A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[hammegk]

crosspost .. bad, bad hammegk

Apologies to Dymanic, who elsewhere is discussing cell division -- an operating "beam me up Scotty" that provides an original plus a dup.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dymanic

Consider the division of a single cell into two cells. It would be trivial to make the observation, at the outset of the process, "Here is a single cell", or, upon its completion, "Here are two cells".

At a point one-third of the way through the process, or three-quarters of the way, it would be difficult to make any such coherent statement. Does that render the entire concept 'cell division' incoherent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. And at at any point a third-person observer would always be able to identify mother(original) vs daughter(dup).

Another look at the 100/50 problem.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

And at at any point a third-person observer would always be able to identify mother(original) vs daughter(dup).

Not quite sure where to put my response to this. I could respond two different ways, each directed to the context of the thread in which it appeared. But if I did that, your responses to my responses would have to follow suit, and this would amount to our little one-on-one discussion splitting into two sub-threads, an original, and a duplicate.

So I'll respond in the other thread instead of here (this isn't a real response, even though it might be indistinguishable from one).

 

[hammegk]

....But if I did that, your responses to my responses would have to follow suit, and this would amount to our little one-on-one discussion splitting into two sub-threads, an original, and a duplicate.

So I'll respond in the other thread instead of here (this isn't a real response, even though it might be indistinguishable from one).

OK, but are you sure that dup Ian -- a "zero" mutation -- is going to examine mutation vs speciation? Hmm, actually the problem here is that "zero" mutation postulate. I'm saying that from 3rd person perspective we would always be able to differentiate original from dup. You know, speed of light, Planck, & Heisenberg for starters, from whence the 100/50 problem.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, but are you sure that dup Ian -- a "zero" mutation -- is going to examine mutation vs speciation? Hmm, actually the problem here is that "zero" mutation postulate. I'm saying that from 3rd person perspective we would always be able to differentiate original from dup. You know, speed of light, Planck, & Heisenberg for starters, from whence the 100/50 problem.

Now thats interesting hammegk, because part of the postulates discussed here is the maze, if the dupee and the dupe wander into the maze then there is no way to tell them apert.

I am not sure where the 100%/50% argument comes from, from the materialist perspective the dupee is the 100% Ian and the others are also 100% Ian, but the one that didn't materialise in the second room is the original.

Ian told us that location did not matter to the paradox. Even when some of us tried to explain the diverging Ian solution, they are both 100% Ian, with divergent futures.

Ian(N)=Ian(N*) at the moment of replication but they diverge from there.

The paradox seems to come from the ethics of the experimenter.

 

[hammegk]

The paradox seems to come from the ethics of the experimenter.

Or from TLOP -- speed of light, Heisenberg, Planck, etc.

Failing that differentiability, I agree, ethics.

 

[Titus Rivas]

Experients

Billy Joe said:

But if that "individual" is constituted by that "certain structure".......

Well, if the experient is nothing more than the structure of its mind, it really can't be an experient! In other words, if you don't accept that there is an entity which experiences its subjective experiences, rather than being equal to those experiences, you don't really accept those subjective experiences either. Because for a subjective experience we need to have a subject who undergoes that experience. There are two options:

- either we reject that there is an experient, and therefore also that there are subjective experiences. This is the kind of eliminative materialism defended by Daniel C. Dennett in his book Consciousness explained

- or we accept that there is an experient, who undergoes subjective experiences rather than being equal to those subjective experiences.

I thought that Ian was trying to show that a materialism which accepts the reality of subjectivity leads to a paradox in his thought experiment. Any other kind of materialism amounts to a type of eliminative materialism.

Titus

 

[BillyJoe]

Dancing David,

Nice succinct post.

I am not sure where the 100%/50% argument comes from......Ian told us that location did not matter to the paradox.

We have to assume that Original Ian knows all the details and implications of the situation he is in.
If he does not get duplicated, he reasons (knows) that, after the movie finishes, the probability of him being Original Ian is 100%.
If he does get duplicated, he reasons that, after the movie finishes, he is either Original Ian or Duplicate Ian with an equal probability of each. So the probability of him being Original Ian is 50%
Ian says that this change from 100% to 50% probability is a paradox that materialists need to resolve.

The paradox seems to come from the ethics of the experimenter.

Could you expand on this?
(I cannot immediately see what you mean bt this.)

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Experients

Well, if the experient is nothing more than the structure of its mind, it really can't be an experient!

(I think you mean structure of its brain)
Does it make a difference if I say "the experience is nothing more than structure and function of the brain" or "the experience is nothing more than processes in the brain?

In other words, if you don't accept that there is an entity which experiences its subjective experiences.....

In other words, an entity separate from the brain? An entity that has taken up residence in the brain? An entity that uses the brain's structure and function to its own ends?

In other words, if you don't accept that there is an entity which experiences its subjective experiences, rather than being equal to those experiences, you don't really accept those subjective experiences either. Because for a subjective experience we need to have a subject who undergoes that experience.

And why is that necessarily so?
Why is it mot possible that the processes going on inside the brain is what constitutes these experiences?
At the very least it is more parsimonious - we don' have to assume the existence of an entity separate from the brain for which we have no evidence.

There are two options:

- either we reject that there is an experient, and therefore also that there are subjective experiences. This is the kind of eliminative materialism defended by Daniel C. Dennett in his book Consciousness explained

This sounds like the p-zombie argument. Dennett specifically denies the possibility of the existence of p-zombies. He doesn't deny subjective experiences, he just rejects certain explanations for subjective experiences (such as experients as separate from brain)

- or we accept that there is an experient, who undergoes subjective experiences rather than being equal to those subjective experiences.

I still cannot see why experiences cannot just BE the brain processes. Maybe we haven't completely explained that they could be but I think we are a lot closer to that than explaining the existence of entities separate from the brain.

I thought that Ian was trying to show that a materialism which accepts the reality of subjectivity leads to a paradox in his thought experiment.

Materialism must accept subjective experiences. After all, materialists themselves have subjective experiences. It's a matter of explaining what these subjective experiences are.

Any other kind of materialism amounts to a type of eliminative materialism.

I doubt that anyone could be an eliminative materialist if this means denying the subjective experiences that we all know we have (I'm using lose language here). If eliminative materialism, however, means "eliminating the entity that is supposed to have taken up residence in my brain", then I am an eliminative materialist until proven otherwise.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Loki]

Philosophers of The Carrib-Ian : The Curse of Paradox Island.

The sun broke above the horizon, gaining it's first glimpse of the aft-deck of the Inconsistent Idealist. The pirate vessel was making good speed across the vast expanse of open ocean. First Mate Titus, a burly man with a confident swagger, approached the Wheel. "How goes it lad?" he asked the night helmsman.
"Fine sir", responded crewman Hammegk. "We've been drifting on and off course quite a bit, but hopefully we've caught the right wind at last. Well, at least I'm certain that *I* have caught a wind. Assuming that wind exists of course. And that the wind isn't 'life', whatever 'life' may be."
"Well, yes, sure. Well done" replied Titus as he turned away. He quickly made a mental note to ensure that Hammegk didn't get left alone so often in future.
A moment later the morning quiet was shattered by the sound of boot meeting door. "Look sharp lads...here comes the capt'n. And mind your tongues - he had another session with Mistress Rum last night!" laughed Titus.
All eyes turned towards the Captain's Quarters. A burst of profanity errupted from the open door, and was closely followed by the Captain himself. Captain Ian Interesting was a tallish man with a haunted look to his eyes. In another time and another place his appearance might have earned him the label "nerdy", but the glint in his eye suggested a man who'd never take a backward step. "F*ckin Idiots. I've better things to do than waste my time with twats that can't understand anything at all. Has anyone even figured out what the hell I'm saying yet? Find f*cking Paradox Island if you wish to continue the journey with me!"
An audible groan spread throught the gathered crew. "◊◊◊◊. He's still on about that stupid Paradox stuff. Why can't he just let it go" whispered one crewman.
"Capt'n, perhaps it's time to put this search for the island of Paradox to one side and get back to what we do best - contemplating!" offered Titus.
"Ah, First Mate Titus. Thank you for your opinion - you worthless piece of sea dung! And I thought the materialists were dense! But you're right in one sense. It's time to move this search to it's conclusion. Bring the Spanish Ambassador here to me."
Two crewmen hurried below decks, and emerged a few minutes later holding a gaunt shadow of a man between them. The remains of his clothing hung tattered from his emaciated frame. "Ah, Senor Win, how kind of you to join us." said the Captain. "Have you enjoyed your time in the company of Blind Mary? She has a most 'interesting' view of the world, don't you agree? Now, enough games. Tell me where to find Paradox Island, or you'll be spending another 2 weeks looked in the Black and White hold with Mary!"
"Please...no...I can't take anymore of her whining. I beg you, don't send me back there" pleaded Ambassador Win. "If I knew anything, I'd tell you. You must believe me. Paradox Island doesn't exist! How many times must I say it - you simply fail to realise the true nature of the relationship between your hopes and reality. There is no Paradox, no matter how much you wish it to be so."
"Ephiphenomenalist scum! Enough with your irrational lies!" spat First Mate Titus. "We intend to proceed, not matter what the cost."
Win shrank back from the verbal assualt, then suddenly lurched to his feet "Fools! A thousand times fools! Do you not comprehend the waters into which you wander? You enter the world of the P-Zombies with no comprehension of where it will lead you. For the last time, turn back before you lose the very minds you hold so dear!"
"Do you think we are simple children, easily frightened by your tales?" shouted Captain Interesting. "The search continues, with your aid or without. Titus, take him away. He has nothing to say that interests me."
At that instant, the lookout in the masts above cried out "sails ho!". The Captain and First Mate sprang to the port railing. Captain Interesting trained an eyeglass on the distant vessel. "Damn. It's that infernal navy frigate again. Don't they ever quit? Quick men, prepare for battle. Just remember, we're all out of facts, so load the cannons with Rhetoric."
"Capt'n" interjected Titus, "perhaps now is the time to try dumping a few barrels of Intuition overboard - it may muddy the waters just enough to allow us to escape?".
"Good idea Titus. Give the order."

On board His Majesty's Royal Navy frigate the Persistant Materialist, the sighting of the pirate ship had sent an expectant hum spread through the crew. Rear Admiral Mercutio stood near the helm, arms clasped behind his back. "Mister Anagnostopoulos, bring Her around 12 degrees if you please".
"Aye sir" replied the First Lieutenant.
"And please inform the priest and our civilian guide that I require their attendance immediately".
Minutes later, Father Slimshady and Mr BillyJoe strode up the stairs. "First, Mr BillyJoe. Thanks for for your help so far, but we need more now" said the Rear Admiral. "in particular, I need to know why Captain Interesting feels this mythical Paradox Island even exists. I believe you also were once a believer?"
"Yes, that's right your Honourableness. I be naught but a simple man, yet even I did find eventually that the Paradox is an illusion. This pirate chap is makin' the same mistake as meself!"
"So why in God's name did you ever accept it might be real?"
"If I could jump in here my lord?", offered Father Slimshady "I think you'll find that my compatriot Berkeley is largely to blame. The damn fool should've been thrown out of the ministry years ago. Anyway, I've repeatly penned letters to this Captain Interesting explaining it all. And yet he still refuses to reply. Personally, I think sunstroke or cabin-fever are very likely contributors here."
"You may be right Father. Yet my duty is clear. Mister Anagnostopoulos, ready the men to battle stations. Let's give these rogues a taste of reality in the shape of cold steel - perhaps that might enlighten them a little".

To be continued....

 

[Titus Rivas]

Sailor's Lore

Loki, thanks for the maritime epic !

BillyJoe,

Does it make a difference if I say "the experience is nothing more than structure and function of the brain" or "the experience is nothing more than processes in the brain?

Well, no, but there is a position called emergent or holist materialism which does acknowledge that experiences are undergone by an experient which is more than just the individual processes in the brain. So I thought that Ian was aiming at this position rather than eliminative materialism.

In other words, an entity separate from the brain? An entity that has taken up residence in the brain? An entity that uses the brain's structure and function to its own ends?

Well, more like a "higher level", physical entity emerging from the processes in the brain.

And why is that necessarily so?

Because without an experient, you can't speak of subjective experiences. You need an experient, even if you call that experient the brain as a whole, or a specific part of it. It's essential.

He doesn't deny subjective experiences, he just rejects certain explanations for subjective experiences (such as experients as separate from brain)

I've read the Dutch translation published soon after the original version. In the Dutch version he certainly does deny the reality of irreducible qualia. I find it hard to believe that this is just a consequence of the translation process.

Yo ho ho, and a barrel of rum!

Titus

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Sailor's Lore

Titus,

Sorry, lots of questions from this simple man

Well, no, but there is a position called emergent or holist materialism which does acknowledge that experiences are undergone by an experient which is more than just the individual processes in the brain.

More than just individual processes in the brain meaning not entirely explained in reference to these processes alone? Something extra?

Well, more like a "higher level", physical entity emerging from the processes in the brain.

Emerging only from the processes in the brain?

Because without an experient, you can't speak of subjective experiences. You need an experient, even if you call that experient the brain as a whole, or a specific part of it. It's essential.

So, is this experient the brain (or part thereof) or the brain plus something extra ?

In the Dutch version he certainly does deny the reality of irreducible qualia. I find it hard to believe that this is just a consequence of the translation process.

He denies the existence of "qualia" or "raw feels" or "phenomenal qualities" or what ever else they may be called because those using these terms are usually implying the existence of something over and above physical processes in the brain to explain them. He says that "qualia" certainly seem to exist but that our experiences are solely the result of physical processes in the brain. He does specifically rule the possibility of p-zombies.

regards,
BillyJoe.

 

[BillyJoe]

Loki,

Minutes later, Father Slimshady and Mr BillyJoe strode up the stairs. "First, Mr BillyJoe. Thanks for for your help so far.....

Aw shucks, twas nuffin

....but we need more now" said the Rear Admiral.

Um....er....more? But...er...um....

"in particular, I need to know why Captain Interesting feels this mythical Paradox Island even exists.

Because, despite his protestations, he still doesn't understand the materialist's perspective. Sometimes he sounds like he is almost there but then, no, he just can't make the leap out of his own philosophical straight-jacket. It's very frustrating. The message continues to be sent but the mind remians shackled.

I believe you also were once a believer?"

Well, let's just say I had trouble understanding what I knew must be the case for materialism to be true.

I be naught but a simple man, yet even I did find eventually that the Paradox is an illusion.

Yessir, a little mouse with a big pencil and I ain't never goin' to change that avatar. I used that big pencil until I forced them to enlighten me about my little mouse misunderstandings. Did I Win through? Yes I did.

This pirate chap is makin' the same mistake as meself!"
"So why in God's name did you ever accept it might be real?"

My God, I never did accept that. It seemed to deny materialism which I knew, by a process of elimination, just had to be true. Jesus, nothin' else makes any sense at all.

regards,
BillyJoe
(simply proud but undeserving of such a major roll in your little story)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ye gods, lads! A logic storm is upon us. Avast, ye swabs! Batten down the hatches! Splice the main brace! Haul out the definition-oil canisters and cast them overboard to calm the waters. There is not a moment to lose, lest we have naught to show for our efforts all these months at sea.

(Philosophy, she is a hard mistress.)

~~ First Lieutenant Anagnostopoulos

 

[slimshady2357]

Loki, you're hilarious!

And I like Berkeley!

(and there has been 11111 views of this thread at time of posting, just a useless fact for you )

Adam

 

[hammegk]

Huh? Whah? Did someone say something or did I dream it?

Umm, it was definitely someone else. I wish I could write like that; would prayer help????

 

[Dancing David]

Aaargh,look what breaches off the starboard aft rail, what is that approaching, it is Moby Consiousness, and Captain Interesting is sworn to kill him.

So man your solipist life boats cause it looks as though that whale has a glint in his eye for the capn'.

Hammegk: Fear not for that is using whale to prove whale!

I would like to suggest a new name for the navy frigate, most respectfuly, the Bountiful Behaviorist!

barnacle david (on the side of the frigate)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hi I'm back! Haven't had any Internet connection or TV since about noon on Thursday because workmen cut through the cable supplying my services.

 

[Interesting Ian]

A materialist doesn't see the 50% / 100% paradox.

What? None of them?? Not very intelligent are they then!

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another attempt

hammegk,

Wrong scenario.

We were discussing the scenario where Original Ian is vapourized as he is scanned and then two Duplicate Ians (Ian1 and Ian2) are created (that is to say, mechanically put together).

There is no 100%/50% problem here.

Instead we have with the amazing conclusion offered that because there are two of them (Ian1 and Ian2), materialism is false. You might as well say "here is a hydrogen atom and here is another hydrogen atom.....hey, materialism is false!"
If, according to materialism, consciousness is a physical process in a brain, then the situation with Ian1 and Ian2 is no different than the situation with the two hydrogen atoms. From the point of view of materialism, they are both pairs of physical objects differing only in complexity.

BillyJoe.

No, only if hydrogen atoms are conscious. And in my scenario original Ian wasn't destroyed.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I am not sure where the 100%/50% argument comes from......Ian told us that location did not matter to the paradox.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have to assume that Original Ian knows all the details and implications of the situation he is in.
If he does not get duplicated, he reasons (knows) that, after the movie finishes, the probability of him being Original Ian is 100%.
If he does get duplicated, he reasons that, after the movie finishes, he is either Original Ian or Duplicate Ian with an equal probability of each. So the probability of him being Original Ian is 50%
Ian says that this change from 100% to 50% probability is a paradox that materialists need to resolve.

Yes that's the gist of it.