Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Londoner » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:50 pm

Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:47 pm
Science describes colors using wavelengths etc. just fine.
But the wavelengths do not have the property of being coloured. We only say that particular wavelengths are coloured because they fall in the visible spectrum, but that is a fact about us humans, not the wavelengths. If we had different eyes (as some creatures do) then the colours that go with a particular wavelength would be different.
I don't think that Dennett, or science, or the Hard problem for that matter, has anything to do with your belief in that extra Platonic world of ideas and sensations, or something like that. Actually Dennett strongly argues against some kind of "Cartesian theater".
What a pity. I thought that we were having a sensible exchange about what Dennett had to say about 'qualia'.

If you look back, I have never expressed any personal position, only tried to explain how philosophers as different as Chalmers and Dennett understand the problem. I have thus put both sides of the argument, in the hope of explaining what the argument is about.

Never mind.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by seeds » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:38 pm

Atla wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:15 pm
Atla, I am still waiting for your answer to this question:
seeds wrote: Please explain to us what it is you believe that physics did “100 years ago” that refuted the existence of an external reality independent of us.
It seems to be at the root of your “stance” on nondualism. So I am truly curious about it.
_______

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Atla » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm

seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:38 pm
Atla wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:15 pm
Atla, I am still waiting for your answer to this question:
seeds wrote: Please explain to us what it is you believe that physics did “100 years ago” that refuted the existence of an external reality independent of us.
It seems to be at the root of your “stance” on nondualism. So I am truly curious about it.
_______
Didn't we go through that already, and that this lead to dozens of interpretations of QM? To quote myself
Atla wrote: Physics didn't refute the existence of an external reality. It refuted the idea of an observer-independent reality, which idea was a basis of science before that. So you can't study anything without interfering with it, and even your "inner conscious choices" will have effects in the "outside physical world". For example if you decide to this experiment, then this electron will be a particle, but if you decide to do that experiment, then this same electron will be a wave. So you get "different physical results".
Now this of course freaks out materialist physicists more then anything, some of them are even today in denial.

Interfering with what they study is one thing, they could live with that. But fundamentally changing the result between wave-like and particle-like behaviour is another, because the two resulting physical outcomes are just incompatible in the ordinary Newtonian worldview. And it seems to "depend" on the physicist's choice which one happens ... or which one already happened before.

But again, there are no dictates in QM, only correlations. "Observer" and "observed" always correlate, so it makes no sense to make a distinction between them. They are "one quantum system". So if you choose yourself as the QM observer, then you and the so-called external world you are observing are "one".

I'm not sure what you mean by "which" experiment. Every quantum experiment done in the last 100 years has confirmed this picture, and a third of the economy is based on quantum technology.

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Belinda » Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:48 am

Atla wrote:
Atla wrote:
Physics didn't refute the existence of an external reality. It refuted the idea of an observer-independent reality, which idea was a basis of science before that. So you can't study anything without interfering with it, and even your "inner conscious choices" will have effects in the "outside physical world". For example if you decide to this experiment, then this electron will be a particle, but if you decide to do that experiment, then this same electron will be a wave. So you get "different physical results".
Now this of course freaks out materialist physicists more then anything, some of them are even today in denial.

Interfering with what they study is one thing, they could live with that. But fundamentally changing the result between wave-like and particle-like behaviour is another, because the two resulting physical outcomes are just incompatible in the ordinary Newtonian worldview. And it seems to "depend" on the physicist's choice which one happens ... or which one already happened before.

But again, there are no dictates in QM, only correlations. "Observer" and "observed" always correlate, so it makes no sense to make a distinction between them. They are "one quantum system". So if you choose yourself as the QM observer, then you and the so-called external world you are observing are "one".

I'm not sure what you mean by "which" experiment. Every quantum experiment done in the last 100 years has confirmed this picture, and a third of the economy is based on quantum technology.
I think that what Atla means by "nondualism" is that the observer and the observed are different aspects of the same.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Atla » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:33 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:48 am
Atla wrote:
Atla wrote:
Physics didn't refute the existence of an external reality. It refuted the idea of an observer-independent reality, which idea was a basis of science before that. So you can't study anything without interfering with it, and even your "inner conscious choices" will have effects in the "outside physical world". For example if you decide to this experiment, then this electron will be a particle, but if you decide to do that experiment, then this same electron will be a wave. So you get "different physical results".
Now this of course freaks out materialist physicists more then anything, some of them are even today in denial.

Interfering with what they study is one thing, they could live with that. But fundamentally changing the result between wave-like and particle-like behaviour is another, because the two resulting physical outcomes are just incompatible in the ordinary Newtonian worldview. And it seems to "depend" on the physicist's choice which one happens ... or which one already happened before.

But again, there are no dictates in QM, only correlations. "Observer" and "observed" always correlate, so it makes no sense to make a distinction between them. They are "one quantum system". So if you choose yourself as the QM observer, then you and the so-called external world you are observing are "one".

I'm not sure what you mean by "which" experiment. Every quantum experiment done in the last 100 years has confirmed this picture, and a third of the economy is based on quantum technology.
I think that what Atla means by "nondualism" is that the observer and the observed are different aspects of the same.
Aspects, properties, substances, hard emergences.. different dressing, same error

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Belinda » Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:55 pm

Atla wrote:
Aspects, properties, substances, hard emergences.. different dressing, same error
Do you suppose that the above makes your position any clearer?

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Atla » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:11 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:55 pm
Atla wrote:
Aspects, properties, substances, hard emergences.. different dressing, same error
Do you suppose that the above makes your position any clearer?
Yes, to some people.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by seeds » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:12 pm

seeds wrote: Please explain to us what it is you believe that physics did “100 years ago” that refuted the existence of an external reality independent of us.

It seems to be at the root of your “stance” on nondualism. So I am truly curious about it.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
Didn't we go through that already...
If by going “through that already” is in reference to the unsatisfactory answer you provided earlier, then yes, I suppose we have.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...and that this lead to dozens of interpretations of QM? To quote myself

Physics didn't refute the existence of an external reality....
Let me stop you right there, Atla, because by your acknowledging the existence of an “external” reality you have just implied dualism.

Logically, in order for there to exist an “external” reality then there must be an “internal” reality as its contrasting dualistic opposite.

In addition to that, you also seem to be missing (or denying) the point that an external reality means the existence of other minds which are external and independent of your mind – minds that are unaffected by our observations of the bodies and brains that encapsulate the minds.

Yes, our observations may indeed have a physiological (quantum based) affect on our bodies and brains, but not on our minds (at least not in the way the “observer effect” is suggesting).
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...It refuted the idea of an observer-independent reality, which idea was a basis of science before that. So you can't study anything without interfering with it...
No amount of studying, observing, or measuring by science can reach into the inner sanctums of a human mind and transform the information that underpins and delineates a person’s dreams into the three-dimensional phenomena of the dreams themselves.

You are taking the refutation of an observer-independent reality a step too far.

And that is a common mistake made by all hardcore materialists who blindly assume that the human mind and its self-aware agent are of the same ontological status as that of a photon or electron (which of course is the crux of the “hard problem” debate).
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...and even your "inner conscious choices" will have effects in the "outside physical world". For example if you decide to this experiment, then this electron will be a particle, but if you decide to do that experiment, then this same electron will be a wave. So you get "different physical results".
In the example you are providing, your “inner conscious choices” had no direct affect on the outside world.

No, it was your physically grasping and manipulating of the “outer” fabric of reality into the shape of a particular measuring device that determined the results of the experiment.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
Now this of course freaks out materialist physicists more then anything, some of them are even today in denial.
I agree.

Hence the “shut up and calculate” mantra.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...there are no dictates in QM, only correlations. "Observer" and "observed" always correlate, so it makes no sense to make a distinction between them. They are "one quantum system". So if you choose yourself as the QM observer, then you and the so-called external world you are observing are "one".
The problem is, that if you remove the observer from the equation, you are still left with “something” (the waves or fields of quantum information – what Heisenberg referred to as “raw potentia”) that still exists independent of the observer.

The point being, that we (as the living corporeal observers held within the confines of this particular universe) did not (via our observations) bring into existence the initial substance that forms the basis of this universe.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "which" experiment. Every quantum experiment done in the last 100 years has confirmed this picture, and a third of the economy is based on quantum technology.
You made a highly specific statement regarding something that happened in physics “100 years ago,” in which case, I am merely trying to get you to specify what that was.

If you are talking about the double slit experiment, then just say so.

And if not, then what?
_______
Last edited by seeds on Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Atla » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:51 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:12 pm
seeds wrote: Please explain to us what it is you believe that physics did “100 years ago” that refuted the existence of an external reality independent of us.

It seems to be at the root of your “stance” on nondualism. So I am truly curious about it.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
Didn't we go through that already...
If by going “through that already” is in reference to the unsatisfactory answer you provided earlier, then yes, I suppose we have.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...and that this lead to dozens of interpretations of QM? To quote myself

Physics didn't refute the existence of an external reality....
Let me stop you right there, Atla, because by your acknowledging the existence of an “external” reality you have just implied dualism.

Logically, in order for there to exist an “external” reality then there must be an “internal” reality as its contrasting dualistic opposite.

In addition to that, you also seem to be missing (or denying) the point that an external reality means the existence of other minds which are external and independent of your mind – minds that are unaffected by our observations of the bodies and brains that encapsulate the minds.

Yes, our observations may indeed have a physiological (quantum based) affect on our bodies and brains, but not on our minds (at least not in the way the “observer effect” is suggesting).
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...It refuted the idea of an observer-independent reality, which idea was a basis of science before that. So you can't study anything without interfering with it...
No amount of studying, observing, or measuring by science can reach into the inner sanctums of a human mind and transform the information that underpins and delineates a person’s dreams into the three-dimensional phenomena of the dreams themselves.

You are taking the refutation of an observer-independent realty a step too far.

And that is a common mistake made by all hardcore materialists who blindly assume that the human mind and its self-aware agent are of the same ontological status as that of a photon or electron (which of course is the crux of the “hard problem” debate).
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...and even your "inner conscious choices" will have effects in the "outside physical world". For example if you decide to this experiment, then this electron will be a particle, but if you decide to do that experiment, then this same electron will be a wave. So you get "different physical results".
In the example you are providing, your “inner conscious choices” had no direct affect on the outside world.

No, it was your physically grasping and manipulating of the “outer” fabric of reality into the shape of a particular measuring device that determined the results of the experiment.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
Now this of course freaks out materialist physicists more then anything, some of them are even today in denial.
I agree.

Hence the “shut up and calculate” mantra.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
...there are no dictates in QM, only correlations. "Observer" and "observed" always correlate, so it makes no sense to make a distinction between them. They are "one quantum system". So if you choose yourself as the QM observer, then you and the so-called external world you are observing are "one".
The problem is, that if you remove the observer from the equation, you are still left with “something” (the waves or fields of quantum information – what Heisenberg referred to as “raw potential”) that still exists independent of the observer.

The point being, that we (as the living corporeal observers held within the confines of this particular universe) did not (via our observations) bring into existence the initial substance that forms the basis of this universe.
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "which" experiment. Every quantum experiment done in the last 100 years has confirmed this picture, and a third of the economy is based on quantum technology.
You made a highly specific statement regarding something that happened in physics “100 years ago,” in which case, I am merely trying to get you to specify what that was.

If you are talking about the double slit experiment, then just say so.

And if not, then what?
_______
We already went through these unsupported assumptions and circular reasonings once. Apparently you are the first person who knows for sure how to interpret QM.

Anyway as for observer-independent reality, how can you set up a measuring device, without "choosing" how to set it up? How is there no direct correlation?

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by seeds » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:05 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:51 pm
We already went through these unsupported assumptions and circular reasonings once.
Are you kidding me?

I have asked you several times now to support your argument for nondualism by stating which of the experiments in physics has convinced you that such is the case, and the only answer you repeatedly come back with is that we have gone through these things before.

So yes, we have gone through these things before because you never answer the highly specific question being asked of you.

Why are you so reluctant to point to and share what you believe is the 100 year old citable scientific proof that dualism is false?
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:51 pm
Apparently you are the first person who knows for sure how to interpret QM.
Yes, thank you. I am awaiting a call from the Nobel Prize folks. :P

It’s either that or a visit from the men in white coats toting a net. :D
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:51 pm
Anyway as for observer-independent reality, how can you set up a measuring device, without "choosing" how to set it up? How is there no direct correlation?
Inwardly “choosing” to look for a specific attribute of an electron has no direct affect on that which we call an electron (hence there is a fixed and permanent dualistic divide between the subjective and objective domains).

Sure, the subjective choosing represents the prerequisite and driving impetus to create a measuring device that can eventually assign a specific attribute to an electron (which I believe is the “correlation” that you are alluding to). However, and again, the choosing, in and of itself, has no direct affect on the alleged “raw potentia” from which the electron is formed.

Now before you accuse me of leaning too heavily on the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, if I were you, I would take a good hard look at your own leaning on Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation and your own belief of there being trillions of copies of yourself stretching “sideways” across a multiversal reality.

Clearly, we are both making highly speculative assumptions (guesses) based on our own biased preferences, of which we could both be wrong about.

Can we at least agree on that?

(Now how about offering up the details of that 100 year old physics experiment that turned you into a nondualist?)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Atla » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am

seeds wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:05 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:51 pm
We already went through these unsupported assumptions and circular reasonings once.
Are you kidding me?

I have asked you several times now to support your argument for nondualism by stating which of the experiments in physics has convinced you that such is the case, and the only answer you repeatedly come back with is that we have gone through these things before.

So yes, we have gone through these things before because you never answer the highly specific question being asked of you.

Why are you so reluctant to point to and share what you believe is the 100 year old citable scientific proof that dualism is false?
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:51 pm
Apparently you are the first person who knows for sure how to interpret QM.
Yes, thank you. I am awaiting a call from the Nobel Prize folks. :P

It’s either that or a visit from the men in white coats toting a net. :D
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:51 pm
Anyway as for observer-independent reality, how can you set up a measuring device, without "choosing" how to set it up? How is there no direct correlation?
Inwardly “choosing” to look for a specific attribute of an electron has no direct affect on that which we call an electron (hence there is a fixed and permanent dualistic divide between the subjective and objective domains).

Sure, the subjective choosing represents the prerequisite and driving impetus to create a measuring device that can eventually assign a specific attribute to an electron (which I believe is the “correlation” that you are alluding to). However, and again, the choosing, in and of itself, has no direct affect on the alleged “raw potentia” from which the electron is formed.

Now before you accuse me of leaning too heavily on the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, if I were you, I would take a good hard look at your own leaning on Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation and your own belief of there being trillions of copies of yourself stretching “sideways” across a mutiversal reality.

Clearly, we are both making highly speculative assumptions (guesses) based on our own biased preferences, of which we could both be wrong about.

Can we at least agree on that?

(Now how about offering up the details of that 100 year old physics experiment that turned you into a nondualist?)
_______
That was one massive strawman, as expected. Again:

1. I wrote about QM in the context of observer-independent reality, which seems to be true regardless of interpretation.
As I said, while I consider my MWI-type interpretation the only one mentioned so far that doesn't use any magical thinking or requires dualism, that's no real proof. QM doesn't prove or disprove dualism, because no one knows how to interpret QM.

You are the one who seems to think that your Neumann-Wigner type interpretation is automatically the correct one. You won't get a Nobel-prize unfortunately, you think you invented something awesome but your type of interpretation was one of the first things those physicists deeply investigated.

Also, the Copenhagen says nothing about mind, you clearly are misinterpreting things.

2. I wrote that everything in the last 100 years confirms this non-observer-independent reality. It is intrinsic to QM and no prediction of QM has ever been shown wrong.

3. You don't seem to have understood this problem with the measurement. It's not about assigning an attribute or whatever, you can't pretend this problem away.
Roughly speaking, the electron is literally either a particle, or a wave, and it seems to depend on your choice which one it is. And these two physical options aren't compatible.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by seeds » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:15 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
That was one massive strawman, as expected.
Where’s the strawman?

And if you are silly enough to suggest that my entire post is a strawman, then you will be demonstrating that you have no idea of what a strawman argument actually is.

So again, where’s the strawman?
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
Again:
1. I wrote about QM in the context of observer-independent reality, which seems to be true regardless of interpretation.
I thought that you have been arguing that reality is observer-dependent?

I am assuming that the above quote is a typo or accidental misspeak.
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
As I said, while I consider my MWI-type interpretation the only one mentioned so far that doesn't use any magical thinking...
Let’s get something straight:

Anyone who believes that there literally exists a near infinite number of copies of one’s self – copies who are each standing on a near infinite number of copies of the earth, all stretching “sideways” across a multiversal reality...

...has utterly and thoroughly forfeited the intellectual authority to accuse anyone else of being guilty of “magical” thinking.
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
QM doesn't prove or disprove dualism, because no one knows how to interpret QM.
In one of your earlier posts, you brazenly accused Londoner of being “wrong” in his dualistic thinking, wherein you then stated the following:
Atla wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:15 pm
The idea of an external reality independent of "us" was experimentally refuted in physics ~100 years ago, and in every such experiment since then.
(Underline/bolding mine.)

The dictionary definition of “refuted” is as follows:
the dictionary wrote: re•fute
verb
past tense: refuted; past participle: refuted

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false...
Clearly, to “refute” something means to “prove” something wrong.

So here you are stating that QM doesn't prove or disprove dualism, because no one knows how to interpret QM, yet at the same time you also proclaim that duality was experimentally “refuted” (proven wrong) by physics - 100 years ago.

I’m sorry Atla, but you can’t have it both ways.
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
You are the one who seems to think that your Neumann-Wigner type interpretation is automatically the correct one. You won't get a Nobel-prize unfortunately, you think you invented something awesome but your type of interpretation was one of the first things those physicists deeply investigated.

Also, the Copenhagen says nothing about mind, you clearly are misinterpreting things.
I never said that the Copenhagen Interpretation associates itself with mind. I merely mentioned Copenhagen due to my statements regarding Heisenberg’s referring to the quantum as being a kind of “potentia.”
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
2. I wrote that everything in the last 100 years confirms this non-observer-independent reality.
Yeah, you keep saying that, yet you refuse to provide one citable example of an experiment that supports your claim.

The ironic aspect of this whole debate is that I actually agree with you that the “phenomenal reality” of this universe (i.e., the manifestation of three-dimensional objects appearing in a spatial dimension) is indeed observer-dependent...

...(something that has been tentatively verified by physics in the way you’ve been asserting it to be).

However, I just don’t believe that you can regard life, mind, and consciousness as being scientifically “measureable” in the same way that quarks, electrons, and photons are measureable.

In other words, mind and matter seem to have their own unique ontological makeup and structure and are therefore not coequally subject to the same blanket theories that are obviously slanted toward pure materialism.

And unless we are crossing over into the Spinozan concept of an ultimate “oneness” substance, then they simply do not belong in the same category together...

...(hence the argument for duality – at least in that particular context).
_______

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Atla » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:33 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:15 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
That was one massive strawman, as expected.
Where’s the strawman?

And if you are silly enough to suggest that my entire post is a strawman, then you will be demonstrating that you have no idea of what a strawman argument actually is.

So again, where’s the strawman?
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
Again:
1. I wrote about QM in the context of observer-independent reality, which seems to be true regardless of interpretation.
I thought that you have been arguing that reality is observer-dependent?

I am assuming that the above quote is a typo or accidental misspeak.
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
As I said, while I consider my MWI-type interpretation the only one mentioned so far that doesn't use any magical thinking...
Let’s get something straight:

Anyone who believes that there literally exists a near infinite number of copies of one’s self – copies who are each standing on a near infinite number of copies of the earth, all stretching “sideways” across a multiversal reality...

...has utterly and thoroughly forfeited the intellectual authority to accuse anyone else of being guilty of “magical” thinking.
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
QM doesn't prove or disprove dualism, because no one knows how to interpret QM.
In one of your earlier posts, you brazenly accused Londoner of being “wrong” in his dualistic thinking, wherein you then stated the following:
Atla wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:15 pm
The idea of an external reality independent of "us" was experimentally refuted in physics ~100 years ago, and in every such experiment since then.
(Underline/bolding mine.)

The dictionary definition of “refuted” is as follows:
the dictionary wrote: re•fute
verb
past tense: refuted; past participle: refuted

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false...
Clearly, to “refute” something means to “prove” something wrong.

So here you are stating that QM doesn't prove or disprove dualism, because no one knows how to interpret QM, yet at the same time you also proclaim that duality was experimentally “refuted” (proven wrong) by physics - 100 years ago.

I’m sorry Atla, but you can’t have it both ways.
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
You are the one who seems to think that your Neumann-Wigner type interpretation is automatically the correct one. You won't get a Nobel-prize unfortunately, you think you invented something awesome but your type of interpretation was one of the first things those physicists deeply investigated.

Also, the Copenhagen says nothing about mind, you clearly are misinterpreting things.
I never said that the Copenhagen Interpretation associates itself with mind. I merely mentioned Copenhagen due to my statements regarding Heisenberg’s referring to the quantum as being a kind of “potentia.”
Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
2. I wrote that everything in the last 100 years confirms this non-observer-independent reality.
Yeah, you keep saying that, yet you refuse to provide one citable example of an experiment that supports your claim.

The ironic aspect of this whole debate is that I actually agree with you that the “phenomenal reality” of this universe (i.e., the manifestation of three-dimensional objects appearing in a spatial dimension) is indeed observer-dependent...

...(something that has been tentatively verified by physics in the way you’ve been asserting it to be).

However, I just don’t believe that you can regard life, mind, and consciousness as being scientifically “measureable” in the same way that quarks, electrons, and photons are measureable.

In other words, mind and matter seem to have their own unique ontological makeup and structure and are therefore not coequally subject to the same blanket theories that are obviously slanted toward pure materialism.

And unless we are crossing over into the Spinozan concept of an ultimate “oneness” substance, then they simply do not belong in the same category together...

...(hence the argument for duality – at least in that particular context).
_______
I never said that duality was refuted by QM, so it's all a strawman. I stated before that in my opinion QM tells us that reality is either dual or multiversal or both.

You also don't understand at all why a multiverse isn't magical thinking. You also pretty much don't know anything about QM or neuroscience or psychology.

I wonder, why are you trying to argue with me? All I see is that you don't know anything, nor do you want to, you just want a belief that makes you feel special. I don't care about that.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:17 am

Alexanderk wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:08 pm
"Suppose that there be a machine,the structure of which produces thinking,feeling and perceiving; imagine this machine enlarged but preserving the same proportions, so that you could enter it as if it were a mill. This being supposed, you might visit its inside; but what would you observe there? Nothing but parts which push and move each other , and never anything that could explain perception."
Leibniz,Monadology, sect.17

"I think (Jonathan Shear) Leibniz's point applies not only to phenomenal experience but to many of the things whose explanation poses, according to Chalmers, only "easy" problems. I (Jonathan Shear) will confine my remarks in this paper to phenomenal experience, but if I am right, they apply to a much broader range of phenomena."

"Our skulls house machines of the sort Leibniz supposes. Although we nowadays liken the brain more often to a computer than to a mill, his point remains. If we could wander about in the brain (a la the movie Fantastic Voyage), we could measure electrical impulses rushing along axons and dendrites, ride neurotransmitters across synapses, and observe all the quotidian commerce of neurobiological life. We still would have no clue why those physical events produce the experience of tasting chocolate, of hearing a minor chord, of seeing blue.David Chalmers calls the problem of explaining why physical processes give rise to conscious phenomenal experience the "hard problem of consciousness"."

-Jonathan Shear, Explaining Consciousness:The Hard Problem

I would like you to express your own opinion on this subject.
Yes, it's so simple to see that the Hard Problem exists, but I have been arguing for a long time with Physicalists who say that there is no such thing as Consciousness in the first place so the Hard Problem doesn't exist. They say Consiousness is an Illusion. They say the Hard Problem is therefore solved and we don't need to think about it anymore. It was refreshing to read your post.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta » Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:54 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:17 am
Alexanderk wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:08 pm
"Suppose that there be a machine,the structure of which produces thinking,feeling and perceiving; imagine this machine enlarged but preserving the same proportions, so that you could enter it as if it were a mill. This being supposed, you might visit its inside; but what would you observe there? Nothing but parts which push and move each other , and never anything that could explain perception."
Leibniz,Monadology, sect.17

"I think (Jonathan Shear) Leibniz's point applies not only to phenomenal experience but to many of the things whose explanation poses, according to Chalmers, only "easy" problems. I (Jonathan Shear) will confine my remarks in this paper to phenomenal experience, but if I am right, they apply to a much broader range of phenomena."

"Our skulls house machines of the sort Leibniz supposes. Although we nowadays liken the brain more often to a computer than to a mill, his point remains. If we could wander about in the brain (a la the movie Fantastic Voyage), we could measure electrical impulses rushing along axons and dendrites, ride neurotransmitters across synapses, and observe all the quotidian commerce of neurobiological life. We still would have no clue why those physical events produce the experience of tasting chocolate, of hearing a minor chord, of seeing blue.David Chalmers calls the problem of explaining why physical processes give rise to conscious phenomenal experience the "hard problem of consciousness"."

-Jonathan Shear, Explaining Consciousness:The Hard Problem

I would like you to express your own opinion on this subject.
Yes, it's so simple to see that the Hard Problem exists, but I have been arguing for a long time with Physicalists who say that there is no such thing as Consciousness in the first place so the Hard Problem doesn't exist. They say Consiousness is an Illusion. They say the Hard Problem is therefore solved and we don't need to think about it anymore. It was refreshing to read your post.
I have been checking a line of thought that consciousness comes in layers of control.

First is basic uncontrolled responses that are chemically or mechanically based - that of simple creatures. Then there is the capacity to control responses, deferring rewards and strategising. Then there is the human layer, where we control our controls - rather than just gaining experience to improve our responses like other animals, we have the capacity to shape or change our natural responses. This makes us much more adaptable than other species; when conditions change, if their conditioned responses aren't enough, then they die out. Human, on the other hand, can shape their responses to suit the situation. Just as animals with the ability to strategise had an advantage over simpler animals, humans have an advantage due to their ability to shape and change their strategies, and create new ones.

It's early days yet, so my ideas above are not yet clearly developed - they are still a bit garbly but hopefully not impenetrably so.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest