Karma

[Jack Knave]

Dreaming is a form of conscious experience that happens during sleep.  It is a common mistake to confuse consciousness with wakefulness.  They often occur together but they are not the same thing.

So you lot need to define what you lot mean by consciousness so we can see where you lot are coming from, because there seems to be some crossed lines here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not my view that we are all p-zombies.  A p-zombie would be a person that looks and acts apparently like a regular person but lacks any inner experience.  I've never known anyone fitting that description.  The nearest we have are sufferers of Cotard's syndrome but they do still have inner experiences of pain and pleasure et, it is just their sense of self that is underperforming or degraded in some way leading to the mistaken belief that they are dead.

The difference between my view and your view boils down to this : you identify the self with the traditional idea of a soul. I would say that the same thing, the self, is a phenomenological projection created in real time by a living working awake body; well its not so much my view, more what the evidence from science suggests.

Which traditional idea of the soul were you thinking of since there are several?
Emergence is not a feature of reductionism and certainly not one where the emergent property is a kit made from previous levels. There is the explanatory gap which you are failing to acknowledge.
You are dismissing pertinent critique of your approach by accusations of "soul believer" that is particularly shabby.
I have said It should be no problem to a biblically based Christian if the self is after all physical since we consider humanity to be part of the creation......dust to dust and all that. But that would be an emergent self not the completed kit you and Hillside are peddling.

[wigginhall]

So you lot need to define what you lot mean by consciousness so we can see where you lot are coming from, because there seems to be some crossed lines here.

And maybe you need to define what you mean by it.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

– you did attempt an argument from personal incredulity!

Prove it!!!

Again, there’s nothing “unfounded” about them, and I can’t engage with an argument when it’s logically false. All I can do is to tell you why it’s logically false.

Go on then!

Priceless! Actually “science” has lots of clues about that but, even if it didn’t, this statement is itself an argument from personal incredulity: “Science can’t explain it, therefore I can’t believe that it occurs because of the natural processes that science does understand”.

And you say," I know that science can’t explain it yet, however I believe all their hypotheses that they propose on it with out reservations and will push it as a fact or that it is going in the right direction even though science doesn't understand the natural processes involved and has no idea if it is on the right tracks." So your position is an argument of personal incredulity by having undue faith in your science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not my view that we are all p-zombies.  A p-zombie would be a person that looks and acts apparently like a regular person but lacks any inner experience.  I've never known anyone fitting that description.  The nearest we have are sufferers of Cotard's syndrome but they do still have inner experiences of pain and pleasure et, it is just their sense of self that is underperforming or degraded in some way leading to the mistaken belief that they are dead.

The difference between my view and your view boils down to this : you identify the self with the traditional idea of a soul. I would say that the same thing, the self, is a phenomenological projection created in real time by a living working awake body; well its not so much my view, more what the evidence from science suggests.

How do you know a person has inner experience unless inner experience is objective?
How do you know someone else isn't just an automaton thrown up by evolution. Intelligent but not conscious?............except by redefining consciousness to fit neuroscience....or what neuroscience can handle...where being an intelligent automata is "close enough".

[Jack Knave]

   
But why though? Why this refusal to accept evidence and argument?

I've provided an argument but you refused to consider it and failed to understand its point. My argument by the way is that science is assuming too much here and coming up with the wrong outlook due to the prevailing ideology and mind set that this generation has. As for evidence you (science) have none, all it has is speculation based on assuming causation from correlation. There are no firm fact here yet.

- It offends the solipsistic sense of being special, unique

This is arrogance. Using ad hominem to close down the argument as Labour did with their accusations of racism. You can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand)

- It contradicts the illusion of being a separate something that happens to live in a body, or it contradicts the conjecture “soul”

Again, you can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand). Just because you can't entertain and see it as a plausible possibility that the essence of consciousness or whatever could be some entity separate from your materialistic outlook does not make it so. Your views are at the present just founded on speculation, nothing more.

[Jack Knave]

ekim,

That's not it al all. I've always argued that truth is probabilistic, and for that matter that if the arguments I use could be rebutted then I'd change my mind. The point though is that of course science is tentative and subject to change - any passion on my part is in constantly reminding people of this when they say things like, "science hasn't proved X" when science doesn't deal in proofs, and when they think the absence of a proof for X somehow validates their un-evidenced conjecture Y.   

No doubt too some do feel happier for having their faith beliefs, but that says nothing to whether they're more likely than not to be true.

So you admit it it is just your viewpoint, no facts, just your preferred ideological standpoint based on the probabilistic possibility that you are right. All mixed with a dose of your passion on the subject - the Khmer Rouge were passionate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Emergence is not a feature of reductionism…

Make you mind up! Finally though you’ve got it – yes, it’s not a “feature” of reductionism at all unless and until anyone demonstrates something to reduce from. Emergence is all about bottom up, not top down.

… and certainly not one where the emergent property is a kit made from previous levels.

Depends what you mean by “a kit”, but the emergent property precisely rests on its component parts, even though – with adaptive systems at least – the emergent system is smarter than the sum of its parts. 

There is the explanatory gap which you are failing to acknowledge.

Presumably because you just made it up.

You are dismissing pertinent critique of your approach by accusations of "soul believer" that is particularly shabby.

What “pertinent critique” do you think you’ve managed?

I have said It should be no problem to a biblically based Christian if the self is after all physical since we consider humanity to be part of the creation......dust to dust and all that. But that would be an emergent self not the completed kit you and Hillside are peddling.

Oh dear – and it was going so well too. Bluehillside is “peddling” no such thing – what he’s actually doing is trying to explain that emergent adaptive systems are in their nature smarter than the sum of their components. They learn. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Prove it!!!

You’ve proved it for me every time you’ve told us in effect that you cannot imagine how consciousness could emerge from the stuff of a brain.

Go on then!

Go on then what? If you try a logical fallacy then it’s a logical fallacy, and logical fallacies are always wrong argument. There’s nothing more to be said.

And you say," I know that science can’t explain it yet, however I believe all their hypotheses that they propose on it with out reservations and will push it as a fact or that it is going in the right direction even though science doesn't understand the natural processes involved and has no idea if it is on the right tracks." So your position is an argument of personal incredulity by having undue faith in your science.

That’s called a straw man argument (another fallacy by the way) – I say no such thing. What I do say though is that:

- every complex system we know of in nature comes from simpler component parts

- emergence theory shows that complex adaptive systems can emerge from their component parts, and can become by magnitudes more information rich than the sum of those parts
 
- there’s nothing inherently special about consciousness that suggests that it shouldn’t be the product if the same principles, especially given the astonishing complexity of the brain

In the absence of a better argued and evidenced explanation, consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is therefore the working hypothesis, and asserting alternatives is equivalent to asserting the stork conjecture over midwifery.

I've provided an argument but you refused to consider it and failed to understand its point. My argument by the way is that science is assuming too much here and coming up with the wrong outlook due to the prevailing ideology and mind set that this generation has.

That’s not an argument – it’s just an assertion. What argument do you think you have to support it?

As for evidence you (science) have none, all it has is speculation based on assuming causation from correlation. There are no firm fact here yet.

That’s just wrong. There are countless “firm facts”, all pointing in the same direction. That there isn’t a complete theory is a different matter but, absent any facts at all for an alternative, that’s the best we've got.

This is arrogance. Using ad hominem to close down the argument as Labour did with their accusations of racism.

I’ve already explained to you what ad hom means. Why have you misused the term again?

You can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand)

To the contrary, I rely on facts and reason. What facts or reason do you think you have for an alternative explanation that invalidates mine?

Again, you can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand).

Again, I do no such thing. Why pretend otherwise?

Just because you can't entertain and see it as a plausible possibility that the essence of consciousness or whatever could be some entity separate from your materialistic outlook does not make it so. Your views are at the present just founded on speculation, nothing more.

No, they’re founded on a lot more than speculation (see above) but I’m happy to accept other possibilities. How plausible they are though is a different matter – what explanation do you propose that better fits the observable phenomena?

So you admit it it is just your viewpoint, no facts, just your preferred ideological standpoint based on the probabilistic possibility that you are right. All mixed with a dose of your passion on the subject - the Khmer Rouge were passionate.

Oh dear. You’re a long way out of your depth here old son. Take a deep breath and try again. I happen to think that 2+2=4 is a fact, and I think that because that’s what the relevant logic tells me. I make no appeal though to absolutes – for all I know I’m a bit of code in a celestial computer game that’s been programmed to “think” that, but – on the basis of the potentially parochial tools available to me - I consider that to be a fact, and therefore probabilistically "true".

I also consider other conclusions based on logic I can’t falsify to be true, but again necessarily probabilistically so. That’s not a rhetorical weakness though as you seem to imply – to the contrary, it’s a strength because it leaves the door ajar to mistake and thus to better thinking in future.

If you want to call that "just" my opinion though, that's fine by me.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,



Oh dear – and it was going so well too. Bluehillside is “peddling” no such thing – what he’s actually doing is trying to explain that emergent adaptive systems are in their nature smarter than the sum of their components. They learn.

And?
May I remind you that an emergent property is not demonstrated by a lower level.

[torridon]

Thanks for that link Torridon. I'll have a read.

On your question, I've no problem with the idea of complexity arising from simpler origins if the ability is there to do so from the start.

To use your analogy with the bricks: No problem there, but if you start with the house and regress backwards:
- emergent properties are used to explain the existence of the house.
Then
- emergent properties are used to explain the bricks, which emerged from some process 'A'.
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'A', which emerged from some process 'B'
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'B', which emerged from some process 'C'
etc.

So what you have is a narrative involving emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties! It's a classic something from nothing scenario. If you regress back far enough, the first 'emergent property' would have to be something emerging from nothing!

If the principle of emergence implies something from nothing, then that would be a challenge for us to rise to.  Nobody said stuff is easy and throwing out logic principles altogether to avoid the challenge would be one step forward but two steps back. That would be like Isaac Newton deciding that invisible magic pixies must be pulling apples down from trees; but he didn't do that, rather he rose to the challenge to think it through and thanks to that persistence we can now land robots on Mars.  Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles.  Magic pixies and gods are manifestations of a preference to avoid thinking things through imo.

[Sriram]

If the principle of emergence implies something from nothing, then that would be a challenge for us to rise to.  Nobody said stuff is easy and throwing out logic principles altogether to avoid the challenge would be one step forward but two steps back. That would be like Isaac Newton deciding that invisible magic pixies must be pulling apples down from trees; but he didn't do that, rather he rose to the challenge to think it through and thanks to that persistence we can now land robots on Mars.  Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex is illogical.

torridon,

Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all.  So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist all around them.

These robots find from their fossil records that cars, computers, planes and robots had evolved from simpler systems. Because they cannot sense humans, they believe that the evolution of all these robots and cars and computers and planes happened automatically due to random metallic variation and environmental pressures. Why did robots become more complex and more intelligent? Emergent Property. Nothing else. They will cite many cases  of complex robots from different parts of the globe that have evolved from simpler ones. That is just the way it happens!

If they could only sense biological humans, they would realize that all their supposed evolution due to random variation was actually driven by  intelligent intervention. There is nothing random about it. All emergent properties were calculated interventions by humans and all complexity is their doing. 

IMO...a similar situation exists with humans and spiritual beings in another parallel world.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torridon,

Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all.  So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist all around them.

These robots find from their fossil records that cars, computers, planes and robots had evolved from simpler systems. Because they cannot sense humans, they believe that the evolution of all these robots and cars and computers and planes happened automatically due to random metallic variation and environmental pressures. Why did robots become more complex and more intelligent? Emergent Property. Nothing else. They will cite many cases  of complex robots from different parts of the globe that have evolved from simpler ones. That is just the way it happens!

If they could only sense biological humans, they would realize that all their supposed evolution due to random variation was actually driven by  intelligent intervention. There is nothing random about it. All emergent properties were calculated interventions by humans and all complexity is their doing. 

IMO...a similar situation exists with humans and spiritual beings in another parallel world.

Cheers.

Sriram

Sriram sorry to intrude but I think there are elements in the book on emergence Bluehillside recommended that are pertinent to your case.

The author of that book talks about self organisation of components, molecules, cells etc. But what is the self being referred to? Is it each individual component? surely they are organised as far as they ever are. Or is it the new system?
Further what is the place of the laws of emergence?

I can't help thinking there is a desperate hanging onto reductionist principles to explain an emergent property to massage the explanatory gap.
Those who deny the explanatory gap are of course at liberty to fill it with er, an explanation.

[SusanDoris]

Re robots: Sriram seems to be putting forward the idea that robots could evolve naturally. They are, I would just like to mention, invented and made by humans so I think, if that is supposed to be an analogy, it doesn't work.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Re robots: Sriram seems to be putting forward the idea that robots could evolve naturally. They are, I would just like to mention, invented and made by humans so I think, if that is supposed to be an analogy, it doesn't work.

Unfortunately it does if you are a reductionist materialist which explains people as mechanisms.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

And?

May I remind you that an emergent property is not demonstrated by a lower level.

What point do you think you're making here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Unfortunately it does if you are a reductionist materialist which explains people as mechanisms.

Just out of interest, is you strategy just to keep repeating that lie in the hope that in the end by some osmotic process people forget that it is a lie?

You know the rebuttal perfectly well: you cannot be a "reductionist" unless you first demonstrate something that's been reduced from.

You know, the bit you always run away from when you try your "reductionist", "dodging" etc schtick. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Sriram sorry to intrude but I think there are elements in the book on emergence Bluehillside recommended that are pertinent to your case.

The author of that book talks about self organisation of components, molecules, cells etc. But what is the self being referred to?

That's not what the term means. Self-organised just means forming systems without a top down designer to make it so.

Is it each individual component?

No, it's "each individual component" following five simple principles such that the whole system becomes more information rich than the sum of its parts.

... surely they are organised as far as they ever are. Or is it the new system?

When it's adaptive, it's a new system.

Further what is the place of the laws of emergence?

What are you trying to ask here? What is the "place" of the laws of gravity?

I can't help thinking there is a desperate hanging onto reductionist principles to explain an emergent property to massage the explanatory gap.

I believe you - you cant help think that, despite having been corrected on it many times now.

Those who deny the explanatory gap are of course at liberty to fill it with er, an explanation.

I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with those who claim an "explanatory gap" to establish first that there is one. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Just out of interest, is you strategy just to keep repeating that lie in the hope that in the end by some osmotic process people forget that it is a lie?

You know the rebuttal perfectly well: you cannot be a "reductionist" unless you first demonstrate something that's been reduced from.

You know, the bit you always run away from when you try your "reductionist", "dodging" etc schtick.

A crude definition of reductionism and I don't see how you can interpret my usage here how you have.
By reductionism I mean explaining everything higher up in the order of complexity by means of the previous level or even several levels down as Dawkins does with the gene with all else a kind of froth on the top and mere vehicles or mechanisms.
By reductionists I mean the bottom up brigade. One doesn't need sky hooks or top down though. In fact the mention of bottom up in your recommended book seems to be a hoorah for reduction.
Emergence is ''side in''.

The differences between reductionism and emergence were outlined long ago by Paul Davies in his New Scientist article.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

That's not what the term means. Self-organised just means forming systems without a top down designer to make it so.

No, it's "each individual component" following five simple principles such that the whole system becomes more information rich than the sum of its parts.

When it's adaptive, it's a new system.

What are you trying to ask here? What is the "place" of the laws of gravity?

I believe you - you cant help think that, despite having been corrected on it many times now.

I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with those who claim an "explanatory gap" to establish first that there is one.

And those that claim a logical explanatory chain from the bottom up have to establish that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with those who claim an "explanatory gap" to establish first that there is one.

Certainly. there is an explanatory gap in your representation of bottom up emergence.

factor a + factor b + factor c =more than the sum of factors a,b,c

[ekim]

JK,

- emergence theory shows that complex adaptive systems can emerge from their component parts, and can become by magnitudes more information rich than the sum of those parts
 

I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before.  What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

A crude definition of reductionism and I don't see how you can interpret my usage here how you have.
By reductionism I mean explaining everything higher up in the order of complexity by means of the previous level or even several levels down as Dawkins does with the gene with all else a kind of froth on the top and mere vehicles or mechanisms.
By reductionists I mean the bottom up brigade. One doesn't need sky hooks or top down though. In fact the mention of bottom up in your recommended book seems to be a hoorah for reduction.
Emergence is ''side in''.

The differences between reductionism and emergence were outlined long ago by Paul Davies in his New Scientist article.

There's nothing crude abut it, and why is it problematic to explain higher level complexity by reference to the constituent parts of the system following simple rules?

If you reject that for some reason, then you do need sky hooks etc - if the adaptive system isn't self-organised, then something else must have organised it. QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

And those that claim a logical explanatory chain from the bottom up have to establish that.

"They" have - look at Deborah Gordon's work on ant colonies for example.

Here's a link to a TED talk by her that may help you:

https://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Certainly. there is an explanatory gap in your representation of bottom up emergence.

factor a + factor b + factor c =more than the sum of factors a,b,c

Your personal incredulity is noted, but where's the gap?