Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep, that's why we need to introduce the idea of a missing vital essence to explain how organic compounds can come about. Wait, chemistry eventually figured out that they were just normal chemistry at work? OK, well then we're still missing some sort of vital essence to explain life from non-life. No wait, biology has also found how that works as part of normal everyday natural processes, and can map a continuum from inanimate through kinda-alive up to stuff that's obviously living. Well, then it must be that the magic is hiding in consciousness instead. I really feel that there's some magic out there, so it has to be somewhere. Maybe it'll fit in these gaps of our knowledge if I just twist and push on it enough.
Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.
First, let me clarify something: I applaud all efforts to explain consciousness and design conscious machines based on current conceptions of physics. I think this is an essential part of the scientific growth process. I doubt that we can just skip over it, even if there is a new paradigm waiting for us at the end of it. Maybe I will be totally shocked to find that the current conceptions are sufficient. Fine! Then let me be shocked. But for now all I can say is "good luck with that." To me you look like a kid with an umbrella standing on the edge of a roof top. I can clearly see why your efforts will end in a hard-way "learning experience," but my efforts to explain the problems don't seem to be working, so all I can really do is prepare for the aftermath.
I will, however, point out the flip-side of your quote about learning from history. The history of science is a history of major paradigm shifts. In the midst of any given paradigm, you can find lots of people who think they've really got the tiger by the tail this time. Just prior to the emergence of Relativity and quantum mechanics, you can find quotes from people saying that now, finally, we've got all of the major foundations blocks in place. "From now on we've just have to dot the i's and cross the t's." And then, within a decade or so, Relativity and QM came along. These theories amounted to major changes in our conception of what it means for something to be "physical." Given this history, I think the lesson is that you should beware of betting all of your money on a current paradigm. Personally, I see a "bridge out" sign posted on our current highway. I'm checking for alternate options. This, to me, seems like the wise thing to do. You can go ahead, if you want, to make sure that the bridge really is missing, but I'm betting that the bridge really is missing, which means that we will either need to build a bridge, or find a different route.
BTW: The breakthroughs you've mentioned are all examples of finding increasingly clever ways to explain one kind of behavior in terms of other kinds of behavior. If I were a behaviorist (e.g., BF Skinner) or an eliminativist (e.g., Dennett), then I would agree with you that all we need to do is find a better way to explain conscious behavior in terms of micro-behavior (whatever level of basic components you choose). But I've been trying (and, admittedly failing) to explain that qualia is not reducible to just behavior.
We need to identify something at the fundamental level that has the power to explain the potential for emergent qualia. All we currently have to work with are behaviors.
BTW, I know my posts are long and confusing, so in case you've lost track of some things I've previously said, I want to point out that I have given a rough, ball-park idea of how I think we might be able to proceed. Scientifically, of course, we do have to rely on behaviors - specifically, the behaviors of research subjects who make qualitative statements such as "I see red" etc., as we track down the neural correlates of this behavior. As KC points out, we do have some sciences that deal with data linked to qualitative experience - e.g., psychology, neurology, and cognitive science. Thus I would say that, in principle, we do have the basic tools necessary to solved the hard problem. But notice that (since the downfall of behaviorism in psychology and "logical positivism" in philosophy), psychologists, neuroscientists, and most cognitive scientists do not claim that qualia are "nothing but" behavior. They generally take a "correlation" approach, and the concept of "correlation" is that you find explanatory links between "things known in one way" (e.g., neural activity) to "things known in another way" (i.e., the qualitative phenomena of experience). Most scientists simply don't jump very deeply into the metaphysical debate over whether or not qualia are nothing but neural activity. Loosely speaking, most scientists will call themselves materialists, but if you read what they actually say, they talk more like property dualists.
Anyway, I'm suggesting a possible way in which the qualitative concepts of psychology, etc., could be traced down to physics assuming a scientific paradigm shift that allows the qualitative statements in psychology to be "reverse engineered" in such a way that we can find the origins of qualia in the fundamental theories of physics. What I've suggested is that a "qualitative map" based on the physical correlates of cognitive science could eventually be integrated into the rules of a "neo-quantum" type of theory. I've roughly suggested that the "measurement problem" in QM could be solved by building the potentials-for-qualia into neo-quantum models. We won't be able to do this until we have the qualitative map, but once we have a map, this reverse engineering of quantum theory may become an option.
Right now the measurement process by which a particular reality is determined from an infinite array of possibilities is, technically, outside of QM math. In other words, the QM math simply gives us no clue as to how a particular path is chosen form the statically possible paths. It is considered to be a purely random choice (within a probability distribution that depends on the experimental set-up). It is possible, however, that the quantum distributions could be skewed in the context of systems engaged in qualitative experience. We have no way to test this at the moment, but it is not untestable in principle. Thus I am not saying that science can't solve the hard problem. Rather, I'm predicting that a way to solve the hard problem is to integrate qualitative information gained with help from the macro-level (neuroscience) into the fundamental level (e.g., the QM measurement problem).
BTW: The breakthroughs you've mentioned are all examples of finding increasingly clever ways to explain one kind of behavior in terms of other kinds of behavior. If I were a behaviorist (e.g., BF Skinner) or an eliminativist (e.g., Dennett), then I would agree with you that all we need to do is find a better way to explain conscious behavior in terms of micro-behavior (whatever level of basic components you choose). But I've been trying (and, admittedly failing) to explain that qualia is not reducible to just behavior.
everything is defined by how it interacts with its surroundings ... everything. Even feelings. call them habits or characteristics. Even body parts. The trouble you are having is having an unknown as your starting point. That is what Kc has been saying. He said it a million times in a million ways.
Let me ask you gray. Is there anything that you know of that is described not using "habits"? Forget the old dead guys. And Not "if you were this" or " if you were that" just flat out ... anything?
I may have to rethink my assessment of your abstract thinking abilities Arach. KC is a lost cause.
No, I'm just not convinced by imagination. That's why your approach of thinking things are true because you saw them in a dream hasn't done much to sway my way of thinking.
Quote:
Given that 95+% of our reality is NOT currently measurable
And you've measured that 95% exactly how? Oh right, it isn't measurable, which is why you cite measurements showing how much of it there is. Or something. Guess I'd need to think more "abstractly" for that sort of "logic" to make sense.
First, let me clarify something: I applaud all efforts to explain consciousness and design conscious machines based on current conceptions of physics. I think this is an essential part of the scientific growth process. I doubt that we can just skip over it, even if there is a new paradigm waiting for us at the end of it. Maybe I will be totally shocked to find that the current conceptions are sufficient. Fine! Then let me be shocked. But for now all I can say is "good luck with that." To me you look like a kid with an umbrella standing on the edge of a roof top. I can clearly see why your efforts will end in a hard-way "learning experience," but my efforts to explain the problems don't seem to be working, so all I can really do is prepare for the aftermath.
Yeah yeah, science has such a poor track record of learning things about the natural world that it would be crazy to give it the benefit of the doubt. Pull the other one.
Quote:
I will, however, point out the flip-side of your quote about learning from history. The history of science is a history of major paradigm shifts. In the midst of any given paradigm, you can find lots of people who think they've really got the tiger by the tail this time. Just prior to the emergence of Relativity and quantum mechanics, you can find quotes from people saying that now, finally, we've got all of the major foundations blocks in place. "From now on we've just have to dot the i's and cross the t's." And then, within a decade or so, Relativity and QM came along. These theories amounted to major changes in our conception of what it means for something to be "physical." Given this history, I think the lesson is that you should beware of betting all of your money on a current paradigm. Personally, I see a "bridge out" sign posted on our current highway. I'm checking for alternate options. This, to me, seems like the wise thing to do. You can go ahead, if you want, to make sure that the bridge really is missing, but I'm betting that the bridge really is missing, which means that we will either need to build a bridge, or find a different route.
BTW: The breakthroughs you've mentioned are all examples of finding increasingly clever ways to explain one kind of behavior in terms of other kinds of behavior.
Huh? Explain how figuring out how to, say, synthesize urea has anything to do with behavior of organisms at a macroscopic level? Did you even look at the examples I gave and see how they parallel your ideas?
everything is defined by how it interacts with its surroundings ... everything. Even feelings.
I agree. And, yes, for the purposes of science, 'qualia' will need to be operationally defined in terms of their causal interactions or dispositions to interact. As I see it, this is not a problem. I've been saying that qualia are physical processes, and, as such, they causally interact with the world. Science can study them via their interactions - all is well. Science will (in the relatively near future, hopefully) model the emergence of qualia via the interactions of fundamental physical elements. Again, all is well.
But none of this implies the metaphysical thesis stating that qualia are nothing but the interactions of quantum elements as currently modeled by the theories of physics. I am willing to say that qualia are nothing but physical processes, but I think that our current concept of "physical processes" is too limited to do the job of explaining the emergence of qualitative experience. Quantum mechanics (or maybe, better yet, quantum field theory) is arguably the most powerful and most well-supported theory of physics ever invented. But the terms of the current theories are limited to the behaviors of "particles" (or "wavicles") in accordance with various laws and principles. This is fine, so far as it goes, but I'm predicting that the "laws and principle" (and possibly some definitions of the "particles") will need to be re-written in order to adequately model the emergence of conscious behavior. The re-writing will take a form that will somehow (I wish I could say exactly how, cuz then I'd be rich) incorporate the qualitative data from neuroscience/psychology into the fundamental laws.
I am NOT saying that this will necessarily open any doors to theism or psychic phenomena, or whatever - in fact, depending on how it works out, this process could finally nail the coffin shut on some of these "paranormal" or supernatural explanations. Or maybe not. We won't know until we see how the new paradigm works out. What I am reasonably confident this new approach will do, however, is give us some reasonably practical way to understand how consciousness emerged from the mud of the earth, and give us some insight into how to design conscious machines.
Huh? Explain how figuring out how to, say, synthesize urea has anything to do with behavior of organisms at a macroscopic level? Did you even look at the examples I gave and see how they parallel your ideas?
Sorry, I was using 'behavior' in the broad sense of spatio-temporal interactions - e.g., "the behavior of an electron as it approaches a proton" etc. Not in the intentional sense of an organism behaving in a goal-directed way. Thus, to speak more carefully, I should have said this: "The breakthroughs you've mentioned are all examples of finding increasingly clever ways to explain one kind of moving parts in terms of other kinds of moving parts." (e.g., the movement of atoms based on quantum rules found to explain the movements of organic compounds as they interact with each other.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 11-24-2014 at 03:26 PM..
...I can get a gut feeling that the emergence of qualia from biological processes is quite probable...
I agree, so long as we have the right concept of the physical elements and principles upon which our understanding of the biological is based.
I've said this in other threads, but it's been a long time now, so let me take this out, dust it off, and see how it goes. It's a super-duper quick and easy concept drawn from math:
Let's suppose you say that A+B=C. Does this make sense? Obviously it depends on what A, B, and C are considered to be. If A, B, and C are all expressions of miles, then it could make sense. If the units of one of the terms is in kilometers, or meters, or feet, it could still make sense because we can easily figure out the conversion factors. But what about this:
2 miles + 3 liters = 5 sharp pains in your left elbow.
One of the first lessons you learn in high school science is that you need to have logically consistent units of measurement if you want an equation to make sense. You can derive miles from kilometers because you can use a conversion factor that translates kilometers into miles. Reductive materialism is essentially the claim that a bunch of elements with units of measure like electron volts, angstroms, and cycles/second on one side of the equation = "a pain in my elbow that feels like this" on the other side of the equation.
I'm not saying that an equation like this is totally impossible. What I'm saying is that somewhere in this equation we need some conversion factors that relate things like velocity, momentum, and electron volts to qualitative sensations. Without these conversion factors, the materialist equation simply cannot make sense. Right now there are no units of measurement in quantum physics (or chemistry) that provide anything out of which to build the necessary types of conversion factors. You might find some potential units of measure in psychology or neuroscience, but if these qualitative units of measure pop out of the void somewhere between chemistry and biology, then you've got nothing much better than magic upon which to base your claims of materialism.
Some of you are insisting that the burden of proof is on me to prove that some sort of dual aspect theory is needed, which basically means that you are demanding that I prove that these conversion factors are needed. I say no, the logic is obvious: without conversion factors, your materialist program is dead in the water. The burden of proof is on you to come up with some plausible candidates for conversion factors. You don't need to be too specific; just a very general ballpark idea would be a good place to start. What I've been calling "dual aspect theory" is essentially just the acknowledgement that conversion factors from traditional physical property measurements to qualitative concepts is required. You are not going to magically force the materialist equation to work by adding more and more complicated loops and spins to the standard units of measure you currently use in physics. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to hit the road. You need conversion factors that translate electron volts, etc., into qualitative concepts, and when these conversion factors are found (and I do believe that they can be found), you will be staring straight into the heart of dual aspect theory because that's just exactly what conceptually consistent units of measurement require.
I may have to rethink my assessment of your abstract thinking abilities Arach. KC is a lost cause. Gaylen's post clearly delineates the issues that still seem to go over your heads. BTW KC . . . the limitations of our measures are what delimit our conclusions about what is involved with Life processes. Given that 95+% of our reality is NOT currently measurable . . . that makes ANY absolute proclamations using what we CAN measure exceed the label of hubris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
We have to keep the abstract thinking rooted in something real or the solution is not real. Imaginary parts are ok its just that we need to be careful. I think you agree with that. And We all have parts that we do not agree on anyway right? but I would never judge a man's heart (intentions) on what I don't understand. I base it on how they treat people that don't think like them. We disagree only on trival things I think.
I agree they seem trivial but if you really pay attention to Gaylen's excellent posts you will see they are far from trivial issues . . . in fact his last post on conversion factors really nails it very cleverly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
First, let me clarify something: I applaud all efforts to explain consciousness and design conscious machines based on current conceptions of physics. I think this is an essential part of the scientific growth process. I doubt that we can just skip over it, even if there is a new paradigm waiting for us at the end of it. Maybe I will be totally shocked to find that the current conceptions are sufficient. Fine! Then let me be shocked. But for now all I can say is "good luck with that." To me you look like a kid with an umbrella standing on the edge of a roof top. I can clearly see why your efforts will end in a hard-way "learning experience," but my efforts to explain the problems don't seem to be working, so all I can really do is prepare for the aftermath.
I will, however, point out the flip-side of your quote about learning from history. The history of science is a history of major paradigm shifts. In the midst of any given paradigm, you can find lots of people who think they've really got the tiger by the tail this time. Just prior to the emergence of Relativity and quantum mechanics, you can find quotes from people saying that now, finally, we've got all of the major foundations blocks in place. "From now on we've just have to dot the i's and cross the t's." And then, within a decade or so, Relativity and QM came along. These theories amounted to major changes in our conception of what it means for something to be "physical." Given this history, I think the lesson is that you should beware of betting all of your money on a current paradigm. Personally, I see a "bridge out" sign posted on our current highway. I'm checking for alternate options. This, to me, seems like the wise thing to do. You can go ahead, if you want, to make sure that the bridge really is missing, but I'm betting that the bridge really is missing, which means that we will either need to build a bridge, or find a different route.
BTW: The breakthroughs you've mentioned are all examples of finding increasingly clever ways to explain one kind of behavior in terms of other kinds of behavior. If I were a behaviorist (e.g., BF Skinner) or an eliminativist (e.g., Dennett), then I would agree with you that all we need to do is find a better way to explain conscious behavior in terms of micro-behavior (whatever level of basic components you choose). But I've been trying (and, admittedly failing) to explain that qualia is not reducible to just behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Yeah yeah, science has such a poor track record of learning things about the natural world that it would be crazy to give it the benefit of the doubt. Pull the other one.
cough Crackpot index cough
Huh? Explain how figuring out how to, say, synthesize urea has anything to do with behavior of organisms at a macroscopic level? Did you even look at the examples I gave and see how they parallel your ideas?
Do you even try to read and comprehend what Gaylen writes????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Sorry, I was using 'behavior' in the broad sense of spatio-temporal interactions - e.g., "the behavior of an electron as it approaches a proton" etc. Not in the intentional sense of an organism behaving in a goal-directed way. Thus, to speak more carefully, I should have said this: "The breakthroughs you've mentioned are all examples of finding increasingly clever ways to explain one kind of moving parts in terms of other kinds of moving parts." (e.g., the movement of atoms based on quantum rules found to explain the movements of organic compounds as they interact with each other.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I get the emergence analogy of wood to iron, but as an analogy it doesn't seem exact. In evolutionary terms, emergence wood -iron in the sense of basic slug -reactions to (eventually) the problem -solving of higher animals is evident, and that can be reasoned back to biochemicals, unless we deny that abiogenesis is possible.
While it is quite likely that we cannot explain the emergence of qualia other than in very general terms, I can get a gut feeling that the emergence of qualia from biological processes is quite probable; more so some some mysterious something else. I also think it quite probable that a good deal of it will be explained sooner than later, if not in description down to the nano -particle.
Very much just a gut -feeling though
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I agree, so long as we have the right concept of the physical elements and principles upon which our understanding of the biological is based.
I've said this in other threads, but it's been a long time now, so let me take this out, dust it off, and see how it goes. It's a super-duper quick and easy concept drawn from math:
Let's suppose you say that A+B=C. Does this make sense? Obviously it depends on what A, B, and C are considered to be. If A, B, and C are all expressions of miles, then it could make sense. If the units of one of the terms is in kilometers, or meters, or feet, it could still make sense because we can easily figure out the conversion factors. But what about this:
2 miles + 3 liters = 5 sharp pains in your left elbow.
One of the first lessons you learn in high school science is that you need to have logically consistent units of measurement if you want an equation to make sense. You can derive miles from kilometers because you can use a conversion factor that translates kilometers into miles. Reductive materialism is essentially the claim that a bunch of elements with units of measure like electron volts, angstroms, and cycles/second on one side of the equation = "a pain in my elbow that feels like this" on the other side of the equation.
I'm not saying that an equation like this is totally impossible. What I'm saying is that somewhere in this equation we need some conversion factors that relate things like velocity, momentum, and electron volts to qualitative sensations. Without these conversion factors, the materialist equation simply cannot make sense. Right now there are no units of measurement in quantum physics (or chemistry) that provide anything out of which to build the necessary types of conversion factors. You might find some potential units of measure in psychology or neuroscience, but if these qualitative units of measure pop out of the void somewhere between chemistry and biology, then you've got nothing much better than magic upon which to base your claims of materialism.
Some of you are insisting that the burden of proof is on me to prove that some sort of dual aspect theory is needed, which basically means that you are demanding that I prove that these conversion factors are needed. I say no, the logic is obvious: without conversion factors, your materialist program is dead in the water. The burden of proof is on you to come up with some plausible candidates for conversion factors. You don't need to be too specific; just a very general ballpark idea would be a good place to start. What I've been calling "dual aspect theory" is essentially just the acknowledgement that conversion factors from traditional physical property measurements to qualitative concepts is required. You are not going to magically force the materialist equation to work by adding more and more complicated loops and spins to the standard units of measure you currently use in physics. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to hit the road. You need conversion factors that translate electron volts, etc., into qualitative concepts, and when these conversion factors are found (and I do believe that they can be found), you will be staring straight into the heart of dual aspect theory because that's just exactly what conceptually consistent units of measurement require.
If this post does not break through the wall of incomprehension, Gaylen . . . nothing will! You are a great teacher. You seem to know what is causing the hangups in comprehension and how to cleverly illustrate the issues. It is quite a talent, my friend . . . for a heathen.
If I am right in proposing that the roots of our consciously-experienced qualia stem from primordial unconscious qualitative aspects of reality, then it seems likely that most of the qualia that we experience today can be traced back through evolution to some primitive versions that were experienced by the earliest forms of life - just as most of our most basic genetic information can be traced to early forms. Presumably at a some point, some early organisms started to discriminate colors. I would not be surprised if something in the qualitative nature of what we experience as "red" was present in these earliest of organisms. I doubt that this would have been a conscious qualitative experience at that level, but there is no reason to think that the qualitative aspect of the primitive experience wouldn't have been preserved through evolution up to the point at which this qualitative aspect of experience became conscious qualitative experience. So, if bees distinguish red from yellow, then I think it is very likely that the qualitative aspect of a bee's experience of red and yellow is probably the same as the qualitative aspect of human experiences of red and yellow - although the conscious nature of human experience would seemingly add whole new dimensions of "what it is like" to experience these colors. Of course we can't be certain of this because we know that certain traits are independently discovered by different species, and sometimes the mechanisms are different.
Once we have a qualitative map that correlates qualia with physical processes, and once we have a theory of mind that explains why a process of type X feels like Y, we should be able to resolve these issues to some reasonable level of confidence.
Yes, I like that I was chewing this matter out with a pal 'o' mine and there was this question of philosophical constructs (we has referred to Zono znd how we know it is wrong only by practical experience, and can then work out why it's wrong, and hopping frog which is philosophically quite right, but looks wrong because related to the real world of hopping frogs it would never work like that) and relating the to the real world. You may reclaa the zombie at the waterfall and how it looked to me at least, that some of the problems could not be resolved in philosophical terms, but they could in biological and evolutionary terms.
So the philosophical zombies of Chalmers may work fine in purely philosophical terms (though it still sounds like a collection of vague terms, wild leaps and non -sequiturs, but what do I know of philosophy?) but then conclusions are related back to the real world and are expected to tell us something about conscioussness as it is in our world.
Or perhaps in the Pre- Cambrian one. Undoubtedly, the first defence mechanism was detecting light and how the trilobite (originally trilobites had no eyes) felt about it could be described in almost biochemical terms. Light good, sudden dark, bad. The mutation that had the reaction to put light above and to get out of sight when a sudden shadow appeared would survive and become the new norm for the trilobite. While that line gave rise to insects eventually the mollusca developed the same defence mechanism with light sensitive blobs rather than crystal facets and that way developed the fish and round eyes.
When we get to higher animals, feelings of pleasure are probably pretty primitive. Filet steak good, pile of fresh crap even better. In fact colour is probably a rather early feature of sight since cuttlefish would not have evolved colour changing unless their prey was aware of colour.
How they feel about it is probably as basic as the triloobites. It is almost a genetically -ingained reaction to threat or advantage.
I wonder whether it's only us who have these feelings about colour, though apes seem to show some kind of emotions about things. I speculate that (like the Zombie at the waterfall, with the implication that feelings of awe are biological-evolutionary) almost all of our feelings about things and the things we feel impelled to do are biological - evolutionary in orgin, though custom and group -tradition/education modifies that. I am thinking of how different the Chinese view is of black, white, yellow and red from the western.
Of course, this is not about how qualia work or what they are, but thinking about what they do and how we use them may suggest what they are or what makes them work. It certainly suggests to me that they are rooted in individual bio-mechanism, genetically the same template as the others of the species and indeed all critters, of course, and no reason to suppose that it comes from some cosmic consciousness-field in which we all swim. Apart from the bio -star- matter we are all made of, but there I would prefer (just as I do the term 'Nature' to "God") I think physically reacting cosmos-matter (that would sound great in German) rather than consciousness -field would be less prone to misunderstanding.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-25-2014 at 04:31 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
