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

[Consul]

You don't say

So you agree there's no simplistic, schematic Western philosophy versus Eastern philosophy?

That's your belief, and it was wrong a year ago, it was wrong six months ago, and it's wrong now. Of course we know that it can't explain it in principle in materialistic terms. Many people just don't think the issue through to realize this.

Of course we do not know that! I've thought the issue through, and I see no good reason to believe that the neuroscience of consciousness is doomed to failure.

QUOTE>
"The hard-problem view has a pinch of defeatism in it. I suspect that for some people it also has a pinch of religiosity. It is a keep-your-scientific-hands-off-my-mystery perspective. One conceptual difficulty with the hard-problem view is that it argues against any explanation of consciousness without knowing what explanations might arise. It is difficult to make a cogent argument against the unknown. Perhaps an explanation exists such that, once we see what it is, once we understand it, we will find that it makes sense and accounts for consciousness."

(Graziano, Michael S. Consciousness and the Social Brain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 7)
<QUOTE

[Skydude]

I fear that until we have A better understanding of the underlying physics of how the brain facilitates experiences then this question will remain unanswered.

[Skydude]

All energy including matter is information(something either is or isn't, everything is relative to something else) check out some stuff in the field of quantum neuroscience it's crazy interesting. There are Some theories that use patterns of quantum phenomena and the superposition of sub atomic particles to explain conciousness, integrative intelligence theory is one of them.

I'm not aware of a single successful research program which has used quantum physics to explain consciousness or any of the mechanisms which give rise to it. I see a lot of talk and a lot of speculation that often views into New Age nonsense, but nothing approaching real science. At least not yet. Maybe there have been recent developments that I'm not aware of, but that is unlikely given how closely I watch out for this stuff.

Well it is A term being used to describe the study of using neural networks(the communication process the brain uses) in the newest quantum computers. I brought it up because I am attempting to narrow down where we will be looking for evidence of emergent conciousness

[Atla]

Of course we do not know that! I've thought the issue through, and I see no good reason to believe that the neuroscience of consciousness is doomed to failure.

Sure, you didn't understand what materialism actually is, but don't talk for others.

[Atla]

I'm not aware of this. Let me make another request for scholarship: cite the father of cybernetics saying that information exists distinctly from matter or energy, in his own words.

Anyway fine, here is some Dennett quoting the father of cybernetics. Enough to watch 29:58-31:22 and 43:35-45:16.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZX6awZq5Z0

And this Four-Horseman-guy is supposed to be a role model for rationally thinking young people I guess. I think he even knows that he misrepresents what information is, but he's getting more publicity this way.

[Consul]

Sure, you didn't understand what materialism actually is, but don't talk for others.

What do you think materialism actually is?

[Terrapin Station]

First, energy only appears as matter in motion. So it's really dynamic matter.

You said this several times a long time ago in a different topic, when the world was very different to how it is today.

I never did understand how that view fits with the fact that when the government allows me to go outside I get a suntan.

What were you figuring that uv radiation was, exactly? "Just energy"?

[Steve3007]

What were you figuring that uv radiation was, exactly? "Just energy"?

Yes, that would be the conventional view, although I realize that doesn't necessarily make it ontologically accurate, even if it is instrumentally useful. That conventional view would be that the UV radiation comes in packets called photons and that each photon has zero rest-mass and an energy that is directly proportional to its frequency. Higher the frequency, higher the energy.

What are you figuring that it is?

[Terrapin Station]

What were you figuring that uv radiation was, exactly? "Just energy"?

Yes, that would be the conventional view, although I realize that doesn't necessarily make it ontologically accurate, even if it is instrumentally useful. That conventional view would be that the UV radiation comes in packets called photons and that each photon has zero rest-mass and an energy that is directly proportional to its frequency. Higher the frequency, higher the energy.

What are you figuring that it is?

"Just energy" is incoherent. It has to be something, it has to exist as something, it has to have a location, etc. Photons would be something. That they have "zero rest mass" is just a mathematical construction, especially given that photons aren't actually at rest. Photons ARE something. They're not "just energy."

[Steve3007]

"Just energy" is incoherent. It has to be something, it has to exist as something, it has to have a location, etc. Photons would be something. That they have "zero rest mass" is just a mathematical construction, especially given that photons aren't actually at rest. Photons ARE something. They're not "just energy."

The reason why you regard the statements "photons are just energy" and "photons are something" as incompatible is because you have decided to define energy as a property of objects with (rest) mass. You've decided to define it entirely as the kinetic energy of massive objects. You've previously stated that you don't consider, for example, potential energy to be real because of the use of the term "potential" in its name. You don't consider potentials to be real. Within your system, in which you define energy like that, you are right. But it's not the only system in town.

Do you accept that it's possible to define energy as something other than a property of objects with (rest) mass? If so, what, if any, problems would you see in doing that?

We've discussed this previously. E.g. here:
viewtopic.php?p=348798#p348798

[Steve3007]

Here's another one:
viewtopic.php?p=349339#p349339

As I recall, you did a lot of your "are you reifying an abstraction?" stuff.

[Terrapin Station]

The reason why you regard the statements "photons are just energy" and "photons are something" as incompatible is because you have decided to define energy as a property of objects with (rest) mass.

Nothing to do with "deciding to define" anything any way, and I wouldn't say that the idea of rest mass really makes sense in the first place, since nothing is really at rest. It has to do with conceivability. The notion of "just energy" where we're not talking about something having energy is incoherent. That's not a definitional matter. It's a coherence (a la conceivability) matter.

Do you accept that it's possible to define energy as something other than a property of objects with (rest) mass?

So, again, I don't even think that "rest mass" really makes sense. But sure, it's certainly possible to define things in ways that turn out to be incoherent ontologically. There are plenty of examples of that, especially when we define something purely mathematically. Again, I'm not saying anything about definitions per se. Definitions don't determine what the world is like (aside from definitions themselves). I'm talking about what things are independent of however we might think about them.

[Steve3007]

I wouldn't say that the idea of rest mass really makes sense in the first place, since nothing is really at rest.

Ok, let's leave "rest mass" for now and just talk about mass.

It has to do with conceivability. The notion of "just energy" where we're not talking about something having energy is incoherent. That's not a definitional matter. It's a coherence (a la conceivability) matter.

I see nothing incoherent and nothing inconceivable, unless we define energy as a property of something else, i.e. mass. If we do define it like that then yes, clearly it is incoherent to talk of a property of something existing in the absence of that something. But we don't have to define it like that.

There are plenty of examples of that, especially when we define something purely mathematically.

If it goes the same way as several previous conversations you'll just tell me I'm reifying mathematics and, again, we won't get past that point.

[Terrapin Station]

I see nothing incoherent and nothing inconceivable, unless we define energy as a property of something else, i.e. mass. If we do define it like that then yes, clearly it is incoherent to talk of a property of something existing in the absence of that something. But we don't have to define it like that.

Sure. So then as when people claim that they don't think that "nonphysical existents" is incoherent, you'd need to try to explain how it would be coherent to posit some sort of existent that's not a property of something or a property of the (dynamic) relations of things ("thing" here in the object/matter/"stuff" sense)

[Steve3007]

("thing" here in the object/matter/"stuff" sense)

So, in the current context, you define "thing" to mean the same as "mass", yes? i.e. in your usage, only a mass can be a thing?