PK,
You have raised a worldviews level challenge and that means that you too have to warrant your own views on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. You do not get a free pass to impose evolutionary materialistic scientism and mind as in effect biologically programmed software riding on neuronal electrochemistry as default.
(For one, no-one has a credible mechanism to get to such a machine's functionally specific complex coherent organisation and associated information on blind watchmaker chance and/or mechanical necessity, all at once [= Boltzmann brain] or incrementally [=goo to you by way of microbes to Mozart]. For two, a computational mechanism is not even in the same category as rational, responsible contemplation and choice. Evolutionary materialistic scientism is patently self-referentially incoherent and self-refuting, as J B S Haldane long since pointed out and as many others have continued to point out or inadvertently imply. In short, there is no warrant to infer or assume that brains sufficiently explain minds. You have inadvertently committed fallacies of presuming a false default alternative and so of question-begging. The actual weight of evidence is, that we may not know how it is, but the very patent fact of responsible rational freedom as the basis for reasoned discussion implies a degree of freedom and rational, reflective capability that cannot be explained on the mechanical necessity and/or stochastic behaviour of material computational substrates. Computing is not contemplation and rocks have no dreams.)
Next, when we look at cell based life, we find in its heart computing, cybernetic molecular machinery using 4-state per symbol digitally coded information in D/RNA. Alphanumeric code, text strings and algorithms, all of which are manifestations of language. Language antecedent to observed, cell based biological life. The only actually observed cell based biological life. Language, being a characteristic sign of intelligence and rational responsible freedom at work.
Going further, we live in an observed cosmos that is such that its physics puts it at a deeply isolated operating point in the configuration space of mathematically possible cosmologies. That is, there is good reason to see that the observed cosmos is fine tuned in ways that enable C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based biological life on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones. There is further reason to see that we inhabit an extraordinarily privileged planet, as it is evident that a great many factors have to be Goldilocks zone just so for the Earth to be right for the sort of life we enjoy.
All of this points to design of the observed universe as a serious view. Design that is antecedent to the existence of the sort of matter you appeal to by pointing to brains.
Going yet further, we find that mathematics [= the [study of the] logic of structure and quantity] is inextricably entangled not only in the practice of science but in the fabric of reality. Indeed, much of the logic of structure and quantity is embedded in the framework for any possible world to be. Mathematics, notoriously, addresses abstracta and logic even more, abstracta being irreducible to material instantiations. Where, information is precisely a case in point of quantifiable structures.
So, there is little reason to reduce the world to materialistic entities, including the phenomenon we experience as fact no 1, conscious mindedness.
A wiser approach is to take fact no 1 as point of departure, and to reject schemes of thought that reduce it to grand delusion (Plato's cave type scenarios). This then leaves us with the common sense view that we are minded, embodied intelligent rational and responsible creatures in a world that has aspects that are concretely physical and aspects that are clearly immaterial, starting with abstracta and with mindedness.
Then, we can work out which view of reality makes best sense of such facts, recognising that Popperian style "falsification" is at best a small part of the overall project of rationality. A comparative difficulties approach makes far better sense than scientism, which is self-refuting.
The notion that those who believe in immaterial mind/soul have a burden of warrant beyond that which adherents to evolutionary materialistic scienism bear, fails.
KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2018
December
12
Dec
31
31
2018
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
Pater Kimbridge at #26:
I can point to 7.6 billion examples of minds that are associated with physical brains.
So can I, of course. That is a simple fact that nobody is trying to deny.
And yet, we draw different conclusions from facts. Not only me. Have you ever observed that most living and reasoning people, for millennia, have believed that consciousness can exist even if not linked to a physical brain? For example, after death?
I could mention again NDEs or mystical experiences. Those are facts, too. But I think that there are also many basic reasons that epxlain why so many reasonable people have considered survival of consciousness after the death of the physical brain as a very realistic idea.
None of those persons, as far as I am aware, has ever denied that millions or billions of conscious beings that we can observe exhibit a link between cosnciousness and a physical brain.
Can anyone demonstrate even one mind that is not?
Of course there are many good arguments to believe in that idea. NDEs and mystical experiences are IMO among the best. However, the discussion is of course wider and more complex, involving philosophy and many other things.
The simple idea is that, if you look at matter, you will see at best manifestations of consciousness in matter. We can observe them all the time, but of course they require some interface between cosnciousness and matter. For huma beings, that interface is the brain.
I could certainly argue that the existence of complex functional information in biological beings is a very strong argument for the existence of conscious beings that interact with matter without using a human brain.
This is an ID site, have you noticed? :)gpuccio
December 31, 2018
December
12
Dec
31
31
2018
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
Seversky at #24:
I don’t think any or all of Egnor’s examples amount to proof of the immateriality of the mind.
Maybe. But we are discussing empirical science here, not mathematics. Why do you want "proof"? What are you looking for, a theorem?
Egnor's arguments are good empirical arguments. They deserve to be considered for what they are.
They are arguments to which there are equally good counter-arguments.
And I am ready to listen to them.
For example, Egnor can cite research by Penfield, Sperry and Libet but he can’t provide any examples of disembodied consciousness at all.
Well, the arguments for the existence of disembodied consciousness are other, for example NDEs or mystical experiences. Those are facts, too. And they deserve interest and explanations.
This debate continually butts up against the hard problem of consciousness
Of course, I agree with that.
which no one has been able to crack so far
It depends on what you mean by "crack". If consciousness cannot be explained in terms of configurations of matter, as I believe, and as the hard problem IMO strongly suggests, then insisting in trying to "crack" the problem in that sense is a road to nowhere. The only reasonable empirical attitude is, of course, to admit that consciousness is an observable that cannot be explained in terms of configurations of matter, and to study its properties and its interaction with other parts of reality.
If you want to hypothesize the brain to be some sort of hugely complex and metabolically expensive ‘transceiver’ then you need to show that there is something being transmitted and received by the brain in the same way that electromagnetic waves are broadcast and received by a radio.
Well, not necessarily. While I certainly agree that the brain is hugely complex and metabolically expensive (like the rest of our body, or even like bacteria, i would say), the discussion here has been about the brain as an "interface" to cosnciousness. That does not mean a "transceiver", if you imply that it is receiving ifnormation from some distant source, by radio waves or similar. My discussion here has been about the theory that cosnciousness is linked to the brain at quantum level. That requires no "physical" separation, and no transmission of information by any waves in space and time. It certainly requires some form of connection by some laws, but nothing else.
As for machines thinking consciously, as far as I know, there are none that do that yet
I certainly agree.
but I would argue that, since we have no adequate account of consciousness yet, we are not in a position to say that they never will.
You can certainly argue that. As I can argue that there are a lot of reasons to believe that they never will. Even with the level of understanding of consciousness that we have at present.
Are you interested in that discussion?gpuccio
December 31, 2018
December
12
Dec
31
31
2018
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Hazel at #27:
Again, thank you for the interesting discussion.
Only a couple of points:
I understand the distinction you are making. Still, I wonder if it’s not realistic (I’m glad you used that adjective) to say that changing an event from one that is truly random to one that is chosen by a mind is not violating, or at least contravening, the laws of physics in that the flow of physical events would most likely have been changed from what it would be if the mind had not intervened.
But the idea is, of course, that the laws of physics (not just those that we already know, but those that we will understand as our knowledge deepens) do allow for physical events to be changed by consciousness at quantum levle. IOWs, consciousness and minds are part of reality, and therefore the laws of physics, that are part of the laws of reality, must certainly account for their existence and for their interaction with other components of reality.
Consciousness is not a rare event: we observe it all the time. It is an integral part of reality.
And consciousness does interact with physical matter. In both directions. Again, we observe that all the time.
Therefore, we must look for laws of reality and of physics that explain those regular observations. Apparent violations of existing laws must lead us to new laws.
The only aòternative is pure determinism or pure determinism plus randomness. But that does not even begin to explain what we observe in reality, especially consciousness, meaning, desire, intelligence and, of course, complex functional information and design.
I think the key issue might be, for a single quantum event, not that no laws of physics were violated, but that there would be no way, even in theory, for us to ever know.
I don't agree.
First of all, even if the laws od physics are not violated by conscious events, as discussed, when we take into account meaning and function the laws of probability are absolutely violated. That is the main idea of ID. We observe meaning and function in the workings of consciousness at a level that can never be explained by a purely determoinistic and/or random system.
Second, I firmly believe that is something exists, we can understand it, sooner or later, at cthe level that it can be understood by our cognitive powers. It is never a good thing to give up in advance.gpuccio
December 31, 2018
December
12
Dec
31
31
2018
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Ed George,
A simple yes or no, do you personally not want to see my comments anymore?
I will do my best to make it happen for you if you want.
Again, I'm pretty sure that I can get it done for you.
An answer in the same vein as the last answer, I will take as a yes from you personally.
The thread is far enough off topic as it is with the last few posts, so let's have your decision, and let you be on your own way and stop muddling up the thread.bornagain77
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
BA77
Ed George, I’m just trying to help you personally not see my comments anymore.
Do you want my help?
I’m pretty sure that I can make it happen for you.
For some strange reason, you appear to be worried that some people may be given a tool by which they don’t have to read everything you write. Why? I am perfectly fine if some would prefer to skip past my comments. In fact, might I suggest that you do so?Ed George
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Ed George, I'm just trying to help you personally not see my comments anymore.
Do you want my help?
I'm pretty sure that I can make it happen for you.bornagain77
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
And if you really wanted evidence for disembodied consciousness then you would travel to the allegedly haunted sites and conduct a thorough investigation.ET
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Pater K:
As Seversky says, nobody can provide examples of disembodied consciousness.
And no one can provide a materialistic process capable of producing a living organism let alone an organism with a brain.
When you guys ever get any evidence for such a thing we will reconsider the claim that mind is separate from body.
I can point to 7.6 billion examples of minds that are associated with physical brains.
So what? You cannot show ONE case of the mind emerging from the brainET
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
BA77
Ed George, do you want me to try to help you with your attempt to basically censor my comments?
Are you suggesting that people would choose not to read your comments? Why would you think that?
All I am asking is for a feature found on many blogs. A “more” button so that those who are interested can read the rest of the comment. And for those who don’t want to scroll for several seconds to go on to the next comment. Most people wouldn’t take this personally. Do you?Ed George
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
@Hazel #28
That sounds perilously close to not existing at all.Pater Kimbridge
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Ed George, do you want me to try to help you with your attempt to basically censor my comments?
Although, you might not find the solution that I would ask for to your satisfaction!bornagain77
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
@ 24 Seversky states
For example, Egnor can cite research by Penfield, Sperry and Libet but he can’t provide any examples of disembodied consciousness at all.
Yet Seversky purposely ignores extensive evidence from Near Death Experiences that have been repeatedly pointed out to him.
Moreover, as Dr. Egnor himself pointed out, the evidence for the reality of Near Death Experience is far more robust and compelling than any purported evidence for Darwinian evolution is:
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012
Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn.
Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
Moreover, the transcendent nature of 'immaterial' information, which is ubiquitous within molecular biology, even permeating every facet of molecular biology, and which is the primary thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes have repeatedly failed to explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature of the soul:
As was stated earlier at post 14, (i.e. physical reality of immaterial information), and as I quoted Stuart Hameroff: “it’s possible that this (conserved) quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Of related note:
A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel
Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body.
http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
The Mystery of Perception During Near Death Experiences - Pim van Lommel - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avyUsPgIuQ0
Non-local Consciousness: A Concept Based on Scientific Research on Near-Death Experiences During Cardiac Arrest - Pim van Lommel - 2013
Excerpt: Since the publication of several prospective studies on NDEs in survivors of cardiac arrest, with strikingly similar results and conclusions, the phenomenon of the NDE can no longer be scientifically ignored.,,,
The NDE is an authentic experience which cannot be simply reduced to imagination, fear of death, hallucination, psychosis, the use of drugs, or oxygen deficiency,,,
There are good reasons to assume that our consciousness does not always coincide with the functioning of our brain: enhanced or non-local consciousness can sometimes be
experienced separately from the body,,,
https://pimvanlommel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pim-van-Lommel-Nonlocal-Consciousness-article-JCS-2013.pdf
bornagain77
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Web site designers
Please, either reinstate the “more” button for comments, or an “ignore” button. There are comments with very extensive “copy and paste” or verbose prose that many people just scroll past. Having to scroll past all of it makes for an unpleasant experience for many who would like to participate in the discussion.Ed George
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
I understand PK's point at 26. However, one of the logical philosophical possibilities is that consciousness (and really we should say the mind, I think) is an immaterial something, but that it has no definite content nor ability to affect the physical world without being connected to a body, in whatever mysterious and unknown way that is.hazel
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
To gpuccio at 22
You write,
the “design” taking place in the brain would use configurations that are not in themselves extremely unlikely (let’s say, like getting 3000 sixes in 6000 attempts, which is really totally unlikely), but in the range of realistic results. So, the probabilistic distribution would be absolutely respected for an observer, if nothing were known of the meaning of the configuration.
I agree. That is I was referring to when I wrote, “There is no way we could detect that [a specific dice roll being a six] via looking at probability distributions.
I also understand that that analogy of the dice is flawed (all analogies are, by definition, only partly true) in that the roll of the dice is a deterministic event that only appears probable due to our lack of complete knowledge, but that quantum probabilities are truly random: there are no hidden variables such that if we knew them they would be like dice.
You write,
Therefore, there is the realistic chance that no violation of physical laws is necessary for consciousness to control it [quantum events.]
I understand the distinction you are making. Still, I wonder if it’s not realistic (I’m glad you used that adjective) to say that changing an event from one that is truly random to one that is chosen by a mind is not violating, or at least contravening, the laws of physics in that the flow of physical events would most likely have been changed from what it would be if the mind had not intervened.
I think the key issue might be, for a single quantum event, not that no laws of physics were violated, but that there would be no way, even in theory, for us to ever know.hazel
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
As Seversky says, nobody can provide examples of disembodied consciousness.
I can point to 7.6 billion examples of minds that are associated with physical brains.
Can anyone demonstrate even one mind that is not?Pater Kimbridge
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
I don't know if the website redesign project is finished, but the Recent Comments feature still doesn't work reliably, and it's one of the most useful features when it's working.
Hmmm. Right after I wrote this, I refreshed the Home page (which I think I had just done) and now the Recent Comments are up-to-date. Maybe refreshing a Post doesn't refresh, but refreshing Home does?hazel
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
I don't think any or all of Egnor's examples amount to proof of the immateriality of the mind. They are arguments to which there are equally good counter-arguments. For example, Egnor can cite research by Penfield, Sperry and Libet but he can't provide any examples of disembodied consciousness at all. This debate continually butts up against the hard problem of consciousness which no one has been able to crack so far. If you want to hypothesize the brain to be some sort of hugely complex and metabolically expensive 'transceiver' then you need to show that there is something being transmitted and received by the brain in the same way that electromagnetic waves are broadcast and received by a radio.
As for machines thinking consciously, as far as I know, there are none that do that yet but I would argue that, since we have no adequate account of consciousness yet, we are not in a position to say that they never will.Seversky
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
FourFaces:
There is no doubt that intelligently designed machines can do a lot of amazing intelligent things. Look at what biological machines can do.
Intelligence is an ambiguous world. As you use it, it refers to "frozen" intelligence: IOWs, a conscious intelligent agent implements complex functional machines. That's why you call them "intelligent".
But if we mean intelligence as the conscious experience of understanding meanings, then machines are not intelligent, and never will be, because machines, very simply, are not conscious.
It's as simple as that.gpuccio
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Hazel at #20:
You say:
"There is no way we could detect that via looking at probability distributions, but it would be a violation of the laws of physics to impose that result."
I am not sure what you mean, but I wil try to answer just the same. Correct me if I am wrong in interpeting your thoughts.
First of all, regarding probability dostributions, I think that the "design" taking place in the brain would use configurations that are not in themselves extremely unlikely (let's say, like getting 3000 sixes in 6000 attempts, which is really totally unlikely), but in the range of realistic results. So, the probabilistic distribution would be absolutely respected for an observer, if nothing were known of the meaning of the configuration.
Regrading the laws of physics, I can agree with you that they would be violated in the case of the dice, because that is a fullt deterministic event, and our description of it as a probability doistribution is only due to our inability to know all the variables involved.
But quantum probability, at least in the most common inteprations, is not a matter of hidden variables. It is, probably :) , intrinsic probability. Something that we really don't understand.
Therefore, there is the realistic chance that no violation of physical laws is necessary for consciousness to control it.gpuccio
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
As an AGI researcher, I believe that intelligence does not require a conscious mind. Intelligence is a cause-effect, physical phenomenon. Most of you will live to see highly intelligent machines and robots among us. They will cook for us, do our laundry, clean the house and do our jobs. They will be construction workers, doctors, drivers, pilots, engineers, chefs, waiters, soldiers, etc. It's coming.FourFaces
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
To Gpuccio at 19.
I appreciate all your comments, and that these are deeper issues than being discussed here, or at least than you wanted to get involved (and that is perfectly understandable.)
However, there is one issue I’d like to mention. In respect to whether mind interacting with the body via quantum effects, I had written, “the ability to collapse all those waveforms in a way that was different than they might otherwise have, ... might easily be considered “violating known laws of physics.””
To this idea (I think), you replied
So, even if we observe what happens in the many probabilistic events in a random system (like the brain), no violation of the general probabilistic distributions will be observed. Except that some of the random events will have unexpected meanings, and will allow a design inference.
There is a difference between there being no violation of “general probabilistic distributions” and a possible violation, by mindful control, of a single quantum effect.
To make a unrealistic example, suppose a mind could control the roll of a dice, but usually doesn’t). If I roll the dice 6000 times, not only would there be an expected probability distribution, there would be an expected distribution of actual distributions. That is, we would expect 1000 sixes, in theory, but we would also not expect to get exactly 1000 sixes. 980 sixes would be reasonable, but only 200 sixes would make us consider that something was wrongs, as that would be too unlikely.
However, suppose the mind that can control the dice made the 3000th roll a six, overriding the 5/6 probability that it might not be a six. There is no way we could detect that via looking at probability distributions, but it would be a violation of the laws of physics to impose that result.
This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I wrote, “It may be taking place at a level forever empirically unknown, and perhaps unknowable, to us externally but it would still be intervening in the randomness that is part of the laws which describe quantum events.”hazel
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Hazel at #15:
Thank you for the good thoughts.
Yes, I saw some of your comments on that other thread, and I think the topic was very interesting, but I did not want to get engaged in the discussion in that context. I am very interested in the "sensorial" aspect of conscious representations, and I think that NLP has said some interesting things about that topic. However, a detailed discussion about the nature of the mind would be too complex and philosophic at the present stage of our knowledge.
Regarding the idea of a quantum interface, I agree with you that it is still conjectural (like many things in science, I must say). However, it has been seriously considered by many scientists, starting with Eccles and up to Penrose, and with different perspectives.
You say:
"That would require not only a vast, global knowledge of what quantum events needed to be changed, but the ability to collapse all those waveforms in a way that was different than they might otherwise have, and that might easily be considered “violating known laws of physics."
Well, I don't agree. I think it does not require a "conscious knowledge". It just requires a coordinated connection.
I will try to be more clear. When we move a muscle to achieve something, we have no conscious knowledge of what muscle fibers need to be contracted. Many movements are simply the coordinated action of different muscles, but we are not aware of the details. Our consciousness is just correctly "wired", so that we easily learn the right moviments.
The same could be true for the quantum interface. If it is designed, we just use it. We are not aware of the details.
Of course, there are deep philosophical problems here: for example, are formal configurations merely physical, or can they happen at different levels of reality? Is consciousness itself formal, or not?
I am aware of those difficulties, but again they have a deep philosophical nature, and they are beyond what we are discussing here.
The second point is that the control by consciousness needs not violate the probabilistic properties of quantum systems. Except from a design perspective.
Again, I will try to be more clear. A Shakespeare poem does not violate any physical law. If we lived in a world where strings of letters are continuously generated by random systems, the appearance of the poem would not violate in itself a probabilistic law: as our opponents often say, the poem is in itself as likely as any random sequence of the same length. It's only its meaning that specifies it as an extremely unlikely event (if compared to the many events that have no meaning at all), and reveals its designed origin.
But physical laws are not aware of meaning.
So, even if we observe what happens in the many probabilistic events in a random system (like the brain), no violation of the general probabilistic distributions will be observed. Except that some of the random events will have unexpected meanings, and will allow a design inference. But physical laws need not be violated, exactly as nobody believes that the works of Shakespeare falsify the second law..gpuccio
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
JAD writes at 17,
Well, you can always wave your metaphysical magic wand and just imagine (or wish) away the problem.
I hope the "you" in that sentence isn't addressed to me, as it appears to be, as right before the sentence of mine you quoted I wrote, "I am one who certainly does consider that 'ontologically consciousness and mind are immaterial'”, in reply to your statement at 2 about considering that possibility.
I am not a "physicalist", and the further discussion I've had on this thread has not been from a physicalist point of view. I’d like to make that clear.hazel
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Hazel @ #4,
I think it’s important to acknowledge that dualists face the equally difficult problem of how the immaterial mind interfaces in a causal way with the physical body.
Well, you can always wave your metaphysical magic wand and just imagine (or wish) away the problem. You don’t even have to say hocus-pocus. That’s what materialism does. By fiat materialists declare that matter-energy is all that exists. Unfortunately there is a high metaphysical cost that one has to pay to truly embrace such a worldview. For example, on an earlier thread I quote an atheist who thinks that absolute physicalism or materialism is “a bridge too far.”
Consciousness, thoughts, the self, purpose and morality can’t exist for the physicalist because physicalists don’t know how to translate bouncing fermions and bosons into these entities. So they point to some evidence that commonsensical views of these concepts are wrong and go on to conclude that, because the commonsense view is wrong, these entities don’t really exist. And yet all while claiming that such entities as the self, thoughts and propositions don’t really exist, Rosenberg is authoring these claims with propositions designed to change belief-desire systems of his readers. It doesn’t take a philosopher to see why this is self-contradictory.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/front-runner-for-most-inane-comment-of-2018/#comment-670391
The other way to magically wave away the problem is to accept an extreme form of idealism like virtual reality idealism as is portrayed in the movie The Matrix. However, The Matrix IMO doesn’t really go far enough because hero Neo is only plugged into the matrix, so he is able to escape the VR world into the “real” world. We can easily imagine that we are wired into a VR world for which there is no escape-- this the so-called “brain in a vat” version of VR. Descartes, however, took the thought experiment to its ultimate conclusion. Suppose there is no such thing as a material world. The real world is a world of unembodied minds and spirits (angels and demons.) A skeptic, according to Descartes, could argue that we (or maybe just you) have been kidnapped by a malevolent demon who has taken control of our minds and has created the world we perceive around us, but it’s only a VR world of unreal perceptions. Philosophers argue that such a world is logically possible but like absolute materialism there is a very high metaphysical cost to such a view. It does solve, however, the some of the problems posed by materialism, namely, consciousness is real, not just an illusion.
Personally I have no reason to doubt a quotidian version of reality. Ontologically the spatial-temporal world in which I exist is composed of two types of things: (1) things that perceive, like conscious beings-- humans and animals, and (2) things that are perceived like rocks, trees, stars, planets and human artifacts etc. We have a choice then: assume the world we perceive is basically the way the world is and try to explain it, or try to explain it away by metaphysical sleight of hand.john_a_designer
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
A few more notes on the physical reality of immaterial information:
It is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,
Quantum Entanglement and Information
Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, is how they are able to perform quantum computation.
Moreover, the final answer in quantum computation is read off the state of the particles at the end of the computation when it is 'measured'. In other words, it is the 'non-local' computation and then 'measurement' that determines the final state of the material particles, not the material particles that determine the final state of the answer.
"Finally, upon termination of the algorithm, the result needs to be read off. In the case of a classical computer, we sample from the probability distribution on the three-bit register to obtain one definite three-bit string, say 000. Quantum mechanically, we measure the three-qubit state, which is equivalent to collapsing the quantum state down to a classical distribution,,,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Operation
To reiterate, this 'quantum computation' is NOT being accomplished in a material fashion, as with classical computation, but is accomplished 'non-locally' in a completely non-material fashion, and we can only read off the answer by measuring the quantum state and thus collapsing quantum wave and thus bringing the 'material register' to a definite 'material' state..
Is Shor's algorithm a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation?
Excerpt: David Deutsch is very fond of pointing out Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation. As he often asked, where else did all the exponentially many combinations happen?,,,
There is one more lethal conceptual problem with the “many worlds” explanation of the Shor’s algorithm’s speed: the whole quantum computer’s calculation has to proceed in a completely coherent way and you’re not allowed to imagine that the world splits into “many worlds” as long as things are coherent i.e. before the qubits are measured. Only when the measurement is completed – e.g. at the end of the Shor’s algorithm calculation – you’re allowed to imagine that the worlds split. But it’s too late because by that moment, the whole calculation has already been done in a single (quantum) world, without any help from the parallel worlds.
(Many more excellent answers are on the site)
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10062/is-shors-algorithm-a-demonstration-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation
Simply put, in quantum computation, quantum information determines the final state of the material particles.
Verse:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
bornagain77
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Hi gpuccio at 9:
I understand that a common hypothesis is that the interface between our mind and our body is via quantum effects of some kind. I don’t think there are any testable specific about this (I may be wrong), so I consider this a speculation and not even a hypothesis yet.
But I like these thoughts of yours:
The problem is that it should happen without violating known laws of physics. IOWs, if we accept that events in a physical system are mainly deterministic, we have to find a way for consciousness to interact with that determinism without violating it. …
Design is really the art of superimposing meaning and function on contingent systems. In that sense, the whole consciousness-matter interface, however it works, could be seen as a pervading design intervention, where consciousness superimposes designed meaning and function on the contingent level of wave function collapse.
However, I still see the same interface problem, pushed back a level. If the mind can change the probabilities of quantum behavior from random to the way the mind needs them to be to cause its design to be instantiated, how does it do that? That would require not only a vast, global knowledge of what quantum events needed to be changed, but the ability to collapse all those waveforms in a way that was different than they might otherwise have, and that might easily be considered “violating known laws of physics.” It may be taking place at a level forever empirically unknown, and perhaps unknowable, to us externally but it would still be intervening in the randomness that is part of the laws which describe quantum events.
However, given that this is all highly speculative, I was glad to see you state that you agree with me when I said that I “am more interested in the experience of consciousness, and how it relates to the overall mind than I am to the ontological question.” I made a number of comments about this issue over on the Inane thread, but didn’t get much reply.
And I just saw your post at 12, and you explain my point well. There has to be an implementation stage of any design to bring it into the physical world. Thanks.hazel
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
A few notes:
(December 2018) (the physical reality of immaterial information)
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-new-unified-model-of-specified-complexity/#comment-669817
Information is physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) – video
https://youtu.be/H35I83y5Uro
Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y
The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain - Dec. 17, 2010
Excerpt: It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,,
,,, It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-the-brain/
,,, zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays - 2008
Excerpt: Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas. However, the axonal conduction delays among such distant regions can amount to several tens of milliseconds. It is still unclear which mechanism is giving rise to isochronous discharge of widely distributed neurons, despite such latencies,,,
Remarkably, synchrony of neuronal activity is not limited to short-range interactions within a cortical patch. Interareal synchronization across cortical regions including interhemispheric areas has been observed in several tasks (7, 9, 11–14).,,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575223/
Long Range Entanglement in the Brain - video (1:55 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/uo9CtOuogqA?t=113
Moreover, In the sleeping state, the brain shares much less information with different parts of the brain than the brain does during our waking state.
Researchers: Deep sleep short-circuits brain’s grid of connectivity - September 29, 2005
Excerpt: Tononi and his team observed the disconnect when brief, magnetically generated pulses of electricity were directed to specific regions of the brain. The pulses stimulated an electrochemical response from the targeted cells, which, when the subject was awake, rippled across the brain, traveling along networks of nerve fibers to different cerebral destinations. But when the subject was in deep sleep, the same response was quickly extinguished and did not travel beyond the stimulated cells.
When consciousness fades, according to Tononi, “the brain breaks down into little islands that can’t talk to one another.”
https://news.wisc.edu/researchers-deep-sleep-short-circuits-brains-grid-of-connectivity/
Moreover, quantum information is 'physically' conserved:
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - March 2011
Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
And it is precisely 'information' that goes 'missing' upon death of our temporal material body:
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott
Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
,,,Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
The implication is fairly straightforward, "the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
“Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
- Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death
Verse:
James 2:26
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Mark 8:37
Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Hazel- I can think "I will raise my hand" and nothing happens. I will say it out loud and nothing happens. Maybe I need to specify which hand and also to raise the entire arm. I will try it again.
Just kidding.
The two are together as one- mind and body. Just as the software and the hardware are inseparable and act together. The hardware is pretty useless without it.ET