Radio Metaphor Argument

[Jack]

RandFan here,

Actually I'm not really here. Shhh.... don't tell anyone.

I was reading the emergence of the mind thread and came across one of my favorite arguments.

Argument: Materialism is demonstrable because damage to the brain directly affects behavior.

Rebuttal: If a radio is damaged it can affect the behavior of the radio. Yet we know that while the sound is modulated through the radio the actual signal is independent of the radio.

Counter Rebuttal: Yes but I can get another radio and play the same music.

While the counter is interesting I don't think it really answers the argument. It is just another argument. Furthermore the physics of radio waves, receivers and amplification are well understood.

The brain is not so well understood. We can't (at this time) replicate the functions of the brain to the point that it is roughly equivalent to that of humans. (If you believe that computers are currently capable of emotion, self awareness and other human abilities then please, never mind).

Let me try another approach with this argument (fools rush in, and by fools I mean me).

Of the flotsam and jetsam that we have ejected into space during our many trips into space is a radio. That radio somehow makes it way to the nearest planet where there is intelligent life. If the radio should make it then we could conclude that radio waves have also arrived.

Somehow the radio still works and the life forms that inhabit this planet find the radio and hear coming out of it sound and they conclude based on the paterns of the sounds, that the melodies and words comming from it represent communication from an intelligent source.

The life forms are uncertain if the sound coming from the radio is the sole product of the radio or if there is another source in conjunction to the radio. They devise a test. They decide that they will alter the radio to see if that alters its behavior. When they carry out the test the radio changes its behavior. Bear in mind that these life forms are unfamiliar with radio waves.

Question: Should the life forms conclude that the change in behavior demonstrates that the radio is producing the music completely on its own?

Now to see if I get my head handed to me. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Thanks everyone. My son talked me into sticking my head in and now I had to go and make a few posts. I really can't come back at this time but would love any responses.

RandFan,

Over and out.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, how in fact do we know we don't have a soul, which departs when the body (and brain) is demolished?

 

[Yahweh]

Howdy RandFan

First thing to keep in mind: Literalization of a metaphor = Strange

One problem with the Radio metaphor is the nature of "music" which represents consciousness. The Radio assumes the brain is a just a tool for which tunes external consciousness, therefore its probably not appropriate for arguing Pro-Eating Babies--err Pro-Materialism.

 

[Kerberos]

RandFan here,
Now to see if I get my head handed to me. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time.

WHAT, YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MIND CAN ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BRAIN!!!!!! YOUR ****** WOO-WOO!!!!!

On a slightly more serious note:
I don't really think that your counter argument works. The thing is that your hypothetical aliens can't really change what's coming out of the radio, they can only change the quality of the reception. This is roughly analogous to the fact that we can change peoples degree of consciousness, by giving them drugs or just by depriving them of sleep.
This is however not the limit of what we can do to the mind by affecting the brain. Brain damages can course profound changes in personality, as can some drugs. We can also make you depressed or happy by giving you the right drugs, which strongly suggests that the chemicals are the direct source of the emotion you experience. Also a blow to the head can course you to fx forget a language you knew. Could we imagine that modifying a radio could render it unable to transmit in French? Sure you can come up with some incredibly convoluted theory that would fit these facts, but Occams razor suggest that the mind is a product of the brain.

 

[EternalUniverse]

RandFan here,

Actually I'm not really here. Shhh.... don't tell anyone.

I was reading the emergence of the mind thread and came across one of my favorite arguments.

Argument: Materialism is demonstrable because damage to the brain directly affects behavior.

Rebuttal: If a radio is damaged it can affect the behavior of the radio. Yet we know that while the sound is modulated through the radio the actual signal is independent of the radio.

Counter Rebuttal: Yes but I can get another radio and play the same music.

While the counter is interesting I don't think it really answers the argument. It is just another argument. Furthermore the physics of radio waves, receivers and amplification are well understood.

The brain is not so well understood. We can't (at this time) replicate the functions of the brain to the point that it is roughly equivalent to that of humans. (If you believe that computers are currently capable of emotion, self awareness and other human abilities then please, never mind).

Let me try another approach with this argument (fools rush in, and by fools I mean me).

Of the flotsam and jetsam that we have ejected into space during our many trips into space is a radio. That radio somehow makes it way to the nearest planet where there is intelligent life. If the radio should make it then we could conclude that radio waves have also arrived.

Somehow the radio still works and the life forms that inhabit this planet find the radio and hear coming out of it sound and they conclude based on the paterns of the sounds, that the melodies and words comming from it represent communication from an intelligent source.

The life forms are uncertain if the sound coming from the radio is the sole product of the radio or if there is another source in conjunction to the radio. They devise a test. They decide that they will alter the radio to see if that alters its behavior. When they carry out the test the radio changes its behavior. Bear in mind that these life forms are unfamiliar with radio waves.

Question: Should the life forms conclude that the change in behavior demonstrates that the radio is producing the music completely on its own?

Now to see if I get my head handed to me. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Thanks everyone. My son talked me into sticking my head in and now I had to go and make a few posts. I really can't come back at this time but would love any responses.

RandFan,

Over and out.

Hello. The main problem from arguing from analogy, is that nothing new is said. The radio metaphor only acts as a description of the conclusion that it is possible that the mind is not entirely dependent on the brain. It is not offering any evidence how or why the mind and brain necessasily carries this relation. In other words, the radio methapor only acts as bringing forth the possibility, but doesn't say why the possibility is a good probability.

That being said, the radio metaphor is very interesting, and I don't think it can be explained away that easily. However, one of its problems is that it doesn't take into account the source of the signal. If the brain acts as a receiver of thoughts, then where are the thoughts transmitted from? In the radio example, we know that there are radio signal transmitters, but the brain is not a radio...until we know otherwise.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The radio analogy assumes a radio examined by people who do not know about radiowaves (why do they need to be aliens, btw?). So, what they can deduce by a superficial examinination of the radio is that what sound it emits seems to come from within the radio, to be a product of the radio itself. They wrongly see the radio as a producer of signals not as the mediator it is.

So, you ask, might it not be that our brain is not the producer of "signals" (consciousness), only the mediator?

Yes, it is possible. We cannot rule out such a possibility. However, the weakness of your metaphor is that if those people were to examine the radio in depth, to the point where they gained even a partial understanding of how the it functioned, they would soon realize that it was in fact quite unlikely that the radio was generating the signals.

In contrast, we have been exploring the human brain for quite some time now, and while we certainly do not understand it fully yet, we have gained a pretty good idea of how it works, and we have not yet found anything that indicated that it is not the source of the "signals", quite the contrary.

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

The radio analogy assumes a radio examined by people who do not know about radiowaves (why do they need to be aliens, btw?). So, what they can deduce by a superficial examinination of the radio is that what sound it emits seems to come from within the radio, to be a product of the radio itself. They wrongly see the radio as a producer of signals not as the mediator it is.

So, you ask, might it not be that our brain is not the producer of "signals" (consciousness), only the mediator?

Yes, it is possible. We cannot rule out such a possibility. However, the weakness of your metaphor is that if those people were to examine the radio in depth, to the point where they gained even a partial understanding of how the it functioned, they would soon realize that it was in fact quite unlikely that the radio was generating the signals.

In contrast, we have been exploring the human brain for quite some time now, and while we certainly do not understand it fully yet, we have gained a pretty good idea of how it works, and we have not yet found anything that indicated that it is not the source of the "signals", quite the contrary.

Hans

Yes, but when we die, where does our "life energy" go? Doesn't that sound the least bit similar to the electro-magnetic energy -- i.e., consciousness -- we call a radio signal?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Who says it goes anywhere? When your car breaks down, where does the engine power go? It just stops functining.

Hans

 

[toddjh]

Yes, but when we die, where does our "life energy" go?

What is the nature of this "life energy," and what makes you think it exists at all?

Jeremy

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, but when we die, where does our "life energy" go? Doesn't that sound the least bit similar to the electro-magnetic energy -- i.e., consciousness -- we call a radio signal?

You might call it a radio signal.. No one who understands electromagnetic radiation does...

Yes, when you turn of a radio transmitter, the waves stop being transmitted. The energy is no longer available.. It doesn't ' go ' anywhere..

When a battery goes dead, current stops flowing.. There is nothing left to ' go ' anywhere..

When you die, your brain stops working. The current stops flowing in your brain.. It doesn't ' go ' anywhere ...

P.S. There never were any brain ' waves '.. We covered this in another thread...

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, I do understand the "need" for science to deny the fact that we have a soul, otherwise we would have to "re-assess" our need for religion all over again. Heaven forbid!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, I do understand the "need" for science to deny the fact that we have a soul, otherwise we would have to "re-assess" our need for religion all over again. Heaven forbid!

Explain why it is a ' fact ' that we have a soul..


Show where science denys this fact.

 

[Ladewig]

Under this metaphor, these "radio broadcasts" that our sent to each of our brains/receivers include all experiences that fit into our memories. Therefore, everything we see, taste, smell, etc. is picked up by our brain and is transmitted back to the "home base" where our life force is stored (apparently in another dimension or space-time continuum or astral plane). Then these memories are transmitted back to our physical bodies so we can pick them up on our radio receivers (in real time) and make use of them.

I suppose it is possible, but it does seem to multiply entities needlessly.

 

[Jack]

RandFan here,

Yes I do realize that if I'm going to continue I'm going to have to get a username. My apologies, maybe later.

The radio analogy assumes a radio examined by people who do not know about radiowaves (why do they need to be aliens, btw?).

Good question. I often have problems with hypotheticals because people want to attack the premises.

"Assume for the sake of argument I could travel at the speed of light?"

"You can't travel at the speed of light."

"I know but let’s just assume..."

"You can't and since your premise is wrong..."

Since knowledge of radio waves or the absence thereof is key then aliens hopefully remove any objections to the premise.

So, what they can deduce by a superficial examination of the radio is that what sound it emits seems to come from within the radio, to be a product of the radio itself. They wrongly see the radio as a producer of signals not as the mediator it is.

So, you ask, might it not be that our brain is not the producer of "signals" (consciousness), only the mediator?

Yes, it is possible. We cannot rule out such a possibility. However, the weakness of your metaphor is that if those people were to examine the radio in depth, to the point where they gained even a partial understanding of how the it functioned, they would soon realize that it was in fact quite unlikely that the radio was generating the signals.

In contrast, we have been exploring the human brain for quite some time now, and while we certainly do not understand it fully yet, we have gained a pretty good idea of how it works, and we have not yet found anything that indicated that it is not the source of the "signals", quite the contrary.

Hans

Thanks Hans,

A great response. So it comes down to knowledge and understanding of the system in question. I don't know if I agree with you that a partial understanding would likely give them the correct answer. Neither am I certain that we understand the brain sufficiently to confidently answer the question. I will grant you however that we do understand the brain far better than my aliens understand the radio and not being a rocket surgeon I'm willing to accept your assertion that the metaphor is weak for the reasons stated.

RandFan

 

[Jack]

Re: Re: Radio Metaphor Argument

I don't really think that your counter argument works. The thing is that your hypothetical aliens can't really change what's coming out of the radio, they can only change the quality of the reception. This is roughly analogous to the fact that we can change peoples degree of consciousness, by giving them drugs or just by depriving them of sleep.
This is however not the limit of what we can do to the mind by affecting the brain. Brain damages can course profound changes in personality, as can some drugs. We can also make you depressed or happy by giving you the right drugs, which strongly suggests that the chemicals are the direct source of the emotion you experience. Also a blow to the head can course you to fx forget a language you knew. Could we imagine that modifying a radio could render it unable to transmit in French? Sure you can come up with some incredibly convoluted theory that would fit these facts, but Occams razor suggest that the mind is a product of the brain.

That being said, the radio metaphor is very interesting, and I don't think it can be explained away that easily. However, one of its problems is that it doesn't take into account the source of the signal. If the brain acts as a receiver of thoughts, then where are the thoughts transmitted from? In the radio example, we know that there are radio signal transmitters, but the brain is not a radio...until we know otherwise.

Also great responses. Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

Great thought experiment! Congratulations RF.

Lets see, I think that first off a superficial examination of the radio will not determine any thing. Unless they are a culture with knowledge of our technology they will have little reason to understand the functioning of the radio at all. It will be pure freakin magic to them. So I think that it is unlikely that they could deduce the nature of the radio from a mere superficial examination. seriously without knowledge of radio and transitors they will merely concluide that the box makes music and voices.

Question one: is the noise meaningful?
That is a harder question for the space aliens than humans. Humans are likely to recognise that there is music and voices. But why would the aliens conclude that the sound from the radio was meaningful, they might assume that it was animal in nature and just like birdsong. Or they might conclude that it was a noise generated by something like the wind. Chanes are that they will recognise that there wre patterns in the moises coming from the radio. But what would they make of that. If they were like humans 'seers' who listen to the radio and make predictions based upon the patterns of the sounds are a likely possibility. If they don't conclude that it is demonic in nature and just destroy it.

Question two: What would a superficial examination show about the radio?
Well, that orientation of the radio is likely to alter the noises that it makes. there would be the patterened sounds of the reception and the static sound that the radio can also make. So they could discover that there are two kinds of noise that the radio makes dependant on the orientation of the radio to the signal.
Second, that the juxtaposition of objects and the radio might alter the noises coming from the radio, or if they can put it under a metal bowl that no nise comes from the radio at all. So a third state for the noise is found.
Third, that there are dials or knobs on the radio that do things to the noises coming from the radio. One makes the noise start and stop, much like the metal bowl. Another makes the noise louder or softer , and another changes the nature of noise coming from the radio. In that there will be static when there is not a signal at the frequency the radio is tuned to, and dependant on wether or not there is more than one signal available they might find that there are different places on the dial/slider where different noises of a patterened nature come from the radio.
Fourth, dependant on the nature of the radio. They might find that there is a part of the radio that can be removed from the radio and that this makes the sounds start and stop, if they find the battery that is , and it is removable.
Fifth, they can find out that the knobs might or might not be removable, that an external antenna will alter the nature of the sounds. And if they have wet mucosal tounges they might find that the battery delivers a shock.

So that is what I think that a superficial examination of the radio will determine, I don't think that they will make any conclusions that there is a signal and a reciever.
Take orientation of the radio, they may conclude that the radio is angry when it makes patterned sounds and that it is happier when it makes static.
Who knows what conclusions they might reach about the tuning dial and the marks upon it.
So what conclusions can we draw in regards to the comparison to a brain?
That orientation doesn't have an effect, nor putting a metal bowl upon our heads.
There are no removable knobs or batteries in a human.
There maybe soime correlary between the tuning dial and consiousness. But I think that would be pushing the metaphor.

But the reason this is a great experiement in thoughts is this, what reason do the aliens have tro conclude that the radio is intelligent of consious in the least?

Does it behave in an intelligent or consious fashion?

Ladewig, you took the words out of my brain, further proof of transmission!

 

[Marvel Frozen]

While this argument may seem reasonable on its surface, I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. When exactly is this "consciousness" created? Does each sperm and egg have its own consciousness, or is a consciousness only created at conception? Or, perhaps all the consciousnesses already exist. How does the consciousness work with people developing as they grow? Does the consciousness grow, or is the consciousness the same, just limited by the brain? How do consciousnessess work with non-human life? Do only humans have a consciousness or do all animals? What about plants and bacterias? If only humans have a consciousness, what makes us so special? If all life has a consciousness, are there different levels of consciousness? How does this work with evolution? Did the consciousness evolve along with species? This argument leaves way too many unanswered questions.

 

[Pahansiri]

Yes, I do understand the "need" for science to deny the fact that we have a soul, otherwise we would have to "re-assess" our need for religion all over again. Heaven forbid!

Greetings Iacchus.

May I ask, what is a "soul"?

 

[Jack]

While this argument may seem reasonable on its surface, I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. When exactly is this "consciousness" created? Does each sperm and egg have its own consciousness, or is a consciousness only created at conception? Or, perhaps all the consciousnesses already exist. How does the consciousness work with people developing as they grow? Does the consciousness grow, or is the consciousness the same, just limited by the brain? How do consciousnessess work with non-human life? Do only humans have a consciousness or do all animals? What about plants and bacterias? If only humans have a consciousness, what makes us so special? If all life has a consciousness, are there different levels of consciousness? How does this work with evolution? Did the consciousness evolve along with species? This argument leaves way too many unanswered questions.

Forgive me but are you talking about the subject of this thread?

If so, then the argument is not meant to explore consciousness, the creation of consciousness, abiogenesis, natural selection, inheritability or any other scientific question or philosophical conundrum. I have intentionally avoided the use of any such terms. My only interest is with the quality of the original argument “changes to brains structure alter behavior and therefore demonstrate materialism”. The important points are “changes to structure” and “altering of behavior”.

I have presented a hypothetical. Assuming that the premises are true does the argument call into question the conventional wisdom that materialism can be proven (established [as true] with a very high probability) by altering the physical structure of the brain and observing any changes in behavior.

If you are not talking about the subject of the thread then to quote the estimable Miss. Emily Laticia, "never mind".

 

[Jack]

Great thought experiment! Congratulations RF.
So what conclusions can we draw in regards to the comparison to a brain?

That orientation doesn't have an effect, nor putting a metal bowl upon our heads.

Good point, of course the "mind" if separate from the brain might transfer data in a way that orientation or physical barriers would not affect it.

However, if the aliens put a barrier around the radio and that barrier did not physically touch (alter) the radio and it caused interference then they could conclude that something was coming from outside the radio to cause the sound.

But the reason this is a great experiement in thoughts is this, what reason do the aliens have tro conclude that the radio is intelligent of consious in the least?

Agreed but the point of my hypothetical is narrow and only addresses the question of whether the sound comes solely from the radio or something else in conjunction with the radio?

RandFan

Sorry Jack