|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:38 am Post subject: 881 |
 |
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I don't believe, that Occam's Razor is a guide to truth (or what is most probably truth) ... actually, I might believe it, but I don't think it can be shown or rationally argued for. Given a number of explanations, from simplest to the most bizarrely embellished, which equally well explain all that is observed (after making efforts to observe), simpler ones seem preferable. But if they equally well explain observable reality, we can't say which are more likely to be true. It would be a matter of faith that, among possible truths that we can't distinguish between, the simpler are more likely to be the actual truth. (If there is an actual truth, beyond what is knowable to us, and we are talking about beyond what is knowable to us). |
| I wrote: |
| it's not the simplicity of the explanation which makes it more likely to be true than the others, it's the simple fact that it entails less assumptions than the others. If it's less likely to be false than the others, than it's more likely to be true than the others. |
There seems to be an innate understanding in science that observations are basic units of truth detection and that anything which is neither an observation nor rooted in observations is an assumption. So that any belief is either an observation, an assumption, or a conclusion rooted in some combination of the two. The understanding is that if there is such a thing as truth, i.e. a way things are regardless of human intention or desire about them, then observations are the best tools we have for detecting it. So a statement based more on observation and less on assumption than another is considered to be more likely to be true than the other.
"Simpler" is a red herring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:42 pm Post subject: 882 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| There seems to be an innate understanding in science that observations are basic units of truth detection and that anything which is neither an observation nor rooted in observations is an assumption. |
Hopefully without getting bogged down in the matter. consciousness (in the sense we discussed at great length in a number of threads) is a significant example of something true (it exists) which is beyond the purview of science. This is not an "anti-science" statement, any more than it's "anti-shoe" to say shoes don't work well as gloves. But science is supposed to work for everything, some might say. Pure faith-based dogma. Science is perhaps the sharpest tool in any critical thinkers kit, but let it be your tool, not you its.
And when talking about a god, a conscious entity, I think it's important to note the inherent limits of science regarding consciousness. (I drafted another post about that days ago, which I may get to posting later today). That doesn't mean we can't reason about it. I mean, we can at least try, without throwing our hands in the air that science is our only hope, as if that weren't an irrational, dogmatic and unscientific response.
| BraveHat wrote: |
So a statement based more on observation and less on assumption than another is considered to be more likely to be true than the other.
"Simpler" is a red herring. |
Many will make the mistake of conflating "simpler is preferable" with "simpler is more likely true", but there's no basis for the latter. And I think the basis for the former is that it's universally intuitively agreeable. We see this when we take a simple accepted theory, and embellish it with invisible leprechauns playing an essential role in an undetectable way. gravity plus leprechauns is less simple than gravity alone, and no more falsifiable than gravity alone. Can we say what's more likely true? Only if we believe, as a matter of faith, that the simpler is more likely true. Heck, one could even argue that a universe that obeys such a principle would be unlikely unless a creator with a sense of aesthetics were involved. Why else have faith that "simpler theories are more likely the truth"? One could also argue that truth, in that matter, is irrelevant, as we can't know it. We know our theories, we reject the ones that are demonstrably false, consider the ones that explain what we observe, and go with the ones that are simplest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:05 pm Post subject: 883 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| There seems to be an innate understanding in science that observations are basic units of truth detection and that anything which is neither an observation nor rooted in observations is an assumption. |
Hopefully without getting bogged down in the matter. consciousness (in the sense we discussed at great length in a number of threads) is a significant example of something true (it exists) which is beyond the purview of science. This is not an "anti-science" statement, any more than it's "anti-shoe" to say shoes don't work well as gloves. But science is supposed to work for everything, some might say. Pure faith-based dogma. Science is perhaps the sharpest tool in any critical thinkers kit, but let it be your tool, not you its.
And when talking about a god, a conscious entity, I think it's important to note the inherent limits of science regarding consciousness. (I drafted another post about that days ago, which I may get to posting later today). That doesn't mean we can't reason about it. I mean, we can at least try, without throwing our hands in the air that science is our only hope, as if that weren't an irrational, dogmatic and unscientific response.
| BraveHat wrote: |
So a statement based more on observation and less on assumption than another is considered to be more likely to be true than the other.
"Simpler" is a red herring. |
Many will make the mistake of conflating "simpler is preferable" with "simpler is more likely true", but there's no basis for the latter. And I think the basis for the former is that it's universally intuitively agreeable. We see this when we take a simple accepted theory, and embellish it with invisible leprechauns playing an essential role in an undetectable way. gravity plus leprechauns is less simple than gravity alone, and no more falsifiable than gravity alone. Can we say what's more likely true? Only if we believe, as a matter of faith, that the simpler is more likely true. Heck, one could even argue that a universe that obeys such a principle would be unlikely unless a creator with a sense of aesthetics were involved. Why else have faith that "simpler theories are more likely the truth"? One could also argue that truth, in that matter, is irrelevant, as we can't know it. We know our theories, we reject the ones that are demonstrably false, consider the ones that explain what we observe, and go with the ones that are simplest. |
Assuming your each of the assumptions are 50% likely to be true.
P(force of gravity is real) = 50%
P(leprechauns are real) = 50%
A theory that posits only the force of gravity then is 50% likely to be true.
A theory that posits gravity and leprechauns (assuming mutually exclusive probabilities is)
P(force of gravity is real) * P(leprechauns are real) = 25% likely to be true.
i.e. the more assumptions required by your theory, the less likely it is to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:28 pm Post subject: 884 |
|
|
P(leprechauns are real) = 50%
then
P(leprechauns are NOT real) = 50%
then
P(force of gravity is real) * P(leprechauns are NOT real) = 25% likely to be true.
| Quote: |
| i.e. the more assumptions required by your theory, the less likely it is to be true |
So gravity and leprechauns is equally improbable as gravity without leprechauns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:31 pm Post subject: 885 |
|
|
Of course, it's reasonable to ask "Why are we talking about leprechauns?"
It's also reasonable to ask why we're talking about a consciousness that has no scientific explanation or evidence.
The latter, I have a known example of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:04 pm Post subject: 886 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
P(leprechauns are real) = 50%
then
P(leprechauns are NOT real) = 50%
then
P(force of gravity is real) * P(leprechauns are NOT real) = 25% likely to be true.
| Quote: |
| i.e. the more assumptions required by your theory, the less likely it is to be true |
So gravity and leprechauns is equally improbable as gravity without leprechauns. |
I agree.. if leprechauns and gravity have 50% chance of being true. Hence, my example was terrible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:33 pm Post subject: 887 |
|
|
| extro wrote: |
| consciousness (in the sense we discussed at great length in a number of threads) is a significant example of something true (it exists) which is beyond the purview of science...And when talking about a god, a conscious entity, I think it's important to note the inherent limits of science regarding consciousness. |
I would be interested in this other post. The idea of consciousness and its origins (from a scientific standpoint) has always been one of my hang-ups with evolution as it stands now. (Though maybe that's because I don't understand some key component somewhere.) Is consciousness a thing which can "evolve"? What gene or collection of atoms is it attached to? If it has survived for so long that must mean that at some point it became useful for survival, but what purpose is that? (This last one may demonstrate my lack of understanding of the finer points of evolution. Check that thread and you'll see my on-going education.  )
Of course, Zag may come tell me that all animals have consciousness, in which case I will need to be educated in how that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:43 pm Post subject: 888 |
|
|
| Jedo* wrote: |
| Is consciousness a thing which can "evolve"? What gene or collection of atoms is it attached to? If it has survived for so long that must mean that at some point it became useful for survival, but what purpose is that? (This last one may demonstrate my lack of understanding of the finer points of evolution. Check that thread and you'll see my on-going education. ). |
In 1976 Julian Jaynes theorized that consciousness evolved in mankind somewhere between the time of the Illiad and the Odyssey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
As for it's use for survival, I believe that consciousness allows you to predict the consequences of your actions and to use your dreams to simulate/project the consequences of your actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:35 pm Post subject: 889 |
|
|
| Jedo* wrote: |
| Of course, Zag may come tell me that all animals have consciousness, in which case I will need to be educated in how that is. |
I love how extro just assumes the existence of this magical thing, when all that happened in the other discussion is that the rest of us tired of the repetitive, intractable positioning.
Of course, once again (and I'm not willing to open up that whole discussion again), you have to define consciousness before you can claim that it is something humans have and other animals do not. I can guarantee you that you won't convince me that such a thing exists.
It is obvious to me that you have thoughts and feelings, independent from my own. It is equally obvious to me that my dog does, too. When my father's body was lying in his casket, it seemed pretty obvious that he did not, just as my first pet (also a dog) did not when his lifeless body was lying at the vet's office.
I think that the complexity of thought that you exhibit isn't of a fundamentally different nature than what my dog exhibits. Its complexity seems higher than that of my dog (which mostly focuses around food, play, and me petting her), just as her thought's complexity seems higher than that of the ants that live in my basement. But it's still the same basic thing, and there's nothing in it to make me think that it isn't just part of the chemistry and electricity of the nervous system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:05 pm Post subject: 890 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Jedo* wrote: |
| Of course, Zag may come tell me that all animals have consciousness, in which case I will need to be educated in how that is. |
I love how extro just assumes the existence of this magical thing, ... |
I don't assume it, I know it with certainty. Calling it magical is just your way of avoiding discussing it.
| Zag wrote: |
| ... when all that happened in the other discussion is that the rest of us tired of the repetitive, intractable positioning. |
Don't say "the rest of us" when it was just you. Several knew exactly what I was talking about, and this is something discussed at great length elsewhere. It is not an invention or assumption, but something quite obvious.
| Zag wrote: |
| Of course, once again (and I'm not willing to open up that whole discussion again), you have to define consciousness before you can claim that it is something humans have and other animals do not. |
And I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not suggesting animals, or mechanical devices, or a universe, does not have it.
| Zag wrote: |
| I can guarantee you that you won't convince me that such a thing exists. |
And that is the epitome of closed mindedness.
| Zag wrote: |
| It is obvious to me that you have thoughts and feelings, independent from my own. It is equally obvious to me that my dog does, too. When my father's body was lying in his casket, it seemed pretty obvious that he did not, just as my first pet (also a dog) did not when his lifeless body was lying at the vet's office. |
Do you believe if a thing appears to have thoughts and feelings, it then must have the subjective experiences we associate with our own thoughts and experiences? Obviously, I won't be writing this stuff when I'm dead. It involves processing of information, which a living brain does. But surely you can conceive of processing of information, what might appear as thinking of thoughts when expressed to an observer, without the device that is processing the information knowing the thoughts, i.e. being aware of them, as I am aware of my thoughts.
| Zag wrote: |
| I think that the complexity of thought that you exhibit isn't of a fundamentally different nature than what my dog exhibits. |
No shit Sherlock. I mean, do you read what I write, or is your faith so threatened by it that you block it out?
I don't doubt in the least that machines will one day exhibit that complexity of thought.
| Zag wrote: |
| Its complexity seems higher than that of my dog (which mostly focuses around food, play, and me petting her), just as her thought's complexity seems higher than that of the ants that live in my basement. But it's still the same basic thing, and there's nothing in it to make me think that it isn't just part of the chemistry and electricity of the nervous system. |
Complexity is observable, describable, explainable. The nature of my subjective experiences of my own thoughts, and my subjective experiences of qualia, are not observable, describable or explainable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:22 pm Post subject: 891 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| Of course, once again (and I'm not willing to open up that whole discussion again), you have to define consciousness before you can claim that it is something humans have and other animals do not. |
And I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not suggesting animals, or mechanical devices, or a universe, does not have it. |
Humans are animals.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:39 pm Post subject: 892 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| Of course, once again (and I'm not willing to open up that whole discussion again), you have to define consciousness before you can claim that it is something humans have and other animals do not. |
And I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not suggesting animals, or mechanical devices, or a universe, does not have it. |
Humans are animals. |
Did you misunderstand something that made you think something else was suggested? (of course humans are animals) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:41 pm Post subject: 893 |
|
|
(I drafted most of this some days ago)
| Zag wrote: |
| To say some being "exists" but isn't matter or any of the four types of energy that we understand, that isn't simple, it's just magic. |
This gets back to the issue of consciousness - not in the functional sense, producing behavior that we say demonstrates consciousness, but in the sense of experiencing subjective experiences.
I haven't a shred of doubt that consciousness in the former sense can be explained in terms of energy and particles of matter behaving according to rather simple well-defined laws of physics. No magic there. Everything I write here - the act of my writing it - is fully understandable, in principle, in terms of energy and particles of matter behaving according to laws of physics.
I also have no doubt that consciousness in the latter sense can't be so explained, primarily (if not solely) because the nature of consciousness, that which I would want explained, is utterly indescribable, and to explain a thing, you must have some ability to describe what it is you're explaining, which we don't have.
Now, some know exactly what I'm talking about from the nature of their moment to moment experience every waking minute of their lives, and others say this latter sense of consciousness is just talk of magic. To which I can only say, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, heard it before. So, what, I should completely ignore a compellingly real aspect of reality, deny its existence, because it can't tie in via explainable theory with matter or any of the four types of energy that we understand?
I don't ignore the fact that this latter sense of consciousness is part of reality.
| Zag wrote: |
| It offers no formulae, no predictive value, nothing but throwing up your hands and saying it's all too hard to understand. |
You were talking about God, but you almost might as well be talking about consciousness (in the latter sense). Again, I've no doubt every bit of human behavior can be explained completely in terms of energy and particles of matter behaving according to laws of physics. So why posit some ineffable 'consciousness' that explains nothing that isn't explained without it? Why posit indescribable experiences, when by being indescribable, they can't sensibly be described as resulting from the simple physical? It isn't being posited.
This consciousness, the nature of it, has implications that we can reason about, and reason forward from to better understand the universe of which it is definitely a part. Unfortunately, if one is well versed in science, and has an unexamined dogmatic belief that reality is exactly what science can in principle explain, or that if science can't explain it then it can't be thought of sensibly, then in that case one would probably not bother considering consciousness or its implications. One would overlook an obvious aspect of reality that is unprovable, unfalsifiable, without predictive value. And then when presented with the posibility of something else with those same properties,, scoff that no such thing is real.
| Zag wrote: |
| ... Again, this theory [of leprechauns] can't be disproved, because it has been carefully made so as to be un-disprovable. |
Agreed. I don't think, though, that God was carefully invented so as to be un-disprovable / unfalsifiable. I know I certainly didn't invent an idea of consciousness of subjective experiences to be both unprovable and un falsifiable, nor did I get the "idea" from anyone else. Yes, unprovable, unfalsifiable, but real.
| Zag wrote: |
... it doesn't prove that the magical being doesn't exist, but we've cleverly defined the pixel-painting leprechauns God such that it can never be shown that he doesn't exist ... |
Here's something I find an amazing coincidence. This God was "cleverly defined" in that way many thousands of years ago. Yet only relatively recently did we scientifically conclude the following things about our universe: 1) It has effects which have no causes - true randomness, at a microscopic level, unpredictable given any amount of information. 2) The mathematics governing the universes behavior are chaotic - microscopic differences in initial conditions lead to macroscopic differences in outcomes. Now, if either of these were not the case, I'd say God couldn't act in the world without violating the laws of physics. But a hypothetical conscious entity with power to, by will, determine the outcome of microscopic quantum random events, could then determine the outcome of macroscopic events, without any observable violation of the laws of physics. I know I have consciousness (in the sense ... well, some understand the sense, others vow never to). I have a sense that consciousness and free will seem analogous to input and output of an information processing machine, and that it doesn't make sense for such a machine to take input and produce no output. It can produce no output in a much simpler manner, without taking in input or processing information. Of course, that's all a rather sketchy expression of the thoughts behind it, but no point delving deeper now when consciousness itself is denied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:51 pm Post subject: 894 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| There seems to be an innate understanding in science that observations are basic units of truth detection and that anything which is neither an observation nor rooted in observations is an assumption. |
Hopefully without getting bogged down in the matter. consciousness (in the sense we discussed at great length in a number of threads) is a significant example of something true (it exists) which is beyond the purview of science. This is not an "anti-science" statement, any more than it's "anti-shoe" to say shoes don't work well as gloves. But science is supposed to work for everything, some might say. Pure faith-based dogma. Science is perhaps the sharpest tool in any critical thinkers kit, but let it be your tool, not you its. |
I hope you understand that my point is not that science seems to be our best tool for truth detection, but that science seems to understand that obervation is our best tool for truth detection. (Consciousness, sentience, and qualia are still observed, even if the are observed only subjectively) The prevalence of that understanding in science does not mean that science can explain any observation.. It may well be that only observations which are intersubjectively verifiable can be used by science. That is another debate for other threads. The point is to identify the basic units of truth detection in science as observations, not to identify all observations as the basic units of truth detection in science.
| extro wrote: |
| I wrote: |
So a statement based more on observation and less on assumption than another is considered to be more likely to be true than the other.
"Simpler" is a red herring. |
Many will make the mistake of conflating "simpler is preferable" with "simpler is more likely true", but there's no basis for the latter. And I think the basis for the former is that it's universally intuitively agreeable. We see this when we take a simple accepted theory, and embellish it with invisible leprechauns playing an essential role in an undetectable way. gravity plus leprechauns is less simple than gravity alone, and no more falsifiable than gravity alone. Can we say what's more likely true? Only if we believe, as a matter of faith, that the simpler is more likely true. Heck, one could even argue that a universe that obeys such a principle would be unlikely unless a creator with a sense of aesthetics were involved. Why else have faith that "simpler theories are more likely the truth"? One could also argue that truth, in that matter, is irrelevant, as we can't know it. We know our theories, we reject the ones that are demonstrably false, consider the ones that explain what we observe, and go with the ones that are simplest. |
For the third time, extro, I'm not suggesting "simpler is more likely true". I'm suggesting "based more on observation and less on assumption" is more likely true. You might want to re-read what I wrote in that respect.
I observe that a woman whom I never met trips and falls on her face, and I come up with two explanations for it: 1)Her foot became unbalanced. 2)The invisible Bumblebee King smited her for wearing a yellow and black pattern on her coat. The first explanation is more likely to be true than the second because I have observed a positive correlation before between unbalanced feet and falling. I have never observed any correlation between angered Bumblebee Kings and falling. Simplicity has nothing to do with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:36 pm Post subject: 895 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| It may well be that only observations which are intersubjectively verifiable can be used by science. That is another debate for other threads. |
But it has relevance here. If something is real, but not intersubjectively verifiable, and thus not amenable to scientific study, ... IF that's the case, then that would pop a fair sized hole in "if science can't detect it, it's not real". And when we're talking about consciousness, a prime element of any conception of a god, it's all the more relevant here.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| For the third time, extro, I'm not suggesting "simpler is more likely true". I'm suggesting "based more on observation and less on assumption" is more likely true. You might want to re-read what I wrote in that respect. |
You wrote:
| BraveHat wrote: |
If I am to be strictly logical about this, here's the argument I draw from the discussion thus far:
1. The explanation of observations that requires the least amount of assumptions is the most likely to be true.
...
I think I agree with premise 1, ... |
I disagreed that anyone was saying that. In your next post you wrote
| Quote: |
| "Simpler" is a red herring. |
It wasn't clear you were retracting the previous statement (three times no less).
| BraveHat wrote: |
| I observe that a woman whom I never met trips and falls on her face, and I come up with two explanations for it: 1)Her foot became unbalanced. 2)The invisible Bumblebee King smited her for wearing a yellow and black pattern on her coat. The first explanation is more likely to be true than the second because I have observed a positive correlation before between unbalanced feet and falling. I have never observed any correlation between angered Bumblebee Kings and falling. Simplicity has nothing to do with it. |
Using something already known versus inventing something unknown has everything to do with simplicity. That the invisible Bee is probably inherently not falsifiable make it even less attractive as a scientific theory. But we have nothing that tells us complex or not falsifiable or both means less likely to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:12 pm Post subject: 896 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| I can guarantee you that you won't convince me that such a thing exists. |
And that is the epitome of closed mindedness.
|
Actually, it was hyperbole -- there are things that could happen which could convince me, but no mere words that you or Jedo say could do it. You, on the other hand "know with certainty." Do you not see how closed-minded that position is?
| extro...* wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| I think that the complexity of thought that you exhibit isn't of a fundamentally different nature than what my dog exhibits. |
No shit Sherlock. I mean, do you read what I write, or is your faith so threatened by it that you block it out?
|
I mean, do you read what I write, and to whom? This wasn't directed at you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:58 pm Post subject: 897 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| You, on the other hand "know with certainty." Do you not see how closed-minded that position is? |
It isn't. I know my own experiences. I know I experience them, with far greater certainty than I could know anything else. The desk and laptop in front of me, I can entertain the notion that they are illusions. I cannot entertain the notion that if they are illusions, that I'm not experiencing these illusions. Whether illusions or not, I have experiences. That I have experiences ... my knowing that with certainty is not close-minded. I can entertain that perhaps the words I've chose to explain what I know are not the best, but what I'm referring to, I know with certainty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:56 am Post subject: 898 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| Of course, once again (and I'm not willing to open up that whole discussion again), you have to define consciousness before you can claim that it is something humans have and other animals do not. |
And I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not suggesting animals, or mechanical devices, or a universe, does not have it. |
Humans are animals. |
Did you misunderstand something that made you think something else was suggested? (of course humans are animals) |
Yes. (confused by double negative)
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:26 am Post subject: 899 |
|
|
bgg, I had to read that statement twice as well.
| Zag wrote: |
| ...you have to define consciousness before you can claim that it is something humans have and other animals do not. |
It really comes down to definitions a lot.
| Quote: |
| I think that the complexity of thought that you exhibit isn't of a fundamentally different nature than what my dog exhibits. |
My question then would be why is mine higher? What evolutionary change differentiates their degree? Going to what jadesmar wrote, lower-level animals have instinct and such which lets them know to avoid certain negative things. Instinct seems different than consciousness. Plus, how does instinct get passed along from animal to animal? Is there a gene in a deer's makeup that is the "don't eat the red berry" gene? (Even that is a bit more than I think a deer can manage, though I think that has to do with our need to think of things in terms of language and words which clearly isn't necessary for lower-level animals.)
I think of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." What seems to differentiate is a certain ability to "stand without" oneself. Introspection?
Another optional distinction is "the will." In some sense, humans do not have to obey their bodily instincts. Can animals choose the same?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| It may well be that only observations which are intersubjectively verifiable can be used by science. |
I feel like this is the hole in the paradigm known as "science" which reveals that science isn't this monolithic principle. Isn't it asserted that there can be no true objectivity because observation affects the system? Then science really becomes about this "intersubjectively verifiable" notion in which my perspective agrees with your perspective. I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong (if it's true), but I am saying this is not something admitted by science. Additionally, I do think such would reveal the limitations of science.
(I'm really looking to be corrected here. These are all just groping at something, so please point out where my assumptions/presumptions are incorrect.)
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:56 am Post subject: 900 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| It may well be that only observations which are intersubjectively verifiable can be used by science. That is another debate for other threads. |
But it has relevance here. If something is real, but not intersubjectively verifiable, and thus not amenable to scientific study, ... IF that's the case, then that would pop a fair sized hole in "if science can't detect it, it's not real". And when we're talking about consciousness, a prime element of any conception of a god, it's all the more relevant here. |
First, I'm not sure if anybody here is suggesting that "if science can't detect it, it's not real", but it ain't me. Second, I admit I said "that's another debate for other threads" innapropriately. What I meant was that debate is irrelevant to what I was suggesting, which is not about what science can or cannot detect, but about what science uses to detect what it does detect.
| extro wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| For the third time, extro, I'm not suggesting "simpler is more likely true". I'm suggesting "based more on observation and less on assumption" is more likely true. You might want to re-read what I wrote in that respect. |
You wrote:
| I wrote: |
If I am to be strictly logical about this, here's the argument I draw from the discussion thus far:
1. The explanation of observations that requires the least amount of assumptions is the most likely to be true.
...
I think I agree with premise 1, ... |
I disagreed that anyone was saying that. In your next post you wrote
| Quote: |
| "Simpler" is a red herring. |
It wasn't clear you were retracting the previous statement (three times no less). |
That's not the statement I retracted. I retracted, quite clearly and unambiguously, the question I asked you in post 843, in post 876. You'll find that just above the large "thumbs up" that Zag posted, but I'll reprint it here:
| I wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| I wrote: |
If the observation is that someone claims a god exists, how would Occam's Razor apply to explain it? |
I think a false belief is a much simpler explanation than the notion that this person has a power to know the existence of some extraordinary being that the rest of us can find no objective evidence for. We already know false beliefs exist. |
Granted. So now, how does this simplicity make the explanation more likely to be true? |
Just realized the error of my question: it's not the simplicity of the explanation which makes it more likely to be true than the others, it's the simple fact that it entails less assumptions than the others. If it's less likely to be false than the others, than it's more likely to be true than the others. |
That's the first time I said it wasn't simplicity that made it more likely to be true. Then I reposted it in post 881, in case you hadn't caught it the first time:
| 881 wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| I don't believe, that Occam's Razor is a guide to truth (or what is most probably truth) ... actually, I might believe it, but I don't think it can be shown or rationally argued for. Given a number of explanations, from simplest to the most bizarrely embellished, which equally well explain all that is observed (after making efforts to observe), simpler ones seem preferable. But if they equally well explain observable reality, we can't say which are more likely to be true. It would be a matter of faith that, among possible truths that we can't distinguish between, the simpler are more likely to be the actual truth. (If there is an actual truth, beyond what is knowable to us, and we are talking about beyond what is knowable to us). |
| I wrote: |
it's not the simplicity of the explanation which makes it more likely to be true than the others, it's the simple fact that it entails less assumptions than the others. If it's less likely to be false than the others, than it's more likely to be true than the others. |
|
And extrapolated by defining the word "assumption" to meaning any belief that isn't an observation or rooted in observation. When I said simplicity was a red herring, I meant it seems like the main point, but it's actually not.
And then of course the third time was following the phrase "for the third time"
I agree that simpler does not mean more likely to be true. What I did not do was equate "the least amount of assumptions" with simplicity. "The least amount of assumptions" by the definition I gave of "assumption" means "the least amount of non-observation-rooted claims". If observations are our basic truth-detectors, then the less our explanations depend on observations, the less grounds we have to think they are true. I realize now that is a far better way to state the case than to say "the less likely they are to be true.". And, in fact, it carries a different meaning. It's meaning in either case, however, has nothing to do with simplicity.
So your points are not lost on me, and I should revise the statement, and thus the syllogism, to something like this:
1. The explanation of observations that requires the least amount of assumptions gives us the most grounds to think is true
2. A god's existence is an assumption
Therefore, adding anything to an explanation that requires a god's existence gives us less grounds to think it's true.
I still don't know if I completely agree with premise 1 but I'm far more satisfied with the way it's stated. My view of the rest of it is still the same as before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:50 am Post subject: 901 |
|
|
Actually, I'd like to rephrase that to make it less confusing:
1. The less our explanations depend on observations, the less grounds we have to think they are true.
2. A god's existence is not an observation.
Therefore, adding anything to an explanation that requires a god's existence gives us less grounds to think it's true
If any strong atheists agree with this argument, I can point out what's problematic about it. If not, then it's a straw man and there's no point in doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:28 am Post subject: 902 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| Going to what jadesmar wrote, lower-level animals have instinct and such which lets them know to avoid certain negative things. Instinct seems different than consciousness. |
That you consider them to be different doesn't mean that they aren't different degrees of the same phenomenon. That you consider them different doesn't in fact, make them different at all necessarily.
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| Plus, how does instinct get passed along from animal to animal? Is there a gene in a deer's makeup that is the "don't eat the red berry" gene? (Even that is a bit more than I think a deer can manage, though I think that has to do with our need to think of things in terms of language and words which clearly isn't necessary for lower-level animals.) |
There is one or more genes in the berry making it either more or less likely to be eaten by animals (e.g. a tasty gene, a poison gene), depending on which of those tactics makes it more or less likely to make new plants which survive to reproduce. A tasty gene can be useful for spreading the seeds in a wide area via animal droppings (as long as there are genes to make the seed able to survive a digestive tract). It can probably be considered a fact that the plant did not make a conscious decision to do this.
Also, there may very well be a gene that makes berries taste different to different deer. I know, for example, that I don't like Cilantro as much as some people and that may be genetic. Anyhow, if the red berries are in fact poisonous, that gene (the red-berries-kinda-suck gene) would replicate more rapidly as the non-poisoned deer would live to pass the red-berries are not tasty gene where as the poisoned deer would not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:44 am Post subject: 903 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I feel like this is the hole in the paradigm known as "science" which reveals that science isn't this monolithic principle. |
To paraphrase someone smarter than me; Science is the worst system we've ever come up with to advance our knowledge of our universe, except for all the other ones we've come up with so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:20 am Post subject: 904 |
|
|
| jadesmar wrote: |
| That you consider them to be different doesn't mean that they aren't different degrees of the same phenomenon. That you consider them different doesn't in fact, make them different at all necessarily. |
I already understand that. I'm saying my perception, and I'm asking for the evidence that my perception is incorrect.
| Quote: |
| Also, there may very well be a gene that makes berries taste different to different deer. I know, for example, that I don't like Cilantro as much as some people and that may be genetic. Anyhow, if the red berries are in fact poisonous, that gene (the red-berries-kinda-suck gene) would replicate more rapidly as the non-poisoned deer would live to pass the red-berries are not tasty gene where as the poisoned deer would not. |
I'm not much concerned with the genes of the berry. I understand that much of evolution. What I want to know is how the "don't eat the red berry" gene gets passed to the other deer when the deer who ate it died. Are you going to tell me that some other deer saw the deer eat the red berry, then saw the same deer die, and concluded that the two were related? Otherwise, I don't understand how there could be multiplied the instinct not to eat the red berry.
Part of what I'm wanting to understand is how there is evolved the capability of connecting cause and effect and a level of communication able to share that knowledge. I mean, you could talk about bees and how they communicate the location of pollen and use that as a starting point. I at least see there are some communication processes there which seem to suggest an ability with abstraction, but that may not be what it is and giving too much credit to bees.
| Quote: |
| To paraphrase someone smarter than me; Science is the worst system we've ever come up with to advance our knowledge of our universe, except for all the other ones we've come up with so far. |
Sounds like democracy for the realm of politics.  (Though I'm not convinced it's better than all the others.)
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:47 am Post subject: 905 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I'm not much concerned with the genes of the berry. I understand that much of evolution. What I want to know is how the "don't eat the red berry" gene gets passed to the other deer when the deer who ate it died. Are you going to tell me that some other deer saw the deer eat the red berry, then saw the same deer die, and concluded that the two were related? Otherwise, I don't understand how there could be multiplied the instinct not to eat the red berry. |
I am definitely not going to tell you that.
The story of the berries genes are very much related to the story of the deers genes since they co-evolved.
That's why I brought up the story of how I hate cilantro. There's probably no advantage/disadvantage to my dislike of the particular spice. But, lets say it's been show that there is a genetic link in my inability to produce a certain enzyme that makes cilantro tasty, those without the enzyme find that this spice tastes like soap and those with the enzyme find it's the tastiest spice in the world and put it in everything.
Now, let's pretend that's a berry. Cilantro berry.
So, there's me. I'll try the berry. Ick.. never eat that berry again.
Then there's the other folks .. yum.. more berries please.
Right now, there is no competitive reproductive advantage one way or the other. So, over a few million years, we'll mix up the genes and maybe there'd be half of us who like the berry and half that don't.
Maybe, if the berry doesn't have any say in the matter... but it does. If the berry mutates into a more poisonous breed, those deer that don't find it tasty will thrive, whereas if it becomes more tasty, the other deer might thrive (in a berry rich environment).
All the deer needs is to not find the berry (which co-evolved) tasty, which is a genetic trait.
Actually, now that I think of it, most of what we think of as flavour is in the smell. So, there's no reason for the deer to even taste the berry.
Deer that "don't like" the smell of a poisonous berry will be more likely to pass their genetic material than those that do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:29 am Post subject: 906 |
|
|
I think Jedo's question is more about how instincts evolve, and by extension, consciousness. My understanding is that mental mechanisms such as instincts are indeed affected by our genes, and subject to natural selection. So our genes could create a "don't eat read berries" instinct that wouldn't necessarily be based on any reasoning or experience by the individual, but rather predetermined, or at least made more likely by, the individual's genes. Once those genes exist, they would be naturally favoured in a population of deer living around red poisounous berries, and the genes would be disfavoured by another population of deer living around red nutricious berries.
As for how the genes can create instincts, well I don't really think we understand brain chemistry well enough, but generally speaking they are emergent properties of our complex biochemistry. Maybe some genes strengthen the connection between certain parts of our visual centre and parts of our panic centre, vastly simplified. This would probably be reinforced by environmental factors, such that a certain set of genes would have the "don't eat red berries" effect in one environment, but would have no effect in another (due to different typical childhood experiences or whatnot). Genes often have multiple effects too, for example I seem to recall that the gene causing haemophilia also provides protection against malaria, which is why haemophilia is common in Africa (I may misremember the details here).
tl;dr: Instincts are emergent properties of our brain's biochemistry, subject to natural selection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:29 pm Post subject: 907 |
|
|
jadesmar, that was very helpful for understanding how instincts evolve to become such. I have trouble remembering that there was some previous state. I tend to keep thinking once something came to be (a red berry) it will always have its properties (poisonous), but that is not correct. Thank you.
As Zag said in the evolution thread, perhaps some mutation occurred which was inconsequential at the time (dislike of red berries, extra flaps of skin on a squirrel) that over time became a "desired" trait in that those with it survived to pass it on while those without didn't (were not poisoned by the berries, able to escape predators by gliding).
It's difficult also to think that your dislike of cilantro is an evolutionary thing. (That's just because I'm not used to thinking in that way.) I tend to think that would be a preference, but it is apparently an evolutionary trait. If someday cilantro becomes poisonous, your genes would be passed on more than somebody who enjoys cilantro. The difference is we can tell each other and we can actively control our bodies to say, "Even though I like(d) cilantro, it is poisonous now, so I will not eat it."
How then does instinct evolve into consciousness, into this ability to choose to ignore instinct? You might be able to argue that some people can't ignore instinct or can't ignore it in certain realms, but I think most people can do it at least to some degree. Maybe those of us who can are more highly evolved. I still don't know how that evolves.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:58 pm Post subject: 908 |
|
|
| novice wrote: |
| for example I seem to recall that the gene causing haemophilia also provides protection against malaria, which is why haemophilia is common in Africa (I may misremember the details here). |
Sickle cell anaemia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:14 pm Post subject: 909 |
|
|
This is all better off in the evolution thread, but anyway ...
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| What I want to know is how the "don't eat the red berry" gene gets passed to the other deer when the deer who ate it died. Are you going to tell me that some other deer saw the deer eat the red berry, then saw the same deer die, and concluded that the two were related? Otherwise, I don't understand how there could be multiplied the instinct not to eat the red berry. |
Acquired knowledge, such as observing that others who eat red berries die, does not get passed on through genes. I think that would fall under "inheritance of acquired traits", a once believed but easily disproved conjecture (chop foreskins off babies for countless generations, and they still father babies with complete foreskins).
It is simply random variations in genetics. If certain deer have genes that make them slightly more inclined to eat red berries, and that just slightly decreases their likelihood of reproducing (say, on average, such deer produce 1.999 offspring, as opposed to 2), then over very many generations those genes will be scarce (even if they were once common - the berry may be evolving its poisonous trait at the same time).
As for consciousness, again, we mean two different things by it. Most people understand both senses of the word. I can make a machine that identifies objects by their color, and says "red", "blue", "green". I can do this with a black-and-white camera and colored filters that the machine places over the lens. Red objects will look brightest (whitest, in the black-and-white image) when the red filter is over the lens, etc. The machine behaves, in a simple sense, as if it is aware of colors. Indeed, it's a fair use of the word "aware" to say it is aware of its surroundings to some extent. But I have no reason to believe is has a subjective experience of the color such as I have. In everyday language we use 'awareness', 'consciousness' and similar words in these two completely different senses, and unless we're careful, while we for a while discuss them with complete respect for the two different things they mean, we easily slip back to confusing them as one.
Consciousness, awareness, as in detecting things about ones surroundings and ones own state, representing information about somehow, processing that information, and acting on it, that is all behavior that a machine can be made to do, whether an electronic machine, mechanical, or built of flesh from a DNA blueprint. If the latter, variations in DNA will determine how successfully the flesh machine interacts with its environment so that it can get to the point of reproducing more flesh machines with the same or very similar DNA. Random changes in that DNA will produce some that are more successful than others, and this is how awareness of ones surroundings and complex behavior regarding that evolves.
Consciousness, awareness, in the other sense ... there's a school of thought that says it's just an "epiphenomena" ... something that arises from the physical working of nervous systems, but has no effect on their working. Indeed, since the nature of our conscious experiences can't be described (one can't describe the difference between, or nature of, the subjective experiences of red and green) ... since the nature of our conscious experiences can't be described, it can't play a useful part in a theory of how it might affect behavior, which is all that matters in the evolutionary sense. If you look inside our brains, you won't see subjective experiences of red and green, and you won't see inexplicable physical occurrences that one can say "that can be explained by an indescribable invisible subjective experience affecting the outcome". So for all intents and purposes, evolution would not favor consciousness in this second sense, of having actual felt experiences. It's merely enough that the organism respond appropriately. It needs to eat food. There needs to be some sort of representation of the level to which that need has been satisfied, or how likely it will be satisfied, and the organism has to be wired and programmed to react accordingly. Similarly, I could build a reproducing robot that occasionally needs to find a wall outlet to plug itself into to recharge its batteries. I'd want to program it such that it can plan to not strand itself too far away from an outlet so that it's batteries run dead, but it also needs to go about the business of building a copy of itself and not sit by the outlet all the time. I don't need to invent some way for the robot to actually experience satisfaction on recharging. Similarly, evolution doesn't need the organism to experience satisfaction on eating. Yes, it might be helpful to have some cluster of neurons that have a way to represent the extent to which dietary needs have been met, and other neurons that tap into those to regulate behavior - seeking food, eating it, etc. But nothing need be felt or experienced, from an evolutionary point of view, unless one has a theory for how the actual experience (which can't be described), affects the physical working of the nervous system. Without that theory, consciousness, actually experiencing things, is just a happy accident. Well, 'happy' is just my opinion, so far. But an accident, for sure. From a scientific perspective, the universe, including all known life (you and I too), would behave no differently if we were dead as stones as far as consciousness goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:55 pm Post subject: 910 |
|
|
| extro wrote: |
| This is all better off in the evolution thread, but anyway ... |
It's all interrelated. I've never understood why we have separate "Atheism," "Christianity," and "Evolution" threads when we just bounce back and forth between them, carrying our on-going conversation into the next as it seems more appropriate. Plus, it's the same people participating each time anyway. I do think this conversation will move back around, at least that's why I intend.
| Quote: |
| Without that theory, consciousness, actually experiencing things, is just a happy accident. Well, 'happy' is just my opinion, so far. But an accident, for sure. From a scientific perspective, the universe, including all known life (you and I too), would behave no differently if we were dead as stones as far as consciousness goes. |
To talk about animals some more, do they not experience emotions of some sort? The dog enjoys being petted, and doesn't enjoy being beat. It somehow knows the distinction between the two. There's a chemical which enters the brain for each stimulus and lets them know (in some sense) which is preferable for survival. Additionally, animals also seem to have preferences of food. I've seen dogs which won't eat wet dog food even though it has all the nutrients they need. If they get hungry enough, perhaps that instinct will overcome their preference, which seems to be no different than a small child not wanting to eat squash. If I am understanding things correctly, I think evolution has answers for why these things are.
What I don't think animals can do is reflect on why they prefer one thing to the other, nor do I think animals can ultimately choose to ignore their bodily needs like humans can. Are there anorexic dogs who know not eating is killing them but who persist in it anyway because it makes them look "better"?
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:07 pm Post subject: 911 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| nor do I think animals can ultimately choose to ignore their bodily needs like humans can |
My brother's dog will only pee outside and not on his living room carpet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:09 pm Post subject: 912 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| nothing need be felt or experienced, from an evolutionary point of view, unless one has a theory for how the actual experience (which can't be described), affects the physical working of the nervous system. Without that theory, consciousness, actually experiencing things, is just a happy accident. Well, 'happy' is just my opinion, so far. But an accident, for sure. From a scientific perspective, the universe, including all known life (you and I too), would behave no differently if we were dead as stones as far as consciousness goes. |
It seems to me that consciousness would be a distinct advantage in the fight for survival, and would therefore be favoured by natural selection.
All the traits that in sum make us who we are, were originally happy accidents, and survived because they were favoured by natural selection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:42 pm Post subject: 913 |
|
|
| jadesmar wrote: |
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| nor do I think animals can ultimately choose to ignore their bodily needs like humans can |
My brother's dog will only pee outside and not on his living room carpet. |
One adverse stimulus can outweigh the other then, but the animal isn't really choosing. It is just responding to the stimulus.
| novice wrote: |
| It seems to me that consciousness would be a distinct advantage in the fight for survival, and would therefore be favoured by natural selection. |
I think those of us on this side of the argument understand that. The question is "what is consciousness?" It seems that science denies anything that cannot be quantified. Is consciousness then an unquantifiable reality and therefore rejecting of this claim of science, or is consciousness a commonly misunderstood quantity? If it is the latter, then I'm searching for the appropriate understanding of this quantity. Is it trumped up instinct? If it is a quantity, whence did it evolve and how?
Maybe we're talking past each other...?
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:51 pm Post subject: 914 |
|
|
No, I think I understand what you're talking about, Jedo, but I got the impression that extro meant that consciousness couldn't have evolved because it wouldn't make any difference to our chances of survival. (Or else I didn't understand what he was trying to say at all.)
As for your question, Jedo, yeah I think consciousness being trumped up instincts is a workable hypothesis. Or maybe I would rather describe it as another layer of mental abilities layered on top of our instincts.
I don't think consciousness is obviously a "either you have it or you don't" kind of quality, so it makes sense to me that one could achieve a larger and larger degree of consciousness through evolution.
I don't think science denies anything that cannot be quantified, by the way. Nor am I sure what that means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:10 pm Post subject: 915 |
|
|
| novice wrote: |
| It seems to me that consciousness would be a distinct advantage in the fight for survival, and would therefore be favoured by natural selection. |
If it doesn't affect behavior? Again, be careful about which sense of "consciousness" you mean here. If consciousness doesn't affect behavior, what advantage can it possibly be?
| Quote: |
| But nothing need be felt or experienced, from an evolutionary point of view, unless one has a theory for how the actual experience (which can't be described), affects the physical working of the nervous system. Without that theory, consciousness, actually experiencing things, is just a happy accident. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:46 pm Post subject: 916 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| novice wrote: |
| It seems to me that consciousness would be a distinct advantage in the fight for survival, and would therefore be favoured by natural selection. |
If it doesn't affect behavior? Again, be careful about which sense of "consciousness" you mean here. If consciousness doesn't affect behavior, what advantage can it possibly be?
|
So your consciousness, in whatever sense you're meaning, doesn't affect your behaviour? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:40 pm Post subject: 917 |
|
|
| novice wrote: |
| So your consciousness, in whatever sense you're meaning, doesn't affect your behaviour? |
Not in a way that's scientifically explainable, or that can be scientifically demonstrated. Other than that, it's an open question. Assuming the answer is no, we don't lose anything from a scientific explanation of how humans and other organisms evolved. We don't get how consciousness evolved, but we've no reason to believe it did evolve.
Should we make clear the sense we're meaning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:55 am Post subject: 918 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Should we make clear the sense we're meaning? |
I would like to know what your definition of this consciousness is, and why you believe that science can't measure it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:30 am Post subject: 919 |
|
|
| jadesmar wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Should we make clear the sense we're meaning? |
I would like to know what your definition of this consciousness is, and why you believe that science can't measure it. |
Let's work together on it. First, I'm confident it's something you're quite familiar with. If we can get to the point where you say "Oh, that - I know exactly what your talking about", that will be a good start. But then I think you'll soon say it's rather difficult to define.
Let's start by you describing to me what the color yellow looks like to you. Further, suppose I'm an alien, with a different nervous system. I can see colors, and identify yellow. My nervous system is different, but as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there may well be more than one way to produce the same sensation of yellow. So tell me what yellow looks like to you, so I can know if you experience it the same way that I do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:34 am Post subject: 920 |
|
|
| Erwin Schrödinger wrote: |
| The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so. We could at best attain to an objective knowledge of what nerve fibres are excited and in what proportion, perhaps even to know exactly the processes they produce in certain brain cells - whenever your mind registers the sensation of yellow in a particular direction or domain of our field of vision. But even such intimate knowledge would not tell us anything about the sensation of colour, more particularly of yellow in this direction - the same physiological processes might conceivably result in the sensation of sweet taste, or anything else. I mean to say simply this, that we may be sure there is no nervous process whose objective description includes 'yellow colour' or 'sweet taste', just as the objective description of an electro-magnetic wave includes either of these characteristics. |
http://books.google.com/books?id=dg2bYMwdaBwC&pg=PA154 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
