Above is a picture of three children in 1954. One of them is me, the other two are not. I saw the world from inside one of these children.
Darwinists believe they can explain how these children evolved, but how did I end up inside one of them? This is a question that rarely seems to trouble evolutionists. They talk about human evolution as if they were outside observers and never seem to wonder how they got inside one of the animals they are studying. They seem to feel that they just need to explain how the human brain evolved, then there is nothing left to explain.
Well, there is a picture of a brain below, if you click on it and watch for a few minutes, you will quickly realize how extremely implausible and unsupported their explanation for the development of brains is. Nevertheless, is it really true that the “hard” problem of consciousness would be solved if you could explain how a mechanical brain could evolve?
Materialists claim that if a computer could be developed which is able to pass a “Turing test” and fool humans at their keyboards in the next room into thinking they are chatting with another human, then this computer has to be considered intelligent and conscious like humans. I am pretty sure this will not happen in my lifetime: if you put me in a room with two robots, I’m confident the humans in the next room will be able to determine in a few minutes, by chatting with us, which one of us is human.
But suppose one of the robots did pass his Turing test. Since robots are intelligently designed, that would not prove that blind natural forces could produce even a mechanical brain. But would it prove that human brains are just computers? No, I would propose a further, “Sewell” test: take a picture of the three of us typing at our computers, and show it to each of us. I will still think, that’s me inside this one, while I doubt either of the other two will think “oh, this one is me.” I’ll admit I can’t prove they won’t, but I don’t really need to prove it, because you already know they won’t.
I believe the other two children are just like me, and when they look at this picture today, they also think “this one is me, I saw the world from inside that animal.” Though it’s possible I might have grown up with two robots, who were very expertly programmed to pass their Turing tests, I can’t be absolutely sure. But I’m sure at least that I am not a robot, and I will still wonder how I got inside one of those children, even if you could convince me that you can explain everything else.
“Insideness” is a sharp and strong concept!
The picture is eerily resonant. The guy on the left could be me in 1954, and the house is strongly similar to the house my parents were renting in 1954. The other two people look like some of my cousins.
How do I know for sure this wasn’t from my family? Because my dad was a passionate amateur carpenter and wouldn’t have let the mailbox hang crooked, even on a rental.
An external observer, robot or not, couldn’t have made that judgment. Even an external observer that had been surveilling all of my online writing couldn’t have known it. It’s a new thought. I didn’t think it until this picture brought it out.
Dr Sewell, since the Darwinian gestapo tried to silence you when you called their bluff on entropy,
,, since the Darwinian gestapo tried to silence you when you called their bluff on entropy, I think you may thoroughly enjoy this proof for the mind first and/or Theistic view of reality.
An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”
Likewise, the present day entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that “a system can’t change while you are watching it”
Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment (i.e. decoherence) are sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect.
Yet, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
In short, the quantum zeno effect, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about it, is experimentally shown to be a real effect that is not reducible to any materialistic explanation. And thus the original wikipedia statement of, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay”, stands as being a true statement.
Moreover, on top of the quantum Zeno effect, recent experiments in quantum mechanics have now verified that “entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
As the following article states, the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, In the new paper, the researchers,,, show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
Moreover, in the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, it was demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.
And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
Again to repeat that last sentence, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The reason why I am very impressed with the preceding experiments demonstrating that entropy ‘is a property of an observer who describes a system’ is that the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy, is a very foundational principle in science.
As the following article states, “Entropy explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,”,, “Even gravity,,,, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,,”
In fact, entropy is also the primary reason why our own material, temporal, bodies grow old and eventually die in this universe,,,
Moreover, entropy is also, by a very wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
In the following video, Dr, Bruce Gordon touches upon just how enormous that number truly is. Dr. Gordon states, “you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with a zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is.”
And yet, to repeat the last sentence from the quantum information paper that I cited,
That statement is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, (entropic actions which have exceedingly broad explanatory power in science), even care if I am consciously observing them, and/or describing them or not, unless consciousness really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is?
To state the obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very, very, friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality.
For instance Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
Likewise, Psalm 102:25-27, long before entropy was elucidated, also predicted entropy to be foundational to reality.
Sir William Thomson, i.e. Lord Kelvin, unlike ‘scientists’ of today who try to silence anyone who dares question their atheistic view of reality, had no trouble whatsoever pointing out the obvious Theistic implications of entropy,
One final note Dr Sewell, I hold these advances in quantum information theory to be, basically, empirical confirmation of Intelligent Design.
Namely, these advances in quantum information theory bring Intelligent Agency itself directly smack dab into the middle of our most foundational descriptions of entropy itself.
Which is certainly not a trivial development in science to put it mildly. Especially as far as the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate is concerned.
Just to clarify, many people think some computer programs have indeed “passed” the Turing test, but that tells us nothing about consciousness. Those computers were merely programmed by humans to fool other humans. They weren’t even emulating other humans, much less simulating consciousness. Moreover, the people they fooled into believing they were human were either naïve about the whole concept of consciousness and AI, or else so enamoured of the AI hype that they wanted to believe. Another strategy to “pass” the test is to time limit the interaction – say five minutes max – to force a decision based on minimal interaction. Then there is the “I’m just a young kid” computer response (untruth) to cover up for simplistic or illogical answers. Finally, there are other, better tests that go beyond Turing’s.
It’s not a “hard” problem. It’s an impossible “problem.”
Consciousness is primary. With each and every one of you. Or not. (Zombies excluded.)
The hard problem, unfortunately, cuts both ways. You cannot say, from the evolutionary perspective, that matter cannot produce experiential awareness (consciousness,) but then say from a non-evolutionary perspective that matter can produce the experiential awareness of a table, a chair, a sunset, etc.
The matter of the supposed material world, your sensory system, and your brain can either cause experiential awareness, or it cannot. You don’t get to address the hard problem as if it only represents a problem for evolutionary theory; it’s the same hard problem for any theory that involves us having experiences of an external, physical world.
@William J Murray
The problem is that a non-evolutionary perspective, such as that of a belief in a supernatural creator, doesn’t require that consciousness truly exist exclusively as a result of matter. It’s not a hard problem for intelligent design or creationism because those beliefs include a soul that is not mere matter, which is the ‘true self’. These beliefs/theories have a lot more to work with than mere matter in explaining consciousness.