On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > I pretty much agree with you Jason. The materialist simply posits that the > conciousness of a person (or conscious being) represents a static track > through the 4d block universe, misperceived as changing due to something > about the way the brain processes. What this account fails to explain > however is the moment "now", or rather why I am at this moment now rather > than another or all at once.
I don't think this is really a question, as each instance of you in each moment across your 4-dimensional existence considers its moment to be now, and you are simultaneously and continuously in all such moments. I agree, there is the appearance of a selection, in the same sense that there is an appearance of selection when you measure a particle and split. You can ask "How come I measured the spin state on the x-axis to be up and not down?", but in truth you experience both. Similarly, there is no privileged moment of now and then it also follows there is no privileged experiencer. > This is the same as saying that it fails to account for subjectivity, > because from a purely objective point of view -ie one that does not take > into account any observer's experience - there is no problem. From outside > of the experience of any individual observer, there are just bodies > moving/behaving in space-time. Materialists/scientists are so accustomed to > seeing the world from this abstracted perspective that they don't see any > particular problem with this elimination of the subject. But in making this > move, it has already removed consciousness from the reality it attempts to > explain. A true theory of everything would need to explain the mysteries of > I-ness (why am I me and not someone else) and now-ness (why am I now rather > than somewhen else). Why is the time now, why am I in this branch, in a universe with these laws, and why I am this person and not someone else are really all the same problem. They are contingencies of the subject in question. What is startling is the realization that none of us has any evidence that we aren't also experiencing other times, other branches, other universes, and other nervous systems. The only motivation for the belief that we exist in only in one branch, in one time, in one universe, in one organism is our own ignorance (our inability to access the memories associated with those other perspectives from this current perspective). In effect, it becomes only an illusion (based on a kind of amnesia) that we are only one particular perspective. > The whole conflict between materialists and sundry others who can't accept > a purely material world view seems to come down to how comfortable a person > is with eliminating the conscious subject's experience from their account > of the world. It's not a matter of wishful thinking or stupidity, as some > materialists seem to imply - it comes down to a deep suspicion that > the manoeuvre to eliminate 'I' and 'now' is philosophically illegitimate. I think for many materialism can lead to eliminative materialism, but this is not required. There are some materialists who still believe in an "I". For the record, I believe in an "I", but I do not think it is as limited as our senses and memories lead us to believe. > Note that even Bruno's comp does this with time - there is no > representation in the model of the 'current moment' or why there is an > illusion of a current moment or of change over time. And though I > frequently find Craig's Weinberg's ideas woolly and unconvincing, I do > agree with him that the qualia are still deeply mysterious in comp, that > they arise "for no reason at all" except that we have observed that they > exist, so we postulate that they are "somehow" the inside view of a > computation. > Craig believes we could be fully functional automatons without any qualia. It sounds perfectly reasonable at first glance, but consider what this implies. There would be these automatons driving cars and avoiding obstacles and hitting each other, all the while none of them is actually perceiving or seeing anything. They would wake up from nightmares and communicate to each other about their dreams (which no one really experienced at all), they would get up and go to class and some would study philosophy of mind and argue about computationalism, dualism, qualia, etc. all the same things that present conscious philosophers argue about. They would ponder the difficulty of explaining how red differs from blue, and write books about consciousness. Each of these automatons would believe it can see, believe it has thoughts and feelings, believe it has these mysterious things called qualia, etc. They would even sometimes seek euthanasia, an end to their suffering which (according to the premise, does not even exist). What accounts for these beliefs, thoughts, experiences, ideas, etc.? They are the states of a system. Imagine such a system which receives a beam of light which falls on one of its photo sensors. This triggers a whole cascade of state changes, the system realizes it is receiving information, it knows what color it is, it is reminded of other things of that color, its pattern matching algorithms link it to other objects it has seen of similar types, its language functions recall a name for that kind of object, it's beauty sensing algorithms process it and lead to other state changes and transitions, etc. A conscious state is the state of such a system, and all finite digital systems can be realized by a computer running the appropriate program, just as all possible songs of finite length and fidelity can be represented as a .wav file on your computer. It is not that the mind or brain is like a computer, it is that a computer is something so general and universal, and it can mimic so many things that the brain (along with all known physical laws) do not fall outside those very broad and general capabilities of computers and computation. Jason > > On Saturday, July 13, 2013 12:49:20 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> My name is Luiz Felipe, I am 38 years old, Brazilian, graduated >>> in engineering and i am crazy about science and philosophy. >>> >> >> Welcome to the list Luiz. >> >> >>> >>> Recently, after reading and watching documentaries about general >>> relativity and the problem of consciousness, I made >>> a structured reflectionon on **a** 4 pages "paper" . I' ve >>> already referred this "paper" for a science-list(egroups) in >>> Brazil , where there are some members with good knowledge of general >>> relativity. So far, none of them know how to stand in relation to what I >>> wrote. >>> >>> Thus, I am sending this "paper" to this list (i already sent this paper >>> to Alberto Corona), in order to know if I made any mistake in understanding >>> general relativity; specifically on the concepts of block universe and the >>> flow of time, and it's consequences. >>> >>> Thanks for the attention, and sorry about my english :-) ! >>> >>> Best Regards! >>> Luiz Felipe >>> >>> Summary: This study aims to analyze the philosophical (materialists, >>> dualists and idealists) explanation of consciousness and its consistency >>> with a major current physical theory: General Relativity. >>> >>> * >>> * >>> >>> *1. Introduction* >>> >>> The problem of consciousness today occupies one of the most important >>> points to be clarified by philosophy and science. By its nature, there is >>> no consensus among both philosophical, as in science, with respect to its >>> explanation. >>> >>> The main philosophical position today are : materialistic, where >>> consciousness is explained as a result of neural processes (is the basis >>> for scientific research on consciousness) or as an illusion generated by >>> brain processes (deniers); dualistic, which considers consciousness >>> independently of matter and which postulates that consciousness is a >>> fundamental entity of the universe (as fundamental as space-time and >>> matter) and idealist, who believes consciousness as the basis of all >>> physical existence. >>> >> >> I think functionalism (or more specifically, computationalism) is the >> currently leading theory of mind among cognitive scientists and >> philosophers. It is neither a materialistic, eliminativist, dualist, nor >> idealist conception of mind. >> >> >>> *2. Theories of Relativity* >>> >>> The Special Theory of Relativity “break”s the objective flow of time. >>> According Belizário (2001) "The idea is that the" flow "of time is >>> different for different observers." With that, according to Einstein >>> himself, the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent >>> illusion, a illusion, that comes from our perception, which curiously >>> depends on our consciousness. >>> >>> According Damour (2010) "General relativity has opened the door to an >>> even deeper twist of the ordinary concept of time. However, the most >>> popular treatments of science have a tendency, when speaking of General >>> Relativity (GR), and especially when describing relativistic cosmological >>> models (inflation, Big Bang), to use language that suggests that the GR >>> reintroduces the notion of temporal flow, which had been abolished in >>> Special Relativity. >>> >>> Far from it. The GR space-time is as timeless as the Especial >>> Relativity. The Big Bang should not be referred as the birth of the >>> universe and its creation "ex nihilo" but as one of the possible limits of >>> a strongly deformed (and timeless ) block of space-time. " >>> >> >> I agree that relativity requires block time to be consistent. See >> http://philsci-archive.pitt.**edu/2408/<http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/>for >> a good argument. >> >> >>> *3. General Theory of Relativity and the Philosophical Currents of >>> Awareness* >>> >>> The materialists consider consciousness as a result of neural processes. >>> The possibility of consciousness as a result of one or more processes in >>> the brain has as an implicit assumption (necessary condition), the physical >>> existence of the flow of time. Because if the flow of time does not >>> physically exist, then we have no existence of physical processes and, >>> consequently, we have no conscious being "produced"; emerging from this >>> processes. >>> >> >> I don't think materialism requires block time. The experience of the >> flow of time for any person in the universe would be invariant no matter >> how fast time flowed (assuming it does). Even if it didn't flow at all, >> that would not change how people behaved throughout the 4-d existence, and >> thus since their behavior is the same, their reports and experiences would >> necessarily be the same as well. >> >> >>> >>> From the above, we can conclude that: >>> >>> 1) The "materialistic hypothesis" of consciousness is fully consistent >>> with the "*Newtonian Universe."* A universe in construction, where the >>> existence of processes is required, and the physical existence of the flow >>> of time allows these processes to occur. >>> >>> So, in a *“Newtonian Universe”*, where space and time are absolute, and >>> the flow of time is a physical reality, the explanation of consciousness as >>> a result of a process, adheres to this reality, but if the flow of time >>> doesn’t exist (physically), so we have no processes and therefore we have >>> no consciousness being "produced"; emerging from these processes. >>> >> >> If you are not familiar with it, Bruno's Origin of Physical Laws and >> Sensations paper ( http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/publications/** >> SANE2004MARCHAL.htm<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm>) >> shows how consciousness emerges from number relations (which do not >> change, and hence are equivalent to a block-time existence). Bruno is a >> regular contributor to this list and will happily answer any questions you >> have regarding his theory. >> >> >>> 2) If we accept the premise that the GR is correct about the lack of >>> the flow of time, then all philosophical position that hypothesize >>> consciousness as a result of one or more neural processes, should be >>> compulsorily incorrect, because it is premised on a reality incompatible >>> with the reality described by GR. >>> >> >> I think the assumption that a process requires preceding states of that >> process to cease to exist may be in error. >> >> >>> In this case, we have only two hypotheses to explain the phenomenon of >>> consciousness. The idealistic and dualistic (discussed below). >>> >> And functionalist. >> >>> >>> The dualistic hypothesis of David Chalemrs consider consciousness as a >>> basic entity, wich does not interfere in the matter. >>> >>> Occam's Razor warns us not to multiply entities of a model than is >>> necessary. However, since GR (assuming, as a premise, that the GR is >>> correct about the lack of the flow of time, and about the "Block Universe") >>> explains the material universe, but is not sufficient to explain the >>> conscious experience (which allows us to experience the flow of time), it >>> becomes legitimate to postulate another entity, so that we can have a model >>> that can deal not only with the description in the third person of our >>> physical universe, but also with own first-person experience (awareness), >>> which leads to the perception of time flow. >>> >> I agree that our brain generates the experience of the flow of time. >> There are even several cases of brain damaged people who are unable to >> experience motion: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Akinetopsia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinetopsia> >> >> >>> >>> Thus, if we postulate that consciousness is another fundamental entity >>> in our universe, which may, through an unknown mechanism, interacting with >>> the "Einstein Universe " without interfering in it, we have as a result, a >>> hypothesis of awareness that is compatible with the reality described by >>> GR, which also explains why we perceive the flow of time and changes along >>> the "Block Universe". >>> >> >> Any three dimensional evolving unvierse can be considered as a four >> dimensional static universe, without making any difference to the people >> inside the universe. I think block time may be a red herring in trying to >> derive any conclusions about consciousness. >> >> >>> >>> In this case, we can think of consciousness and its relation to the >>> "Block Universe", similar to a video game, game, and set the HD plus >>> Reader. Just as the game exists as a whole, together with the HD, and its >>> sequencing is the result of the interaction of the reader with HD, we can >>> consider that the spacetime contains the whole of our history (and in a >>> sense, our immortality), and assume that the illusion of the flow of time >>> refers to the stream of consciousness "through" space-time, this flow >>> allows us to experience our story sequentially and always forward in time. >>> >> >> The direction of our experience through time is explained by the arrow of >> time. Useful work can only be accomplished in one direction of the arrow >> of time, and storing bits requires energy according to the Von >> Neumann-Landauer limit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** >> Landauer%27s_principle<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle>) >> >> >>> >>> This modified Chalmers Hypotheses maintains compatibility with the GR: >>> how we have to give up totally, our free will, compatibility with GR is >>> assured since all our past, present and future are already determined. >>> >>> Sean Carroll, in a article “The Flow of Time” says that *“Modern >>> physics suggests that we can look at the entire history of the universe as >>> a single four-dimensional thing. That includes our own personal path >>> through it, which defines our **world >>> line<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line> >>> **. This seemingly conflicts with our intuitive idea that we exist at a >>> moment, and move through time. Of course there is no real conflict — >>> just two different ways of looking at the same thing. There is a >>> four-dimensional universe that includes all of our world line, from birth >>> to death, once and for all; and each moment along that world line defines >>> an instantaneous person with the perception that they are growing older, >>> advancing through time.”* >>> >>> Notice that i don’t deny Seans claim (in what I am proposing), that >>> every time we are aware of the "present moment" plus "moments earlier" The >>> problem is: what makes us walk through these moments, so we constantly >>> forward >>> in time. >>> >>> His argument doesn’t addresses this question, and brings another >>> problem: as he considers the existence of instantaneous awareness, >>> consciousness - through a "materialist" explanation – is no longer the >>> result of a brain process, and become a state. Because even with nothing >>> happening (impulses coming and going), consciousness is still there. Even >>> with frozen time! >>> >>> But if the illusion of time flow of time is the result of the flow of >>> consciousness through a “frozen” space-time, them we can satisfactory >>> explain the instantaneous awareness, and our movement forward in time. >>> >> What if each conscious state is also stuck in each present moment? Then >> there may be no flow of either time or consciousness. >> >> >>> *Conclusion* >>> >>> Whereas, as a premise, that the GR is correct about the physics lack of >>> flow of time, then the whole “materialist” explanation of consciousness is >>> necessarily wrong, due to incompatibility between the physical reality in >>> which it’s need to be in order to be correct, and the reality described by >>> GR. >>> >> >> Although I disagree with materialism I do not see block time as an >> insurmountable problem for materialism. >> >> >> >>> The price to pay to have an dualistic explanation for consciousness is >>> the total absence of free will. >>> >>> >> I do not see how free will evaporates just because one chooses to view an >> evolving 3 dimensional structure as a static 4 dimensional structure. >> Especially if you already considered the evolution of that 3d structure to >> be deterministic. See: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Compatibilism<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism> >> >> I hope I did not overwhelm you with things to read. I find your ideas >> interesting and look forward future discussions with you. >> >> Jason >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
