6 ms·

Given what we know about brains so far, doesn't it need to be proven, rather than disproven? Surely the burden of proof here is on people claiming a non-biologi

Given what we know about brains so far, doesn't it need to be proven, rather than disproven? Surely the burden of proof here is on people claiming a non-biological and non-predictable basis for brain function?

marcoperaza 10y ago
I don't see how subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, can come about from purely material interactions as currently understood. That means that a Turing Machine would be able to produce them, which means that a bunch of monks working with paper and pencil for thousands of years would be able to produce them. There's something fundamental that we don't understand and the scientific community is very opposed to talking about it, dismissing any and all speculation as quackery. This taboo is holding back serious inquiry into the matter.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > I don't see how Isn't that just The God of The Gaps? I suspect that many intelligent people 500 years ago wouldn't have been able to "see how" a 500 ton metal object could take controlled flight. > That means that a Turing Machine would be able to > produce them Is there any specific reason to think it wouldn't? > the scientific community is very opposed to talking > about it It sounds like you're suggesting there's a super-natural force at play, in which case, the scientific community is entirely justified in being opposed to talking about it.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    I'm not suggesting anything supernatural. I'm suggesting that there's possibly physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model. Further, my big problem is with people trying to ignore the problem completely by claiming that there is no Hard Problem or even suggesting that consciousness is not real. It's a total head-in-the-sand position to take but it's the dominant stance.
    - Retra 10y ago
      Who is saying consciousness is not real? It just not non-physical and has no single set of hard properties from which to form a definitive boundary for discussion.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      I'm curious at what point you think agency becomes consciousness. Is it self-awareness? Is a dog conscious? A mouse? A snail? An ant? A bacteria? A tree?
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        It has nothing to do with agency. I'm talking about the phenomenon of subjective experience. The difference between a computer that analyzes camera input and a being that actually sees the world. It would be the difference between you and a philosophical zombie.
        0134340 10y ago
        If you aren't that "artificial" intelligence and can't put yourself in that subjective experience, how would you know that the AI's subjective experience differs from yours? Because you're relying on material observance? You realize your conundrum now? You have to rely on the material to gauge the material yet you try to invalidate the material experience using material observations.
        ajuc 10y ago
        > The difference between a computer that analyzes camera input and a being that actually sees the world. How do you know there is a qualitative difference?
- chriswarbo 10y ago
  > That means that a Turing Machine would be able to produce them, which means that a bunch of monks working with paper and pencil for thousands of years would be able to produce them. Yes. What's not to see? I think appealing to something other than Turing machines shows a lack of imagination; it takes a lot of thought to even scratch the surface of how profound Turing machines are.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Are you really arguing that a scribbling numbers on a piece of paper could give rise to a conscious being?
    - jfoutz 10y ago
      In another comment, you said: > I'm not suggesting anything supernatural. I'm suggesting that there's possibly physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model. Absolutely. Sure, there are of course physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model. Let's say we discover those additional phenomenon. Ultimately, we'd want to build a machine to model that phenomenon. Perhaps encode a model of that phenomenon in software. Once that happens, scribbling numbers on a piece of paper indeed could give rise to a conscious being. If it's some system that can't be covered by scientific understanding, isn't that what supernatural means? It's either some internally consistent (but possibly very complicated) set of rules, or it's supernatural.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        No, it could be that the universe actually cannot be modeled computationally, that it exceeds the constraints of a Turing machine. This is an open question.
    - Sacho 10y ago
      I think you're giving a good example of how poorly people visualize and understand infinity. A Turing Machine's capabilities are based on its infinite memory and infinite computation time, yet you imagine it as "a bunch of monks scribbling" and immediately dismiss its capabilities.
- physicalist 10y ago
  No. The topic has simply been ceded to a subset of philosophers who fill large volumes that still don't manage to say more about this topic than you do. One big problem is that your thought experiments are designed specifically to make the null hypothesis sound silly. That's the same strategy you guys have been uding for thousands of years. Not so long ago people claimed that life couldn't be explained without some special substance.
- mcguire 10y ago
  You're aware of John Searle's Chinese Room gag?
- devishard 10y ago
  > I don't see how subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, can come about from purely material interactions as currently understood. That means that a Turing Machine would be able to produce them, which means that a bunch of monks working with paper and pencil for thousands of years would be able to produce them. Not without input data, they couldn't. You can produce a model, but unless you collect data to validate your model against, you're just speculating in a void. > There's something fundamental that we don't understand and the scientific community is very opposed to talking about it, dismissing any and all speculation as quackery. We're talking about it right now, and I haven't heard anyone opposed to talking about it. However, I'll fully dismiss opinions as quackery if they clearly misrepresent the facts, i.e. claims that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or Bell's Inequalities prove free will are quackery. This isn't because the ideas are taboo or because I'm opposed to talking about them, it's because they're misrepresentations or misunderstandings of facts which are clearly established. In my experience, when people claim that scientists are opposed to talking about their hypothesis, it's because their hypothesis has been thoroughly and concretely disproven.
jfoutz 10y ago
Even if we don't have free will, it's better to pretend we do. There is a difference between a driver that falls asleep at the wheel and causes an accident and a driver that flies into a rage and crashes their car into another driver. It's hard to justify the distinction if neither driver has a choice. I'd argue it's better for society to maintain that distinction. Perhaps someone can reframe that in terms of types of error, and people prone to more serious types of error (road rage) face different consequences. But that gets real complicated real quick. I dunno. I suspect the majority of the time i'm on autopilot. Alarm goes off, get up, brush teeth, shower. I pretend i'm capable of not doing that. i just don't choose the other way.
- jeremyjh 10y ago
  There are a lot of people who will not commit crime only because they fear the consequences. So it would be rational to punish criminals regardless of your thoughts on free-will. And if you don't believe in free-will then you have to accept that you have no "free" choice about punishing criminals. Myself, I do not even know what the will is, or what it could possibly be free from. The influence of the universe?
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    > There are a lot of people who will not commit crime only because they fear the consequences. Fear sounds like an implicit assertion of choice, but i think you mean something more subtle. Let my try to put it another way. People are complex systems that can be influenced. Water tends to flow downhill, we can set up troughs to control the flow of water. The flow is complex, and some water will splash out, but generally the water does follows the system. Likewise, we can set up legal troughs to guide people to the behavior we want. (I know argument by analogy is crappy, i'm just hoping we can agree on this point, and i think we do.) There's a whole other argument about why we would set up those legal rules, but i'd like to set that aside for a moment (if it's a big deal, or fundamental in some way, i'd like to hear your side. I'm not sure i can meaningfully engage that point) It seems like, punishment would need to be interpreted purely as societal cost. So you tally up the wreckage from the car accident example above, say $25,000 and 2 lives. I don't really see how we can have both manslaughter and murder, without free will. What extra thing did the angry guy do? He didn't make a choice, because (for the sake of argument) he has no free will. What is the characteristic that makes what he did worse? The cost to society is the same. > Myself, I do not even know what the will is, or what it could possibly be free from. The influence of the universe? My personal interpretation (which is probably wrong, but something i'm willing to go back and forth on to come to consensus) Free will the mind having a choice in taking action, rather than the body just doing whatever, and the mind rationalizing it after the fact. Perhaps every action we take is just like a heartbeat. I have no control over that. Perhaps when i hold my breath, i'm not actually choosing to hold my breath, but the complex system that is my body holds it's breath and my mind is claims that it was responsible for that holding of breath. Or typing this comment, or whatever. I don't think there's any way i can know. It feels like my mind is in control, but my mind gets all of its information from (and the software runs on!) my body. my mind seems to control the hardware, but maybe i'm just rationalizing after the fact.
devishard 10y ago
That's the argument I use for not believing in assertions of existence ("God exists", "Pink unicorns exist"), because people basically don't think things exist that can't be proven to exist, but make a special pleading for Gods. I guess you could argue that we generally assume a deterministic model exists and try to find it, but I hadn't considered that before.

marcoperaza 10y ago

I don't see how subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, can come about from purely material interactions as currently understood. That means that a Turing Machine would be able to produce them, which means that a bunch of monks working with paper and pencil for thousands of years would be able to produce them. There's something fundamental that we don't understand and the scientific community is very opposed to talking about it, dismissing any and all speculation as quackery. This taboo is holding back serious inquiry into the matter.

peteretep 10y ago
> I don't see how Isn't that just The God of The Gaps? I suspect that many intelligent people 500 years ago wouldn't have been able to "see how" a 500 ton metal object could take controlled flight. > That means that a Turing Machine would be able to > produce them Is there any specific reason to think it wouldn't? > the scientific community is very opposed to talking > about it It sounds like you're suggesting there's a super-natural force at play, in which case, the scientific community is entirely justified in being opposed to talking about it.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting anything supernatural. I'm suggesting that there's possibly physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model. Further, my big problem is with people trying to ignore the problem completely by claiming that there is no Hard Problem or even suggesting that consciousness is not real. It's a total head-in-the-sand position to take but it's the dominant stance.
  - Retra 10y ago
    Who is saying consciousness is not real? It just not non-physical and has no single set of hard properties from which to form a definitive boundary for discussion.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    I'm curious at what point you think agency becomes consciousness. Is it self-awareness? Is a dog conscious? A mouse? A snail? An ant? A bacteria? A tree?
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      It has nothing to do with agency. I'm talking about the phenomenon of subjective experience. The difference between a computer that analyzes camera input and a being that actually sees the world. It would be the difference between you and a philosophical zombie.
      - 0134340 10y ago
        If you aren't that "artificial" intelligence and can't put yourself in that subjective experience, how would you know that the AI's subjective experience differs from yours? Because you're relying on material observance? You realize your conundrum now? You have to rely on the material to gauge the material yet you try to invalidate the material experience using material observations.
      - ajuc 10y ago
        > The difference between a computer that analyzes camera input and a being that actually sees the world. How do you know there is a qualitative difference?
chriswarbo 10y ago
> That means that a Turing Machine would be able to produce them, which means that a bunch of monks working with paper and pencil for thousands of years would be able to produce them. Yes. What's not to see? I think appealing to something other than Turing machines shows a lack of imagination; it takes a lot of thought to even scratch the surface of how profound Turing machines are.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Are you really arguing that a scribbling numbers on a piece of paper could give rise to a conscious being?
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    In another comment, you said: > I'm not suggesting anything supernatural. I'm suggesting that there's possibly physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model. Absolutely. Sure, there are of course physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model. Let's say we discover those additional phenomenon. Ultimately, we'd want to build a machine to model that phenomenon. Perhaps encode a model of that phenomenon in software. Once that happens, scribbling numbers on a piece of paper indeed could give rise to a conscious being. If it's some system that can't be covered by scientific understanding, isn't that what supernatural means? It's either some internally consistent (but possibly very complicated) set of rules, or it's supernatural.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      No, it could be that the universe actually cannot be modeled computationally, that it exceeds the constraints of a Turing machine. This is an open question.
  - Sacho 10y ago
    I think you're giving a good example of how poorly people visualize and understand infinity. A Turing Machine's capabilities are based on its infinite memory and infinite computation time, yet you imagine it as "a bunch of monks scribbling" and immediately dismiss its capabilities.
physicalist 10y ago
No. The topic has simply been ceded to a subset of philosophers who fill large volumes that still don't manage to say more about this topic than you do. One big problem is that your thought experiments are designed specifically to make the null hypothesis sound silly. That's the same strategy you guys have been uding for thousands of years. Not so long ago people claimed that life couldn't be explained without some special substance.
mcguire 10y ago
You're aware of John Searle's Chinese Room gag?
devishard 10y ago
> I don't see how subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, can come about from purely material interactions as currently understood. That means that a Turing Machine would be able to produce them, which means that a bunch of monks working with paper and pencil for thousands of years would be able to produce them. Not without input data, they couldn't. You can produce a model, but unless you collect data to validate your model against, you're just speculating in a void. > There's something fundamental that we don't understand and the scientific community is very opposed to talking about it, dismissing any and all speculation as quackery. We're talking about it right now, and I haven't heard anyone opposed to talking about it. However, I'll fully dismiss opinions as quackery if they clearly misrepresent the facts, i.e. claims that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or Bell's Inequalities prove free will are quackery. This isn't because the ideas are taboo or because I'm opposed to talking about them, it's because they're misrepresentations or misunderstandings of facts which are clearly established. In my experience, when people claim that scientists are opposed to talking about their hypothesis, it's because their hypothesis has been thoroughly and concretely disproven.

jfoutz 10y ago

Even if we don't have free will, it's better to pretend we do. There is a difference between a driver that falls asleep at the wheel and causes an accident and a driver that flies into a rage and crashes their car into another driver. It's hard to justify the distinction if neither driver has a choice. I'd argue it's better for society to maintain that distinction. Perhaps someone can reframe that in terms of types of error, and people prone to more serious types of error (road rage) face different consequences. But that gets real complicated real quick. I dunno. I suspect the majority of the time i'm on autopilot. Alarm goes off, get up, brush teeth, shower. I pretend i'm capable of not doing that. i just don't choose the other way.

jeremyjh 10y ago
There are a lot of people who will not commit crime only because they fear the consequences. So it would be rational to punish criminals regardless of your thoughts on free-will. And if you don't believe in free-will then you have to accept that you have no "free" choice about punishing criminals. Myself, I do not even know what the will is, or what it could possibly be free from. The influence of the universe?
- jfoutz 10y ago
  > There are a lot of people who will not commit crime only because they fear the consequences. Fear sounds like an implicit assertion of choice, but i think you mean something more subtle. Let my try to put it another way. People are complex systems that can be influenced. Water tends to flow downhill, we can set up troughs to control the flow of water. The flow is complex, and some water will splash out, but generally the water does follows the system. Likewise, we can set up legal troughs to guide people to the behavior we want. (I know argument by analogy is crappy, i'm just hoping we can agree on this point, and i think we do.) There's a whole other argument about why we would set up those legal rules, but i'd like to set that aside for a moment (if it's a big deal, or fundamental in some way, i'd like to hear your side. I'm not sure i can meaningfully engage that point) It seems like, punishment would need to be interpreted purely as societal cost. So you tally up the wreckage from the car accident example above, say $25,000 and 2 lives. I don't really see how we can have both manslaughter and murder, without free will. What extra thing did the angry guy do? He didn't make a choice, because (for the sake of argument) he has no free will. What is the characteristic that makes what he did worse? The cost to society is the same. > Myself, I do not even know what the will is, or what it could possibly be free from. The influence of the universe? My personal interpretation (which is probably wrong, but something i'm willing to go back and forth on to come to consensus) Free will the mind having a choice in taking action, rather than the body just doing whatever, and the mind rationalizing it after the fact. Perhaps every action we take is just like a heartbeat. I have no control over that. Perhaps when i hold my breath, i'm not actually choosing to hold my breath, but the complex system that is my body holds it's breath and my mind is claims that it was responsible for that holding of breath. Or typing this comment, or whatever. I don't think there's any way i can know. It feels like my mind is in control, but my mind gets all of its information from (and the software runs on!) my body. my mind seems to control the hardware, but maybe i'm just rationalizing after the fact.

devishard 10y ago

That's the argument I use for not believing in assertions of existence ("God exists", "Pink unicorns exist"), because people basically don't think things exist that can't be proven to exist, but make a special pleading for Gods. I guess you could argue that we generally assume a deterministic model exists and try to find it, but I hadn't considered that before.