Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know if this qualifies, but I've spent a certain amount of time observing and interacting with my car's hubcaps, and, in the old days, my Jimmy Connors T2000 tennis racquet. The results are inconclusive, but they don't 'seem' conscious.

That qualifies as evidence in my books.

Jimmy? Counter-evidence?

I'm sorry I gave such a short answer to this in my previous post. I gave it a lot of thought overnight. I awake to see that Gokul43201 has provided an answer that is close to what I wanted to say. Let me put it in my own words.

The issue I press is not whether an atom of iron has consciousness. Nor is it that the atom does not have consciousness. Rather I conjecture that the question is not a scientific one. There are many questions that are not scientific, and there is no reason why a scientist would not be allowed to come to a conclusion in spite of it. I, for instance, have come to the conclusion that my wife is the saving grace of my life. I have no real evidence for or against and so I think it is not a scientific question. Yet I hold firmly to my conclusion.

I have heard ThomasT's argument before. It was from William Demsky, one of the main driving forces in favor of Intelligent Design. His argument is that he has stared at the world for a long time and that to him it seems designed. I rejected that argument. But it is not the rejection of the argument that counts, it is the added conclusion that without evidence, his position is not a scientific one. People may and do decide whether to accept the idea of ID, but in my opinion, they do not make that decision based on experimental evidence. I have often made fun of the messsage in some posts that "ID is not falsifiable and it is false." However, that is actually a valid stance as long as the holder understands that the first part of the statement is scientific and the second part is philosophical.

As for the ThomasT experiment, it is not better defined than the Demsky experiment. I don't dispute that you observed hubcaps and that you did not detect consciousness. I want to know what you did detect. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Finally, as to me providing counter-evidence, I remind you that counter-evidence is evidence too and my possition is that there isn't any. To challenge me to find some is to misunderstand my position in this matter.

 

[pftest]

The major difficulty is that already, you can't prove that any other humans are conscious unless you define it behaviorally (which isn't satisfactory to most philosophers). You only infer it from our assumed likeness to you.

Yes exactly. And even then, the group of things that fit into the category of "conscious because of assumed behavioural likeness with humans" becomes very large when you take into account the universality of the laws of physics.

So if we look at the hubcap example that someone mentioned, we can spot the similarity between "human electrons" and "hubcap electrons" and see this as evidence that the hubcap is conscious.

 

[Maui]

Finally, as to me providing counter-evidence, I remind you that counter-evidence is evidence too and my possition is that there isn't any. To challenge me to find some is to misunderstand my position in this matter.

That is worded way too strong but i don't like these debates in philosophical settings. You can't prove anything to a philosopher, as he/she is determined that knowledge is fallible and at the end we all die without knowing anything to be a fact. If one questions everything, there'd be no sufficient amount of evidence for anything, as deep down in our theories, the basis of all knowledge is axioms based on our assumptions of the world.

So if we look at the hubcap example that someone mentioned, we can spot the similarity between "human electrons" and "hubcap electrons" and see this as evidence that the hubcap is conscious.

That'd be jumping to conclusions(just don't go "all knowledge is jumping to conclusions", we don't need a philosophical thought paralysis).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If one questions everything, there'd be no sufficient amount of evidence for anything, as deep down in our theories, the basis of all knowledge is axioms based on our assumptions of the world.

I have not called for sufficient evidence. I'll settle for any evidence at all for or against.

 

[Maui]

I have not called for sufficient evidence. I'll settle for any evidence at all for or against.

So you have discarded scientific(observational) evidence that shows no conclusive evidence of consciousness in atoms here:

The issue I press is not whether an atom of iron has consciousness. Nor is it that the atom does not have consciousness. Rather I conjecture that the question is not a scientific one.

So the issue and its interpretation/conclusion is not scientific any more. The question is what method of inquiry would you like to apply?

I am not aware of there being any knowledge that is ultimately conclusive and unbiased. Philosophically speaking, anything can be; scientifically, based on the chosen set of axioms and their implicit and explict assumptions, no. Lots of conclusions are discarded based on the fact that they appear nonsensical to the scientific framework we are trying to establish(all matter is conscious is a good such example).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So you have discarded scientific(observational) evidence that shows no conclusive evidence of consciousness.

Evidence of no evidence?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The question is what method of inquiry would you like to apply?

I'm open.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Of course, I did not mean to lump ThomasT and Demsky quite so tightly. I think that ThomasT is being facetious, and that Demsky is not.

 

[DaveC426913]

The simple fact is that, at least until we know the cause of consciounsess, there can be no evidence that atoms do not have consciousness; you cannot prove a negative. The best science can do is offer Occam's razor. I think this is what Jimmy is getting at.

He spotted the flaw in all our hubcap experiments: they produced no evidence. As always, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[brainstorm]

That is worded way too strong but i don't like these debates in philosophical settings. You can't prove anything to a philosopher, as he/she is determined that knowledge is fallible and at the end we all die without knowing anything to be a fact. If one questions everything, there'd be no sufficient amount of evidence for anything, as deep down in our theories, the basis of all knowledge is axioms based on our assumptions of the world.

Proof is just one aspect of knowledge. Instead of worrying about whether something can be proven or disproven, why not concern yourself with "if/then" problems? E.g. whether or not consciousness can be proven to exist in animals, plants, or non-living things, you can contemplate what it would be like to be conscious as a dog, cat, tree, or laptop by looking at what data-inputs the candidate has and what kind of processing it has at its disposal. You can look at its behavioral options and whether it has the capacity to make choices, and what the basis for its choices might be. This is all much more interesting, imo, than trying to prove/disprove something that hasn't been proved/disproved throughout human history (as far as I know anyway).

 

[DaveC426913]

Proof is just one aspect of knowledge. Instead of worrying about whether something can be proven or disproven, why not concern yourself with "if/then" problems? E.g. whether or not consciousness can be proven to exist in animals, plants, or non-living things, you can contemplate what it would be like to be conscious as a dog, cat, tree, or laptop by looking at what data-inputs the candidate has and what kind of processing it has at its disposal. You can look at its behavioral options and whether it has the capacity to make choices, and what the basis for its choices might be. This is all much more interesting, imo, than trying to prove/disprove something that hasn't been proved/disproved throughout human history (as far as I know anyway).

This was gonig to be my next comment.

How do we move ahead using Occam's razor?
If we assume atoms do not have consciousness, how far can we go if we're wrong. If we assume they do, how far can we go?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The simple fact is that, at least until we know the cause of consciounsess, there can be no evidence that atoms do not have consciousness; you cannot prove a negative.

Science can't prove a positive either. My comments were not directed toward the cause of consciousness, but rather to the existence of it. I thought that I had set a simple agenda, but it has been interpretted by several people in unexpected ways. All I am asking is if anyone has any experimental evidence to go on, or is this all just idle speculation?

The best science can do is offer Occam's razor. I think this is what Jimmy is getting at.

I don't think that this is what I was getting at. As I said in a earlier post, science is supposed to match up theory with fact. In the absence of fact, science is at a loss and should butt out of the conversation. It is then the philosophers' choice to apply Occam's razor, or any other criterion if they wish to continue their idle speculations.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science can't prove a positive either.

Why not? Do you mean specifically consciousness or in general?

I mean, OK, science can't prove that there are two apples on the table or that they bounce off each other when pushed together, but how much of a preponderance of evidence is enough?

I don't think that this is what I was getting at. As I said in a earlier post, science is supposed to match up theory with fact. In the absence of fact, science is at a loss and should butt out of the conversation.

I don't agree. Science is designed to result in a theory that tries to explain the evidence. It grants that the theory is not conclusive.

It sounds to me like you're thinking that science is nothing more than the experiment itself, and science ends with the delivery of the data, no interpretation.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why not? Do you mean specifically consciousness or in general?

I mean, OK, science can't prove that there are two apples on the table or that they bounce off each other when pushed together, but how much of a preponderance of evidence is enough?

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

 

[DaveC426913]

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

But that is not the same as butting out of the conversation. Science can make a strong claim that apples fall down in a given set of circumstances. Inasmuch as a preponderance of evidence forms an accepted theory, science can form an accepted theory, meaning life can move on as if it is true for practical purposes (even while further tests can falsify it).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But that is not the same as butting out of the conversation. Science can make a strong claim that apples fall down in a given set of circumstances. Inasmuch as a preponderance of evidence forms an accepted theory, science can form an accepted theory, meaning life can move on as if it is true for practical purposes (even while further tests can falsify it).

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

 

[Maui]

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

This is what 'being rational' is(at least in human terms). One has to believe that the world is rational and follows rational principles if science is to foster. We can't prove that there is no demon fooling us(me) about what everything is, so a bit of seemingly reasonable belief is mandatory if we are to retain our ability to reason in a meaningful way. By believing that the universe is rational, i am able to discard a lot of unbelievable propositions(e.g. that rocks are conscious but are acting in ways that make them seem as if they were not).

Evidence of no evidence?

Do you believe that the universe is rational? Do you worry that you may encounter totally unexplained and uncaused events? Say a dolphin which might jump out of your monitor? There is no evidence that it won't and based on the problem of induction and with a bit of quantum uncertainty, there is a theoretical possibility that it might.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

But that's simply getting back to the idea that you can prove a positive (apples bounce) but cannot prove a negative.

Question: do you think that the primary reason why consciousness is outside the realm of science is because we do not understand its cause yet? If we determined where consciousness arises, do you think science could then venture an assertion as to whether atoms have it?

 

[Maui]

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

There is some ambiguity as to what an atom is. According to the modern atomic model, criptic as a classical description might be, an atom is its probability distribution. What reason do we have to seek consciousness in something that is ill-defined in classical terms? Do we have evidence that atoms are not for example tiny animals? Has anyone come up with an experiment to disprove or prove that they are not?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The purpose of science is to match theory with fact. Keep that in mind as you read on.

But that's simply getting back to the idea that you can prove a positive (apples bounce) but cannot prove a negative.

No. I have a theory: Apples fall down. I have a fact: I have never seen apples fall anyway but down. Theory matches fact and so I accept the theory. My job as a scientist is finished. However, there are two important things that are left unsettled. What happened to all those apples that I didn't observe? Did they fall down too? And what of the future? Will the next apple fall down? Therefore, I accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

Question: do you think that the primary reason why consciousness is outside the realm of science is because we do not understand its cause yet? If we determined where consciousness arises, do you think science could then venture an assertion as to whether atoms have it?

By no means. I think that the question "Are atoms conscious?" is outside the realm of science because, unlike falling apples, I have no experimental data to work with. How can I, as a scientist ever hope to match theory with fact when there are no facts lying about to work with? Come up with an experiment of some kind. Instead of examining your belly button, examine the world. What do you see? I will accept your reports from the field as facts and perhaps even come up with a theory that matches those facts. What have you got?

 

[pftest]

I don't think it makes sense to use occams razor to assume atoms lack consciousness, because i do not think it provides a "simpler" explanation for human consciousness than we would have if atoms were conscious. For one we end up needing a strange kind of emergence that doesn't really fit in with how anything else in nature works. Similarly, we do not get a simpler explanation for an eels electric organ by assuming that there was no electromagnetism before eels existed.

 

[DaveC426913]

Therefore, I accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

And in the mean time, you proceed as if apples fall down, unless there is reason to suppose otherwise.

Why would you not do the same with non-conscious atoms?

By no means. I think that the question "Are atoms conscious?" is outside the realm of science because, unlike falling apples, I have no experimental data to work with. How can I, as a scientist ever hope to match theory with fact when there are no facts lying about to work with? Come up with an experiment of some kind. Instead of examining your belly button, examine the world. What do you see? I will accept your reports from the field as facts and perhaps even come up with a theory that matches those facts. What have you got?

But since it is impossible to prove a negative, you can treat repeated negative results as evidence.

It's one thing to say 'no evidence of God does not mean there's no God', because God could be around the next corner.

But we can test for the difference between consciousness and not consciousness. A live person who is conscious has brain waves, a dead person does not. If we examine all things, we can divide them into things that emit a certain complexity of brain waves and things that don't, invariably, there will be a correlation between that group and the group of conscious things versus not-conscious things as we understand consciousness.

This is not a litmus test by any means, I'm not suggesting it is, what I'm suggesting is that tests for consciousness in atoms ought to turn up evidence if it were there.

We don't detect it; we should be able to move forward saying it's probably not there, just like we can move forward saying there probably is not a teacup orbiting Jupiter.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think it makes sense to use occams razor to assume atoms lack consciousness, because i do not think it provides a "simpler" explanation for human consciousness than we would have if atoms were conscious. For one we end up needing a strange kind of emergence that doesn't really fit in with how anything else in nature works. Similarly, we do not get a simpler explanation for an eels electric organ by assuming that there was no electromagnetism before eels existed.

So, your theory then is that, because humans have consciousness, it is more likely that all atoms in the universe have consciousness. To you, it does not makes sense that consciousness may be an emergent property of a collection of atoms.

Why do small animals not exhibit this consciousness? Why not pebbles? Why not planets and stars, which are much larger and more complex than us, not exhibit it?

Your theory raises more questions than it answers; it has more exceptions than rules. And that is the whole intent of Occam's razor, to avoid multiplying entities needing explanations.

 

[pftest]

But we can test for the difference between consciousness and not consciousness. A live person who is conscious has brain waves, a dead person does not. If we examine all things, we can divide them into things that emit a certain complexity of brain waves and things that don't, invariably, there will be a correlation between that group and the group of conscious things versus not-conscious things as we understand consciousness.

There are limitations to detecting nonconsciousness this way. It relies on anecdotal evidence that the subjects report and all the problems that come with it. For example, they may simply not remember being conscious. Or they may have been minimally conscious. Or conscious in a way unlike everyday waking consciousness. Etc.

Ill use the eels electric organ again as example: we can stab the eels organ and it may no longer be able to give off electric shocks, but from this it doesn't follow that electric charge doesn't exist outside the eels organ (we know this is false).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And in the mean time, you proceed as if apples fall down, unless there is reason to suppose otherwise.
Why would you not do the same with non-conscious atoms?

I have no issue with it. I merely point out that it is not scientific. I asked you to keep in mind that science matches theory with fact. No fact, no science. Period. But you can still suppose what you like on non-scientific matters. Knock yourself out.

 

[pftest]

So, your theory then is that, because humans have consciousness, it is more likely that all atoms in the universe have consciousness. To you, it does not makes sense that consciousness may be an emergent property of a collection of atoms.

To me emergence doesn't yet make sense because it cannot be found anywhere else in nature. To me that is a strong indication that it is not a natural phenomenon. I always look at how the rest of nature works to find explanations. When i look at how evolution is about simple things getting more complex, i do not get a positive feel about the idea of consciousness being an exception and having no simpler form in one of our ancestors.

Why do small animals not exhibit this consciousness? Why not pebbles? Why not planets and stars, which are much larger and more complex than us, not exhibit it?

I think your questions can be rephrased to this:

- why do small animals not behave like humans?
- why do pebbles not behave like humans?
- why do planets and stars not behave like humans?

Of course they don't behave like humans*, but that doesn't mean they arent conscious. We can infer consciousness in other humans by comparing their behaviour to our own. But when the behaviour is very different (for example in pebbles), we simply lose the ability to infer consciousness. Thats like looking out an airplane window while being blind. You can't see if there is a river down below, but its no reason to assume there isnt.

* its not entirely true that they don't behave like humans

 

[Maui]

To me emergence doesn't yet make sense because it cannot be found anywhere else in nature. To me that is a strong indication that it is not a natural phenomenon.

Really?! What is matter? What is time? What is space? What is consciousness? What is anything? A simple probability distribution? A measurement outcome or my knowledge of it?

Wave-structures of unknown(or unknowable) substance somehow give you enough evidence to make this monstrous claim? How is causality maintained in light of the relativity of simultaneity? How does causality square with entangled states? How does causality fit the ability to only assign probabilities to quantum events? How does einselection work to preserve our observations of causally connected events? Just a reminder, if you're going to make this point - a hidden underlying reality is just as much evidence of 'emergence' as it can ever be(as far as we are concerned). And if we are living in a causal universe as you insist, face up to it, it has to accommodate magical influences.

There are limitations to detecting nonconsciousness this way. It relies on anecdotal evidence that the subjects report and all the problems that come with it. For example, they may simply not remember being conscious. Or they may have been minimally conscious. Or conscious in a way unlike everyday waking consciousness. Etc.

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no issue with it. I merely point out that it is not scientific. I asked you to keep in mind that science matches theory with fact. No fact, no science. Period. But you can still suppose what you like on non-scientific matters. Knock yourself out.

I don't understand why you suggest it is not scientific. Science must proceed on what has gone before. Our theory that something probably doesn't exist allows our scientific method to move forward as if it doesn't. That's called the null hypothesis. The Scientific Method requires it.

 

[brainstorm]

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

Don't confuse rationality with plausibility-estimation based on subjective intuition. Your "99%" estimate that rocks aren't conscious is rooted in empathetic intuition. There is no rational basis for attributing or rejecting the existence of consciousness in anyone/anything besides yourself. If there is, it would be based on analysis of potential causes of consciousness and not on intuitive feelings about what constitutes nonsense and what doesn't. Otherwise you could "rationally" hypothesize that the more someone/something else looks like you, the more likely it is to have consciousness - which is of course the reason women and racialized Others have been traditionally viewed as semi-conscious along with animals.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't understand why you suggest it is not scientific.

Theory without facts is not science. I have nothing deeper than that for you to try and understand.

Galileo was a pioneer in advocating that the scholastics of his day take their noses out of their books, open the window, and take a look at the world outside. It is considered the dawn of a revolution in science. Here we are 400 years into the revolution and you still don't get it? Science compares theories to facts. Without facts gathered from observation of the real world, you can't play the game. What is there to understand in that? Put aside your need to understand for just 5 minutes and use that time to gather in a fact. Not from the ivory tower of logical thinking, but from painstakingly careful observation of this dirty and dusty world. Or careless observation, but at all odds, observation, observation, observation. Then you will be doing science. Come up with a theory to explain the fact that you observed. Now you are ready to humbly accept a Nobel in physics.

 

[Pythagorean]

I got to agree with David and Maui here. If we expect the world to be rational (which most scientists do; that's the dominant philosophy) then consciousness is a result of cause and effect (physical interactions).

Jimmy:
Theoretical sciences don't always rely on facts. In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"

Together with the experimentalists, the whole of science is verified with facts (as Einstein's new facts were eventually verified and are well accepted today), but the individual aspects of science don't always require fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Theory without facts is not science.

I have no issue with that statement. But that's not what you've been saying. You're been saying science ends with the facts.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Theoretical sciences don't always rely on facts. In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"

If you look around the web you will soon find that this quote is unsourced and the attribution to Einstein is highly unlikely. What else have you got.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you look around the web you will soon find that this quote is unsourced and the attribution to Einstein is highly unlikely. What else have you got.

It doesn't really matter whether he said it or not, it's that he did it. If you're relying on Einstein having said that for the argument to hold, then you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

The point is that that's one of the things science does: changes facts (or too make it more rigorous, what's actually happening is that the original facts weren't actually facts, but they've worked as facts for a long time)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It doesn't really matter whether he said it or not, it's that he did it. If you're relying on Einstein having said that for the argument to hold, then you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

The point is that that's one of the things science does: changes facts (or too make it more rigorous, what's actually happening is that the original facts weren't actually facts, but they've worked as facts for a long time)

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? Which facts were changed? What was the theory that benefited from the change?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have no issue with that statement. But that's not what you've been saying. You're been saying science ends with the facts.

In which post did I ever say that. I have repeated and emphasized that science is the comparison of theory and fact.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

Hold on slick. You said:
"In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "
And when I point out that the attribution to Einstein is sketchy that equates in your mind that I am arguing from authority?

 

[pftest]

Really?! What is matter? What is time? What is space? What is consciousness? What is anything? A simple probability distribution? A measurement outcome or my knowledge of it?

Wave-structures of unknown(or unknowable) substance somehow give you enough evidence to make this monstrous claim? How is causality maintained in light of the relativity of simultaneity? How does causality square with entangled states? How does causality fit the ability to only assign probabilities to quantum events? How does einselection work to preserve our observations of causally connected events? Just a reminder, if you're going to make this point - a hidden underlying reality is just as much evidence of 'emergence' as it can ever be(as far as we are concerned). And if we are living in a causal universe as you insist, face up to it, it has to accommodate magical influences.

Im not aware of any examples of emergence in nature. Of course that could be because of my limited knowledge, but feel free to offer a clear example that we can focus on.

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

Feel free to point out where I am not being rational. You say rocks arent conscious and that rationality requires we dismiss it, but you left out the rational part. What is it?

Btw, if the universe turned out to be entirely rational, do you think this is incompatible with the idea that consciousness (which is the basis of rationality) is a universally found phenomenon? Quite the opposite id say.

 

[Pythagorean]

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? Which facts were changed? What was the theory that benefited from the change?

ok, my form here is:

"fact" : theory that benefited (or was born, rather) from the fact being wrong (scientist who changed the facts)

Energy is continuous : quantum mechanics (Planck)

(note: there are also numerous fact-changing consequences for other facts that follow from this that resolve such issues as the ultarviolet catastrophe by changing the facts, quantum tunneling)

Space is Euclidian : relativity (Einstein) (numerous fact-changing consequences again.)

Geocentrism : Heliocentrism (Copernicus/Galileo)

Creationism : Big Bang / Evolution (many including Einstein / Darwin)

light is a wave/particle : light is a quantum particle (Einstein)

charges in atoms are distributed evenly (Thompson or Pudding Plum model) : charge is concentrated in the middle of the atom (Rutherford)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not a single item in your list was ever considered an experimental fact. They are all theories. However, I now understand what you mean by changing fact. It is one thing to make an observation only later to find that it is mistaken. It is quite another to fail to make any observation whatever. When I use the word fact, I do not mean eternal truth. Science would never have come to be if we had to wait for eternally true facts.We still don't have any today. No, by the word fact, I merely mean an observation. Not even the most obstinate pedant could suppose that I meant otherwise because I used the words fact and observation interchangably and repeatedly in this thread. Now, for the benefit of the pedants, I will clarify. Science is the comparison of theory to the facts as they are currently known. However, in the future, I will just shorten that to science is the comparison of theory to fact.

 

[Pythagorean]

Hold on slick. You said:
"In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "
And when I point out that the attribution to Einstein is sketchy that equates in your mind that I am arguing from authority?

You misunderstand. I'm saying you're arguing against me as if I was arguing from authority, which you shouldn't have to do. Anyway, the point is that Einstein was part of the paradigm shift from classical physics to modern physics (he contributed to both quantum mechanics and relativity). I might be wrong that he said that, but I it certainly fits what he did.Apparently (from another thread on here in which you actually particcipated) the quote actually came from Spinoza and Einstein might have quoted Spinoza. Anyway, I thought the implication would be obvious, since Einstein did literally contribute to all the ground-breaking changes in physics at the beginning of the 20th century.

Not a single item in your list was ever considered an experimental fact. They are all theories. However, I now understand what you mean by changing fact. It is one thing to make an observation only later to find that it is mistaken. It is quite another to fail to make any observation whatever. When I use the word fact, I do not mean eternal truth. Science would never have come to be if we had to wait for eternally true facts.We still don't have any today. No, by the word fact, I merely mean an observation. Not even the most obstinate pedant could suppose that I meant otherwise because I used the words fact and observation interchangably and repeatedly in this thread. Now, for the benefit of the pedants, I will clarify. Science is the comparison of theory to the facts as they are currently known. However, in the future, I will just shorten that to science is the comparison of theory to fact.

There's two difference in our approach here:

First of all, I don't consider observation facts. You can say it's a fact that you had this or that observation, but that alone is useless. I could link an optical illusion to demonstrate how observations aren't just sensory perception. There's a leap involved; you have to trust and integrate the results of many perceptions and cognitive processes to synthesize one scientific observation.

Second, my point is really that there is no such thing as fact in the strict sense. Sure, it's a fact that you had so and so observation, but if that observation doesn't properly represent reality, then it's a useless fact. We know that our observations don't wholly represent reality (or maybe that reality can't even be "represented" at the quantum level) so we have some license of creativity to what goes on behind the scenes, on how to explain our most consistent observations.

To my mind, fact is inevitably a human consensus reality. There may very well be real facts (in fact, I'm sure there are), and that's what we hope to approach with the scientific method... but part of being scientific also requires that those facts be reconsidered occasionally.

But give me a specific example of a fact to match your description, just in case I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

 

[Pythagorean]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Experimental evidence has already been presented. You just haven't accepted the assumptions that evidence is based on. All experimental evidence requires you to accept assumptions.

 

[pftest]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

I will answer: C is invisible except from the first person perspective. So there can be no experimental evidence (observations) of iron atoms having or not having C.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Experimental evidence has already been presented. You just haven't accepted the assumptions that evidence is based on. All experimental evidence requires you to accept assumptions.

My bad. Link to it please. Or summarize it in your own words if you are able.

 

[Pythagorean]

My bad. Link to it please. Or summarize it in your own words if you are able.

It's not a published study or antything, there would be no point. We observe it every day. Iron atoms don't exhibit the complexity that biological lifeforms do. Testing it would be like testing every dog for a brain before declaring "every dog has a brain".

If you jump off a 5, 10 and 15 ft cliff, you don't have to jump off the 20 foot cliff to know that it will hurt, too. We can't possibly take every data point in experiments.

The assumption is Physicalism: that consciousness requires the complex processes provided by the physiology that life exhibits. You also have to accept the assumption that you can derive consciousness from behavior and cell dynamics. Then you would run the test on iron atoms (which would feel quite silly) and see that it failed.

We also know that we can freeze and altar consciousness by hitting somebody in the head really hard or giving them drugs that mess with their electrochemical interactions in their brain.

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way. They don't even have the equipment we assume is necessary for consciousness.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's not a published study or antything, there would be no point. We observe it every day. Iron atoms don't exhibit the complexity that biological lifeforms do. Testing it would be like testing every dog for a brain before declaring "every dog has a brain".

If you jump off a 5, 10 and 15 ft cliff, you don't have to jump off the 20 foot cliff to know that it will hurt, too. We can't possibly take every data point in experiments.

The assumption is Physicalism: that consciousness requires the complex processes provided by the physiology that life exhibits. You also have to accept the assumption that you can derive consciousness from behavior and cell dynamics. Then you would run the test on iron atoms (which would feel quite silly) and see that it failed.

We also know that we can freeze and altar consciousness by hitting somebody in the head really hard or giving them drugs that mess with their electrochemical interactions in their brain.

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way. They don't even have the equipment we assume is necessary for consciousness.

Thanks. That's two no responses so far.

 

[Pythagorean]

Thanks. That's two no responses so far.

You simply refuse to accept the assumptions.

You could be just as obstinate by requiring that I show the gravitational constant works at some precisely define r, m1, and m2 for which no experiment has been performed.

 

[Boy@n]

The consciousness is emergent from a vast interconnected network of neurons in the brain.

A clump of clay is just a homogeneous collection of atoms. A clump of brain is also a collection of atoms, but they are arranged to form higher order structures, the neurons, in a such a way as to allow the vast networking between them to take place.

When you die, in that split second brains structure is the same as when you were alive, but you aren't conscious anymore. I'd not say consciousness emerges just out of brains, as said, dead brains can have same structure as those "alive", but sure, brains is a fundamental part of human consciousness, but there seems to be more than just physical brains.

What's the physical difference between dead and alive person in a short time span?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way.

Sorry, I took this to mean that you do not have experimental evidence. Did you intend these words to mean that you do have experimental evidence?