Readers may recall that I (O’Leary for News) have been writing a series on how evolution can actually happen, and not the bumf people are forced to pay taxes for (Darwinism).
(Evolution does not necessarily produce really big changes, but that isn’t the same thing as saying it doesn’t happen.)
Anyway,here’s one theory that makes some sense:
—
But some entities in nature are not material at all: the number 7 comes to mind. Some philosophers have argued that we can construct a theory of items grouped by sevens without using a concept like 7. But whatever advantages these philosophers’ suggestion may offer, it does not represent what people do. We have an immaterial concept of 7 that organizes items and events, instantiated in various media at various times. It is natural without being material in any meaningful way.
Life forms seem to be somehow in between. They are material, but unlike stones, they don’t just exist. They want to exist, and to go on existing. They often seem to have a number of additional, related goals.
If Dr. Shapiro can account for the purposeful way in which life forms strive to sustain their own existence as part of a natural world, it is — as he clearly recognizes — a natural world that is far removed from the Darwinism of the science textbooks, which emphasizes the random nature of these processes.
—
See also: Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back
If Dr. Shapiro can account for the purposeful way in which life forms strive to sustain their own existence
Ignorance showcasing itself. Computers (aka ‘machines’) can operate purposefully e.g. industrial robot, or chess playing program,… etc.
In fact even a simple ball rolling down the slope is seeking to minimize its potential energy. More generally any physical system behaves purposefully, seeking to minimize its “action integral” (via the so-called “principle of least action”).
Of course, no one has a clue what is it like to be a ball rolling down the slope, or a bear cub, or a child, doing the same. The present natural science is fundamentally incomplete since it lacks a model or even the basic concept corresponding to phenomenological consciousness (i.e. concept for ‘what is it like to be’ some system in some state).
Isn’t Dr. Shapiro merely saying that life as a system has the capacity to alter is information based on stress and/or opportunity?
>
I don’t sense that he’s saying what the original source of natural genetic engineering is [but he has said that it appears to be very old]; i.e. he’s not saying what process led to life being capable of natural genetic engineering.
Not according to the law of conservation of information or the no free lunch theorem.
All those claims about how “smart” the genetic apparatus is just pushes the question (of how such complexity could arise) further back in time. If you have a clever genetic system that can engineer itself, it’s origin becomes harder to explain.
Night 1
“If Dr. Shapiro can account for the purposeful way in which life forms strive to sustain their own existence
Ignorance showcasing itself. Computers (aka ‘machines’) can operate purposefully e.g. industrial robot, or chess playing program,… etc.
In fact even a simple ball rolling down the slope is seeking to minimize its potential energy. More generally any physical system behaves purposefully, seeking to minimize its “action integral” (via the so-called “principle of least action”).
——————————————————
Nonsense. Computer programs do not have a purpose except insofar as they are programmed to have one by a mindful, purposeful intelligence. Balls rolling down a slope are even less “purposeful”, unless you claim they “want” to obey gravity.
@4 Computer programs do not have a purpose except insofar as they are programmed to have one by a mindful, purposeful intelligence.
Or by another program, whether it’s running on silicon computer or on a neural network making up human brain (a distributed self-programming computer).
As for “mindful” — that’s your subjective opinion since no one has any idea what is it like to be any kind of computer, whether silicon or carbon based. You cannot access or say anything about any “mind” other than your own. No scientific argument can be made based on “mindful” since present natural science has no such concept.
Balls rolling down a slope are even less “purposeful”, unless you claim they “want” to obey gravity.
Even the “obeying” is anthropomorphism. Any physical system is minimizing quantity called “action integral”. Whether there is “consciousness” or “want” associated with that activity, no one knows.
Nightlight,
I do. There isn’t “consciousness” or “want” associated with that activity. For one thing a ball doesn’t have sensory organs, therefor it cannot know where it is and cannot have a goal (or anything else) in mind.
@6For one thing a ball doesn’t have sensory organs, therefor it cannot know where it is and cannot have a goal (or anything else) in mind.
Your sensory organs generate electric pulses, which in turn generate other electric pulses in the brain. Effects of slope and gravity on a ball also propagate via electromagnetic fields between its molecules. Present science can say nothing as to what kind of arrangement of molecules and electromagnetic fields are associated with “consciousness” or “mind” and what kind are not.
Hence, any “inside” knowledge anyone claims about “mind” being present here and not there or some such, is a personal speculation, not a scientific statement. The only factually correct view on the topic at present is agnosticism. Not even knowing that you don’t know something is a deeper kind of ignorance than just not knowing something.
Nightlight,
However there is no indication whatsoever that molecules are sensory organs.
Present science says precisely “nothing”? Isn’t it so that consciousness is related to brains by present science? Does present science leave the option open that the arrangement of the molecules in a ball can give rise to consciousness? Can you provide some references?
You seem to hold that from not knowing “what kind of arrangement of molecules and electromagnetic fields are associated with consciousness or mind”, it follows that there is a 50% chance that a ball is conscious. Which is as incoherent as saying that because we don’t know what the origin of black energy is, there is a 50% chance that a ball on a slope causes black energy.
What it boils down to is that before you can make such a claim there must be some kind of positive indication — and in this case there is none.
There is not knowing something and not knowing something — it comes in grades.
@8 – You seem to hold that from not knowing “what kind of arrangement of molecules and electromagnetic fields are associated with consciousness or mind”, it follows that there is a 50% chance that a ball is conscious.
No, that doesn’t follow. There are 2 propositions that require the least number of unproven assumptions:
a) No arrangement is associated with consciousness.
b) All arrangements are associated with consciousness.
Since I know that at least one arrangement is associated with consciousness (one that makes my own body), that observation falsifies (a), hence the most economical and the most coherent position (for me) is (b), which is also known as panpsychism.
Declaring that some particular proper subsets of all possible arrangements are conscious, while others are not (the present natural science has no way to identify such arrangements), requires that more unproved assumptions be taken for granted than for (b), hence that is a less economical (weaker) position.
Isn’t it so that consciousness is related to brains by present science?
That is a speculation, not a scientific fact or a falsifiable theory/conjecture. There is no natural law or equation that singles out some kind of arrangements of matter and fields as capable of “generating” or “producing” consciousness and others as not capable.
Note that the plain fact that present science cannot make a scientific statement or even a scientific (falsifiable) conjecture about consciousness, doesn’t imply that consciousness doesn’t exist. It merely implies that present science is incomplete in this domain.
Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
@10
You’re simply listing various personal speculations.
The actual fact is that there is no quantity or variable C or some such standing for “consciousness” in Quantum Theory or in any other theory. Zilch. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you smoke and mirrors. Some people just love to tell/sell stories about it. I happen not to care for any of them.
Nature cannot produce codes and living organisms are ruled by codes.
nightlight,
as to your unfounded speculation that consciousness could possibly be emergent from, or co-terminus with, material reality,
that completely unfounded materialistic speculation is now empirically falsified by the fact that material reality does not even exist prior to conscious observation.
Leggett’s Inequality, the mathematics behind it, and the Theistic implications of it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:
Besides Leggett’s Inequality, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice was recently extended beyond merely photons to atoms and gave the same result as Leggett’s. Namely, ‘reality doesn’t exist without an observer’
To say these recent findings in quantum mechanics undermine materialistic presuppositions in regards to consciousness possibly being ’emergent’ from a material basis would be a drastic understatement. Perhaps a more fitting description of what these finding do to materialistic presuppositions is illustrated in the following video:
@13
You obviously can’t tell the difference between science and speculations by scientists. We’ve been around this circle few times before.
I go with (a) .
You do not know that consciousness is caused by the arrangement of matter that constitutes your body. Correlation (or “association”) doesn’t constitute causation. The observation of correlation does not falsify (a).
as to:
“You obviously can’t tell the difference between science and speculations by scientists.”
Says the man who defends a science-free, evidence-free, neo-Darwinian view of reality. A view of reality where completely unfounded speculations about how the jaw dropping complexity in life came about constantly take the place of real word empirical evidences and observations.
To call neo-Darwinism a pseudo-science is an insult to astrologers and palm readers.
‘Nature cannot produce codes and living organisms are ruled by codes.’ – Virgil Cain @ #12
Don’t confuse nightlight et al with q.e.d.-type, primordial facts, Virg, there’s a good chap.
In even a half-sane world, there would no longer be any atheists, would there? Amazing.
@16 Says the man who defends a science-free, evidence-free, neo-Darwinian view of reality.
Surprised to see such absurd claim after that Marathon thread you and I debated the same topics. I never defended neo-Darwinism. Of course that doesn’t mean I support Seattle ID (aka ‘god of gaps’ promoted by Meyer).
@15 You do not know that consciousness is caused by the arrangement of matter that constitutes your body.
Recheck the posts, I never said that. You even twist the quote you yourself cited one line before. As you can plainly see, I have consistently used term “associated” not “caused” and that is correct summary of the present state of knowledge. Nature of that association is still mystery for the natural science.
Since (a) is contradicted by counter-example (my own consciousness), the most economical position for me is (b) — consciousness is associated with all arrangements of matter-energy i.e. panpsychism.
nightlight, I don’t remember your exact atheistic position and really don’t care what it is since your current claim for consciousness is in the same league as neo-Darwinian claims. Namely, your claim is completely science-free, evidence-free, speculation. (i.e. Exactly what you are now disingenuously accusing me of)
Of supplemental note to the Leggett and Wheeler style experiments that I have already cited that empirically back up my Theistic position in an over the top fashion:
Ok, and I have pointed out that you need causation — “association” gets you nowhere.
—
NDE experiences firmly contradict a continuous “association” and so does hemispherectomy.
@20 Namely, your claim is completely science-free, evidence-free, speculation. (i.e. Exactly what you are now disingenuously accusing me of)
There is no scientific claim to be made about consciousness since there is no science of consciousness, only thousands of years of speculations.
@21 Ok, and I have pointed out that you need causation — “association” gets you nowhere.
That doesn’t mean one should pretend to know and make things up, as the top post and your subsequent defense of it do. Neither you nor the “News” author of the top post know what arrangement of matter-energy is associated with consciousness (much less how) to make up pronouncements as you both did.
NDE experiences firmly contradict a continuous “association” and so does hemispherectomy.
It “contradicts” (in a somewhat ambiguous way) the assumption that human needs to be clinically alive for consciousness normally associated with particular body to exist. It doesn’t contradict assumption that consciousness is associated with matter-energy in other states than clinically alive.
To the degree that anything is implied by these kinds of ambiguous phenomena, they support more general nature of the association, including possibility that consciousness is associated with non-live matter-energy configurations i.e. panpsychism.
nightlight, the experimental evidence I highlighted is not ‘speculation’ as you are falsely, and repeatedly, claiming.
It, i.e. the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics, (see post 10 and 13), is unambiguous in its conclusion that consciousness must be primary to matter-energy.
Since material reality does not exist until conscious observation is made, (i.e. until measurement is made – see post 13), then that necessarily dictates that there is something about our conscious observation that takes precedence over material reality.
There simply is, no matter how much you desire the conclusion to be otherwise, no other conclusion available from the evidence.
Only Theism offers the correct solution to the enigma of quantum wave collapse in that not only is God postulated to have created all of material reality, but Theism also holds that God breathed the ‘breath of life’ into man so that man became a ‘living soul’.
Thus, the profound enigma of material reality not existing until conscious observation is made finds a ready solution in Theism and only Theism in that only Theism holds there to be something transcendent within us that precedes material reality..
Any other worldview, rather than Theism, that tries to place consciousness as emergent from, or co-terminus with, material reality simply completely fails to provide a coherent explanation for the empirical evidence, (i.e. real time evidence), we now have in hand from quantum mechanics.
of final note: Since I do not expect nightlight to ever be honest towards the evidence, this will be my last response to him on the subject.
I simply have better things to do than pointlessly argue with a dogmatist for hours and hours who misrepresents the state of evidence.
@24 It, i.e. the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics, (see post 10 and 13), is unambiguous in its conclusion that consciousness must be primary to matter-energy.
No there isn’t any such “evidence”. There are informal stories told by people about them, though. But there is no “consciousness” in either Quantum Mechanics theory or experiment, or for that matter in any other branch of physics or natural science.
Your resolution is unfortunately much too low to be able to tell the difference between experimental observations and subsequent informal sales pitch about them aiming to attract attention and funding. We already went over it at some length few times on UD e.g. in a long UD thread from 2013, starting with post #7 and post #155, plus several other posts there.
I don’t care about “association”. That’s your thing. However, what I do know is that there is no arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness.
@26 However, what I do know is that there is no arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness.
Therefore you have no basis to proclaim, as you kept doing in several posts, that any particular system has (such as human) or has not (such a ball) any consciousness. It is nothing more than your personal view (which I happen not to share).
As to whether there is “arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness” that’s an open question in the present science i.e. neither “yes” nor “no” is the correct answer as you are asserting, but all one can say is “the answer is presently unknown”. Hence, you have no scientific basis to make even that assertion either.
Nightlight,
You don’t get it. No particular system has consciousness. Consciousness is not something that systems have. Consciousness is primary.
No, it’s not. I have provided several arguments in our previous encounters.
“Science” struggles with a severe naturalistic bias. Don’t pretend you don’t know this.