially solved apart from a few details.

You're the one who claims that there definitely is something MORE to consciousness than what science has discovered yet. I'm saying there may not be, and you agree when you say that behaviour is the only criterion.

 

[westprog]

This is an ad hominem (the proper kind, never to be confused with "insult").

It's a slightly odd one. Are there meetings of the Illuminati where they explain that a solution of the HPC would spoil their plans to take over the world?

 

[Egil]

I wanna know why gravity is weak in comparison to electromagnetism.

 

[DrMatt]

Somebody asked me recently what it means for conciousness to "not be a formal system". I think I know why, now.

 

[westprog]

Just to clarify your position, could you tell me if you are in favor of the HPC? That is the "problem" that RD was satirizing.

Do you think that things like P-Zombies are in any way legitimate and/or coherent concepts?

Because if you see the HPC as a legitimate problem that requires a solution, you are setting up that impassable barrier that I was talking about earlier. P-Zombies(if assumed to be coherent), have no solution outside of hard solipsism. I can understand your thinking that consciousness is not a settled matter. I do not agree with you, but it is understandable. I cannot understand why anyone would be in favor of the HPC however, unless they have a vested interest in consciousness never being "solved".

I'm concerned with consciousness being a hard problem. I'm not wedded to anyone else's statement of consciousness being a Hard Problem.

As for P-Zombies - I think it's quite legitimate to question exactly what difference the concept of consciousness makes to behaviour. However, my main reason for supposing consciousness to be unsolved remains the lack of a physical theory.

 

[westprog]

You're the one who claims that there definitely is something MORE to consciousness than what science has discovered yet. I'm saying there may not be, and you agree when you say that behaviour is the only criterion.

I certainly agree that there may be no possibility that science will ever discover any more about how consciousness arises. However, it remains the case that consciousness has not been explained.

Behaviour is certainly not the only criterion for examining consciousness. Personal experience remains accessible. That's the main reason why anyone is concerned with the issue.

 

[westprog]

This is an ad hominem (the proper kind, never to be confused with "insult").

The HPC, which I'm not quite sure has been fairly represented throughout this thread, is about the ability to account for something. The notion that there is no hard problem is equivalent to claiming that this something doesn't exist, or that it can be accounted for, or that it's not really different from easy problems.

Proponents of the HPC are such because this something seems to be real, and because it seems impossible or irrational to dismiss it. This is where the real issue lies.

A major argument against the notion that the HPC is a way to slip dualism under the door is to simply humor it, and consider what sort of dualism it would imply. It's quite a unique sort--something that may or may not even validly be called dualism. Introducing a spiritual realm, for example, doesn't help it one bit. If it's a backdoor way to slip in dualism, it's quite a strange way to go about it.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. If the HPC problem is legitimately an issue, and dualism creeps in, then, well, dualism crept in. So what?

I don't really see the necessity of dualism - but physics should always take precedence over philosophy. If the only scientific explanation for HPC requires dualism - however that may be defined - then it's up to the philosophers to review their concepts.

However, nothing I've seen from the HPC proponents - in this thread at least - leads me to think that they are ruling out the possibility that there is physics that we just don't know yet.