Can a collection of electronic switches be said to know anything? Doesn't that seem absurd? — RogueAI

(Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.) — Kenosha Kid

Doesn't seem absurd to me.

It is absurd though, as knowledge is not based on structures of zeros and ones being pushed around on wires. At most it can be a poor representation of our knowledge. One might counter the same is going on in our heads, but that's a fundamentally different process.

Doesn't seem absurd to me. — Kenosha Kid

If we use the standard definition, how could a collection of switches have a justified true belief about anything? How would that work?

If we use the standard definition, how could a collection of switches have a justified true belief about anything? How would that work? — RogueAI

The usage of the word was explained in the same post it was employed. If your question is: "Pretending you meant something else, what did you mean?", you can pretend I've answered it as you see fit.

Sorry, I totally skipped this: "(Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.)"

Sorry!

So does the function ever in fact happen “in the dark”? Is there any reason to believe that? — apokrisis

I am a panpsychist. I don't think any functions happen in the dark. But for the emergentist, yes, because all functions, prior to the modelling relation that you suggest entails consciousness, do happen in the dark. You are an emergentist. You think the vast majority of functions happen in the dark. But some don't. That fact is a curiosity that requires explanation. Yet you find there is no burden of proof on the emergentist, or more particularly, your brand of emergentist.

There are good reasons for thinking that all that brain activity couldn’t do anything else but generate experience. — apokrisis

Great! The problem of consciousness is solved. What are the reasons you refer to?

It can be no other reason than that there is consciousness.

You are an emergentist. You think the vast majority of functions happen in the dark. — bert1

Err no. I’ve specifically ruled out supervenience and the like.

Man, this "hard problem" really captures the imagination of folks. But we can put aside other hard problems, which, we never had an answer for.

So the hard problem of motion, which was made explicit with the discovery of gravity, we've never understood but have accepted, otherwise, physics would've stayed stuck.

Yeah, the brain - matter - so constituted gives occasion for the emergence and formation of experience. Given how non-substantial matter is, it should be less puzzling that thoughts can arise in the brains of certain creatures.

We start with experience, the bigger mystery is not "subjectivity", that's given, but the world.

We start with experience, the bigger mystery is not "subjectivity", that's given, but the world. — Manuel

That will stay a mystery always. Even when God made it. The problem with gravity is how masses and energies between them make each other know how to move. Posing just a curved space (and thus curved time) isn't enough. How does space know how to curve? Gravitons? But then again, how do they convey their information to spacetime. As gravitons are send out and absorbed by masses, why does spacetime curve?

I think we basically reach a point in which we cannot discover the "ultimate aims" of nature, that is a final explanation or cause. We can go so far as we can posited a good relational theory. Likely related to the way we think as a species.

It is certainly related to how people think. I think we can discover the ultimate workings of nature, but the very image of looking for causes in a material world is theoretically bound to people. Different people have different ideas about aims of nature. The idea of a nature independent of us is precisely what it is: an idea. Different cultures have different realities. There is no one and only reality, though a realist will say there is. There is more than one reality though and clinging to one makes it in general hard to believe in others (especially the reality based on science, which, if you believe in it, is in fact the same as believing in god). Still, they are there.

I think I'm using this distinction too much, and it perhaps strays from the intended use, but, I think Sellars' distinction between the manifest image and the scientific image is roughly correct, or at least a good step in the right direction of a fundamental distinction.

What you say about different realities would apply to the way we make sense of the world intuitively, but not the way the mind-independent world works. I think there is a way the world works mind-indpendently, and physics gets us as close as we can to know what it is. But I don't think physics reaches the final causes of things, it is beyond what physics is intended to do.

But if you are comfortable or believe that there is only mind and no external, independent of us, world, then what you say may be easier to accommodate.

You get me wrong. The external world is not mind dependent. Everyone who claims to have on objective, mind-independent idea on reality is right. There simply is no one and only reality, however western thought based on science makes us believe. I don't say it's all in the mind, I say it's all there. It depends who you ask. Do you think physics doesn't want to explore the fundamentals of reality? I think it can find out.

Well, now it depends on what you mean by reality. Do you mean everything ranging from human beings, ideas, Gods, to a rock onto a novel? There's little of explanatory depth when the range is so wide.

If you mean by reality what's fundamental to things and the universe, then physics will tell you a good deal about it, they do and are examining the fundamentals of reality. I just don't think we can pierce "the bottom layer", as it were. This is the area in which some physicists begin saying things like like certain particles arise out of nothing.

Or that the "nothing" we use doesn't exist. I think these are different terms that may signal a point of no further depth of insight. I may be wrong.

Yeah, my use of reality is confusing not? I say there are different realities and then I say physics can discover the fundamentals of reality. I have my "own" view on reality though, of which I think it exists independently. It's material, yes, but contains consciousness at the same time (where others see material processes only). Like physical reality. But you can always ignore that reality. And see a universe with gods, like in ancient Greece. Or you can see epicycles, or astrological facts. Or novels only. Or women only. Or love only. Etcetera. You can't say that some are in the mind and others are real. Of course you can think that. There are obviously things going on in the mind only, but only if you make the distinction in the first place. And there is a distinction. Confusing?

It's not clear to me. You can speak of this topic as you wish, that's not a problem.

We agree on physics.

I think you are using reality in the sense of including everything, which invites all kinds of views and perspectives. This view will depend on our proclivities, inclinations, preferences and biases. It's not so much as I can say you are "wrong" or you say the same to me, it's related to usefulness to each person.

Fairly close. I could say you are wrong though. But only if we share the same reality. You could be wrong.

Of course.

In all likelihood, I am quite mistaken in several of my views and beliefs, maybe most of them.

:smile:

Still, you must have some belief of what exists surely for you. Even when you are not around anymore. Some rock-solid belif. Well, you "must" not, but still. Most people nowadays belief in the reality science propagates. But it's just one among many and quite intolerant towards other worldviews.

Yes. Science turned into scienticism makes for very poor philosophy, in fact, leaves most of it out.

As to the world absent people, there are vague notions I have. But it's part of the game of belonging to the human species.

I like the Monk quotation! "It's always night, or we wouldn't need light". Funny!

Vague notions come closest. Reality is like a mist in which shadows lurk, showing their face clearly once in a while.

Thanks!

That's the real truth. :wink:

Twice, apparently! :joke: No worries dude.

It can be no other reason than that there is consciousness. — Cartuna

That's what I think too. However I am sympathetic to people who don't think like that. I can understand it when people, especially scientists who are used to explanations of one thing in terms of something else, are suspicious of claims that a phenomenon is just a brute feature of the world that admits of no further explanation. It's just in this case I do think there are lots of very strong indications that consciousness is just brute.

people who think that without an observer, a computer simulation is just a bunch of pixels and sounds. I fall in the latter category. — RogueAI

With or w/o an observer, the computer does exactly the same thing: it shows pixels and emits sounds. It is us who call this activity a "simulation". The same would happen if the computer was playing a video. It is us who call this activity a "video". However, even if there is an observer watching the computer playing a simulation, but who has no idea what the computer currently does, he could not call it "simulation".
But again, this is too obvious.

However, there is something else, more important, that makes the question "Do you think simulations can exist without anyone observing them?" and the whole issue of the "simiulation-observer" fall apart: In any case, a similation cannot and does not exist, with or w/o an obsever. It's not an object. It's a process. And processes do not exist. They are actions that take place.

So, the problem of the "observer" can become meaningful only if "simulation" is replaced with some object, e.g. a tree. In this case, the question would be: "Does a tree exist without an observer?". Which can be recognized as a classic philosophical question.

It's just in this case I do think there are lots of very strong indications that consciousness is just brute. — bert1

Brute and wild... The problem with structured materialistic explanations is that they take out consciousness firstly and then try to put it back in the system by making the model complex dynamical and containing structùres relating to the complex dynamical stuff it is immersed in, including body. Could be useful in assigning consciousness, but not in explaining it.

We count, but only because nature does — Kenosha Kid

Can you give an example of how nature counts?

The examples I gave before were conservation laws; conserving the total energy, momentum, angular momentum, charge, colour charge, number of leptons, number of fermions, and so on. This is counting as in: "accounting for quantity". Our concepts of numbers, indeed our existence at all, is dependent on these laws being true, and to that extent derives from them.

This is counting as in: "accounting for quantity — Kenosha Kid

I am afraid that you are twisting your words and/or adding meaning to them. This is totally different from what you said erlier "We count, but only because nature does" and on which I commented.
I am not interested in "chasing" you. So, that's it for me.