- #1
Paul Martin
- 353
- 0
I seem to be among a small number of people who still believe in dualism. At least to the extent that I understand what other people mean by 'dualism', my beliefs seem to qualify. In particular, I believe that consciousness does not reside or take place in the brain, or even in the physical world. I believe that consciousness takes place outside the 4D space-time continuum of our familiar physical world. As for whether or not this should be classified as "dualism" is not of much interest to me. More important to me is that anyone who might be interested in my ideas would try to understand them and refute them rather than simply categorize and dismiss them.
In this thread I will try to present and defend some of my ideas that might be considered dualistic. I'll start with some conversations from other threads which have been left dangling.
Although these ideas might seem to some to be a "religion", that is another classification which I find to be nearly useless. My mind is open to change, so if anyone presents a rebuttal to any of my beliefs which I think makes more sense, I will eagerly abandon my old idea and adopt the new one.
My definition of a 'belief of mine', is a proposition that in my judgment has a specific probability of being true. To accurately express my beliefs, then, I should give you the probability numbers to distinguish, for example, between something that I believe might be true but I doubt it (say at 35%), and something I believe is highly likely to be true (say at 90%). On this scale, absolute truth would be 100% and a proposition that is utterly false with no possibility of being true would be at 0%. To make sure this scale from doubt to certainty is understood, I will try to remember to give you, in parentheses, my judgment of the probability number each time I mention a belief of mine. These numbers are not scientific but instead are based on nothing but my judgment.
At this point in my thinking, tautologies aside, there is only one proposition which I believe (90%) is absolutely true, and that is that "thought happens". Even though I can't clearly define 'thought', nor 'happens', I nevertheless believe (100%) with certainty that something is going on. I call "something", "thought", and in my judgment, 'happens' is an adequate word to refer to the "goings on". "Thought happens", to me, is just another way of saying that "there is something and not nothing" except that I have labeled the something as "thought". I know that there is thought and that it goes on. Everything else falls somewhere exclusively within the 0 to 100% range in my beliefs.
Now, let me proceed with some of those dangling threads.
But let's take a closer look at your claim. You parenthetically remark that the information processing must be done by "an agent". Hmmm. Lars and I also claim that there must be an "agent" which has the experience of consciousness. I.e., consciousness can't exist without something being conscious. We each seem to need an agent in order for our respective worlds to make sense.
You claim that the agent is simply the physical machine and its running program. I claim that the agent exists and experiences consciousness outside the physical world and that it interacts with information in the physical world. (Chalmers would classify me as an 'Interactionist dualist', which is OK with me.)
This leaves us with four fundamental problems -- two for each of us: How did that agent come to be? and How does consciousness arise in association with brains?
But that is not satisfying to many of us. We would like to know what was the nature of that first "thing" or "entity" which existed? And if there is some one ontologically fundamental essence underlying everything else, what is it? and what is its nature?
After all, “how can some things be rationally, coherently and consistently explained in terms of other things” unless those "other things" are identified?
So unless you want to skip this challenge and call it a draw, let me pursue it a little by reiterating a question I posed to you a while ago.
Moving on to the next problem, of how consciousness arises in living brains, we may be at an impasse. You claim that there is no Hard Problem and that Metzinger has explained how consciousness can arise in certain systems of information processing. I claim that both Chalmers and Penrose have presented convincing arguments showing why that explanation does not work. Metzinger leaves me unconvinced, and apparently Chalmers and Penrose have left you unconvinced. I doubt that either of us, especially I, can go beyond those respective arguments and convince the other to change views. We can certainly talk about it if you want. I would be delighted to do so but I think we should keep our expectations low.
2. The single consciousness must be in a fairly close real-time communication with all living brains. (90%)
3. This proximity can be more easily achieved in multiple, large, extra spatial dimensions, than by being confined to the 4D physical universe. (95%)
4. We know from GR that the 4D space-time continuum is bent, or curved. (90%)
5. We know that at least one extra dimension is required in order to bend or curve a space in the way our space is curved. (You can't bend a string without at least a plane to do it in. You can't bend a sheet of paper without a 3D space in which to do it. (It gets a little more technical, but I won't go into it unless you want to.)) (99%)
6. We know mathematically that a space can be embedded in a space of higher dimensions and still retain all of its properties. (E.g. figures on a sheet of paper may be distorted by bending the paper, but all the 2D relationships within the figures remain unchanged. (Flatlanders residing on the paper couldn't necessarily tell that you bent their paper unless you bent it in a certain way.)) (99%)
7. The extra dimensions provide plenty of space-time, outside our physical 4D space-time for structures and processes that would account for the seat of consciousness. (99%)
Having never observed it myself (at least that I can clearly remember) I can't tell you much of anything about these structures or processes, but I am convinced (98%) that we can mathematically deduce many things about them if we decided to work at it.
Starting with consciousness, one can get mathematics. And with mathematics, one can get Dick's theorem. And with Dick's theorem one can get the laws of physics. And with the laws of physics, some initial numbers, and some sort of processor (like a conscious mind) one can get phenomena that appear every bit as real as the rock Boswell kicked trying to refute Berkeley. It all seems to hang together and make sense to me.
One of those occasions, of beginning processing of some initial numbers according to the laws of physics, was our Big Bang. I believe (90%) that the physicalists have good explanations for everything that has happened in our 4D world ever since with a few exceptions: They don't have an explanation for consciousness, sleep, the Cambrian explosion, or the origin of life. My views don't contradict the physicalist views but instead they extend and augment them.
Warm regards,
Paul
In this thread I will try to present and defend some of my ideas that might be considered dualistic. I'll start with some conversations from other threads which have been left dangling.
Although these ideas might seem to some to be a "religion", that is another classification which I find to be nearly useless. My mind is open to change, so if anyone presents a rebuttal to any of my beliefs which I think makes more sense, I will eagerly abandon my old idea and adopt the new one.
My definition of a 'belief of mine', is a proposition that in my judgment has a specific probability of being true. To accurately express my beliefs, then, I should give you the probability numbers to distinguish, for example, between something that I believe might be true but I doubt it (say at 35%), and something I believe is highly likely to be true (say at 90%). On this scale, absolute truth would be 100% and a proposition that is utterly false with no possibility of being true would be at 0%. To make sure this scale from doubt to certainty is understood, I will try to remember to give you, in parentheses, my judgment of the probability number each time I mention a belief of mine. These numbers are not scientific but instead are based on nothing but my judgment.
At this point in my thinking, tautologies aside, there is only one proposition which I believe (90%) is absolutely true, and that is that "thought happens". Even though I can't clearly define 'thought', nor 'happens', I nevertheless believe (100%) with certainty that something is going on. I call "something", "thought", and in my judgment, 'happens' is an adequate word to refer to the "goings on". "Thought happens", to me, is just another way of saying that "there is something and not nothing" except that I have labeled the something as "thought". I know that there is thought and that it goes on. Everything else falls somewhere exclusively within the 0 to 100% range in my beliefs.
Now, let me proceed with some of those dangling threads.
If there is such law, which I doubt (5%), I don't know where it is. I only know that thought happens. I experience thought and I use the term 'consciousness' to mean that experience that I have. In my opinion (88%), consciousness is not present unless something similar to the conscious experiences that I have is present also. My own conscious experiences are variable, in that sometimes I am more alert, attentive, receptive, or cognizant than I am at other times, so I believe (99%) that there is a range of degrees of consciousness possible. This raises a host of questions about whether or not certain entities are conscious, such as, atoms, bacteria, spiders, dogs, and other humans.moving finger said:...where is the law of nature which says that all forms of consciousness must be as you experience it?
I don't.moving finger said:How do you know that consciousness as I experience it is the same as consciousness as you experience it?
Yes, I believe they can be (99%).moving finger said:Presumably you believe that other humans apart from yourself can also be conscious?
'Rational' to you might be different from 'rational' to me, but my source for my belief is my own thoughts and my own reasoning ability.moving finger said:Is there a rational source for this belief?
It seems illogical to me that I would be all that different from the other six billion humans, when in all other respects I am quite ordinary. I believe (84%) that that is a rational reason.moving finger said:Could you perhaps tell us what is the reason for believing that other humans are conscious?
Here we have a fundamental disagreement, MF. That may seem to be a very credible explanation to you, but I am incredulous. IMHO, consciousness cannot arise from the processing of information (99.8%). This opinion comes from my judgment of the difference between the subjective experience of consciousness that I have and my knowledge of information processing. I am well aware of the possibilities for manipulating information in myriad ways, but I am convinced (99.8) that consciousness cannot arise from the rearranging of bits. The fact that you think otherwise, makes me wonder about how different your conscious experience is from my own. It seems possible to me (32%) that people like yourself, Dennett, and Metzinger might not experience conscious as Lars Laborious, I, and others do. Could that be true?? ... Naaah.moving finger said:There is in fact a very credible explanation for consciousness – consciousness is simply a particular form of information processing (by an agent) which produces (as part of that processing) the entities of virtual “qualia” and virtual “self”. This (imho) is all that consciousness is, and thus is an explanation for consciousness. The details are in Metzinger’s paper.
But let's take a closer look at your claim. You parenthetically remark that the information processing must be done by "an agent". Hmmm. Lars and I also claim that there must be an "agent" which has the experience of consciousness. I.e., consciousness can't exist without something being conscious. We each seem to need an agent in order for our respective worlds to make sense.
You claim that the agent is simply the physical machine and its running program. I claim that the agent exists and experiences consciousness outside the physical world and that it interacts with information in the physical world. (Chalmers would classify me as an 'Interactionist dualist', which is OK with me.)
This leaves us with four fundamental problems -- two for each of us: How did that agent come to be? and How does consciousness arise in association with brains?
I agree that we don't need an answer to "how things originate". And it might be true that the question is ultimately unanswerable. If we take that position, then it let's us both off the hook for the problem of how our respective "agents" came to be. I don't have to explain how the primordial consciousness came to be and you don't have to explain how the physical world came to be.moving finger said:What we need is not an answer to “how things originate” (because this question is ultimately unanswerable), but instead “how can some things be rationally, coherently and consistently explained in terms of other things”. This is ALL we can ultimately achieve.
But that is not satisfying to many of us. We would like to know what was the nature of that first "thing" or "entity" which existed? And if there is some one ontologically fundamental essence underlying everything else, what is it? and what is its nature?
After all, “how can some things be rationally, coherently and consistently explained in terms of other things” unless those "other things" are identified?
So unless you want to skip this challenge and call it a draw, let me pursue it a little by reiterating a question I posed to you a while ago.
I have said that my X' is a primordial consciousness. You have not told me what your X' is. When you tell me, we can judge whether or not it makes more sense than the primordial existence of consciousness. (To prepare you, I'll sketch out my argument: If you have consciousness you can get concepts. It makes no sense for concepts to exist in the absence of a mind (a conscious agent).) If your X' is not some sort of concept, what is it?Paul Martin said:In order for X to exist, something -- call it X' -- must be primordial and ontologically fundamental in order to account for the existence of X. (I don't know what you might consider X' to be, but regardless of whether it is a false vacuum, a "true" vacuum, a Higg's Field, a set of laws, a set of principles, an endless stack of turtles, or what, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument.)
Moving on to the next problem, of how consciousness arises in living brains, we may be at an impasse. You claim that there is no Hard Problem and that Metzinger has explained how consciousness can arise in certain systems of information processing. I claim that both Chalmers and Penrose have presented convincing arguments showing why that explanation does not work. Metzinger leaves me unconvinced, and apparently Chalmers and Penrose have left you unconvinced. I doubt that either of us, especially I, can go beyond those respective arguments and convince the other to change views. We can certainly talk about it if you want. I would be delighted to do so but I think we should keep our expectations low.
Well, if the rivalry is to be decided by popularity, then I certainly won't fool myself. I am an unarmed peasant outside the physicalist castle walls with hordes of credentialed physicalists on the ramparts ready to shoot me down. But, if I may be so bold, I would suggest that the physicalists have no more "rigorous" explanations for either fundamental origins or for the appearance of consciousness in brains than I do.moving finger said:Don’t fool yourself into thinking that you have a coherent and rational theory which would rival the physicalist account unless and until you work these things out rigorously.
1.If there is only a single consciousness, then it can obviously not be seated in only a single brain (unless it is in mine and the rest of you are all zombies). (98% for the premise, 90% for the conclusion, .05% for the solipsism)moving finger said:What evidence do you have for your assertion that “consciousness is outside the physical universe”?
2. The single consciousness must be in a fairly close real-time communication with all living brains. (90%)
3. This proximity can be more easily achieved in multiple, large, extra spatial dimensions, than by being confined to the 4D physical universe. (95%)
4. We know from GR that the 4D space-time continuum is bent, or curved. (90%)
5. We know that at least one extra dimension is required in order to bend or curve a space in the way our space is curved. (You can't bend a string without at least a plane to do it in. You can't bend a sheet of paper without a 3D space in which to do it. (It gets a little more technical, but I won't go into it unless you want to.)) (99%)
6. We know mathematically that a space can be embedded in a space of higher dimensions and still retain all of its properties. (E.g. figures on a sheet of paper may be distorted by bending the paper, but all the 2D relationships within the figures remain unchanged. (Flatlanders residing on the paper couldn't necessarily tell that you bent their paper unless you bent it in a certain way.)) (99%)
7. The extra dimensions provide plenty of space-time, outside our physical 4D space-time for structures and processes that would account for the seat of consciousness. (99%)
Having never observed it myself (at least that I can clearly remember) I can't tell you much of anything about these structures or processes, but I am convinced (98%) that we can mathematically deduce many things about them if we decided to work at it.
Yes, I believe (80%) that I can do this. I'll paraphrase a summary which I have posted before:moving finger said:[Y]ou ... need to construct a plausible and rational mechanism which shows how consciousness gives rise to and explains everything we know empirically about the physical world. Can you do this? If not, your notion is explanatorily very weak.
Starting with consciousness, one can get mathematics. And with mathematics, one can get Dick's theorem. And with Dick's theorem one can get the laws of physics. And with the laws of physics, some initial numbers, and some sort of processor (like a conscious mind) one can get phenomena that appear every bit as real as the rock Boswell kicked trying to refute Berkeley. It all seems to hang together and make sense to me.
One of those occasions, of beginning processing of some initial numbers according to the laws of physics, was our Big Bang. I believe (90%) that the physicalists have good explanations for everything that has happened in our 4D world ever since with a few exceptions: They don't have an explanation for consciousness, sleep, the Cambrian explosion, or the origin of life. My views don't contradict the physicalist views but instead they extend and augment them.
I am not surprised. I am interested to know what part of my explanation is not rational or coherent. I admit that I have only offered a sketch of an idea which hardly qualifies as a theory. If you would tell me where the explanation is inadequate, maybe I can fill in the missing pieces, or maybe you could show me why I should abandon some of the ideas and replace them with something better. That would be wonderful.moving finger said:With respect, I think you should not be surprised that few people take your ideas seriously, unless and until such time as you can work out a rational, coherent and “explanatorily adequate” model based on these ideas. It seems that you’re a long way from this.
Warm regards,
Paul