Animal minds brains and computation vs contemplation Food for thought

Reader Pat Suwonpanich provides food for thought on hearing and consciousness

Spread the love

Pat Suwonpanich has made a comment on hearing and sound as a mental phenomenon leading to questions of conscious mind that I think is worth pondering by one and all, so let us headline (with slight edits):

>>For those who wanna read less-technical article on hearing, I have tried to write my own article as shown below. Hope it will be useful for many of us.

Whenever we hear beautiful music or any other interesting sounds, we should realize that the ability to hear is so special that no known set of nature’s laws can explain it !

Most of us tend to think that we hear sounds because there are various sounds around us. In reality, if there were no human/animals that can hear, there would be no sound, just air vibration. [1]

Without brains of human and animals to interpret the air vibration into sounds that we experience, there is no sound at all, only soundless air vibration. The entire universe is in fact ‘silent’. Sound only really exists in human’s and animals’ minds. [2]

Ability to hear is one of our senses. Most importantly, it is a part of consciousness. But the big problem is, scientists know very little about mechanisms of consciousness. Although many scientists are materialists, no scientists know how matter generates consciousness. [3] In the case of hearing, no scientists know how to make ‘sound’ from air vibration.

The origin and mechanisms of consciousness are very “special” because no known set of nature’s laws suggest that matter can generate consciousness. It is so special that many scientists admitted that, “questions of consciousness may be beyond the bounds of science” [4], “We just don’t know how we should think about ‘being’ and how ‘mind’ fits into nature.” [5]

Consequently, even the world’s top scientists can’t make AI or robots that have consciousness. [6] No scientists can make AI or robots that can hear sounds like human or animals. [7]

set of Ultimately, the fact that ‘no known nature’s laws suggest that matter can generate consciousness’ has a very important implication. Without nature’s laws for consciousness to emerge from matter, consciousness certainly can’t arise by evolution !

From air vibration which has no sound, the Creator beautifully designed what each sound should sound like. Inside brains, the Creator put the special program that can interpret each frequency pattern of air vibration into each sound, thus giving us the sound experience.

This amazing creation results in hearing ability which is very useful for us to observe surrounding through sounds, enjoy music, communicate in language, etc.

As said at the beginning of the article, whenever we hear beautiful music or any other interesting sounds, we should realize that the ability to hear sounds is so special that no known nature’s laws can explain it. Without the nature’s laws for consciousness to emerge from matter, consciousness certainly cannot arise by evolution !

References
[1] Scientific American (1884), page 218, question no. 18.
Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1884-04-05/scientific-american-v50-n14-1884-04-05_djvu.txt
[2] Berry, S. (2015), ‘How Do Vibrations Make Sound’, original thread in Quora.
Retrieved from http://shaneberry.com/how-do-v…..ake-sound/
[3] Horgan, J. (2016),‘How Would AI Cover an AI Conference’, Scientific American, Cross-Check blog.
Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/how-would-ai-cover-an-ai-conference/
[4] Alexanian, M. (2014), ‘For some questions, science may not have answers’, Physics Today, page 12.
Retrieved from https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.2260
[5] Vernon, M. (2011), ‘Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity’, The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity
[6] Horgan, J. (2008), ‘The Consciousness Conundrum’, IEEE Spectrum.
Retrieved from https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/the-consciousness-conundrum
[7] Agarwal, T., ‘Understanding Voice Recognition’, elprocus.com.
Retrieved from https://www.elprocus.com/understanding-voice-recognition/>>

Food for thought. END

39 Replies to “Reader Pat Suwonpanich provides food for thought on hearing and consciousness

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Reader Pat Suwonpanich provides food for thought on hearing and consciousness

  2. 2

    After watching and listening to the video of the cochlea several times, I came to realize that I have a full symphony orchestra right ‘hear’ in my own head. Sight and Sound.
    I hope someone has completed that animation by visualizing a complete orchestral arrangement.

  3. 3
    Pat Suwonpanich says:

    Thank you very much, KF, for kindly promoting my draft to an OP.

    Hello everyone. I am a very-long-time reader of uncommondescent.com. I appreciate all of you guys’ effort to put lots of knowledge and valuable insight on this website. Now I think I should begin to share my thought here as well. Hope you guys find it useful. 🙂

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    Ultimately, the fact that ‘no known nature’s laws suggest that matter can generate consciousness’ has a very important implication. Without nature’s laws for consciousness to emerge from matter, consciousness certainly can’t arise by evolution !

    I do hope everyone reading this can see the problem with this argument, and indeed can name the fallacy.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: The challenge is that there are known natural mechanisms — those of chance and/or necessity, and they are irrelevant to rational, free choice, reason and consciousness. To put up an empty IOU is one thing, to back it with hard cash is another. KF

  6. 6
    hazel says:

    If we are being skeptical about what can or cannot happens, I’m also a little dubious about this:

    From air vibration which has no sound, the Creator beautifully designed what each sound should sound like. Inside brains, the Creator put the special program that can interpret each frequency pattern of air vibration into each sound, thus giving us the sound experience.

  7. 7
    PeterA says:

    KF @5:
    “To put up an empty IOU is one thing, to back it with hard cash is another. ”

    I like this analogy so much that I’m going to borrow it and use it in future discussions.

  8. 8

    Congratulations Pat Suwonpanich on being promoted to headline status by Kairosfocus. I remember a few years back when one of my comments was likewise promoted to headline status. Thank you Kairosfocus for paying attention to us commenters. We may be ‘lay people’, but we do have our thoughts and our analysis of things, and appreciate when we are positively acknowledged.

  9. 9
    PeterA says:

    Hazel @6:

    How else would you explain it?
    Feel free to elaborate on it. Please, make sure your explanation is comprehensive and coherent. Thanks.

  10. 10
    hazel says:

    Here’s a good explanation of the anatomy and physiology: Link.

    How the activity gets translated into our conscious experience of sound is unknown, Perhaps Pat can offer a comprehensive and coherent account of how that happens? Saying that the Creator put it there falls a little short.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinists don’t even have a ‘law of evolution’ to appeal to so as to firmly ground their “theory” within science. Much, much, less do they have a hypothetical ‘law of consciousness’ to appeal to. Even to imagine that there could be such a thing as a law for consciousness is absurd!

    A few notes to that effect:

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    Nor is there a ‘law of consciousness’ within the universe. (although Darwinists apparently desperately want to believe in such an absurd notion as a ‘law of consciousness’). As Steven Weinberg himself, who is an atheist, conceded, “,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: ,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact, Steven Weinberg, again an atheist, rejects the instrumentalist approach in quantum mechanics precisely because of free will, (i.e. precisely because of the fact that “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”). Yet empirical science itself could care less about how Weinberg and other atheists would prefer nature to behave. The free will loop-hole, as of 2018, has now been closed by Zeilinger and company and thus the instrumentalist approach is empirically confirmed as being true.

    Feb. 2019
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/neurosurgeon-asks-do-we-have-free-will-or-not/#comment-673312

    If atheists were the least bit concerned with truth, they would accept these empirical results and change their worldviews accordingly.

    Bottom line, Pat Suwonpanich is completely correct in his contention that “no known set of nature’s laws suggest that matter can generate consciousness.”

    Darwinists, as usual, got nothing to back up their outlandish claims save for the typical deception, imagination, and the usual bluff and bluster.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    H, at the heart of PS’s comment is the distinction between the physical phenomenon of vibrations and waves and meaningful or at least recognisable sound. Sound is inherently a conscious perception, often with meaning automatically detected, e.g. a specific speaker speaking in English, or the tune of a familiar hymn played on a bamboo flute. This Afternoon, in Carr’s Bay at a certain store Dramatist Ed White played a snatch of Joyful, Joyful we adore Thee just as I was leaving. In acknowledgement, I used my frog voice to sing a few words. The flute, the pattern of nodes and antinodes tied to frequency, the vibrations in the ear, the pickup at my eardrum, the frequency-sensitive excitations along my basilear membranes, the resulting intensity and repetition rate of electro-chemical impulses heading into my brain, the neural network processing are all based on physical principles, transduction and computational processing. These in no wise account for the conscious awareness and subtler responses such as his choice of a hymn as a message to me. That is the point: computation backed by transducer action is not conscious rational contemplation. Nor does such account for the volitional elements involved on his and my parts. Arguably, these are categorically distinct. Ideological blindness to the distinctive characteristics of the self-moved, self-aware, morally governed mind as an aspect of soul, does not remove such from being very real. Perhaps, we need to begin to talk about the consciousness-computing gap. KF

  13. 13
    hazel says:

    Except for the editorializing about ideological blindness, I agree with all kf says. There are two parts to the phenomena: the mechanical translation of wave patterns into the brain, and the conscious experience of the sounds and the integration of that with meanings and emotions. And, as I’ve said, how the first becomes the second is unknown.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    H, there is an ideological imposition that is commonly found that insists that conscious mind is an emergence from a material substrate and/or a delusion that creates a perception that is dubious. KF

    PS: Rosenberg illustrates:

    Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality:

    >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind.

    Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions].

    The physical facts fix all the facts. [–> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what “we,” apart from “we delusions”?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

  15. 15
    hazel says:

    kf writes,

    there is an ideological imposition that is commonly found that insists that conscious mind is an emergence from a material substrate and/or a delusion that creates a perception that is dubious

    Not from me.

    My point was that the invocation of a Creator who “beautifully designed what each sound should sound like” and “put the special program that can interpret each frequency pattern of air vibration into each sound, thus giving us the sound experience” is an empty explanation, no more useful than claiming that mind arises from matter without any idea how that could happen.

    There isn’t much advantage in substituting one ideological imposition for another, I don’t think.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    H, I think not. PS, obviously takes a Creation view. The concept that the root of reality is Mind, and that mind is at least as fundamental as matter is not an empty claim or assertion. That intelligent, minded designers exist is a fact, your own comment is a case in point. Further to this, the only actually observed material cosmos is arguably contingent, thus not the source of reality. However, it shows strong signs of design, which points to design and raises the onward question of a designer of a cosmos. Where, too, once something now is — a world — something that is necessary of being always was; as circular creation and origin from non-being are non-starters. Matter is not a credible candidate as it is composite. Mind, ultimate mind, is a serious candidate; such would either turn out to be impossible of being (similar to a square circle) or would be actual. So, reasons why an ultimate mind is impossible of being are: _______ ? [I suspect, this will be very hard to fill in!] KF

    PS: I gave a concrete example of the sort of ideological imposition and endarkenment I am speaking of. He is but one, such are legion and commonplace.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    hazel:

    My point was that the invocation of a Creator who “beautifully designed what each sound should sound like” and “put the special program that can interpret each frequency pattern of air vibration into each sound, thus giving us the sound experience” is an empty explanation,

    It goes with the anatomy and physiology part, which is clearly intelligently designed

  18. 18
    PeterA says:

    Hazel @10:

    “Here’s a good explanation of the anatomy and physiology: Link.
    How the activity gets translated into our conscious experience of sound is unknown,”

    That’s an incomplete explanation. It’s not even wrong. The most interesting part of the complex functionality and functional complexity is completely missing.

    Can we get serious now?

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP, we need to hear more from you so there will be more stuff to promote and spotlight! KF

  20. 20
    Pat Suwonpanich says:

    Thanks for your warm welcome, Ayearningforpublius @8. I really feel the same. Let’s go for more !

  21. 21

    Pat Suwonpanich @ 20: You are most welcome, keep up the good work.

  22. 22
    hazel says:

    to PeterA at 18. KF’s post on how hearing works in respect to anatomy and physiology is an overview, but to say it’s “not even wrong” doesn’t make sense. There is a lot of accurate information there.

    Also, my comment that no one knows how all that activity in the brain gets translated into conscious experience is a true fact.

    Pat’s explanation that the Creator put a “special program” into our minds to interpret sound is not an explanation. It’s a religious belief, but it really explains nothing.

    So, can you explain what is “not even wrong” about kf’s post on the physics and biology of hearing.

    And also, what could “getting serious” in this discussion mean? What do you have to offer that might constructively lead to a serious discussion?

  23. 23
  24. 24
    Bob O'H says:

    Hazel @ 15 – to quote kf earlier, “To put up an empty IOU is one thing, to back it with hard cash is another.”

  25. 25
    Pat Suwonpanich says:

    Ayearningforpublius @23. That looks great. I will surely find time to read and digest it.
    But first, I have to find out what FSCO/I means. 😉

  26. 26

    Pat Suwonpanich: “find out what FSCO/I means” That was one of the first questions I had for KF.

  27. 27

    KF @19 – thanks, I’ll take that as a challenge. In the meantime, take note of a book I’ve published recently at
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/172008193X

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information. Specified complexity where the specificity is tied to configuration based function. KF

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP, the book looks interesting, from the Look Inside. KF

  30. 30

    KF @ 29 – I’d be interested in your take on it if you read it. It’s a short read.

  31. 31
  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP, why not email me? G

  33. 33

    KF @32: Because you can buy a copy for yourself at https://www.amazon.com/dp/172008193X I’m not sure what you mean by email’ing you?

  34. 34
    tjguy says:

    BobO’H says: “I do hope everyone reading this can see the problem with this argument, and indeed can name the fallacy.”

    And just like that, he writes off all the data as meaningless. Science is really easy, isn’t it Bob?

    For guys like Bob, the evidence really doesn’t matter. Whatever we find – no matter how complex, how efficient, how unexplicably beautiful, how inter-related/inter-dependent it is with other things, how difficult it is to explain, etc. – no matter what we find – he believes there has to be a scientific answer out there somewhere and someday, someday in the distant future, he hopes/believes we will be able to explain it.

    Well, I guess we all have faith / beliefs after all! By putting off everything to the future, he never has to defend his faith. Plus, it can never be falsified! How cool is that? And by appealing to future hoped for discoveries, you can avoid answering the hard questions now. You can put off any challenging argument the other side brings by appealing to the future. Science is so fun!

  35. 35
  36. 36
    Bob O'H says:

    Tjguy – I wasn’t dismissing the data. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would see that I was criticising the argument. That’s why I wrote “I do hope everyone reading this can see the problem with this argument”, not “I do hope everyone reading this can see the problem with this data”.
    Pat Suwonpanich was using an argument that is fallacious, and one which ID has frequently (rightly or wrongly) been accused of using. I would hope that this would mean that ID proponents would be aware of the fallacy, and would be careful to avoid it.

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H:

    The issue is inference to best, empirically warranted explanation. While I — as a self-confessed frog — am not about to go into the poetical side of PS, there is a serious question that consciousness, perception and other linked self-aware phenomena are a challenge to account for on evolutionary materialistic models of origin of cosmos, life, humanity.

    There is a notoriously hard problem of consciousness relative to such a framework. I find, further, for cause, that evolutionary materialism and linked scientism are inescapably self-referentially incoherent and self-falsifying. That is, they fail as explanation and should be set aside — and precisely because they fatally undermine the responsible, rational freedom required for reason to be credible. J B S Haldane long since put it aptly:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

    So, we are forced to look seriously at alternatives that may not sit comfortably with the mental habits of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers..

    Where also, the characteristics of rationally and morally governed mindedness are so radically divergent from those of GIGO-limited computation on a substrate (which is NOT a case of rational inference) that I have to take seriously that we see here a distinct identity. That is, a distinct order of being that is not driven by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on GIGO-constrained computational substrates. An order, frankly, of rational, responsible, morally governed mind.

    This brings us back to the point that while we are contingent, morally and rationally governed, minded creatures, we cannot be the ground of these things. Where especially for rational, moral government, we can only find adequate ground at the roots of reality.

    On like causes like, or at least, we need adequate cause, we address the abundant observation that intelligently directed configuration on trillions of cases is the only actually observed cause of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, thus it passes the Newton Rule test. There are precisely zero observed cases where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have given rise to FSCO/I, for short. That’s the core design inference and it is no fallacy but instead a strong inductive inference. One in principle readily falsifiable by providing a counter example: ________ (This will predictably be hard to fill in successfully.)

    Then, we see that in the heart of the living cell is alphanumeric, string data structure, algorithmic coded information with associated nanotech execution machinery embedded in a self-replicating metabolic automaton with smart gating. That’s FSCO/I. All of this, in a fine tuned cosmos that sets up an operating point where such C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life is feasible.

    That makes the design inference for life and for cosmos a responsible rather than fallacious inference; whichever fallacies you may have in mind — they often overlap anyway.

    So, we have a phenomenon that is our first fact, through which we access all other facts: self aware, conscious, rationally and morally governed mind. This is radically different in character from what GIGO-driven computational substrates can account for, pointing to a different order of being, mindedness. Which arguably goes to the root of reality, especially given Hume’s guillotine argument. Only at that root can IS and OUGHT be successfully bridged. Where, we observe that our acts of reason are inescapably morally governed through known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc.

    This means that there is just one serious candidate on the table, ultimate, primary, morally governed mind.

    If you disagree with this, kindly suggest another: ______ and explain why it is a comparably serious explanation: ______

    KF

    PS: I note Reppert on computational substrates:

    . . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

  38. 38
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 37 –

    The issue is inference to best, empirically warranted explanation.

    That’s certainly not the logic that’s used in the part of the OP that I highlighted.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H:

    PA actually does lay out alternatives in his comment (which let us note is explicitly non-technical):

    PA: >>The origin and mechanisms of consciousness are very “special” because no known set of nature’s laws suggest that matter can generate consciousness. It is so special that many scientists admitted that, “questions of consciousness may be beyond the bounds of science” [4], “We just don’t know how we should think about ‘being’ and how ‘mind’ fits into nature.” [5]

    Consequently, even the world’s top scientists can’t make AI or robots that have consciousness. [6] No scientists can make AI or robots that can hear sounds like human or animals. [7]

    set of Ultimately, the fact that ‘no known nature’s laws suggest that matter can generate consciousness’ has a very important implication. Without nature’s laws for consciousness to emerge from matter, consciousness certainly can’t arise by evolution !

    From air vibration which has no sound, the Creator beautifully designed what each sound should sound like. Inside brains, the Creator put the special program that can interpret each frequency pattern of air vibration into each sound, thus giving us the sound experience.>>

    Notice, alt A is workings of the mechanistic and/or stochastic laws of nature, presumably carrying out this piece of body plan level evolution whenever cochlea based hearing arose. However, no such naturalistic framework has been identified with demonstrated adequate causal capability. That is, the generic evolutionary materialistic scientism IOU has not been backed with hard cash, 160 years on, for this or any other significant body plan origin level case.

    This leaves on the table the known capable cause of FSCO/I, which recall is using mechanical properties of a driven oscillation system that by exploiting peaking at points along the coil, gets us to in effect a fast mechanical fourier transformation to frequency space from the time domain oscillations. (BTW, mechanical frequency meters of old did a similar thing.) Namely, intelligently directed configuration. AKA, design.

    Yup, he spoke in terms of a Creator and raised aesthetics of purpose issues that self confessed frogs like me dodge . . . this morning on radio there was an oddly familiar piece of classic seeming music. What on earth is this? Then it hit me, Blue Danube. Ouch, I will never be a contestant in those song recognition contests. But in fact it is a general pattern that things that are first level good are often pleasant and those that are bad may often be unpleasant. Though of course it then gets very complicated fast, fast. I keep thinking of those death apples on the beaches of Caribbean islands that I am told initially taste like apples, until the caustic effects hit. (The taste comes from reports by those who made the mistake to try the fruit — there is a rule of thumb that if it’s sweet it’s not toxic, as a fruit etc; of course lead acetate is not a fruit. Even rainwater dripping from them is caustic.)

    As you may know, I then went on to examine what is in some ways an even more interesting question, mind.

    So, we do have a case of inductive inference in the pattern, inference to the best current, empirically warranted explanation.

    Reckoning with whatever limitations, we can take it up to the next level.

    And, onlookers can see why ID-supportive arguments have to be so carefully worded in this sort of polarised context.

    KF

Leave a Reply