I agree with you if we are talking generally, but people (in my experience, usually dualists) try to use their viewpoint on the mind to defend a viewpoint on something that matters (free will or the existence of non-physical objects). It usually is not argued for intially, but is a careover or a requirment for another belief. — Chany

It would be nice to know in what sense the non-computable numbers and similar entities exist.

Also, even in the case of a computer, where exactly does the computation take place?

Turn the volume up!

For the dualist, the physicalist has physical matter somehow produce the mind and consciousness, the mechanics of which has not been illustrated. For the physicalist, the dualist has two different substances on different modes of existence interact, the mechanics of which have not been illustrated. — Chany

I'm not sure the situation is quite symmetrical. Physicalism explains life, computation, and offers an active research program into consciousness. Dualism can't explain anything.

Yes, minds clearly interact with bodies. You are assuming that immaterial causes cannot interact with physical causes, i.e. you are assuming your premise. — Chany

You mean like the brain is a mind-detector receiving instructions from outside space-time?

1. If physicalism is true, then physical matter produces the mind and consciousness.

2. It is not the case that physical matter produces the mind and consciousness.

Therefore:

3. Physicalism is false. — Chany

How about this:

1. If physicalism is true, then physical matter produces the mind and consciousness.

2. It is the case that physical matter produces the mind and consciousness.

Therefore:

3. Physicalism is true

Such a thought is called 'epiphenomenalism'. Epiphenomenalism is a kind of dualism. Many philosophers reject epiphenomenalism. — quine

It can't be epiphenomenalism, because the mind in this case is exactly the causal physical structure. It's almost indistinguishable from physicalism, but admits that certain purely abstract entities - e.g. the non-computable numbers exist.

So, it's similar to the distinction between computable and non-computable numbers. Physical reality can only instantiate computable numbers. The suggestion would be that physical reality can only instantiate computable-minds, which appears to be the case.

I'm sure this view must exist and have a name? Maybe it is just physicalism and I've not been paying attention?

If dualism is true, then mind is not spatio-temporal, and body is spatio-temporal. — quine

Why can't the mind be spatio-temporal? Of course you mean the human mind, but why can't the human mind be a physical representation of this mind-stuff? Wouldn't this still be dualism, but with the division between physical and mental moved over slightly?

I'm asking in what sense strong emergentism and non-reductive physicalism are not forms of dualism, as laid out in the OP. — Marchesk

I've been puzzling over this. Is there a name for physicalists who admit dualism, but not in public?

The circus peanut-in-chief has his Goebbels at his side...the circle is nearly complete. Oh, well...America had a good 240 year run (not perfect, sure, but we generally kept democracy chugging along pretty smoothly for most of that time) — Arkady

Sure, and Benghazi was about a video on youtube .

Don't recall the details (my memory is getting about as good as my note taking abilities), but I'm guessing these moves are questionable according to the 4th Geneva Convention (and related protocols/policies), and the 1951 Refugee Convention. — jorndoe

But bombing the sh*t out of those countries is OK? This is what I don't get. America has been complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East, from the death of 500,000 Iraqi children by its embargo on chlorine, to drone striking wedding parties and dropping missiles on hospitals. Furthermore America created and funded ISIS and acted as its airforce in Aleppo.

I don't recall the marches and civil disruption protesting that human carnage, nor do I recall the same when Obama banned Iraqi refugees for 6months.

I don't believe for one second that it is possible to be that ignorant or hypocritical, so something else is going on. It seems that as usual, the issue is not the issue.

Can you prove they don't...or...can you prove you do? — John

Creatures that possess qualia have radically different behaviours to those that do not. Perhaps a better phrasing is that in order to explain animal behaviour it is unnecessary to ascribe to them subjectivity. For humans, it is impossible to explain their behaviour without it.

Animals do not create knowledge. If they did, they could create knowledge of "what-it-is-like" to feel pain. If they could do that, then what is to stop them creating knowledge of any kind?

This doesn't seem to me to be an answer as to why or how the word 'purpose' can have an adequate substitute of one's own choosing. It's an answer to another question. — mcdoodle

There is no substitute for the word "purpose" in neo-Darwinism, because purpose is explicitly absent. Teleology is anathema!

I'm suspicious of the use of the passive voice. '...is tested against reality' does not name the tester. '...an individual is a conjecture..' by what or whom? The implication is that there is an agent. Well, who or what is the agent? Life tends to beget life. But is that 'purpose'? — mcdoodle

The test is comparative breeding success. Genetic variants better adapted to their niche become more prevalent over time. There is no designer or agent.

I don't understand the value of such a remark. Who could usefully argue for or refute it? I'm a great advocate of neo-Darwinism in (as neo-Darwinists might say) its niche. But to think of it as a guide to say political discourse, or aesthetics, or ethics, would be, in my view, an error. — mcdoodle

It explains how religions survive though. Which is useful knowledge.

The question is whether a non-deterministic universe necessarily chaotic. — Rich

For any dynamical system to be chaotic, it is necessarily deterministic, by definition.

For some reason,Tom does not seem to believe that quantum mechanics is probabilistic. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I've already explained:

1. Bohmian mechanics is deterministic
2. All Everettian Interpretations are deterministic e.g.
2.1 Many Worlds
2.2 Many Minds
2.3 Multiverse (very interesting)
3. Copenhagen is agnostic on determinism since it is not a theory of reality, it is purely epistemic.
3.1 Consistent Histories is modern Copenhagen - see above
4. Superdeterministic theory of 't Hooft is deterministic.
5. Modal Interpretations (this surprised me)
6. Transactional Interpretation

It should also be noted that QED is a time-reversible theory - the very definition of determinism.

The ONLY* stochastic theory of Reality ever proposed is the state vector collapse theory of von Neumann, which dominated thought and teaching of QM from mid-20th century onwards. This theory ADDS state vector collapse to unitary QM.

*OK, so GRW theory is another stochastic theory. It takes quantum mechanics and ADDS an explicitly STOCHASTIC element. This theory is fringe and doesn't work.

Right now, the ONLY realist theory that agrees with ALL the results of QM is Many Worlds.

Every human being is conscious. — quine

Apart from the ones that happen to be asleep.

Given that almost all knowledge in inductive in nature, we cannot prove most things absolutely false. — Chany

I just spit my herbal tea all over my laptop!

If we have a bunch of good reasons for believing determinism to be true and no good reasons to believe determinism false, then we can justifiably believe determinism to be true. — Chany

There are no good reasons, induction is a myth, falsification is all we can achieve (Duhem-Quine thesis admitted), and justification is impossible, which is OK because it is irrelevant.

That said, the ONLY stochastic theory of nature that has ever been proposed is quantum mechanics in its mid-20th century state-vector-collapse conception. Everything else is, including modern interpretations of QM, deterministic (though adherents of Consistent Histories might disagree).

I totally disgaree; I think it is rubbish. — John

Animals don't possess qualia. You can prove they do?

It's not a true perspective, it's an imaginary perspective. Truly, there is no such perspective. — unenlightened

What is your alternative explanation of biodiversity?

That's a succinct illustration of 'scientism vs humanism'. There are no persons, only gene-carriers. — Wayfarer

I guess you are so anti-evolution that you just make stuff up.

It's opponents (of which I'm one) would say that it uses the language and rhetorical techniques of metaphysics against metaphysics. — Wayfarer

No, neo-Darwinism is the explanation of biodiversity, none other exists.

The problem with Dawkins, and neo-Darwinism generally, is treating a biological theory - how species survive and replicate - as an actual philosophy or 'meaning of life'. — Wayfarer

Neo-Darwinism is mostly metaphysical. That is why it applies to such diverse fields as life, culture, and quantum mechanics. Scientific theories can never be certified as true. Neo-Darwinism is true.

I disagree. The word 'purpose' is in the title of your thread. The question of the whole in relation to the individual is a different issue, if 'purpose' is not involved. A word someone likes better will not mean the same thing. Human-defined systems have purpose ascribed to them by seemingly purposive humans. — mcdoodle

From the (true) gene-centred perspective, an individual is a conjecture, one of a population of variants, that is tested against reality.

And therefore an imaginary view, since genes do not have eyes or a viewpoint of any kind. — unenlightened

I think you are missing the point of Neo-Darwinism, but yes, genes don't have eyes.

But they do not really have a will to survive, a desire to propagate, or a purpose of their own. — unenlightened

Again, you are missing the point of Neo-Darwinism, but yes memes don't possess desire or purpose, which is sort of the point. They do however cause themselves to be replicated.

I don't understand (hard) determinism because of the question of unknowability. If determinism were true we would have no way of verifying it. — mcdoodle

But if our known fundamental laws were deterministic, and they had been tested to destruction, then might we be advised to take what they say about reality seriously?

And by the way, our known laws are deterministic.

You said the you "use holographic theory". How do you use it?

In regards to quantum interpretations, I believe the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation is the only one that is casual though Bohm stated that his equations clearly leave open the possibility of choice, hence the probabilistic aspect of Quantum theory. As for myself, I use holographic theory, not quantum theory as a launching point for my views. — Rich

What is the difference between holographic theory and quantum theory?

It's not unknowable. Likely unknown, though. — Mongrel

Unknown by choice.

That is, if you believe in choice.

I really do not think that the knowledge required to make such predictions even exists, so it's rather nonsense to talk about applying that non-existent knowledge. A more appropriate question would be to ask whether it is possible to obtain the knowledge required to make such predictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Pseudo-random number generators are just algorithms. Given the seed(s) and the algorithm, you will know the outcome. In fact, pseudo-random number generators are characterized by the frequency with which they repeat - the lower the frequency, the better the generator.

Even Dawkins himself admits under pressure, (and then ignores) that the selfish gene is a mere analogy; that genes have no will, no desire, and no view. And certainly nothing remotely like a purpose. — unenlightened

But it is still a gene-centred view of what life actually is - it is the genes that are the subject of variation and selection, and the phenotype is part of their environment.

Memes are an analogy of the analogy, and the same applies only even more emphatically. — unenlightened

Memes, like genes, are subject to variation and selection, and they cause themselves to be replicated. So they are neither an analogy nor an analogy of an analogy. Genes and memes really exist!

Lottery winners are chosen randomly. A computerized random number generator uses the quartz crystal clock. In these cases "random" means a choice was made without any plan or scheme for choosing. The knowledge required to predict the choice is not available. I don't assume that because I can't predict the outcome that it has no cause. — Mongrel

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the knowledge required to predict the outcome is not employed?

Because of the current understanding of quantum mechanics, the hard determinist position seems very hard to affirm. The best you can do is say that we may be mistaken about our conception of quantum mechanics, given how relatively new and weird it is, but this simply leaves possibility of determinism open. — Chany

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't nearly all interpretations of quantum mechanics deterministic? Courting controversy as usual, one could argue that all interpretations are deterministic. The Copenhagen interpretation being a theory about what can be said about Reality, rather than a theory of Reality, thus it is at least agnostic when it comes to determinism.

Actually, I'm going to take that back. Von Neumann's interpretation was genuinely stochastic, but I'm not sure it has many adherents left.

has a p zombie ever been observed? — Wayfarer

Animals are p-zombies.

Do you have an argument for that? In any case, even if it were accepted, it does not constitute a final explanation, but remains just another unverifiable conceptual model to be taken on faith. Any model require further explanation unless it is concluded 'This is just the way things are'. It's easy enough to see that there can be no final explanation, which means that reason and the world are intractable mysteries. — John

It has been proved that under the laws of physics (minus gravity) that a universal computer can simulate any finite physical system to arbitrary accuracy by finite means.

What this means is that Reality is amenable to reason, and that all problems are soluble. This property of the laws of physics is also what permits life.

It seems reasonable to assume for the time being, that the human brain is computationally universal, and we know from the theory of computation that all universal computers are equivalent.

P-zombies and humans are thus distinguished by different software.

But we have no clue as to its origin and its mysterious ability to make the world intelligible, just as we have no way of rationally working out what the absolute origin of the world, or its capacity to be made intelligible by reason, is. This is where reason ends and faith based on intuition begins. — John

But we do have a big clue as to where reason comes from: the property of the laws of physics that permits universal computers to abstract and simulate any finite physical system.

The difference between a p-zombie and a human would be the software running on the brain.

So apparently Gengis Khan who had all the women and the power in the world, with no consequences ever for the killing and raping he did... was not really happy. Not really. — Sylar

So your definition of happiness is killing and raping without consequence?

I'm compelled to repeat this every time Rand is mentioned:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion. — Ciceronianus the White

An every time Rand is mentioned, I expect slurs and misrepresentations, and am never disappointed.

Coin-flipping is a deterministic system, so there is no "chance" of landing heads-or-tails, the coin will land in a particular way depending on the initial conditions and the laws of motion.

Because it is a complicated system, and assuming that we are unable to introduce any bias, then modeling the deterministic system with probability gives us what we need to make statistical predictions of the outcome of a (large) number of tosses.

Because probability is being used as a model to provide statistical predictions, you can choose to regard it as modeling either the physics, or your ignorance. The Principal Principle states that we should set our credences to equal the probabilities, so the two very different entities are empirically indistinguishable and often conceptually confused.

Error correction is the only known way to make progress towards what is true.

So, our purpose is to determine the best way of talking about the world without there, however, being a transcendentally true purpose...So, how exactly, can one determine what is "best" if there is no end purpose? — Heister Eggcart

It's the one we are left with after falsifying or refuting all other ideas.

I expect that, given enough time and resources to develop, artificial intelligence will meet and exceed human capacities of speech, creativity, and performance. None of that is sentience. — Cabbage Farmer

Creativity and sentience may be the same thing or mutually necessary. One difference between a p-zombie and a human is that the p-zombie would not be able to create knowledge - i.e it would be stuck in its programming, just as animals are.

What I'm suggesting is that p-zombies cannot possess a GENERAL intelligence, because they cannot create knowledge of themselves.

I see, you seek to apportion blame.

Accepting that everything obeys the laws of physics, and that there is no place for causality in these laws, does not mean that there are not equally true explanations at a higher level of emergence that employ the notion of causality.

For example, consider a scientist who valued truth and the growth of knowledge above all else, who dedicated her life to her work. Do you think that explanation for the physical changes to reality is less fundamental than a description of what happened in terms of atoms? Can you even explain her discoveries in terms of atoms?