On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes 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. > > > Well, not computationalism. It accepts the existence of consciousness and > use it, in the weaker "first person diary" sense, but eventually it > *explains* consciousness, by using the notion of truth. Consciousness is > only the instinctive belief that there is a reality: > Who's belief? > it a form of hard wired faith in self-consistency, > Hard wired into what? > and its role is to accelerate the relative computations. > In comp, isn't time itself a dream of the computations? What does "accelerate" mean at this level? > You run faster when you take the predator existence seriously. > > Starting from consciousness is more comp-correct than starting from > matter, but it remains as much non satisfying for those who want explain > consciousness, notably through computationalism. > > > > > 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. > > > It is the problem with theology, or with shrooms, LSD or salvia: it cures > the fear of death, and that can be exploited by some other people (to make > a suicide-bombers, for example, or to build an army). It is the theological > trap: its motivation transcends the usual biological motivation for which > we have been hardwired. > Yes and the prohibition makes this much worse, because it prevents the open development of good-faith use of these substances. As you keep saying and I completely agree. > > > A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the > future, if we transcend Darwinism. > > > This will push the same problem at a higher level. It is part of the role > of consciousness to handle that transcendence. That has evolutionary > advantage too, despite it can change the things a lot. But in the > development of life, this problem appears with brains, all the time. Up to > now we proceed forwards, by adding new layers of universality, in the > brains, then in books and computers. > > But there will be a point when people will desire less brain, and > eventually, content themselves with the arithmetical "paradise", plausibly. > Well, there are many problem here, and at some level, the fundamental > science can change our basic motivations, like drugs can do that, and like > religion is supposed to do that. That is why it is important to be rigorous > there too. > > Bruno > > > > > > 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. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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.
