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

[value]

As "perceived" is equivalent to "experienced", no there is no difference.

You forgot the 'in-the-moment' part. The underline should have been experienced in time in-the-moment i.e. 'time as experience'. That experience has no scientific explanation as of today.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

[Sculptor1]

As "perceived" is equivalent to "experienced", no there is no difference.

You forgot the 'in-the-moment' part. The underline should have been experienced in time in-the-moment i.e. 'time as experience'. That experience has no scientific explanation as of today.

Yes it does.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

This does not help your claim

[Pattern-chaser]

Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.

I think we all doubt it. But the lesson here, surely, is that both the whale and the petunias are possible? Even though we believe the chance of these things occurring is very small indeed, we also believe that the probability is non-zero: it is possible.

Seriously?
Did you really mean to say that?

It's my understanding that anything might emerge from the 'quantum foam', although the chances of it happening are very tiny. Even the whale or the petunias. [That's why H2G2 was so funny.] So yes, "seriously".

[Sculptor1]

Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.

I think we all doubt it. But the lesson here, surely, is that both the whale and the petunias are possible? Even though we believe the chance of these things occurring is very small indeed, we also believe that the probability is non-zero: it is possible.

Seriously?
Did you really mean to say that?

It's my understanding that anything might emerge from the 'quantum foam', although the chances of it happening are very tiny. Even the whale or the petunias. [That's why H2G2 was so funny.] So yes, "seriously".

Well what I know is that my coffee is actually emerging from the foam on the top.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's my understanding that anything might emerge from the 'quantum foam', although the chances of it happening are very tiny. Even the whale or the petunias. [That's why H2G2 was so funny.] So yes, "seriously".

Well what I know is that my coffee is actually emerging from the foam on the top.

And yet, if our Big Bang theory is correct, our entire universe emerged, apparently uncaused, from the 'quantum foam', i.e., from nothing (or seemingly so). If that doesn't give you problems, it's difficult to see what your objections to the spontaneous appearance of a bowl of petunias might be.

[Sculptor1]

It's my understanding that anything might emerge from the 'quantum foam', although the chances of it happening are very tiny. Even the whale or the petunias. [That's why H2G2 was so funny.] So yes, "seriously".

Well what I know is that my coffee is actually emerging from the foam on the top.

And yet, if our Big Bang theory is correct, our entire universe emerged, apparently uncaused, from the 'quantum foam', i.e., from nothing (or seemingly so). If that doesn't give you problems, it's difficult to see what your objections to the spontaneous appearance of a bowl of petunias might be.

Maybe. I wasn't there. And in any event the BB can only include the observable universe.
Humans have such arrogance that they have declared the ultimate cosmology since Aristotle, they all claimed to be right and they were all wrong. I think that another one of the competing cosmologies we already have might supersede that one.
And bowls of petunias do not spontaneously appear. Induction might be flawed but it is all we have.

[GE Morton]

It's my understanding that anything might emerge from the 'quantum foam', although the chances of it happening are very tiny. Even the whale or the petunias. [That's why H2G2 was so funny.] So yes, "seriously".

Well what I know is that my coffee is actually emerging from the foam on the top.

And yet, if our Big Bang theory is correct, our entire universe emerged, apparently uncaused, from the 'quantum foam', i.e., from nothing (or seemingly so). If that doesn't give you problems, it's difficult to see what your objections to the spontaneous appearance of a bowl of petunias might be.

Apparently, perhaps, but not necessarily. There is the cyclic theory, per which the universe cycles between expansion and contraction phases. The current expansion is due to the presence of "dark energy," the force of which overcomes the gravitational attraction of matter. But perhaps when the matter density falls below a certain point the dark energy begins to dissipate, gravity takes over, and the "Big Crunch" begins. That and the Big Bang are the transition points in that endless cycle.

https://www.accessscience.com/content/c ... ory/176017

[Pattern-chaser]

And bowls of petunias do not spontaneously appear. Induction might be flawed but it is all we have.

We have no recorded observations of bowls of petunias spontaneously appearing. Your conclusion (above) proves to be a good example of the shortcomings of induction, I think. You assume that, because we have never seen something happen in the past, that it will not happen in the future. Isn't that a somewhat blinkered view? And maybe illogical too?

[Sculptor1]

And bowls of petunias do not spontaneously appear. Induction might be flawed but it is all we have.

We have no recorded observations of bowls of petunias spontaneously appearing. Your conclusion (above) proves to be a good example of the shortcomings of induction, I think. You assume that, because we have never seen something happen in the past, that it will not happen in the future. Isn't that a somewhat blinkered view? And maybe illogical too?

Not particularly no.

[Sculptor1]

And bowls of petunias do not spontaneously appear. Induction might be flawed but it is all we have.

We have no recorded observations of bowls of petunias spontaneously appearing. Your conclusion (above) proves to be a good example of the shortcomings of induction, I think. You assume that, because we have never seen something happen in the past, that it will not happen in the future. Isn't that a somewhat blinkered view? And maybe illogical too?

Have you ever expected the fridge to make your food cold?
Have you ever expected your car to start in the morning, or conversely expected it to start when you have not put petrol in it??
I know what your answers to these question are, and I know how much you rely on induction.

[Pattern-chaser]

Have you ever expected the fridge to make your food cold?
Have you ever expected your car to start in the morning, or conversely expected it to start when you have not put petrol in it??
I know what your answers to these question are, and I know how much you rely on induction.

Why are you asking, when you already "know what [my] answers to these question are"? Are you talking to yourself?


Do you acknowledge the difference between what is expected and what is possible?

[Sculptor1]

Have you ever expected the fridge to make your food cold?
Have you ever expected your car to start in the morning, or conversely expected it to start when you have not put petrol in it??
I know what your answers to these question are, and I know how much you rely on induction.

Why are you asking, when you already "know what [my] answers to these question are"? Are you talking to yourself?


Do you acknowledge the difference between what is expected and what is possible?

Yes.
Your problem is that you seem not to be able to conceive of the impossible.
The case of the spontaneous generation of petunias is in that category.

[Pattern-chaser]

Have you ever expected the fridge to make your food cold?
Have you ever expected your car to start in the morning, or conversely expected it to start when you have not put petrol in it??

Do you acknowledge the difference between what is expected and what is possible?

Your problem is that you seem not to be able to conceive of the impossible.
The case of the spontaneous generation of petunias is in that category.

In this context, "impossible" and "certain" are the same thing, but opposite. One asserts that an event cannot and will never occur, the other asserts that an event must and will always occur. In my view, both are pretty rare. Not unknown, but pretty rare.

Things get more difficult when we consider events that we consider to be very unlikely. The temptation is always there to label them "impossible" instead of "very unlikely", because that enables us to dismiss them, and have one thing less to worry about.

But to say that something is impossible, or certain, seems, logically, to demand conclusive evidence. In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to see how any such event can/could logically be deemed "impossible" or "certain". If there should exist clear contradictory evidence, then perhaps such a verdict can be justified, but in the absence of such evidence — maybe in the absence of any/all evidence — no valid conclusion can be logically reached.

As for the specific example of the bowl of petunias, it is my understanding that quantum theory — science's most successful theory ever — allows for its emergence, even though the same theory seems to indicate that such an event would be very unlikely. If I am incorrectly reporting my own misunderstanding of QM, fair enough. But I believe that what I'm saying here is in accord with QM. That is to say, if our best current understanding of the spacetime universe is valid — a very big "if", I admit — then a bowl of petunias could possibly emerge in your living room, or in Earth's upper atmosphere.

[Sculptor1]

Have you ever expected the fridge to make your food cold?
Have you ever expected your car to start in the morning, or conversely expected it to start when you have not put petrol in it??

Do you acknowledge the difference between what is expected and what is possible?

Your problem is that you seem not to be able to conceive of the impossible.
The case of the spontaneous generation of petunias is in that category.

In this context, "impossible" and "certain" are the same thing, but opposite. One asserts that an event cannot and will never occur, the other asserts that an event must and will always occur. In my view, both are pretty rare. Not unknown, but pretty rare.

This is not a serious response.

Things get more difficult when we consider events that we consider to be very unlikely. The temptation is always there to label them "impossible" instead of "very unlikely", because that enables us to dismiss them, and have one thing less to worry about.

But to say that something is impossible, or certain, seems, logically, to demand conclusive evidence. In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to see how any such event can/could logically be deemed "impossible" or "certain". If there should exist clear contradictory evidence, then perhaps such a verdict can be justified, but in the absence of such evidence — maybe in the absence of any/all evidence — no valid conclusion can be logically reached.

As for the specific example of the bowl of petunias, it is my understanding that quantum theory — science's most successful theory ever — allows for its emergence, even though the same theory seems to indicate that such an event would be very unlikely. If I am incorrectly reporting my own misunderstanding of QM, fair enough. But I believe that what I'm saying here is in accord with QM. That is to say, if our best current understanding of the spacetime universe is valid — a very big "if", I admit — then a bowl of petunias could possibly emerge in your living room, or in Earth's upper atmosphere.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is not a serious response.

Unless my understanding of QM is faulty — Richard Feynman said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't." — mine is very much a serious response. This is not an intellectual ivory-tower plaything we're considering, it's real life, and the real spacetime universe. It does no good to consider these possibilities in a philosophy forum, and then return to our own everyday prejudices afterward. Either this stuff is applicable in and to the real world, or what's the point in discussing it?

AFAIK, my response is serious and correct. But I cannot help you to accept it, if you are disposed to do otherwise.