On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Rex Allen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Telmo, >> >> Is there a better starting point than consciousness? >> > > No. > > >> >> My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to >> it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into >> phenomenal and noumenal realms. >> > > Yes, I think I got your point. You could say that the Plato's cave becomes > a metaphor for being stuck inside survival machinery, and not necessarily > truth-seeking machinery, no? > Basically correct, yes. Though it might be better to say that we *are* survival machinery, instead of just being stuck inside of survival machinery. In that we can't act against our evolved nature. > > >> >> We are entities whose consciousnesses are shaped only with an eye towards >> what promotes survival and reproduction. Consciousness isn't the least >> concerned with truth - only with usefulness. >> > > But here I feel you contradict your initial point of "starting from > consciousness", because you seem to implicitly assume that consciousness > emerges from matter. I would have no problem if you replaced > "consciousness" with "brain" in the above sentences. > I am kind of thinking that our conceptions of both matter *and* consciousness are artifacts of our evolutionary history. Neither is "true". Or, if either conception does happen correspond to the way things are, then it is just due to luck circumstances - in that blind evolution forced us to that view. Rex > > >> >> Maybe this explains many of the conundrums that are pondered in this >> group. >> >> If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely >> with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything? >> > > I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same > consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this > is not the case (thus my previous rant). > > Telmo. > > >> >> Rex >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rex, >>> >>> Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking >>> about, along these lines (I believe). >>> >>> It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that are >>> prima facie as plausible as any other but are more consistently rejected as >>> lunacy, woo, new-age-mambo-jambo, etc. >>> >>> These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we are >>> not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal because time >>> itself is a dream. That there is only one consciousness and we are all >>> fundamentally the same entity, from the amoeba on. Quantum immortality. >>> This sort of thing. They start with consciousness as the brute fact, as you >>> posit. >>> >>> I have no intellectual reason to reject such ideas, but I definitely >>> feel a resistance to them. >>> >>> So it also occurred to me that believing in such things appears >>> maladaptive. Intuitively, such beliefs may lead you to be less preoccupied >>> with survival and reproduction. So it's not so surprising that we evolved >>> to reject such ideas but this leads to a terrible doubt: can we trust >>> ourselves to do science? >>> >>> Another distasteful speculation: maybe there's *survival instinct* >>> behind nerds and geeks being bullied. >>> >>> A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the >>> future, if we transcend Darwinism. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Telmo. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Rex Allen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic. Axioms >>>> and logic exist within conscious experience - not vice versa. >>>> Consciousness comes before everything else. >>>> >>>> It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences. However, what >>>> consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self-evident. Further, >>>> what any particular conscious experience “means” is also not self-evident. >>>> >>>> For example: The experience of color is directly known and >>>> incontrovertible. But what the experience of color *means* is not directly >>>> known - any proposed explanation is inferential and controvertible. >>>> >>>> We do not have direct access to meaning. >>>> >>>> We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience. >>>> >>>> So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside (i.e., >>>> objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness, by conscious >>>> processes, on a foundation of conscious experience. >>>> >>>> Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based >>>> entirely on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning, and >>>> arrived at via conscious processes which are equally lacking in intrinsic >>>> meaning. >>>> >>>> It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are what >>>> they are. And what else do we have other than the way things “seem”? I >>>> experience what I experience - nothing further can be known. >>>> >>>> HOWEVER - while we could just stop there - most of us don’t. >>>> >>>> For most of us, it seems that non-accepting, questioning, doubting, >>>> believing, disbelieving, desiring, grasping, wanting, unsatisfied conscious >>>> experiences just keep piling up. >>>> >>>> Why is this? >>>> >>>> Well - it seems like there is either an explanation for this - or it >>>> just a brute fact that has no explanation. >>>> >>>> If there is no explanation, then we should just accept our >>>> non-acceptance, our non-stoppingness, and let it go. Or not. Doesn’t >>>> matter. >>>> >>>> Alternatively, if there is an explanation - then there are two options: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> The explanation is not accessible to us because our conscious >>>> experiences do not “point” towards the truth of the way things are. >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> The explanation is accessible to us, because our conscious >>>> experiences *do* point towards the truth of the way things are. >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, if we believe that option 1 is correct, we can just stop. Or >>>> not. It doesn’t matter. >>>> >>>> So - let’s *provisionally* assume that option 2 is correct. >>>> >>>> I say “provisionally” instead of “axiomatically” because we will >>>> revisit this assumption. Once we’ve gone as far as we can in working out >>>> the implications of it being true - we will return to this assumption and >>>> see if it still makes sense in light of where we ended up. >>>> >>>> At this point I am willing to grant that modern science provides the >>>> best methodology for translating (extrapolating?) from our truth-pointing >>>> conscious experiences to models that represent the accessible parts of how >>>> things “really” are. >>>> >>>> To the extent that anything can be said about how things really are >>>> “outside of” conscious experience - science says it. >>>> >>>> But we never have direct access to the truth - all we have are our >>>> models of the truth, which (hopefully) improve over time as we distill out >>>> the valid parts of our truth-pointing conscious experiences. >>>> >>>> Okay - now, having said all of that - what models has modern science >>>> developed? Apparently there are two fundamental theories: General >>>> Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. >>>> >>>> From Wikipedia: >>>> >>>> GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on the force of gravity >>>> for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and >>>> high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, >>>> QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational >>>> forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and >>>> low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully >>>> implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions between the >>>> three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force. >>>> >>>> Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed >>>> with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two >>>> theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance >>>> with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are >>>> currently formulated, are mutually incompatible - they cannot both be >>>> right. Since the usual domains of applicability of GR and QFT are so >>>> different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be >>>> used. As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QFT is only an >>>> apparent issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as >>>> those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the >>>> universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). >>>> >>>> Now - in addition to those two fundamental theories, we have other >>>> higher level theories, which are in principle reducible to GR+QFT. Chief >>>> among these is the Theory of Evolution. Wikipedia again: >>>> >>>> Evolution – change in heritable traits of biological organisms over >>>> generations due to natural selection, mutation, gene flow, and genetic >>>> drift. Also known as descent with modification. >>>> >>>> So - ultimately evolution reduces to GR+QFT as applied to some set of >>>> initial conditions (IC) that existed approximately 14 billion years ago. >>>> >>>> I introduce evolution here because it explains how relatively complex >>>> “entities” such as human beings can “arise” from relatively simple initial >>>> conditions. All that is required is for GR+QFT to support the existence of >>>> patterns in matter such that: >>>> >>>> (1) The patterns vary in structure, in function, or in behaviour. >>>> >>>> (2) The likelihood of continuance (i.e. survival of the original or the >>>> production of copies) of a pattern depends upon the variations in (1). >>>> >>>> (3) A pattern’s characteristics are transmitted during reproduction so >>>> that there is some correlation between the nature of original patterns and >>>> their copies. >>>> >>>> Given that GR+QFT satisfy these requirements, it is possible to picture >>>> how the right set of initial conditions (IC) can lead to simple replicators >>>> gradually evolving into more complex replicators like humans. >>>> >>>> In this picture, human ability and behavior doesn’t arise suddenly out >>>> of a vacuum - rather it gradually develops from simpler behaviors. >>>> >>>> So there is a continuum from the simple to the complex. From prions, >>>> viruses, and bacteria to tetrabaena socialis and caenorhabditis elegans >>>> to insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, apes, chimpanzees, and (most complex >>>> of all) humans. >>>> >>>> Note that “evolution” doesn’t do any real work here. GR+QFT+IC do all >>>> of the work. Every aspect of evolution “reduces” to some aspect of >>>> GR+QFT+IC. >>>> >>>> Any state of matter or change in the state of matter, including >>>> “living” matter, is explicable in terms of GR+QFT+IC. >>>> >>>> Evolution just provides a conceptual bridge between the fundamental >>>> laws and entities of physics and the abstract higher level “patterns” that >>>> we more immediately perceive in our conscious experience - like plants, >>>> animals, etc. >>>> >>>> Further note that computers are also complex patterns of matter - and >>>> their behaviors and abilities are reducible to and based in GR+QFT+IC, just >>>> like everything else. It is only the patterns that are different, not the >>>> underlying principles. Computers are a moderately complex by-product of >>>> human evolution and human selection - and not directly acted on by >>>> evolution and natural selection. But their patterns may yet become complex >>>> enough to survive and evolve without further human involvement. >>>> >>>> Now - given all that: why do humans have the behaviors and abilities >>>> that they have? Why are we “this way” instead of “some other way”? >>>> >>>> Evolution says that we behave the way we do and have the abilities that >>>> we have because those behaviors and abilities are part of the patterns that >>>> have most successfully survived and reproduced inside the system described >>>> by GR+QFT+IC. >>>> >>>> We have our behaviors and abilities because they “work” (or at least >>>> have worked in the past) to enable survival and reproduction. However - >>>> they do no actual work because any change in any state of matter is >>>> ultimately due to GR+QFT+IC - which do all of the real work. Talk of >>>> “behaviors” and “abilities” is another type of bridge between what exists - >>>> GR+QFT+IC - and what we perceive - behavior. >>>> >>>> Why do we engage in philosophy, mathematics, and science? Why do we >>>> concern ourselves with ethics and political theory? These activities are >>>> all just aspects of the set of evolved patterns that constitute the human >>>> species. We do these things because the are the inevitable manifestations >>>> of the survival and replication of patterns of matter whose state changes >>>> are governed by GR+QFT+IC. >>>> >>>> Note that the question of free will is ultimately about the causes of >>>> behavior. GR+QFT+IC+Evo fully address the question of why we behave as we >>>> do, without the need for anything like free will. >>>> >>>> So - why punish or reward people if they are not “free” of >>>> GR+QFT+IC+Evo? >>>> >>>> Because if you “want” to change their behavior, this is what works. >>>> Most animals, including humans, will change their behavior in response to >>>> circumstances that either threaten or improve their ability to survive and >>>> reproduce. >>>> >>>> Why? Because the evolution of the patterns that these animals consist >>>> of has resulted in flexible and adaptable (though still reductionistically >>>> mechanistic) behaviors under a wide variety of circumstances. >>>> >>>> And that’s all there is to it. It is useless to punish or reward >>>> animals whose patterns are not sufficiently flexible to change behaviors in >>>> response. The punishment or reward should be selected to match the >>>> animal’s inventory of adaptive responses. >>>> >>>> The point is not the reward or the punishment. These are just means to >>>> an end. The point is the desired change in behavior (in either the animal >>>> being administered to, or other animals who may be encouraged or deterred >>>> by what they observe). >>>> >>>> Further note that why you “want” to change another animals behavior is >>>> also explicable within the framework of GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>>> >>>> Next we will consider how conscious experience fits into GR+QFT+IC. >>>> >>>> It is certainly true that my experience of consciousness and my >>>> conception of GR+QFT+IC do not overlap. For example - my experience of >>>> seeing the color yellow does not overlap with my mental conception of the >>>> photons, quarks, electrons, retinas, neurons, and visual cortices that are >>>> described by the GR+QFT+IC framework. >>>> >>>> However - GR+QFT+IC *does* seem to provide a satisfying explanation of >>>> the *mechanics* of how I detect, process, and represent color, and >>>> evolution explains why I have the “ability” to see color. >>>> >>>> Even so - there is still an unsatisfying “conceptual gap” between my >>>> experience of color and my understanding of the physics of color. >>>> >>>> How can we explain this gap? >>>> >>>> One possibility is to claim that “future science” will close the gap >>>> for us. However - I doubt that this is true because GR+QFT is already so >>>> successful in explaining all observed behaviors of matter. There is no >>>> promising theoretical gap in our understanding of the behavior of matter >>>> that matches up with the conceptual gap we feel exists between >>>> consciousness and matter. >>>> >>>> So - I think a more promising approach is to show that the conceptual >>>> gap is more apparent than real. The gap isn’t because we are missing the >>>> existence of some force or particle. Rather the gap is due to us not >>>> looking at the existing facts in the right way. >>>> >>>> In the GR+QFT+IC framework, our abilities and behaviors (including >>>> beliefs) have evolved because they “work” - not because they are >>>> necessarily truth-pointing. >>>> >>>> So our belief in an explanatory gap between our conscious experience >>>> and our conceptual model of reality *is* necessarily a result of our >>>> evolution. >>>> >>>> We have evolved to cognitively conceptualize reality in one way >>>> (GR+QFT+IC) and we have evolved to represent our direct *experience* of >>>> reality in another way (colors, feelings, sensations) - and because there >>>> has been no evolutionary pressure to synchronize these two views, we >>>> haven’t - and so the perceived mismatch is a kind of cognitive illusion. >>>> >>>> Perhaps, as it turns out, that conscious experience just *does* >>>> accompany certain kinds of patterns in matter and that’s all that there is >>>> to it. The fact that this seems odd to us is just a quirk of our cognitive >>>> evolution. Maybe it would seem otherwise with minor changes to our evolved >>>> matter patterns - but there is no evolutionary pressure pushing in this >>>> direction, so we have not gone in that direction. >>>> >>>> In this view - conscious experience is an aspect of patterns of matter >>>> - and thus just an aspect of matter - and our intuition that it is >>>> something *other* than matter is just an accident of evolutionary history. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Belief is a state of mind. >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> States of mind are just brain states. >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> Brain states are just patterns of matter. >>>> 4. >>>> >>>> Patterns of matter are just matter. >>>> 5. >>>> >>>> Matter is just GR+QFT+IC. >>>> 6. >>>> >>>> The fact that there *seems* to be a unsatisfying epistemic gap in >>>> step 2) is just an accident of history stemming from GR+QFT+IC. In >>>> fact, >>>> the step in #2 is no less valid than the steps in #3 or #4, both of >>>> which >>>> seem pretty unobjectionable. >>>> >>>> >>>> When I wear my physicalist hat, this is basically the position that I >>>> take. >>>> >>>> SO - we have come full circle. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> We started with the assumption that our conscious experience was >>>> “truth-pointing”. >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> We granted that modern science is the best way to distill out the >>>> truthful aspect of conscious experience. >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> We summarized how modern science explains human behavior and >>>> ability. >>>> 4. >>>> >>>> We discussed how that explanation of human behavior and ability >>>> could result in an apparent conceptual gap between GR+QFT+IC and our >>>> conscious experience. >>>> 5. >>>> >>>> We proposed a solution to this conceptual gap. >>>> >>>> >>>> Now - given all of this - given where we ended up - let’s revisit our >>>> assumption in #1. >>>> >>>> Does the model of the world that modern science has constructed give us >>>> more or less confidence that our conscious experience is, in fact, >>>> “truth-pointing”? >>>> >>>> And the answer is: less. In this framework, consciousness is a >>>> product of evolution - and evolution only concerns itself with what >>>> promotes survivability and reproductive success - not with what is true. >>>> So GR+QFT+IC+Evo supports the belief that our conscious experience is >>>> *useful* in that sense - but not that it is truth-pointing. >>>> >>>> However - if we change our starting assumption from: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Conscious experience is truth-pointing >>>> >>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Conscious experience is survival/reproduction-enabling. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then we are on more consistent ground. Then we can assert that modern >>>> science is the best way to distill out the survival-enabling aspects of our >>>> conscious experience, and that the most useful model of reality for >>>> enabling survival is GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>>> >>>> Which actually makes some sense... >>>> >>>> I initially claimed that conscious experience had no directly >>>> accessible intrinsic meaning. A conscious experience just is what it is. >>>> Only by fitting it into a larger narrative framework does any particular >>>> conscious experience acquire meaning. >>>> >>>> However - the narrative framework of GR+QFT+IC also lacks any ultimate >>>> meaning. >>>> >>>> My experience of seeing yellow “means” that there are particular >>>> patterns of photons, quarks, and electrons - but what do these patterns >>>> mean? Nothing! They don’t mean anything beyond themselves - they just are >>>> what they are. >>>> >>>> So - assuming that there is something beyond conscious experience which >>>> we can know “through” conscious experience, still leaves us with an >>>> ultimately meaningless reality. >>>> >>>> Reversing the order of our earlier list: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> There is no larger meaning or purpose behind GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> Matter is just GR+QFT+IC. >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> Patterns of matter are just matter. >>>> 4. >>>> >>>> Brain states are just patterns of matter. >>>> 5. >>>> >>>> States of mind are just brain states. >>>> 6. >>>> >>>> Consciousness is just states of mind. >>>> 7. >>>> >>>> There is no larger meaning or purpose behind Consciousness. >>>> >>>> >>>> IN SUMMARY: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Consciousness is the fundamental fact. >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> The fact of consciousness is directly known. >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> The fact of consciousness is the only directly known fact. >>>> 4. >>>> >>>> The contents of consciousness are experienced but are without >>>> intrinsic meaning. >>>> 5. >>>> >>>> It is reasonable to stop here. >>>> 6. >>>> >>>> Most of us do not stop there. >>>> 7. >>>> >>>> Either there is a reason that we do not stop there, or there is not. >>>> 8. >>>> >>>> If we believe there is not, we can stop here. >>>> 9. >>>> >>>> If we believe that there is a reason, this reason is either >>>> accessible or it is not. >>>> 10. >>>> >>>> For it to be accessible, conscious experience must be >>>> “truth-pointing” >>>> 11. >>>> >>>> If conscious experience is not “truth-pointing” then we might as >>>> well stop here. >>>> 12. >>>> >>>> If we assume that it is truth pointing, modern science provides the >>>> best way to distill out the truthful aspects of experience. >>>> 13. >>>> >>>> Science ultimately leads us to GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>>> 14. >>>> >>>> GR+QFT+IC+Evo does not concern itself with truth - only with >>>> survival and reproduction. >>>> 15. >>>> >>>> Our assumption that consciousness is truth-pointing must be >>>> weakened to “consciousness is survival-enabling”. >>>> 16. >>>> >>>> GR+QFT+IC+Evo is ultimately as without intrinsic meaning as bare >>>> conscious experience. >>>> 17. >>>> >>>> Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether we stop at #5, #8, #11, >>>> or #16. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> 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/d/optout. >> > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
