A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[slimshady2357]

Re: BillHoyt, would you please share your rational side with us?

Mr Irrelevant said:

Another question: where is the evidence for your reading abilities? Not on this forum I suppose.

We know you're capable of saying a lot of nonsense and even of being very impolite, but what about really interesting remarks that would actually show us some intelligence and maybe even some real rationality?

Titus

Don't wait for it. I believe Bill likes to think of himself as some kind of self appointed pitbull of the JREF.

Anyway, since you're reading this thread, care to try to clear up the confusion between Ian and everyone else on a duplicate and consciousness?

I'd like to hear your opinion.

Adam

 

[Titus Rivas]

Noetic monism vs. pluralism

Ian,

So in both rooms the totality of physical facts are absolutely identical and therefore materialism must hold that there is only one unique stream of consciousness!

I actually know this idea from a completely different context, namely Hinduism, which believes that there is really only one self, as Atman would equal Brahman. The Dutch philosopher J. Poortman called this position (shared by himself) "noetic monism".

Personalists like myself claim that the ultimate, substantial difference between one mind and another mind, is that one experient differs from another experient, even if their experiences would be completely identical.

So in this perspective it is a question of monism versus pluralism. Could there be any links with your discussion?

Titus

 

[Titus Rivas]

Busy

Adam,

Anyway, since you're reading this thread, care to try to clear up the confusion between Ian and everyone else on a duplicate and consciousness?

Well, give me a few days, as I'm very busy right now. Thanks for inviting me to this discussion.

Best wishes,

Titus

 

[Interesting Ian]

To the 4 people who have responded to my post I shall address your misgivings tomorrow. That is after I have further developed my argument by considering the actual process of duplication itself. Here I intend to show how this gives us still yet further reasons to reject the notion that duplication would result in 2 identical consciousnesses.

And Adam, there really is no need to get pissed off with me. You did after all request that I explain my reasoning. I am simply complying with your request. You think it is some of the poorest reasoning I have ever employed. In all honestly I think it is some of the best reasoning I have ever employed

I've got to confess though I am slightly perplexed. Even Sou was getting pissed off with me in that thread I linked to yesterday, and she never gets pissed of with me just for my beliefs. Most interesting. Indeed almost as interesting as the duplicate thought experiment!

 

[slimshady2357]

Re: Noetic monism vs. pluralism

Ian,

I actually know this idea from a completely different context, namely Hinduism, which believes that there is really only one self, as Atman would equal Brahman. The Dutch philosopher J. Poortman called this position (shared by himself) "noetic monism".

Personalists like myself claim that the ultimate, substantial difference between one mind and another mind, is that one experient differs from another experient, even if their experiences would be completely identical.

I believe that that argument would also hold for materialists, but only because the brain is the experient. I undertstand that you use the word to mean something different (as would I), however it is the same point that Loki, Stimpy and I were trying to make. The simple fact is that there are two brains. Thus two experients having experiences.

Good luck on your busy schedule and hopefully you'll pop back in for more later

Adam

 

[slimshady2357]

To the 4 people who have responded to my post I shall address your misgivings tomorrow. That is after I have further developed my argument by considering the actual process of duplication itself. Here I intend to show how this gives us still yet further reasons to reject the notion that duplication would result in 2 identical consciousnesses.

And Adam, there really is no need to get pissed off with me. You did after all request that I explain my reasoning. I am simply complying with your request. You think it is some of the poorest reasoning I have ever employed. In all honestly I think it is some of the best reasoning I have ever employed

I've got to confess though I am slightly perplexed. Even Sou was getting pissed off with me in that thread I linked to yesterday, and she never gets pissed of with me just for my beliefs. Most interesting. Indeed almost as interesting as the duplicate thought experiment!

I'm not pissed off with you for exlpaining your reasoning. I'm pissed off that you would be so dishonest as to truncate a quote from me to make it look non-sensical. It's despicable, and totally lousy.

Adam

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm not pissed off with you for exlpaining your reasoning. I'm pissed off that you would be so dishonest as to truncate a quote from me to make it look non-sensical. It's despicable, and totally lousy.

Adam

{shrugs}

Allow me to assure you that was certainly not my intention. It's just that I think the qualifier "except for location in space-time" is wholly irrelevant as I have patiently explained. Ones location cannot conceivably have any relevance. Anyway, I certainly didn't intend what you thought. This is quite a novel argument for materialists to employ I think, the idea that ones location determines the self! Especially given the universal rejection of absolute space and hence absolute location. Well, universal rejection with the sole exception of Stimpson J Cat so it would seem! LOL

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Allow me to assure you that was certainly not my intention. It's just that I think the qualifier "except for location in space-time" is wholly irrelevant as I have patiently explained. Ones location cannot conceivably have any relevance. Anyway, I certainly didn't intend what you thought. This is quite a novel argument for materialists to employ I think, the idea that ones location determines the self! Especially given the universal rejection of absolute space and hence absolute location. Well, universal rejection with the sole exception of Stimpson J Cat so it would seem! LOL

You clearly did not understand my argument at all.


Dr. Stupid

 

[slimshady2357]

{shrugs}

Allow me to assure you that was certainly not my intention. It's just that I think the qualifier "except for location in space-time" is wholly irrelevant as I have patiently explained. Ones location cannot conceivably have any relevance. Anyway, I certainly didn't intend what you thought. This is quite a novel argument for materialists to employ I think, the idea that ones location determines the self! Especially given the universal rejection of absolute space and hence absolute location. Well, universal rejection with the sole exception of Stimpson J Cat so it would seem! LOL

Absurd! The totality of phyical facts includes that there are two distinct brains, and thus two distinct consciousness'.

Ones location in respect to other physical objects is part of the totality of physical facts!

Otherwise you don't even have two brains, or two rooms! But you won't address that part, eh?

Adam

 

[slimshady2357]

This is quite a novel argument for materialists to employ I think, the idea that ones location determines the self!

In your example it is the only thing left which distinguishes the two meat brains and the two rooms too! Yet you don't wonder about that LOL

Adam

 

[Interesting Ian]

Allow me to assure you that was certainly not my intention. It's just that I think the qualifier "except for location in space-time" is wholly irrelevant as I have patiently explained. Ones location cannot conceivably have any relevance. Anyway, I certainly didn't intend what you thought. This is quite a novel argument for materialists to employ I think, the idea that ones location determines the self! Especially given the universal rejection of absolute space and hence absolute location. Well, universal rejection with the sole exception of Stimpson J Cat so it would seem! LOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You clearly did not understand my argument at all.


Dr. Stupid [/B]

I understand that you find it meaningful to draw a distinction between a Universe containing only 2 spheres which are "stationary", and a Universe where the 2 spheres are orbiting each other. In order to maintain such a distinction you necessarily have to believe in absolute space.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

I understand that you find it meaningful to draw a distinction between a Universe containing only 2 spheres which are "stationary", and a Universe where the 2 spheres are orbiting each other. In order to maintain such a distinction you necessarily have to believe in absolute space.

You are wrong Ian. You don't even need to understand tensor calculus to see why.

Imagine for a moment that, as you claim, the two scenarios are indistinguishable. In the case of the orbiting spheres, they will maintain their distance from each other, and they will be deformed slightly by the centrifugal force of their own rotation (remember that they must be rotating, in order for their relative orientation to remain fixed).

In the case of the stationary spheres, they will fall towards each other, and no deformation will occur due to centrifugal force.

So what do you claim will happen? Will the rotating spheres spiral into each other, converging at the rate which we would expect them to fall towards each other if they were not rotating? That would violate conservation of angular momentum.

Will the stationary spheres not only maintain their distance, as thought there were no gravity, but also deform as though they were spinning?

The simple fact is that the two situations clearly are different. This has nothing to do with their being an absolute frame of reference. It has to do with the fact that while the laws of physics are invariant under transformations from one inertial frame to another, they are not invariant under transformations from an inertial frame to a non-inertial one.


Why you think this has any relevance to the issue at hand, is beyond me. As I already pointed out, the original and duplicated person clearly are not physically identical. They are composed of different atoms. They are located at different positions relative to their environments. They are subject to different interactive forces from their environment. They are subject to different random quantum influences, and so on.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



You are wrong Ian. You don't even need to understand tensor calculus to see why.

Never heard of it and indeed I don't need it as this is a purely philosophical point I'm making.

{Sighs}

Imagine for a moment that, as you claim, the two scenarios are indistinguishable. In the case of the orbiting spheres, they will maintain their distance from each other, and they will be deformed slightly by the centrifugal force of their own rotation (remember that they must be rotating, in order for their relative orientation to remain fixed).

It is meaningless to say they are either rotating or orbiting each other.

In the case of the stationary spheres, they will fall towards each other, and no deformation will occur due to centrifugal force.


So what do you claim will happen? Will the rotating spheres spiral into each other, converging at the rate which we would expect them to fall towards each other if they were not rotating? That would violate conservation of angular momentum.

As I said there is no distinction between the 2 scenarios. And there can be no angular momentum, centrifugal force etc in this hypothetical Universe. They would only exist if the rest of the Universe exists.

Will the stationary spheres not only maintain their distance, as thought there were no gravity, but also deform as though they were spinning?

See my above remark.

The simple fact is that the two situations clearly are different.

There can only be 2 situations by assuming the existence of an absolute space. There is no absolute space.

This has nothing to do with their being an absolute frame of reference. It has to do with the fact that while the laws of physics are invariant under transformations from one inertial frame to another, they are not invariant under transformations from an inertial frame to a non-inertial one.

If the 2 spheres are revolving around each other then there must be something relative to which they can be revolving. The only option you have is absolute space. There just simply isn't any other option. Also if there were just one object in the Universe and you claimed it were accelerating, that would also be meaningless since it could only be accelerating relative to absolute space.

Why you think this has any relevance to the issue at hand, is beyond me. As I already pointed out, the original and duplicated person clearly are not physically identical. They are composed of different atoms.

Atoms which are composed of elementary particles. All particular types of elementary particles are absolutely indistinguishable from each other.

They are located at different positions relative to their environments. They are subject to different interactive forces from their environment. They are subject to different random quantum influences, and so on.

I've addressed this by imagining duplication takes place in an absolutely identical environment.

 

[BillHoyt]

It is meaningless to say they are either rotating or orbiting each other.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

You are wrong Ian. You don't even need to understand tensor calculus to see why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never heard of it and indeed I don't need it as this is a purely philosophical point I'm making.

Your claim is about the predictions of General Relativity. General Relativity is described in terms of tensor calculus. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?

It is meaningless to say they are either rotating or orbiting each other.

As I said there is no distinction between the 2 scenarios. And there can be no angular momentum, centrifugal force etc in this hypothetical Universe. They would only exist if the rest of the Universe exists.

There can only be 2 situations by assuming the existence of an absolute space. There is no absolute space.

If the 2 spheres are revolving around each other then there must be something relative to which they can be revolving. The only option you have is absolute space. There just simply isn't any other option.

The above statements are simply not true. That is not what General Relativity claims. You do not know what you are talking about. You have some vague intuitive conception of what relativity is all about, and about what the invariance of physical laws under changes of reference frames implies, but know actual understanding. I am amazed that you are even arguing this point. You know perfectly well that you have neither the mathematical or scientific knowledge needed to attempt to argue in favor of this claim. All you can do is shake your head and insist that you are right, and I am wrong. This is pathetic.

Also if there were just one object in the Universe and you claimed it were accelerating, that would also be meaningless since it could only be accelerating relative to absolute space.

That is true enough, but when you have two objects, the situation is not so simple. It is possible for them to be accelerating relative to each other, without the relative distance between them changing. The math is quite clear on this.

Why you think this has any relevance to the issue at hand, is beyond me. As I already pointed out, the original and duplicated person clearly are not physically identical. They are composed of different atoms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atoms which are composed of elementary particles. All particular types of elementary particles are absolutely indistinguishable from each other.

Only if they are in the same quantum state. That is the whole point. Pick a hydrogen atom in your left eyebrow. Now pick a hydrogen atom in my big toe. Those are different atoms. Likewise the original and his duplicate have different bodies. They have different brains. Your consciousness is something your brain is doing. Your duplicate's consciousness is something his brain is doing. Different brains -> different brain processes -> different consciousness. I honestly can not see what your conceptual problem with this is.

They are located at different positions relative to their environments. They are subject to different interactive forces from their environment. They are subject to different random quantum influences, and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've addressed this by imagining duplication takes place in an absolutely identical environment.

That doesn't matter. They are still different brains, different brain processes, and different consciousness.

Your could only possibly argue that materialism implies that there is only one consciousness, if you claimed that materialism implied that there is only one brain. But if you do that, your precious contradiction vanishes.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Dancing David]

David, the physical impossibility is an irrelevancy to the strength of my argument. Imagine that both Ian's are each in an identical virtual reality if you like.

I have a funny feeling this thread has just been injected with a new lease of life. LOL

BTW, I of course believe that the duplicate would just be a corpse. This must be so since I hold that our physicality cannot miraculously ex nihilo generate consciousness.

Ian , most respectfuly I was saying that they are identical only as long as you the experiemnter make them identical at all levels. It is not a physical impossible thing, it is that they will have similat, or identical processes as long as each has identical experiences and events at all levels, but once you say 'go' and release the identical situation, they will diverge.

The virtual brain thing, so while the bodies may diverge, then there is the program which creates an identical experience. I'll buy that if, they are transmogrified twins, but the brains will still diverge in structure and function over time.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

Slim has this nailed .. please address this :

(Ian wrote) : This is quite a novel argument for materialists to employ I think, the idea that ones location determines the self!

(slimshady2357 wrote) : In your example it is the only thing left which distinguishes the two meat brains and the two rooms too!

Can you explain why the phrase "totality of physical facts" would exclude "location in space/time"? You think it's "novel" that materialism predicts that *one* aspect of the 'self' is "a unique location in space/time"? Why would that suprise you?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



Your claim is about the predictions of General Relativity. General Relativity is described in terms of tensor calculus. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?



The above statements are simply not true. That is not what General Relativity claims. You do not know what you are talking about. You have some vague intuitive conception of what relativity is all about, and about what the invariance of physical laws under changes of reference frames implies, but know actual understanding. I am amazed that you are even arguing this point. You know perfectly well that you have neither the mathematical or scientific knowledge needed to attempt to argue in favor of this claim. All you can do is shake your head and insist that you are right, and I am wrong. This is pathetic.

Let's take a step back shall we? If the entire Universe consists of just 2 objects, namely 2 spheres, you are maintaining that science declares it is meaningful to distinguish the idea they are orbiting around each other rather than them being stationary relative to each other. Moreover, that these 2 spheres will experience centrifugal force and all other physical laws, just as if the rest of the Universe exists. Right?? Now could I ask you if that is correct??

I have to confess that if science does indeed predict this then I have an issue with science. I submit this is incoherent and demand you philosophically justify this.

However it was my impression that relativity actually dismisses the idea of an absolute space. Yet you deny this. Do you have any links which confirm your notion that general relativity necessitates the idea of an absolute space? Or are you full of ◊◊◊◊ like everything else you spew forth?? Come on, let me know.

I really find it incredibly hard to to appreciate how incredibly stupid you are together with your sycophants such as Loki and Slimshady. I am completely dumbfounded

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
Atoms which are composed of elementary particles. All particular types of elementary particles are absolutely indistinguishable from each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Only if they are in the same quantum state. That is the whole point. Pick a hydrogen atom in your left eyebrow. Now pick a hydrogen atom in my big toe. Those are different atoms.

So describe to me how their properties differ.

Likewise the original and his duplicate have different bodies. They have different brains.

They are physically identical. Therefore they are the same. If you suggest otherwise then materialism fails.

Your consciousness is something your brain is doing.

{translation}
Consciousness is identical to physical processes.
{/translation}

Your duplicate's consciousness is something his brain is doing. Different brains -> different brain processes -> different consciousness. I honestly can not see what your conceptual problem with this is.

How do you work out there are different brain processes?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are located at different positions relative to their environments. They are subject to different interactive forces from their environment. They are subject to different random quantum influences, and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've addressed this by imagining duplication takes place in an absolutely identical environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That doesn't matter. They are still different brains, different brain processes, and different consciousness.

You complete and total stupid cretin. I'm a tad tired of explaining this to you. Are you truly too stupid to understand??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

Slim has this nailed .. please address this :



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Ian wrote) : This is quite a novel argument for materialists to employ I think, the idea that ones location determines the self!

(slimshady2357 wrote) : In your example it is the only thing left which distinguishes the two meat brains and the two rooms too!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can you explain why the phrase "totality of physical facts" would exclude "location in space/time"?

I explained above. Why the f*ck are you, and Slim, and Stimp, and others unable to understand the most basic things??

I am a tad tired of conversing with cretinous arseholes quite frankly.