Yes. And my claim is that the idea of determinism is meaningless if prediction is not possible, even in theory. — T Clark

I suspect that what people typically mean these days when saying the accept determinism is that they accept it as a corollary of accepting physical causal closure. So I don't see it as a meaningless idea inasmuch as it conveys such a perspective at the very least.

I would think a better objection might be that, in light of the predictive issues, a hypothesis of determinism might not be falsifiable. Does that maybe get more at your objection?

If consciousness is strictly a bodily function, we'd have to explain how it is that the body doesn't adapt, but the mind does. — frank

The body does adapt, in that the strength of connections in your brain changes every time you learn something. It's simply a matter of us not being able to see and note the microscopic changes in brains hidden behind skulls. The changes to our bodies are there, and can be measured under the right circumstances, but it is easy to overlook such changes because they are hardly obvious.

I don't pretend to really understand it, but if I am not misinformed, as jgill pointed out, from the standpoint of the ship, as you approach the speed of light, the distance traversed approaches zero and the time to cross it also approaches zero. It takes a million years for light to cross a gap of a million light years only for an observer stationary with respect to it. For the photon, no distance and no time. — petrichor

I'm not a physicist, and it has been 40 years since I took a course discussing special relativity and QM, so take this with a grain of salt...

The above sounds right. I'll point out some things to consider about the following:

If, from the photon's perspective, there is zero distance between its origin and destination, maybe in some sense, rather than there being an actual photon crossing a distance, it is rather a matter of the two electrons on either end just interacting and transferring a quantum of energy from one to the other. One loses an energy level and the other gains one, maybe like a billiard ball transferring its energy to another ball. How it is determined which electron will interact with which other one halfway "across" the universe though is beyond me! It makes me wonder if we really understand what is going on with space and time at all. The model of a photon as a thing that passes through space works as a model, but maybe thinking about it like that gives the wrong intuition about what is actually happening. — petrichor

One problem I see with such a view is that photons do seem to travel through the intervening space between the initial and terminal electron. If that was not the case, I don't know how gravitational lensing could be explained.

Closer to home we can consider shadows. From our frame of reference it takes eight minutes for light
to travel from the Sun to the Earth. Yet our shadows on the ground move 'instantaneously' when we move. If it was "a matter of the two electrons on either end just interacting and transferring a quantum of energy from one to the other, how would the electron on the Sun know which electron on the Earth to interact with, such that shadows appear as they do when we are walking along?

And it is the same dichotomistic logic down at the level of sensory receptors or enzymatic regulation. You have to be able to make a choice, and indeed not choose that in the most definite sense by doing its very opposite, to in fact have choices, and thus what we think of as creative agency or freewill. — apokrisis

As I said earlier, trying to explain way too much, way too simplistically.

So is my idea of ‘7’ different to yours? (Better not be, else it might be hard to do business.) — Wayfarer

It is unlikely that for practical purposes of doing business, my idea of '7' is substantially different than yours. However in terms of more subtle associations we each make with '7', certainly. Perhaps you consider '7' to. be a lucky number. One of us might even have not so subtle differences in our associations with '7', as are seen in synesthesia.

The answer is networks of neurons. This wikipedia page on artificial neural networks might help with further questions you might have.

So there is what Ned Block has characterized as the "Harder Problem of Consciousness." This speaks to Philosophim's point about experiencing other consciousnesses.. the problem as I understand it is: how can I know what it's like to be you, without actually being you. The physicalist rejoinder may be: well the brain stuff is the same, so the mental states must be the same.. but the brain stuff is only approximately the same, not exactly the same, and the difference in brain states means different mental states, and these mental states are simply not accessible to another, at least, not in an "experiential" way. — NotAristotle

My physicalist rejoinder is... Of course we all have unique brains and that is of some relevance. However the more important matter is that consciousness is a process that occurs in a specific brain, and therefore it's illogical to think that one could experience, experiences that only occur in the brain of someone other than you. So no problem.

In other words, what is it about this arrangement of physical matter and energy that allows consciousness, and how is it different from some other assortment of physical matter and energy that does not allow consciousness? That is, if we think consciousness arises from a physical substrata, what about that physical substrata gives rise to consciousness? — NotAristotle

Information processing. This physical arrangement of matter allows consciousness, because it is structured in a way conducive to being able to do a massive amount of information processing.

It is an argument from ignorance because you are basing your belief that determinism is false on your ignorance of what determines Ned's behavior. You haven't observed Ned behaving contradictory to the predictor's output. You are just sticking with your unjustified assumption that Ned could act contrary, despite having never observed such a situation.

However, there seems to be no reason Ned could choose not to follow the prediction... — NotAristotle

But if determinism is true, then Ned will not act contrary to the prediction. Furthermore understanding the details of how the prediction was made should demonstrate that Ned will not act contrary to the prediction, and therefore if you fully understood how the prediction was made you would have a reason to think Ned could not act contrary to the prediction. The fact that you lack a reason to believe the prediction, when you don't know the details that went into making the prediction suggests you are relying on your ignorance of the determinitive factors as your basis for your conclusion. IOW, you are making an argument from ignorance.

1. With sufficient information about Ned’s internal states and sufficient information about the surrounding environment, Ned’s immediate actions could be predicted.
2. There is sufficient information about Ned’s internal states and sufficient information about the surrounding environment.
3. Therefore, Ned’s immediate actions can be predicted. — NotAristotle

I probably should have been more explicit as to what I saw as question begging. Earlier you said:

the concern is whether in principle, if this information were acquired, could Ned act in opposition to it. And the answer to that seems to be yes. — NotAristotle

On the other hand the conclusion of your argument at the top of this post contradicts your earlier claim that Ned could act in opposition to the prediction. So I am unclear about what you are arguing.

The SEOW is everywhere.
:wink:

Jabberwock has been busy in the Ukraine thread.

Think of it this way, although a crude and oversimplified example, if you flick a domino to start a 1,000,000 domino chain of them hitting each other one-by-one, there is nothing it is like to be those dominos hitting each other. They just hit each other: they are unconscious.

An “unconscious experiencer”, like an AI, is just a more complex version of this: it is mechanical parts hitting each other or transferring this or that—it is quantitative through-and-through just like the domino’s hitting each other. There is nothing it is like to be an AI in the sense like there is something to be like a qualitative experiencer: qualia (in the sense of instances of qualitative experience) have a “special” property of there being something it is like to be it (or perhaps to have it). — Bob Ross

Strings of dominos performing calculations.

This is some disappointing reasoning Bob. Different complex systems have different emergent properties/qualities. Trivializing and then ignoring the complexity of physical systems doesn't make for serious thinking on the subject IMO.

Yes, he has a deep understanding of the workings of biological organisms, and many clear thoughts. However, his speculative theory of biosemiotics is deficient for the reasons I described. When you study biosemiotics further, in the future, keep in mind the issue I mentioned, and now that it's been pointed out to you, it ought to become evident that it's a very real problem, indicating that biosemiotics is quite insufficient. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. It seems like a mix of scientific understanding and pseudoscience that is trying to explain way too much, way too simplistically.

I suppose we could stipulate that Ned has enough information about his immediate environment to make an accurate prediction about how he will act. It doesn't really concern us whether this sort of information can, as a matter of practicality, be acquired; the concern is whether in principle, if this information were acquired, could Ned act in opposition to it. And the answer to that seems to be yes. — NotAristotle

I'd like to see your reasoning for that layed out. It appears to me that you must be begging the question.

1. Determinism doesn't propose that what detemines human behavior is purely a function of physical states internal to an individual. Inputs from the external world play a role in determining people's actions as well, and since your scanner isn't measuring the state of everything in the universe, you don't have sufficient information to make the prediction. Ned may walk out the door, smell the scents from a nearby bakery, and go get a donut. Furthermore, your scenario itself points out stimuli that seems likely to be relevant to Neds future actions, "After the procedure, Ned waits for the results to print..."

2. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle points towards it being impossible to gather complete information on Ned's internal state. Though perhaps a 'close enough' superscan is still worth considering.

3. There are issues with being able to do the fantastically complex computations needed to predict what Ned will do. At best, you would get a list of probabilities for future actions.

Now we take this utterly for granted. But it wasn't so until quite recently. That's the point, we are no longer bothered that we don't understand gravity intuitively, but are perfectly content with the theory and sometimes have trouble comprehending what this issue of understanding could even mean. Wasn't always this way. — Manuel

Thanks for the clarification. I have a much better sense of where Chomsky is coming from now.

Nicely done.

I take him to mean that "strong emergence" happens all the time. I don't see any intuitive (I'm not speaking of a theoretical account) reasoning that would get a rational human being to expect or not be surprised that liquid can emerge from what looks to me to be completely liquid-less particle, in isolation. — Manuel

I'm surprised at the way (it appears to me) that Chomsky seems to hold up intuition as the standard for what qualifies as understanding. Human intuitions generally arise as matters of pattern recognition based on things we observe all the time. However, observing hydrogen and oxygen atoms either in isolation or when combined into a water molecule is not something we do all the time. We simply don't have the sensory capabilities to make such observations unaided, let alone under all the conditions that would be needed in order for us to develop accurate intuitions about such things.

If we were able to resolve individual atoms and observe them under a wide enough variety of conditions, we would observe that hydrogen and oxygen themselves form liquids and even solids under the right conditions of temperature and pressure. For example a phase diagram for hydrogen:

Of course, we are then forced to say, that the particle is not liquid-less, it has the potential for liquidity in certain configurations. But I don't see how the end result of liquidity, is evident from the constituent parts. — Manuel

From my perspective, thinking in terms of "the potential for liquidity" appears to be thinking about the situation in simplistic intuitive terms. (Which of necessity, all of us are doing a lot of the time.). From a scientific perspective (that doesn't put human intuition on a pedestal) there are more sophisticated ways of understanding the details of what it is going on in the case of H2O, and no need for the notion of "the potential for liquidity".

Anyway, if you can shed additional light on what Chomsky sees as the relevance of intuition, I'd be interested.

Fortunately he is retired from medicine. He should see a gastroenterologist ASAP since he is probably full of shit. That can be cured with a quart of potassium citrate and a large toilet. — BC

It's funny how these sorts of discussions always go from UFOs to people who are UFoS.

I could only take ten minutes of Greer talking about how much evidence he had, while not presenting any of this so called evidence. Can you point out where his talk is not all fluff? My intuition is saying "con man".

...but we're primates, first and foremost... — 180 Proof

:100:

They seem much more plausible than most I've seen on the topic.

It all seems like an intentional distraction from the antagonisms existing in the real and political worlds. — jgill

In recent history there does appear to be a correlation between a lot of divisiveness in the country and 'evidence of aliens' coming out. Perhaps it is a means of getting the masses to see the general population as US and to look outwards for the THEM to plug into their US vs THEM thinking?

There hasn't been sufficient conspiracy theory thinking in this thread so far.

Interesting thoughts.

No Peter Gabriel?

But the issue is that if we do not sense the external world directly, but instead our senses are representational, our bodies themselves are also part of what is sensed, and therefore must themselves be representational. I see my hands, touch my head, hear myself speak. I may posit this phone I am typing on is a representation generated by my brain of a phone in the external world, but then so too must also be the hands I am holding it with - both are part of my visual field. And so the external world must not mean "the world beyond my body", but instead is a sort of radically skeptical hypothesis of a world that exists beyond the solipsistic representational bubble I inhabit. My body, being itself represented, must not have a brain doing the representing - a brain in the external world would be doing it. — Inyenzi

Like I said, what I'm suggesting is counterintuitive for a lot of people and it would take time and effort to make the paradigm shift. So I'm probably not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince you. A few points though.

Your body is part of the world. Your eyes take in light and output nerve impulses, on the basis of which your brain produces a model of what is in your visual field. If part of your body is what is in your visual field, your brain will construct a model based on the light reflected from that part of your body, and will represent that sensation as your conscious mind perceives it. Your perception of your body might be thought of as a symbol on a 'map' of reality your brain produces. On the other hand, your body which is a part of reality is the 'territory' represented by the map.

You seem to be confusing map and territory when you say, "our bodies themselves are also part of what is sensed, and therefore must themselves be representational". Your perception of your body and your body are two different things. To make sense of this idea it is important not to conflate the two.

What evidence is there, that a space as described by you in that quote, exists outside of your imagination
— wonderer1

The definition of a vacuum. And the definition of spacetime. And the definition of object permanence and it's implications. — Benj96

Your definition for vacuum is not evidence that there is anything matching that definition.

The dimensions of matter are instrinsic to them. The distance between material is extrinsic to it. We wouldn't say what's the distance of an apple. We would say what are it's dimensions.
If there was no need to make distinctions why bother with different vernacular to describe them? — Benj96

When we are discussing the dimensions of an apple or the distance of an apple from my hand, we are talking about distances in both cases. In the first case, the distance from one side of an apple to the other side of the apple. In the second case, from my hand to the apple.

It looks to me like you are trying to carve nature where there are no joints.

1. It seems silly to me to talk about the space occupied by our bodies as a different category of space than space in general. Other than to indulge a numeology-ish fixation on dividing things into threes, what is the point?

2. The following seems naive:

Furthermore there is yet a another, a third form of space. The space nothing can occupy. The void. The vacuum. If it is occupied it is not a vacuum. It is the true absence of anything material or substantial. — Benj96

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_state.

What evidence is there, that a space as described by you in that quote, exists outside of your imagination?

I have read some say it can be because what I am seeing is not a real screen, but some sort of brain generated fiction, a phantasm of my visual cortex. But this cannot be true because along with the screen I also see my body, which must therefore also be part of this fiction. And so the skepticism refutes itself. If all is phantasm, then so too are my observations of the functioning of sense organs. My eyes cannot give me accurate observations of how the sense organs function and yet also produce nothing but phantasm. What would be going on if looked in the mirror? The phantasm sees itself? — Inyenzi

I'd suggest dropping the use of "fiction" and "phantasm" and think more along the lines of...

Your brain, in interacting with the external world during childhood, developed a method of generating and intepreting brain states, that in consciousness is experienced as representative of things and events in the external world. Of course in childhood we don't have such a sophisticated way of thinking about it, and we just interpret the situation as "I am seeing the world itself."

Developing more accurate understanding of the situation requires being able to recognise that simplistic intuitive belief, "I am seeing the world", for what it is - a simplistic intuition that our brains arrive at during childhood. Then follow that recognition up with making the paradigm shift to recognizing that the qualia we work with in consciousness are a function of parts of our brains producing symbols representative of external reality which other parts of our brains are able to consciously consider.

I don't mean to suggest that making such a paradigm shift is easy to do. It may well take substantial time and effort to reach the point that the new paradigm is as intuitively obvious as your existing paradigm seems now. (And there is no guarantee one will get there. There are many cases where my intuitions don't match up well with what I know via reason to be the case.) The explanatory power that comes with being able to understand things from the new paradigm is worth that effort IMO.

Getting back to the notions of fictions and phantasms... I think those are pejorative terms that aren't very helpful in seriously considering the subject. I'd say something more like the brain symbolizes external reality for us in ways that are quite conducive to humans getting on in life. There are valuable isomorphisms between aspects of external reality and the way our brains symbolize external reality and of course people get along quite fine, for many practical purposes, looking at things with the perspective, "I am seeing the world as it is."

Yes, it is true that the way our brains symbolize the external world is in significant ways misleading, but with a perspective of understanding that this is what we have to work with, and an attitude of how can we make the best of it, a deeper understanding of ourselves and others can arise.

Then the question would be, how many light years away? What we see may have happened eons ago. — jgill

The finding of carbon in an atmosphere, discussed in the NASA article, was around a planet 700 light years away. (A gas giant.)

I don't know what astronomers are hoping to be able to achieve with Webb. I wouldn't be surprised if Webb's capability of gathering sufficiently high quality spectrographic data was practically zero at 20,000 light years.

But regardless, the Milky Way is 'only' 100,000 light years across, so we wouldn't be gathering light that had been travelling for more than 100,000 years, in a search for hospitable planets.

We'll just be one more speck on a photo receptor. — BC

We can detect more than that. Scientists are currently analyzing the atmospheres of extrasolar planets. For example:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-detects-carbon-dioxide-in-exoplanet-atmosphere

If scientists find an extrasolar planet with an atmospheric oxygen percentage comparable to that of the Earth, it will be pretty huge news.

No, Mr Atwill was talking about the various clashes he has had with atheists such as Dr Richard Carrier, regarding the veracity of the content of his book. — universeness

Whew, I was afraid I was going to stop getting invitations to the baby roasts.

Thanks for letting me know where that came from, but a spat between Jesus mythicists seems too like a tempest in a teacup for me to be very interested.

Yeah, not many have had the chance to notice us. — ssu

I guess it depends on what ETs consider notable, or what "us" means. I would think spectrographic analysis of the Earth's atmosphere could have provided strong evidence for life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years. So such evidence has had lots of time to cross the galaxy.

There is an issue of what portions of the galaxy allows for observing a transit of the Sun by the Earth*, given that the solar system's ecliptic is at a large angle with respect to the galactic plane, but it's still a far larger volume than your illustration suggests.

* Which facilitates spectrographic analysis of the Earth's atmosphere.

[/geekmode]

↪wonderer1 ↪HanoverYou accuse me of a total crock and I can't be outraged!? You are a piece of ignorant treacherous garbage with no place here. — quintillus

Sure you can be outraged. As I said, I expected you to be 'outraged'. I'm not providing the sort of narcissistic supply you are looking for.

In any case, this latest comment of yours exhibits the black and white thinking characteristic of narcissists.

Yes, everyone mistakenly thinks law is determinative...
Get hosed. — quintillus

There's the narcissistic rage that I was expecting to see.

You are going off half cocked, when you rush to inhumanely name me delusional, for knowing that law does not, cannot, act causally upon human beings. — quintillus

Actually, it is you who is going off half cocked, by failing to notice the portion of your quote that I bolded.

What is delusional, is your belief that you have a good understanding of the thinking of everyone else.

No one at all has an a priori responsibility to understand my writing, but, if you engage that writing, and engage me here regarding that writing, it is simply your responsibility to work toward comprehension — quintillus

My responsibility to work towards my comprehension, or towards your comprehension? For example the following seems to me a clearly delusional statement:

I do not see law as a cause or as capable of causing persons to act or not act; although everyone else does. — quintillus

Am I only allowed to engage your writing so as to grasp your delusional way of thinking, or am I allowed to engage your writing in hopes of your way of thinking becoming less delusional?

Nonetheless, it is the reader's responsibility to research and study whatever he cannot understand, until he does understand. — quintillus

Why would anyone have a responsibility to understand you?

Be careful when dealing with many, who claim to be atheists, they often make strange bedfellows with theists. — universeness

Is there some sort of tribal purity requirement to being an atheist? Am I at risk of losing my atheist card for being friends with theists - for considering fellow social primates to be brothers?

And when I say the things I've been saying it feels kinda wrong, in that I'm speaking from a position of privilege: the privilege of living in a liberal secular society that makes it too easy to take a contrarian anti-militant-atheist line. — Jamal

Speaking as a US Bible Belt preacher's kid*...

I appreciate you noticing that.

* 60 yo