Is Consciousness Beyond Physical Explanation?

[Upisoft]

I was only discussing a comparison between two things, not universal laws.

I take it that universal laws are much more complex than an endless number of comparisons between things.

But the list you you put assumed that the low that controls the way the two systems diverge has to be deterministic. Right?

 

[G037H3]

But the list you you put assumed that the low that controls the way the two systems diverge has to be deterministic. Right?

nope

i was just separating possibilities into major likely groups

 

[Upisoft]

Then what about

D: the systems were identical and now they are not.
?

 

[G037H3]

Then what about

D: the systems were identical and now they are not.
?

what i was talking about was reasons

 

[Upisoft]

what i was talking about was reasons

But you exclude non deterministic law as a reason. If you did not, then I don't see where it fits in A, B or C.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?

And what is a mental state? How is it defined? How are mental states in any way distinct from the physical states of the brain in an objective sense?

EDIT: Galois wasn't a duelist. That was the problem.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How are mental states in any way distinct from the physical states of the brain in an objective sense?

If mental states are physical states (non-dualist?) then all the more does my first post hold. According to QM, the same physical states do not necessarily lead to the same subsequent physical states and since mental states are physical states, do not necessarily lead to the same mental states.

 

[Upisoft]

If mental states are physical states (non-dualist?) then all the more does my first post hold. According to QM, the same physical states do not necessarily lead to the same subsequent physical states and since mental states are physical states, do not necessarily lead to the same mental states.

I don't even know why you bring that point. The brains are unique, thus they are always in different state. There is no need to go as deep as QM.

 

[DaveC426913]

EDIT: Galois wasn't a duelist. That was the problem.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't even know why you bring that point. The brains are unique, thus they are always in different state. There is no need to go as deep as QM.

I didn't bring the point. The OP wrote:

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

All of my posts have been narrowly focused on this.

 

[Upisoft]

I didn't bring the point. The OP wrote:

"Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states."

All of my posts have been narrowly focused on this.

Ah, sorry, after 10 pages I've got a little lost.

Anyway, if the physical states and mental states are of different origin, then QM doesn't help. You can't apply QM on mental states.

On other hand, if they are the same thing, then again there is no need to bring QM, because the physical state is the mental state. And the OP statement is correct.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Ah, sorry, after 10 pages I've got a little lost.

Anyway, if the physical states and mental states are of different origin, then QM doesn't help. You can't apply QM on mental states.

On other hand, if they are the same thing, then again there is no need to bring QM, because the physical state is the mental state. And the OP statement is correct.

No, as I stated in my first post, QM says that two identical physical states do not necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state. Therefore, in contrast to the OP's statement, they do not necessarily produce the same mental state. This is so whether they are different (dualism) or the same (non-dualism?)
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

 

[Upisoft]

No, as I stated in my first post, QM says that two identical physical states do not necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state. Therefore, in contrast to the OP's statement, they do not necessarily produce the same mental state. This is so whether they are different (dualism) or the same (non-dualism?)
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:

I think that OP say that P(physical) and M(mental) are related this way P->M. And you are arguing that QM say P->P' and P->P'' are both possible. But then, the OP only argues that P->M, P'->M' and P''->M''. There is no contradiction. What you say is quite compatible with what he say . And yet you don't sound like you agree with OP...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think that OP say that P(physical) and M(mental) are related this way P->M. And you are arguing that QM say P->P' and P->P'' are both possible. But then, the OP only argues that P->M, P'->M' and P''->M''. There is no contradiction. What you say is quite compatible with what he say . And yet you don't sound like you agree with OP...

I can't speak for Jimmy Snyder but as far as what you quoted, I don't disagree although I claim to be a non dualist. I do argue that so called mental events are simply signatures of potentially observable events in the brain. However unlike the public observation of an experimenter reading tracks of particle motions in a cloud chamber as signatures of sub-atomic events, signatures of physical events in the brain may be both public and private. The private signatures are sensations which can only be experienced by the individual. I can't rule out the possibility that some advanced science couldn't transfer these sensations to another "observer". In any case, my basic view is that there is just one nature and if you rule out the supernatural, you cannot be a dualist.

Our knowledge is of course limited, but the question is: Are there hard limits which we cannot ever hope to exceed? There may be. Present physical theory requires that we cannot know of events outside of our light cone or directly observe events inside a black hole. Special and General Relativity may be replaced by a new theory someday, but the point is that even censored knowledge doesn't refute physics or a monist nature.

 

[Upisoft]

I can't speak for Jimmy Snyder but as far as what you quoted, I don't disagree although I claim to be a non dualist. I do argue that so called mental events are simply signatures of potentially observable events in the brain. However unlike the public observation of an experimenter reading tracks of particle motions in a cloud chamber as signatures of sub-atomic events, signatures of physical events in the brain may be both public and private.

That depends on many things that we still don't know. Let's assume you are right. Also let's assume that the processes in the brain are sensitive enough to experience the uncertainty principle. In this case we cannot study the brain without disturbing it. Or, in other words, if I'm able to read you thoughts I'll be changing them in the same time.

The private signatures are sensations which can only be experienced by the individual. I can't rule out the possibility that some advanced science couldn't transfer these sensations to another "observer". In any case, my basic view is that there is just one nature and if you rule out the supernatural, you cannot be a dualist.

Even if we are able to transfer the sensory input from person to person we will not be able to observe what they observe. The problem is that observation is done by analysis of the sensory input and it will be still your unique wired brain that will do the analysis in a different way.

Of course there is just one nature, but what OP wonders about is if we will be able to explain the "essence" of everything. The mathematics of QM may predict pretty well what happens with quantum systems, but is the mathematics the essence of QM?

For example, if you want to represent the spin of an electron all you need are two real numbers. If you have two electrons, you would expect (classically) that 4 numbers will suffice (2 x 2 = 4) to describe their state. But no, QM says you will need 6. It looks like 2 more degrees of freedom just popped out of nowhere, just because you've put 2 electrons together. Weird, right? Yet pretty natural as we have the mathematics covering it. But do we know what is the "essence" behind this phenomenon?

I'd say it all depends on what you call the "essence".

Our knowledge is of course limited, but the question is: Are there hard limits which we cannot ever hope to exceed? There may be. Present physical theory requires that we cannot know of events outside the our light cone or directly observe events inside a black hole. Special and General Relativity may be replaced by a new theory someday, but the point is that even censored knowledge doesn't refute physics or a monist nature.

I think it is just problem of the definition. One can always label everything natural and try to find some laws governing it. The problem is that others can always say the law is not enough and there must be something else that explains the weirdness of the law.

 

[Pythagorean]

Sorry, Maui, didn't notice this post from you until now. Wasn't neglecting you.

What do you mean by "before people have made them"? Before they were aware that they would make them?

Yes. Up to six seconds before they push the button, the fMRI analysis can predict their answer, even though their instructed to push the button immediately when they make a decision.

It's clear to me that if you had ANY links whatsoever about how thinking and perception arise, you'd have posted them by now. All i can see is speculation about circuits in the hope that you'd find a mechanism for personal subjective experience that will confirm your or someone else's thesis.

I HAVE posted them! It was in a thread about willpower, months ago. I encouraged you to look up that thread so we don't repeat old arguments. This isn't exactly a new topic here at physicsforums.

...and of course LOGIC! And logic only exists in minds(especially the ability to predict possible outcomes). Surprized?

surprised? no.. not at all, why should I be? This is irrelevant to our discussion. We both know and use logic. The discussion is about whether the logical operations are handled by a physical brain or some... nonphysical... soul thing?

You do, of course, realize that a simple set of transistors can do logic for us? Isn't it interesting that our neurons work in a similar way? Even physically, the way the handle currents is comparable.

Making choices is a good indicator of a well functioning mind.

Exactly, which is an indicator of a well-funcitoning brain. This is well established by the psychiatric community.

 

[Pythagorean]

Maui, I'll save you some time:




from the thread "Do Mental Events Cause" (also started by Q Goest)

 

[Hurkyl]

Also let's assume that the processes in the brain are sensitive enough to experience the uncertainty principle.

Why does this argument apply to the brain, but not to quantum systems sensitive enough to "experience the uncertainty principle"?

 

[Maui]

What's your point? There are no cooking recipes in the physics textbook either. That does not mean the cake is unphysical...

Are you able to identify the difference between a cake and a conscious mind? If not, there is no hope.

 

[Maui]

Are you aware of the disease schizophrenia? Are you aware that there are drugs such as haloperidol which, although not a cure, can allow many of the afflicted to live reasonably normal lives as long as they take the medication?

What is this supposed to prove? That there is a connection between body and mind? Where did i even once engaged in debating against such a point?

And how does what you say explain how conscious thoughts arise from inanimate matter? Or even what thoughts are?

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you able to identify the difference between a cake and a conscious mind? If not, there is no hope.

There are lots of differences. That doesn't mean any are relevant.

 

[Maui]

That's not the case anymore, not in the last 20 or 30 years, but especially not in the last 10 years. People are getting over the fact that they're not magical beings, just like they got over the fact that they don't hold the center of the universe in centuries past.

We did great so far, science has advanced 10 feet and now there remains less to be known. The problem is that there are now 10 less feet in a million mile road to complete knowledge. The other problem is that the deeper we probe, the greater the confusion and the possibility of all current knowledge collapsing(since science is a tool for investigation based almost entirely on unverifiable assumptions).

For starters, you might want to address the issue of what 'thinking' is. What is a thought? You don't have to be desparate, as there are close to 7 billion people who don't know too.

 

[Maui]

There are lots of differences. That doesn't mean any are relevant.

Like the difference that any recipe for a cake could be adequately explained by high-school physics and perfectly explained by quantum chemistry.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

the OP only argues that P->M, P'->M' and P''->M''.

No, he argues that if P->M and P->M', then M=M'
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

QM says that if P->P' and P->P'' then it is not necessarily true that P'=P''

 

[Upisoft]

Why does this argument apply to the brain, but not to quantum systems sensitive enough to "experience the uncertainty principle"?

Because the quantum systems are sensitive enough. But the question is if the brain has any significant sensitivity, or if it is more like computers that have definite states despite the quantum fluctuations. If the latter is true then we can stick electrodes in every neuron and record/analyze the data. (Or we may find way to do that observation in more gentle way )

 

[Upisoft]

Are you able to identify the difference between a cake and a conscious mind? If not, there is no hope.

You put the argument "if it is not described by physics...". And yes, with the knowledge only from a physics textbook I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a cake and a conscious mind.

 

[Upisoft]

Like the difference that any recipe for a cake could be adequately explained by high-school physics and perfectly explained by quantum chemistry.

Not if they have NEVER seen a cake.

 

[Upisoft]

No, he argues that if P->M and P->M', then M=M'
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:


QM says that if P->P' and P->P'' then it is not necessarily true that P'=P''

Of course you are correct about what OP says. What is missing here is time. P->M does not necessary mean P(t₀)->M(t₁). It may as well mean P(t₀)->M(t₀).

 

[Q_Goest]

I've been away on business for a week now, so I apologize for not responding sooner.

No, as I stated in my first post, QM says that two identical physical states do not necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state. Therefore, in contrast to the OP's statement, they do not necessarily produce the same mental state. This is so whether they are different (dualism) or the same (non-dualism?)
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

Regarding the quote, I hope the statement was recognized as a very brief statement regarding supervenience. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supervenience/" :

A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”.

I actually like the way Tim Maudlin describes it:

Hence, two physical systems engaged in precisely the same physical activity through a time will support the same modes of consciousness (if any) through that time. Let us call this the supervenience thesis.

Consider P to be a physical state at time t=0 and P* being physical state at time t=1 and P** being physical state at time t=2, etc... per Jaegwon Kim. Then assuming there are two physical bodies undergoing identical physical states P, P*, P**, etc... I think we should also presume that these two physical bodies undergo identical mental states M, M*, M**, etc...

That's all that's being said. We can attribute these physical states to classical scale states as computationalism would have it, or we could attribute these physical states to QM states. In either case, if we show that the physical states are identical, I don't see any escape from the conclusion that the mental states are also identical.

This isn't to say that in the case of the QM states, the physical state subsequent to P (ie: P*) is determined. It only says that assuming the states are identical, the mental states are also identical.

 

[Maui]

You put the argument "if it is not described by physics...".

yes, i did, because very few phenomena aren't described by physics.

And yes, with the knowledge only from a physics textbook I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a cake and a conscious mind.

You have to use your brain, that goes without saying. Cakes and recipes for cakes are perfectly described by textbook physics. On the other hand - thoughts, logic, perception and awareness are not.

 

[Maui]

Not if they have NEVER seen a cake.

But they are the 'cake'. You can't reduce everything to brainwaves. There is an Origin for these brainwaves, they don't happen randomly, they follow a logical pattern and have predictive abilities and make possible awareness and perception. That Origin is you. And every observation so far confirms that it acts in top-down fashion.

 

[Phrak]

Dualaities show up everywhere. Everywhere. They've become boring.

Where are my fellow Tertalists, in search of terital symmetries?--even Pentists and such, as long as they're generally Primalists.

 

[arkajad]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_%28projective_geometry%29"

In the geometry of the projective plane, duality refers to geometric transformations that replace points by lines and lines by points while preserving incidence properties among the transformed objects. The existence of such transformations leads to a general principle, that any theorem about incidences between points and lines in the projective plane may be transformed into another theorem about lines and points, by a substitution of the appropriate words.

 

[Upisoft]

You have to use your brain, that goes without saying. Cakes and recipes for cakes are perfectly described by textbook physics. On the other hand - thoughts, logic, perception and awareness are not.

Imagine brilliant physicist, who however doesn't know anything about cooking and food. Someone gives him a cake. The physicist will not be able to make another cake.

Many people, including me, don't know how to cook. I know how to make very few things, but I don't know how to make a cake. I don't know QFT. Suppose I decide to learn QFT. Will that make me more capable to make a cake? I don't think so. Even if I read and learn every other physics book, I'll still be unaware how to make a cake. My wife, however knows how to make a cake. She doesn't know as much physics as I do. How do you explain that?

 

[DaveC426913]

Imagine brilliant physicist, who however doesn't know anything about cooking and food. Someone gives him a cake. The physicist will not be able to make another cake.

But we're not talking about practice here, we're talking principle. A physicist (with enough knowledge of his own subject field and enough time) has everything he needs to make a cake.

Does the brain, in principle, break down to chemistry and electrical impulses? Yes.

 

[Upisoft]

But we're not talking about practice here, we're talking principle. A physicist (with enough knowledge of his own subject field and enough time) has everything he needs to make a cake.

May I have an example how this will happen? What will the physicist do to make another cake?

 

[Hurkyl]

I think the point of the cake analogy has been lost. You want to know how to bake a cake, you look in cookbooks not a physics texts. You want to know how much energy is released burning gasoline, you look in chemistry texts, not physics texts. You want to know about thinking, you similarly wouldn't look in a physics text.

 

[Q_Goest]

Dualaities show up everywhere. Everywhere. They've become boring.

What other dualities are there? We might suggest there are other phenomena that are not objectively measurable, such as spaghetti monsters in the clouds that experience astral projections (AP) on a geologic time scale. Perhaps these AP correspond 1 to 1 with the physical state of the clouds in Earth's atmosphere, so one might say there is a purely material explanation for these AP phenomena. Should we assume AP phenomena exist and they are being reported by the spaghetti monsters in the clouds but we simply haven't figured out the language yet?

Qualia are difficult to explain because they can't be explained by explaining the material interactions, whereas making a cake for example, can be explained by explaining chemical reactions. A cake is a purely physical phenomena. I don't see dualities in any other material phenomena.

 

[Upisoft]

Qualia are difficult to explain because they can't be explained by explaining the material interactions

Qualia are unique, because the material interactions are unique. Isn't that an explanation?

whereas making a cake for example, can be explained by explaining chemical reactions. A cake is a purely physical phenomena. I don't see dualities in any other material phenomena.

Say, an alien visits us and leaves something that he calls "cake". Can we reproduce it without destroying the original? Understanding the brain is limited by our destructive interactions with it.

 

[Q_Goest]

Qualia are unique, because the material interactions are unique. Isn't that an explanation?

No. Suppose an alien visits us that has 4 or more different types of cone cells in their eyes and they explain that the flowers we are looking have different colors than the ones we see. Or say he has tiny pressure sensors and electrical sensors in every pore on his skin and he experiences the world through these. Do material interactions tell us anything about the qualia he experiences (ie: other than the material interactions)?

 

[Upisoft]

No. Suppose an alien visits us that has 4 or more different types of cone cells in their eyes and they explain that the flowers we are looking have different colors than the ones we see. Or say he has tiny pressure sensors and electrical sensors in every pore on his skin and he experiences the world through these. Do material interactions tell us anything about the qualia he experiences (ie: other than the material interactions)?

Why do you put a limit for the material interactions only to the senses? Clearly the alien will have different brain than you that will react in different way. It will react differently even if the best surgeons are able to transplant your eyes to the alien. The qualia is property of the brain, not the sensors. If you ever had a color dream you would know what I mean.

 

[Q_Goest]

Why do you put a limit for the material interactions only to the senses?

I don't. See the spaghetti monster above for another example without discussing sensory organs.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't. See the spaghetti monster above for another example without discussing sensory organs.

Ah, you want to discuss "language". OK. Let's look at the problem from this point of view.

I'll use classical (set based) information theory.

Alice has a set of experiences that she is able to experience. Let's call it A. After some period of learning she associates a subset of it A' (seeing red) to another subset A''(hearing the word "red"). After a while the person will try to associate an activity (saying the word "red") with A'' and A'.
The same is valid for Bob and he ends up with B, B' and B''. Also he has his own activity to say the word "red".

Let's assume that the activities of Alice and Bob trigger one of the experiences in A'' and B''. That means they can understand each other. They now can share limited information about "red". Smaller the sets are more exact will be the information. "Brick red" for example.

Yet the sets A and B have unique members, so they do not intersect. The language is just an association between unique subsets of unique sets.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think the point of the cake analogy has been lost. You want to know how to bake a cake, you look in cookbooks not a physics texts. You want to know how much energy is released burning gasoline, you look in chemistry texts, not physics texts. You want to know about thinking, you similarly wouldn't look in a physics text.

Woah, wait a minute. There's a lot of physics and chemistry that is essential to cooking (see Alton Brown. In almost every show, he comments on the physics an chemistry of his cooking approach.)

 

[Upisoft]

Woah, wait a minute. There's a lot of physics and chemistry that is essential to cooking (see Alton Brown. In almost every show, he comments on the physics an chemistry of his cooking approach.)

You can study some aspects of cooking by using physics, but you cannot learn to cook by studying physics. That was the point.

 

[Q_Goest]

I think the point of the cake analogy has been lost. You want to know how to bake a cake, you look in cookbooks not a physics texts. You want to know how much energy is released burning gasoline, you look in chemistry texts, not physics texts.

I got to go with Hurkyl on this one. A recipe is all it takes to make a cake.

To explain how the cake TASTES however...

 

[Upisoft]

To explain how the cake TASTES however...

It is impossible, yes. It is also impossible to measure the spin of the electron along x and y-axis simultaneously. Will you evoke another -ism for that?

 

[Pythagorean]

You can study some aspects of cooking by using physics, but you cannot learn to cook by studying physics. That was the point.

That's what I disagree with though. You can learn how to cook studying physics. It's just not a terribly efficient way to do it, just like you don't want to model a cannon ball as an ensemble of quantum particles.

In other words, I find reductionism perfectly valid in principle. In practice, of course, it's filled with technical difficulties.

Anyway... once a discovery has been made, it's easy for anybody to follow a "recipe" to repeat the discovery for themselves (whether it's cooking, hydroponics, or physics experiments) but to be the one to make the discovery requires some understanding of the mechanisms behind observations and some curiosity about the physical mechanisms driving the observation: that is physics!

 

[Hurkyl]

Woah, wait a minute. There's a lot of physics and chemistry that is essential to cooking (see Alton Brown. In almost every show, he comments on the physics an chemistry of his cooking approach.)

The use of physics to do cooking is called... cooking! A book on this topic is more likely to be appropriate in the baking section of the bookstore than the physics section of the bookstore.

Remember that this whole subthread started with:

I never denied that we think. I claim the thinking is a physical process that we experience.

Where exactly in physics textbooks did you see any mention of properties of matter related to the process of thinking?

Try Neuroscience texts, who's principles are found on physics.

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

 

[Upisoft]

That's what I disagree with though. You can learn how to cook studying physics. It's just not a terribly efficient way to do it, just like you don't want to model a cannon ball as an ensemble of quantum particles.

And I can see that you did not understand my argument. It is not about what you can do by using your knowledge. You can model a cannon ball as much as you wish. My point is about what you can learn by studying it. A hypothetical case to show the difference. An alien physicist on a world as much advanced as ours, except they never had war and never have invented the cannon and the cannon ball. Now, if that alien physicist finds a cannon ball, he may do what you suggest by using his knowledge. But suppose he didn't find any cannon balls. Instead he gets the next physics book and starts learning. Will that bring in his mind the idea of cannon ball? No.

The same is valid for cooking. Suppose that the aliens are photosynthesizing race and they never had the need to prepare food. Will studying physics make them any closer to the idea of making pizza? No. They don't even know what pizza is nor they know what preparing food is.