tonylang wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 9:27 am The LINE hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis for the axiom; Individuality exists and it is naturally mobile throughout this universe. Given the current state of scientific understanding the only exhibit of evidence for individuality that can be offered to you, is you. So it falls upon each of us to decide if oneself is an individual or not. Further, each instance of life, to any other instance of life, is only an extrapolation or an assumption of individuality currently based upon appearance and behavior.OK
The affirmation of ones' own individuality, at least for most reasonable minded individuals can be accounted for. If we agree to the axiom that you and perhaps I as well as every other discernibly living entity is an individual instance of life then this conversation as challenging as it may be toward strongly held beliefs or ideologies may proceed.My own views on the 'Self' or experiential 'Me' aren't mainstream, in as much as I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to think in terms of An Experiencer (Subject) having (verb) Experience (Object). Or analogously a Radio (Noun) recieving (verb) Radiowaves (Object).
Rather it seems to me that the evidence based on neural correlation suggests that when certain very complex physical systems (perhaps only biological neural systems/brains) are in motion there is some mechanism (perhaps law-like) which via evolutionary utility somehow creates a unified, discrete field of consciousness. A singular specific first person Me-Here-Now pov, which correlates with a specific body. This much makes sense evolutionarily, in aiding complex critters like humans with gazillions of interacting neurons competing for conscious 'attention' to be able to coherently navigate the world. The 'somehow' of those binding and filtering processes which construct a unified Sense of Self is part of the mind-body problem.
No aspect of the modern scientific understanding of biology or its empirical descriptions is being challenged. The cell and the verifiable aspects of its biological evolution are as science currently describes them. The LINE hypothesis begins where the modern scientific narrative admittedly, voluntarily abstains and, traditionally, religions are permitted to fill what is arguably the most important of all voids, and likely the only void any living being may actually care most about. That is, the natural mechanisms governing the instantiation of life. It is for this reason that humankind has fought and prayed for a time far longer than science itself has existed. It is much overdue for the narrative to be extended not by mysticism or ideological entrenchment but by well reasoned, steely objective thought, because clearly not just some, but all of nature is ultimately science.Agreed. My only caveat here, and it's relevant, is the focus on Life, rather than Conscious Experience. It's phenomenal 'what it is like' Experience which brings meaning into the universe, and to being a Me.
And because of the qualiative and private nature of Experience (as opposed to cells), it looks impervious to direct scientific enquiry which relies on observation and measurement. That's why, as you say, we have to make assumptions about how others experience things (not just in terms of individuality, but in terms of 'inverted qualia' too). In fact we have to assume others are conscious at all. So our assumptions are necessarily based on similarity of observable behaviour and substrate (living bodies with brains similar to ours, critters yelping and withdrawing from pain, etc). We can't know non-biological entities like rocks and toasters don't have experience, or other living things like carrots - we can only assume it based on them being so different behaviourally and in substrate. This is the Hard Problem Chalmers talks about.
Your position starts from assumptions too. But without being able to answer the particular questions the nature of experience gives rise to, plausibility remains the test, when our basis for plausibilty about these fundamental questions is obscured to the scientific method. This is where Science meets Philosophy of Mind. And empiricism is left to simply noting physical stuff, behaviours, and perhaps our biggest clue - neural correlation.
The LINE hypothesis suggests that each life is an instance of a specific individual.Re - 'specific individual', the cases you and I can speak from authority on are our own. And when we compare notes it seems for humans at least it's something like this to be a human Me -
An experiential 'what it is like' sense of being a unified self with a discrete, unified field of consciousness with a specific first person pov, which correlates with a specific body moving through space and time.
So your hypothesis has to address this key element of the specific first person pov correlating with a specific body. And even more specifically now we have the technology - neural correlation.
Maybe you're right and there are a series of underlying misconceptions in the way we interpret these correlations. But whatever underlying explanation would have to lay out how this apparent correlation comes about, and why the obvious conclusion that there is some underlying (mind-body) relationship between the specific experience and the specific physical substrate is less plausible than yours.
Also, the natural process that instantiates an individual to that host (i.e. species) is independent of the specific biology, chemistry (i.e. carbon, silicon etc.) or technological principles upon which such forms may be evolved, implemented or depend for function or for its local evolution. Therefore, any individual may instantiate (live) in any viable form in any viable environment in this universe. Ergo Earth is not special.But what about neural correlation?
1-Individual life (you) is species independent.Again - but what about neural correlation? A dog's brain is different to a human brain. If neural correlation holds, as it apears to, then human experience is different to a dog's. And this is born out by our observations of behaviour. Eg dogs don't talk, dogs fancy other dogs, dogs can't do calculus or paint, - so they don't have my 'what it's like experience' of being human - because their biological substrate kit is different.
2-The natural process that places you or any living being in the life they currently live is not dependent upon any particular chemistry, biology, species or form, evolved or otherwise. Just as for example, memory, or intelligence does not depend upon any particular brand or type of technology for its implementation. That is to say, memory is abstracted from its implementation. Likewise, in nature is the individual life abstracted from any specific implementation of host form, or species.Are you suggesting something akin to 'spirits' as experiential entities which attach to this or that biological body (according to the science you've outlined), while remaining unchanged? That when this current body of mine's cells all die I might re-attach to a tree or frog? Or would I remain attached to the cells as they decompose, until the decomposed parts become part of new living cells? Or...?
The belief that you are your body stems from a lack of an alternative perspective and supporting evidence as well as from tradition also from the powerful visual perspective imposed by sight and a prominent physical form. It is as much a misperception as was humankinds' long-held belief in the Earth-centric universe. Likewise, it is a very convincing visual misconception only made more so by the advent of biology and genetic science which describe the evolution and development of the physical forms presently on Earth. This misconception is further compounded by the very illogical belief, held even by educated individuals, that the function and operation of the brain defines ones' individuality in nature. Clearly, this last point cannot be so since most life forms on Earth do not have a brain and are not even multi-cellular.Maybe, but you're potentially describing a very different universe to the one physics, which relies on these types of observations you dismiss as misconceptions, describes. Plus - neural correlation.
Do you conceive of an in principle way to test the hypothesis?