Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are Dreams Incompatible With Materialism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Asks nkendall. All that follows is his:

Okay lets see what I can come up with. This is just one of several disproofs of materialism that I have tried out on atheist websites. Never once had anyone lay of glove on it:

DREAM SEQUENCES – A SIMPLE DISPROOF OF MATERIALISM
Here is a simple disproof of materialism that everyone can understand; consider dream sequences:

ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Dreams always involve novel (NEW) content – they are not rehashings or restructuring of various memories; although the topics are in the context of one’s life experiences.
2. Dreams are high definition imagery.
3. Dreams are real imagery, i.e. you are unaware or unable to distinguish the dream imagery when it is going on from real visual imagery during waking consciousness.
4. Dreams contain complex specified information, each image element (analogous to a pixel in HDTV) WITHIN an imagery frame in a dream has to be what it is for the imagery to be coherent and correlated. And each image element (pixel) has to be what it is for the imagery to be coherent and correlated dynamically ACROSS frames. I.e. each image element is highly constrained–highly specific.

PROBLEM WITH MATERIAL EXPLANATIONS
Materialism posits bottom-up causation and therefore consciousness, mental thoughts are produced by the components of the brain. Yet each of the many components that would have to be involved to give rise to a dream image, would be subject to an antecedent chain of causation which would not be dictated by the mental events (e.g. dream imagery) in any way. And all these components would have to be in sync with one another.

CALCULATION OF PROBABILITIES
Calculating probabilities is an endeavor in searching through large space. I will be charitable to materialism with each assumption in the calculation.
Calculate the superset of the overall search space:
– Determine the number of brain components involved.
– Determine the number of alternative states that the brain components could be in.
– Determine the refresh rate or frame rate of the dream imagery.
– Determine the number of image frames in the dream.
Example:
Let’s say a neuron synapse is our “brain component” and it could be either firing or not, i.e. binary.
Let’s say that there would have to be 10 million brain components (synapses firing or not) to produce each imagery frame in the dream.
Let’s say a 5 second dream sequence has 20 image frames per second.
So: 2^10,000,000 * (20 * 5) = A prohibitively large number that computers cannot even represent. This is the super set of possible brain states within which our single precise set of brain states necessary to cause our coherent, correlated dream imagery. In effect, the brain would have to create a novel mini movie instantaneously. This is flat out impossible without some high level controlling and creative entity, i.e. immaterial mind. Probabilities are much poorer than universal probability bound: 10^150.

OTHER INTRACTABLE PROBLEMS NOT INCLUDED
Note that in this exercise I am waving away a whole host of intractable difficulties and just focusing on what can be quantitatively demonstrated. For example I am waving away the following:

The fact that dreams are imagery that is not initiated by vision.
The dialog that goes along with dreams.
The thoughts, abstract thoughts, that go along with a dream.
That you seem to be able to focus your attention to a specific point in the dream imagery.
The difficulty with how the brain could identify and sequester the precise set of brain components involved in producing the dream imagery.
That the brain components’ events would have to be synchronized.
The difficulty with how the brain even registers imagery and thoughts in one’s consciousness.

Comments
JS, a good metric on the astonishing computational power of that neural network substrate, the brain. It remains to be noted, that the FSCO/I challenge -- that beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of functionally specific organised complexity, blind chance and mechanical necessity are utterly overwhelmed by the needle in haystack blind search challenge -- pivots on considering every individual atom in the sol system [~10^57] or observed cosmos [~10^80] as an acting/observing agent. As I have pictured, think of giving each such atom a tray of 500 or 1,000 coins [or paramagnetic, 2-state atoms in a weak B-field if you want to object to coins . . . ] and flipping every 10^-14 or -13 s, a fast chem rxn rate. Such tops off at 10^87 - 88 or 10^110 - 111 as top end, but 500 bits have 3.27*10150 possibilities and 1,000 have 1.07*10^301. The search to space ratio becomes vanishingly small, one cannot plausibly expect to find deeply isolated islands of wiring diagram constrained function. And, nkendall's point boils down to, dream sequences are massive, creative FSCO/I in effect virtual 3-d movies in which we participate and explore a possible world. The effect of such, is that the real-time processing involved in such a virtual reality would utterly overwhelm blind needle in haystack search. And that is all that an evo mat approach has as resources. So, the undeniable reality of vivid, extensive 1st person participant 3-d dreams speaks to creative mind in action well beyond the processing power of the materialist's claimed mechanisms, and would demand background programming/ code that to be coherent would have to come from inadequate source. The dream case is vivid, but in fact the same extends to our composing text here beyond 72 ASCII characters, as that is the 500 bit sol system threshold. Routinely and vividly, we each experience mind effortlessly and vastly transcending the surly bonds that mind = brains in action would impose. Just perhaps, then, we need another model? One, in which the brain is a sophisticated processor and front-end i/o controller in the brain-body cybernetic loop, but in which -- following Eng Derek Smith -- there is a higher order intelligent element that integrates with the brain. Of, unspecified nature but of evident reality discerned from its works that demand adequate cause. And quantum influence on microtubules is a suggested interface mechanism. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT
I'll quote Axel "Nick was very petulant about God. He deplores his ethical standards, and consequently refuses to believe in Him. If there is one person who can really ‘get up Nick’s nose’, it’s God."Andre
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
Good thread. Animals do dream. Dreams are, I say, just our soul watching our memories. Our dreams are therefore no different then waking times. In both cases we simply watch memories. Real life is from from our soul watching senses imprinting on the memory and dreams from from our soul watching only memories. Daydreaming a special case because of only half knocked out. A materialist indeed must have the "brain" organizing the memories for dreaming. Quite a task. A believer in the soul easily sees the soul awake/active enough to interplay with memories. including priority memories good or bad. Dreams are soooo real because they are the same mecxhanism as waking life. No different. It is just US watching memories. Waking memories and asleep ones are difficult to separate as we all know. Good punchy thread.Robert Byers
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/
"Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies!"
But some scientists think the synapse is not the basic computational unit of the brain, because individual cells have the ability to learn, they think microtubules within the brain do the computations and that the computational power of the brain is much greater than one would suppose based solely on the number of synapses: http://www.skeptiko.com/stuart-hameroff-on-quantum-consciousness-and-singularity/
"Dr. Stuart Hameroff:... I spent 20 years studying microtubule information processing. ... each neuron has roughly 10^8 tubulins switching at roughly 10^7 per second, getting 10^15 operations per second per neuron. If you multiply that by the number of neurons you get 10 to the 26th operations per second per brain."
(The exponents are not transcribed correctly at the linked transcript but if you listen to the podcast, also at the link, you will hear them spoken as I have written them.) And images of natural scenes are highly compressible.Jim Smith
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
"sergmendesApril 18, 2015 at 9:45 pm bpragmatic, So dreams are no laughing “matter”? (lol)" How does your question really "matter"? Ha Ha Ha!bpragmatic
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
NickMatzke_UDApril 19, 2015 at 9:54 am “Hey when are we getting our book that proves macro evolution? Have you abandoned the project ?” I never said I would write a book, so, you’re a liar, and go away." OK. Me for one, wont require you to write a book to scientifically support your conjecture. How about a relevant peer reviewed paper(s) that goes through the peer review process to support your assertions? And if you think those have been completed and actually exist and you know about them, can you please make references to them?bpragmatic
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Great points William J Murray Comment #24. Thanks for the additional insights.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Roy Comment #29; Zachriel Comment #30 The calculation, which is charitable to materialism, represents the superset of a probability within which a single solution exists with a modest tolerance for error. Get to the point...Tell me how it is possible for the brain to produce continuous, novel, coherent, correlated visual content nearly instantaneously. You couldn't even flip a coin 666 times and then match that same sequence given all the probabilistic resources of the entire known universe.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Hi Bob O'H, Thanks for the comments (#25) My calculation does not require that all synapses are firing in sync. That was one of the difficulties I waved away. Since no one has any idea how the brain could possibly produce the visual imagery of a dream, I made the simplifying assumption that there would have to be large collection of "brain components" involved. I used a charitable assumption that the "brain components" would be the firing of a collection of synapses and that each synapse could be in only one of two states. A less charitable assumption would be that the putative brain components, whatever they may be, could be in any of 10 or 100 different states. Regarding your comment (3) related to a target. I do not think this applies. The escape clause in Darwinism related to the "no-target" claim is only appropriate when you have a nascent system with few constraints. Once a complex system begins to be assembled, constraints are imposed with each new component. Constraints impose a need for greater and greater specificity. And a high degree of specificity represents a target. This is why irreducible complexity is such an intractable problem for Darwinism. Dream imagery represents an astounding level of "virtual" and instantaneous irreducible complexity because each distinct visual element in an image frame (think of a pixel on a flat screen TV) as it persists throughout the many image frames of the entire dream, has to be precisely what it is in order for the novel dream image content to be continuously coherent. Note that when I say coherent I am speaking only about the concrete aspect of the dream, i.e. the visual content, devoid of any abstract meaning. A dream can be rationally incoherent in the abstract sense, related to meaning, while the visual content is coherent. Same with hallucinations for the most part. In a dream you might be watching a ball fly through the air. Now let's just focus on the image elements that make up the ball as it moves through the field of "vision" of the dream. These image elements making up the ball, which are different from image frame to image frame, have to be precisely what they are in order to accurately depict the familiar flight of a ball that we are all accustomed to as it flies through the air. Constraints are imposed within each frame and throughout each frame which in effect form a target. The same is true of all visual elements within a dream. Therefore the Darwinist "no-target" claim is nullified and probability calculations can be made.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Is it true that when going on vacation photons always travel light?Mung
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Even the great Nick Matzke has to face reality.Mung
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Nick Matzke So you have given up... Oki dokie. ...Andre
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
To Velikovskys #26 Regarding your comment Thanks for the comment. I assume you are a materialist so I will answer under that assumption. I am in a hurry so I have to be brief. You have offered two points: 1) The information already exists (and accessed by material processes) 2) How does the immaterial process cause the brain to dream. Regarding 1). In order to make the claim that the visual information in dreams already existed, you would have to invoke a Darwinian explanation. Darwinian stories require chance and necessity--lots of luck and a purpose for everything. How on earth could one imagine that my dream last night which involved me coaching my daughter's softball team on a field I have never been to, with an umpire I have never seen, against a team we have never played, having faces I have never seen, with rules slightly different, could have been cobbled together in the mind of some Cro-Magnon man in the distant past and lie dormant for 40,000 years and then just happen to be played out in my mind uninterrupted in living color, integrated with appropriate dialog and abstract thoughts, at a point in my life where the context seemed reasonable? Keep in mind that any function at all needs to be built up incrementally according to Darwinian folk-lore. That means that each piece of the imagery would have to have occurred and been preserved for some reason. Thinking of the task you put forth in this manner and comparing against the probabilities of let's say the brain producing even the most simple of programs, "Hello World" one quickly realizes the impossibility of any materialist claim for any mental phenomena. Hello World in machine hex code is about 100 characters. If you had as many simians typing on a standard 40 character key set as there are particles in the universe, throughout the age of the universe and producing a new character string each planck time, you would come nowhere close to producing the Hello World program. You are about 10 orders of magnitude short. So how could all this marvelous and rich mental phenomena have been created using a materialist mechanism? Regarding 2). I need offer no such hypothesis because the inherent nature of Theism. My belief is that mind is an endowment by our creator in some way. I have no idea how that is accomplished or how it works. It is unknowable to the human mind. So the burden of explanation is not symmetrical for Theism vs Materialism. You do have to explain how information arises spontaneously in the brain, but I do not have to explain how it arises in the mind. This is not a dodge; it is an artifact of my category of claim vs yours. I claim only that materialism is wrong because it cannot explain mental phenomena such as dreams which is really only one of many that materialism cannot explain.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
nkendall: 2^10,000,000 * (20 * 5) = A prohibitively large number that computers cannot even represent Actually, that's a self-refuting statement.Zachriel
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
2^10,000,000 * (20 * 5) = A prohibitively large number that computers cannot even represent
Uh, what? 2^10,000,000 * (20 * 5) is, in binary, "11001" followed by 10000002 zeroes. It can be stored in just over a megabyte of memory, and can be represented on a screen as a monochrome image of approximately 2000*5000 pixels, three of which are black, or an appropriately coded colour image of less than 500x500 pixels. The decimal form of this number could be stored in a word-processing package as a document with 2667 pages - easily within the capacity of the average home PC or laptop. This number is fourteen million orders of magnitude less than the highest prime number found by computer search - which number is, of course, representable in a computer, otherwise it couldn't have been checked for primality. Your number is too large to be manipulated by the Windows calculator program. Perhaps you think that represents the pinnacle of processing capacity - but if so, don't drag the rest of into your morass of innumeracy. RoyRoy
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
"Hey when are we getting our book that proves macro evolution? Have you abandoned the project ?" I never said I would write a book, so, you're a liar, and go away.NickMatzke_UD
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
velikovskys @ 26: Thank you for the excellent example of MD11:
Materialist Dodge 11: The burden is always on you, never on me It makes not the slightest bit of difference that subjective self-awareness is the “primordial datum,” that everyone knows is a fact beyond the slightest doubt. It makes no difference that we are presupposing the existence of subjective self-awareness by even having this discussion. Unless you can give me a systematic account for how the immaterial interacts with the material, I do not have to explain why materialism is not logically incoherent.
Barry Arrington
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Kendall: t is a refutation of materialism because a materialist would have to believe that massive amounts of complex specified information, exceeding the universal probability bound by 1000s of orders of magnitude, could be generated nearly instantaneously by an electro-chemical machine with its putative bottom up causation–flat out impossible. Perhaps the information exists already, it is just accessed by material processes, but in your view how does the immaterial cause the brain to dream and what is the probabilty of that process?velikovskys
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
nkendall - your calculation of CSI makes the following assumptions: (1) all synapses must be firing in exactly the right way, (2) all synapses are firing independently, and (3) the 'target' is one specific dream sequence. You don't provide any evidence that any of these is an appropriate assumption.Bob O'H
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Again to reiterate the point that nkendall made, his calculations don't even scratch the surface of the juggernaut of computation necessary to accomplish a dream - there is also the tactile and audio information. It's not as if whatever is creating the dream is just replaying stored information. Whatever is producing the dream must be comparable to the most sophisticated, highly-powered CGI studio ever, only much more powerful and sophisticated, because to render such immersive, realistic imagery in a seamless stream on the fly, joined with corresponding audio and tactile information, is an unbelievable feat of creativity, editorial skill and computing power. Even given the graphical capacity to so closely mimic real life imagery, it would take a CGI studio months to generate a dream (forget about the tactile information), yet the mind can do it all instantaneously. Is this really something we can realistically expect any physical commodity the size of a brain to accomplish? There's just too much computation necessary for it to be achieved instantaneously.William J Murray
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
To eigenstate #3 "This is a joke, right?" I think we have another variety of materialist dodges to add to the list.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
To sergmendes #4 "If animals have dreams, then do they also have immaterial minds?" Yes I believe animals have immaterial minds.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Again to Jw777 #11 You have slightly misunderstood my assumptions 1 and 3 and in the sense that you did it bears little on the case I have made. Regarding your comments on my assumption #1. The point is that unlike say a gaming system rendering images on the fly which use primitives and are bound by strict programmatic outcomes, dreams are never simply a direct lifting of memory--they always involve novel creative content. In cases where similar contexts are used and even objects and settings and persons, the imagery is always slightly different and it is integrated in a complex way into a coherent dynamic set of images. The visual attributes such as scale, angle, colorimetry, and imminence are always different for any item in a dream image that seems familiar. Personally I have never had a dream which I could point to that involved direct memory recall with imagery that had not been changed in some fundamental way. Regarding your comment on my assumption #3, the point here is that the "visual" imagery that occurs during a dream is as clear as any visual image during waking consciousness and therefore has the same information content. The fact that there are a few exceptions to this is not really important to the point I have made. Thanks for commenting, best regards.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Jw777 #11 It is a refutation of materialism because a materialist would have to believe that massive amounts of complex specified information, exceeding the universal probability bound by 1000s of orders of magnitude, could be generated nearly instantaneously by an electro-chemical machine with its putative bottom up causation--flat out impossible. This applies to all thinking, not just dreams. I used dream imagery because it more readily lends itself to quantitative analysis.nkendall
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
JS, 14: Perhaps here on in context may help: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
Jim Smith, here is a reference that you may find helpful: Christianity and Panentheism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4bornagain77
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
Andre, think about your 100 millionth great-grandmother (assume an average generation time of 5 years). She must have lived around 520 million years ago. She certainly was not human, nor a mammal. Lots of macro evolution in your own maternal line of descent. Biologists and paleontologists have their explanation (genetic mutations and natural selection). What is yours?Seqenenre
April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke Hey when are we getting our book that proves macro evolution? Have you abandoned the project ?Andre
April 18, 2015
April
04
Apr
18
18
2015
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
ppolish @ 8
Massless particles are incompatible with Materialism 2.0. See the light, Seversky. Move towards the Light:)
Materialism 2.0 embraces your massless particles and welcomes them to the material world.Seversky
April 18, 2015
April
04
Apr
18
18
2015
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
BA77 @ 10, Regarding Theism and "consciousness is primary" "the Mind of God is the source of reality" Can you suggest an on-line reference that discusses these topics as part of Theism? For example, does this mean human consciousness is the same kind of phenomenon as God's consciousness? Does this mean God created the universe by thinking about it - is the universe something that exists only in the mind of God? I am not familiar with Theism so I am looking for more information on the Theistic understanding of these subjects. Thanks,Jim Smith
April 18, 2015
April
04
Apr
18
18
2015
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply