Did you look at the ATP synthase YouTube video?. — Restitutor
The fact that quantum physics appears to undemine the concept of objectivity
— Wayfarer
And how does it "appear to undermine" "objectivity"? With objective findings. Your argument(?), sir, is as self-refuting as a 'positivist' argument — 180 Proof
Classical epistemological and ontological assumptions, such as the ones found to underlie Newtonian physics, include the existence of individual objects with determinate properties that are independent of our experimental investigations of them. This accounts for the fact that the process of measurement is transparent and external to the discourse of Newtonian science. It is assumed that objects and observers occupy physically and conceptually separable positions. Objects are assumed to possess individually determinate attributes, and it is the job of the scientist to cleverly discern these inherent characteristics by obtaining the values of the corresponding observation-independent variables through some benignly invasive measurement procedure. The reproducibility of measured values under the methodology of controlled experimentation is used to support the objectivist claim that what has been obtained is a representation of intrinsic properties that characterize the objects of an observation-independent reality. The transparency of the measurement process in Newtonian physics is a root cause of its value to, and prestige within, the Enlightenment culture of objectivism.
Bohr called into question two fundamental assumptions that support the notion of measurement transparency in Newtonian physics: (1) that the world is composed of individual objects with individually determinate boundaries and properties whose well-defined values can be represented by abstract universal concepts that have determinate meanings independent of the specifics of the experimental practice; and (2) that measurements involve continuous determinable interactions such that the values of the properties obtained can be properly assigned to the premeasurement properties of objects as separate from the agencies of observation. In other words, the assumptions entail a belief in representationalism (the independently determinate existence of words and things), the metaphysics of individualism (that the world is composed of individual entities with individually determinate boundaries and properties), and the intrinsic separability of knower and known (that measurements reveal the preexisting values of the properties of independently existing objects as separate from the measuring agencies).
( Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway)
But plainly that is a fact of neither mechanics nor physics but if biology. In all of what you’re saying ‘machines’ are a metaphor. Furthermore you’d never learn about genetics by studying physics, the fact you can call on ‘emergence’ as a kind of universal ad hoc gap filler notwithstanding. — Wayfarer
Again, your aspersion has missed the point of the original question : What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?Your thinking is rather last decade. The systems that run modern AIs use many interconnected processors operating in parallel, and a complex ballet of distributed processing is a more accurate metaphor than an assembly line. Furthermore,neuromorphic hardware that will massively increase the degree of parallelism while also dramatically dropping the power consumption is around the corner. — wonderer1
Not being as such, but of the objects of experience. Questions about what objectively exists are different to questions about the nature of existence, which are much broader in scope. — Wayfarer
What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? How can there be a fundamental difference in what is happening if all we are is mechanistic?
What is the implication of this for the idea that computers are just too mechanical to be, conscious, to love, to generate or understand meaning, to have a self or to have free will? How would changing notions of consciousness, meaning, morality, free will and self to make them fit with bodies as mechanical as any robot change these psychologically important notions? — Restitutor
As usual, the implicit debate within the dialog is between the utility of Practical Realistic Physicists (Feynman) versus the futility of Philosophical Idealistic Physicists (Wheeler, Heisenberg). The former produce tangible results --- television, computers, cell phones, and nuclear weapons --- while the latter postulate abstract concepts --- words, ideas, principles, etc.The fact that quantum physics appears to undermine the concept of objectivity was part of the major news out of the Solvay Conference in 1927. Why was Albert Einstein compelled to ask the question 'doesn't the moon continue to exist if we're not observing it?' The later Bohr-Einstein debates were mainly about this. Hey, don't take it from me, here it is from John Wheeler: — Wayfarer
The fact you call the idea of emergence a "ad hoc gap filler" is profoundly ignorant. — Restitutor
Well some times emergence-of-the-gaps is used a bit like a God-of-the-gaps. Of course, lots of instances of novel properties emerging from systems is entirely reasonable and comprehensible. But sometimes people come pretty close to saying "emergence-did-it" without offering convincing details, most obviously when arguing that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity. — bert1
It's not reasonable to say "I think consciousness emerges from brain activity but I don't know how"? — flannel jesus
There is a big difference however, in that instances of emergence are observed all over the place, whereas omniscient minds existing for no reason aren't. — wonderer1
I'd want to know why someone thinks consciousness emerges from brain activity. The usual answer is that changes in brain activity result in changes in experience. It's also hard to make sense of the claim. If consciousness just is brain activity it seems odd to say it emerges from that brain activity. If it isn't brain activity, what exactly is it and how does it connect with the brain activity? — bert1
Can you articulate the alternative to emergence here? — flannel jesus
okay well panpsychism still requires some emergence to get to human consciousness — flannel jesus
Our consciousness is at the very least especially unique, because it is causal. I think it's causal. — flannel jesus
All the behaviour we see around us in the physical world is only doing what it is doing because of how it feels. — bert1
he fact you call the idea of emergence a "ad hoc gap filler" is profoundly ignorant. All scientists believe in emergence and the fact that you don't explains why you are so profoundly confused about how physics and biology relate to each other. — Restitutor
You seem to think that there is some great sacred divide between biology and everything else and there isn't. — Restitutor
Yes physics talks about what objectively exists but that doesn't mean it isn't saying anything about the "nature of existence". — Restitutor
Science is screaming at us that the fundamental nature of existence is mechanistic and deterministic but because this isn't what you want to hear you don't listen. — Restitutor
I bet Wayfarer has never heard any of that. You must have really opened his eyes. He should be grateful. — bert1
Although many people believe this, and have been trying to prove it, they have not succeeded. Christof Koch, a more than fair neuroscientist, paid off his 25-year old bet to Chalmers because of this lack of success. Many say it must be the case, and science will eventually prove it. But that is not evidence that it is there case, or that science will prove it.Science says humans are mechanisms and what we think and feel are products of that mechanism, — Restitutor
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.