I think I understand why this response keeps cropping up though, there is a gap in Dennett's explanation, and it's related to the idea of the "Hard Problem" and thought experiments like P-Zombies, etc. — gurugeorge

Yes, just a small gap like how the heck the whole thing happened and is still happening?

Eh, I give up, I just tried to explain that in the passage you quoted there, if you're not going to engage with the argument there's no point carrying on. — gurugeorge

There is no theory or evidence. It all is supposed to just happen. Like magic or a religious Miracle. People want to believe it for some reason or another. I use to play-role characters as a child because it was fun.

What does it mean for time to be "starting and stopping"? The point is that my past is a succession of moments. You have one moment coming after another moment. — Magnus Anderson

If the moments are continuous there are no moments. That was Bergson's point. This is what Zeno's paradoxes are all about. When you do away with points (the arrow never stands still) the paradoxes vanish. Whenever there are paradoxes there are problems with the ontology. Moments are the problem. Spacialization of time creates these paradoxes.

Are you saying that the mind violates the LoT and entropy? — TimeLine

No it discovers new patterns and creates symbols to describe those patterns. Patterns change.

Instantaneous behavior doesn't explain retroactive behavior though, does it? — CasKev

It's not retroactive with Bohmian Mechanics. It is only retroactive in other interpretations because they lack the quantum potential that acts instantaneously when they slit configuration changes.

Compare: "one would have to meditate on the absurdity of quantum wave particles killing/eating/avoiding/procreating with, other quantum-wave particles". Those terms describe emergent properties that quantum particles don't have, that doesn't prevent them from properly referring to large scale (in relation to the quantum scale) properties of objects (made of quantum particles, like animals) that I presume you'd have no problem talking about. — gurugeorge

So what is asking questions of each other, molecules? And what are molecules comprised of? It's all just waves.

The idea is that the whole body/brain is a moist robot/control system, — gurugeorge

So we are one big robot of molecular stuff that just started to talk to other robots of molecular stuff? Does this even sound like believe science fiction? Do you have a theory of how this all happens or is it just something being made up?

it's still up in the air, — gurugeorge

No, it is just made up out of thin air. Pure fiction to sell a story that some people want to hear, just like Biblical stories or mythology. Materialist need a Genesis story but and Dennett made one up for them. The Tale of Moist can Robots. Why do you want to be a robot if there is zero evidence of it?

"Spatialized time" is precisely the kind of time that I am talking about i.e. the kind that can be thought of as a succession of moments. For Bergson, everything that is divisible is considered "spatial". — Magnus Anderson

Time is exactly as you are experiencing it. Is time starting and stopping for you as a succession of moments? Mine is continuous.

Time for me sometimes feels slow, sometimes feels fast, sometimes exists without space (in my dreams), sometimes feels disrupted as when I am unconscious. Real time (duration) of life is heterogenous and is fundamental to the experience of life.

Does Bohmian Mechanics explain the quantum experiments where a particle's behavior is affected retroactively based on a choice made in the present? — CasKev

Yes, in a very straightforward way.

Whenever the experiment is changed (e.g. opening or closing one if the slits), the guiding wave (quantum potential) instantaneously changes affecting the behavior of the particle/position.

Bergson is opposed to any conception of time as a succession of moments. — Magnus Anderson

Bergson opposes spacialization of time. If you don't understand what I just said, you have to either think about it or read about it.

What you are describing is not mysticism but denial. i.e. hiding from valid distinctions. The trouble is that a great deal of discrimination takes place without us being aware. It seems to me that Bergson takes a phenomenological approach to time so he would be interested in discussing distinctions as they appear rather then by comparative measurements of different observers via the objectification of space-time. — Perplexed

Yes. Time (duration) is the actual, personal experience of life.

This guy thinks that time is something other than a sequence of moments. When you ask him what this "something other" is, he tells you that it is something that cannot be described using words. — Magnus Anderson

No, it is as I described it.

Getting back to this... Assuming quantum behavior at a macro level, what seems more likely? That once observers collapse probability waves, they are permanently collapsed, and future collapses have to be consistent with what has already been collapsed? Or is everything being constantly re-collapsed, and the consistency arises from probability waves being heavily weighted toward what existed previously? (I'm currently leaning toward re-collapse dependent on cumulative collective memory...) — CasKev

There is no collapse. The wave/particles are real. Forget about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you stick with it, you'll always come up with weird scenarios of reality that will make no sense.

Another question... If reality depends on conscious observation, does it not make the most sense for reality to have arisen from a single consciousness? — CasKev

Of course it doesn't. Everything is real and out there as we perceive it. Consciousness is perceiving and then co-creating just like two artists working on a canvas.

All of this weird ontology is coming from the ridiculous Copenhagen Interpretation. Watch Stephen Robbin's videos on Bergson and understand Bohmian Mechanics and you'll be on a sensible track. Otherwise you'll just be playing games of how does consciousness collapse this and that for the rest of your life.

I have no idea where that come from, but I'm glad you got it off your chest.

A good review of Bohm-Mechanics and subsequent developments.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3610837013333397409&hl=en&as_sdt=0,7&sciodt=0,7

How would you know? — gurugeorge

You have to meditate on the absolute absurdity of quantum wave-particles asking questions of other quantum-wave particles. Do you have a theory for this absurdity? Does Dennett? I mean other than creating little characters that buzz around in the body acting like minds? There is no theory off how this all comes about. All there is is a fabricated bedtime story made up out of thin air.

, Dennett isn't asking you to change it entirely, just to revise it and modify it in the light of science. — gurugeorge

Exactly what scientific evidence is there that little Moist Robots are zooming around in the body.

Science measures some neurons kicking around and ah hah! There is the mind. It's the neuron! Now supposed a TV repairmen noticed some LEDs kicking around in my TV set and I said, Ah Hah! There is the mind! What would you say? And then he says that little people are stored in the electronics? Sound like a nice theory to you? I know that we never actually saw little people in the electronics, but they have to be there, right? And then he tells you to always come to him if something happened to notice the little people in the electronics, would you go?

You know. The Mind. The force that figured out the concept which it calls the Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy. It's what asked the question to begin with.

Great. Read the papers.

replace our ordinary mental concepts with snazzy new ones — gurugeorge

That is exactly what he is doing and it is the only thing he is doing. He gives new names to Mind, for all those who want to be role-play some other little things. I think they only question one might is: What are you? A Selfish Gene or a Moist Robot?

As for me, I still retain the same Mind as I had since I was a baby. I don't need to think of myself as some cute comic book symbol. I got over that decades ago.

Because after all we do have this problem that science seems to be telling us one thing, and our ordinary mental concepts seem to be telling us another - so how do we reconcile the two? — gurugeorge

Ignore biological science.

His middle-ground is that yes, it's an illusion in a certain precise sense, but it's a benign illusion — gurugeorge

I love his ability to come up with compromises that increases his readership base. No doubt his publisher is pleased.

You're just a joke. Watch the video and enjoy it.

How can you see or experience a metaphor, or analogy? — gurugeorge

I agree, all Dennett's is doing is replacing Mind with the carefully chosen substitution character Moist Robot. I'm sure there were many marketing meetings with his publisher when this cute metaphor was chosen. Definitely appeals to those who love their bot Sci Fi stories. Kudos to the publisher and Dennett's Sci Fi prowness.

We have to keep track of Dennett's:

Selfish Genes
Moist Robot

My prediction of the next one is:

Superball Sunday

Thank you for the mention of his "holographic view". I will check as soon as possible — boundless

Thanks for your additional insights. In regards to quantum holographic research, I am most impressed by Erik Verlinde. There are several videos of his presentations available on YouTube. I thought this particular presentation most interesting.

https://youtu.be/f_BRyS93ucg

I am pretty convinced that research in this direction will yield many new insights into quantum theory in general.

such that time becomes the 0th dimension rather than the 4th — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, time isn't spacial and any ontology that spacializes it is going to yield all kinds of problems such as Zeno's paradoxes and time travel.

Your understanding of Bohm is the absolute worse I've ever seen. I can only presume that you are equally messed up on all other subjects you speak of because you apparently you don't care how messed up your understanding is. I guess your forte is making up stuff.

And frankly - for me at least - there is just a basic metaphysical inelegance with a deterministic/substantialist ontology. QM really ought to be much more of a challenge to materialism and locality. So why try to make a Bohmian uber-materialism be the one that comes out right? — apokrisis

Absolutely 100% wrong again.

I mean I find it weird that the folk like Rich who seem happy with the whackiest kinds of idealism are also the first to commit to the most materialist versions of QM they can find. Well I guess maybe that if you treat the divine, or mind, as some kind of pseudo-substance, then perhaps there is some kind of consistency there. — apokrisis

If there was a way to be 200% wrong, this would be it.

A complete mess in all respects in a most profound manner.

Simply stated, if God is proven to be real, then the space-time perspective of time is proven to be false, because the two are incompatible. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are many ways to approach the nature of duration (time) and if God is the preferred approach, that is fine. But who ever is discussing time in such a fashion had better be well versed in space-time metaphysics or risk being bullied by the science police. Proving God real is as difficult as proving space-time real and is a difficult path to follow.

In general, it is my observation that philosophy is atrophying for want of commitment to understand and apply the necessary effort. Philosophers have punted to scientists (a bad play) while they ease themselves into the same old games. Wayfarer would get better answers from a philosopher-scientist than from a scientist, any day of the week. Scientists, for the most part, do not understand philosophical inquiry. They only understand their own agenda.

If anyone comes across an exceptional philosopher-scientist I would love to know the name. The best I've seen so far is Stephen Robbins. He gets the whole picture.

To me it is a very interesting "perspective" on QM, even if however I am more drawn to something along the lines of Rovelli and (especially) Bohr (of which I like his emphasis on the epistemological, rather than the ontological...). — boundless

Bohm articulated a very interesting" holographic view of the universe which is now being picked up indirectly by many theoretical quantum physicists. As I observe the trajectory I believe that his thoughts will eventually bare out as fundamentally in the right track.

Thank you for your thorough response. I do realize that Bohm's (later Bohm-Hiley) works went very through phases as do all authors of any work. We change as we gain experience and knowledge. The problem is that physicists in general never study Bohmian Mechanics a little, much less thoroughly, thus they never passed through these phases and therefore they don't understand anything that Bohm's physics and metaphysics is offering. Yet, they have no problem passing judgment based upon some hearsay coming from who knows where?

It is important for philosophers to understand this. They are using sources to pass judgement that wholely unreliable. If they wish to study and understand Bohm, they have to study it themselves. They cannot rely on some scientists hanging out on some forum no matter what kind of credentials they may present. This is most especially true when it comes to understanding any metaphysical questions since scientists are not trained in, and maybe don't even care about, metaphysical questions. They simply don't understand why the question even arises, as in the case that Wayfarer presented.

I would like to see philosophers to gear up and get up with modern ideas and problems and stop playing around with proofs of God's existence. I consider that lazy philosophy.

Dennett is spinning tales from pure imagination? What makes you think that? — gurugeorge

Have you ever seen or experienced a Moist Robot in your body?

Do you think using an analogy from a comic strip invalidates the points Dennett is making? — gurugeorge

No. I think it fully validates it as pure comic fantasy. Dennett's is just spinning tales from pure imagination. People who want to role-play bots (I use to role-play play Superman as a child) love it.

It's Scott Adams' coinage, picked up by Daniel Dennett. — gurugeorge

Fully appropriate. I look forward to more comic books from Dennett's.

moist robot, — gurugeorge

An interesting new nomenclature for Mind. I guess it is suitable for those who like to role-play bots in their life. What happened to Dennett's "selfish-gene"? No longer sells well?

I adore it when scientists just make up stories to sell more books.

probabilistic determinism — Perplexed

That's OK, but it is no longer determinism. The only aspect of determinism that is being maintained is the word. Why the infatuation with the word? I think it lies in a religious-like faith in the Laws of Nature. But then we need to discuss the overall human condition and the desire for outside forces to rule one's life.

The idea of particle passing from two slits and interfere with itself is nonsense. Please read this article for further information.

The Bohmian mechanics is the way to go. — bahman

Personally I wish that philosophers wo(man)--up, develop a spine, do the necessary work, and stop accepting junk scientific materialism metaphysics as gospel, because that is all it is. Read the works of Bohm and Bergson as a starting point. Rupert Sheldrake and Stephen Robbins provide further valuable insights.

physicists get exasperated with homespun philosophers using their discipline — Wayfarer

That is not why they get exasperated. They get exasperated when any philosopher or scientist challenges the hegemony of their materialist metaphysics which is indoctrinated in education from the earliest grades. It is not accidental. It is as much part of "science" as God of part of various religions. In your particular case you were subtly challenging the materialist doctrine of space-time.

As it turns out, Bohmiam interpretation provides you with the clearest explanation of the issue you are investigating. If any of the physicists on that forum ever studied Bohmian Mechanics they would right away understand you are bringing up a reasonable issue regarding space-time and quantum behavior.

What happens to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy? — TimeLine

I guess the verdict is still out. Mind/Life may violate it I guess and that would be that.

For specificity, it should be pointed out that Bohmian Mechanics it's based upon a very specific field that c appears in its equations which Bohm/Hiley called the cops quantum potential. Following is a short description of the quantum potential which is copied from this paper:

Quantum Interference and the Quantum Potential∗
C. Philippidis, C. Dewdney and B. J. Hiley† (1978)

"Our results using the quantum potential show that one can, in fact, re-
move the ambiguity of whether quantum objects are waves or particles and
provide, instead, a clear intuitive understanding of quantum interference in
terms of well-defined particle trajectories. More important than this, how-
ever, is the new perspective it gives to quantum interconnectedness. We
have shown that the quantum potential combines properties of all the par-
ticipating elements—masses, velocities of particles, widths and separation of
slits—in an irreducible way and suggests that, as far as the quantum domain
is concerned, space cannot be thought of simply as a neutral back cloth. It
appears to be structured in a way that exerts constraints on whatever pro-
cesses are embedded within it. More surprisingly still, this structure arises
out of the very objects on which it acts and the minutest change in any of
the properties of the contributing objects may result in dramatic changes in
the quantum potential.
This gives a new appreciation of Bohr’s insistence that quantum phe-
nomena and the experimental situation are inseparable. Moreover, it recalls
the relativistic relationship between space and inertial mass, and seems to
extend this relationship to include the geometrical and possibly the topo-
logical configu-rations of matter.
It is clear, therefore, that the quantum potential is unlike any other field
employed in physics. Its globalness and homogeneity in the sense of not
being separable into well-defined source and field points indicates that it
calls for a different conceptual framework for its assimilation. Notions of
structure, structural relationships and stabilities seem to be more appropri-
ate than those of dynamics (even though here we have started with what
appeared to be dynamical equations). However, a more detailed discussion
of these points will be presented in a further paper."

More importantly, Bohm, in his book, specifically describes his model as causal. I quote from his book Science, Order, and Creativity:

"Although the interpretation is termed causal [author's italics], this should not be taken as implying a form of complete determinism. Indeed it will be shown that this interpretation opens the door for the creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality."

Why do I bring this up? I invite readers to search for internet for information about Bohmian Mechanics and it's interpretation and you will find one physicist after another describing it as deterministic (including the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). They never studied his works. They are parroting what they read elsewhere, including the incorrect conclusions. I let you decide from now this what you wish regarding the reliability of information derived from "trusted sources".

I don't think Free Will can be observed in every day experience.

What can be readily observed is the mind making a choice in the direction that it would like to move and then exert will to try to move in that direction. There is endless evidence of this in our life experiences and is common among all life.

What's anyone supposed to say to that? — Pseudonym

They can give the determinist argument, "I believe you don't".

If we do not need any concept of time to explain and make predictions about the physical world, why does this "flow of time" matter?

Occam's Razor seems to apply here — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Duration, real time, comes into play when understanding the nature and creation of the underlying quantum information (memory). This is not scientific clock-time. Bergson warned and challenged Einstein about the attempts to elevate scientific clock time to an ontology. As common in science, politics had a lot to do was at play. You see physicists really don't mind dabbling in metaphysics when it suits their purposes.

Robert Disalle wrote a book on the Philosophical Development of Space-Time. The Physicist and Philosopher by Canales is also worth noting.

The upshot is that philosophers should feel quite comfortable challenging the metaphysics of physicists and scientists. Most often they have no idea how poor their metaphysics really is. I loved it when Erik Verlinde came down hard on the Big Bang which is just more metaphysics along with the Laws of Nature.

As I said in my reply to Ying, radical doubt should be used rather than solved because as a tool it serves to remind ourselves to check and recheck our beliefs and as a problem it's unsolvable. — TheMadFool

Yes, doubt pushes us forward to discover more. We are all explorers.