Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gertie]

In my model of the 'world out there' there are other people who seem much like me. And our models are remarkably consistent. This forms our Shared Model. And when I ask you if you see a green apple, and you say yes, we can agree to say it's true - objectively. By which we mean we've compared notes, and they tally. And if I ask a hundred other people, and only one disagrees, then we might wonder if the problem lies with the one person disagreeing, than with our Shared Model, and check that out.

All good stuff Gertie, though here (in this paragraph) you seem to suggest that there is such a thing as a "shared model"; one that is on par with "your model" (perception) of the world.

If you have the perception of a green apple on the table, and you have the perception of 100 people all telling you that they also perceive the green apple on the table, then these are both still just your perception, not a "shared" perception (or model). A shared perception implies all these people (which you 'perceive') are 'real', and share the same perception, when in fact, all these people are merely only just figments within your perception.

Claiming that our perceptions are of 'real' things because our 'perceptions' tell us so, is non-sensical; (not logically sound). Example: the ghost that I experienced last night told me he was really real, therefore the ghost must be real -- is not logically sound, nor rationally valid.

Perceptions cannot logically vouch for themselves!

Yes I agree with you, sorry if my phrasing implied otherwise.

What I'm calling our 'Shared Model' (rather than 'objective reality') of the universe is nested within the caveats you mention. Of course every individual's model is unique, but there is enough crossover imo to talk about a Shared Model of the universe (so for example we can coherently communicate about 'green' 'apples' and 'seeing' and 'pointing', etc), and within that shared model lies notions of subjective opinion and objective/testable/empirical facts.

[RJG]

Saying that the subjectless universe is logically impossible is a bit provocative, but I stay with that claim.

Sorry Tam, but I don't see the logic. Can you show the logical connection; provide the missing premise(s)?

• P1. X does not perceive Y
  P2. (missing premise)
  C. Therefore Y does not exist.

What is P2? What logical connection are you making? Otherwise it simply seems to me that you are falsely equivocating "perceiving" with "existing" (i.e. mixing apples with oranges).

You can logically claim -- Therefore Y is not "perceived" by X. But you have no logical basis (that I can see) to claim -- Therefore Y does not "exist".

And is't it obvious that without us, our consciousness, there can be nothing?

Sorry, it is not obvious to me.

1. If you become unconscious, what happens to me? Do I suddenly stop existing?
2. When the dentist gives you anesthesia before pulling out your wisdom teeth, does the dentist then no longer exist?

[Tamminen]

I was asking about the difference between a human organism "in its early development" and a human later on, that a universe without the latter is logically impossible.
I was not asking about the differences between universes with and without conscious beings.

Sorry, I did not notice there was a straight question. As I said I have a holistic view on the universe and also on a human organism. If there is one human organism or any other organism in the universe that is a subject, then it is meaningful to speak of there being a universe, else not. This being of the subject defines the very meaning of existence, also the existence of material objects, which are only co-existent with conscious subjects. It is logically impossible to posit the being of something with which we have no kind of relationship, except as an internally inconsistent abstraction.

So a human organism is a totality with conscious and non-conscious phases, but its consciousness defines the world around it, also the being of the world. And if it is not conscious, others are, and if there are no others, there are no subjects, and there is nothing, which is absurd. Reductio ad absurdum. But the nonexistence of the hypothetical universe without subjects is a different kind of nonexistence than the nonexistence of an object in the world, like the nonexistence of unicorns or the nonexistence of a planet between Earth and Venus. The existence or nonexistence of the world only depends on the being or non-being of the subject, not on the other content of the world. This is also paradoxical, and therefore there can be only the universe we live in, the universe with subjects, our universe. All other universes are abstractions from our universe, like a unicorn is an abstraction from animals we know. But a unicorn is a much more rational abstraction than the universe without inhabitants.

Perhaps you wanted to ask something more specific?

[JamesOfSeattle]

What distinguishes a life form in early development from one later on, that only the latter is capable of making the universe exist by attracting this conscious presence?

What is the difference between the universe with conscious beings and the universe without conscious beings? It is the simple fact that the latter does not exist. Its being is not logically possible. As I replied to Gertie a few posts ago:

It is something like Wittgenstein's remark about dying: the world does not change, it only ceases to exist. So there are two kinds of possible nonexistence of the world: destroying the world and destroying the subject.

Saying that the subjectless universe is logically impossible is a bit provocative, but I stay with that claim. We cannot posit the being of a world where we are not in, or part of. It would lead to a reductio ad absurdum.

When Halc asked their question I thought they were asking what was the difference in the life form, not the difference in the universe with or without the life form. You then quote Wittgenstein as saying there are two types of existence, one which goes away by destroying the subject and one which goes away by destroying the world. I think most of us are talking about the latter kind when we say the moon existed before there was anyone to see it.

But to re-ask Halc’s question (or at least the question I want answered), at some point in time there came into existence the first conscious thing. From what I think you’ve been saying, only at that time can we talk about what came before. But in that before time there was something that got changed into the thing with subjective consciousness. Do you have any idea as to the nature of that change? Would you call it a physical change?

*

[Tamminen]

Sorry Tam, but I don't see the logic. Can you show the logical connection; provide the missing premise(s)?

P1. X does not perceive Y
P2. (missing premise)
C. Therefore Y does not exist.

What is P2? What logical connection are you making? Otherwise it simply seems to me that you are falsely equivocating "perceiving" with "existing" (i.e. mixing apples with oranges).

You can logically claim -- Therefore Y is not "perceived" by X. But you have no logical basis (that I can see) to claim -- Therefore Y does not "exist".

Sorry, it is not obvious to me.

1. If you because unconscious, what happens to me? Do I suddenly stop existing?

2. When the dentist gives you anesthesia before pulling out your wisdom teeth, does the dentist then no longer exist?

I am speaking of something a bit different and more fundamental. Of course you are right on what you say. But if you read for instance the reply I wrote to Halc a couple of minutes ago, you can perhaps get a better picture of what I mean.

[Tamminen]

When Halc asked their question I thought they were asking what was the difference in the life form, not the difference in the universe with or without the life form.

Yes, I missed that, but see my reply to Halc.

But to re-ask Halc’s question (or at least the question I want answered), at some point in time there came into existence the first conscious thing. From what I think you’ve been saying, only at that time can we talk about what came before. But in that before time there was something that got changed into the thing with subjective consciousness. Do you have any idea as to the nature of that change? Would you call it a physical change?

Yes, it surely was a physical change, necessary for there being consciousness in the world. See my reply to Halc and my other recent posts.

[JamesOfSeattle]

Erm, what I’m really interested in is the nature of the physical change. Did you answer that above, and if so, do you mind terribly summarizing?

*

[Gertie]

It strikes me this is a 'whole cloth' explanatory hypothesis, a paradigm shift, rather than one which builds from evidence based on how we currently think the universe works.

And such whole cloth re-interpretations which are untestable open the door to a multitude of competing speculations, with no apparent way to test one against another.

Would you agree with that, or am I missing something?

Yes, it is a paradigm shift in regard to the nowadays dominant materialistic and physicalistic way of thinking, but not in regard to the transcendentalist tradition of Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Wittgenstein an so on. And it does not conflict with empirical evidence, it is only a different ontological interpretation of them. Why the paradigm change is necessary is because it solves some of our most crucial existential problems, which the physicalistic approach cannot do: the problems of death and foreign minds for instance, which I have written about elsewhere on this forum. And is't it obvious that without us, our consciousness, there can be nothing? This should not be so difficult to see. Heidegger called this forgetting our existence 'falling' or 'thrownness into the world'. Meaning that we only see the world, not ourselves.

My interpretation leaves science where it is. I trust empirical science like a goat trusts in its horns. When I kick a stone, I feel the empirical facts in my foot. But there are no facts if I am not there, in one form or another, in the role of an ant for instance. If there were only ants in the universe, the universe would only exist in relation to some individual ant at a time, and each of them in proper time and place. This is what I have called 'presence'. So when I use the word 'I' it does not mean only my personal subjecthood, but subjecthood in general, which manifests itself as individual subjects.

This is a strong interpretation, I admit, and I do not expect that anyone accepts it straightaway, but I do not see why the importance and fundamental role of consciousness is so difficult to see. One can also draw different metaphysical conclusions from it as long as the basic idea of the subject-object interdependence is accepted.

Tam I just drafted a long detailed response, but on reflection I think it will just lead us to going round in the old circles, and you've plenty on your plate at the mo

Let me know if you want to see it, otherwise I'll probably leave it there.

[Tamminen]

Erm, what I’m really interested in is the nature of the physical change. Did you answer that above, and if so, do you mind terribly summarizing?

I do not know the details of the physical change needed for matter to become conscious, and I guess no one knows. Perhaps it has something to do with the possibility of managing information for the arising consciousness. But I claim that consciousness, or the subject, is there already as a potentiality of using that information. My view is more like an ontological standpoint than a clear view on the concrete situation. But you have a point: evidence is needed.

If you have your own theory of this change, which I have understood you might have, I can imagine I can accept it without changing my ontological views. But I guess our metaphysical interpretations would be different.

[Wayne92587]

JamesOfSeattle;

at some point in time there came into existence the first conscious thing, only at that time can we talk about what came before. But in that before time there was something that got changed into the thing with subjective consciousness. Do you have any idea as to the nature of that change? Would you call it a physical change?

The physical change that brought consciousness into existence was a Creation.

Mortal Man, Mankind, he and she, is born of Flesh and Bone, is born Bare-Ass Naked, worthless.

Man born of the dust of the ground, the evolutionary process is born Bare, unfinished, scantily supplied, with nothing left over, Incomplete, with nothing added, without amplification or adornment, is born lacking any tool or weapon, Is born worthless, lacking a natural, appropriated covering, obsolete, is born unfinished, lacking clothing, is born destitute, obsolete, is born flawed relative to his and her potentiality, is born Bare Headed, is not born Conscious.

[Wayne92587]

Consciousness is not physical, it is Spiritual, born of thin Air, is a Creation.

[Tamminen]

Tam I just drafted a long detailed response, but on reflection I think it will just lead us to going round in the old circles, and you've plenty on your plate at the mo

Let me know if you want to see it, otherwise I'll probably leave it there.

If it is as long as you mentioned, it must contain some new ideas, so post it and I'll read it when I have time.

[Gertie]

You'll have to explain Bell's Theorem to me and how it's relevant, as I've never heard of it.

Wiki page is poorly written, but has useful parts. I'll quote a bit of it in italics.

"In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
It means that no matter how complicated your interpretation, the basic tenets of physical theory (Realism: stuff is real, with state. Locality: earlier events cause later effects, confined by light speed) cannot be all correct.

From history section:
"In the early 1930s, the philosophical implications of the current interpretations of quantum theory troubled many prominent physicists of the day, including Albert Einstein. In a well-known 1935 paper, Boris Podolsky and co-authors Einstein and Nathan Rosen (collectively "EPR") sought to demonstrate by the EPR paradox that quantum mechanics was incomplete. This provided hope that a more complete (and less troubling) theory might one day be discovered. But that conclusion rested on the seemingly reasonable assumptions of locality and realism (together called "local realism" or "local hidden variables", often interchangeably). In the vernacular of Einstein: locality meant no instantaneous ("spooky") action at a distance; realism meant the moon is there even when not being observed. These assumptions were hotly debated in the physics community, notably between Einstein and Niels Bohr.

In his groundbreaking 1964 paper, "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox", physicist John Stewart Bell presented an analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to EPR's hypothetical paradox. Using their reasoning, he said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa). After providing a mathematical formulation of locality and realism based on this, he showed specific cases where this would be inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics theory."

Effectively, one of locality or realism is wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that Halc. Unfortunately I'm so ignorant about physics and even basic QM I'm still struggling. But I can go with this nutshell version you kindly supplied -

It means that no matter how complicated your interpretation, the basic tenets of physical theory (Realism: stuff is real, with state. Locality: earlier events cause later effects, confined by light speed) cannot be all correct.

Onward!

The first way out of this pickle is to discard Lorentz invariance, or locality (short for local relativistic causality). Lorentz transformations are used to translate coordinates and reorder events (points in spacetime) from one inertial reference frame to another. One physical principle is that cause must precede effect, regardless of reference frame. The "regardless of reference frame" bit is Lorentz invariance. Without that, cause and effect might be ambiguously ordered, or worse, unambiguously effect-before-cause as demonstrated by strange experiments like before-before where measurements are affected by future choices not yet made.

The other one discusses realism, or what is now more formally known as 'counterfactual definiteness', which has its own (better written) wiki page. It is "the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured". The apple exists even if not measured. This is not so much the idealistic idea that the apple blinks out when you close your eyes, since QM says it is very likely still there. It is talking about something that has never been measured by us like planet Claire 8 billion light years away. Realism says that despite our lack of knowledge or measurement of it, there is in fact a specific planet located nearest to some arbitrary point that we define from here, like 8BLY thataway. Interpretations that discard counterfactual definiteness deny this fact. There is just superposition of possible nearest planets, all of which have a probability that is negligible, yet finite.

OK, so QM suggests that our classical notions of serial cause and effect don't hold at quantum levels, if 'realism' (stuff exists independently of observation/measurement) is true. And vice versa. They're mutually exclusive. Have I got that right?

Then a claim that 'stuff' exists independent of observation could be correct, but it would mean that the classical notion of serial cause and effect would be wrong. So events that occured in the independently existing universe before conscious beings evolved could be caused 'forward and backwards' - including by the future existence of conscious observers?

[Gertie]

Tam I just drafted a long detailed response, but on reflection I think it will just lead us to going round in the old circles, and you've plenty on your plate at the mo

Let me know if you want to see it, otherwise I'll probably leave it there.

If it is as long as you mentioned, it must contain some new ideas, so post it and I'll read it when I have time.

Heh turns out I copied it from the reply box, but didn't remember to paste it elsewhere before I then copied Halc to reply to her/him, so my wisdom is lost to the world . Nothing especially original re our previous convos I'm afraid, which is why I decided to ditch it in the end.

[Wayne92587]

I have no argument with your post except for you conclusion.
You can take nothing pertaining to QM as being fact.


Gerti;

OK, so QM suggests that our classical notions of serial cause and effect don't hold at quantum levels, if 'realism' (stuff exists independently of observation/measurement) is true. And vice versa. They're mutually exclusive. Have I got that right?

Then a claim that 'stuff' exists independent of observation could be correct,

Wayne, wrong.

Wayne, true.

but it would mean that the classical notion of serial cause and effect would be wrong. So events that occured in the independently existing universe before conscious beings evolved could be caused 'forward and backwards' - including by the future existence of conscious observers?

Wayne, wrong.