Re: Against Mechanism
Hi, The word planned would seem to signify that there exists a mechanism (used the the most generic way) that selects that the object of the plan was chosen from a collection of possible alternatives with a bias that is not necessarily on that is natural and thus implies the existence of agency. So to say that X has been made according to the plan is to say that those properties of X result from a means that involves consciousness and thus that hypothesis requires the prior existence of a agent to act as the planner. The alternative hypothesis given, X originated naturally. seems to not require agency but no measure is implied by either as to the number of entities involved so it seems that Occam's razor is unable to select one of these hypotheses to cut. This looks to me like a false choice fallacy in the making. Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: Evgenii Rudnyi Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:37 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Against Mechanism on 27.11.2010 22:19 Brent Meeker said the following: On 11/27/2010 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a biological brain? Occam's razor: BIV, matrix and other sceptical scenarios are always more complex, and therefore less likely than things are the way they seem to be Could you please tell what a hypothesis you consider as less complex? As for Occam's razor. Let us consider the statement The God has created everything. Is this more or less complex as compared with the modern scientific view? It is more complex than, Things originated naturally. If you try to fill in the details to the same degree in each you have to first fill in all the details of Things originated naturally. and *then* all the details of how God decided on doing that and how He executed his plan. Okay, but what then about the next two statements: A car originated naturally and A car has been made according to the plan. What statement is more complex? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On 11/28/2010 12:37 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 27.11.2010 22:19 Brent Meeker said the following: On 11/27/2010 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a biological brain? Occam's razor: BIV, matrix and other sceptical scenarios are always more complex, and therefore less likely than things are the way they seem to be Could you please tell what a hypothesis you consider as less complex? As for Occam's razor. Let us consider the statement The God has created everything. Is this more or less complex as compared with the modern scientific view? It is more complex than, Things originated naturally. If you try to fill in the details to the same degree in each you have to first fill in all the details of Things originated naturally. and *then* all the details of how God decided on doing that and how He executed his plan. Okay, but what then about the next two statements: A car originated naturally and A car has been made according to the plan. What statement is more complex? You tell me. I don't consider Occam's razor the arbiter of truth. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a biological brain? Occam's razor: BIV, matrix and other sceptical scenarios are always more complex, and therefore less likely than things are the way they seem to be Could you please tell what a hypothesis you consider as less complex? I did. As for Occam's razor. Let us consider the statement The God has created everything. Is this more or less complex as compared with the modern scientific view? Is God+World more or less simple than World ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Nov 27, 10:49 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: The same goes for more abstract substrates, like bits of information. Rex Assuming that by using the term ‘abstract’ it means ‘non-physical’, is it possible for information or anything to be ‘more’ or even ‘less’ abstract. Are not the physical and abstract realms pure unto themselves with no possibility of being more or less abstract or physical? In other words ‘abstract substrates” could be incongruous. Any clarification or examples on this issue would be helpful. Thanks -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
on 28.11.2010 20:46 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote: on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.comwrote: Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a biological brain? Occam's razor: BIV, matrix and other sceptical scenarios are always more complex, and therefore less likely than things are the way they seem to be Could you please tell what a hypothesis you consider as less complex? I did. As for Occam's razor. Let us consider the statement The God has created everything. Is this more or less complex as compared with the modern scientific view? Is God+World more or less simple than World ? I guess that people believing in God consider him as a part of the world. Hence here it would be better to compare World where people believe in God with World where people believe that God does not exist Have no idea what is simpler. Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Nov 28, 9:02 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: on 28.11.2010 20:46 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote: on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a biological brain? Occam's razor: BIV, matrix and other sceptical scenarios are always more complex, and therefore less likely than things are the way they seem to be Could you please tell what a hypothesis you consider as less complex? I did. As for Occam's razor. Let us consider the statement The God has created everything. Is this more or less complex as compared with the modern scientific view? Is God+World more or less simple than World ? I guess that people believing in God consider him as a part of the world. That is definitely not Judaeo-Christian philosophy. Hence here it would be better to compare World where people believe in God with World where people believe that God does not exist Those aren't ontologies -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Information is just a catch-all term for what is being represented. But, as you say, the same information can be represented in *many* different ways, and by many different bit-patterns. And, of course, any set of bits can be interpreted as representing any information. You just need the right one-time pad to XOR with the bits, and viola! The magic is all in the interpretation. None of it is in the bits. And interpretation requires an interpreter. I agree with this completely. Information alone, such as bits on a hard disk are meaningless without a corresponding program that reads them. Would you admit then, that a computer which interprets bits the same way as a brain could be conscious? Isn't this mechanism? Or is your view more like the Buddhist idea that there is no thinker, only thought? Right, my view is that there is no thinker, only thought. Once you accept that the conscious experience of a rock exists, what purpose does the actual rock serve? It's superfluous. If the rock can just exist, then the experience of the rock can just exist too - entirely independent of the rock. Once you accept the existence of conscious experiences, what purpose does the brain serve? It's superfluous. If the brain can just exist, then the experiences supposedly caused by the brain can just exist also. If not, why not? SO...given that the bits are merely representations, it seems silly to me to say that just because you have the bits, you *also* have the thing they represent. Just because you have the bits that represent my conscious experience, doesn't mean that you have my conscious experience. Just because you manipulate the bits in a way as to represent me seeing a pink elephant doesn't mean that you've actually caused me, or any version of me, to experience seeing a pink elephant. All you've really done is had the experience of tweaking some bits and then had the experience of thinking to yourself: hee hee hee, I just caused Rex to see a pink elephant... Even if you have used some physical system (like a computer) that can be interpreted as executing an algorithm that manipulates bits that can be interpreted as representing me reacting to seeing a pink elephant (Boy does he look surprised!), this interpretation all happens within your conscious experience and has nothing to do with my conscious experience. Isn't this just idealism? To me, the main problem with idealism is it doesn't explain why the thoughts we are about to experience are predictable under a framework of physical laws. But then you have to explain the existence, consistency, and predictability of this framework of physical laws. You still have the exact same questions, but now your asking them of this framework instead of about your conscious experiences. You just pushed the questions back a level by introducing a layer of unexplained entities. Your explanation needs an explanation. Also, you’ve introduced a new question: How does unconscious matter governed by unconscious physical laws give rise to conscious experience? If you see a ball go up, you can be rather confident in your future experience of seeing it come back down. It seems there is an underlying system, more fundamental than consciousness, which drives where it can go. In one of your earlier e-mails you explained your belief as accidental idealism, can you elaborate on this accidental part? Basically I’m just combining accidentalism and idealism. Here’s the link to that earlier post that you refer to: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/74a368a670efaf16 Also the Meillassoux paper that I attached to the original post (“Probability, Necessity, and Infinity”) that spawned this thread is in this same vein: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/18406fb83d9fbebd This paper addresses the exact question you raise...how to explain the consistency and predictability that we observe, but without invoking the unexplained brute existence of “physical laws”. Meillassoux’s solution uses Cantorian detotalization to counter proposed resolutions to Hume’s “problem of induction” that involve probabilistic logic depending upon a totality of cases. Meillassoux's main point with this digression into Cantorian set theory is that just as there can be no end to the process of set formation and thus no such thing as the totality of all sets, there is also no absolute totality of all possible cases. In other words: There is no set of all possible worlds. And thus we cannot legitimately construct any set within which the foregoing probabilistic reasoning could make sense. Another interesting Meillassoux thread: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/ff5eae94f201a8cf/bd5a16097ea8d8e7 So the problem becomes
Re: Against Mechanism
On 11/28/2010 8:15 PM, Rex Allen wrote: ... Things might be that way. But this requires an explanation of the existence of the information and the interpreter. And then an explanation of the explanation. And then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation. And so on. Down the rabbit hole of infinite regress. Doesn’t seem promising, and doesn’t seem necessary. Why not just accept accidental idealism? Rex Maybe I would if you could explain it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Information is just a catch-all term for what is being represented. But, as you say, the same information can be represented in *many* different ways, and by many different bit-patterns. And, of course, any set of bits can be interpreted as representing any information. You just need the right one-time pad to XOR with the bits, and viola! The magic is all in the interpretation. None of it is in the bits. And interpretation requires an interpreter. I agree with this completely. Information alone, such as bits on a hard disk are meaningless without a corresponding program that reads them. Would you admit then, that a computer which interprets bits the same way as a brain could be conscious? Isn't this mechanism? Or is your view more like the Buddhist idea that there is no thinker, only thought? Right, my view is that there is no thinker, only thought. Do you believe as you type these responses into your computer you are helping bring new thoughts into existence? If I understood the other threads you cited on accidentalism, it seems as though you do not believe anything is caused. Wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that responding to these threads is pointless? Once you accept that the conscious experience of a rock exists, what purpose does the actual rock serve? It's superfluous. If the rock can just exist, then the experience of the rock can just exist too - entirely independent of the rock. Believing thought alone exists doesn't give any explanation for why I see a relatively ordered screen with text and icons I understand, compared to something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Tux_secure.jpg There are far more possible thoughts that consist of a visual field that looks random, do you find it surprising you happen to be a thought which is so compressible? Accepting that rocks exist allows the understanding that some of these rocks have the right conditions for live to develop on them, and evolve brains to use to understand the worlds they appear on. The thoughts of those life forms is not likely to look like random snow, since that would not be useful for their survival. If I start with thought as primitive, and try to explain that thought under accidental idealism I can go no further. While it explains the existence of thought (by definition) it seems like an intellectual dead end. Once you accept the existence of conscious experiences, what purpose does the brain serve? It's superfluous. If the brain can just exist, then the experiences supposedly caused by the brain can just exist also. If not, why not? Rather than say the brain causes conscious experience to exist, I think it is more accurate to say the brain is conscious, or the brain experiences. Stated this way, it isn't superfluous. SO...given that the bits are merely representations, it seems silly to me to say that just because you have the bits, you *also* have the thing they represent. Just because you have the bits that represent my conscious experience, doesn't mean that you have my conscious experience. Just because you manipulate the bits in a way as to represent me seeing a pink elephant doesn't mean that you've actually caused me, or any version of me, to experience seeing a pink elephant. All you've really done is had the experience of tweaking some bits and then had the experience of thinking to yourself: hee hee hee, I just caused Rex to see a pink elephant... Even if you have used some physical system (like a computer) that can be interpreted as executing an algorithm that manipulates bits that can be interpreted as representing me reacting to seeing a pink elephant (Boy does he look surprised!), this interpretation all happens within your conscious experience and has nothing to do with my conscious experience. Isn't this just idealism? To me, the main problem with idealism is it doesn't explain why the thoughts we are about to experience are predictable under a framework of physical laws. But then you have to explain the existence, consistency, and predictability of this framework of physical laws. I see no reason we should abandon this goal, there is no evidence that the progress of human understanding has reached an impasse. You still have the exact same questions, but now your asking them of this framework instead of about your conscious experiences. You just pushed the questions back a level by introducing a layer of unexplained entities. Your explanation needs an explanation. Mathematical or arithmetical realism seems like a good place to stop. It is easy to accept that mathematical truths simply are. If it can be demonstrated
Re: Against Mechanism
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a biological brain? Occam's razor: BIV, matrix and other sceptical scenarios are always more complex, and therefore less likely than things are the way they seem to be Actually not. We have our experience of the world, which is not direct (e.g. colors, illusions, delusions, dreams, etc.). And then we have the cause of our experience. This is true in all cases: scientific realism, scientific materialism, BIV, matrix, other skeptical scenarios. BIV, matrix, etc. don't introduce additional elements, they just arrange the causal elements differently. None are more or less complex than the others. *My* preferred option is simpler. Only conscious experience exists, uncaused and fundamental. There is nothing else. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: But I also deny that mechanism can account for consciousness (except by fiat declaration that it does). Rex, I am interested in your reasoning against mechanism. Assume there is were an] mechanical brain composed of mechanical neurons, that contained the same information as a human brain, and processed it in the same way. I started out as a functionalist/computationalist/mechanist but abandoned it - mainly because I don't think that representation will do all that you're asking it to do. For example, with mechanical or biological brains - while it seems entirely reasonable to me that the contents of my conscious experience can be represented by quarks and electrons arranged in particular ways, and that by changing the structure of this arrangement over time in the right way one could also represent how the contents of my experience changes over time. However, there is nothing in my conception of quarks or electrons (in particle or wave form) nor in my conception of arrangements and representation that would lead me to predict beforehand that such arrangements would give rise to anything like experiences of pain or anger or what it's like to see red. The same goes for more abstract substrates, like bits of information. What matters is not the bits, nor even the arrangements of bits per se, but rather what is represented by the bits. Information is just a catch-all term for what is being represented. But, as you say, the same information can be represented in *many* different ways, and by many different bit-patterns. And, of course, any set of bits can be interpreted as representing any information. You just need the right one-time pad to XOR with the bits, and viola! The magic is all in the interpretation. None of it is in the bits. And interpretation requires an interpreter. I agree with this completely. Information alone, such as bits on a hard disk are meaningless without a corresponding program that reads them. Would you admit then, that a computer which interprets bits the same way as a brain could be conscious? Isn't this mechanism? Or is your view more like the Buddhist idea that there is no thinker, only thought? SO...given that the bits are merely representations, it seems silly to me to say that just because you have the bits, you *also* have the thing they represent. Just because you have the bits that represent my conscious experience, doesn't mean that you have my conscious experience. Just because you manipulate the bits in a way as to represent me seeing a pink elephant doesn't mean that you've actually caused me, or any version of me, to experience seeing a pink elephant. All you've really done is had the experience of tweaking some bits and then had the experience of thinking to yourself: hee hee hee, I just caused Rex to see a pink elephant... Even if you have used some physical system (like a computer) that can be interpreted as executing an algorithm that manipulates bits that can be interpreted as representing me reacting to seeing a pink elephant (Boy does he look surprised!), this interpretation all happens within your conscious experience and has nothing to do with my conscious experience. Isn't this just idealism? To me, the main problem with idealism is it doesn't explain why the thoughts we are about to experience are predictable under a framework of physical laws. If you see a ball go up, you can be rather confident in your future experience of seeing it come back down. It seems there is an underlying system, more fundamental than consciousness, which drives where it can go. In one of your earlier e-mails you explained your belief as accidental idealism, can you elaborate on this accidental part? Thinking that the bit representation captures my conscious experience is like thinking that a photograph captures my soul. Though, obviously this is as true of biological brains as of computers. But so be it. This is the line of thought that brought me to the idea that conscious experience is fundamental and uncaused. The behavior between these two brains is in all respects identical, since the mechanical neurons react identically to their biological counterparts. However for some unknown reason the computer has no inner life or conscious experience. I agree that if you assume that representation invokes conscious experience, then the brain and the computer would both have to be equally conscious. But I don't make that assumption. Okay. So the problem becomes that once you open the door to the multiple realizability of representations then we can never know anything about our substrate. This sounds a lot like Bruno. I believe
Re: Against Mechanism
On 11/27/2010 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following: On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a biological brain? Occam's razor: BIV, matrix and other sceptical scenarios are always more complex, and therefore less likely than things are the way they seem to be Could you please tell what a hypothesis you consider as less complex? As for Occam's razor. Let us consider the statement The God has created everything. Is this more or less complex as compared with the modern scientific view? It is more complex than, Things originated naturally. If you try to fill in the details to the same degree in each you have to first fill in all the details of Things originated naturally. and *then* all the details of how God decided on doing that and how He executed his plan. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On 11/27/2010 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com mailto:rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Even if you have used some physical system (like a computer) that can be interpreted as executing an algorithm that manipulates bits that can be interpreted as representing me reacting to seeing a pink elephant (Boy does he look surprised!), this interpretation all happens within your conscious experience and has nothing to do with my conscious experience. Isn't this just idealism? If it were consistent it would be solipism. It's when your conscious experience infers that you are communicating with another conscious experience that the need for an explanation of the similarity of the experiences is needed. Objective = intersubjective agreement. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
