White Cat Experiment

[Humphreys]

Not by "us" they aren't and by that I mean through our 5 (or 58 ) senses.

This is why I say "in theory". We couldn't directly observe things like bacteria at one time, but now we can, so bacteria would be thought of as directly observable, in theory. They occupy space, have size and shape, and so on.

Are you saying you can directly observe say magnetism? That is something most of us seem to accept exists but there is no way we can observe “it” directly.

I don't know about magnetism - whether it's supposed to be directly observable in theory (maybe someone on here with more knowledge than me can answer this), but gravity waves for example, as far as I know, are thought to be made up of gravitons, which travel through space at a certain speed, are very, very small, but still have a size, and are clearly material things.

So, I can't see why, with the right tools perhaps, they would not be able to be directly observed. Perhaps some more advanced species out there somewhere has already done this.

Just depends on how you define "directly"?

I would say your own consciousness is experienced rather than observed, and anyone else's consciousness is not observable; empirically, directly, and maybe even indirectly.

 

[Darat]

This is why I say "in theory". We couldn't directly observe things like bacteria at one time, but now we can, so bacteria would be thought of as directly observable, in theory. They occupy space, have size and shape, and so on.

But not by the naked eye (generally and lets keep the example simple and talk about single bacteria), it requires an intermediate stage, now granted for bacteria it is only magnification however our "direct" knowledge of bacteria is still mediated through a device.

I don't know about magnetism - whether it's supposed to be directly observable in theory (maybe someone on here with more knowledge than me can answer this), but gravity waves for example, as far as I know, are thought to be made up of gravitons, which travel through space at a certain speed, are very, very small, but still have a size, and are clearly material things.

But we would still have no way to directly observe them, yes we might be able to create an instrument (actually we already think we can and have created them) that can detect the effect of gravity waves but we will never be able to directly experience them. Yet few of us would doubt "gravity" (e.g. we fall over and hit the ground).

So, I can't see why, with the right tools perhaps, they would not be able to be directly observed. Perhaps some more advanced species out there somewhere has already done this.

I would say your own consciousness is experienced rather than observed, and anyone else's consciousness is not observable; empirically, directly, and maybe even indirectly.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. Let's double check - what do you mean by "directly" observe?

My use of “directly observe” means seeing, touching, tasting and so on (our "standard" senses). So for me we can never directly observe a single electron, or a magnetic field, these are immaterial if you like to the senses, yet I doubt few would say they don’t exist.

For me the assumption of other people having conscious experiences appears no more strange or fantastical as assuming magnetism exists, both are “immaterial” to our sense yet we can observe the effect they have.

 

[Humphreys]

Darat, I think we have been talking at cross purposes too, and this discussion is a little muddled.

This was originally about my stating that consciousness is fundamentally different to any material thing in existence, because it isn't directly observable, even in theory.

What I mean by this is, it's impossible to see using any tools, and it won't ever be seen by use of any future tools, because, unlike any material thing out there, it isn't something that is in any way observable. You can experience your own consciousness, and you can infer that others also experience their own consciousness, but you will never observe anyone else's experiences, because they are private.

Even with something like gravity it is thought you can break it down further and further until you find the stuff the gravity waves are made of (gravitons), and using tools (that don't exist yet), we could probably observe these gravitons.

I'm saying we obviously can't do this with consciousness, because it is a fundamentally different thing.

That white cat you picture in your head exists, but it isn't made of anything, is it, and it doesn't occupy space, and it isn't located anywhere in space; it just is.

In a nutshell, because consciousness is so fundamentally different to anything else out there, I'll never be able to know for sure whether you're actually conscious, however, in the forseeable future, we may well be able to, using the right tools, empirically observe the existence of gravity waves.

 

[Filip Sandor]

The stuff on the paper is identical no matter who looks at it, but their interpretation is not.

Do you agree that this applies to any physical structure or only certain ones?

 

[Filip Sandor]

What do you mean by "only one code-bearing structure"? Which is that?? Every individual brain is a code-bearing structure, and we have no reason to believe that any two are exactly alike. Certainly no two human brains have exactly the same coding.

I thought we were talking about images being stored inside a computer. Are we talking about the brain now? Please make up your mind and get back to me.

 

[Roboramma]

Do you agree that this applies to any physical structure or only certain ones?

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but if you mean "is it true that any phsyical stucture is identical no matter who is looking at it, but their interpretation of it may not be." Then I'd say, yes.
Now when we talk about writing and language it's the way that we interpret it that is meaningful. The reason is that when a number of people agree to interpret it in the same way it becomes possible for them to use language to communicate. But for other physical objects the interpretation certainly isn't nexessarily the important part.

I'll also point out that alot of things do have the same interpretations by most people. We can agree that blood is red and that my bowl of fish curry is spicy and that fire is hot.
Now language is something where we've arbitrarily asigned meaning to different symbols and it's only because we've all learned that same arbirtrary connection that we can use it to communicate.
But because of that, it's no surprise that someone who doesn't speak your langauge won't be able to make sense out of it.

PS had a little spare time...

 

[Roboramma]

This was originally about my stating that consciousness is fundamentally different to any material thing in existence, because it isn't directly observable, even in theory.

You know, I've been thinking about it, and my example of the rock probably wasn't a very good one. What can I say, my fingers are faster than my brain sometimes.

But I'd still like to make a point about this. As Darat and Hans have pointed out, there are some things out there that we beleive we know that aren't based on direct observation.
For example, you can look at an apple falling from a tree and you can see that it is falling. But that doesn't tell you why it fell.
Now, we have a theory about this. It's a pretty good theory. It explains alot of different things that we do dirrectly observe. But how do we know it's true?
Well, it's supported by all the evidence. It's capable of making predictions about the things we observe. It's falsifiable (there are possible observations that would contradict it - they've just never happened - yet)
But you can't dirrectly observe it.
Even if we could see a graviton, we wouldn't be directly observing it causing the apple to fall. We'd be seeing something that our theory says is the cause, that all the evidence points to being the cause, but and it would make sense for us to beleive that it's the cause, but we're not directly observing it to be the cause of the apple falling.

Conciousness is the same. We can't directly observe it, but we can see alot of evidence of it.

Now, I'd like to give one more example. This one is maybe a little extreme, but so it goes:
How do you see anything? Light from some source bounces off that thing and hits your eye. Well, as it happens alot of light is constantly hitting your eye. All your eye recieves is a patern of light. How does it make sense of it?
It doesn't, your brain does that. It looks at the paterns of light and infers that it's bounced off objects to get there. It uses the discrepancy between what one eye sees and the other to infer distance. This is the most likely cause of the light that's hitting your eyes. And your brain infers that this is actually how it happened.
But sometimes that's not the case. When you go to see a movie, light hits your eyes in a patern that you brain interprets as being people moving around and interacting with objects, but really it's just light from a projector bouncing off a screen. Now a movie isn't a perfect illusion, but in theory one could be made. Then you would truly "see" things which aren't there.

What I'm trying to get at is that even seeing something means infering (just unconciously in this case) that what you're seeing is actually there. It happens to be a good inference because based on all the available evidence it's the most parsimonious, but it's still an inference just the same.

And I think that the inference that other people are concious falls under the same category. it might not be on quite as firm ground as that what you see is real, but it is based on the same argument.

 

[Roboramma]

Roboramma and RanFan, in your car and flight example, I would argue that we aren't gaining anything. All we are doing in accumulating already existing properties of matter, and arranging them in such a way that the laws of physics will take over to make an object act in a particular way.

Yes, that's right, and I'd argue the same is happening with conciousess. Just as in no way will a peice of steel drive off on it's own, suddenly take flight, a pool of water won't feel pain if put in a pot and boiled. But assemble matter in the right way, and it will have those properties.
If conciousness is just the accumlation of all the little bits of conciousness in the matter making us up, why does the configuration of that matter... matter
I mean, if everything can feel already, at least a little bit, and we're just putting together all those little bits of feeling, why should it matter how we put it together. No matter how you put together a pound of stuff it still weighs 1 pound.

For example, in your flight example, a plane needs to have wings. Wings are made from an accumulation of matter. Wings need to have width. Therefore, matter needs to have width. If the smallest piece of material in existence, which made up all other pieces of material, had a width and height of 0, then you'd never be able to create anything, because nothing in existence would have any width or height.

Not necessarily. Imagine the universe was made up of particles with 0 volume. 0 height, 0 width and 0 length. Now, imagine that two of these particles are conected by a number of forces that keep them a certain distance from each other. Imagine that a large number of these pairs develop, and that when they interact they can form bonds that keep them some distance from each other. Suddenly you've got an object, made up mostly of empty space, yes, that is made up of particles with 0 width, but which itself has width.
And you know that's pretty well the way our world works. I'm not sure that I can claim that fundamental particles have 0 volume, or the grander claim that they are just points, but if they were that would not change the fact that matter is mostly made up of empty space and the forces that keep it in place.

 

[Humphreys]

You know, I've been thinking about it, and my example of the rock probably wasn't a very good one. What can I say, my fingers are faster than my brain sometimes.

But I'd still like to make a point about this. As Darat and Hans have pointed out, there are some things out there that we beleive we know that aren't based on direct observation.
For example, you can look at an apple falling from a tree and you can see that it is falling. But that doesn't tell you why it fell.
Now, we have a theory about this. It's a pretty good theory. It explains alot of different things that we do dirrectly observe. But how do we know it's true?
Well, it's supported by all the evidence. It's capable of making predictions about the things we observe. It's falsifiable (there are possible observations that would contradict it - they've just never happened - yet)
But you can't dirrectly observe it.
Even if we could see a graviton, we wouldn't be directly observing it causing the apple to fall. We'd be seeing something that our theory says is the cause, that all the evidence points to being the cause, but and it would make sense for us to beleive that it's the cause, but we're not directly observing it to be the cause of the apple falling.

Conciousness is the same. We can't directly observe it, but we can see alot of evidence of it.

*snip*

...And I think that the inference that other people are concious falls under the same category. it might not be on quite as firm ground as that what you see is real, but it is based on the same argument.

I think there's a difference between these examples and the existence of other people's consciousness, Roboramma.

Take gravity as an example. We use the theory of gravity to explain some observations about the Universe that need explaining - why things fall towards the ground, for instance. However, positing the existence of consciousness in others seems unnecessary to me. I think I could fully explain your behaviour without positing some magical consciousness thingy which I don't even understand properly - and in the future, we'll probably validate this by making machines that seem indistinguishable from a human.

We are using the idea of consciousness to fill a gap that doesn't necessarily need filling, and that's the difference between this and the gravity example.

But I want to get away from this area of the discussion, because I think some people have misunderstood what I was saying somewhere. I agree with you that it is most likely all humans are conscious.

My main point was not that we don't have good reason to think consciousness exists in others, but that consciousness is fundamentally different to any of these other examples you are giving me - like gravity and air. Although in these cases we currently only observe their existence indirectly, just as with consciousness, the fact is it is within the realms of possibility that someone, somewhere, at some time in the future could get the right tools to actually see these things. As I said before, they occupy space, they have size and shape, and they are made up of material stuff - in the case of gravity, gravitons, and in that way they differ from the white cat you picture in your mind, which as far as I can see exists, but is made up of nothingness, and located nowhere.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but if you mean "is it true that any phsyical stucture is identical no matter who is looking at it, but their interpretation of it may not be." Then I'd say, yes.

Of course you would, it's the only thing that makes sense! Now maybe you can answer this simple question then: Based on the fact that two or more people might genuinely believe that a differenct code exists within the same physical structure, what part of the physical structure is it that allows itself to be multiple things at one time?

 

[Humphreys]

Yes, that's right, and I'd argue the same is happening with conciousess. Just as in no way will a peice of steel drive off on it's own, suddenly take flight, a pool of water won't feel pain if put in a pot and boiled. But assemble matter in the right way, and it will have those properties.

Flight isn't a property though, it's a description, same with driving.
You haven't gained flight, or driving, you just have a new, bigger piece of material which acts in a different way.

If you were to add lots of bits of material together that weigh 0, and end up with a final product that weighs more than 0, then I'd be impressed, because you would have gained something, just as happens with consciousness, supposedly.

If conciousness is just the accumlation of all the little bits of conciousness in the matter making us up, why does the configuration of that matter... matter
I mean, if everything can feel already, at least a little bit, and we're just putting together all those little bits of feeling, why should it matter how we put it together. No matter how you put together a pound of stuff it still weighs 1 pound.

I would argue that it wouldn't matter. What use is feeling without intelligence? Let's say that every piece of material in existence has feeling, and when accumulated, feeling also accumulates. Would we be able to tell if a large rock felt anything when we threw it? Without intelligence to go with it, that feeling would be meaningless to the rock, and unobservable to us, because the rock would still essentially be dead.

I'm not saying rocks have feeling, by the way, it'd be more likely that only certain materials contain some semblance of feeling to me, like brain stuff, and that amount of feeling would be so miniscule as to be unnoticeable, unless accumulated to a large degree.

Just like your chair is constantly in motion, the things that make up your chair are constantly moving, that movement is invisible to the naked eye. So might feeling be in other substances.

This brings me to another point though. Up until now you have been saying that feeling is essentially the same as gravity, because we can only observe it indirectly. If we imagine feeling in an inanimate object though, like a rock, the ability to observe its existence even indirectly becomes impossible. Because feeling is clearly not a material thing, we could have no possible way of knowing whether a rock has feeling.

How could we feasibly, even in future, come to know or even guess whether a rock has feeling? We can't, because feeling isn't observable, empirically, directly, and in some cases, even indirectly.

Not necessarily. Imagine the universe was made up of particles with 0 volume. 0 height, 0 width and 0 length. Now, imagine that two of these particles are conected by a number of forces that keep them a certain distance from each other. Imagine that a large number of these pairs develop, and that when they interact they can form bonds that keep them some distance from each other. Suddenly you've got an object, made up mostly of empty space, yes, that is made up of particles with 0 width, but which itself has width.
And you know that's pretty well the way our world works. I'm not sure that I can claim that fundamental particles have 0 volume, or the grander claim that they are just points, but if they were that would not change the fact that matter is mostly made up of empty space and the forces that keep it in place.

I don't understand this to be honest. How could matter interact, and collide, or be observable, if it is made up purely of bits that are 0 in size?

They would essentially not exist, right?

 

[Filip Sandor]

Now when we talk about writing and language it's the way that we interpret it that is meaningful. The reason is that when a number of people agree to interpret it in the same way it becomes possible for them to use language to communicate. But for other physical objects the interpretation certainly isn't nexessarily the important part.

So you're saying there are certain parts of the whole physical process that might be more important than others? That's something I've thought about before too, in fact it's something I'm still thinking about today. It's interesting how within a physical Universe, there exists this... "sub-physical, non-temporal" realm for lack of a better term that manifests itself and interacts with the changing physical Universe. Very interesting indeed.

I'll also point out that alot of things do have the same interpretations by most people. We can agree that blood is red and that my bowl of fish curry is spicy and that fire is hot.
Now language is something where we've arbitrarily asigned meaning to different symbols and it's only because we've all learned that same arbirtrary connection that we can use it to communicate.

Yes it does seem on some level arbitrary, the way we connect things in our minds. One could easily say that although the nature of logic itself may be unchanging it does seem that it's nature is indeed arbitrary. However, in my opinion, it is enough that it works for the simple reason that it does not really contradict itself in any way, rather I think it emphasizes a sort of "control" over how things are.

But of course that's not really relevant to this discussion, since the point is becoming more visible now. Matter and information are definately separate things and there are other things separate from them that interact as well (ie. people). Things don't always seem logical to us, but most of us know deep down inside that it all has to make sense, which is why we search for the truth and negate false information. There is certainly a purpose or a 'point' to life I think and all these little things that go with it that we don't understand.

I guess the whole reason I'm trying to prove that non-physical phemomena exists is because it brings us more in touch with something that seems more tangible ... and so changeable so that we don't feel restricted and caged in by what some might call the "evolutionary pressures" in life and that is something I really wish we could all do a little easier.

P.S. It's nice to have spare time too.

 

[Roboramma]

Now maybe you can answer this simple question then: Based on the fact that two or more people might genuinely believe that a differenct code exists within the same physical structure, what part of the physical structure is it that allows itself to be multiple things at one time? [/B]

Simple, they don't beleive a different code exists within the same physical structure, they each apply a different code to that same physical structure.
The code doesn't exist outside of them. The code is the way their brain interprets that physical structure (whether it be words on a page or sounds entering their ears). What may exist is a patern within that physical structure that has meaning when a particular code is applied to it. But in that case it's unlikely that both people's codes will find the same meaning, or in fact that both with find any meaning at all in the same physical structure.

 

[Roboramma]

I think there's a difference between these examples and the existence of other people's consciousness, Roboramma.

Take gravity as an example. We use the theory of gravity to explain some observations about the Universe that need explaining - why things fall towards the ground, for instance. However, positing the existence of consciousness in others seems unnecessary to me. I think I could fully explain your behaviour without positing some magical consciousness thingy which I don't even understand properly - and in the future, we'll probably validate this by making machines that seem indistinguishable from a human.

Hm.. I like what you say about parsimony here, but I don't agree with it. Here's why. While positing the existence of conciousness in others would seem to be an unnecessary hypothesis, that's only the case until you recognise your own conciousness.
Knowing that you are concious and that there is nothing to distinguish you from them, and all those other evidences that the same processes are going on as relates to your conciousness as to their apparent conciousness, the most parsimonious explanation seems to be that they are the same as you.
Also, as relates to machines indistinguishable from humans, I'd say that if they were built to have the physical processes that lead to conciousness, then they would be concious.

I'll say more about the rest of your post tomorrow...

 

[Humphreys]

Hm.. I like what you say about parsimony here, but I don't agree with it. Here's why. While positing the existence of conciousness in others would seem to be an unnecessary hypothesis, that's only the case until you recognise your own conciousness.

Yes, I would agree that Occam's Razor should lead us to believe that others are conscious. I also believe that all humans are conscious, and animals too.

I was really just pointing out another way I see consciousness as being different to material things, like gravity.

 

[Ossai]

Filip Sandor

That's funny cause I honestly didn't think you were following the thread that closely, but I already refuted the "computer has images encoded in it" theory. See my last response to Darat.

No, you exposed your ignorance in your last response to Darat.

Imagining a ‘white cat’ is not a phenomenon for which there is no valid physical theory.

I’m still waiting on you to state your hypothesis and provide even a bit of evidence or observation.

I’ll play catch-up on the rest of the thread later.

Ossai

 

[Filip Sandor]

Filip Sandor
No, you exposed your ignorance in your last response to Darat.

Imagining a ‘white cat’ is not a phenomenon for which there is no valid physical theory.

I’m still waiting on you to state your hypothesis and provide even a bit of evidence or observation.

I’ll play catch-up on the rest of the thread later.

Ossai

I like how you try and insult me and then just re-state your opinion without any proof in your posts. It shows how smart you really are.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Simple, they don't beleive a different code exists within the same physical structure, they each apply a different code to that same physical structure.
The code doesn't exist outside of them. The code is the way their brain interprets that physical structure (whether it be words on a page or sounds entering their ears).

Exactly my point - I don't know why people are having such a hard time with this.

 

[Roboramma]

Exactly my point - I don't know why people are having such a hard time with this.

You know, I think I just realised what your point is! After reading this post I went back to the original one, and suddenly I realised I'm been misinterpreting what you're saying all along.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying:
A computer is a physical system that we say uses a code to deal with physical structure.
Written langauge is a physical system that we say uses a code to deal with physical structure.
The code of the written language isn't inherent in the paper and ink and therefore must exist 'outside' of it.

I think that's the point you're trying to make.
Here's my take on this, however:
A computer is capable of analysing 1's and 0's, putting that imput through it's hardware which has a specific way of dealing with it. This process is where any meaning from those 1's and 0's comes from. What I mean by meaning is that you might see a white cat on a computer scren. You wouldn't see the white cat in the series of binary digits, nor would a computer functioning with a different hardware with different rules.
Our brains are capable of analysing words and letters on a page, putting that imput through it's 'hardware' which has a specific way of dealing with it. This is where the meaning of those words comes from. Someone else who doesn't speak the language won't see the same meaning in it, or probably any meaning at all.

What I'm trying to say is that the brain-paper system is analgous to the computer-program system. Not the paper by itself. That is analogous to a disk with the program on it. It means nothing without the computer to interpret it's meaning.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, I would agree that Occam's Razor should lead us to believe that others are conscious. I also believe that all humans are conscious, and animals too.

I was really just pointing out another way I see consciousness as being different to material things, like gravity.

That's fair. I think the point that we disagreed about is that I was trying to say that our reasons for beleiving in gravity are similar to our reasons for beleiving in consciousness.
But I think you have a point to this extent: minus the knowledge that I have consciousness, do I really have any evidence that this thing exists? I don't think so. I think it's the fact that we know we have consciousness, and then all these other peices of evidence fit with that being shared by others (human and animal). But the key peice of knowledge is our own consciousness.
And so, because we're relying on our own experience of consciousness, it sort of seems like a cheat, whereas our understanding of gravity comes entirely from things outside of us.
However, I still think that we do have that knowledge about our own consciousness and thus can't ignore it when trying to understand the rest of the world.

But, anyway, I'm willing to just agree to disagree about this one.