A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Titus Rivas]

Forces again

Dymanic said:

Not entirely immanent to the physical world? Partially immanent then? (This is sounding a lot like the ghost that selectively interacts with physical matter).

Well, it depends on how you define force. The force is working on matter so in it that sense it gets in contact with matter. Though I realize now that that isn't the same as "belonging to the physical world" either. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the force or forces exercized by consciousness can't be just another part of the physical world.

but I don't understand why they would be exempt from (say) laws of conservation.

Perhaps they aren't, but please realize that a world with a causally efficacious non-physical consciousness would be radically different from a world without such an entity. It must make a difference one way or the other.

But you are proposing the existence of a 'fifth force'?

Yes, and perhaps a sixth or seventh force as well, as I'm not exactly certain that all types of interactions between consciousness and the physically world can be reduced to just one type of natural law.

Titus

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Nuances

And that's where you run the risk of going astray. What about this new formulation:
We should not dismiss an explanation solely because it disagrees with a particular introspective experience--our introspective experience has earned some distrust. But we should dismiss a theory (say reductionism) if it disagrees with all of our introspection and more so if it disagrees with the very notion that there is anything we can have an introspective experience of!

This formulation both acknowledges errors in introspection and at the same time rejects the total (eliminative) dismissal of the very notion of irreducible subjective experiences.

It's like saying people can and often do make logical mistakes in thinking (cognitive humility) but that doesn't imply people are never capable of rational thought (a form of irrationalism). A question of realism.

I will disagree with your new formulation. Any particular explanation is, by definition, a best-fit guess, subject to revision and replacement if a better explanation comes along. That is, after all, the nature of any scientific theory. But let us suppose that, hypothetically, the best-fitting explanation denies any "reality" to qualia--the explanation explains seeing, hearing, etc., but dismisses any mental "thing seen" apart from the "seeing". Must we say that is an impossible explanation? Must we discard it in favor of one that does not explain as well, but which fits our introspections? I don't see why the "dismissal of the very notion of irreducible subjective experiences" should be an a priori deal-breaker. If these things are absolutely necessary, the best-fitting explanation must explain them.

Any and all explanations may be revised or discarded if a better explanation comes along. Don't like the eliminative theories? Propose a better one. Don't eliminate them from the competition on the evidence of a methodology known to be flawed.

 

[Titus Rivas]

The baby in the bath water

Must we say that is an impossible explanation?

Yep, we have no choice. There is one thing we can't doubt, and that is that we are subjective beings. If we doubt that, we become irrational and irrationality can be no basis for science.

Must we discard it in favor of one that does not explain as well, but which fits our introspections?

Certainly, though it's impossible that a theory can explain something which it does not recognize.,

I don't see why the "dismissal of the very notion of irreducible subjective experiences" should be an a priori deal-breaker. If these things are absolutely necessary, the best-fitting explanation must explain them.

Right, so there you have the answer. These things are absolutely necessary.

Don't eliminate them from the competition on the evidence of a methodology known to be flawed.

A clear case of throwing out the baby (acknowledging the existence of subjective experiences) with the bath water (partially flawed methodology of mapping such subjective experiences). It's simply disproportionate and therefore (with all due respect) irrational.

Titus

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think though that you are profoundly mistaken that we will require photons to see in an incorporeal existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So ghosts can see in the dark.

I really have no idea! Do you have any reasons to suppose they shouldn't be able to? What about people who have OBE's during NDE's when it is dark. Are they unable to see?

How do dark things look?

I really can't answer these questions. It would seem from anecdotes that seeing in a disembodied state is different from normal seeing though.

As if they were illuminated by bright sunlight? Daylight on a cloudy day? An incandescent bulb? (What wattage?) A flourescent bulb? A mercury vapor lamp? A sodium lamp?

I don't know. Best to read anecdotes involving OBE's during NDE's. There's some useful material in Mindsight by Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper(?) if you're really interested in this topic.

Maybe everything's so bright, ghosts have to wear welding goggles all the time.

There are some problems with your position, I think. [/B]

What problems might these be? If you think that ghosts require photons in order to see then you must argue for this. I rather feel you'll find it rather difficult to conclude it's logically impossible to see without photons though! LOL But if you feel you can argue for this, then go ahead!

 

[Mercutio]

Re: The baby in the bath water

Yep, we have no choice. There is one thing we can't doubt, and that is that we are subjective beings. If we doubt that, we become irrational and irrationality can be no basis for science.

You and I have very different views on this. I can easily doubt that we are "subjective beings"; I can only suppose that I have a different definition of "subjective" than you do.

I do understand your position--no need to further clarify, really. As with Ian, I now understand the fundamental assumptions (and of course they are assumptions) that separate our views. Thanks for the exploration!

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Non-sensory seeing

Just to join in:

Seeing as qualia is non-physical.

Apart from sensorial seeing, there is also clairvoyance (literally meaning clear seeing) or remote viewing. This (or any other) type of ESP can't be based on sensory processing.

Actually I just thought of remote viewing myself but only after I had posted! LOL Of course they will simply say that remote viewing is conceptual incoherent.

And what about seeing in dreams?

Titus [/B]

Yes dreaming, slipped my mind! That's enough to refute their position.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Titus

Well, it depends on how you define force.

Well, Newton's first law states that:
An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. So any change in the velocity or trajectory of an object (such as a sodium or potassium ion -- the lingua franca of neural activity) requires the expenditure of energy.

The force is working on matter so in it that sense it gets in contact with matter.

Yes. That point of contact is exactly the point at which the theoretical difficulty is encountered.

Though I realize now that that isn't the same as "belonging to the physical world" either.

But the law of conservation of energy demands that any such effects must utilize energy which belongs to the physical world; importing energy from elsewhere is a fundamental no-no.

 

[Interesting Ian]

About the 4 forces

My own view about forces doesn't appear to be the same as Titus's. This is what I said before about gravitational force.

I would say gravity does not exist. This is of course not to deny that objects fall and planets orbit around the sun etc. Rather it is to suppose that gravity is not an existent superimposed on reality as it were, but simply a short hand term to refer to what ostensibly are disparate phenomena, but which can in fact be described using the same mathematical formulae.

Our current scientific understanding of gravity that it is in fact a distortion of the space-time continuum, and not a force, approaches this conclusion. It's good to see that science is catching up with what Berkeley told them centuries ago.

I of course would say the same about the other 3 forces. Our ability to influence the world is nothing like this. I consider our ability to influence the world via the voluntary behaviour of our bodies to be of an innate generative nature. Mental causality is the only true causality in the sense of a power.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, Newton's first law states that:
An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. So any change in the velocity or trajectory of an object (such as a sodium or potassium ion -- the lingua franca of neural activity) requires the expenditure of energy.

Yes. That point of contact is exactly the point at which the theoretical difficulty is encountered.

But the law of conservation of energy demands that any such effects must utilize energy which belongs to the physical world; importing energy from elsewhere is a fundamental no-no.

Er . . .what's the problem here? Are you saying that remote viewing violates conservation of energy? What about libertarian free will? If you think so how did you come to this conclusion? Or am I not understanding what you guys are talking about?

 

[Titus Rivas]

Revision of law of conversation

Dymanic:

But the law of conservation of energy demands that any such effects must utilize energy which belongs to the physical world; importing energy from elsewhere is a fundamental no-no.

I actually think that the law of the conservation of energy should be redefined to make it consistent with a new world view into which the efficacy of consciousness is incorporated. The law probably won't hold in the old fashion after the closed nature of the physical world is rejected. The other option, rejecting conscious efficacy, is the real no no.

Titus

P.S.: It's only natural that my views about this differ from Ian's views, him being an idealist, and myself being a dualist.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Revision of law of conversation

Dymanic:

I actually think that the law of the conservation of energy should be redefined to make it consistent with a new world view into which the efficacy of consciousness is incorporated. The law probably won't hold in the old fashion after the closed nature of the physical world is rejected. The other option, rejecting conscious efficacy, is the real no no.

Titus

P.S.: It's only natural that my views about this differ from Ian's views, him being an idealist, and myself being a dualist.

Again Titus, if you can demostrate it in a double blind then I will sign up, can you point us in the direction of anything that breaks the conservation of energy?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Our current scientific understanding of gravity that it is in fact a distortion of the space-time continuum, and not a force

I agree.

I of course would say the same about the other 3 forces.

I'm willing to consider that -- at least that they may not be as discreetly separable as conventional wisdom holds.

Are you saying that remote viewing violates conservation of energy?

I am saying that if any such phenomenon could actually be demonstrated, I would expect it to conform to laws of conservation.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Dymanic or anyone

Er . . .could someone explain this conservation of energy business and why interactive dualism violates it? And is it the opinion of people that idealism does also?Ah hang on a sec. Just noticed you've responded Dynamic. You say:

I am saying that if any such phenomenon could actually be demonstrated, I would expect it to conform to laws of conservation.

Yes so would I. Any reason to suppose it doesn't? What about libertarian free will? Is that a similar "problem"?

 

[Titus Rivas]

Breaking the law

Dancing David said:

Again Titus, if you can demostrate it in a double blind then I will sign up, can you point us in the direction of anything that breaks the conservation of energy?

No, I can't, but then that wasn't what I was claiming. I just meant to say that any possible violation of the law can never be a conclusive argument against interactionism. On the other hand, breaking this law is not a theoretical precondition for interactionism either.

A possible candidate might be the psychogenic materialization of a physical object out of nothing. The problem is that it isn't easy to prove that the matter does not come from another point within physical reality. In fact, if real materialization ex nihilo is possible, it would make the materializer godlike (in this sense).

Titus

Off topic : BillyJoe, there still is a cafe/restaurant by the name of De Klomp in Roermond, here are the online details: 0475-401497, Klomp Café De, Hoofdstraat 113, 6061CC Posterholt (Roermond).

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Titus

I actually think that the law of the conservation of energy should be redefined to make it consistent with a new world view into which the efficacy of consciousness is incorporated.

So a unified field theory would have to include mind.

That idea does seem worthy of further thought.

 

[Titus Rivas]

Leaving nothing out

Dymanic:

So a unified field theory would have to include mind.

That idea does seem worthy of further thought.

It does, and it constitutes a central point of Chalmer's philosophy, though in his case the physical world would exclusively produce mental processes and never the other way round. In fact, I've sometimes asked myself where the energy the physical world need to produce certain experiences in the mind would go. The alternative would be that the physical world causes certain processes in the mind without any expenditure of energy.

Titus

 

[Dymanic]

And what about seeing in dreams?

Or daydreams.

I can conjure up the color red in my mind's eye -- in fact a wide range of reds. But that experience of redness has a completely different quality to it; it seems to somehow fall short of what I feel is needed for me to say I actually see the red. I'm not seeing it, I'm remembering seeing it. It's like a meta-quale or something.

 

[Titus Rivas]

Qualia of vision

Dymanic said:

But that experience of redness has a completely different quality to it; it seems to somehow fall short of what I feel is needed for me to say I actually see the red. I'm not seeing it, I'm remembering seeing it

But that's not typically how we actually experience it. For example, have you never had a nightmare that seemed so real visually that you were glad you woke up?
Functionally speaking you're right that we use memory to produce the visual impressions in this case (which would be in that sense meta-qualia as you call them), but the impressions remain visual all the same from a subjective perspective. Which shows already that we certainly don't need the eyes or peripheral nervous system for all kinds of visual experience. Furthermore, there are experiences such as NDEs that strongly suggest empirically we don't even need a working brain to see something. Which is very much in accordance with the philosophical conclusion that the qualia of vision are not intrinsically linked to any (part of the) physical visual system.

Best wishes,

Titus

 

[Suggestologist]

Or daydreams.

I can conjure up the color red in my mind's eye -- in fact a wide range of reds. But that experience of redness has a completely different quality to it; it seems to somehow fall short of what I feel is needed for me to say I actually see the red. I'm not seeing it, I'm remembering seeing it. It's like a meta-quale or something.

That has to do with context cues. Alter the parameters of your recollection and it can seem more (or less) real. What happens when you turn up the brightness in your mental picture? What happens when you bring it closer or move it away? What happens when you include an inner voice that says "that's red" or something? What happens when you include the bodily feelings you get when you see something real? How are they different from the bodily feelings that up until now, you got when looking at things in your mind's eye?

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Qualia of vision

Furthermore, there are experiences such as NDEs that strongly suggest empirically we don't even need a working brain to see something. Which is very much in accordance with the philosophical conclusion that the qualia of vision are not intrinsically linked to any (part of the) physical visual system.

NDE's strongly suggest something? Um...no. There are too many methodological flaws there to suggest anything at all, let alone suggest something strongly.

You are right, the qualia of vision are not intrinsically linked to any part of the physical visual system. They differ, in that the physical visual system exists.

I said before that I understood your position. I still do. I disagree with it strongly. I also recognise that I won't be changing your mind any time soon, as it is our very fundamental assumptions that differ. I just could not sit back without chiming in here. I am just glad that the sensation& perception researchers I work with don't share your philosophy. It would drive me stark raving bonkers.