On Consciousness

[Dancing David]

I agree the use of the term woo does not add to the argument but that is the nature of a forum where often discussion is derailed by appeals to emotion and rhetoric.

I am sure I have plenty of the woo within.

 

[PixyMisa]

To me, woo is merely a way of saying I think the man has two heads. It doesn't fit with what I already think about things, and the misfit is significant. For me to accept it, a major rethink is going to be needed.

If there is in fact a man with two heads, what is there to rethink? The man either has two heads or not. It's not complicated.

What is woo is making excuses for the lack of evidence to support a claim.

 

[PixyMisa]

In a universe that appears to be malleable, regarding our expectations,
woo is just a way to dodge boredom and the oppression of logic.

If we lived in such a Universe, that might actually be relevant.

Also, oppression of logic? Is this some kind of self-parodying performance art?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Woo is short for woo-woo. I think Randi coined the term. It refers to the sound of the theremin^WP: that ghostly deep vibrato, slightly non-human sound that sends chills down your spine (youtube link below I recommend listening to while reading the rest of this post).

It applies to discussions about consciousness when the subjective experience, creativity, deep thinking, or telepathy seem impossible for mechanistic explanations or known physics, and invented metaphysics (which have never been demonstrated to exist at all) are invoked.

When we use the derisive term "magic bean" for hypothesized non-computational physical or metaphysical processes in the brain, it's equivalent to calling such hypotheses and their proponents "woo" or "woo-woo."

E.g., the assertion that a massive computer, equivalent in complexity to the brain and its 100 trillion synapses, could not write a musical masterpiece because there's something beyond known physics happening in our gray matter, is woo. It's almost as if you can hear the theremin playing in the background when things like dark matter are invoked to explain why red looks red.

"Woo" is also shorthand for argument from ignorance that postulates things like quantum mechanics to explain deep thinking and emotions, like what's missing from the Chinese Room^WP. It's about the feeling that certain chess positions are too difficult for digital computers to solve because they are missing quantum consciousness (QM woo).

I hope this helps.

We can listen to this theremin music when we try to picture the kinds of metaphysics that MUST be going on in the brain when people write musical masterpieces:

 

[Frank Merton]

It applies to discussions about consciousness when the subjective experience, creativity, deep thinking, or telepathy seem impossible for mechanistic explanations or known physics, and invented metaphysics (which have never been demonstrated to exist at all) are invoked.

I hope this helps.

Afraid not; sounds just like a repeat of the usual.

Except for telepathy, which is speculative, the others on your list (subjective experience, creativity, and maybe deep thinking, although I don't know how that differs from ordinary thinking) are real.

Of course if people invent metaphysics to explain them they had better be sure the metaphysics they invent really explains and has some basis beyond speculation. Many who think such mental phenomena are unexplainable leave it at that.

Regardless of who invented the term, I think "woo" is an insulting ad hominem and as such does not belong in reasoned discussion.

 

[Frank Merton]

If there is in fact a man with two heads, what is there to rethink? The man either has two heads or not. It's not complicated.

Don't be so embarrassingly uncomprehending. The whole point was that there is no man with two heads.

 

[crhkrebs]

Cool. Woo hoo woo woo hoo woo hoo.

I'm a massive woo woo woo.

Woo.

Now what does woo mean?

I see, so because you have never heard of a term, that makes it "largely meaningless? Thanks Mr. Scott, for coming to help out.

I'd rather people attacked an argument than used a largely meaningless label.

OK, I'll give it a shot.

Actually I presented an argument back in #3594 to which you responded and linked to the Shermer-Chopra debate. I'll go over it again:

1) Goswami states that a "universal consciousness" is the modern definition of God

This is an unsubstantiated claim.

2) Goswami explains why we have to do science "on the basis of consciousness".

I have no idea what that means.

3) As an example, he uses modern biology's current understanding of evolution, especially with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Goswami states that, "traditional biology has NO explanation for this".

This is, of course, abjectly incorrect. I indicated above that people should read Stephen J. Gould to find out why. Here is his famous paper on the subject:

Gould, Stephen Jay, & Eldredge, Niles (1977). "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151. (p.145)

For a popular science book, I'd recommend:

Gould, Stephen Jay, 1989, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, NY

On the other hand, for a critique of punctuated equilibrium, I'd recommend:

Dawkins, Richard (1996). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Co

Whether or not punctuated equilibrium or gradualism best describes the process of cladogenesis is not the point here. Scientists, on both side of the argument, have good arguments and evidence for their viewpoints. To say that modern biology has no explanation is plainly wrong.

4) Once Goswami has established his false assertion, he explains how the understanding of the "creative consciousness" will "solve" our lack of knowledge by spiritual means. From entry #3594:

"However, if we do science on the basis of consciousness, on the primacy of consciousness, then we can see in this phenomenon creativity, real creativity of consciousness. In other words, we can truly see that consciousness is operating creatively even in biology, even in the evolution of species. And so we can now fill up these gaps that conventional biology cannot explain with ideas which are essentially spiritual ideas, such as consciousness as the creator of the world."

This is the "God of the Gaps" argument again. Just substitute "primacy of consciousness" for God and you have the gist of both Goswamis and Chopra's argument. I'll let you look up "god of the gaps" yourself. It is also not a meaningless term.

Let's turn our attention to Deepak Chopra from the video kindly linked by Zeuzzz. The actual point of the debate is beyond what I want to address. I just would like to share with Chopra's opening comments.

1) He doesn't hold with the God of primitive theology. Rather, God is the "infinite intelligence and infinite consciousness". It is responsible for the Big Bang, cosmogenesis and autopoiesis, among other things. "Infinite consciousness" is the author of downward causation.

OK, another set of unsubstantiated claims. Plus, I believe he conflates his term "autopoiesis" with "abiogenesis".

2) He states that during the Big Bang, the first 1X10^-43 seconds are not only unknown to us, but are "unknowable" to us, because all the laws of physics fail here. The laws of physics and the principles of mathematics only arrive AFTER this point in time.

I can't comment on the accuracy of that statement. I'm skeptical when anyone says things are "unknowable". For this argument, we can take him at his word.

He is cut off before he can reiterate his God or "infinite consciousness" carried the universe for those first few instances of time, as the author of all causation.

Again it is the same "God of the Gaps" argument. We don't know what happened so shortly after the big bang. We don't know how life started on Earth. We don't know (according to some) why punctuated equilibrium exists. We don't know why arbitrary numbers are assigned to the universal constants of the speed of light, the force of gravity, the mass of the electron, etc (Deepak also brought up this point in his intro). Yes, there are, admittedly, many gaps in our understanding in every field of modern science.

Does that mean that we should assume that there is some sort of controlling "infinite consciousness" that that underlies all reality and helpfully plugs in all the gaps of our ignorance? Then why even bother doing science? Let's just invoke "infinite consciousness" for all which we don't understand.

I don't care if Deepak doesn't like the term "woo". That's what he and Dr. Goswami are pedaling. Just like "creationism" was polished up to become "Intelligent Design" be more media friendly and more scientifically palatable, "Infinite Creative Downward-Causative Consciousness" is just the new version of "God of the gaps". A new veneer doesn't make the ideas any better.

Sorry for the derail.

 

[crhkrebs]

Afraid not; sounds just like a repeat of the usual

Regardless of who invented the term, I think "woo" is an insulting ad hominem and as such does not belong in reasoned discussion.

I think you have that wrong, Frank. To be an ad hominem the insult has to be directed at the person directly. A person is not a "woo".

Woo is an adjective to describe a form of unsubstantiated and ill defined vacuous nonsense. It is a term that describes an idea, concept, and attitude, and is, therefore, not an ad hominem.

Plus, it is a more economical way to type "unsubstantiated and ill defined vacuous nonsense", don't you think?

 

[Frank Merton]

I think you have that wrong, Frank. To be an ad hominem the insult has to be directed at the person directly. A person is not a "woo".

Yea that occurred to me when I was posting it, but I decided for brevity to deal with it only if someone pointed it out. It seems to me that when you use an insult to describe what a person said (such as, "What a stupid thing to say,") that this is still ad hominem, just indirectly, and maybe less honestly.

Plus, it is a more economical way to type "unsubstantiated and ill defined vacuous nonsense", don't you think?

I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't recall anyone using the word at me, but I know I take offense when I see it directed at others. It's the sort of thing that gets in the way of the other person actually hearing what you say.

Frankly I don't recall seeing it other than on this board, and when I saw it here I immediately was aware that it was rude and ineffective.

 

[crhkrebs]

I'll try to be cogniscient of your concerns, Frank. I don't want to come across as rude or ineffective.

But I think I'll reserve the right to use "woo" in certain instances where it applies. I hope the use in entry #3607 is one of those instances.

There are "stupid" ideas. Some are playfully useful, such as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" concept, and some are potentially dangerous, such as the belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism. In the latter case, protecting the belief holder's feelings, doesn't make the idea any less stupid nor dangerous. They (the ideas) should be able to be called out for what they are.

 

[Frank Merton]

. . . and some are potentially dangerous, such as the belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism. In the latter case, protecting the belief holder's feelings, doesn't make the idea any less stupid nor dangerous. They (the ideas) should be able to be called out for what they are.

Recently I got into a discussion about guns (we've all been talking about it lately) and remarked that I thought having a gun around the house was immoral.

What a stupid thing for me to say. I think its true, with all sorts of qualifications, since it puts everyone in the house in a certain danger of accident and so on. Still, nothing I said from that point forward could penetrate the other side; I was perceived as a religious nut trying to force my moral rules on others via the law.

I think the lesson I learned, and will no doubt need to learn again and again, is that people take these words personally, and that once they've been insulted (and there is no insult as bad as questioning someone's morals), their ears become closed.

Now I will admit that there are some hereabouts -- especially the ones talking about sin -- who are impervious to rational talk, so one may as well throw the book at them.

 

[Dancing David]

Woo is short for woo-woo.

[/lurk]
And here I thought it was Daffy Duck

[lurk]

 

[blobru]

Yea that occurred to me when I was posting it, but I decided for brevity to deal with it only if someone pointed it out. It seems to me that when you use an insult to describe what a person said (such as, "What a stupid thing to say,") that this is still ad hominem, just indirectly, and maybe less honestly. -

Further to your point - although I agree with crhkrebs that "woo" used to describe an argument is not an ad hominem - it's often used to describe the arguer as well - "So&so, who believes in a lot of woo, is a woo. Woo-woo." - in which case it is an ad hominem.

 

[quarky]

If we lived in such a Universe, that might actually be relevant.

Also, oppression of logic? Is this some kind of self-parodying performance art?

No, I meant it (oppression of logic) in the sense of Mr. Spock.
I think we actually need a bit of Santa Claus type creative ill-logic.
Not lies, exactly; more like a joke.

 

[crhkrebs]

Further to your point - although I agree with crhkrebs that "woo" used to describe an argument is not an ad hominem - it's often used to describe the arguer as well - "So&so, who believes in a lot of woo, is a woo. Woo-woo." - in which case it is an ad hominem.

But those comments were directed at me. I didn't use the term as a personal attack, so I don't consider it an ad hominem.

But it is supposed to be a form of ridicule.

PS: Awesome avatar!

 

[Mr. Scott]

Afraid not; sounds just like a repeat of the usual.

Except for telepathy, which is speculative, the others on your list (subjective experience, creativity, and maybe deep thinking, although I don't know how that differs from ordinary thinking) are real.

Of course if people invent metaphysics to explain them they had better be sure the metaphysics they invent really explains and has some basis beyond speculation. Many who think such mental phenomena are unexplainable leave it at that.

Regardless of who invented the term, I think "woo" is an insulting ad hominem and as such does not belong in reasoned discussion.

I did not say subjective experience, creativity, or deep thinking, were woo, or not real. I said the metaphysics invoked to explain them, by luminaries ranging from Chopra to Penrose, as well as some posters here, are woo ideas. It's also not uncommon to call someone who has an affinity to such ideas a woo, and it's a derisive term, absolutely.

To say, "you are espousing woo ideas" is not an ad hominem or personal attack. It's descriptive, but does suggest the accuser's low respect for metaphysical fantasies presented as scientific hypotheses.

To call someone a woo does cross the line to ad hominem, but when it's accurate.. An ad hominem argument is when, instead of challenging what someone says, you dismiss what the person says by deriding the person who says it. E.g., if I said we didn't need to take anything Zeuzzz says seriously because he's a woo, I'd be guilty of ad hominem fallacy.

Is calling me a skeptic an ad hominem? I remember when Oprah had a show about The Secret, IIRC, she turned in seemingly resentful obligation to get the "other side" from a polite, intelligent woman, saying, "OK, skeptico, what's your response?" It was clearly derisive and dismissive. Oprah is IMO a woo (or may have pretended to be one for ratings).

So, what's the most respectful term for a person who rushes to unproven metaphysical explanations to answer difficult scientific questions? I can imagine someone fighting back by calling themselves a "proud woo." Something descriptive of the person's thinking habits that's not dismissive?

 

[dlorde]

1) He doesn't hold with the God of primitive theology. Rather, God is the "infinite intelligence and infinite consciousness". It is responsible for the Big Bang, cosmogenesis and autopoiesis, among other things.
OK, another set of unsubstantiated claims. Plus, I believe he conflates his term "autopoiesis" with "abiogenesis".

I think you're correct. God can be responsible for abiogenesis, but, by definition, not for autopoiesis.

 

[blobru]

But those comments were directed at me. I didn't use the term as a personal attack, so I don't consider it an ad hominem.

But it is supposed to be a form of ridicule.

Often; depends on context, I think.

If someone says, "your idea is woo", then follows it up with a patient explanation why (such as your reply to Zeuzzz above), it's merely descriptive, imo. At the other extreme, if someone says, "your idea is woo, but then what else would I expect from you" (or something like - with the implication 'you' are a big woo-woo who believes nothing but), then it's ridicule overlapping ad hominem (again, in context, absent any other analysis).

Personally, I don't mind it as local shorthand for "nonsense" (though I prefer nonsense). Nonsense is nonsense; whatever you call it isn't going to be very flattering. The point of skepticism isn't labeling nonsense or "woo" or whatever-u-like but explaining why you think it deserves the label (again, as your post #3607 demonstrates).

PS: Awesome avatar!

Thx! Courtesy of the awesome Zax63, one of our friendly neighbourhood gif-wizards.

 

[dlorde]

When I see 'woo', I think of pseudoscience, the paranormal, the supernatural, magical thinking, and the people who espouse them. It tends to be used dismissively or derogatively, though sometimes it's just a descriptive shorthand.

 

[quarky]

Oprah is a billionaire.

Pretty danged weird.