Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:32 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:56 pm?? Reification is a type of projection. It's positing something that only exists as a mental phenomenon--like meaning, or concepts, or desires--as something that exists in the external/objective world.

As I frequently point out, in my view any given word is pretty much meaningless without some context. Reification is different things in different fields, but the general theme is modelling. In science it is a fallacy to argue that because a model has instrumental value, it is therefore correct. The equivalent fallacy understood in philosophical terms is to argue that because a narrative is coherent, it is therefore true.

This is what I'm talking about, which should have been clear to you from the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:39 pmThis is what I'm talking about, which should have been clear to you from the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Well, here's the context I was going by:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 12:13 pm...the notion that energy could occur "by itself," or like the idea that space and/or time are anything like substances or containers, or the many wacky ideas surrounding quantum mechanics and the fact that a lot of those ideas are due to mathematics reification, etc.)

It is not always the maths that comes first. String theorists, for example, did not sort out the maths and conclude that fundamental particles are modes of vibration. Einstein assumed that space is a void before he worked out the maths of special relativity. He assumed that space is a material before he worked out the field equations. People have ideas and test them, empirically and mathematically. Anyway, you mean Reification_(fallacy). Now I know.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:39 pm This is what I'm talking about, which should have been clear to you from the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

A fallacy in philosophy is a feature in science. Awkward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reificati ... r_science)

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:32 pm In science it is a fallacy to argue that because a model has instrumental value, it is therefore correct.

In science "correctness" is a questionable notion so any argument that concludes "correctness" is dubious - irrespective of its premises.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmWe are a tiny part of a very thin biological scum on a remote and insignificant planet revolving around a minor star in a second class spiral arm of one of billions of galaxies.

Yeah, still pretty cool though.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmThat would be a massively hybrisitic claim that our wee selves could influence anything.

Well, we do influence things, just not very much and probably to no long term effect.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmANd no . There is no survival,: consciousness disappears when the brain rots in the ground.

I think that is probably correct. Still, we'll all find out sooner or later.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:23 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:32 pmIn science it is a fallacy to argue that because a model has instrumental value, it is therefore correct.

In science "correctness" is a questionable notion so any argument for "correctness" is dubious - irrespective of its premises.

All the more reason it's a fallacy.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 2:29 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 8:37 pm
Emergence properties are not even necessary since the matter follows the laws of physics. The matter acts blindly. The question is why something which is not necessary exists and is not arbitrary.

From where did you get that emergent properties and laws of physics run in different paths? If you get 2 atoms of hydrogen (a gas) and one of oxygen (another gas), and put them together, you get water (a liquid). That follows physical laws and creates emergent properties.

I am talking about mental properties rather than physical properties. Matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Mental phenomena are assumed to be emergent. They are not needed for the matter to act according to the laws of physics.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:24 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmWe are a tiny part of a very thin biological scum on a remote and insignificant planet revolving around a minor star in a second class spiral arm of one of billions of galaxies.

Yeah, still pretty cool though.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmThat would be a massively hybrisitic claim that our wee selves could influence anything.

Well, we do influence things, just not very much and probably to no long term effect.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmANd no . There is no survival,: consciousness disappears when the brain rots in the ground.

I think that is probably correct. Still, we'll all find out sooner or later.

No. In fact we will not find out. When you are dead you find nothing.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:23 pmWhen you are dead you find nothing.

How do you know?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:40 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:23 pmWhen you are dead you find nothing.

How do you know?

Because you need a working brain to have knowledge.
I can prove it if you want.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:01 pm...you need a working brain to have knowledge.
I can prove it if you want.

I think you were on the money with this:

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmEverything in the universe is not fully understood.

That is certainly true of consciousness. It's not my field and I don't have any idea how physical matter can generate thoughts or feelings, so I think David Chalmers has a point with 'the hard problem of consciousness'. But if, as you suggest

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:57 pmIt is the energetic field emitted from neural matter.

then I don't see why it should be assumed to be different from other physical fields which will propagate through the universe for as long as there is a universe.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:01 pm...you need a working brain to have knowledge.
I can prove it if you want.

I think you were on the money with this:

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pmEverything in the universe is not fully understood.

That is certainly true of consciousness. It's not my field and I don't have any idea how physical matter can generate thoughts or feelings, so I think David Chalmers has a point with 'the hard problem of consciousness'. But if, as you suggest

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:57 pmIt is the energetic field emitted from neural matter.

then I don't see why it should be assumed to be different from other physical fields which will propagate through the universe for as long as there is a universe.

When a field moves through the universe if looses information. Light turns to dead heat.
All fields disipate and change; they fade. Brain energy is barely detectable outside the head, and cannot be read. What is important about it is how the connections in your neural matter are organised - that is the essnence of your learning and memory.
When I said "I can prove it". I mean I can remove your memories with an electric dill and vacuum cleaner. WIth care I could remove a part of your brain so that you could not recogise any person by sight - not even your mother.
Although I said everything in the universe is not perfectly understood, is not the same as saying that we know nothing.

Life energy can be seen as a mode for expressing consciousness through the enlivening of matter and the enabling of empirical consciousness. It can be considered intelligent but not conscious. Consciousness is an enigma that defies classification.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:30 amWhen a field moves through the universe if looses information. Light turns to dead heat.
All fields disipate and change; they fade.

Well, the cosmic microwave background radiation is the wavelength it is because space, the material through which it propagates is expanding, according to the most prevalent hypothesis. The information is still there, it's just stretched out a bit. The expansion of the universe is not generally thought to affect electromagnetic and gravitational fields in the same way. The redshift of distant galaxies is believed to be a simple example of the Doppler Effect, but the information carried in them is exactly the same as it has been for the perhaps billions of years they have been travelling through space, it's just spread out a bit.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:30 amBrain energy is barely detectable outside the head, and cannot be read. What is important about it is how the connections in your neural matter are organised - that is the essnence of your learning and memory.

Ok; so consciousness is not

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:57 pm...the energetic field emitted from neural matter. It is what the brain does.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:30 amWhen I said "I can prove it". I mean I can remove your memories with an electric dill and vacuum cleaner. WIth care I could remove a part of your brain so that you could not recogise any person by sight - not even your mother.

Yeah, when you offered to prove it, I was fairly confident I would be inviting the 'I could blow your fucking brains out' line of argument, so I thought I'd pass.

If AI builds up enough memories will it become conscious?