3 ms·

There are some real howlers in here, such as when the author is quick to point out that the theory of natural selection in biological evolution assumes DNA exis

There are some real howlers in here, such as when the author is quick to point out that the theory of natural selection in biological evolution assumes DNA exists even when you aren't looking at it, but we can patch this hole in the argument by saying we aren't talking about that natural selection, but natural selection in the abstract. It's like using the fact that apples fall from trees as evidence for gravity, but because we plan to use gravity to show that time doesn't exist, we refuse to grant that an apple on the ground was ever previously on the tree, but no matter, we still believe in the concept of "falling." In fact, the principles of falling show us that down is better than up, independent of time. What I appreciate about the article is it grapples with this deep question (albeit framed oddly): When we model the fabric of reality by inventing quantum mechanics, are we somehow just projecting the building blocks of how we think? This is related to another mysterious question: Is math an invention or a discovery? Were prime numbers and linear algebra there before we came along, or do they emerge from the structure of our brains? There are primitive tribes of humans who have not invented counting, so they are unable to distinguish 10 berries from 11 berries and do not experience integers as part of the natural world; they would probably consider properties of the integers to be properties of the act of counting if they had a mental framework for doing so. So back to the first question, how much of what we find when we peer out into the universe and model it with particles and waves and math is in our heads, and how much is really "out there"? If physics to date is unknowingly identifying the fabric of reality with the fabric of thought, then we should be able to take either reality or thought as primary and use it to explain the other. The author chooses thought (consciousness) as primary. However, the author's claim that objects aren't really there turns out to be more provocative than substantial. The author takes conscious agents as the building blocks of reality, and the conscious agents are still there when you aren't looking. They are just a different representation. You can replace the term "conscious agent" with anything. The author fully acknowledges both of these facts in his responses to objections 1 and 6.

goblin89 11y ago
I admit that the DNA/natural selection point is somewhat over my head still. However, with my limited understanding of the research, I’d somewhat disagree with this: > …author's claim that objects aren't really there turns out to be more provocative than substantial. The author takes conscious agents as the building blocks of reality, and the conscious agents are still there when you aren't looking. They are just a different representation. You can replace the term "conscious agent" with anything. My understanding is as follows: conscious agents, as the foundation, exist unperceived. What we see, however, is not a representation of said agents—not a ‘map’. Rather, it’s a hugely simplified interface to the world of interactions between said agents. As symbols of the interface, objects or even space-time can’t be claimed to exist when we’re not looking. It’s like an API spec that describes various entities and whatever manipulations we can request on them. These Users and Posts don’t actually exist as such, but for our practical purposes they’re always there, helpfully constructed. As API consumer we can fetch a user whenever we need it, but network can be down between our requests for all we know. (A precise map then could probably be raw SQL shell, the complexity of which API hides. I know this analogy is far from ideal, but it somewhat helped me understand some aspects of the idea.)
- dgreensp 11y ago
  I wasn't very clear when I said, "They are just a different representation." What I meant was that modeling the universe as made out of conscious agents is not that different from modeling the universe as made out of atoms or quantum waves, as far as the reality or permanence of objects is concerned. We all know that there isn't really a desk in front of me, just a pile of atoms, and when I look at it, I'm not seeing the desk but observing photons that bounced off of it. Our interactions with things are always mediated, and the things are never what we think they are. It's also pretty standard for philosophers to debate whether anything is real, or whether we can possibly know that anything is real. Recasting the electrons in my desk as conscious agents doesn't make my desk disappear when I go out to lunch in some new and meaningful way.
  - goblin89 11y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. Upon rereading I think I realize where you see provoking claim. Authors start by reasoning that our perception is necessarily wrong (maximizing for fitness is counter to maximizing for truth, etc.), and object permanence gets thrown in the mix. However, their research also makes more fundamental claims that kind of supersede this, such as (emphasis theirs): > the entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of perception rather than an insight into objective reality. It seems this research can address the Schrödinger’s desk problem in two ways, which I can’t quite tie together: 1) By their conscious agent -> microphysical object theory, your desk doesn’t disappear like that. That is, dynamics of conscious agent interaction do routinely cause particle reconfigurations that reflect as certain patterns of change in relevant microphysical objects’ space-time positions, but—as long as we’re unable to describe the underlying world—“whoops! desk broke” is all we see. 2) By their interface theory of perception, your desk, as icon on your reality interface, pops up in your consciousness whenever it’s brought up for access. In other circumstances it doesn’t exist, like this browser window when I switch to another desktop (the data about my window and your desk is persisted by relevant interface layers). It would be fun if we could tinker with whatever mechanism implements these icons, given that the implementation is within us, but—in apparent absence of such ability within scientific framework—this remains more of a philosophical argument. AFAICT, though, there’s at least one definite practical implication—we might have a reasonable way to construct meaningful observers and thus advance quantum theory interpretations.

goblin89 11y ago

I admit that the DNA/natural selection point is somewhat over my head still. However, with my limited understanding of the research, I’d somewhat disagree with this: > …author's claim that objects aren't really there turns out to be more provocative than substantial. The author takes conscious agents as the building blocks of reality, and the conscious agents are still there when you aren't looking. They are just a different representation. You can replace the term "conscious agent" with anything. My understanding is as follows: conscious agents, as the foundation, exist unperceived. What we see, however, is not a representation of said agents—not a ‘map’. Rather, it’s a hugely simplified interface to the world of interactions between said agents. As symbols of the interface, objects or even space-time can’t be claimed to exist when we’re not looking. It’s like an API spec that describes various entities and whatever manipulations we can request on them. These Users and Posts don’t actually exist as such, but for our practical purposes they’re always there, helpfully constructed. As API consumer we can fetch a user whenever we need it, but network can be down between our requests for all we know. (A precise map then could probably be raw SQL shell, the complexity of which API hides. I know this analogy is far from ideal, but it somewhat helped me understand some aspects of the idea.)

dgreensp 11y ago
I wasn't very clear when I said, "They are just a different representation." What I meant was that modeling the universe as made out of conscious agents is not that different from modeling the universe as made out of atoms or quantum waves, as far as the reality or permanence of objects is concerned. We all know that there isn't really a desk in front of me, just a pile of atoms, and when I look at it, I'm not seeing the desk but observing photons that bounced off of it. Our interactions with things are always mediated, and the things are never what we think they are. It's also pretty standard for philosophers to debate whether anything is real, or whether we can possibly know that anything is real. Recasting the electrons in my desk as conscious agents doesn't make my desk disappear when I go out to lunch in some new and meaningful way.
- goblin89 11y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. Upon rereading I think I realize where you see provoking claim. Authors start by reasoning that our perception is necessarily wrong (maximizing for fitness is counter to maximizing for truth, etc.), and object permanence gets thrown in the mix. However, their research also makes more fundamental claims that kind of supersede this, such as (emphasis theirs): > the entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of perception rather than an insight into objective reality. It seems this research can address the Schrödinger’s desk problem in two ways, which I can’t quite tie together: 1) By their conscious agent -> microphysical object theory, your desk doesn’t disappear like that. That is, dynamics of conscious agent interaction do routinely cause particle reconfigurations that reflect as certain patterns of change in relevant microphysical objects’ space-time positions, but—as long as we’re unable to describe the underlying world—“whoops! desk broke” is all we see. 2) By their interface theory of perception, your desk, as icon on your reality interface, pops up in your consciousness whenever it’s brought up for access. In other circumstances it doesn’t exist, like this browser window when I switch to another desktop (the data about my window and your desk is persisted by relevant interface layers). It would be fun if we could tinker with whatever mechanism implements these icons, given that the implementation is within us, but—in apparent absence of such ability within scientific framework—this remains more of a philosophical argument. AFAICT, though, there’s at least one definite practical implication—we might have a reasonable way to construct meaningful observers and thus advance quantum theory interpretations.