A polite site for those interested in discussing questions about science, religion and philosophy. Its aim to facilitate learning and understanding about the world.
Hello, Boltonian, Nothing specifically about Free Will from me today, but here's a quick message to let you know that I've bookmarked your blog, the one you mentioned in CiF on Monday, 26th March.
I'm glad you've got it up and running and I look forward to reading more of your blogs. This one on Free Will is a major brain teaser and will be a very fruitful topic of discussion. I hope it encourages others from CiF to carry on those fascinating discussions that sadly wind up after 3 days. The topics are just too wide-ranging and fascinating to be treated with justice on CiF, but I do like the fact that Theo Hobson addresses issues that get everybody up in arms and airing their opinions and knowledge about these crucial matters, in my opinion.
Vis-a-vis the subjects discussed on CiF, I particularly appreciated the threads where you discussed such matters as Cosmology with Space Penguin and others. This adds a new dimension (no pun intended) to discussions of metaphysics for me. Until recently, I've been interested in the more dogmatic aspects of the debate on secularism and faith, but I think there's a tendency for arguments on this aspect to become hackneyed and sterile.
I'm keen, however, to branch out into the more philosophical and scientific foundations of this subject. I look forward to reading more of your stuff and to commenting on it.
Thanks again for taking the initiative and setting up this blog.
Just stopped in to bookmark your blog. I have enjoyed your comments on Cif and look forward to more of the same. A quick bite and back to my tractor, best of luck with this blog.
Hi boltonian, just looking in to say that I found your blogspot. I just found the CIF the other day really interesting, so i 'll try to keep tabs on this, though 'll mainly be reading everyone else's posts, or asking questions!...cheers.
I thought we'd start with free will as that was raised by Krapotkin. This is really only a starter for 10. No rules, except manners, and let's just go wherever it takes us.
If anybody spots Spacepenguin anywhere on Cif could you let him know where we are.
I must get back to work now but I will post something later today.
If the laws of physics (whatever they turn out to be) are fixed and immutable how can we not live in a determined world?
So, masses and forces are fixed for each quantum entity. If this is so then all of our being, which is made up of these things must behave accordingly.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle might or might not allow variation to this (because we don't really understand why it is as it seems to be). How does the observer interact with the quantum world and does it really exist only as a potentiality of all possible states until observed?
Our definition of free will is governed by consciousness. We believe (all of us) that we have, to a certain extent, a conscious ability to exercise choice. How much choice is a subject for much debate but we all agree that we have some choice as to how we behave.
This trait, I suggest, is a survival mechanism that we have developed. Without an ability to choose there is no morality and without this we would have wiped ourselves out by now, as other hominids might have done already.
The more we understand about genetics the less real choice we appear to have.
If I am right and we inhabit a completely determined world how would we respond to this knowledge?
This might lead on to a discussion about the nature of consciousness. What is it?
Much of what you say I'll go along with, especially as genetics is moving apace and showing us more about how we operate.
The survival mechanism I most certainly go with, being a Darwinian I don't have much choice there!
However, predetermined world is an exploration we need to have. Let us assume that the moment the Big Bang occured an atom or two was inevtably going to end up in our solar syetem, by its very nature that would seem so. Let us assume that the laws of nature are immutable, for the moment at least, at least physically.
Let us assume that that evolutiion has taken us to where we are as a species capable of thought, analysis etc. And then lets look at choices.
I have no doubt that every choice we make is governed by the external agents acting around us. I am beginnig to se that we are a to all intents and purposes a chemical computer with one aim, to pass on our genes to the ensure the survival of the species. Although one way or another I've thought along those lines for a decades.
And then lets look at the possibilty that we are, to our knowledge, the one species capable of changing the rules of our own existance. That by either self interest and/or co-operation we can change the moment. As I've posted before we are in my view creatures of the moment we exist in, the influences around at that moment and the desired result. Even if 99% of the choice/decision was taken up by logical deduction of facts and influences, it may still leave a critical 1% of free choice to conclude the action.
I would suggest we have that 1% choice. I can understand the notion that that its predetermined, but I would suggest that at any given time logical deduction of facts is determined by what view one has of morality, the cultural priorites that are inherent in ones social and cultural upbringing, genetic inheritance etc. Ones mans meat etc.
There is also the horny subject of temperament, character whatever phrase one wishes to apply. The optimost and the pessamist. That state of mind can and does (trust me I've been there) alter the choice, the perception of what one sees. It is not predetermined because (although I can think of a way to say it is!). It is to some extend random in nature, its perception of a single moment in time.
Its been a contention of mine for about a decade that philosophy only deals with a straight line logicalal trail, it does not deal with mental states to well. The ups and downs of existance.
So even if the theory of the chemical/electrical actions that our brain acts upon is correct, then it has to be able to accept arbitrary incidents, otherwise people wouldn't make such stupid choices at times would they?
I would suggest that within the parameters of the external agents acting on the momnet we have a free will and determine our own futures, unlike other speices as far as we know.
Finally, for now, I'd also like to point back to the Nietze quote about believing we are here for a purpose. That ,I think, has a great deal to do with why we need reasons, they don't have to be religious, they can be scientific and rational, but my point would be that we seem to be unable to take on board that simple survival and passing on our genes is the only actual reason we have for existance. What we make of it is our choice.
Okay then ladies and gentlemen, tear it to bits that's the idea!
This is going to sound like a bit of a ramble. Let's say that your actual 1% of choice is correct for the moment. If we ever managed to prove this I suggest it would have a serious effect on our well-being as a species because I would be 99% not responsible for my actions and who will say which is the 1%?
Second point. Einstein once said that time was not real, even though his relativity theories depended on something called 'Spacetime.'
I agree. There is no objective past, only one's own memory, which, as we know, is not always reliable in terms of accuracy of recall. Certainly mine is not these days. If we had all attended a music concert together last night we would each have a different memory of the event (I don't mean the quality of the music) in terms of size of orchestra, colour of the decor, type of lighting etc. So, who is right. Even a battery of camers cannot capture the whole thing.
There is no future because it has not yet happened.
But the present does not exist either because there is not a moment which is neither past nor future, so time cannot exist.
How, then, does this square with your suggestion that we live in the moment?
Temperament is interesting but why is that not a genetic inheritance? 100% of me comes from two people.
If we are 100% a chemical computer, what is consciousness? Where is it? And what is its purpose?
We make stupid choices because we do not have all the information we need. Our chemical computer is of limited capacity and most of it is used to keep us alive.
I would like you to expand on the bit about the limitations of philosophy if you could.
I accept that seeking a purpose in life is fairly fundamental to many of us - you can see it on CiF, among the atheists as well as the religious, but why is that? How does that confer a benefit? And, not everybody has it - if it is important to us - why not?
Must go and eat now. BTW how was your dinner last night, K?
Sapient Lunatic was my xbox name for a while, {I use that name no more ;} so I will go with that. No slant intended to Sapient because I can see his wisdom. {You all speak so well ;}
Just found CiF today. The mediocre article with the great debate... I think this is more in line with what should happen. {of course it should be noted that you don't own blogger and that could lead tooo... issues. Setting up a blog with an account hosted by Dreamhost is easy and I always liked the name... There are many other good hosts out there as well :}
I am curious about this Spacepenguin you speak of. And Being that I am part Sapient I hope that he shows up. You all seem very intelligent/ interesting/ loving/ Truth Seeking... and I am looking forward to delving into such discussion with you.
I Know Nothing was my Answer to the Question of Life. In time it actually became the Question... For that I am very grateful...
And as to the question of whether FreeWill exists or not my personal opinion is that it does... if you believe in it. But you can also give it up. god may even give it back if you ask the sky.
no more time for now.
{OK. a little...}
Ever read Plotinus? He thought he knew something or some god that GOD didn't know...
He may have been right and he may have been wrong. Any thoughts?
hi boltonian, I said I'd drop by, so I have. this one's too much for me though (maybe - I'll think about it). what I'm really interested in is how to get our species off the path to extinction and on the path to evolution; more specifically, just as an example, can we continue to have economic growth indefinitely, or even for the next couple of generations. is it growth that will ultimately kill us - and if so, how do we change it if corporate power wants it? is this the kind of stuff you might cover, or is it too political - not really science, religion or philosophy? surely it's philosophy? Just had an incredibly conversation with a guy in japan who disagreed with me - love to drag him into a discussion like that.
S - although I have not read Plotinus (must do one day) I am aware of his 'One' idea. I assume that must have been an influence on Schopenhauer, whose 'Blind will to exist' had a similar quality. Spacepenguin, by the way, is a very wise bird and I hope he comes along at some point.
Y - we will go wherever the discussion takes us. For me, this is also a fascinating topic but I will need a bit of time to get my thoughts together. Perhaps others might have a view. Your Japanese friend would be very welcome to join us.
B, dinner eatable thanks, order what you want, take what you get! Thats the steppes!
Will read and digest over the day and think how to respond. If we take care here we may even come close to a workable theory!
Limits of philosophy, well you can drive logic down most any road according to your belief system for one.
Stupid decisons, well I'm not soi sure with the point about not having all the info, I watch people drive cars here in a way that woukd stun you and as each incident occurs they have as all the info required to make the correct choice, but don't. Selfeshness, bravado etc.
Any driver here so gotta go for now Have a nice day all.
Token atheist here to keep the pot stirring, great to debate with youyesterday Boltanian, Have bookmarked this and look forward to rigorise debate in the future! Will respond your last post yesterday soon.
>Interestingly, we are able to predict or anticipate our own decisions. Work by physiology professor Benjamin Libet at the University of California shows that neural activity to initiate an action actually occurs about a third of a second before the brain has made the decision to take the action. The implication, according to Libet, is that the decision is really an illusion, "consciousness is out of the loop".<
Pttp, that’s interesting, didn’t know that, maybe implies we have a third of a second of free will!? I think Susan Blackmore and Jack (?) Dennett are getting to that conclusion as well. Fascinating. Can you be a bat, was Nagels way of looking at it I seem to remember.
I’d just like to make a point here, I think it would be good if we can attempt to be accessible in what we put forward. I notice one or two people seem to think this is a bit beyond them. Please, no it isn’t, all views are valid, all lines are worthy of exploring, neither science nor philosophy has much consensus on this issue. Maybe we can find a step forward between us.
I say this because I think science/skeptics called ‘em what you will, have made a bit of a pigs ear of making the case to the public on a series of issues, from climate change to stem cells to GM food. I reason that this has led to a rise in faith based belief systems. In the US its actually got hold of political power and a huge % of people think the worlds 6,000 years old. Very scary. Islam also has political power although I would suggest that’s more to do with culture shock having lived in Saudi and Iraq 20 years ago. Either way the case for the ‘Age of Reason’ needs to made in a way accessible to all. I used a balloon with glitter in it to show my child what the big bang was, silly but it worked better than try to explain how the galaxies are moving away from each other and what dark matter might be.
I recently took a deliberately more skeptical line on climate change on CiF, man I got abused up hill and down dale. I predicted it would happen. What got me was that the shear vitriol flying around in the guise of fact. I know a Prof in Russia who is adamant that we do not consider the ‘aggressiveness of the sun over the past century”. It’s a point of view from a learned man with no axe to grind. Some seem determined not to allow that voice. But that’s something we can debate another day. I just ask for tolerance and consideration of positions in way that can be clearly understood, even if not agreed with.
That brings me to another reason I think this is a valuable exercise. We all have to make choices, illusory or predetermined they might be, to us they are ‘real’. I am a father a bit late in life, (I thought we were kissing, but then what would I know!), I have to decide soon where my child is raised and educated, Russia? UK? Spain? Whatever. Debates like this assist in helping make the choice. Having an IQ that can get me into MENSA by the way, didn’t stop me making a catastrophically bad decision 15 years ago. So being smart isn’t all its cracked up to be. The cost emotionally and financially took years to overcome. It was only an evening class in philosophy/sociology, (a choice I think I made!) because the alternative was to live in a black hole in my head and I wanted answers. I chose to act rather than slide. Education as cognitive therapy in retrospect. The lecturer got me into a well know Uni as a mature student, now that was an easy choice as I couldn’t see another way, well I could but that was a bit severe! Hence my comment B about how you perceive things at a given time, Susan Blackmore’s Mary the colour scientist is an interesting analogy.
So knowledge for its own sake is a very useful tool to deal with the tomorrow that might arrive soon. So thanks for the patience as I dribbled that out, but I truly welcome the chance to have contact with home and debate matters I’m removed from here, bit of an isolated life at times, Stranger in a Strange Land as Heinlein wrote, no matter how long I’ve been here!
And a final thought B, Einstein as you raised him, also used the word god. As a theologian threw at me one day Hawking, Darwin and Einstein all used the word and were believers. I suggest its how you look at it. Darwin knew the storm he or Wallace would create when one of them published, Einstein lived in a world where religion was still a powerful lobby, as did Darwin, and Hawking used it for dramatic effect I suggest. All a matter of perception, all a matter of the times.
I keep having these thoughts and they’re only half a second old!! Is there a duality in all this, two differing perspectives that may explain. Is there no true link between matter and mind, or is one simply the result of the other? Is there a gulf between the natural laws of the universe and how we perceive what we see?
Welcome and thanks for joining us. I doubt you will be the only atheist.
pttp
Interesting. Does this not strengthen the case for determinism, or have I misunderstood?
I would just like to endorse what K has said about contributors. I doubt any of us are 'Experts' in every (or in my case any)field but that should not prevent us from floating ideas, asking questions and even voicing strong opinions. For me this is about exploration and challenging my own prejudices as much as offering opinions and thoughts.
I agree that it is important to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Climate change, evolution, the certainty of scientific theory etc.
Back to the subject.
If consciousness is not a decision-making tool what is its purpose? In fact, what is it? Some scientists specialising in this area (Churchland, for example)think that it is nothing more than a feature of the brain function as a parallel processing machine. We can't isolate it because it does not live in any specific part of the brain. I must say that he didn't produce sufficient evidence for me to make his argument conclusive.
What are the alternatives, though? Is it a separate, non-material part of our make-up? If so, how do we get hold of it and how does it link to the body? These are the problems all dualist have faced and not answered.
Another option is that God is mind. This sort of idea is gaining ground with some theoretical physicists such as Chown and, to lesser degree, Davies. I am wading through the latest Smolin at the moment, so I will have to wait to see what he says. Funnily enough, they all mention God quite a lot. Now this might just be shorthand for everything we don't understand (very BIG subject). Their ideas are pretty similar and rest on the idea that if the multiverse is a reality then so are simulated universes. In fact, they both suggest that they are more likely to occur than real ones, so the probablity is that we live in one as well. If so, we are nothing more than the creation of a large intelligence and computer programme.
Now this idea would have been ridiculed a few years ago but now we are not a million miles away from building the first quantum computer, which will increase processing power by several orders of magnitude. Some scientist are saying that this will enable us to reconstruct the brain molecule by molecule. So, if Churchland is right we will be able to create consciousness in a computer within the next few decades.
To answer your last question K I think reality is nothing like our perception of it. And we wouldn't understand it even if we could perceive it. Every living thing, including human beings, have different perceptive equipment and it would be a remarkable coincidence if any one of us perceived what was really there.
Where is Spacepenguin when you need him - he has lots of interesting things to say on this?
Interesting personal story, K.
I am living life backwards - I'll enlarge on that another day.
Boltonian : you haven't misunderstood as such. I think it's true as far as it goes : decisions are based on data held in the unconscious mind. I should admit to a slight Jungian bias here, because I don't believe the unconscious is confined to the individual. I'm not an afficianado of Jung; I've just read 2 books and probably don't agree with his take on synchronicity. I think the quote also raises the question : how much do we program our unconscious and how much is it automatically programmed by our experience ?
Any way, as an example, I want to cite my earliest meaningful decision, which wasn't simply an exercise of free will, but is capable of a more interesting analysis. I refused to participate in the school Empire Day parade, although I knew that this would cause big problems for me. My teacher, Miss Godlove, had made a remark (under her breath), which questioned whether the British Empire was worth celebrating and this struck a chord with me; at the same time, I realised that I could assert my individuality in this situation and cock a snook at authority. A confrontation with the headmaster enabled me to test my will against his, knowing I had moral authority on my side. I didn't know these concepts at the time, but I can remember exactly how I felt and that is how I can interpret my feelings now.
Krapotkin : Einstein was an agnostic who specifically rejected the Judaeo-Christian concept of God. Hawking has made some very profound statements about matter and energy, but as far as I know he doesn't speculate about anything "before" Big Bang. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi Pttp As far as I know you are absolutley correct, I was just using an example. I think I wrote that badly as it happens. A memory of a debate I once had. And using personal experience is a good idea for this I think. I rememeber writing a short paper on Durkhiems anomie, at the time it was like describing myself. Very cathartic! B Time that seems to be a bit of a fulcrum about our positions at the moment, I am going to try to outline what I remember about the nature of time in a philosophical sense, and some issues related to it So if you wish to watch an embarrsing test of a fading memory stay tuned! I haven’t got a clue what if anything about Quantum Theory has to say about time. Like to learn though. All I know of the Space-Time continuim is that Jean Luc Pikard knew how to deal with it! So you can enlighen me there please. Anyway, in recodred history (notice the caveats that are flowing now) Plato and Aristotle started the debate about whether time exists independently of events that occur. If there was a time without change, a frozen moment, it must follow that time exists only if there are events to fill the time. Leibnitz says time does not exist independently from the actions. Newton however reckons that time is an empty vessel into which actions are placed, but exists whether actions take place or not. Then I think its fatalism (your position to an extent and no reflection on your charcter B!), whatever will happen in the future is already unavoidable, predetermined, (that is that no human interventaion can alter it).The main argument againt this is that it’s a matter of semantics, nobody can make a true prediction turn out to be false. So there are lots of positions (propositions about matters that are both future and contingent) that are neither true nor false right now. i.e. the sun will rise tomorrow. That proposition either has no truth value right now, or else has indeterminate value. When the time comes, the sun will or won’t rise and the proposition will come to be either true or false and from then on that proposition will forever be either true or false. However, there are sometimes propositions about the future that are neither true nor false, the “Open Future”. As I remember its about giving some value to a propositition, and that may vary at differing in times and context . Then there’s the The Big Bang Theory. If The Big Bang Theory is true (I hope, given that I‘ve blown up ballons in my face for this!), then the universe had a beginning. Does that mean that time also had a beginning? Or was there an infinite expanse of “empty” time before the universe ever popped up? If there are infinite universes is there infinite time? Very open debate that one as I recall. Obviously there is the debate about twhether there is an end, is time is open or closed, can there be two or more unconnected times. Can’t remember the others. Then there was the Scotsman, McTaggart argued that there is no such thing as time, that the appearance of a temporal order to the world is just that, a mere appearance. McT suggests two ways in which positions in time can be placed. A). is that positionn is according to its properties, a week into the future, a day in the past etc But there is also a two place (B) position, a week earlier than a fixed point, in time, the day before yeasterday for instance. B is not considerd by the Scot as real because it moves in context to an action, but A) is fundamnetal., you can’t have B without A. There are also a lot of contradicions in this, semantics, future and past tenses cannot exist together. At some point the future becomes the present. I always thought of this as more of a grammatical question to be a bit cynical about it, but it has been taken very seriously. But to be fair I seem to recall he graspped the paradox he created, “time is but a spatial temporal notion” and I’ve been quoting that for ages!!! And I’ve probably got it wrong! I usually accuse the wife of that when she’s getting ready to go out! It follows then that there is a debate about how fast does time pass? That is a human construct in it’s own right, so how do we arrive at a coherent answer? Is there a natural law, I have no idea personally. I expect somebody will know. Presentism suggests that that only present objects exist, now there’s a surpise! It’s the universe can’t exist unless you can see it anthropic principle really. Anything you can’t place in the present doesn’t exist, so there goes Einstien! Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. Theory is/was/ maybe says that, so Einsteins back. Growing Universe Theory is just that, only objects that are either past or present -- but not objects that are future – exist, but the universe is always growing, as more and more things are added on to the front end (temporally speaking). Presentism seems fairly straight forward doesn’t it,but if there really are no non-present objects, then it is hard to see what we are referring to when we say Bobby Moore and 1966. And if no present objects how do we understand history? You can get into concepts of time travel doing this, there’s more that I know or remember. So is this a moment in time? Yes,but how do I place it in a context? Even if it’s a dream, then there is still an action, which requires a vessel. So I’m back to Descartes “I think therefore I am”. If there is no moment, how was there a past or a future? Well I’m sure that’s cleared it all up for everyone!!!!! Temperament. I would wouldn’t say it wasn’t genetic inheritance as it happens. It’s abig debate in my house about the tiddler, where from? How did she? Whose bloody family is to blame for that trait and which ones did we set up ourselves? Essentially I am going to be contraversial here and say the nature-nurture debate is redundant. Because what I observe is the influence of both. I used to go along with the Jesuit saying ‘give me the child for the first seven years and I’ll give you the man’. Now I don’t, there has to be some form of genetic and social inheritance involved. The czarina and I have a fair few debates on this one. A fairly constant cry from me is ‘how can people be so stupid, it’s got to be b…y genetic “!, whether its work, drivng, shopping something will happen which will stupefy me. Now I was not one for the nature perspective, political upbringing I imagine and for years I was taught about the decimation of the Russian inteligensia, the purges of the officer class etc. Can’t say I thought it would have any real effect because you send the next lot to school and voila, next inteligensia. Observation for over a decade has convinced me that it’s a genetic issue to some extent. I better leave it at that or I’ll get into hot water over this! Limitations of philosophy. Partly my conjecture is about the use of logic, I contend you can drive it down any road given your belief system. The Dialectic is an example, Hegel and Marx. Another point is the fact that academia treats subjects as if everyone is actually logical, which is pretty contestable in real life. And finally a lot of philosophy is based on ‘thought experiments’ which you can’t really prove. As I said I can wander the universe in my mind, that’s my immagination, but in reality aside from not having $20m lieing around to squander, physics would suggest it’s a very unlikely proposition, energy needed, distance travelled etc, at this moment in time!!! Perception. Maybe B, maybe, so how do we know which team to shout for? Assuming you can get a ticket of course. And you’re gettinhg ahead of me on consiousness! Sorry if there are grammatical and spelling errors, somehow my splellcheck has gone on this computer! And I am a lousy typist!
I have been following this discussion with great interest, on the CiF thread and here, and it has got me thinking furiously. I am not well read in matters of philosophy, and most of what I have read is in the form of second-hand summaries, probably poorly understood, but you have said that anyone is welcome to join in, so here goes.
Much of what follows touches on points already raised or touched on tangentially, so if I seem at times to be chewing over the obvious, I ask your forbearance.
My starting point is the simplest dictionary definition of 'free will' - The power of acting without necessity - a concept which can be considered from a religious, ethical or scientific point of view. Setting aside the religious angle, since Christian theological discussions of the subject seem to end up tied in paradoxical knots and I am not qualified to comment on other belief systems, this leaves the ethical and the scientific.
On the deterministic side of the argument, clearly none of us willed our own existence, and there are many things which affect us but which we have no control over and which constrain our conscious and unconscious decisions and actions - principally:
The laws of physics
Genetics
Nurture - the society, environment and family we grow up in, and the kind of education we receive.
The laws of physics, as far as we know, apply only within the physical universe which we can observe. In a singularity (a black hole, say, or whatever existed before the Big Bang) all bets are off: questions of spacetime, causality, whatever, are meaningless. And to what extent does the universe make sense only because we are here to observe and make sense of it?
The theory Boltonian refers to, that we might live in a simulated universe ('God is mind') is a fascinating one. I entertain a fantasy that some day a scientist of group of scientists will announce that they have solved the last problems, all questions have been answered, and the universe and all within it is understood in its entirety. At which point the physical universe will disappear, to be replaced by, in effect, a sign saying:
GAME OVER NEXT LEVEL? Y/N
Genetics is clearly a major limiting factor for us as a species and individually, since it determines our physical and mental potential. However much one might wish it, one cannot become a champion athlete if one lacks the necessary physique, or a theoretical physicist if on lacks the mental capacity. On the other hand the 'selfish gene' hypothesis - that ultimately we are no more than engines of gene propagation, is to my mind of little relevance in this context. It is an interesting and provocative way of examining the dynamics of evolution, but reductionist in the extreme and therefore of limited usefulness. The gene is a package of information,not an object, and DNA is the medium, not the message (George C Williams 'A Package of Information@ in 'The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution@ ed John Brockman, 1995) What matters is the evolving phenotype.
Nurture obviously affects the way in which genetic potential is expressed. A person reared in a restrictive society is likely to conform to the expectations of that society. Someone growing up in a disfuntional or abusive family may never realise their potential. Someone raised and educated in an environment which genuinely encourages them to develop the power of independent thought will have greater potential capacity, and probably more opportunity, for exercising choice than someone educated in the Gradgrind tradition, or simply trained to pass tests.
Despite these constraints and limitations, most people do seem to think that they make choices of their own will, at a practical or a moral level, and in both large and small matters, and this, I suppose, is where the question of consciousness or 'mind' comes in. Some scientists have put forward a hypothesis that mind is a quantum phenomenon (I'm afraid I can't cite sources off hand) although I gather that there are serious objections to this. It's an interesting idea, though, and might even account for the results of Libet's experiments.
I certainly feel that my professional life has been at least partly directed by a series of willed choices, as has my personal life to a lesser extent, and they were not always obvious or conventional choices. At the age of 16 I decided, without prior consultation or discussion, what subject I wished to study at university, and what profession I wanted to work in - to the surprise of my parents (who were supportive) and my teachers (several of whom tried very hard to dissuade me). It was an unusual choice at the time - more so than it would be now. The interests which led to my choice were undoubtedly fostered by my upbringing, but they were not my only interests, and my academic abilities suggested other options. My subsequent career was determined to some extent by what jobs were available at any given time, but the decisions as to what kind of jobs I wanted to apply for, and whether to sieze or reject opportunities as they presented themselves were mine (and, again, not always conventional).
I suppose, therefore, that in philosophical terms, I take a compatabilist view - that within determinist constraints a person acts freely when they will the act and could have acted otherwise (Hobbes), and insofar as individuals have the ability to act differently from what is expected, free will is possible (Dennett).
I have been toying with the idea of a simulated universe lately. It has been an enjoyable outlook so far. I think what we accept or believe has a very powerful role in how we perceive this world. If you try to see the world through the eyes of someone with limited ideas about it... things start to look that way... Thankfully I grew up an Atheist so my thoughts on what this world is have never been fully contained. As an adult I can look for God everywhere because I am not limiting such a power.
I accept the current scientific theory as the highest level of Logic we have gotten too as a species. So that bends my thought towards a type of the Growing Universe theory. I guess I currently see it as a kind of Spore game {coming soon from Will Wright and EA} in a Quantum computer. The present is really the only thing that actually exists {for Life at least} and that is when all action takes place. Whether you are sitting/ running/ sleeping/ speaking/ recollecting/ dreaming with open eyes about the future through the lens of your past/ ...
The past does exist but as a recording or a database. The future is ours to grow into. This leads to thoughts about what the subconscious could be. Such as... We are all individually recorded as life. But our thoughts are heard by GOD or gods. This becomes the Collective Subconscious or Consciousness that is then reintroduced into our individual consciousness based upon our receptivity.
This way of looking at our reality has actually led to a great improvement in my memory {through imagination if you can call it that ;} If I can't remember something I ask for it or directions to it. Can't remember where your keys are? Ask for directions... It is funny how often it works and just plain fun to try to do. Think in terms of bodily actions and just keep asking and accepting the answers that Feel good/positive/correct. Don't get discouraged and never forget how funny it is that you are doing this. Use the Force...{? Luke}
Until you can get it down you will be led astray in many laughable ways. I realize it sounds a little crazy but who is to say what is Crazy. We are all crazy because we all do not Know... But I think we are getting there. My thanks go out to you and those Truth Seekers of the past that helped us get this far. I like to try to go back as far as possible which is why I brought up Plotinus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
He is one of my four favorite intellectual Greeks. Of course the others are Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. They were all seekers and creators of Truth in my mind... through what I see as their influence in our current world.
I am reading The Urantia Book online right now and I think it is quite beautiful even if it is far to Christian for my tastes. They name Rantowoc as the first soul to complete the circle on this planet. They say he was of the Red People so that must mean Native American or Australian Aborigine. I am leaning towards Australia... Which could mean that Australia is at least our spiritual home.
I don't know if I believe any of this shit i say but I sure do enjoy it. Thanks for giving me a place to spout off.
Just back from a fish supper at Harry Ramsden's, if that means anything to anybody. Up early and back to London tomorrow, so I will make this brief and hope to get some time tomorrow to explore a bit more.
pttp and K - you have both come up with some stuff that needs much thought.
I have never read Jung, partly because I got so angry with Freud that I assumed all psychologists were frauds. That was a long time ago and I should give him a go.
Last Q in first para is very interesting. Is there any difference between the conscious and unconscious at all? When I dream there isn't, or perhaps I am wrong here? I just have a gut feeling, knowing not much more than zero about the subject, that we make that distinction. There are lots of ways we can tap into the sub-conscious - and people do (with and without the aid of drugs).
Incidentally, one of the things I find irritating about much philosophy is the compulsion to categorise.
Loved your anecdote - was she really called Miss Godlove? I'll come back to that because K picked up on it.
You surprise me about Einstein's agnosticism. I know he rejected the Judaeo-Christian idea of God but still thought he was a deist of some kind.
Time. Here goes.
QED needs electrons to move backwards and forwards in time as they absorb and release photons. Physics friends, however, say that this should not be taken too seriously - it is really a metaphor. To this I say what is not a metaphor? Negative and positive charge is a metaphor, so is quantum spin, and electrons orbiting nuclei,and QCD etc.
I need to read your learned piece on time a couple more times, K, before I comment.
Temperament I am convinced really drives our prejudices and, therefore, our philosophies (although they must be flexible to a degree). I read Hume, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and I think that these people are on to something. Hegel and Marx are plain wrong, about almost everything, in my view. Kant - mixed. And Heidegger I cannot stand, although a philosopher friend says I should give him another chance because he dealt with some pretty deep concepts.
Incidentally, I hadn't realised why Hegel made no sense to me and why he influenced so many that came after him until I recently read Popper's devastating demolition job in vol 1 of 'The Open Society and its Enemies.'
I agree that temperament is caused by a mix of genes and learning. Mat Ridley wrote an excellent attempt to demolish the sterile nature/nurture debate in his book, 'Nature via Nurture.' He poses some real challenges. For example, he says that a meritocracy (that everybody these days seems to want) favours those with genetic advantages (nature) over everybody else, whereas inherited privilege tend to favour nurture. The exact opposite, I suspect, of what most meritocrats believe. This is a simplified version of a complex argument but there are other counter-intuitive ideas in there as well.Has anyone read it - or anything by him (I have read three of his and they are well worth a go)?
His conclusion, using lots of twin study research is that 50% of adult behaviour is genetic, 45% from childhood outside the home environment (The Jesuit position) and only 5% from within the home environment. This is again simplified because parents choose schools and often friends as well, at least in early childhood.
Must go now but I will think about the nature of time on the train tomorrow morning.
I posted mine bedore I had read yours. Skimmed them both and want to explore them a bit more over the next day or two.
S - your notion of asking for things is far from crazy. My mum, a strong agnostic (you see where my leanings come from), does that whenever she has a problem and tells me it works every time.
Boltonian : sorry, I think it was Godlove. Then I had a teacher called Mrs Bidgood for 2 years !
I haven't read any philosophy to speak of. I've inferred Einstein's agnosticism from the way he phrases his God comments.
I think there is a continuum of consciousness and that there are no defining attributes, which separate conscious and unconscious. Eg. lucid dreams, fugue states, trance states, virtual reality.
"Although we have the illusion of receiving high-resolution images from our eyes, what the optic nerve sends to the brain is just outlines and clues about points of interest in our visual field. We then essentially hallucinate the world from cortical memories that interpret a series of extremely low-resolution movies in parallel channels.... the optic nerve carries 10-12 output channels, each of which carries only minimal information about a given scene. One group of what are called ganglion cells sends information only about edges (changes in contrast). Another group detects only large areas of uniform colour, whereas a third group is sensitive only to the backgrounds behind figures of interest". (Ray K again, this time drawing on the work of Frank Werblin and his 2001 study published in Nature).
All. Well what an overwhelminh amount od info and comments. Fabulaous. There is a great deal to digest here, quite a bit of positioning to grap I may not, due to commitments, be able to post fpr a few days so I'll read all this ,get thouroughly confused and see what I can add to the debate. We made need to stop at some point and precis where this is going, see if we have anythinhg here.
B, on Hegel and Marx I am 100% in agreement, got it totally wrong. O a Harry Ramsden, you lucky person, long, long time since I had the pleasure, Brighton or Bournemouth can't remember, but it was BC, "before child".
Simultaed universe appeals to by way of thinkihg, but a little pragmatist inside says mmmmmm, maybe!
Pttp, sorry I have really not expalined the Einstein god bit very well have I, can't have any misinterpretations. I have a theolgian friend over about 10 years, we poften discuss these topics over a sherbert or three! At one point he insisted that Einstein, Hawking and Darwin were all of a faith. Iwas how he read whatever it was he's read of them. I was aghast to be honest, so set about showing him they were skepotics, athiests etc. Darwins wife was religious and it doid cause him some issues as one or two of their children died of I think consumption, he truly recognisded the furore he or Wallce would createwith the religious establisment if when one of them published. He knew he was 'killing god'. Einstein used the word a few times as an abstract descriptiomn ad was for sure a non-believer as far as I know. Hawking used the phrase 'maybe we can now understand gods universe' as the last sentance in a Brief History of Time. As a literary devive to add some power and no doubt to sell a few more books. I hope that clears up my position on that, they are all atheists/non-believers and always were. The theolgian had selectively read to suit his belief sysyetm was my real point. Enjoy your days everyone, its sunny and +15 here!!
Krapotkin : thanks for the elaboration. I think Hawking's final statement in Brief History of Time is quite enigmatic, rather than mischievous sarcasm, which seems to be Dawkins' limited interpretation of it.
elephantschild : I hope you will make further contributions; even if it's only in the form of illustrative anecdotes. I've had a couple of game over moments in the course of psychological explorations, but don't claim to have progressed to the next level.
Sapient Lunatic : I haven't read your Greeks, and have only the vaguest understanding of their importance in developing rationalism. I'm prejudiced against Urantia, due to discussions with a follower on another forum. Nevertheless, he did make an interesting comment about the relationship between Lucifer and Jesus in Christian mythology, which I found stimulating.
yakaboo : I'm very interested in politics and my overriding concern apart from my own selfish desires is for further evolution of homo sapiens sapiens. My greatest fear is that irrational ideologies (often religious in nature) actually threaten our existence more than (say) climate change.
emma100 : Even Dawkins doesn't refer to himself as an atheist, but I'd be happy to be challenged by you or anyone else, because then I'll have to make more effort, which may lead to greater understanding, even if it means I have to modify my views.
basildon : I believe science and technology offer a more interesting basis for examining existence than classical philosophy. BUT, if you can quote or summarise relevant philosophers when appropriate then that would be educational for me, at least.
Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy (a first class intro to the subject) says that philosophy lies between theology and science in terms of certainty. Theology depends on faith whereas science requires evidence based on predictive experiment. Philosophy cannot have the level of proof required of scientific theory but requires a logic that is far more rigorous than theology.
Your definition of consciousness seems intuitively to be right to me.
Your quote on how we create complete pictures from scant evidence is good. I have felt for some time that this might be the clue as to why we need certainty. We are geared towards filling in the gaps, so when we come to concepts we naturally do the same. Hence religious faith, faith in science to provide answers, faith that there is no god etc. But why can some of us live with uncertainty? Perhaps it is only a question of degree?
K:
We went to the original Harry Ramsden's in Guiseley, West Yorkshire. It was ok but those in the party who had been before thought it had gone downhill.
It is true that many philosophers and scientists had to disguise their agnosticism/atheism and often they were published only after death.
Yes, we should summarise where we have got to periodically. I would be happy to jot a few things down for starters over the Easter weekend. I could put it in a Word doc and email to anybody who is interested. So, either let me have your email or create a separate account using your screen name and post that so I can contact you. I will need to ask for clarification on some issues, which will be beyond the capacity of my small brain. Are there any other suggestions as to how it could be done? Or whether we should do it at all?
Big Bang is looking less and less like the start of anything and so time, if it exists at all, might not have begun then. If we have constructed time as a convenience for us would that not explain why it only travels in one direction, unlike the other dimensions?
Elephantschild:
I have wrestled with compatibilism recently on an online philosophy course and found it unsatisfying. It seemed to be a compromise for the sake of saving a degree of free will. Perhaps you could give me a synopsis of what you mean by the word - my source came from Blackburn and I found the entire book (Think!) lightweight, so I might have prejudged his take on compatibilism.
Love your 'Game over' scenario, and why not?
Sapient:
Let me put this into the pot. It might make no sense whatsoever. You suggest that the present is all that exists. What if that is the only aspect of time that does not exist? The past exists as memory and the future as thoughts but the present cannot exist because, as I said earlier, there is not a moment that is neither past nor future. just an idea.
K:
You have mentioned lack of logic in some of our behaviors. Isn't this just about our lack of knowledge. I imagine all behaviors are supremely logical at all times - it is just that we can't always see it. All of our understanding comes to us through our own perceptive equipment and mediated in our own brain, therefore our view of the world is partial and subjective.
Descartes said 'Cogito ergo sum' often translated as 'I think, therefore I am.'
This might be going too far - all we can say is ,'There are thoughts.'Perhaps we could put it the other way round, 'I am, therefore I think.'
There’s some wonderful things being posted here I’m sorry I’ll have to read and digest to see if I can add anything to it.
Pttp, I just like to think Hawking was being a bit mischievous! He can’t be profound all time. Can he??
Elephantschild, I wholly agree with your point about the Natural Laws being about the physical laws of the universe, do you think there is a duality we are missing here? Because that is what I fundamentally feel comfortable with. I also like your definition of nurture, mostly because it seems to coincide with mine!!.
Sapient Lunatic, you have a fabulous attitude, you’re the most sane one here!
Boltonian’ I love Poppers “Open Society”, excellent stuff.
B On the Big Bang I agree because I was going to post about time and measurement being a human construct. The lack of logic bit was me feeling moody after watching the driving on the way home again, an accident every couple of klms. Not me by the way! How, I ask do they do it? Yes I was turning Descartes round as well today! Or is it maybe I’m thinking so I might be? hotstevedata@yahoo.co.uk Anyway read on at your leisure I couldn’t stop!! Passed the time away on a flight today!
Perception
I have been cogitating the proposition that we all have a differing perception of the world/ life/ the universe and everything and find that although I agree in a theoretical sense, I have to question that proposition as well. To do that I need to outline a series of directions of thoughts and perhaps even some definitions. First what it is that we are perceiving? Are we talking of information in the abstract, knowledge, memes, concepts perhaps; are we talking of physical forms? Are we talking of what is plausible or are we talking about a concept that has intellectual appeal, but no empirical evidence to support it other than logical linear processing?
When we say perception what are we meaning. Objective or subjective understanding, actual or imagined?
Now why I ask these, and I hope more as they come to mind, questions I have to admit to spending the majority of my working life in the design of the built environment, not saying what specifically it isn’t relevant, but what it does it to immediately state my pre conceptions of the built form. I would contend that there is a commonality of perception, in a visual sense of what a square is, a circle, a rhomboid etc is. Lets face it everyone seems to know more about building design than those of us that do it! Sorry too many dinner party arguments about that one. However, to be able to comment upon a form you need consensus of what that form is, I suggest that there is. Its place in a space, its mass, the (I love this phrase) spatial leaks around and into that form are actual, they are there and can be understood on a simple geometric level. Whether or not they are seen as a work of art, a utilitarian box, or a mess or out of context is a different concept. That is a subjective perception; that is an opinion based on social/genetic inheritance, environmental influences, education and learning experiences, emotional response the list can of course be endless.
So even if we accept that a choice, a decision, an opinion is triggered by a series of electrical/chemical actions in an organic brain, then the actions that occur have to be influenced by the historical process and order in which knowledge or otherwise was inputted. Whether the mind is a product of the brain or vise versa, there has been an action, there has been a process and there is a result, That result has to lie somewhere, it requires a vessel of some description in which to rest. So is that vessel consciousness? Is that vessel simply a repository for a result? Is it in existence at all? If it is how, does it take action on the information provided? Why does it take action on the information provided? If it isn’t hen how does the action get directed? There is something I suggest and it needs definition, I am not puersuaded by Churchland on this one, that’s its simply a product of a series of predetermined actions.
If it is a life threatening or comfort enhancing action that is required, perhaps we can point to evolutionary survival as the motive. If, however, it is an action required simply to enhance a feeling of awe, doubt, pain or pleasure why would we do it at all, except by choice? If its because it assists the individual in placing them in the world, placing them in a social order, giving them a sense of self worth, then I would contend that its an act of well being that seems to imply a conscious will, rather than a predetermined act. All actions the brain takes, however it does it, are only as good as the information provided, junk in, junk out. To change a position takes imagination at the very least, its takes influence, some are more easily influenced than other perhaps, but its all based around whatever information was inputted in the first instance and what influenced some little neutron to act the way it did.
So if I go back, I’m accepting the organic/chemical/electrical neutron driven computer theory, but I question the result of its actions always giving a differing view on all matters. I suggest that there a number of commonalities that imply common perception, all other issues of context are down to individual experience, knowledge etc. A square is not an individual experience. I even suggest that to an extent that is measurable, because to an extent that’s what a marketing strategy sets out to do. To find the commonalities, to expose the differences and apply a strategy to the perception of an object. Not perfect but doable. Its how advertising is done isn’t it, reactions to known perceptions.
How people feel about a space, how they respond on a variety of levels does differ, although designing them, I can say not as differing as you think. People’s responses to spaces and shapes are relatively predicable, because they are grounded in a common understanding of them.
It’s like what came first the chicken or the egg? If you have to hand the fossil records, an evolutionary biologist and a geologist, let us say, I would suggest that you have a plausible chance of answering the question. Forget the chicken, but assume a bird. It took the bird to lay the egg to make the first genetic copy of the bird. It doesn’t however necessarily follow that it took a bird to lay the egg, A feathered dinosaur might have managed that by having an illicit affair with a bat for all I know. Its not really relevant, but I can demonstrate that given enough fact I can get a plausible conclusion if I have enough skill.
If I take the wonderful hypothesis of Churchland, and I think a few others, that we may be in a simulated computer universe I can do the following. I can ask how plausible is it in actuality. I can say that I can construct in my mind, the concept that the entire universe I know of, and beyond, is a huge ball of some description, it is infinite. But my meager imagination says what the hell is infinity, it’s a concept so far beyond me that I have to ground it, put it in the only context this moment in times knowledge allows me. So I have to deduct that this infinity has to have an end, that end is the interface to a beginning.
So as a kid I said, okay I am in a bubble of energy and that bubble of energy is vast to me, it is however minuscule to something else and that something else might be a sheep and my universe is a cell of energy in the sheep’s blood stream. And the sheep is in a field, and the field is on a farm and the farm is in a country. That country is on a continent and that continent is on a planet. You can see where this goes can’t you! But if not, the planet is in a system and the system is in a galaxy and the galaxy is in a universe and the universe is an energy cell in a sheep’s blood stream ad infinitum. Its just a matter of infinite scale and an over active imagination. It’s quite logical in a linear sense. If it defies any natural laws then what natural laws would they be? I can construct it my head, but it’s highly implausible in reality, it cannot be grounded in any sort of fact. Being plausible, not necessarily absolutely provable is an advantage for any hypnosis. Big Bang is not 100% provable, we weren’t there, but it’s plausible.
I was recently exchanging emails with The Richard Dawkins Foundation looking for some early learning tools about evolution for the kid. We exchanged a few funny stories about children’s perception and I proffered a point about an aunt who is a scientist, god help us, who doesn’t accept that we share a common ancestor that was an ape of some type, because and I quote ‘after all these years none of them can talk or read”. Logical enough in its own way, but I digress. One of the comments that they made was how funny it is that over active imaginations in kids worry us, “oh mustn’t let little Johnny watch to much Dr Who, he’s there’s a time machine down the road”. But when an adult comes up with a concept that has no grounding, isn’t plausible except in the mind it’s called genius. I rather liked that one!
So that leads me to the thought that perhaps we are looking for a complex answer to a simple question, or is it a simple answer to a complex question. Do we know the correct question to be asking? I just ask. Is there a duality here that just doesn’t conform to what knowledge we presently have or are we over stating the question? If what we don’t know is infinite, then how can we expect to answer the question at this moment in time? I admire people like Churchland by the way, they are the “ginger groups” that push the envelope, they are the people with the Right Stuff to me. But they are also the people that the general public distrusts as mad scientist cooking up the end of the world in lab. It’s the “perception” of what they say, rather than what they actually say. Bit of a paradox that one isn’t it. I can only conclude that the education system need to address that issue, or conversely we are mostly stupid I suppose.
Hope I’m not boring the pants of any one, I just enjoy doing this, don’t care if I get a D- for this, it’s nice to explore it.
So time again! I was a bit late for an important meet and nearly missed the flight today, which is highly unusual for me. It made the team laugh (they’re sacked by the way! Only kidding!) given the stick I dish out about punctuality, but it made me think about numbers and constructs then you posted about Big Bang and time (and measurement can I add, gills, hands, furlongs etc), are human constructs! We are in accord on that one.
Everyone, thanks a lot for putting your thoughts in, keep us thinking.
I forgot to say - I agreed with your response to WML on the Theo Hobson thread. I have been trying to say that to him for ages but you put it far better than I could.
K:
Lots to think about. Have you read 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis' - very interesting and plausible?
krapotkin : I just like to think Hawking was being a bit mischievous! He can’t be profound all time. Can he??
Profound and mischievous ?
I interpreted this to mean that he was prepared to admit the possibility of a unified theory and that he's saying this would require a deeper understanding of creation than we currently have, because of the inherent contradictions between relativity and quantum theory. I think any unifying theory would have to incorporate non-material elements.
That time is a property of matter but not a property of the energy from which it's created. Any way, this is my favourite bit of Hawking :
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.
"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
pttp: thanks for your encouragement. If I am ignorant of the writing of far greater minds than mine it is for lack of time (I can't even keep up with the literature in my own discipline) and not lack of interest. As my username implies (for those who recognise the reference), I am infinitely curious.
I tend to agree with you on philosophy v science. Philosophers pursue interesting and often profound ideas (some of them contradictory) to their logical conclusions but, as both Kropotkin and Boltonian have pointed out, there can ultimately be no proof. Which is not to say that these ideas are not valuable in the current discussion. The further reaches of theoretical physics seem in any case to be converging on philosophy. And was not physics once termed 'natural philosophy?
As regards Darwin's beliefs - or lack of - he certainly parted company with orthodox Christianity, probably some time in the 1840s, but not necessarily because of his conclusions regarding the origin of species and evolution (within 20 years or so of his publishing many, if not most leading Christians in England seem to have come to the conclusion that these hypotheses were not incompatible with their beliefs), but with doubts arising from his own illness and the death of his young daughter, Annie. The best clue we have to his thoughts on the matter are his comments when working on his autobiography in 1879. 'My judgement often fluctuates ... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying God. I think that generally (and more and more often as I grow older) but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.' Agnosticism would seem to be the logical position in any case. Science cannot prove the existence of God, but nor can science disprove it. I have always taken Hawking's reference to 'the mind of God' as a metaphor, but maybe he was just being mischievous after all.
Boltonian: thanks also. I am not sure that I can take you any further on the subject of compatabilism. I confess that I grabbed it from a quick trawl of wikipedia, since I could not find anything on the subject of free will in the limited number of reference books I had to hand (I did say that most of my knowledge of philosophy was from second hand summaries!) The summaries there (if I understood them correctly) seemed to chime with my own, independent thoughts on the subject, and to be logical as far as they went. If you haven't already been there, wiki at least provides references for further reading on the subject.
Could you expand on your statement that the Big Bang hypothesis is now seeming less likely? It is a while since I did any reading on the subject, and I would be interested to know more.
K. Again, thanks for the response. I haven't had time to give much thought to it as yet, but will get back to you.
*********************
The questions of time and consciousness were raised some time back. Both are slippery concepts, but since they are fundamental to the issues in question, here is my pennyworth.
According to Einstein's elegant theory, time is relative and a function of space/time, 'real' or otherwise. The only constant within space time is the speed of light, which might not be quite as constant as once thought, since there now seems to be some evidence that it was faster in the early stages of the universe.
Is time linear? or is it simply that we experience it as linear because of our limited perceptions? I have been toying with the idea that if an observer could view space/time from outside the universe, time would appear as a medium in which all things, past, present and future, coexist. A human being in that context might look something like a continuous, elongated but finite pasta shape, and if a single moment 'the present' could be isolated, like a two dimensional section through that shape. Just another thought game.
The future does not exist for us, except in our imaginations, because we cannot go there. On the cosmic level we can make probabalistic predictions based on the observed data. Thus we can predict what will happen to our sun in the long term, on the basis of our observations of other stars of similar type at different stages of their existence. But we cannot predict with certainty what will happen tomorrow. We cannot visit the future in any real sense, but we can send messages into the future, in the genes of our descendants, in the durable artefacts we make, or in our writings or other recorded data. Messages in a bottle, though, since we cannot know where they will end up, or whether they will survive at all.
If the past does not exist I am in trouble (I am an archaeologist/historian).
Joking apart, we cannot visit the past, either, or influence it in any way (although in the novel 'Timescape' the physicist Gregory Benford toyed with the idea of transmitting tachyons (hypothetical particles which travel faster than light and therefore backwards in time)to communicate with people in the past in order to change history. The scientists conducting the experiment could never know if they had succeded, of course, because if they had, it would not have been their past or present which were changed.
The past can send messages to us, though. The Hubble telescope has captured images of distant galaxies as they were billions of years in the past. Suns have gone nova and seeded the galaxies with the elements to form new stars and the physical components of life (we are indeed stardust). On our own planet rock strata and the fossils they contain give us information about a very different earth in the past. Our ancestors back to the earliest single-celled entities have bequeathed us their genes. Written works of literature or philosophy tell us something of how people thought and viewed the world in the past. And on a more humble level, letters, diaries, legal documents, wills and probate inventories etc. reveal how people ordered their lives, as do surviving, random artefacts - more reliably in many cases than the great monuments which were intended to survive, since many of the latter amount to propaganda.
Sapientlunatic's analogy with a ROM database may be apt, but what a database!
Boltonian posed the question what is consciousness and what is its purpose. My questions, also.
Clearly, at one level (maybe the only level) consciousness is indeed a function of chemistry and electrical impulses within the structure of the brain, but is that all? or is there a 'ghost in the machine' Maybe we will get an answer if/when we succeed in constructing a computer which is a true analogue of the human brain, -assuming, also, that we can establish with certainty that it also 'thinks' in a way we can relate to (I suspect the Turing test is too crude). Will such a machine have mind/consciousness in the same sense as we do? I tend to think not, but have no objective grounds for such an opinion.
but whether or not consciousness is an illusion, what purpose does it serve other than to enable us to wonder about ourselves and the universe in which we exist? Does it give us an adaptive advantate? It would not appear so, judging by the mess we are making of our world.
And what of imagination - the ability to postulate that which does not exist, and in some cases could not possibly exist? Is this anything more than an extension of the 'story telling' process by which we organise the input of our senses?
Sapientlunatic's exposition of the idea of the unconscious and the collective unconscious triggers another chain of thought. I was aware of Jung's ideas in a general way, of course, but had never really followed them through. Presumably this is where intuition comes in (cue another personal anecdote). I once shocked a colleague profoundly by saying that intuition played a significant role in the processing of data during research. He thought I meant guesswork. What I meant in fact was that I tried to approach an investigation as far as possible without any preconceived ideas, simply accumulating data until something gelled and a pattern emerged from my busy subconscious, often while I was doing something else. I could then go back and review the data with my conscious, reasoning mind, to see if it fitted the pattern. I have also, once or twice, felt when learning something new as if I was rediscovering knowledge or a skill which I had once known and forgotten. The collective unconscious?
Enough for now - mor than enough for on post, maybe. I will check back some time tomorrow.
elephantschild : I was an IT analyst/trouble-shooter for 28 years and also used that approach to problem-solving. Letting the subconscious trains of thought take the strain. What I envision happening in the subconscious realm is analogous to distributed parallel processing, where different algorithms are being executed independently as incoming data is integrated into the database. We know that one of the most important facets of human intelligence is pattern recognition and I believe that this must also happen subconsciously. It is, of course, a widely recognised ability, acknowledged in the phrase "I'll sleep on it".
Reverse-engineering the human brain and using this knowledge to build a computer system able to simulate it is one of key postulates of The Singularity is Near, to which I've referred on CiF and quoted from here. Ray K's estimate is that the requisite hardware to emulate human intelligence will be available by the end of the decade with supercomputers and by PC at the end of the following decade. He states that we will have effective software models of human intelligence by the mid-2020s and that the Turing test will be passed by the end of that decade. I agree that the classical Turing test will soon be seen as inadequate.
I can understand your scepticism about the value of acquiring consciousness, given the current parlous state of the world. I would argue that consciousness has evolved along with the brain and that it has conferred very distinct advantages on our species.
I'd also like to mention in this regard, the work of David Lewis-Williams whose neuropsychological theory suggests that trance states precipitated by dancing marathons inspired rock and cave art, among the earliest forms of representational art so far identified.
Given your area of professional expertise, I'd be grateful for any insights you might have into the validity and importance of the above. A summary is available here :
Re- Big Bang. I said that it looks less likely to be the start. I did not mean to imply that it had not happened. Most theoretical physics writers I have read recently think that Big Bang was merely one event in many (possibly an infinite number).
Re-intuition I think most scientists now accept that breakthroughs occur from a leap of the mind, without the supporting data, rather than from painstakingly accumulating the evidence. An example of this for me is Michael Ventris' intuitive thoughts that led to the decipherment of linear B. It still needed John Chadwick's leg work to prove it, though.
Thanks for the Compatibility ref - I will follow it up.
pttp and K:
I have read a few physicists who think that the universe is energy neutral and that it emerged from a vacuum fluctuation using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
My questions are: 'Why did it happen?' and,' Where did the virtual particles that created the universe come from in the first place?' I am sure this is a very naive way to look at it but my brain needs causation.
There might be an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of dimensions and, if time (at least as we perceive it) is a human construct, there is no need for causation. But, if we cannot envisage infinity or something existing without a prior cause how can we ever get close to any sort of understanding?
I hand't realised that a quantum computer was so near to being a reality. It will be very interesting to see what happens - worth staying alive for!
--------------
Has anybody heard of, or read anything by, Stephen Wolfram. Chown rates him very highly? His hypothesis is that the whole of the universe is a Turing machine and can be reduced to four lines of computer language. He suggests that our mathematical approach will only ever give us an incomplete view. He likens it to judging how the world looks from the light shed by a street lamp on a dark night. He tends to work alone and has been largely ignored by the mainstream.
I read the Wikipedia entry on Compatibilism. Does it say, do you think, anything more than Free Will is an illusion if everyting has a prior cause?
In a way it wouldn't matter, so long as we all believed we had it to some degree (which I think is the case).
K:
Just re-read some of your earlier posts. You make an excellent point about scale.
I have thought for some time that we can handle things that are not too much bigger than ourselves and not too smaller. This has grown as we have gained the technology. So, we can picture (just about) the universe and atoms but nothing really larger or smaller than that.
Carl Sagan once wrote that if we could break open an electron (a so-called fundamental particle) we would find a myriad of universes in there.
Can a microbe, for example, perceive a human being - certainly not as we perceive ourselves?
Another thing occurs to me. It has often been said that human beings are the only creatures capable of conscious, reasoning thought. How do we know? We cannot put oursleves in the place of, say, a cat. We can only make judgements based on our own experience and observation. This is why we have a compulsion to anthropormorphise.
Yakaboo:
My rather glib response is that neither climate change nor self-harm will be the biggest threat to the species but something external that we have not forseen (perhaps an asteroid collision).
My guess is that we are too well established as a species to wipe ourselves out entirely. We might suffere a catastrophic population crash followed by several hundred years of 'Dark ages.' It has been suggested that this has happened to us before because there is so little variation in our genome compared with, say, apes. This points to us all being descended from a small population that began to grow relatively recently.
Natural Laws/duality: I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but if I have understood you correctly, then yes, I suppose there is an implicit duality.
On the one hand there are what are often referred to as the 'laws' of physics, based on a certainty that our current model of the universe is testable and that, within the model, matter and forces (above the quantum level, at least) behave and interact in predictable and consistent ways. The model may be modified and expanded in the light of new discoveries and insights, but only in ways constent with the 'laws' already established, and these 'laws'apply invariably and limit what is possible.
We could also, I suppose, talk of the 'laws' of genetics, since the ways that living organisms act and interact to form an ecosystem is determined for the most part by behaviours and physical forms which are the product of evolution and genetic inheritance - even the human ability to manage and alter the environment to a greater degree than any other animal.
On the other hand there is Natural Law in the philosophical or ethical sense, which is a social construct relating to a specific concept of human nature. It presupposes that ethical standards can be objectively derived, but those standards are, in fact, contingent and mutable. As I seem to remember you pointed out on the CiF thread, different societies may have different ideas about what constitutes moral behavious and what is most conducive to the good of society and the well-being of individuals within society. So I suppose that as a determining factor it comes under the heading of 'nurture'.
pttp:
I hadn't come across 'The Singularity is Here' until you mentioned it on the CiF thread, but was familiar with the concept of the technological singularity (it tends to crop up quite a lot in recent SF)
As regards your query concerning the significance of cave paintings, I gather from the summary that Lewis Williams is using insights gained from the study of shamanistic beliefs in a modern African society to interpret cave paintings in the same region. It seems a valid approach, although I am not sure how far his ideas can be seen has having validity for all similar examples prehistoric art.
My knowledge of the subject, such as it is, is confined to the upper palaeolithic cave art of southern Europe, and the problem of interpretation there is that the art itself, in the context of a sometimes meagrely attested material culture, is the only certain evidence we have. Ethnological studies of recent and contemporary societies in other parts of the world present a range of possible comparative models, but there is no guarantee that any of these is applicable to a society far in the past.
When I was an undergraduate we had drummed into us 'the limits of reasonable inference', i.e. we can infer custom from repeated evidence of practice, but we cannot infer belief from custom. It seemed to me at the time to be a very limiting approach, and archaeologists keep pushing the boundaries, but it remains true that when we are dealing with the beliefs of prehistoric peoples, we can never get beyond theorizing.
The known examples of S.European cave art cover a pretty long time span - probably around 15000 years - and show considerable development during that period, from rudimentary outlines and patterns to elaborate figurative images, so it is probable in any case, that no one interpretation would fit all.
Although the later, figurative images are often vivid and aesthetically pleasing, the fact that they are in deep caves and often superimposed in haphazard fashion indicates, at least, that this was not 'art for art's sake'. The animals are sometimes depicted pierced with arrows, or dead, and the simplest interpretation is that they were a symbolic attempt by the hunter-gatherers who created them, to control their environment (sympathetic magic). There are also a few images of human figures with animal attributes, or wearing animal costurm, which could be indicative of some form of shamanism, Another possibility is that the animals depicted had totemic significance, and some people have sggested more elaborate symbolisms based, for example, on the grouping of animals and markings in different areas of the caves. The most that can be said with confidence is that they are evidently expressions of some form of belief system.
Decorative, symbolic, and perhaps even figurative art may be as old as the species homo sapiens sapiens itself, so who knows where the original impulse came from. It seems to be universal.
Boltonian:
For a more extensive overview of compatibilism, giving the arguments pro and con, and with refs, see
http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
My own intuitive feeling is that if, in a broadly deterministic world, a rational individual is presented with two or more equal options for action or decision, s/he may, at least sometimes have regulative control to choose freely between the options. It seemed to me that this position seemed to fit best within a compatabilist view; but what do I know.
The 'leap of the mind' - Yes, exactly!. Suddenly finding that you see the solution to a problem without any conscious awareness of how you reached that point. In my limited experience it can happen both when one is working with a specific set of data (as Ventris was) and when examining a problem for the first time - in which case, I presume, the unconscious mind produces the solution from one's general store of knowledge. No great conceptual breakthroughs in my case, though. If only!
The question of whether animals other than man are capable of conscious reasoning has sometimes occurred to me, too. Perhaps some are, given the right environmental stimulus. My mother once had a pair of burmese cats which occasionally displayed what appeared to be problem solving behaviour.
Some good stuff here. Two things from your post that I am interested in pursuing:
1) The nature of morality and moral relativism. Is there any objective morally superior society? I think not but would be happy to be convinced otherwise. How can we say that ours morals in this place, at this time and at our stage of development are superior to any others from other periods and places? My morals are firmly rooted in the Open Society but that does not mean that they are superior to those of a more totalitarian or tribal regime that might tolerate or encourage slavery, oppression of minorities, human and animal sacrifice etc. Or does it? What do people feel?
2) Had the neolithic revolution not occurred would we have destroyed our food supply by over-killing. I have read a few articles claiming evidence for this but someone on CiF, who said he/she had some expertise in the field denied it. It feels intuitively right to me that necessity (through population growth and diminshing resources) drove the neolithic revolution. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Boltonian : I take your (Russell's) point about the position of philosophy relative to science/theology. However, I'm sticking with my view that scientific advances have revealed a reality, which can't be understood in terms of traditional philosophy.
The truth, in my opinion, can't be approached by rational thought processes, although it can subsequently be appreciated and interpreted by them.
Wolfram is referenced quite heavily in Singularity, but mainly just for Cellular Automata. A New Kind of Science seems interesting, but I've only read about 50 of the 1000+ pages, so far. I'll attempt to summarise from what I've learnt : the application of mathematics in science may have been useful, but ultimately led to a dead-end. The complexity of the material world can be explained by very simple rules or algorithms, which better explain the behaviour of processes in every sphere of existence. Widely recognised as a genius in his younger days, Wolfram may be right that he's identified the way forward for all of science to progress. It's also (just) possible that he's flipped into insanity and that his theory is a peculiar form of delusion. The fact that he's spawned a highly successful company and has previously been recognised for leading edge advances in science may argue against this, though.
elephantschild : Thanks for your very fair review of the Lewis-Williams theory. The linked page discusses common themes in San and upper Paleolithic art and introduces the controversial 3-stage explanation by which rock/cave art images may be categorised. As you've referred to your view of standard methodology being unnecessarily limiting, I feel justified in offering the following even if it fails to meet normal academic criteria with respect to intellectual rigour.
My current view is that evolution of our species occurred in many places at different times and therefore I'm predisposed to seek common underlying causes. My own experiments with fasting, for example, have convinced me that altered states of consciousness would have been common in prehistoric societies. I haven't experimented with sensory deprivation, eg. being holed up in a cave, but have read accounts, which suggest that this is also sufficient to precipitate altered states. The use of hallucinogenic drugs (in both ancient and modern societies) is well known to facilitate altered states. Similar states are also achievable with meditation, but this has to be seen as a relatively recent development.
Many thanks for the Wolfram info. I had not heard of him until I read Marcus Chown's latest opus.
The problem I have with science is that many people give it more credit for providing answers than it is due. The more we learn the less we seem to know. I am ploughing through Lee Smolin's recently published book, 'The Trouble with Physics,' and it is rather depressing if one is looking for answers (so far).
I am not sure that science is helping us very much with a picture of reality, although it does give us some insight into our perceived picture of the world.
I am interested in your view that our species developed in several different places independently. Do you have any evidence? I understand that we have a very narrow genome compared with our nearest relatives and that this tends to suggest a common, recent heritage.
Elaine Morgan's book on the aquatic ape hypothesis is well worth reading. She suggests that water is the key to our evolutionary development. We have very few natural advantages but the ability to swim is one. Bi-pedalism would have assisted our ability to fish (at the expense of a smaller pelvis). This would have allowed the development of large brain because standing upright allows us to support a heavier head, which walking on all fours would not permit. A large brain, therefore, is a by product of bi-pedalism.
There all sorts of clues to this, such as the way our hair grows compared with apes, our nose shape, and the fact that our babies are born covered with vernix - the only land mammal we know of that is. Babies are also comfortable being born in water.
The penalty we pay for this adaptation is that we have a small pelvis and our babies are born helpless with much of their development happening outside the womb. This means that we need to spend a very long time dependent on our parents - relatively more than any other mammal, I think.
Yesterday the weather was beautiful and the garden beckoned. Today the outdoors is not so inviting, so it's back to the keyboard
Boltonian:
Morality and moral relativism. Interestingly, the NYT supplement in last Sunday's Observer had a piece on the primatologist Frans de Waal's theory that in empathic and altruistic behaviour patterns in non-human primates, and chimps in particular, we can discern the origins and basis of human morality. This is contrasted with the view of philosophers that conscious reasoning, rather than emotions such as sympathy, plays the largest part in shaping human ethical behaviour, and that biological analysis cannot bridge the gap between 'is' and 'ought': between the description of behaviour and the issue of why it is right or wrong.
Altruistic behaviour which supports the individual within a group is certainly advantageous, in that it is conducive to the coherence and thus the success of the group, but insofar as it is emotionally driven, it depends on the members of the group being intimately acquainted with one another. It would work very well within a small social group of people linked by kinship, for example, but once they begin to associate in larger groups, things become much more complex. The manner in which individuals identify with the social groups they relate to is like a nest of Chinese boxes. At the centre is the nuclear and extended family, then the immediate community such as the village then the clan or city state, then tribe, perhaps, or nation. And the intensity of identification weakens as we work outwards. Relationships within the larger groups, where individuals do not know one another personally, therefore have to be informed by a common set of ethical values (which may be culturally influenced).
My guess is that such values tended to evolve on a more or less pragmatic basis as the societies themselves evolved and became more complex, and that the articulation, validation and elaboration of those values by philosophers, and their codification as rules within systems of religious belief, was secondary. The value systems may have differed at different times and in different places, but their relative value overall can, I think, be judged objectively according to their effectiveness in balancing the interests and well being of the individual against the stability and smooth-functioning of the society of which the individual forms a part.
All the various systems seem to be founded on one or other of two approaches. The most common, throughout history, places the emphasis on the responsibility of the individual towards society as, for example, in traditional Chinese society based on Confucianism, or Japanese society under the shoguns. The other, more dominant in modern western society, places the emphasis on the responsibility of individuals towards one another. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The first can produce a very stable society, but one in which the needs and happiness of the individual may be forcibly overridden; the other (in theory, at least) entails less indivual suffering, but can permit a 'me first' 'look after number one', competetive attitude which is counterproductive in terms of social cohesion.
Each system can see the flaws in the other, and there will be a natural tendency to see the values prevailing in one's own society as 'better'. There is also a tendency to confuse abstract moral values with purely cultural norms (as can be seen, for example. in some muslim communities). The question is, what moral values should prevail in a community which is becoming global? Because in that context ideas of moral relativism may become untenable. Already there has been some convergence, in that certain things once widely considered acceptable, even natural, such as slavery, or infanticide, are now generally considered to be morally wrong.
My own feeling is that this would have to be a system which encourages people to relate positively to others, even those they do not know, as individuals in whom they can see themselves; and fosters empathy, consideration for the feelings of the other and respect (the 'love your neighbour as yourself, and that includes your enemies' approach), while allowing a degree of moral pluralism. Idealistic, I know, given that human beings seem to find it a lot easier to define themselves in relation to what is 'other' and to look for differences rather than similarities, but the alternatives appear to be perpetual conflict, world-wide totalitarianism, or an amoral free-for-all.
On your second point, the idea that the neolithic 'revolution' was driven by the destruction of resources available to support hunter-gatherer communities and the necessity of finding alternatives does not seem to be supported by the evidence. Hunter-gathering seems, in fact, to be a highly sustainable choice, in that the balance between population and resources is self-regulating, because it works within the ecosystem. I knew one prehistorian who used to maintain that we would have been better of as a species if we had stuck to that way of life. The indigenous peoples of mainland Australia, for example, managed to survive for upwards of 40.000 years without exhausting the food supply, and it is thought that before the arrival of Europeans, the population had remained stable for several thousand years, at least. It is true that when modern man entered an ecosystem for the first time, in Australia, New Zealand or the Americas at least, their arrival led to the exinction of many animals ( although in N America, changes in climate following the last ice age were almost certainly a contributory factor). But after that, an equilibrium was reached. Hunter-gatherers could and often did manage their environment, for example by creating forest clearings and enlarging watering holes to attract game, but not in ways that involved large-scale alteration of that environment.
The transition from hunting and gathering to farming seems to have been fairly gradual and to have spread from the fertile crescent of the near east as much by a process of acculturation as by movement of peoples. It probably began because people found it convenient to have at least some of their food stocks to hand, thereby avoiding the necessity of being frequently on the move, and at some point this process acquired its own momentum as it began to result in wholesale changes to the environment. The advantages which accrued included the maintenance of a larger, static population in which greater diversification of activity and more complex social institutions became possible. The downside is that, from the beginning, it has required ever more elaborate manoevres to sustain the balancing act between resources and our increasing demands on the environment.
I have not read Elaine Morgan's book, but I remember reading about her hypothesis when it was first published. The arguments seem very plausible (I learned only recently that Chimps can' swim!). Either way, bipedalism does seem to have been a prerequisite for the development of a large brain.
pttp:
To expand on what I wrote before about Lewis-Williams' theory: I think that his ideas concerning shamanism in relation to palaeolithic cave art are at the very least interesting, and may be applicable in some cases, although I am never comfortable with the 'one interpretation fits all' approach.
I am not,hoever, convinced by the thesis that the origins of art can be explained by neurological stimulation through the use of phsychoactive drugs or other mind-altering techniques.
For a critique of this theory see:
www.wynja.com/arch/entoptic.html
To interpret all the various and varied examples of S European cave art according to recent and modern recorded shamanistic beliefs and practice presupposes that there has been no subtantial development in the thinking of hunter-gatherers during the past 35,000 years or so. Possible indications of shamanism in the S European examples (e.g. the depiction of human figures in animal costume or with animal attributes) are in any case very rare.
The images suggest complex symbolisms, and it is very likely that they were associated with various ceremonial practices (possibly including initiation rites) but whether these ceremonies ever involved inducing altered states of mind must remain conjectural. Various other plausible interpretations have been advanced (although the old idea that they relate to hunting magic is now largely discredited), and I therefore subscribe to the view that upper palaeolithic art is polysemic.
As to your idea that the evolution of our species (by which I presume you mean homo sapiens sapiens) occurred in many places at different times, I'm not sure. H. sapiens sapiens certainly coexisted for a time with other closely related species, both in Africa and elsewhere, but the others all became extinct. And I seem to remember reading that the evidence of mitochondrial DNA points to a single origin for modern man in Africa.
Boltonian : Sorry my last post was sloppy. I accept that "out of Africa" is currently the only game in town. What I meant to suggest was that the mental evolution, which seems to have given rise to adoption of cultural and religious practices happened in many places at different times. Shamanistic practices derive from altered states of consciousness and there are common themes, whatever method of inducing trance is used.
Eg. long before I knew about the half-human half-animal paintings, I'd seen people taking on characteristics of animals.
Science is raising such fundamental questions about every aspect of existence, that philosophy doesn't have a firm foundation on which to pontificate. I've introduced some evidence that the central, but slippery concepts of free will and consciousness, for example, are anything but cut and dried.
I'm still open to anyone introducing elements of philosophy into the discussion and I've admitted my almost complete ignorance in this area.
elephantschild : Thanks for your comments and I apologise for my misleading comment about evolution.
Anyone interested in reading the original paper can find it here :
Good stuff on altruism. I like your idea of the choice between serving the individual and society. Have you read Popper's, 'Open Society and its Enemies?' In your terminology he suggests that there is really no contest and that making society pre-eminent leads inexorably to totalitarianism, corruption and oppression.
I agree with that but, I suspect, only because I have been brought up with those values and not because the morals of an open society are instrinsically superior.
Your response to my neolithic revolution enquiry was interesting. I accept that it happened over a long period and there were many factors involved but I still think that necessity, driven by scarcity of resources, played some part. I would be interested in your views on this: http://www.waspress.co.uk/ journal_20063/abstracts/index.php#200631
A thought occurs to me. If we as homo sapien sapiens are guilty of squandering the earth's resources, locally as well as globally, why were was paleolithic/mesolithic man not capable of doing likewise? After all I doubt we have evolved very much genetically in that last 10,000 years.
There is loads of good stuff on shamanism on the Before Farming website.
---------------------- pttp:
Philosophy was science at one time and the two seem to be coming together again. Most philosophers were mathematicians or scientists of one sort or another and it is only recently that they have become separated.
This (artificial)divide, in my view, has coincided with the decline in philosphical reasoning. The best philosophy (certainly metaphysics)is now being written by scientists.
Boltonian , I think the web needs a place like this . Kudos to you .
Wow , there is a lot going on in this thread .
Just picking up on a few things that caught my eye while scrolling ...
The Big Bang .
At the moment there is no escaping an initial boundary condition for space time . Guth , Borde and Vilkein showed that any spacetime with a positive cosmological constant must be past incomplete . Eternal inflation , the most popular current theory , can only be future eternal .
Many cosmologists believe that quantum physics may hold the answer to the boundary condition problem . However this still doesn't answer what , if anything , came before the boundary .
One answer I have seen is basically the old answer Bertrand Russel gave ; it is a meaningless question to ask what happened before there was time for things to happen in .
This , I think , is an unsatisfying answer and with the decline of positivism many others appear to think so too . It is not so much a matter of time as cause . If a thing can occur without causation , i.e. necessary preconditions , then the universe is absurd and science is no more than stamp collecting .
Another answer is the Venger notion that a quantum fluctuation occurred in nothing . This is problematic as it requires the utter absence of anything to follow the laws of physics . The laws of physics being , to most people , just the observation of regularities in matter. Venger seems to imply that the laws of physics can somehow bootstrap the universe into existence without there being any matter/energy at all . This begs the obvious question ; what are the laws of physics and where do they come from if not the inherent nature of matter ?
Determinism , Consciousness and Free Will .
I think discussions of such matters are plagued by the language of folk psychology . Under a naturalistic account of the brain , there is no 'you' in the sense you instinctively mean . There cannot be .
If the brain is all there is to consciousness then brain states don't dictate consciousness ; they are consciousness . There is no abstracted self with agency being pulled this way and that by genes expressed in the brain and environmental factors . Genes expressed in the brain form networks which process information from the senses about the environment . That is it , bits of matter reacting against other bits of matter.
The thoughts 'you' have are neuronal firing patterns in the language and visual networks in the brain .
To me this seems an insufficient account of consciousness . I think the subjective experience of thinking , feeling , drinking etc is irreducible to brain states . No matter how much we know about a brain in action , we won't know what it is like to be that brain in action .
I realize this isn't much of a contribution , but this was a densely packed thread . I hope I can be more useful in future debates .
The Masters beckons (as well as a glass or two of Burgundy) so I will read it again, digest and respond sometime soon.
What do others think?
BTW I have just fired my latest broadside at ACG. Have you noticed that he has not once, on any of these threads, answered either of us? Ummmm. A friend of mine studied philosophy under him at Birkbeck and his view was that he (Grayling)was very entertaining, loved to show off his knowledge and hated being contradicted. I have read a few of his books and they are lightweight, tendentious and not terriby well thought through. But maybe that's just my prejudice.
I look forward to your responses and others if they appear .
What you say about Grayling is broadly true . I've not seen him respond to any philosophical or historical points of any weight raised against him in this or any other thread .
He did respond when I reminded him that the Roman Empire was at least as morally repellent as the dark ages . He said admiring Roman architecture does not entail admiring slavery . When I made the obvious counterpoint that admiring Christian hospitals does not entail admiring the inquisition there was silence .
I think what raises my hackles about his arguments is the underlying "this is the only rational way to see things" tone coupled with his manifest irrationality in believing in such things as a 'true' classical inheritance or moral progress under naturalism .
I've never read any of his books . I do a fair bit of reading of journal papers in pdf format , especially about religion and naturalism , when I can find them and I don't recall him being cited in any of them.
Hi Boltonian and SpacePenguin Thought I'd pay this site a visit - like many of the other posters I've come via CiF. I've admired your posts on CiF for a long time. Nice work! SpaceP I agree with you and Copplestone - Russell gave up thinking too quickly on that question. I can't abide ACG or indeed Dawkins on religion and find myself strangely attracted to the rubbish that they write. Are they really unable to find a reasonable and polite tone? Do you think they believe the stuff they write? Other atheists are able to write with far more insight and sensitivity on religious matters - Roy Hattersley is a good example of this, for my money.
Forgive me for a probable disjointed entry. Concentration is fleeting with frequent interruptions from children. Rather than ignore them, I can only focus for a short term. Also, forgive for, no doubt, an obvious lack of knowledge.
Relevant to a distinction between the conscious and the subconscious, I have been exposed to methamphetamine users, who by the nature of the drug, lack sleep. At some point, due, in my view, to this sleep deficit, one's conscious mind becomes subsumed to the subconscious. The boundary between the two is tenuous at best and one's perception is, even more than normal, subject to irrationality. So, it is my opinion that their is a distinction between the subconscious and the conscious, but the terms of that distinction are based upon allowing cognitive functioning some down time.
In regards to a 'leap of the mind', I definitely believe that is not a non-typical logical reaction. Many times, rather than attempting a linear means to solve a problem, I give myself time to 'use a side-door' so to speak. Is that an "outside the box" comparison?
Is there such a thing as an objectively morally superior society? I am uncertain. I have concluded that some people have inferior morals. Does that suggest then that someone else has superior morals, and with extrapolation that a society theoretically would have superior morals vis-a-vis the next?
Shucks, gotta go. Thanks all for the informative discussion. Hope my ignorance is amusing rather than insulting.
They both, as I understand it, belong to the same humanist society where, doubtless, they reinforce each others' prejudices.
Grayling has got out of the habit of understanding that all he can do, as a philosopher, is weigh up the available evidence and suggest possible answers. Journalism demands instant, black and white certainties and this is where he obviously derives a portion of his income these days. He is in danger of becoming a parody.
Also, I think his personality finds it difficult to admit to us lowly folk that there might be other legitimate views. The way he caricatures his opponents as 'Foaming at the mouth religious fundamentalists' tells you that neither he, nor his groupies, have actually read the critical posts. He seems to have shifted his position somewhat to include all exclusive ideologies and then accuses his critics of being unintelligent! I really think he has boxed himself into a corner on this.
9mile:
An interesting and thoughtful post. I agree that the divide between consciousness/unconsciousness is artificial in some way. But why?
How is the divide determined. It clearly serves a purpose. Perhaps our brain is like Occam's razor in that we only process the minimum information we need to survive.
It still doesn't get us closer to understanding what consciousnes actually is and whether we are alone on the planet in this regard. It must, presumably, confer a benefit on our species.
Do we come back to the idea that the universe needs to be observed in order to exist?
SpaceP:
I am reading Smolin's latest - very intersting so far, if a little gloomy.
I have never really been comfortable with the 'vacuum fluctuation' theory to explain the cosmos for the same reasons you have put. It might also be that I don't understand it well enough.
If the universe was created out of nothing and it is infinite and eternal, then our finite brains will never be able to comprehend it because we cannot imagine what such concepts would mean.
On consciousness, someone here suggested we were about a decade or so away from building a quantum computer which might, in time, allow us to recreate, molecule by molecule, the human brain. That might give us a clue to the nature of consciousness.
Do you think consciousness is more than just the function of the brain - more of a dualist position?
I seem to remember that Russell never fully accepted the big bang theory . It is easier to say the universe is just there and that's it when it has always been there . Creation ex nihilo is very awkward .
I think that ACG and Dawkins are simply the type of person that needs to have the world 'wrapped up' in their own minds . For them 'truth' is both knowable and absolute . I think it is telling that despite their atheism they both still believe in objective moral progress .
boltonian :
Smolin has some fascinating ideas , I know very little about LQG but it seems like a worthwhile approach . Both him and Woit are spot on about the sociology of science in my view .
"If the universe was created out of nothing and it is infinite and eternal, then our finite brains will never be able to comprehend it because we cannot imagine what such concepts would mean."
I think most people who back the infinite regress idea don't believe there was a beginning an infinite amount of time ago , they believe that there was no beginning . This brings up two questions ; Is there such a thing as an actual infinity in nature ? Why eternal something instead of eternal nothing ?
-----
I think that even in a perfect simulation of the brain we still couldn't tell if it was conscious because of the zombie problem .
I am a dualist , I drifted from the Dennett position when I realised that I hadn't missed something , he had simply failed to account for consciousness . I hovered around epiphenomenalism for a while until I realised that it was dualism for those who don't want to admit to supernatural beliefs . Now I am , on the balance of probabilities , an interactionist dualist like Popper .
To return, if I may, to the subject of hunter/gatherer societies and the transition to farming.
I did not mean to imply that palaeolithic and mesolithic peoples were inherently incapable of squandering the earth's resources. My point was that where people are dependent on the unmodified natural environment they will tend to operate within the constraints imposed by it, and such things as population and group size within any given area will to a large extent be controlled by it. The evidence suggests, in fact, that nomadic hunter/gatherer societies have generally managed to function in a state of equilibrium with their environment for as long as that environment remains stable.
Agricultural societies, on the other hand, in their attempt to control their local environment, will make changes beneficial only to themselves, which tends to destabilise the equilibrium and, since successful agriculture and animal husbandry can support increasingly large populations, the potential for instability beomes ever greater.
As to what kick-started the transition. the most plausible suggestion I have seen is that in an optimum area such as the fertile crescent, where the food supply was relatively abundant, varied and readily accessible, hunter/gatherers may have adopted a more sedentary life style and begun to develop social and economic patterns accordingly. Sedentism would have created the conditions necessary for more intensive attempts at managing the food supply - initially, perhaps, by creating gardens for the growing of plant foods, and creating conditions to attract game. If/when increases in the population led to pressure on resources, they may then have been more inclined to adapt further, rather than to revert to the more traditional response of migration. To that degree, then, you may be right, but it does not seem that it was an inevitable and necessary response, simply one of several possibilities.
In the northern hemisphere the rapid changes in climate following the retreat of the ice could have provided further stimulus for adaptive response, but were not, I think, a primary cause
*************
I have not, I regret to say, read Popper's 'Open Society and its Enemies' - something else to add to my 'to do' list. I agree, though, that it does seem that where society comes before the individual, this tends to lead to oppression and totalitarianism.
In that connection, Lafcadio Hearn's view of traditional Japanese society is interesting. He settled there about 40 years after the country was first opened to the west, and in 'Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation' published in 1904, he wrote:
'That all are polite, that nobody quarrels, that everybody smiles, that pain and sorrow remain invisible, that the new police have nothing to do, would seem to prove a morally superior humanity. But for the trained sociologist it would prove something different, and suggest something very terrible. It would prove to him that this society had been moulded under immense coercion. [...] He would immediately perceive that ethos and custom had not yet become dissociated, and that the conduct of each person was regulated by the will of the rest. He would know that personality could not develop in such a social medium - that no individual superiority dare assert itself, that no competition would be tolerated'.
***************
On the subject of ACG, I am familiar only with what he has written on CiF - polemic supported chiefly by assertion and rhetoric. My reading of his character on this basis alone is in agreement with what everyone here has said. The same goes for Dawkins - a respectable scientist in his own field, even if his approach and some of his ideas are open to criticism. but who seems to lose the plot when it comes to the subject of religion, and to abandon any real attempt at objectivity and academic rigour. (maybe he feels that these are unnecessary when dealing with matters he holds in such contempt)
In terms of describing the world and how people and societies function in the world the concept of freewill is unnecessary. Not only is it unnecessary it gives rise to a lot of contradiction (what causes it to function? Is it random? How does it interact with a physical world? etc).
I feel that the biggest error in philosophy is to attempt to engage with the personal (and subjective) point of view. Within this point of view freewill, even the notion of self as a distinct entity, will appear to be necessary assumptions. However, I find that all arguments that start from this point of view reduce to a form of solipsism. Of course freewill sits easily at the heart of the solipsistic world (though in a solipsistic world + God freewill could just about be dispensed with).
Far too much philosophical debate starts from the position of how something (objects, morality, value etc) appears to ME. However (outside solipsism) anyone receiving such communication is obviously not the authorial 'ME', yet makes the tacit assumption that the reader or interlocutor shares the same faculties and can therefore comprehend the authors point of view.
Science has achieved success through making the logically impossible attempt to objectify the argument and escape from the personal, subjective point of view. Often the use of passive tense or use of the first person plural underlines this suspension of disbelief. Illogical or not, the crucial step is to put the assumption of our shared faculties, before the argument and place the objects of discussion in an objectified (attempting to be objective) framework.
If the same procedure is used in Philosophy, freewill is not necessary to account for anyone's actions, it remains only necessary to explain what a person's use of the term 'freewill' means in any context. In this way although there is no place for 'freewill' as a primal cause, a sense of 'freewill' or choice is as necessary as much else of our mental faculties if we are to successfully make our way around the world.
MartinRDB (How do you sign youself in to this blog?)
You should be offered a box for your screen or display name when you register through Google. This should appear when you click on 'Leave your comment.'
SpaceP:
Either an infinite regress or no beginning is rather beyond my imagination but that is not to discount it. I am just pointing out that the limitation of our (my) brain governs serious investigation into possible answers. Einstein famously used familiar ideas to form the basic concepts of his theories - I would argue that most breakthroughs are of this nature. So, if we can't form the concepts in the first place how can we proceed?
Ah, dualism. I cannot see how mind, as distinct from brain, can be identified. How can we determine its properties scientifically and how does it connect and interact with the body, unless you are proposing a Spinoza type immanent and all pervasive 'Thing' which we might call God.
Elephantschild:
Thanks for the clafification. The reason I persisted is not because I know anything about stone age life but that I see adversity as the trigger to progress so often in our journey, at least in historical times.
Martin:
Solipsism is an interesting angle. Russell tells a joke in his 'History of Western Philosophy' to the effect that a woman wrote to him asserting that she was a solipsist but couldn't understand why she seemed to be the only one.
Solipsism is rather the end of the story, so if we wish to carry on discussing things and learning we will need to assume that there is a world outside one's brain. This does not, of course, mean that there is.
Popper used to get irritated by those who tried to find out what the real, as opposed to the perceived, world was like. 'If we can't gain access to it what is the point of bothering about it,' was more or less his point. But there again he was a terribly serious fellow by all accounts.
I agree that science is an attempt to discover the world objectively but I still perceive everything through my brain and I don't see how I can avoid this. I still have to make an assumption that you are more or less like me and that you have an independent existence.
That is why we make huge assumptions about the motivations and minds of animals, with a tendency to anthropomorphise.
We cannot be really objective because we are subjective beings.
We are subjective beings and we cannot know 'things in themselves', but Science gives us at the very least an idea of what we cannot experience, for example the particulate structure of matter. Whilst these ideas are in a sense provisional in that ultimately they are inferentially derived models, the totality of Scientific models provides a powerful account of an important part of the (theoretically unknowable) objective world. The Scientific account has no need for 'freewill', in fact as I implied earlier, the Scientific account is weakened by 'freewill'. Imagine a world without 'freewill', in what way would it be different from the world we know? So long as people could have the sense of 'freewill' without actually having 'freewill' then there would be no difference.
How is this objectivity achieved, when we are all subjective beings? Well I am achieving this objectivity as I write this, for language does not belong to the private and subjective sphere, but belongs to a public sphere outside ourselves. Our use of language may contribute to a form of negotiation of the parameters of the language (as in a small way your blog is doing with the concept of freewill), but language is a system of signs that is independent of our subjectivity and crucially bears a systematic relationship to objects and phenomena in the objective world. In this language system there exist signs that do not relate to concepts that have no verifiable existence. Such concepts include freewill (distinct from a sense of freewill perhaps?), the soul, God, fairies, unicorns etc.
Thanks for Russells solipsism joke. Solipsism is important, I believe, as a tool of analysis: if we accept our subjective box we are accepting solipsism.
MartinRDB (all the blog notes came up in German before and seemed to assume that I already had an account; this time it was in English and clearer for me)
A couple of very quick responses before I have to dash to London.
1) In a way it does not not matter whether we have free will or not providd we all believe we have but we also need to agree how much - difficult. However, it is still an interesting question.
2) Although we believe language to be in the public sphere we can never know if you receive anything like what I transmit. As an analogy, I do not know that you have the same sensation as me when I experience the colour red. We make assumptions but that is not the same as knowing.
Thus lies a whole potentiality for misunderstanding and error.
Responses to language may well be coloured by individual experiences, but the relationship of the words (signs) to whatever they signify is a product of the community within which individuals engage. One single person is a small part of the overall fabric of communicated experiences and responses, that has developed over time. Language cannot be a solipsistic experience: if an individual makes a linguistic mistake, participation in the language system obliges the mistake to be corrected (I suspect that this is a part of how we learn a language).
My position is that any argument from the point of view of the individual self will not do; so far as I can see, perhaps it is my hypothesis, all such arguments reduce to solipsism, which logically destroys the concept of communication and meaning (so this communicative activity is a denial of such an account).
On the colour 'red' canard: there is a very good argument to say that our senses are very much the same (admitting a few specific exceptions such as lack of the green sensing cone cell in colour blindness). Again this involves taking a perspective outside the individual and accepting that Science must not be held subservient to Philosophy. As human beings we share in a common gene pool, that has hardly altered over the last several thousand years. My genes that code for red sensing cone cells are the same as anyone else's; thus there is no reason to doubt that the primal sensations are much the same and certainly not unique. Of course an individual's experiences will create associations that colour what we make of our senses. Nevertheless, red is a word that we commonly understand to signify a common experience.
Your first point “In a way it does not not matter whether we have free will or not provided we all believe we have, but we also need to agree how much” includes an aspect that I have not given sufficient consideration. To discount the reality of freewill, does not mean that the degree of 'sense of freewill' is unimportant nor inappropriate in an account of an individual actions. This must be important in any value based or moral context.
"Either an infinite regress or no beginning is rather beyond my imagination but that is not to discount it. I am just pointing out that the limitation of our (my) brain governs serious investigation into possible answers. Einstein famously used familiar ideas to form the basic concepts of his theories - I would argue that most breakthroughs are of this nature. So, if we can't form the concepts in the first place how can we proceed?"
I'd say that although we can't fully conceptualize , say , infinity we can identify its mathematical properties and be guided by the numbers . The question is does the universe really dance to a mathematical tune or can we only see the part of the universe that does ?
"Ah, dualism. I cannot see how mind, as distinct from brain, can be identified. How can we determine its properties scientifically and how does it connect and interact with the body, unless you are proposing a Spinoza type immanent and all pervasive 'Thing' which we might call God."
If mind is non material , it has no physical extension , then perhaps its properties are not fully definable . The interaction question is the 'hard problem' for dualism just as qualia is the hard problem for monism . I think some of the answers may be found in parapsychology , though I admit that is not a widely held view .
MartinRDB :
"Well I am achieving this objectivity as I write this, for language does not belong to the private and subjective sphere, but belongs to a public sphere outside ourselves."
Doesn't this imply that the plural of subjective is objective ? We may still be unable to get to underlying objective reality , should such a thing exist , as a collective .
"Doesn't this imply that the plural of subjective is objective?"
Well it implies an external world and is therefore a move towards objectivity and "as a collective" it at least assures the objective existence of simple things (things we do not tend to argue about).
"We may still be unable to get to underlying objective reality" - in absolute terms, yes. Kant's 'ding an sich' may be limitless and include factors that are outside human conception, but the collective pursuit of knowledge (Science basically) can give us an idea of that which we cannot experience directly and which hitherto was undreamt of.
Take the particulate model, an aspect of it such as the workings of DNA: in Kant's day the mysteries of the inheritance of parental traits and of common viral diseases would have to belong to the world of things in themselves. Whilst there may be some equivocation about aspects of gene expression, there is no sense in denying the objective reality of the scientific model and the particulate scientific model upon which it depends. The objectivity is further entrenched when we have to engage with the consequences of application of these models. Specific elements of these models are based on inferences, but these elements are bound together into a coherent self supporting structure.
If we do not want to admit this as objective reality we at least must concede that objective reality must contain something very much like it.
“should such a thing exist” if you are reading this, then of course! That's the point (see Russell's solipsism joke above).
Thanks for the response - I will consider and reply. You have been very quiet on the 'God' thread so far.
Christian beliefs
It is difficult to summarise the beliefs of a religion called Christianity because there are about 22,000 sects or churches (source: Encyclopaedia Britannica) each believing slightly different versions of the truth but these are some commonly held tenets:
• They sometimes believe in the literal truth of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) and sometimes interpret parts as metaphor;
• They believe that the Bible is the word of God;
• Some believe that it was written at the time of the events they describe;
• Some believe that those who do not believe their doctrine will suffer eternal torment in Hell;
• All say that one must accept the whole message (of whichever version) and cannot take the bits one wishes and leave the rest;
• Some believe that those ordained have special privileges as intermediaries from God and that their interpretation of the Bible is the true one; and
• Some believe that men die utterly at the time of death and that only those believers who have led a sin-free life will be restored to life when the Kingdom of God is created upon the Earth.
Critical analysis
To believe in the literal truth of the Bible flies in the face of everything we currently know about Middle Eastern and Mediterranean history and culture. Even following the invention of alphabetic writing about 800 BC literacy remained the preserve of a tiny elite.
We know that cultural beliefs were passed on from one generation to another in pre-literate societies by stories memorised by highly trained specialists. In order to make them memorable and understandable to all within the society they were created as word pictures – poems, in a word. These poems were full of references that would be thoroughly understood by the audience for whom they were intended, only some of which are evident today.
The Bible mythology was a common one in the Middle East at the time – the Sumerian creation stories bear a remarkable resemblance to that found in the Scriptures. This surely points to a common cultural ancestry. The Bible is a collection of Jewish myths, religious exhortations, history and songs of praise written at various times after, and some times long after, the events described. Much of it was collected and assembled during the period of the Babylonian exile when the identity of the Jews as a separate and distinct people was really forged.
Christians sometimes point to various prophecies in the Old Testament to ‘Prove’ that the Bible is the word of God. Objections to this pseudo-scientific approach include:
• Only those examples that can be stretched to show a possible correlation between prophecy and subsequent outcome are chosen;
• Prediction and fulfilment of the prediction both occur in the past, so there is no way of knowing which came first;
• The prophecy is not given a timescale so one can say that such and such has come to pass whenever something like it has occurred. Given the great stretch of time and the imprecise nature of the prophecies it is hardly surprising that anyone can ‘Prove’ anything to his own satisfaction;
• Prophecies like the destruction of Babylon and the diminishing of Egypt are hardly prescient. Kingdoms and empires rise and fall all the time and when they fall they are usually destroyed. Babylon and Egypt had fallen before (and risen again, several times in Egypt’s case);
• If much of the Bible were written down during the exile, as scholars believe, then it would be unremarkable to allude to events that had already occurred or, in the case of Babylon, the foretelling of a fervently desired outcome (Mene mene tekel uparsin); and
• Some of the more fundamentalist Christians believe, as I understand it, that most scientific discovery is spurious – that the laws of Physics and Mathematics are wrong; that the Periodic Table is a fantasy; that geology is a lie; that medical science has not happened; that dinosaurs did not exist; that the universe outside our solar system is a nonsense; that evolution is a fairy story; that DNA is not the foundation for life; and that life began 6,000 years ago and the Earth was created in six days; etc. etc. etc. Presumably, Christians believe that God did not literally write the words but instructed human beings to do the task. How do we know that these are God’s words? All religious writings claim to be inspired by God in some way but where is the proof that He instructed the authors to write exactly these words and in these languages – Hebrew and Greek? Why, for instance, if Moses is supposed to have composed the first five books of the Bible, are they not written in his own language, which was Egyptian? How did Moses know about Adam – was there a diary or did God dictate the story?
God is supposed to have talked directly with the early patriarchs and the prophets but not to many people since, why not? Why is the Bible the word of God and other religious writings, such as the Koran not (and vice versa if one is Muslim)? How do Christians reconcile the differing natures of God within the Bible? For example, the God of Moses was a jealous God and, ‘You shall serve none other god but me.’ This suggests that other gods existed but His chosen people must not worship these. Whereas the God of Jesus was a compassionate, loving and forgiving God who loved sinners more than the righteous. ‘Turn the other cheek,’ had replaced ‘An eye for an eye.’
How can the Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ be reconciled with the divinely inspired Joshua’s brutal treatment of the Canaanites, who after all were the residents of the area the invading Israelites wished to live? This seems like God-ordained genocide.
Why did God choose the Jews as his people and not any other part of His creation? If He did why do gentiles worship Him if the Covenant is between Israelites and God? He tells the Israelites to destroy all non-Jews living in the Promised Land – why?
God seems to demand absolute obedience, subservience and adoration at all times – is this evidence of a kind, loving, forgiving and gentle God?
He suggests that Moses lead His people out of Egypt and then hardens the heart of Pharaoh to prevent them from going and subsequently inflicts all manner of plagues on Egypt for this when it is God who has caused it to happen in the first place!
How can 2.5 million people (603,000 adult males according to the Bible) and all their animals survive in the desert for 40 years – manna was only provided by God for the people?
How can all these people be addressed by one man at the same time, as Aaron did?
How can Judah have fathered three sons, who all grow to maturity, then marry his son’s widow who bears twins, one of whom grows to maturity and fathers two sons, Hezron and Hamal; all by the age of 42? He cannot be much older than this at the time of the journey to Egypt as Joseph is 39 and Judah is about 3 years older.
How do Christians answer all the other questions posed by Bishop Colenso concerning the logic of the numbers in the Pentateuch and Joshua? The numbers are not only contradictory, sometimes in the same book, but also wildly improbable.
If Jesus were God’s only begotten son, who are the ‘Sons of God’ mentioned at the beginning of Job? Why is God chatting with Satan? Why does He strike a deal with Satan to subject his faithful man Job to such capricious cruelty? Is this a loving God? If God is omnipotent why does he permit Satan to exist?
When God destroyed humanity (The Flood) in disgust at His creation’s behaviour (despite His afflicting us with original sin in the first place) He started again but with the same genetic line (Noah) and with the same dose of original sin. And lo! and behold He got the same result! This is either sheer vindictiveness or very unintelligent. How do Christians KNOW that the accounts of events in the Bible were written down contemporaneously when every other piece of available evidence points to the fact that most of it was recorded after (and sometimes long after) the event? This does not mean the authors are wrong necessarily but it does increase the likelihood of error. For example, the Gospels of the New Testament were written in Koine (not the language Jesus spoke, which was Aramaic). Those who wrote them were not contempories of Jesus and, so far as we know, Jesus did not write anything down at all. There are differences in the Gospels (particularly between the synoptics and John), which are sometimes difficult to reconcile, such as the accounts of His ministry and resurrection.
The earliest manuscripts for the gospels have been dated to the 2nd century AD and not likely to have been written before 60 AD according to some scholars and after the Jewish revolt (70 AD) by others. Paul’s letters were composed earlier but not until at least 25 years after the death of Jesus and some of those are known to be the work of later editors.
Mark is generally thought to have been the first of the surviving four gospels to have been written and to be the most reliable. It is disputed whether a fifth (Q) provided the source, along with Mark, for the gospels we know as Luke and Matthew.
Matthew uses the demands of a Roman census as the reason for the Holy family to travel to David’s town of Bethlehem. There was a census in Palestine around this time but not until ten years after the death of Herod the Great and not in Judea. Also, nobody had to travel anywhere and certainly not to the home of one’s ancestors. Imagine the administrative chaos that would entail and what would it achieve anyway?
John was composed later, probably around 100 AD, and is the least historically accurate of the four. Why have some writings, such as Thomas, been rejected by the early church and others accepted? Who decided which were the words of God and which not? How do the Dead Sea scrolls fit in to the picture – were they the word of God as revealed to the Qumran community or not?
Some Christians believe in the Jewish eschatology that the Kingdom of God will arrive on earth and the chosen will be restored to life. However, Christianity believes that Jesus was the Messiah as Jesus himself possibly believed. Jesus fully expected the Kingdom of God to occur in his lifetime and perhaps his quote from the Psalm 22 just prior to death is genuine, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’
The Apostle Paul followed the same line as Jesus but allowed Gentiles to participate in the coming Kingdom. This is a view that probably would not have been supported by Jesus unless they became Jewish converts, as Peter later insisted. Paul knew, however, that circumcision would be a step too far for most gentiles and the church would probably not have long survived his death had this been the price to pay for faith.
Why did God not create his earthly kingdom when his Son expected? When will it happen? When Jesus comes on clouds, as Daniel foretold, to proclaim the kingdom will he be God announcing himself? Do Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do they also believe Isaiah’s prophecy that the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David? If so, was Jesus descended from David through Joseph, as Luke has it? This would mean that Joseph was Jesus’ father and he cannot be if he is the Son of God and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Jesus, therefore, cannot be both the Messiah (Christ) and the Son of God.
If Jesus is the Son of God and God is omniscient did He foresee his own death? If yes, then Judas should be treated as a hero for playing such crucial part at great expense to himself. Also, Jesus must have engineered his own death if it were God’s plan for him to become the saviour of the world. Is this not suicide, which is a mortal sin according to the Church?
Pontius Pilate is portrayed in the Gospels as an essentially good man but weak and is exasperated by the demand of the Jewish Temple hierarchy for Jesus’ execution. This is not the Pontius Pilate we know from other sources. He was a ruthless and brutal governor with a track record of executing troublemakers and asking questions later. In fact, he was removed from office by the Emperor Tiberius in 36 AD because these unpleasant traits threatened to destabilise Judea. In any event the High Priest Caiaphas had no authority to demand execution except for blasphemy and, under Jewish law at the time Jesus was not guilty of this. Crucifixion was the normal Roman mode of execution for troublemakers (stoning was the usual Jewish punishment for blasphemy) and it is likely that Pontius Pilate wanted to send out a strong message to other potential agitators, particularly in the highly-charged atmosphere of an overcrowded Jerusalem at Passover.
There is a philosophical problem in proving the existence of God. As St Anselm suggested, God created the greatest thing we can possibly conceive and so He must be even greater than that. However, this must mean that He is literally inconceivable and so how can we possibly know that He exists.
Do Christians believe in the existence of the Holy Trinity as determined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (almost 300 years after the death of Jesus)? How can Jesus be his own father? How can three be one? What is God’s manifestation as father if His Son aspect is a human being and His spiritual being has no corporeal existence? Where is the mention of the Holy Trinity in the Bible?
Many Christians believe in the existence of Hell. Where is this mentioned in the Old Testament? How does this square with Sheol – is it the same place?
Jesus is often said to have died to save mankind and that He is our redeemer. What do these actually mean? What has He saved us from? What changed as a result of His death? What did he redeem us from? My dictionary defines ‘Redeem’ as to buy back or free from obligation. What has been bought back and from what obligation are we freed? Does it refer to Original Sin? If so, has it ceased to exist? Also, did not God afflict us with Original Sin in the first place?
The Christian God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent (all good). If there is wickedness in the world then He cannot be all three. Does Satan exist? Was Jesus really tempted by him? What about God’s deal with Satan in Job? Then how can God be omnipotent if Satan has the power to corrupt? If God created Satan to bring evil into the world then He cannot be benevolent.
Christianity is based on faith in that there is no room for doubt. Faith = certainty. This contradicts the Christian virtue of humility. Either Christians do not value humility or they have doubt about their beliefs but not both.
What is the nature of God? Does He have a body? Can a mind without a body really exist? What is ‘Mind?’ If it is a combination of intellect and will what purpose would it serve if it was disembodied?
Christianity in general firmly believes that God has entrusted us with the gift of free will. How free is free? Do we all have absolute freedom to behave as we wish or does genetic inheritance and upbringing play a role in limiting that freedom? (What is it the Jesuits say about giving them a child of seven and they will produce a devout believer for life?) If so, how can we be totally free?
Whether we suffer eternal salvation or torment depends on a number of factors, according to many Christians:
• Whether we have lived a sin-free life;
• Whether we have genuinely tried to exercise our gift of free will for the general good;
• Whether we believe in whichever sect’s interpretation of God.
To take each in turn, are any of us capable of living a sin-free life, particularly as we are cursed with original sin. It seems odd that God has afflicted us with a capacity for evil and then punishes us forever because we sometimes behave that way. Why so afflict us in the first place?
How are actions against intentions to be judged? If we genuinely try but fail to do the best, partly because of our limitations (presumably God given), does that count as good? If, on the other hand, we behave in a completely self-centred manner and unintentionally do good to others, how does that weigh in the scales of justice? So, if a person wants and tries to do good but cannot do other than harm does he rank higher than one who tries to serve only himself but inadvertently benefits the world? Why does God not make this clear?
How should we decide which interpretation of God to believe? Some sects are strict about belief and entry to Heaven. Why has God not been more explicit? If a person lives a sin-free life (or tries to) and yet has no faith will he be admitted to Heaven or is he condemned to eternal torment? Why does God demand absolute obedience and belief in Him if He has given us the freedom to choose? Why should He wish anybody to suffer torment if He is a benevolent God? Why did Jesus say that he loved sinners more than the righteous (presumably because they were more in need of his help) if they were to be excluded from Heaven in the final analysis unless they repented?
Is Christianity not based on a circular argument – we know the truth because the Bible tells us what the truth is; the Bible was written by divinely inspired human beings; we know they were divinely inspired because it says so in the Bible?
Science tries to base its enquiries on facts by building a premise on known phenomena and then developing an argument to form some possible hypotheses. Only when these have been tested over and over again to see if results predicted by the hypotheses actually occur will one (or none) of these become a theory. And still scientists are dissatisfied, knowing that theory is not truth, so they carry out more and more experiments in order to test the theory to destruction. When this has been accomplished, as happens to almost all theories eventually, one starts again to build a new one from a premise based on known facts.
Religion by contrast starts from a conclusion (a desired state) – a different one for each of the 22,000 Christian sects and churches, which is different again from Judaism and its variations, from Islam and from the Eastern faiths. It then tries to prove this conclusion through a highly selective pseudo-scientific approach, instillation of fear, force, the tempting prospect of some sort of immortality if one obeys the rules etc.
If a British Christian, let’s say, were born instead into a Muslim or Hindu family in India he would believe unquestioningly in that religion. How can Christianity, therefore, claim to be the absolute and unvarnished truth if truth depends on where one happens to be born?
Conclusion
Christianity is based on a dogma not finally agreed until long after the historical events on which it depends. Once that dogma had been agreed by a sufficiently powerful group alternative views were ruthlessly suppressed.
The God of the Old Testament is unpleasant – vindictive, jealous, angry, violent and vain.
Jesus was a historical figure – a devout Jew from a rural backwater who proclaimed, as did others around this time, an eschatological message and not that he was divine and formed one element of a Trinity.
Christianity is but one of many world religions and to say that they have access to the truth and that everybody else on the planet is misguided is arrogance.
A literalist view of the Bible is so obviously nonsense and blind to generations of historical scholarship, scientific discovery, and philosophical reasoning.
Christians (and all devoutly religious people) are temperamentally inclined to elevate their need for certainty above objective reasoning. This does not always apply to other aspects of their lives. It would appear to require a selective suppression of one’s critical faculties, which can be dangerous. It might be only a short step from this to enforcing one’s beliefs on others who have not yet seen the light. This we can see from the behaviour of so-called ‘Fundamentalist’ elements within Islam, as well as historically with Christianity.
Randolph Churchill’s comment on having just read the Bible from beginning to end to win a bet was, ‘God! God’s a sod.’
‘For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all that he condemns, or can say that he has examined to the bottom his own, or other men’s opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than to constrain others.’ John Locke.
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ Shakespeare (Hamlet).
'I'd say that although we can't fully conceptualize , say , infinity we can identify its mathematical properties and be guided by the numbers . The question is does the universe really dance to a mathematical tune or can we only see the part of the universe that does ?'
A lot of physicists think that much of what we have so far uncovered is metaphor, including mathematical proofs. I am not so learned to be able to make a judgement but, of course, all language is a metaphor at one level.
Wolfram's view is that maths presents a very limited description of the world.
How do we solve the problems of dualism? Is it really a question of belief without evidence?
MartinRDB:
'if you are reading this, then of course! That's the point (see Russell's solipsism joke above).'
I would argue that it does not preclude an entirely subjective world. The joke is amusing but it does not mean that solipsism is impossible.
To go back to Descartes, when I dream I believe that there are lots of different characters doing all sorts of different things but when I wake up I find that they are all a product of my mind - solipsism with knobs on.
"If we do not want to admit this as objective reality we at least must concede that objective reality must contain something very much like it."
Why must we concede that ? Couldn't we say there is no such thing as objective reality ? Perhaps we are given our empirical beliefs by subjective forces entirely unknowable to us . This doesn't make sense , but the whole point is that just as atheism simply states that the reason there is something rather than nothing can be anything other than 'God' , the notion of objective reality is open to the same 'it's something else' attack .
boltonian :
I look forward to your response . I have been quiet on the God thread because 1) The more I think about God questions the less sense God questions make . I have rejected both atheism and a personal God , I'm not entirely sure we are capable of framing the right questions to find out what is there , let alone of obtaining meaningful answers . And 2) I have a killer hangover .
You are absolved from all responsibility for the day given your second reason.
One of my great interests in life is fine wine - a wonderful but expensive hobby. Anyway, I am spending lots of time at the moment away in London and one evening a group of us working on the project and staying at the same hotel enjoyed a nice dinner with lots of wine before heading for the pub for a nightcap. Unfortunately, the nightcap was two hours and several pints of beer long - I reckoned it had been about 20 years since I had drunk that amount of alchohol. Not nice the next morning.
-------------
I hope a few from the 'God' thread will join us here - some very thoughtful and intelligent posts there. I keep trying to plug our site. I have passed the address around a few friends as well.
OK, Boltonian, I'll make a quick start on responding to your thoughtful questions, and then go to bed. I am writing as an evangelical Christian who by no means knows all the answers, but am convinced enough to try to present soe orthodox thoughts. As my shorthand, I am not going to qualify my thoughts with comments like "of course, you may not believe this" or whatever. That goes without saying.
"The Christian God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent (all good). If there is wickedness in the world then He cannot be all three."
What do you mean here? Omnipotent in what sense? The Bible makes clear that God cannot do everything (for example, He cannot tell a lie). A small distinction, perhaps, but worth making.
Your point is predicated on a single assumption, namely that God is fundamentally an interventionist. Where he sees wickedness, you seem to assert, He will strike it down. But this is not at all the Biblical account of God, which makes clear that (even in Eden) He allows informed choice, albeit with consequence, and that consequence may include separation from God.
"Does Satan exist? Was Jesus really tempted by him?"
The Bible says, emphatically, yes and yes. It is unhelpful to think of him as a red devil with a hot poker (the evocative image to the largely non-literate church, of course). On the latter, it's worth emphasising that the fact of being tempted is not the same as capitulating to temptation.
"What about God’s deal with Satan in Job? Then how can God be omnipotent if Satan has the power to corrupt? If God created Satan to bring evil into the world then He cannot be benevolent."
See above. Job 1 makes clear that Satan only acts with God's permission, so the two are in no way equivalent in power or status. God is the creator, Satan the creation.
God did not create Satan as the bringer of evil, but as an angel (I think an archangel) in charge of music in heaven (if you want refs I can provide them). The consequences of Satan's fall cannot be equated to a desire on the part of God to see that outcome realised.
Martin RDB and others have talked about God as an idea involving the 'supernatural" in this thread, and that is a subject which I think should be talked about a little more.
In my earlier post I referred to Hegel and Augustine as good places to start reading about theology, and they weren't picked at random. Augustine equates God with the platonic idea of "the good". Hegel discusses the Trinity as an extended metaphor for God (which we continue to accept on Augustine's terms) as transcendent, personal yet immanent, and discusses just what this means.
Derrida talks about religion as "good conduct" and that's an important idea too. The idea that there is some form of overarching good is the justification for this, and our ideas of God's nature shapes what "good conduct" will consist of. The church has one idea here, the other Abrahamic faiths have slightly different answers, but the answers of any of the three should be familiar to believers of the other two. The gospels also talk about "good conduct" a great deal; this is what loving your neighbour means, as many of the parables discuss. Others, in Luke, notably, cover the idea of form versus substance. Jesus is shown not to fetishise forms. When he has to choose between acting to save someone's life or remaining within the strict confines of the correct behaviour for the Sabbath he breaks the taboo about working on the Sabbath. This is a consistent theme, and I think it's a very important one.
I spoke earlier about the importance of understand what we meant by 'truth' and that is a very important idea. The writers of the Bible were not materialists, and did not accept the idea that 'truth meant something that one's senses could detect, any more than contemporary novelists would accept such a notion (so Heart of Darkness is a lot more than a ripping yarn about Africa). They frequently told stories whose purpose was to convey a moral position, they were not writing what people of this day and age would describe as 'history'. There are several authors who discuss this, and it would be helpful to look at the writing of Philo of Alexandria and Meister Eckhart as two obvious sources.
Philo of Alexandria was a jewish writer whose life began in the pre-Christian era and lasted until about 50 CE. Meister Eckhart taught at Paris in the 14th C (he occupied Aquinas' chair about 100 years after Aquinas).
So what do we mean by God? Augustine suggests that God is beyond our understanding, and so can't be contained by our miserable imaginations. God can't be a being; to claim this would be just such an attempt at confinement, and more alert readers may have noticed that I try to avoid using pronouns when I talk about God; English pronouns all have a flavour of "being" and also a flavour of "gender"; more confinement. What we are left with is a mystery and an urge to more than we have been. If the late 20th century has taught us nothing else, I think it has shown us that expediency is a dead end, and there are alternative ways to make sense of our lives.
In your questions addressed to Happyclappy above, you said 'All[Christians] say that one must accept the whole message (of whatever version) and cannot take the bits one wishes and leave the rest'
If in 'the whole message' you include any of the 'commonly held tenets' which you list, I am not sure that this is true. The Christian sect with which I am best acquainted is the Society of Friends (Quakers), since my father was a Quaker (also, incidentally, a scientist) and my mother, originally Anglican, eventually joined them.
From their beginnings in the 17th century Quakers, while remaining Christ-centred, have never considered subscription to any precise definition of belief to be a test of faith, and have placed a good deal of emphasis on the transforming power of personal religious experience, moderated and disciplined by the consensus of the community (since not all such subjective experience is necessarily authentic or useful), and expressed in personal and communal conduct. It could, perhaps, be summarised as a form of practical mysticism.
God (as noted by Johnr above), is understood as being both transendental (beyond, and never to be fully defined or understood by finite human minds) and immanent (within the world/universe). Their understanding is, furthermore, that there is, and has always been, 'that of God' within everyone (not to be confused with what people generally understand by 'conscience'), and that Christ is the full and perfect manifestation of God working within and through mankind. The starting point of the religious journey is the discovery of the divine spark within oneself and its recognition within others, but the journey must be guided by the example and teaching of Jesus (insofar as it can be discerned in the writings of the NT, and by the spirit of Christ within the community.
This has led to a belief in continuing revelation, and the modern Quaker position is that the profound questions of meaning posed by religion must be continually rethought and re-expressed in the light of new knowledge and new experience. They have never been inclined to a literal reading of the Bible in all its parts, or to regard it as the final authority.
It is a liberal theology which has so far found no difficulty embracing the results of modern scientific enquiry or of 19th and 20th century Biblical criticism, with a presumption, of course, that there is a spiritual dimension to existence which reductionist science does not address.
Although I am agnostic, I find this open appproach and its practical expression particularly interesting and can see its attractions.
I am currently reading John Hick's 'The New Frontier of Religion and Science', in which he explores the various kinds of personal religious experience (all religions) in the light of modern neuroscience and the question of consciousness. At the outset he makes a clear distinction between, on the one hand, institutional forms of religion, which are cumulative developments influenced by social, cultural, historical and other factors and, on the other hand, mystical experience, which is purely personal. The first may be informed and given impetus for development by the second, but may be divisive and harmful in its expression as often as it is beneficial. The second is common to all major religions, theistic and non-theistic, and though it may be interpreted sometimes within the framework of specific belief systems, it also reveals much that is common to all.
Perhaps I should have said all versions of Christianity that I am familiar with. I have discussed this issue with Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostalists, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians and what were formerly known as Congregationalists (United Reformed). I have not investigated all 22,000 Christian sects. Since I wrote this I have discovered that Unitarians are similarly undogmatic but these, I suggest, are the exceptions.
In fact, I discussed this very thing recently with a German Protestant friend of mine (who is also an industrial Chemist) and he was insistent that one had to to accept the whole message. Also, I am not sure how one can call oneself a Christian if one denies the divinity of Jesus.
It depends, I suppose, what is meant by ;the divinity of Jess. If it means literally the Son of God, virgin birth and all, or that he was literally God in human form, then I suspect that there are a good many people around (some theologians and Anglican bishops included) who continue to regard themselves as Christians without subscribing to those particular interpretations.
As I understand it, the Quaker view seems to allow for a different interpretation without displacing Christ from a central position in their faith, but maybe I have not explained it very well.
If Quakers refer to Jesus as 'Christ' at the very least they believe him to be the Messiah. Jesus might or might not have thought himself the Messiah but Christians must believe that he truly is, otherwise they cannot be Christians. I know that not all Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God (not least because of the contradiction of His being both), although all mainstream churches do. But to be a Christian one has to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and lived as the Gospels say he did (despite the contradictions therein).
That level of doctrinal conformity is not so with Therevada Buddhism. It is not even necessary to accept that Gautama lived the life tradition suggests he did to be Buddhist (or even that he existed at all). It is simply not a core element of their belief system. I have never come across the concept of heresy in Therevada Buddhism (the branch I know most about).
Some Buddhists believe in God, others do not. Most, I suspect, are agnostic.
I take your point, although I have never heard or read any Quaker use the word 'Messiah' and, as I indicated, they do not go in for dogma or doctrinal definitions. I guess that if you were to ask any group of Quakers what they meant by the term 'Christ', you might get a variety of different answers, none of which would necessarily correspond to what the early gentile converts or their successors understood by it.
Since I am not a Quaker, I am not in the best position to act as apologist for their beliefs, so the best that I can do is to quote from a book written by one who was - 'Approach to Quakerism' by Edward B Castle.
'With a bold leap through centuries of controversy as to how the Divine Godhead could exist in the man Jesus, early Friends declared that they knew, because they had experienced how the divine Light lived and worked in their own consciousness. The difference between Christ and themselves was the difference between the absolute and the relative. They had experienced a measure of the Spirit working in themselves and in other men, but to Christ, God had given Spririt without measure.... The Word, the Light of Christ, comes from the eternal God who works through men in history.'
That said, my father once remarked that many Attenders (i.e. those not admitted to full membership of the Society of Friends), and probably some Members, also, might best be described as agnostic, but evidently found something of great value in their participation in Quaker Meetings. Quakerism is a very broad 'church'
This is the only question I am going to attempt to comment on for the moment.
"Why did Jesus say that he loved sinners more than the righteous (presumably because they were more in need of his help) if they were to be excluded from Heaven in the final analysis unless they repented?"
My interpretation is that Jesus was saying that the righteous actually had a lot more work to do than the "sinners". We are all sinners, and the righteous are too short-sighted to realise that they are included in this category. It is much better to be starting from a position knowing that you have some work to do, than thinking that you are already there when you are not (if you see what I mean?).
I often say to people "if the sinners didn't go to church then there would be nobody there" and that includes the minister/vicar.
Nobody is going to go to heaven if you have had to have lived a sin-free life. We all sin. The difference is that believers (should) try to look out for their own sinning, try to limit it as much as they are able, and ask for forgiveness when they have sinned.
Thank you for your post and I hope you will continue to contribute.
I will respond soon - I hope others will too, especially as the 'God' thread will soon close.
elephantschild:
My quick response is that I thought Christos was the Greek (Koine) for 'Messiah' and that the two terms were interchangeable. Also, that Messiah means what the Jewish scriptures (see Isaiah, in particular) says it means. If Christ does not mean this what does it mean?
I know that people who are agnostic get something out of religion. Some accept the values but not the metaphysics. My point is that this is not policy and certainly not encouraged (perhaps certain branches are becoming less dogmatic with falling attendances). You hint that Quakers also make this distinction, however benignly, by dividing Attenders from Members.
In response to Spacepenguin, “Why must we concede that? (that objective reality must contain something very much like the scientific picture) Couldn't we say there is no such thing as objective reality? Perhaps we are given our empirical beliefs by subjective forces entirely unknowable to us. This doesn't make sense, but the whole point is that just as atheism simply states that the reason there is something rather than nothing can be anything other than 'God', the notion of objective reality is open to the same 'it's something else' attack”.
You are right that it doesn’t make sense; I understand that Leibnitz may have had a similar theory (we are all like clocks ticking in coordination with each other – I think this may be called occasionalism – but my knowledge is second or third hand), but in order to coordinate everything he had to depend on a supernatural force. Such views do illustrate the convolutions that are required to suggest that there is no objective reality. If there is no objective reality and you are not the only one, the relationship of you to whatever else becomes arbitrary.
My thesis does depend on the argument of the contradiction of a private language, which, in the solipsistic case, I think is a very strong argument.
I would be interested if some of you, who have a more professional interest in this, might wish to discuss the validity of the private language argument.
Use of language, communication, breaks out of the subjective bubble and implies an external reality. I could not possibly claim that Science reveals all of objective reality, but it engages with objective reality (or the thing in itself) and so provides us with a model for at the very least an aspect of that which we cannot know directly.
"A lot of physicists think that much of what we have so far uncovered is metaphor, including mathematical proofs. I am not so learned to be able to make a judgement but, of course, all language is a metaphor at one level."
In blunt terms what we have uncovered so far is partially successful though , probably necessarily , incomplete explainitory models for what makes our sensory equipment go ping . I'm not a fan of positivism , but in scientific terms that is all we can say about the scientific method . In other words I think physics is metaphor all the way down .
"Wolfram's view is that maths presents a very limited description of the world."
I'm not familiar with Wolfram's work , but looking at the reviews it seems more that he believes the notion of rigorous proof is limiting . His use of cellular automata to explain the world is mathematical . As a side note I think the title of one review sums up my initial reaction : "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity"
"How do we solve the problems of dualism? Is it really a question of belief without evidence?"
I would say some form of dualism , dual aspect monism say , is supportable on purely philosophical grounds The case for interactionist dualism , in my view , isn't strong enough on philosophical grounds alone (the cons outweigh the pros) . I think the evidence from parapsychology is required to make the case . Of course parapsychology is controversial in its own right .
MartinRDB :
"My thesis does depend on the argument of the contradiction of a private language, which, in the solipsistic case, I think is a very strong argument."
I think the private language argument , if true , implies that if the universe is entirely subjective there can be only one subjective experiencer or that what we subjectively believe is not freely chosen . This however implies an underlying set of rules for meshing individual experience together that could be called objective reality .
Agreed that Christos is the translation of 'Messiah' in the koine, although whether the original gentile converts unfamiliar with Jewish eschatology always understood the concept in quite the same way as their Jewish contemporaries is perhaps open to question. I woud argue that there began, in any case, to be a divergence once it became clear that the Kingdom of God might not be arriving in the near future and that perhaps the nature of the Kingdom might have to be reconsidered ('My kingdom is not of this world'?). Ideas about the nature of Christ have developed over time, and Quakers have never felt the need to confine themselves to definitions derived from the NT or the Council of Nicaea, or as propounded at any other historical point in time. Yesterday I was talking to a neighbour who is a Quaker and took the opportunity to ask whether Quakers necessarily regarded Jesus as the Messiah. Her answer was, as I expected, an emphatic 'no'. She also confirmed that there are Quakers who regard themselves as agnostic, or whose beliefs might best be described as non-theistic.
The fundamental approach of Quakerism, as I understand it, is that there is a spiritual dimension to existence which is both internal (the 'Inner Light', or 'that of God in everone') and external, and that this Spirit, cultivated and consulted individually and collectively, is what informs and guides all aspects of the life of a Quaker. To quote from 'Quaker Faith and Practice' (1994): 'As Friends we commit ourselves to a way of worship which allows Good to teach and transform us. We have found corporately that the Spirit, if rightly followed, will lead into truth, unity and love: all our testimonies grow from this teaching.' For historical reasons, if nothing else, Quakerism is a broadly Christian movement and draws on the teachings of Jesus as transmitted in the NT, but - 'Friends maintain that expressions of faith must be related to personal experience. Some may find Christian language full of meaning: some do not. Our understanding of our own religious tradition may sometimes be enhanced by insights of other faiths. The deeper realities of our faith are beyond verbal formulation and our way of worship based on silent waiting testifies to this' (ibid.) As regards the Quaker understanding of the meaning of 'Christ', this is a matter for the individual. At a guess there are many today who would see a clear distinction between Jesus the man and teacher, and Christ as a mythical paradigm of the Spirit working in and through man.
As regards the distinction between Attenders and Members, I think you are reading too much into this. 'Member' means member of a Monthly Meeting - the larger assembly of local Meetings within a given district which deliberates and makes decisions on administrative and other affairs of the church. (There are also Quarterly and Yearly Meetings which consider these matters on a national and international level, and a Meeting for Sufferings, set up originaly to support members and their families who were subject to persecution for their faith, which is now a standing body of representatives acting, in a sense, as the executive branch of the Society. Details of the way in which these operate are given in 'Quaker Faith and Practice' - they are egalitarian and somewhat idiosyncratic in their procedures.) Membership requires only a sincerity of purpose and commitment to Quaker values and practics, but implies also an acceptance of certain responsibilities, including responsibility to participate in meetings for church affairs, willingness to serve in verious regional and national groups, shared pastoral responsibility, and some degree of financial commitment, according to means.
An Attender is someone who attends a particular meeting frequently and is registered as doing so, but who has not (or not yet), for whatever reason, applied for membership.
Within Meetings for Worship there is no hierarchy: all are equal, Members, Attenders, young and old, highly educated or otherwise, and anyone may speak if they feel moved or prompted to do so. Such 'ministry' may consist of personal testimony or insight or questions, and is generally brief (lengthy discourse is not encouraged).
Any individual aged 16 or over may apply for membership to the Monthly Meeting. Under the present system, the Meeting then appoints two Friends to visit the applicant and, following this, the visitors will then report back to the Meeting, which will make the decision collectively. To quote again:
'As a part of a spiritual journey on the part of the person applying, the visit should be a sensitive exchange of thought between seekers: it should provide an opportunity for, and result in, mutual understanding and enrichment. It should not, however, be undertaken in the spirit of examination'
'The visitors should seek to help the applicant towards a fuller understanding of Quaker faith and practice and the implications of membership, where this is needed. They should ensure that the applicant understands the nature of Quaker worship as a corporate waiting on God, where inspiration and guidance may be received. The applicant should understand why we dispense with outward forms, and should have considered seriously whether worship without them will be spiritually satisfying. Visitors will make it clear that the Society is essentially Christian in its inspiration, although it asks for no specific affirmation of faith and understands Christianity primarily in terms of discipleship.'
'Our theology and practice are inseperable, and the visitors will need to find out how far the desire for memebership arises from a clear understanding of this rather than from an appreciation of some particular aspect of our practice, such as our social witness, our peace testimony, or our mostly silent worship.'
However -
'Complete agreement with all our testimonies is not necessary.'
**************
Inicidentally, apropos Buddhism, my neighbour mentioned that she knows some Quakers who are also Buddhists. It is not in any way an exclusive faith.
Schopenhauer thought that the entire cosmos (including us) was one'Thing' - the blind will to exist.
Now, if bosons and fermions are interchangeable - Smolin thinks we will have answers to this and much more in the very near future - and things like non-locality and the wave function bear any resemblance to reality why is this not possible? Why should everything be discrete? This is also the Spinoza position (sort of).
Consciousness might be nothing more than one position in time and space for the purpose of observing the universe (which might be required for it to exist at all, except as a potentiality). This comes back to whoever said earlier in the thread that existence is purely in the moment.
I admit that this leads towards solipsism but then we cannot say that this is not our position.
BTW Smolin also suggests (not finished the book yet) that time does not really exist and this will be proved one way or t'other withing the next few years.
Elephantschild:
Many thanks for the Quaker information. Very interesting, especially the undogmatic approach. It seems, from what you say, that it is almost non-Christian - merely using the Jesus of the Gospels as way or articulating their values.
HappyClappy:
Thanks for this.
God not omnipotent? What is your source?
God intervenes all the time - the sun stands still for Joshua, the ram in the thicket that saved Isaac, manna from heaven, the tablets of stone, the miracles of Jesus etc etc.
God created Satan and then had a wager with him about the behaviour of Job following a series of what I can only think of as tortures inflicted by God. Very strange.
Biskieboo:
Many thanks.
Isn't this saying that sinners will be more highly rewarded than the righteous? I was trying to ascertain the entry requirements for Heaven. Is it belief in God or good behaviour? Or even the results of our behaviours, whatever our motivations?
'....it is almost non-Christian - merely using the Jesus of the Gospels as a way of articulating their values'
That seems to me a somewhat reductive interpretation of the complexity I was trying to convey, although it would be one of many positions which Quakerism can accommodate.
BTW It was probably obvious from the context, but perhaps I should have stated when I wrote '...Christ as a mythical paradigm ...' that I meant 'mythical' in the Platonic sense.
PS Thanks for putting me on to 'The Trouble with Physics'. I have not started reading it yet - it will have to join the queue - but it looks most interesting.
"Schopenhauer thought that the entire cosmos (including us) was one'Thing' - the blind will to exist.
Now, if bosons and fermions are interchangeable - Smolin thinks we will have answers to this and much more in the very near future - and things like non-locality and the wave function bear any resemblance to reality why is this not possible? Why should everything be discrete? This is also the Spinoza position (sort of)."
QM is discrete . Trying to find a way to make space time discrete occupies a lot of physicists . Wolfram's CA ideas are about as discrete as you get . Lots of discrete things in an entangled state are still discrete .
"Consciousness might be nothing more than one position in time and space for the purpose of observing the universe (which might be required for it to exist at all, except as a potentiality). This comes back to whoever said earlier in the thread that existence is purely in the moment."
That's almost as abstract a notion of consciousness as dualism . If the brain is the substrate of consciousness , then consciousness must be many points in time and space throughout the brain .
Yes, I was just trying to explore some sort of guiding principle and coming up with a gross oversimplification. I accept that people do things for very different reasons. In the 'Mainstream' churches it is at least easier to articulate what the congregation SHOULD be there for and what they ought to believe (not all do, of course). Quakerism seems almost like Buddhism in that there is no cast-iron doctrine that one must subscribe to - it is much more about how one lives one's life.
SpaceP:
I was really just playing about with ideas - I do not have a fully worked out metaphysical hypothesis.
I just think that we are miles away from any sort of understanding of either reality or consciousness. Duality does not do it for me but I don't really have an alternative. Perhaps if I live long enough to see a robotic brain built from scratch we might get some sort of answer - even a negative one that the brain is not consciousness.
The first half of Smolin's book is a bit depressing but it is starting to warm up a little as he begins to discuss positives rather than the inadequacies of string theory.
If spacetime comprises discrete 'Thingies' what are the units and what are their properties? Does spacetime really exist? Or is it a useful concept to get us further down the road, like Newtonian aether,and we can discard it when something better comes along?
Hi Biskieboo here again. Here's a short reply to this:
"Isn't this saying that sinners will be more highly rewarded than the righteous? I was trying to ascertain the entry requirements for Heaven. Is it belief in God or good behaviour? Or even the results of our behaviours, whatever our motivations?"
Matthew Ch7 v21-23 makes it clear that only by obeying God can one get into heaven. It is NOT enough to claim Jesus as your lord. Good deeds are not enough either (Ephesians ch2v8).
I think this actually sounds pretty fair. You can't just say you are a Christian and then behave badly and still expect to go to heaven. And you can't just do good deeds and expect it either. Some people are not able to do good deeds eg someone who is severely physically disabled, but they are not excluded from going to heaven.
I would like to think that it is what is in peoples' hearts that is the crux of the matter; the striving to do what is right.
Two other points:
Jesus said he did not come to invite good people to be his followers, but came to invite sinners (Mark ch2 v17). I know I am a sinner so he is talking about me.
He also said that "anyone who isn't against us is for us" (Mark Ch9 v40) which I think is pretty cool.
I'm sure the next question you will be wanting to ask is "how do we know we are obeying God" so I'll start thinking about that one now........
I am not sure I have any fellow feeling with a god, despite apparently being made in His image, who demands obedience from me and then fails utterly to make clear what this might mean.
'It is easier for a camel etc.....'
'To him that hath, more shall be given.'
In fact, I would not warm to a god who demands obedience (and adoration), even if it were made clear what it entails, especially when he has given me the free will to choose. I guess this means I am doomed.
Also, who says what are good deeds? They vary from generation to generation and from place to place. Is it the motivation or the outcome that is most important?
As Nietzsche did not quite put it - at the centre of Christainity sits a big, fat lie; the meek have not inherited the earth - it is merely jam tomorrow and business as usual.
Actually God does not "demand" anything as far as I can see.
Surely a God who has given us free will is expressly NOT demanding obedience and worship, but leaving it up to us whether we do so or not?
Maybe you were lucky enough to have been raised by parents who gave you clear boundaries and good moral guidance. For someone such as myself who was not, I have had to explore these issues for myself and I've made a fair amount of blunders along the way.
I find the moral guidance in the new testament very clear, and the ten commandments an excellent set of rules to try to live up to.
Doing good deeds is a decidedly tricky area. I don't go out of my way to purposely "do good deeds" for individuals as I do not know if the particular deed in question is actually "good" in the sense that I do not know if it is the *best* thing for the individual I might be doing the deed for.
For me, my faith is much more about self-development than going around "doing good". That is not to say that I do not involve myself with issues and campaigns that I feel do "collective good", but even here you have to be very careful.
I don't know what other believers think on this issue, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.
It is very dangerous territory when one person thinks that they know what is best for another. I'd rather leave that up to God.
"I just think that we are miles away from any sort of understanding of either reality or consciousness. Duality does not do it for me but I don't really have an alternative."
I think a full and complete scientific understanding of reality or consciousness may be impossible . There seems to be , I think , a conceptual problem with consciousness and , say , the origin of the universe that goes beyond methodology .
Dualism of some kind , not necessarily interactionist dualism but property dualism or epiphenomenalism say , is still , in a naturalistic framework , popular with philosophers of mind . The basic problem is that a thought seems to be a different type of thing from the neural firing that correlates with that thought .
"Perhaps if I live long enough to see a robotic brain built from scratch we might get some sort of answer - even a negative one that the brain is not consciousness."
How could you test a robot for consciousness as we understand what the word means ? If you poke around Kurzweil's site that pttp linked to there is a debate about just that subject between Kurzweil and a computer science professor from Yale .
"The first half of Smolin's book is a bit depressing but it is starting to warm up a little as he begins to discuss positives rather than the inadequacies of string theory."
But bashing string theory is fun !
"If spacetime comprises discrete 'Thingies' what are the units and what are their properties? Does spacetime really exist? Or is it a useful concept to get us further down the road, like Newtonian aether,and we can discard it when something better comes along?"
There is some debate about this . Is space time fundamental , or is it emergent from the behavior of matter . I'm not sure that asking if space time 'exists' is a useful scientific question , the question is does it do useful explanatory work ? I find I become more positivist the more abstract things get in physics .
Regarding the links pttp dropped ..
The simulation argument is an interesting one , I think you know it quite well . There is a link to the paper that kicked off , as far as I can tell , the mainstream speculation .
The Wolfram review pretty much confirms what I thought when I first saw the idea of a CA universe . Interesting , but probably wrong .
'Matthew Ch7 v21-23 makes it clear that only by obeying God can one get into heaven.'
In fact, if there is one theme running through the scriptures it is that God does demand obedience and worship. Fear of God is probably the most common sentiment, at least in the Old Testament. Just one example from Judges (10, 7),
'And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of the Philistines...' and this for daring not to worship Him.
How would we know our robot had consciousness? We wouldn't; in the same way that we don't know whether animals have. We can carry out experiments that would help us make assumptions but no more than that. But, doesn't that road lead to solipsism? I don't even know that my wife, for example, has an independent existence outside my mind because everything I know about the world comes to me through that channel.
Perhaps there is a fundamental reason why our attempts to establish any sort of handle on objective reality is doomed. Perhaps because we cannot break out of our subjectivity or that our brain is too restrictive or for some other, deeper reason. Perhaps like the 'Game over' scenario from Elephantschild earlier.
I have not read Wlfram's stuff either, except waht other have written. I am not competent to judge whether CA is useful or a chimera.
I will revisit the sites pttp gave us and play around when I have some time - it looks fascinating.
Thoughts are very interesting. Of what are they made? Where do they go? Are they material? If they stay within the brain then does that not point to a solipsistic monism?
"How would we know our robot had consciousness? We wouldn't; in the same way that we don't know whether animals have. We can carry out experiments that would help us make assumptions but no more than that. But, doesn't that road lead to solipsism? I don't even know that my wife, for example, has an independent existence outside my mind because everything I know about the world comes to me through that channel."
I suppose the difference is that our knowledge of our own consciousness leads us to think that other people , and some animals , also have that subjective experience . If we build a robot to test if a robot can be consciousness we first have to find a way to detect consciousness itself , not just the neural correlates . I can't see how any test could do that .
"Perhaps there is a fundamental reason why our attempts to establish any sort of handle on objective reality is doomed. Perhaps because we cannot break out of our subjectivity or that our brain is too restrictive or for some other, deeper reason. Perhaps like the 'Game over' scenario from Elephantschild earlier."
This sounds like mysterianism . You may be right , or perhaps the scientific method falls at the last hurdle and the meditators and mystics are closer to reality .
"Thoughts are very interesting. Of what are they made? Where do they go? Are they material? If they stay within the brain then does that not point to a solipsistic monism?"
The information processing in the brain is clearly , in my view , material . It is that extra thing , the subjective awareness of thoughts , that seem to be of a different order of being .
Is a thought and its neural correlate the same thing ? If not then thoughts have no spacial extension and therefore cannot be material . That would point to a dualism of some kind .
A lot of people tie themselves up in knots when they look at the old testament. I tend to look at certain parts of the old testament as a history of where and why it all went wrong. Jesus had to come and try to sort it all out again so it obviously wasn't all going to plan. Mostly because people weren't doing what God through Moses had said they should be (ten commandments).
When I tell my son something eg "knives are sharp and you shouldn't touch them" and then he goes and cuts his finger on one because he hasn't listened, I tend to be cross with him. I'm telling him stuff that is for his own good, not mine, but I still get cross. It doesn't mean that I don't love him.
The passage you refer to is an interesting one. God had rescued the Israelites from the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, the Amalekites, and the Maonites, phew! No wonder He is then a bit peeved when they then start worshipping other Gods!
Consciousness: I am playing catch-up here, and some of the information I am playing around with is only half digested but, for what it is worth, I am with Spacepenguin in thinking that consciousness is not reducible to purely physical brain activity. Neuroscientists tend to be materialists and to look for a physical explanation, but if they reason that because there is a clearly observed correlation between neural activity and conscious states the two are therefore essentially the same, they are ignoring a logical gap: correlation does not prove identity. Epiphenomenalism, whatever form it takes, seems to be just a way of fudging round the issue, and still leaves a problem. If consciousness is, so to speak, just a side effect of neural activity in the brain, what purpose does it serve? If it has no executive function independent of neural activity, no power to affect behaviour via the brain, it is functionless, so why did it ever evolve? (the question I posed earlier). None of the suggested explanations I have seen seem to provide a satisfactory answer, and there does not appear to be any way in which physical brain states and conscious mental states can be demonstrated experimentally to be simply attributes of the same 'thing'. Earlier on I referred to the hypothesis that consciousness might be explicable in terms of quantum coherence. I tracked this down to Roger Penrose, but does anyone have any further information?
Some would argue that there is, in fact, observational evidence for consciousness having a function, in that conscious mental activity seems to be able to effect alterations in the structure of the brain - in meditating Buddhist monks, for example, or London cab drivers learning 'The Knowledge'. It suggests a two-way interaction, at least, although some might argue that it is a 'chicken or egg' situation.
Dualism points to the possibility of free will. Libet seems to have concluded as much as a result of his experiments (although I gather that his results have not been replicated and there has been criticism of his methodology). He has written that 'Potentially available to the conscious function is the possibility of stopping or vetoing the final progress of the volitional process, so that no actual muscle action ensues. Consciousness would thus affect the outcome of the volitional process, even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral process.' and that 'The conscious veto is a control process different from simply becoming aware of the wish to act...There is no experimental evidence against the possibility that the control function may appear without development by prior unconscious process.' His experiments, of course, related only to a minor physical action.
BTW Having read a bit more n the subject, I realise that I may have been misinterpreting the compatabilist position. I am perhaps closer to the position of Hans Kung - '..within the limits of what is conditioned and what is inate I am free' to which I would add '..and the limits of choice which any given circumstance presents'.
*****************
Consciousness, subjectivity and solipsism: I don't buy solipsism, if only because, if followed through to a conclusion, it seems to lead to a reductio ad absurdum. The key here is language, as Martin pointed out. Animals - the higher mammal, at least- do appear to have a form of consciousness, in that they behave as if aware of themselves as distinct from other animals, and communicate to a limited degree with others of their own species by means of body language, smell, a limited range of sounds etc. (cats and dogs kept as pets relate to their human owners as if to members of their own species). The higher primates may have a greater degree self awareness (chimps are apparently able to recognize themselves in a mirror), but human consciousness is, as far as we know, unique, in that language enables us to articulate abstract ideas and therefore to observe ourselves thinking - to be aware of being conscious. Language and human consciousness are, in fact, inextricably interrelated; neither is possible without the other. And with language I can communicate and receive ideas and thoughts, even if these are compromised in the transmission by subjectivity, and can establish that the beings with whom I share similar physical attributes and who react in the same way as myself to the same stimuli, appear also to possess the same kind of consciousness and to have more or less the same perception of the world
Thoughts and ideas which 'I' receive my means of language can modify or alter the way I think or perceive things, and thoughts which I transmit in the same way sometimes appear to modify the thinking and ideas of these 'others'. For example, I am interested in theoretical physics and cosmology, and although I have difficulty in conceptualising some of the ideas involved, most of what I read on the subject seems to make sense. But all these ideas originate with others; I would be quite incapable of producing them myself, because I am incapable of the reasoning necessary to formulate them (if there is a mathematical equivalent of dyslexia, I have it, and never got beyond a GCE 'O' level in the subject). If I exist in a virtual reality, then the 'others' who transmit the information might simply be constructs without consciousness, programmed for some reason to do this, but the simpler option - that they do have an independent, conscious existence - seems a more rational assumption, even if I cannot prove objectively that this is so (and even if they and I are part of a simulated universe).
************************
Spacepenguin said that '...perhaps meditators and mystics are closer to reality'. This is a subject which I would be interested in pursuing further, if anyone has any ideas.
Have you read Bishop Colenso's criticism of the Pentateuch and Joshua? This demonstrates quite clearly the incoherence of those books.
'No wonder He is then a bit peeved when they then start worshipping other Gods!'
God is not supposed to be peeved - he is perfect and benevolent and, therefore, incapable of these human characteristics (allegedly). Now, impatience is a human weakness and to impute that to God is anthropomorphism. And that is the whole point. God is very human - angry, jealous, loving, generous, dictatorial, etc because He was created by us. That is why His nature is different in Judges than He is in Daniel (composed much later). The God in Joshua is barely recognisable as the same being in John.
SpaceP, Elephantschild and others:
Consciousness might simply be a by product of a large brain, which in itself could be a by product of bi-pedalism. It has obviously conferred some benefit, otherwise we might have lost it (although we have not been around that long) but perhaps not the competitive advantage that we think.
I am not sure that language and consciousness are interdependent. We know of lots of creatures with highly developed language characteristics yet we have no proof that they are capable of conscious thought. We have a great capacity for anthropomorphism and most of the experiments that I have read about (I am not an expert in this field) are guilty of rather loose interpretation of the results.
Solipsism, subjectivity and the nature of consciousness.
Solipsism is a reductio ad absurdum but that does not make it impossible and language does not get you out of it because everything comes to you through one's own brain. Having said that I think it unlikely but it is difficult (for me) to prove.
Subjectivity, though, we cannot escape. It is only by making assumptions about others we can make any sense of the world. That is why when somebody behaves so unlike us, like the recent Virginia Tech tragedy, that it is so shocking. More so than hundreds of deaths in Iraq each week - we can at least rationalise that and put ourselves into that position.
I have not yet encountered a theory of consciousness that does not have enormous holes - and that includes duality and epiphenomenalism.
Hans Kung - I would like to say something about him at some stage but I have run out of time. His quote might not leave much room for free will, though.
I agree that epiphenomenalism doesn't make much sense in a materialistic monism framework , but I don't think consciousness can be made sense of in such a context . Mysterians like Robert Wright and Stephen Pinker basically just declare the whole matter to be unknowable to science . Pinker's view is that we evolved brains to answer wholly different types of questions .
Penrose's Orch-OR theory of consciousness , I think it is called , is not widely accepted . There are problems with decoherence in the brain and a few other things as well . He developed his theory because he thought that the mind is not computable , as we can intuit certain mathematical truths without proof . This is not a widely held view . In any case , I'm not aware of his theory having anything helpful to say about qualia .
I like that Hans Kung quote although , again , under naturalism there is only what is innate and what is conditioned . There is nothing else .
"If I exist in a virtual reality, then the 'others' who transmit the information might simply be constructs without consciousness, programmed for some reason to do this, but the simpler option - that they do have an independent, conscious existence - seems a more rational assumption, even if I cannot prove objectively that this is so (and even if they and I are part of a simulated universe)."
Perhaps we are all constructs who are programmed to think we are conscious ? Or is thinking you are conscious what consciousness is ?
I don't think the language argument undermines strong solipsism . If everything is a figment of your imagination then the notion of acquiring information is illusionary . You could already know everything you think you are learning from someone . You just don't know it .
Apologies for the silence. There have been too many other things demanding my attention over the weekend.
Boltonian:
'I am not sure that language and consciousness are interdependent. We know of lots of creatures with highly developed language characteristics yet we have no proof that they are capable of conscious thought.'
It depends, I suppose, on how you define consciousness. see http.//plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
It may be that there are degrees of consciousness. Some animals do, indeed, display evidence of well developed language characteristics, but nothing which has been observed suggests that these languages, in whatever form, are applied to anything other than what is immediate and present.
My point was that, as far as we can tell, only humans have developed a highly complex, abstract, symbolic language capable of articulating and communicating what is abstract (not present) and formulating complex ideas. I would argue that it is this ability which enables what I, at least, understand by human consciousness - the ability to be aware of and to monitor our own thought processes; to think about thinking and attribute the same capacity to others. Many animals may be self-aware and have some form of access consciousness (the ability to form mental representations) without being self-conscious in the same way, or having any 'theory of mind', since their capacity for language (probably) would not permit abstract thought to the same degree.
Human consciusness and the capacity for complex language may both be products of a large brain, and the development of both is likely to have been enabled by bipedalism. The ability to produce the range of vocal sounds necessary for human speech is the result of the larynx moving further down the throat - not possible in quadripedal apes. (Although other forms of complex language might be possible - in squid like creatures with chromatophores, for example.)
Spacepenguin
'If everthing is a figment of your imagination, then the notion of acquiring information is illusionary. You could already know everthything you think you are learning from someone. You just don't know it.'
In that case, would it follow that the limited brain (nowhere near the size of a planet) and the equally limited mind which I imagine that I have are part of something greater of which I am not directly aware. Could I be, in fact, the god of my own universe?
I have not had enough time to put together a long response, but the point about the language argument is not so much that it take the individual out of solipsism, one of my main points is to try to establish some distance from the individual, but the language argument does firmly remove the discussion outside solipsism; in fact there is no discussion within solipsism, there is no time and there is no memory and language signifies nothing.
Yes of course the attempt to establish some distance from the individual is ultimately unrealisable; which is why there is always some margin of error in our objectified knowledge (knowledge that includes science); nevertheless this is what we must try to do if we wish to understand the material objective world (as I said before acts of communication are assertions of the reality of an objective, individual independent world).
Solipsism, according to my argument, is only possible if it is not expressed, because the act of its expressed communication is a denial of the idea. The reductio ad absurdum aspect is, to me, beside the point. Solipsism is a useful concept in the analysis of metaphysical concepts. I would contend that religious ideas, freewill and spiritual dualism are solipsistic concepts which necessarily defy rational discussion. By all means we may have these ideas as individuals, but expression of these ideas creates a form of nonsense.
Consciousness obviously belongs to the individual or personal perspective, but it is very tempting to feel that it ought to have some objective meaning. However, apart from describing it as a form of awareness, it is not easy to pin down. Discussion of the conscious and he unconscious often appears to imply that there is a clear cut distinction, but expressions such as 'very conscious' 'acutely conscious' and 'dimly conscious' suggest this is not so. Am I alone in finding that a conscious failure to find a solution to a question or problem is often followed by an unconscious success, when the solution seems to come to me à propos of nothing? On the other hand the communicated consciousness is self evident, but not the same thing, so this leads me to conclude that personal consciousness is inherently inaccessible.
Some general comments are nevertheless possible: when we see an object, the brain processes information from retinal rod and cone cells and creates a representation of the object, which we take as synonymous with the object itself; nevertheless the representation exists only in the brain, but at least enables us to say we are conscious of the object. In actual fact it is not difficult to demonstrate that the brain supplies missing data using memory and other parallel data to complete the picture. For example the blind spot automatically 'sees' the background colour that it cannot detect and in dim light we interpret colours that we are in fact not capable of detecting. There are parallels in other senses, all of which creates more questions than answers about the conscious/unconscious divide. To put this another way: our unconscious is responsible for much of which we assume to be conscious. I think this means that the concept of the conscious is less helpful than at first it seems to be.
Yes, OK point taken, God should not get cross because He is indeed perfect. God is love.
I think that we (people) actually project all those other characteristics onto God. God must be constant, He must always be love.
The Israelites interpret God's actions as anger. This doesn't mean that it actually was. You could interpret His action's as loving if looked at from another perspective.
I'm thinking of times when a little "tough love" is required (to borrow the American phrase).
Take for example a mother of a heroin addict. Which is the more loving action which she could take to help her son with his addiction - 1) give him enough money to always be able to buy enough heroin 2) refuse her son's requests for money to buy heroin
Is the loving mother the one that keeps her son a heroin addict, or the one which makes clear that she will not help him fund his addiction?
Is it that God is different in the old testament books, or is it that the people writing them had different interpretations of His actions as they grew to know Him better?
I have started reading the Old Testament again and hope to go right through it this time, so thanks for the kick to get me going!
This is a very quick response - just a few (not well organised) thoughts.
Language:
When I dream (back to Descartes) I can speak and think that I am really speaking to other (objective) beings. When I awake I realise that all this was happening in my brain.
Of course one needs references and experiences from which to draw on as the substance of the dream but why cannot these also be manufactured within the brain? Have you ever been in a dream, realised you are dreaming and thought that you have awoken from it only to be still in another dream?
Language is also very approximate - it seems to me unlikely that sender and receiver are communicating the same message.
BTW I am not saying that solipsism is likely to be the case - just trying to put a logical argument for it.
Yes, the larynx is very important because we lost something as well as gained the ability to articulate more complex ideas. We can choke to death far more easily than other primates because our air and food passages are basically the same to make room for the larynx.
The idea of creating complete pictures from scant evidence, at which our brain seems to be particularly adept, I think might explain lots about our psyche. When we examine what we really know about the world it is not very much but we think we know lots. We seem to be programmed to fill vacuums. We all do it all the time but it is almost always assumption, usually induction. Religious faith based on all sorts of elaborate and unprovable tenets is a universal case in point.
I agree that consciousness is a continuum, rather than a fixed state but can we get a bit closer? Some animals, like the higher marine mammals, do have a sophisticated language system but are they conscious? Are they aware of their surroundings beyond their immediate environment and are they capable of rationale thought and discussion about themselves and their surroundings?
Perhaps consciousness (however we define it)increases with organic complexity and relative brain size. If so, this would tend to count against dualism.
Biskieboo:
I thought that the Bible was the unadorned word of God. If you are saying that it was written and interpreted by people then that opens up a Pandora's box of problems.
Who did God communicate with and how? Was it somebody different from those who wrote it down? If it was an interpretation, who interpreted it and how do we know that they got it right? If we are able to interpret the words freely now how do we know that this is really what God meant? If the Bible is not meant to be taken literally how should we decide what it really means? Who is qualified to perform this task? Why does God not make things a little clearer? There are more than 22,000 sects and churches in the world, each with its own interpretation (and some of them in conflict with one another). Why is the Bible so opaque, leading to such confusion?
I don't think it would necessarily follow , after all if you are not in control of your own universe how could you be God of it ?
MartinRDB :
"Solipsism is a useful concept in the analysis of metaphysical concepts. I would contend that religious ideas, freewill and spiritual dualism are solipsistic concepts which necessarily defy rational discussion."
Why are those things soliphistic ? They , possibly , defy a materialistic ontology but I don't think they imply soliphism necessarily .
I think consciousness is very difficult to adequately define . This , I believe , is the cause of a lot of disagreement . I would roughly define it as the experience of having thoughts and sensations . Though what that actually means when you unpack the definition is probably ambiguous .
Perhaps we have simply reached the conceptual limit of the human brain ?
boltonian :
"Perhaps consciousness (however we define it)increases with organic complexity and relative brain size. If so, this would tend to count against dualism."
If you define consciousness as "the experience of having thoughts and sensations" then consciousness either exists or it doesn't . The use of consciousness to denote information processing ability may be a red herring .
The second point I would make is that the main argument for dualism , of some kind , is the different nature of mental events and neural events .
Imagine watching your brain on a super sophisticated real time fMRI scanner . In theory you are watching your thoughts . Anybody watching the scanner with you knows everything physical that is happening in your brain . I would contend that they are still not watching your thoughts even though they have access to all the physical information in your brain . They still do not know all there is to know about what it is like to be you thinking .
Another important thread running through this discussion is the nature of texts and how seriously we should take them. This is always a difficult question, even for relatively recent texts, and in the case of works which are some thousands of years old it has to be said that it's often very difficult to be confident about just what was written in the first place, complicated for most of by the translation problem, which means that we are forced to accept someone else's reading of what the text really said. Having just helped my wife to make sense of the French original of a text she had been pointed to (but in the English translation) I've recently had to deal with this at first hand.
The translator had added some sub-headings to the text which is not good practice anyway, but they'd completely misconstrued at least one paragraph, and in so doing had, I thought, completely missed the point of the whole piece. The tutor who read the essay, which quote the original, and my translation of it, agreed with my reading. WHat this shows, I think, is that it's always a good thing to read what was written in the first place if you possibly can. And always treat every text as if it were open to more than one reading; it will be.
"Solipsism, if taken seriously, would make ethics impossible, since ethics is concerned with the nature of our relationships with others."
I don't think anyone is actually taking it seriously here , it is just a useful way of keeping yourself humble about what we can reliably know about reality .
Ethics is only important if anything really exists outside the mind. It might, nonetheless, still be an idealistic concept.
This, to me, does not refute idealism or solipsism. It is the Kantian argument that morals exist independently of our phenomenal existence. Why?
SpaceP:
Thoughts, as I have said previously, are fascinating things, for all the reasons you give. Just because we cannot reconstruct them in terms of electrical impulses does not, to me, mean they cannot exist as stored memory (chemical or quantum states). I come back to Ockam's razor. Why invent an ethereal something when whatever we at looking for might lie equally in the material mass of the brain?
I am playing Devil's advocate here - I just cannot get my head round dualism. What is it that is not material?
"Thoughts, as I have said previously, are fascinating things, for all the reasons you give. Just because we cannot reconstruct them in terms of electrical impulses does not, to me, mean they cannot exist as stored memory (chemical or quantum states). I come back to Ockam's razor. Why invent an ethereal something when whatever we at looking for might lie equally in the material mass of the brain?
I am playing Devil's advocate here - I just cannot get my head round dualism. What is it that is not material?"
What is not material is the experience of the thought . This doesn't involve an ethereal substance necessarily , that would be interactionist dualism which as I've said is unconvincing from argument alone .
Consciousness may be generated in the brain , but where does the experience of thinking occur ? A thought has no extension in space , its neural correlate does .
When you visualize a boat , say , where is the boat ? Is your neural representation of a boat the same thing , down to the last particular , as your mental picture of the boat ? If so then theoretically a computer model of your brain could know your experience of thinking about a boat equally as well as you do . If that is true then it follows that your subjective awareness is not unique to you and could be modeled in any substrate . If that is true then you could be replicated by a system of cogs and gears . This seems intuitively impossible , though of course that doesn't mean it is .
I suppose my point is that even if you had every possible material measurement of the brain while thinking , you would still not be able to reconstruct everything the owner of the brain experiences while thinking .
My initial response before bed is that our brain is conditioned to create complete pictures from very little information and perhaps that lies at the bottom of our thoughts. We have just enough pattern in our brains to construct a boat but it never appears other than as an image in our memory. A bit like photographs. We live,therefore, in the past at all times.
I can already see flaws in my own argument but I am too tired to rectify it. Try again tomorrow.
Hey, that attack was a bit unexpected wasn't it? I admit to teasing WML a bit but he rather asked for it (as he usually does).
I have just realised it is the 27th and I have just turned 52. Why, I wonder, do we celebrate getting another year nearer the grave? Perhaps birthdays are some sort of compensation.
"My initial response before bed is that our brain is conditioned to create complete pictures from very little information and perhaps that lies at the bottom of our thoughts. We have just enough pattern in our brains to construct a boat but it never appears other than as an image in our memory. A bit like photographs. We live,therefore, in the past at all times."
Your point about living in the past , in the brains recreation of reality , is interesting but the point I'm making is really about subjective experience not being recreatable even with a full account of the brain . Hence consciousness involves something beyond neural correlates of thoughts .
"Hey, that attack was a bit unexpected wasn't it? I admit to teasing WML a bit but he rather asked for it (as he usually does)."
I've lost my patience with WML , I've been debating him off and on for months and all he has ever done is either respond with sarcasm , wriggled out of any substantive points or just ignored replies to his decelerations .
I think SB is unused to atheists looking so irrational and just wanted to defend the tribe .
"I have just realised it is the 27th and I have just turned 52. Why, I wonder, do we celebrate getting another year nearer the grave? Perhaps birthdays are some sort of compensation."
I'm facing the big three-o next year , though I suspect you will have no sympathy . Happy birthday anyway .
the Kantian concepts of the noumenon and the phenomenon are important to our understanding of the world we all live in. All we are ever able to understand about anything, Kant proposed, is the phenomenon - our perception of the thing in question. Its objective reality must exist if we are all able to perceive it, but the nature of this is unknowable, because we are never able to do more than perceive the phenomenon.
The clear implication of this is that all of our knowledge is contingent; we can never know if our knowledge is complete or not. The only exception to this is knowledge based on 'pure reason' but this turns out to be a very limited category, as Kant established in the Critique of Pure Reason.
To talk of things existing 'within' or 'outside' the mind I'd regard as meaningless. Until we apply our reason we are unable to perceive anything, and our perceptions are all we can evaluate. To say 'but I can touch it..' adds nothing; all you have done is perceive it by touch rather than sight or sound, so the situation remains unchanged.
There does remain the possibility of acquiring knowledge by pure reason, but this would reduce valid knowledge to pure mathematics and (perhaps) some of the more abstruse portions of philosophy. Otherwise we are back in the realms of practical reason - knowledge based on experience as well as reason.
I think we should think of birthdays as celebrating having survived another year, rather than being one year closer to the grave. Think positive!
"I thought that the Bible was the unadorned word of God. If you are saying that it was written and interpreted by people then that opens up a Pandora's box of problems."
I think you would be hard pushed to find many Christians in our country who would say that every word in the bible is literal truth. America and possibly Africa may well be another story. It is indeed a Pandora's box, but I quite like them so it just makes it more interesting to me. I enjoy looking for the meaning.
What's been going on with WML then? Somebody fill me in.
On the "reality" issue: what about mind altering drugs such as LSD? what about psychosis? Where do these fit in?
The mind does a lot of "filling in the blanks" when LSD or psychosis is involved.
Are the distortions that are experienced in the mind or outside the mind?
I don't have any answers, but I have got experience of LSD use and pyschosis (the latter probably due to use of the former) so wondered what peoples' thoughts were about it.
It is quite a long time since I read Kant but I thought that his ethics were based on objectivity. In other words it was our link to the noumenal world. I think Schopenhauer, who revered him, refuted this but substituted music as our conduit to reality.
I agree with your general thrust - my sympathies lie most decidedly with the empiricists. Russell felt that basic arithmetic, though, was objectively true, whether we existed or not. So, 2+2=4 under all circumstances and in all possible worlds. How we prove that is another matter.
Biskieboo:
WML has been rather unpleasant (so, what's new?) to Spacepenguin and I for a few threads recently - to the point of accusing us of hidden agendas and ascribing views to us that we do not hold. All of this without a scintilla of evidence. So, we pointed out that his attitude, sarcasm and general unpleasantness were rather unwelcome we were accused of being horrible to him by somebody else. Anyway, I used to find his debating style amusing but now it has become simply tiresome. I am sure you will have read the thread by now - but there were others prior to this.
Getting older does not really bother me - my wife says I have gained another year of wisdom (from an admittedly low base).
'The mind does a lot of "filling in the blanks" when LSD or psychosis is involved.'
The brain works in precisely that way - it creates complete pictures from scant information. I think I said earlier in this thread that this might be behind why we seem to crave certainty and reach conclusions without the supporting evidence. Of course, I don't have the evidence to support this assertion -LoL.
The distortions can only work within the brain (whether mind and brain are synonymous is central to the consciousness discussion on this thread) because everything we know is mediated within the brain - see JohnR's post above.
I do not think that solipsism can be disproved and it is not my point to try to do so. In its own terms it is self-consistent and all encompassing. I would not dispute if I were described as solipsist agnostic. Of course this does not mean that I think solipsism to be at all likely and following the private language argument, I am sure of is that it is pointless to discuss solipsism as a feasible (rather than a theoretical) proposition.
On the other hand it is instructive to discuss how solipsistic ideas work: they appeal to the subjectivity of the individual and the notion of “what it feels like to be me”. Religious and spiritual beliefs rest on assertions that the beliefs must be true because my beliefs are so strong that they must be true and in so doing necessarily invoke a non material world. Once this is achieved the basis for belief in the material world is undermined and is not obviously necessary. Descartes and Berkeley’s view that God is kind enough to assure us that our impressions of reality are in fact real simply extends the logic of this kind of argument. I gather from secondary sources that Leibnitz postulates an unlimited number of solipsistic worlds all coordinated by an omnipotent deity. If you go down this route, why should the so-called ‘material world’ be anything other than illusionary?
To me these ideas simply exemplify the convolutions that result from these lines of reasoning.
Freewill is at home in the non-material world, unless of course the deity deems otherwise, but is ultimately implausible and contradictory if the non material world is not accepted.
Whilst I am unruffled by the idea that ‘freewill’ is simply the sense of having freewill, instinctively it seems odd that consciousness might be equally illusionary. Since, after all, we are individuals we do find these ideas to be deeply ingrained. I have been thinking about Boltonian’s comments about how the brain functions (programmed suggests teleology). This may be the most important starting point, to look at how our thoughts and senses are prescribed by our biological condition. I know that Philosophy hates the idea that it should be secondary to another academic area, but then I think that Philosophy has gone wrong in permitting arguments which start form the interior individual point of view rather than from an attempt at an exterior objectified stand point. Apart from hitting a solipsistic blank wall when trying to identify subjective concepts such as consciousness or free will, there is also an embarrassing tendency to lapse into amateur cod psychology.
I do not want to appear to know a lot about Kant as my limited knowledge is second hand or short extracts, but I do feel that space, time and causality are necessarily ingrained in our thinking processes, and I would add that this is a Biological necessity. Even in the eighteenth century, he was impressed by the success of Science and hoped to put Philosophy on a similarly sound foundation.
JohnR describes the Kantian perspective with admirable clarity. My suggestion as I have previously written, is that although we can “we can never know if our knowledge is complete or not”, Science can at least provide a convincing model for what, at least in part, it (objective reality or the noumenon) might be like.
The robot/computer consciousness question (Spacepenguin and Boltonian) is much like the Turing test. If a device is produced that could provide an output that is indistinguishable form consciousness, what would this tell us about consciousness? If a computer like device is able to refer to a notion of its own consciousness, the initial response for many would be dismissive; but on what grounds? Another way of putting this is: in what way is asking what it feels like to be you, to have your thoughts and to experience things, different from asking the same question of a computer. Isn’t it the case that our subjectivity is a closed book to anyone else? I cannot see how I can use my own subjectivity as an objective argument.
First, mathematics is a self-created, self-perpetuating universe. Yes, it is true, it has to be if its is self-consistent. Its relevance to the real world is always rather dubious, except as an exercise in reasoning. Russell, in his Sceptical Essays talks about the assumption that mathematics can be used to describe the physical world. Interestingly enough, he thought that this assumption was far from self-evident, though I'm not sure that I entirely agree with him there. Kant, of course, regarded mathematics as one of the cases where a priori knowledge was indeed possible.
The second point concerns Kant, whose major contribution to western thought was not his ethics, but his account of knowledge, which he covers in the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason most notably. For a shorter and rather chattier introduction to his thought you might try Martin Heidegger's The Essence of Human Freedom, which was based on the lecture notes of a course he gave at Freiburg. It's published by Continuum (London, 2005) and shows how Aristotle and Kant's ideas form the basis of contemporary metaphysics (in Heidegger's sense: thinking about thinking). Kant's ideas on the contingency of all our knowledge about the world we live in are arguably the major underpinning of most of the philosophy of science.
What he is say, in effect, is that all we can ever do is the best we can with what we believe we know, but we will always have to accept that as time passes other observations may suggest other explanations. All you need look at as an example is the history of the thinking about the structure of matter from the mid-19th C until the present day, as we have progressed from indivisible atoms to protons and electrons to present thinking about quarks. At each stage more observations have suggested that the basis for our previous explanations was less than adequate, and I am afraid that much of our knowledge proceeds on this basis.
JohnR, your example of the structure of matter is not so convincing because the description 'inadequate' is inappropriate. The development of our understanding since the mid 19th C has been by and large a process of adding more detail to the overall picture, even the success of wave mechanics has done little to contradict previous understanding. This is surely an important point: did Kant meen that the gap between our understanding and the objective reality is constant? I doubt it. Despite current ideas about fundamental sub-atomic particles, it cannot be said that the atomic model has been overturned. Nor is there any prospect of a rejection of the atomic model.
The missing point in these kind of discussions is that insufficient attention is given to the structure of knowledge, in which ideas, such as the atomic model, are part of a large framework of knowledge. A rejection of such a fundamental concept would destroy the whole structure.
As an example, if the sun had failed to rise or altered its apparent course during the early middle ages, it would have been regarded as an amazing, even miraculous phenomenon, but not much more. Today such an event would completely destroy our basic concept of the physical universe. It is an impossibility to us in a way that it was not for those living 1000 years ago. Why is this? - Because our understanding of the sun, the planets etc are locked together in a structure in which the appearance of the sun's progression across the sky is incidental.
If Kant is right to distinguish objective reality from our perceptions of that reality, there is nothing that prevents our models of how we imagine objective reality to become increasingly sophistocated. Since objective reality is a fixed concept, any model, whilst remaining debateable is contingent on reality and not arbitrary.
Tread carefully at that site , I've come across it before and the anti-darwinian stuff is not very convincing .
MartinRDB :
"The development of our understanding since the mid 19th C has been by and large a process of adding more detail to the overall picture, even the success of wave mechanics has done little to contradict previous understanding."
Wave mechanics marked a fundamental shift in our understanding of matter . The old concept of a planetary atomic model was completely overturned . The toy model of atomic structure isn't used anymore . Even more fundamental , in my view , is the switch from understanding nature as continuous to discrete .
"If Kant is right to distinguish objective reality from our perceptions of that reality, there is nothing that prevents our models of how we imagine objective reality to become increasingly sophistocated. Since objective reality is a fixed concept, any model, whilst remaining debateable is contingent on reality and not arbitrary."
Isn't implied that objective reality may be unconceptualisable (what a horrible word) ? We may string together little islands of understanding , but they may float on an infinite sea of concepts that we can never perceive as concepts . The universe may simply be fundamentally incoherent .
Spacepenguin, I think your very last comment is a tease more than anything. On the atomic model "completely overturned" overstates the case, in fact, as I am sure you know, part of the problem with the 'planetry' model was that it could not be overturned. In essence, however surprising some of the conclusions, Physical Science has provided more detail to atomic theory.
On the question of what thoughts and the awareness of having thoughts are I would like to suggest an analogy: reading data relating to brain activity and wondering where the impressions of thoughts were, might be akin to wondering where the music is when viewing a microscopic scan of a CD.
Although we know how complex computers are, I do not think we have reached the stage where we could say that the brain is not sufficiently complex to account for what it does.
Certainly we need to be as clear as we can in identifying the inadequacies of our understanding, but I think we need take care that lack of understanding is not used as supportive evidence for anything immaterial or material.
"Spacepenguin, I think your very last comment is a tease more than anything. On the atomic model "completely overturned" overstates the case, in fact, as I am sure you know, part of the problem with the 'planetry' model was that it could not be overturned. In essence, however surprising some of the conclusions, Physical Science has provided more detail to atomic theory."
Well in the sense that the atomic model states there is a limit to the divisibility of matter it wasn't overturned . The analogy of electrons orbiting a nucleus in the manner of the planets orbiting the sun has been . The conceptual nature of what an atom is was overturned by wave mechanics .
My last comment wasn't a tease , why should the universe be logical ? It seems equally possible we can only know the logical bits of it . The frothing mass of incoherence we cannot know may be the main part of existence . Perhaps consciousness and questions about the origin of the universe are clues to this state of affairs .
"On the question of what thoughts and the awareness of having thoughts are I would like to suggest an analogy: reading data relating to brain activity and wondering where the impressions of thoughts were, might be akin to wondering where the music is when viewing a microscopic scan of a CD."
That is precisely my point . The physical information about that brain state is not the same as the experience of that brain state . No matter how much information you have , you will still be missing some subjective quality . If that is the case then there is something about the experience of thinking that cannot be captured materially .
"Although we know how complex computers are, I do not think we have reached the stage where we could say that the brain is not sufficiently complex to account for what it does."
The brain is complex enough to account for what it does , the question is what is it doing ?
"Certainly we need to be as clear as we can in identifying the inadequacies of our understanding, but I think we need take care that lack of understanding is not used as supportive evidence for anything immaterial or material."
I see what you are saying , but there are conceptual problems with consciousness , as I stated before , that actively argue against empirical , i.e scientific , progress on this issue .
I have been out of the loop for a few days, so I am just catching up. Great discussion happening here. I would like to summarise if I can (to try to get a few things clear in my own head as much as anything). These are in no particular order.
These are a few of the options we have so far - please feel free to add to or correct them, as I am sure I have misrepresented some of your suggestions:
1) The world is material and there exists such a thing as objective reality (in other words a world independent of us, or anything else);
2) The world is immaterial and objective (comprising perhaps pure information);
3) The world is objective and what we perceive bears some relation to reality;
4) The world is objective but what we perceive is nothing like what is really out there;
5) The world is objective but there is no way of knowing what reality might look like because we are subjective beings;
6) All we can know is that there are thoughts which we have access to;
7) We are completely material beings and all our subjective experiences (what we can know) are the result of the workings of the chemical computer, which we call the brain;
8) Our experience comprises a mix of hardware, software (the brain and the electrical impulses flowing along synapses) and output (using the CD analogy, which is more than the sum of the brain's parts (duality);
9)Consciousness is an effect (or side-effect)of the workings of the brain and we will be able to test this when we are able to build a complete simulation of the brain;
10) Consciousness is more than the sum of the material parts and this will again be tested (how might be an issue here)when we are able to build a complete simulation of the brain;
11)If consciousness is not merely a function of the brain what is it and where does it come from?
12) The world only exists when it it is observed, otherwise it is merely a potentiality (the Copenhagen interpretation);
13) Solipsism is feasible and not possible to disprove.
14)We are simply not equipped to evaluate these options and therefore they will all remain equally valid;
15)There is no logic to anything out there - only what we impose on the world through our limited perceptions (what might be termed the absurdist position);
16) All physics is simply metaphor, including our description of atoms, and bears little resemblance to anything other than our own terms of reference;
17) We can never know whether we have discovered the truth, therefore it will be forever out of our reach even if, by some chance, we have stumbled on it;
18) The existence of ethics and language would seem to count against, but not refute, solipsism;
19) There might or might not be some higher being that influences the world and our existence in it;
20) We might or might not be part of a simulated world;
21) Free will exists within a determined world (compatibilism);
22) We live completely determined lives and free will is an illusion (possibly a survival mechanism);
23) We have a large degree of free will, which we might think of as the religious position;
24) It is impossible to know anything a priori (empiricism);
25) Some things, such as mathematics, can be understood a priori;
26) Do (strong) feelings, such as religious conviction, have any part in our search, or can they be dismissed as not capable of predictive experiment - in other words science is the only game in town?
Thoughts on these most welcome. Are some more likely than others and, if so, what evidence can we muster?
*******
Smolin, by the way, thinks that science has lost its way and that physics, in particular, has gone up a blind alley with string theory.
He, and his colleagues, are challenging quantum mechanics and Special Relativity in an attempt to break out of this narrow view of the world.
To Spacepenguin: “why should the universe be logical ? It seems equally possible we can only know the logical bits of it . The frothing mass of incoherence we cannot know may be the main part of existence . Perhaps consciousness and questions about the origin of the universe are clues to this state of affairs”
This is fine as a subjective and highly personal mystical even religious credo (having a link to some of my comments about solipsism and a private language), but if the response to something that we do not understand is to suggest that it is possibly fundamentally incoherent, the effect is to close down discussion. It does not lead anywhere; in fact the suggestion is, that there is nowhere to lead towards. All I can say is 'we didn't get where we are today with this line of thinking'!
My general point about subjective quality is that it is something to distance ourselves from. Obviously you know nothing about my subjective quality and if you felt you were missing out on something, it really would not make any sense – I could try to reassure you that you were not missing out on anything! On the other hand I am not missing out on my own subjective quality, but that is the subjective for you. If it were not so, it would not be subjective any more. My sense of consciousness is fine on a subjective level, but as I have indicated earlier, outside of this it is very dubious and ill-defined. If I am referring to someone else's consciousness, there is little to say beyond some fairly straight forward behavioural observations.
I am fairly sure that there is a considerably more to discover about the workings of the brain and just as it is obviously possible to convert the ultra-microscopic topography of a CD into sound wave characteristics and even dots on a page, the details of neuronal activity and interconnections may elicit an interpretation that correlates with what we say and do, including some correlation to our visual and spatial awareness. But I do not see that the subjective will remain anything other than subjective and you will still be able to ask your question about the your subjective self still being unaccounted for. This is where solipsism re enters, because if I interpret your remarks about fundamental incoherrence to apply to the subjective, then I am hardly in any position to disagree, in fact it is another way of stating the private language argument (which is after all an argument about incoherence).
By the way I doubt that you have misconstrued Heissenberg, wave-particle duality and not knowing what electrons are up to, so I think you will understand if I maintain that enriched is a better description than overturned.
Boltonian: I cannot add corrections because I might start amending points that were not supposed to be mine. I am not sure what to suggest with your thread, but I suppose you could group together some of your summarised points (2 or 3 groups) as new starting points.
Building on MartinRDB's suggestion I could split the threads into three:
1) Physics;
2) Philosophy; and
3) Consciousness/psychology.
I am aware that they all inter-relate and maybe these are false divisions. Can anybody suggest alternatives?
I also realise that we have touched on evolution and anthropology here, which I would not like to lose. Yet more comments have suggested the environment, political and economic developments etc as possible future topics.
I would like some ideas as to whether people would wish to divide our discussion in this way (or others) or just let it flow and comment on what interests you.
I am also aware that some have contributed only once or twice - is that because nobody is raising topics that interest you or that you have little time, or for other reasons? Please feel free to start a new topic - I will make it a separate thread if that is what is wanted.
Some early regular contributors have been quiet of late, namely pttp and Krapotkin, although I think K is out in the wilds somewhere and might be incomunicado.
I would be interested to know what people are reading and learning at the moment.
In addition to the Smolin, I am reading some essays by Stephen Jay Gould; a book on genetics by Sean B. Carroll; 'The Classical World' by Robin Lane Fox; and a history of classical China, India and Greece by Karen Armstrong. I am about to start a book on Existentialism and now want to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (inspired by this discussion)and Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations,' amongst others.
And another thing - I would like to find the time to re-read all 20 of O'Brien's Aubrey/Maturin novels.
I totally agree that if the Universe is incoherent then it shuts down meaningful discussion . But the Universe doesn't exist to be discussed by us :-) .
I think we both agree that humans evolved to have problem solving abilities to deal with mating , eating and other issues related to reproductive fitness . Why should we expect that apparatus to function for all things in the universe ?
I think we may agree about subjectivity , but disagree on its importance . I think the fact that we cannot , in principle I would say , empirically study subjective states suggests that there is more to consciousness than can be accounted for by reduction to neural correlates . At least by what I define as consciousness which is the awareness of thoughts .
I think quantum theory did overturn the previous concept of what matter is . The term "classical limit" is often used to denote the point where QM becomes relevant and classical physics fails . The notion that subatomic particles are like billiard balls pinging into each other was overturned . Something like entanglement , say , is not even conceivable under the classical model . As Einstein said : "This discovery [quantum theory] set science a new task : that of finding a new conceptual basis for physics"
How would you say QM enriched rather than overturned classical physics ?
Boltonian :
I vote for your three topic solution . In other blogs they sometimes paste relevant posts from old threads to begin new topics , which you could also do .
As you ask about what people are reading ... At the moment I'm reading "Sneaking a look at God's Cards" by Giancarlo Ghirardi which is , coincidently , about quantum theory . On the back burner I also have Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris which is about convergence in evolution and Road to Reality by Roger Penrose which is a densely mathematical book about , well , mathematics and physics .
Is the Karen Armstrong book mostly about religion in those regions ? I'm quite interested in how China and India ( or rather the cultures that have existed in what we now call China and India ) have interacted over the millennia .
Just having re-read those two posts by MartinRDB and SpaceP it occurs to me that they touch on all three of the topics I have proposed, so how would we go about categorizing this discussion?
Maybe an interesting way of thinking about the problem of subjectivity within Consciousness is to tackle the question "Can Consciousness be experienced by only one entity?", in other words, is it possible to be really conscious without sharing the experience with another of ones species? Using the definition that SpacePenguin offered and one which I also find comfortable, being that Consciousness is the awareness of ones own awareness, then pure subjectivity is not possible. An entity must be aware of its thoughts in relation to the thoughts of another entity; otherwise one would not be fully aware that one was actually conscious. Consciousness cannot exist in a vacuum so to speak. To be fully conscious an entity must have a sense of self which is only possible in relation to a sense of another of the same species. One must be Objectively Subjective in ones understanding of what it is to be Subjective.
This really muddies the waters when it comes to pure subjectivity, does it not?
03 May 2007 05:12 Delete boltonian said...
Lesterjones:
Welcome.
Just a thought - what if we are conscious but only within our own subjectivity. Like a dream, where I think I am awake and in the world but I am not and my sensation of myself is purely within my own mind. There is no external world within which I am conscious - it is an illusion.
Now, it might be said (I think Martin hinted at it in an earlier post) that without experience of an external world there would be nothing to dream about but that is very difficult to prove.
You make an excellent point . I think pure awareness is conceivable without that awareness necessarily relating to thoughts . I believe that some meditators would say they experience that state . That said I think you are right in that all thoughts are in some way related to something outside of pure 'mind self' . I'm not sure why that other entity has to be of the same species , in terms of mind your own body could be thought of as a separate entity . Intuitively at least .
As an aside I wonder if awareness without thoughts would count as consciousness ?
boltonian :
I was thinking of different threads like here for instance : http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ (a good blog by the way) . I don't know how you would do that though , is there a help page ?
Thanks, and your right about the same species comment, I suppose I merely meant a consciousness that was on a similar plane to ones own.
As far as consciousness without thoughts, Im afraid that this state is all too obvious these days!
Im sorry but I have posted an answer to Boltonian on the other thread again but I would be interested in any thoughts on it. Should I post on this thread in future?
"Thanks, and your right about the same species comment, I suppose I merely meant a consciousness that was on a similar plane to ones own."
I think for thoughts to occur they have to be about something outside of the sense of self , but I don't think that something has to be conscious . As I said in some ways we consider , say , a limb to be outside the mental sense of self . We often refer to our bodies , including our brains , as possessions of the self not the self itself (excuse the hideous phrasing) .
"As far as consciousness without thoughts, Im afraid that this state is all too obvious these days!"
As is typing without thoughts , a glance through most CiF threads would confirm that .
"Im sorry but I have posted an answer to Boltonian on the other thread again but I would be interested in any thoughts on it. Should I post on this thread in future?"
If you mean the physics blog then I reckon you should repost your answer here . I can't see any posts on http://boltonianphysics.blogspot.com beyond the first one .
I think that for the sake of philisophical anchorage one has to decide at some point about where they stand on Solipsism. Its not unlike the discussions that rage about on CiF on the existence of God. Solipism comes under the same catagory of unknowable, unprovable and ultimately unimportant. What is important is to decide where to place ones flag of faith, what ground to claim, and try and make inroads on the questions of existence from there.
Otherwise theres is nothing but uncertainty, which for better or worse seems to be a state that the human psyche is not comfortable with. So ground rules are constantly sought, philosophy itself is the search for certainty, even if that be to be certain of uncertainty.
So, consciousness is in my view a product of Evolution , arguably a by-product of another evolving feature of the species that eventually became Homo-Sapian, either way, it happened and allows us to now consider this Universe in a way that no other living creature has done(to our knowledge).
If we are forever to wallow in the supposition that each of us or in fact only one of us is the actual harbourer of the Universe we will never make any progress. So treat Solipsism as you would the existence of God, be Agnostic until such time as the ultimate truth on the matter is revealed. Consider it but dont become lost in it.
In the case of Solipsism I feel more comfortable in a material world, and as that is the world that overwhelmingly even a solipsist experiences we might as well plant a flag there and see from there in which direction we can travel. I realise that this position is considerably open to criticism but I challenge anyone on this board to take solipsism to its extreme without experiencing mental breakdown.
So for the sake of analysis such concepts as solipsism are fantastic tools when it comes to trying to understand the way we all experience the world, but eventually we are forced to say the Universe is real and material and has substance within the context of the plane on which we exist.
If we move from this starting flag and then say that Consciousness is a consequence of Evolution, and Evolution a consequence of the workings of the material Universe then we can see Consciousness at least as a functioning phenomena that subjects the conscious being to its existence. A good analogy might be that we are all plugged into consciousness, that although it exists within the workings of the brain there has to be other brains also plugged in for any one brain to experience consciouness. Its almost a conceit of consciousness to consider itself seperate from the material Universe because it has to be a product of the Universe and is thus subject to the workings of the Universe.
(This means holding onto what Evolution and the material Universe has allowed the Human species to aquire, and embracing the idea that we only have it because of the fact that life exists to pass on the genes and really no more. It is that act of supposed cold amorality that has offered us the vision and opportunity to find warmth and morality. Consciousness is the seriously most beautiful part of the workings of life and the Universe.)
That said, its also within the above reasoning, possible to suggest that the consciousness we all share is also seperate from the universe and survives purely within our shared experience, that the functioning of consciousness is a gift from the material universe but the growth of the shared experience and thus the understanding of the universe are purely our own. It is this dialectic that might disallow us from ever really understanding the universe, leaving the Universe forever as an illogical "frothing mass of incoherence". We may be able to understand everthing about driving but little about the internal combustion engine.
I apologise if this is a little ranty but Ive just come in, swigged a glass of red and posted this train of thought. I am very open to being put right.
03 May 2007 11:03 Delete boltonian said...
Lesterjones:
I will copy your comment to t'other blog to keep it in one place and then try to respond. Then I can return to my glass (or two) of red wine.
Here we are!
My clock seems to have gone crazy even though the computer clock says 20 14. Strange.
Good post, LJ and thanks.
There has been much discussion about solipsism on this thread which you might enjoy reading.
I agree that we must make certain assumptions just to get through life. Even the arch sceptic Hume acknowledged that. The problem is comes when we cease to regard them as assumptions and take them as fact and thus find it difficult to amend our views, whatever the emerging evidence. We do need a degree of certainty (some more than others), which I am sure the anthropologists and evolutionary biologists here could account for.
SpaceP:
I think we had better stay here for the time being, at least until one of us can fathom the technology.
This is somewhat tangential , so i hope you will forgive me , but your post has helped me crystallize why it is that I find myself more intellectually aggravated by ardent atheists than the religious .
I realise that it is not atheism per se that bothers me but its frequent , near universal , partner naturalism . The notion that all physical effects must have physical causes . If theism is incomplete (and I believe it is) because the 'God' is unexplained then naturalism is incomplete because there cannot be an ultimately physical cause for the universe .
If the laws of physics are simply observations of regularities in spacetime then they cannot exist prior to the existence of spacetime . The appearance of spacetime out of nothing requires 'nothing' to follow the laws of physics . This though means that the laws of physics somehow coexisted with 'nothing' and somehow had a physical effect . This breaks the fundamental rule of naturalism .
This is not to say theism and naturalism are equally good ways of trying to understand the universe , simply that both must , in the end , fail at the last . The religious call it a holy mystery , but metaphysical naturalists rarely seem prepared to admit the problem exists .
Sorry about that ..
You are spot on about solipsism . As I've said before it is a tool to keep us humble about the nature of our knowledge . I think empiricism tied to the scientific method is the best hope we have to be , if not right then at least less wrong .
"We may be able to understand everthing about driving but little about the internal combustion engine."
I like the analogy . I personally like the notion , true as far as we can tell , that the least we are is condensed light pondering itself .
It is the first very faltering step towards wisdom.
Christianity (and Islam for that matter)bangs on about humility and yet deals in certainties - where is the humility in knowing, and boasting, that one has access to the truth?
Science is often little better in that it (or some of its adherents)assumes that everything is knowable and discoverable through the scientific method.
There are certain mutual acquaintances from CiF who seem to think that we know a great deal more than we possibly can. We might be able to say that x or y is more likely to be the case given our current (poor) state of knowledge but this might be reversed tomorrow.
In my view this has to be the only way to approach any sort of learning, otherwise one falls foul of dogmatism and a purblind faith in a particular world view, sans evidence.
I most certainly forgive any tangential thinking and I do agree, theres something unsettling about anything to finite in its scope. There is a certain style of Atheism that constructs concrete truths as desperately as a certain style of Theism,. I would say both are equally guilty of failing to own up to the thier failings.
Concerning your comment "If the laws of physics are simply observations of regularities in spacetime then they cannot exist prior to the existence of spacetime . The appearance of spacetime out of nothing requires 'nothing' to follow the laws of physics . This though means that the laws of physics somehow coexisted with 'nothing' and somehow had a physical effect . This breaks the fundamental rule of naturalism"
Can I just suggest some observations? Firstly, that the laws of physics may not be constant throughout the whole Universe, we are already experiencing trouble with both Dark matter and dark energy, whilst how the laws of physics work within a black hole is theoretical only . We do not know whether the laws of physics are universal. I suppose the question is "why does the Universe work the way that it does?", at least the observable quantifiable Universe that we are able to understand thus far. As Einstein pondered (badly paraphrased), Was the good Lord confined in his creation to the laws of physics? Cant we not assume that the laws of physics that we now experience might not be different in other universes (past, current or future) as a consequence of each different Universe "interpreting" the moment of singularity differently? It may be that although quantum field theory, thermodynamics, and general relativity provide a good description of the workings of the Universe as we currently observe our plane of it, it may not follow that after each Big Bang these same laws emerge. Might it not be possible for a nother set of rules to appear?
Also, why should we not assume the laws of physics can come from nothing? Working backwards may imply this result, but is it not possible that the big bang itself is just that, the moment that the laws of physics actually do come from nothing? Something like the result of a quantum fluctuation.
(Of course there is a difference between facts and conventions and that appears to be a weakness of Naturalism, mistaking one for another, but without doing so at some point all thought systems break down into solipsism again)
I agree with your first para - dogmatism is not confined to religious believers. For me it is dogmatism that is the enemy of learning not religion.
Susskind - the string theorist - says that a landscape of an infinity of universes is the inevitable consequence of string theory. There are bubble universes being created all the time, of which ours (initiated by Big Bang)is one. Each has a different set of conditions correlating to the variations on the theme of string theory. Ours, perforce, is perfect for carbon-based life to emerge. He is also, incidentally, a supporter of the strong anthropic principle.
Smolin and his team at Perimeter, challenge the assumptions of string theory, partly because it has yet to be corroborated by predictive experiment and partly because it is, what he calls, background-dependent. In other words string theory depends for its success on a certain set of background conditions, whereas, for example, General Relativity would work whatever the conditions.
Smolin and others are working on certain issues that challenge both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which seem to be yielding fruit. He also says that these hypotheses will be proved one way or t'other very soon, partially through the experiments at CERN in the LHC. If these two foundational theories are overturned it will have a huge effect on the world of theoretical physics. For example, it has been suggested that the speed of light was different in the early stages of Big Bang than it is now. If this were so, it would remove one of the anchors of our knowledge.
If Smolin is right it will just demonstrate to me how little we really know. Our problem is that we are limited by the parameters of our brain and, whilst I am sure we can expand its cognitive capabilities somewhat, I doubt we have the physical wherewithal to comprehend whatever reality might comprise.
I might be wrong but how could we ever prove that we had reached the truth or the limits of our understanding anyway? We cannot know what we do not know. Perhaps it is this quest that keeps us going as a species.
What would this mean, if it were true, in evolutionary terms? If our questing and curious nature is essential to our survival it is obviously as a result of the fact that we are conscious beings. Yet consciousness might be a by product of a large brain, which is in itself a by product of bi-pedalism.
Unless, of course, some form of strong anthropic system is at work....
"Science is often little better in that it (or some of its adherents)assumes that everything is knowable and discoverable through the scientific method."
I think this is another reason why certain types of atheists who claim just such a thing annoy me . Science is much more important to me than religion and I fear some people want to turn science into a religion of sorts . Those people who need existential certainty , but cannot accept religion for whatever reason .
LesterJones :
"Also, why should we not assume the laws of physics can come from nothing? Working backwards may imply this result, but is it not possible that the big bang itself is just that, the moment that the laws of physics actually do come from nothing? Something like the result of a quantum fluctuation."
That implies a causeless effect . There was nothing and then , for no reason , there was something . After all a quantum fluctuation requires a quantum vacuum which must be explained , so the question is just pushed back one level ( a bit like saying 'god did it' ).
It seems to have gone a little quiet. Please feel free to start another topic or continue from an earlier one. Let us know what you are reading or anything that you have learned recently.
I have just bought a book called 'The Black Swan - the impact of the highly improbable,' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It sounds promising but it means that all the rest of my half finished books might have to wait a little while longer.
I have finally finished the Smolin. If anybody else has read either this or the Taleb I would be interested in your views.
I go away on hols for two weeks starting on Saturday and will be out of earshot for that time. I would be grateful if you could keep the discussions flowing in the meantime.
Appreciate your studious comments; however, have any of you cybernauts actually had an experiential take on understanding. An epiphany of sorts? Imagine one's intellect inscribed as an hourglass bottom ~ seasonal grains of knowledge liberally peppered atop our lumpy cortex ~ a veritable holographic pile of sands in time. And so where; what; or who'd be that cook aloom in the upper other glass? Ah, yes one might say, rolling over, what upper other? That's my figure-8.
I too have long since discounted the rational equation Descartes dittoed in Latin. The more a traveler drifts off a beaten path the more imaginative and unreal all matter begets. 12 years back I drove an old GMC jeep I retired from plowing snow from Ottawa to Colon, Panama where by chance a new ferry service had just been instituted one month. Prior to that my jeep would have had to be placed aboard a container ship for 10 times the ferry fare; but wondrously a used Norwegian ship that once serviced the Baltic had been purchased by Colombians and so my mission naturally drifted, like sands of time, across to South America, eventually to cross the equator. Upon my third night in Quito at 2800 meters some drunk collided with my parked home on wheels [I asleep in the rear], causing me to remain in Quito for the next 4 months, whereupon I began visiting the British Center where I read up on Darwin.
I learned the Galapagos was incorporated as a province of Ecuador but one year prior to the arrival of the HMS Beagle which had already been out of London over 3 years on a 5 year circumnavigation. Not only that but because of Elizabethan pirates, eg. Drake, followed by whalers, mostly American, the tortoise count was at a 30% low. The Dodo bird had become extinct in 1681. My feeling, Darwin an avid sportsman who shot many a bird, was not a conservationist and should have contemplated de-evolution as a direct consequence of the British Industrial Revolution.
When my 5 months in Ecuador were reaching their limit and there existed a war with Peru I turned north and revisited Cartegena. One day, while talking to an ex-London cabbie I had befriended, a lady happened along and matter-of-factly placed the latest copy of the TIME magazine in my hand. The one word coverstory: EVOLUTION? in yellow caught my eye. As I read I learned that a western expedition of archaeologists went to Siberia when Perestroika permitted and found a section of Precambrian wherein an incredible selection of species except for the last phylum (mammilary) were exhibited side by side ~ within a 30 million year window; precluding natural selection which would take a minimum of 3 billion years to randomly select. The possible explanation was a sudden abundance of oxygen, once the oceans were replete, creating ideal conditions for all life.
Come here from the CiF threads and find it a blessed relief to find a place where it's possible to explore these issues without without haveing to wade through all the name calling and abuse. Very much a dilettante when it comes to both science and philosophy, but find the issues fascinating.
Anyway, was wondering what you guys think about the idea that an ant colony might have some kind of collective consciousness.
Unfortunately, it's quite late at night and I don't time to properly read through all that's been written so far. I shall over the next few days endeavor to try and do so. Meanwhile, if similar issues have already been addressed on this blog and you don't want to repeat yourselves, I be grateful if someone would point me towards the correct posts.
Please read through the thread and post your contribution. It doesn't need to follow a particular discussion topic - anything that grabs your fancy is ok.
boltonian: "Science is often little better in that it (or some of its adherents)assumes that everything is knowable and discoverable through the scientific method."
I would expand that to "knowable and discoverable through the *current* scientific method." The history of science and the history of religion have this much in common, that there has been a tendency to regard the limitations of our own ability to observe as defining the boundaries of what exists to be observed. I am a rank amateur deeply in love with quantum physics, with the discovery of Chaos which identified the operation of the infinite and astounding implicate order theory which deserves a great deal more attention. It is worth dancing in the street (in my view) that we have reached the point where we are able to recognize (well, where some of our more brilliant oberservers are able to recognize) the evidence of such wonders as these. And what we know must always and will always give way to what we learn how to think about...
You make a very interesting point about current methods.
Previous generations, I am sure, thought that they were being supremely logical in their search for the truth. Aristotle, for example, who after all was the inventor (so far as we know) of formal logic, was very wrong about many things.
I wonder if the generations to come will think of our scientific methods as limited, quaint and largely wrong.
Lots of people (not least on CiF) bang on about evidence supporting a particular assertion. The problem for me is that 'Evidence' means different things to different people - is is not indisputable.
Also, we are addicted to trying to predict the future by studying the past. As Popper and others have pointed out ad nauseam this is futile. I am reading Taleb's book, called 'Black Swan' at the moment on this very subject - fascinating. I will give a brief summary when I have finished it.
Daddy0Marcos - your ant colony question is fascinating. Whatever the answer is, the very workings of an ant colony - from the little I know about them - are quite astounding.
Does an ant colony have a collective consciousness of sorts?. (What exactly do you mean by consciousness, btw? - an easy question, of course...). I am not a philosopher, let alone a philosopher of mind, but I guess that to argue an ant colony would have some sort of collective consciousness might make sense in relation to a functionalist sort of approach to the philosophy of mind: i.e. (in v generalised terms) we need not consider problems of mind etc in terms of what the darn thing is, but in terms of what it does. What makes mental states what they are is not the kind of thing they are - whether firing of neurons or the decidedly non-material abstractions of 'mind' - but what they do. Thus (and I am jumping a bit here), some find it v useful - understandably - to compare our minds (which they would identify completely with our brains) with, say, computers. They both, it would appear, seem to 'do' the same sorts of things: transfer information, connect information etc.
For what it is worth, I am not so easily inclined to this way of thinking, though I can see it is hardly stupid. (I find John Searle's 'Chinese Room' argument is a suasive highlighting of the profound difficulties of comparing minds and computers). Moreover, whatever the intricate firing and interconnections between different (unconscious, I assume) neurons, consciousness is a unified experience on the part of a subject.
Perhaps jumping again - this brings me back to the ants. Ostensibly, we might - loosely - compare them to neurons, say, transmitting x, y, z etc. The problem is, if consciousness presupposes a conscious subject, in whom or what is the consciousness - to which the ants are contributing/constitutive parts - instantiated? Open to more on this...while I have inclinations on this subject, I am, if honest, an agnostic - I really can't speak with much assurance.
At the same time, even an ant colony suggests to me that there is something about the nature of groups, of sociality that renders them greater than the sum of their parts. Jumping yet again - a huge jump - I am always interested to think of ourselves as bearing this ineluctably relational dimension. (If you are at all into Thomistic thought, there is a fascinating exploration of relationality at the very core of being - along with that much maligned way of thinking, namely substantiality - by a guy called Norris Clarke: he argues that, in decidedly unfashionable Thomistic terms, "to be is to be substance-in-relation", and that relationality, far from being associated with potentiality / imperfection is related to act / perfection - I am not wholly au fait with Thomistic metaphysics, but it is interesting nonetheless). But that is for another time. And the above are just some mental meanderings (whether reasoned through my mind or caused by my brain).
SaraB - bearing in mind what Boltonian says about 'evidence' below your post, perhaps I could - if this isn't too patronising - add a tiny parenthesis to your sound point on science (and religion):
"The history of science and the history of religion have this much in common, that there has been a tendency to regard the limitations of our own ability to observe [in particular ways] as defining the boundaries of what exists to be observed"
I wonder about something else, which may be connected. This is just a very, very vague thought. (And I'm not - or dont think I am - anti-science). From the 19thc in particular, a pressing question for Christian thinkers - Prottie and Cathoholic - was wrt the question of historical development: how can doctrine develop? Can understanding of faith, or incarnational theology, or whatever 'develop'? C.f. all manner of thinkers (the most obvious - simply because of the title of his work - is Newman and his Essay on the Development of Doctrine).
Religious traditions - though I know the Cathoholic one in more detail - thereafter have attempted to deal with this question: I think it came from the explosion of historiography in that century, along with all the ideological movements and blossoming analytical techniques (textual criticism etc). They have learned - or have had a pressure - to cope with being traditional, not in the sense of static, but in the sense of dynamic, open to organic growth (but ever wary, of course, of, if you will, 'mutations'). Whether or not all of their doctrines are so much nonsense is, in some ways, besides the point - I don't write this as an apologist. By thinking about the structure of their thought, though, by drawing both on previous resources but also meeting new challenges, they have managed to, in some senses, develop.
Wrt 'science' (in that - if i may use the term - ideological sense i it is used on CiF threads among other contexts), there seems to be v little concern for such genealogies. I kind of understand why: it isn't, ostensibly, 'useful'. But the kind of 'science' that is alluded to - and by this I don't mean practice or research so much as the ideology, the commonly drawn epistemological/metaphysical conclusions - isn't so aware of its historical genesis. And it isn't so aware that it might face future tensions (perhaps philosophy of mind offers a good example). As presented by its proponents, it strikes me very much as a tradition in the static sense. It would refuse to countenance 'non-materialistic' knowledge/ontology while remaining - seemingly - ignorant of the trouble even a materialist has at defining materiality (something which s/he cannot do simply by - as the mantra goes - 'by recourse to evidence').
This is black and white, I admit, but wonder whether there is something in this and whether, from what I understand, quantum physics might offer some more prompts for more intellectual humility, I'd love to hear.
One last thought:
"The sign of a degenerate intellectual movement is that it mistakes intellectual humility for humiliation"
I just made that up & I have no idea whether it is true, but it sounded nice in my head. No, brain. No, mind.
Ok, I have gone on way way way too long, longer than George Eliot's sentences in Middlemarch, but without the nuance and poise. I will try to be more Raymond Carver next time. Best to all of you. ChooChoo.
Could I also ask two (unrelated) questions, both of which recently came up in conversations with friends. I ask these questions out of curiosity and ignorance.
First, how on earth do we understand the actions of animals (by which I don't necessarily exclude human animals). Take a tiny insect. Was having a rollie in my back garden and saw this black(?) ant. Next to it was an even smaller insect. I have no idea what it is called: it is red and was too small for me to make out its body clearly, though I could see a blur of legs, a 'front' and 'back'. It would flitter about. Stop briefly. Then move in another direction and so on. I think there is a train of thought that sees such a simple creature in mechanistic terms, and I know that I often (without really thinking about it) think in these terms. But is it totally satisfactory? Can I really come up with a simple cause and effect explanation for why at that given moment, this little red insect (let's call him Sufjan) moved to the right in that particular way? It seems difficult - and deceptively complicated - to unpack a chain of cause and effect, in a sense. (Or so it seems to ignoramus me). Yet, it would likewise seem implausible to attribute a reason to Sufjan's movement, as if the little blighter deliberated and decided upon that course of action...
Second, on a different tack. (I should note that I am quite happy to work with evolution, sociobiologists notwithstanding). But, what are the current theories for how asexual reproduction - which I understand must have been the original - eventually gave rise to sexual reproduction. Speaking with my friend, we both initially posited a sort of merging and blurring. Yet part of me feels uneasy insofar as there is a qualitative difference between asexual / sexual.
On both these questions, it may well be that I have missed some obvious points. Would love to be informed and hear more...
Finally, is there anyone here who has read both Russell's and Copleston's histories of philosophy? (I haven't met anyone who honestly has, though that may reflect my circle of friends. Suffice it to say, I haven't - did Russell's years back, though dont remember all of it. Remember enjoying it, though I am guessing, for example, his treatment of Aquinas would be considered inadequate by modern Thomists and even non-Thomists). How do they compare? Thanks...
Choo Choo, your parenthesis goes some way to correcting a very poorly abbreviated point about dogma.
My own reading on other people's thought about thought came to an end years ago when I discovered that I preferred to do the jigsaw puzzle myself. That sounds insufferably arrogant, I know, as though I presumed I could do better than some of the greatest minds of Western civilization. In fact, it arose from wanting to turn the 'thing' around in my own hands and see what I could discover about it rather than comparing it with the discoveries of others. A little like wanting to see whether you can solve an equation (the same one that has been set every year for donkey's years in the same class), without parrot learning someone else's solution - however elegant and brilliant it might be.
I have so far come up with a number of 'sets' towards a solution (that I can never finally arrive at) with which I am quite childishly delighted. This is not because they are 'right' and prove everyone else wrong. It is because I saw them for myself and they give me a partial description which works.
Defining these observations as working descriptions rather than conclusions is itself a 'set' because it considers 'proof' as a necessarily temporary, best available model.
Having put that in place, I find that the entire business of inquiry becomes an awe-inspiring game rather than a matter of life and death in which being 'right' is life (to the interpretation of the world I have called THE truth) and being wrong is death. Then I notice that my own life works rather better if I approach it in the same way. And I begin to see that there are unquestioned assumptions in the very questions we ask.
For instance, suppose we throw out the underlying assumption that it is necessary to arrive at the truth and desirable to achieve certainty about anything. And then, just suppose that we assume, instead, that the best we can do or could desire to do is produce the best description of which we are presently capable of that which we are presently capable of observing AND in such a way that it improves both our understanding and our experience of whatever we are trying to describe (thought, love, will, god, reality whatever).
Because we do not live in a purely abstract world, the questions of what happens after I ask a particular question or if I ask it in a particular way is part of the answer. What are the presupposition in the question 'does an ant colony have consciousness?' What are the presuppositions in the question, 'What kind of consciousness does an ant colony have'? Which of those questions will produce a more satisfying answer in the sense of providing a description that works? And which question you prefer and why is just as important, will tell you just as much, as the question itself.
We are beginning to abandon the illusion that the observer can be separated from the thing observed to give a kind of 'pure' objectivity. If we go further and say that, if it were even possible to do that, it would not be useful we can take a breather from the tyranny of certainty. We can even create the space in which to observe ourselves observing and enjoy the fact that there is nothing we can learn about that does not teach us more about ourselves than that which we are learning about. For myself, I cannot (now) imagine why I would wish it otherwise. By the same token there is nothing we can observe about ourselves that does not teach us something about the universe in which we have our experience.
I view evolution thus: what a blessing (or remarkable gift of chance) that we have the illusion of time (Einstein's description) to allow it to take place. I don't much mind exactly how it happened because I've never been one for cogs and wheels, taxonomy and (or taxidermy either!)and mechanism as valuable as these may be. I loathe the very question 'is evolution true' because because it is a dishonest question arising from either scientific or religious dogma. But I'd start getting really interested in how it happened, cogs and wheels (from asexual to sexual reproduction for instance) and all if the inquiry were framed within the question, 'Does evolution help to describe the world we can observe and ourselves in relation to that world as we presently understand it?' then you'd see me leaping up and down like the kid at the back of the classroom with her hand up, going, "Ooh, ooh, I know!" :-) (And in case you're wondering, my position would be yes, of course it does. It's a wonderful description, full of holes and discrepancies for the time being but still wonderful.)
Good grief I am long winded. (Hope that makes you feel better Choo Choo.) So here's my cliche for the day, (cue to stop reading and go make a cup of tea): framing the questions to allow the possibility of 'wrong' answers will produce much more satisfying answers than trying to find the 'right' answers.
See you later I have to make spaghetti and examine the tomato sauce of God.
Like ChooChoo I find the behaviour of other species fascinating, especially when comparing it with the human variety. On a warm, sunny day recently I saw a number of sheep in a field sheltering under an oak tree. There were too many of them to fit in the shade, so some were sitting in the sun, although remaining close to the others. This was despite the fact that there were several other shady trees in the field. It seemed likely that their instinct to stay together for protection was stronger than the motivation to stay cool. And I found myself wondering how this behaviour would be understood if the sheep had language. Would they interpret the urge to stay together, even if they had to suffer in the heat, as a moral rule ("we should stay together")? Would the more "independently minded" ones (there were one or two) who found shelter elsewhere be accused of selfishness, or recklessness (since they'd probably have rationalised that staying together was "morally right" because it protected the group)? And does this tell us anything about our own sense of free will and responsibility? Just some thoughts to add to the mix!
Here are a few random thoughts prompted by the last few posts.
We cannot know what it is like to be anything other than ourselves. All else is assumption. The further we are from whatever it is we are studying the less we will understand because all our conclusions are based on evidence tainted by anthropomorphism, because we can do no other. I can just about understand what it might be like to be you but only by imagining myself in your position and making some big assumptions because we are genetically almost indistinguishable. That is not the same thing as seeing the world through your eyes.
For example, when we study the behaviour of, say, a cat, we make assumptions about its motivations based on observation. But those assumptions are biased by our own experience no matter how objective we try to make our experiments. We could map and observe every neurone of the cat's brain at all times during its life but we would be no nearer to knowing what it is like to be a cat.
We have no idea whether a cat is capable of conscious thought or not. It used to be the received wisdom when I was at school, admittedly many eons ago, that mankind was the only creature on the planet capable of such a thing. How on earth can we make that assertion when we do not know what consciousness is?
The reference to the collective consciousness of colonies is interesting. I was reading something a while ago about bacteria in our gut. They seem to act both as self-serving organisms and a sort of surrogate brain that makes decisions benefiting its host. How do they know how and when to behave in a certain way? Who makes the decision to do x or y at a given time. Is it purely mechanistic?
Someone mentioned Searle's Chinese room earlier. I will need to re-read it but I found it unconvincing but that might be because I found the whole book rather lightweight.
Evolution, like any current theory about anything, is almost certainly not the last word on the subject. My guess is that future generations will think us rather primitive for believing such a thing as anything like the truth.
We create complete pictures from scant information, possibly because that is what our brain does to allow us to make decisions. So, rather that saying that we have these things that appear to be true given our current state of knowledge, we are compelled to string them together, create wholly spurious categories and pretend that they are all part of some coherent whole. But it is us that has created the 'Whole' - it does not exist independently in nature.
Time was mentioned by someone. I posted something much earlier which might bear repetition. Einstein once said that he thought that time did not exist other than as a human construct, thus undermining his own relativity theories, which depended on the concept of Spacetime. Having said that he also said that all current theories, except the second law of Thermodynamics, would one day be overturned.
Time is supposed to move in one direction only (unlike the three dimensions of space) from the past, through the present to the future.
The past cannot be objectively verified because it exists only as a solipsistic memory. If you and I, for example, had attended a particular event last night and were asked about it by a third party we would not be able to agree on all the details. Even if there were a battery of cameras it would not be able to capture every aspect of the evening. There is no such thing as the objective past, it is merely a series of sensations in one's brain.
The future is pure supposition because it has not happened yet and so remains speculation - and rather poor speculation at that.
The present assumes that there is an instant that is neither past nor future. We have no evidence that such a moment exists.
So, does time exist, other than as a convenient concept for our use? Does any other life form on the planet use time as a tool?
Hi folks, I need some love. My sense of humour has got me into trouble again, this time on the Sue Blackmore thread. I feel ganged up on and have just been accused of being a "whited sepulchre" by doesnotexist. I didn't know what it meant til I looked it up and that just made me feel worse. I haven't really got anything else to say at the moment. At least my dog still loves me :(
Oh, dear sweet reason! Boltonion, the more I read of your posts the more I appreciate them. I would rather try to figure my way out of just about any mess with you than with most other fellow theists I have come across. One of the assertions of Christianity (and one or two other religions besides) is that God is truth, or Truth is an aspect of God. I would rather have your love of truth, (the essence of the thing), any day than the name of a god who is never allowed to be more than the construct that I prefer to believe in and who must, therefore, be defended against all challenges, especially the more truthful ones!
Biskieboo (in the sternest and most loving voice I can muster) if you must play in the traffic you are going to get hit by cars. Fortunately this traffic is composed of hot air and indigestion and there is no need whatever to take it personally. Use it as an exercise in observing human fear and perhaps speculate as to what could possibly be so terrifying, or so offensive about a bunch of ideas about belief in God that people (theist and atheist) have to attack them as though their lives depended on it? Is there some sense in which their lives actually DO depend on it? That might be fun. Meanwhile, please don't play in the traffic unless you are sure that you will not take the 18 wheelers that will certainly mow you down so personally! (Affectionately...)
Thank you all for humouring me with my ant question. Soon after posting it, it occurred to me that it was a little too vague and I started trying to think of some more intelligent questions to post, but I am glad that people have picked it up and decided to run with it. It is a question that has fascinated for several years since it became part of what was an epiphany for me. I have to confess, after the mushrooms wore off I switched from being a believer to being, like ChooChoo, an agnostic on this one. But it still occupies my thoughts every now and then.
I'll come back to the ant question after running through some of the things I've been thinking since my previous post. But before I do, I better answer what I mean by consciousness: self-awareness. I guess my question is, does an ant have some kind of self-awareness? [I wrote this post before Boltonian's post and am inserting this parenthesis at the end. Of course, Boltonian is right in that we can never understand what it is like to be an ant, but being a slow writer I don't want to start all over again] On the level of the individual ant, I find it almost impossible to believe that it does in any sense that is recognisable to us.
So, what's been occupying me lately? A few events I'd like to mention here. The first came from the Blackmore thread on CiF on Friday when I asked if anyone with a knowledge of neuroscience could shed light on the workings of the brain in relation to faith and reason. Somebody provided a link to a site that referred to neurological studies on monks and nuns showing activity in the part of the brain dealing with space and time decreases during meditation. I can't say I found this terribly surprising from my limited experience of meditation, but I found it very interesting nevertheless. Later that evening I was training in my martial art. My teacher has for a while now been trying to break my habit of standing toe to toe with my opponent and slugging it out when sparring and instead start matching his every move, so that when he's attacking I'm defending (think of your reaction if someone's making to flick paint at you), instead of waiting until after he's launched his attack, by which time it's too late (why people will react quicker to flying paint than a flying fist is a mystery to me). On Friday we had something of a breakthrough when for a few moments it was working, and it felt similar to meditation - heightened sense of awareness and a quiet mind. But surely a pretty good sense of space and time would be necessary in sparring, I thought to myself as I recalled the study I'd read about earlier in the day.
Then yesterday morning, in the Guardian's sports pages, I read John Barnes recalling his famous solo goal in 1984 when he cut through the entire Brazil defence. I thought of the study again when he used the term "out of body experience" to describe how it felt. It reminded me of a tournament I took part in a year ago where after a shaky start I recovered to finish second in my belt category. My best fight came in the semi-final, where I felt a strange detachment between my thoughts and my actions, like I was doing a commentary, but as an impartial observer removed from the action. I also thought about something that Roger Federer has said about his tennis, which is that when he is in the zone and everything is going right time feels like it has slowed down.
Now, coming back from this diversion to consciousness. I take on board the functionalist approach to the mind that ChooChoo reminds us of, and I don't even find the Chinese Room argument that convincing. There is so much we don't know about the brain that to build an exact computer replica might entail devising a new generation of computers entirely unrecognisable in their workings from the ones we have today. But I don't really buy the functionalist approach anyway, so I ask what if we are making a basic and fundamental mistake in framing such issues in terms of "philosophy of the mind"? After all, eastern philosophical systems often talk of achieving unity of mind, body and spirit. Even if we leave aside for the moment the more contentious issue of spirit, even the most strident atheists would struggle to mount a convincing argument for a non-existence of body, so why should consciousness reside in the physical mind and not the body? Why not talk of a "philosophy of the body"? Meditation can teach to centre our consciousness in different parts of the body. Under a functionalist approach such consciousness is nothing more than a trick of the mind, but clearly the functionalist approach isn't universally accepted by posters here.
So, if for the sake of argument we accept the idea the mind is not the subject of consciousness, maybe our highly developed (compared to insects) brains are not a pre-requisite for consciousness. Maybe Sufjan, lacking a brain able to distinguish time and space but most certainly in possession of a body, exists in a conscious state of bliss not wholly dissimilar to nirvana as he flitters around ChooChoo's garden like Roger Federer at Wimbledon centre court.
Of course, none of these ideas are particularly original. Like SaraB, I have mostly been trying to solve this jigsaw puzzle on my own and don't doubt that many have asked the same questions and considered the same solutions before.
PassingStarship's idea of a sheep's sense of morality is extremely novel (to me anyway), intriguing and worthy of thought. I also like the idea of rebel sheep (were they black sheep?). It's funny how animals have personality traits that we associate with humans (or is it just that we look for them in order to feel closer to them). A few years ago, when I lived in Mexico City, my flatmates and I adopted a mongrel street dog, Eddie, who had strong traces of golden retriever in him but disproportionately long limbs, which made his movements sometimes less than graceful. Once when we going down the stairs for his walk, I heard a thud beside me, only to find when I looked down that Eddie was on his feet but looking back at me sheepishly to see if I had noticed him falling flat on his belly. That's when I discovered that dogs feel embarassment [Boltonian's point notwithstanding - we do get sentimental about our pets and will grasp at anything we feel increases our emotional connection to them].
I've been extremely impressed with everyone's posts here. Also at how you are so prolific here and also on the CiF threads. (It takes me far too long to write the briefest of posts).
There is always a refuge here. You will not find agreement, necessarily, but I hope you will always find courtesy and understanding. I will echo Sarab's sentiments in that CiF can be a rough place - that is part of its excitement.
I try very hard to be polite but I have lost it occasionally, particularly with one well known provocatively rude poster, as I think you are aware. He brings out the worst in me so I do not engage with him any more. I am not advocating that for you, just saying that your experience is fairly common.
Sarab:
Many thanks.
Two things I battle against constantly in life; one is self-pity, which I loathe with all my being (I would like some expert in anthropology to give me the reason why it is of benefit to us one day), and the other is prejudice. I am guilty of both but realise that they get in the way of learning, which is why I value the views of others so much. If it is possible to be a fierce agnostic then I am one - some, however, would call me a serial fence-sitter.
daddyOmarcos:
Hey, speed is not important here. I am one of the slowest thinkers on the planet, which is why I set this up so that we can discuss things at leisure, without the pressure of the three day rule on CiF.
Some very interesting thoughts. I have been criticised in the past for using relativity (in the non-Einsteinian sense) but I will give it a go here. Imagine yourself as a beetle - you could relate to things that were the size, say, of a flea but would have no concept of microbes. You might have a vague concept of badgers or kestrels (because they could eat you)but not of elephants.
We, given our large relative brain size, can perceive things both relatively smaller and larger than ourselves but not hugely so. we can envisage (just) quantum particles and our observable universe. Beyond that we struggle. Imagining multiple dimensions, for example, is impossible for most of us.
Let's say we are all part of some huge organism of which our observable universe is but a small part how would we envisage it? Carl Sagan once said that if we were able to break open an electron (a so-called fundamental particle) we would find a multiplicity of universes.
Regarding pets, I am convinced that we attribute emotions to them based on our own needs. I am not sure how we break out of anthropomorphism. The nature of our gods through the ages are also largely anthropomorphic.
I cannot solve jigsaw puzzles on my own and long ago gave up trying. I realised 30 years ago that my strength lay in building on others' ideas, much as I would love to be an original thinker.
Boltonian, you are actually starting to scare me. I'm not used to agreeing with anyone so unreservedly! You raise so many things I'd like to talk about from a 'yes exactly and have you noticed this? perspective. :-) But to focus, I also struggle horribly with self pity - which I also loathe.
For the past seven years I have been consciously engaged in a discipline of which perhaps the foundation is the proposition that the self is both a construct and a prison which requires its own construct of the (apparently) external world for survival. The self-construct quickly attains a kind of life of its own (sometimes referred to as 'the mask') which sets its own survival above all else - and therefore also the validity of the 'mirror' or world construct on which it depends. It is as if we were each a method actor who had succeeded in assuming a role so perfectly that we identify survival with the survival of the character (mask) and of the world construct that supports it.
Self pity and offence are tyrannies which reassert the life, importance - indeed centrality - of the mask. They obstruct learning because they impose an a priori agenda that acts as a filter on everything we learn. I find this to be so.
Another proposal is that language is just another word for reality. And another is that truth does not require belief but belief is required, (in the possibility that something may be true), before it is possible to determine its truth (or otherwise). (In the language of the scientist that would be expressed as 'you cannot prove a negative'.)
Thus what we can learn is absolutely dependent on the position we assume, for instance, about the importance of 'me' in all this. (And truly many of those who talk most loudly about the insignificance of the human 'insect' toil under the yoke of a very significant 'me' indeed.) And this too is found in the language of science which says that you cannot separate the observer from the thing observed.
In the sense that all thought builds on the previous thoughts of others (or seems to flower organically from that thought, like the story of the hundredth monkey), there may be no such thing as original thought. Or you could just as truthfully say that whatever you see for yourself is original in every case.
In my little world there is no more original thought than the one that gives rise to a loathing of self-pity when that is so foreign to what we call human nature. And serial fence sitting looks to me like a stubborn and dogged determination not to construe anything - and specially not 'the absolute' - in any way which is dictated by the wishful thinking of the 'me-thing'! (Bravo then.)
Oh look - anthropormophism, something we may actually disagree about. Oh goody! (But next time or my husband may start to feel like a computer widower again.)
DaddyO, I have many times watched my cat make graceful leap to land in a distinctly ungraceful heap. If you laughed she behaved exactly like an outraged (and embarrassed) person. If you did not,she carried on as though nothing had happened. Every time and with no exception. But it was when I started hanging around with Native Americans that my ideas about what animals 'think' got blown out of the water. The only thing I can safely say (and somewhat shakily) is that I do not know any more. (Of course I never really did.) But I don't think it's safe to say that consciousness is a human prerogative.
You say something interesting about the (nercessary?) relationship between mind and brain. I'd refer you to Karl Pribram's work, if I had not just realized that I know of it only second hand - by reading what others have said of it. So first, I suppose, I need to rectify that.
I am not sure that I have grasped all of it, so this post is by way of a test of my understanding.
Where does the 'Mask' come from that requires an external construct within which to function? Why does the external world so constructed not always fit the 'Mask?' Some people are very ill at ease with the world they inhabit and none (I surmise) totally comfortable.
If the 'Mask' is at the level of the individual then I would argue that its survival is not the highest priority - there are myriad examples of individuals sacrificing themselves for others. How does this concept square with Darwinian evolution, whereby survival lives at the species level?
'Language is another word for reality.'
There was much debate earlier in the thread about the role of public language. Whilst I agree that language is critical to our understanding of the world (such that it is) it is very approximate and subjective. By that I mean I cannot know that you have received what I have transmitted - all I can know is what I would have understood were I to receive that message.
An example might be my understanding of your words - it is more than possible that I have completely misunderstood almost everything you said. And it is certain that others will understand something different from me because we each have a unique set of experiences on which we base our interpretations.
Separating the observer from the observed is, I suggest, the key limitation to our understanding of the world. It prevents us from perceiving reality because we are incapable of stepping outside ourselves. All we can do, therefore, is try to reach some sort of view of the perceived world based on our collective observations. This only works because we (as human beings) are genetically so similar that an assumption that we experience similar sensations from the same stimuli might not be too wide of the mark. But it is an assumption nonetheless. Other creatures less genetically similar would experience something very different (we assume) but we cannot gain access to what that might be.
You mentioned wishful thinking. I have tried over the years to eliminate (not entirely successfully) this from my analysis of the world. I cannot see how any supernatural belief system (for which there is no independent evidence) can be anything other than this at its core. 'I believe what I want to believe because I want to believe it.'
This does not preclude the existence, of course, of beings of far superior intelligence that we would find indistinguishable from gods.
This is why I am agnostic.
Sorry for being so long-winded and apologies if I have traduced your concept in any way. Happy to be corrected.
Boltonian: you couldn't be any more long winded than I and you did not traduce anything. You did show up how tired and stupid I was when I posted.
I made the idiotic mistake of (my all too frequent piece of sloppiness!) of employing a language for which I (and others) have assigned a specific meaning without establishing how I was using that language beforehand. It is something I get particularly annoyed with myself about because it is sometimes a deliberate device (and particularly loathsome, I think) used in debate when the intention is to make the 'opposition' appear stupider than the proponent. (Not that I see you as the opposition to begin with.)
The 'mask' is a proposition thus: identity is accumulated from childhood onwards. The child is 'told' explicitly or through experience that he/she is beautiful/ugly, stupid/clever, important/unimportant, clumsy/graceful, like/unlike another, ad infinitum. These assertions are 'proved' through experience. They become the bedrock of an identity (mask) so definite (= 'attains a kind of life of its own') that it is easier for most of us to be willing to sacrifice life itself (by an act of heroism for example) than to consider the possibility that 'who we say we are' (the mask) does not exist. In the simplest possible terms this can also be expressed in terms of 'conditioning' to perceive ourselves as consisting of a personality made of elements that have been suggested to us, or that we have suggested to ourselves and which is not only illusory, but may dictate destructive and deeply painful behaviors and experiences. We may repeat such behaviors/experiences because of the circular process by which, for example, 'the person I am' always/never does x in a given situation.
The only universe we know is the universe as it appears to us i.e. the human universe. The only complete human 'mechanism' we actually know is our own. We do not habitually recognize the limitations of our own identity construct but anyone can test the usefulness of this proposition at any time by demolishing and reconstructing any specific aspect of their 'character' that they choose.
The rather glib 'language is another word for reality' merely asserts that we cannot think about anything for which we do not have a concept (language). This what is available for us to think, talk, even be consciously aware of is circumscribed the language we have developed to describe the world in which we live. Thus by the time we get to the question of how much we understand of one another's communication we have already passed over the fact that there is an interdependency between the 'amount' of reality that is, or may be there to be described and the reality that description makes available.
This being the case a basis from which to begin that inquiry which makes (Aristotle?) life worth living is not 'is this true?' but does this proposition give me a *useful* working model with which to describe what can be observed? Working from the basis of a useful model we see more than we could see previously, we develop new language with which to explore (for us) new reality to the point where the model is no longer useful. We move from the Newtonian to the quantum model, for instance, and though much of the classical model is later shown to have been based on false assumptions, yet it provided the vehicle that carried us to the an entirely unimagined 'reality'.
Thus it may be reasonably argued that the value of any model that is assumed to be (temporarily) 'true' can be assessed just as vaidly in terms of whether it produces happiness - not for the abstract, historical 'humanity' which exists only in the mind but for the concrete human and those concrete humans in his/her immediate world of experience - as it can for whether it expands the boundaries of what we recognize and and can rationally inquire about. (Thus truth does not require belief but belief is sometimes required before we can determine it. And I should have added 'determine it, not as absolute for there is nothing absolute about the *oberver*, but as useful, as taking as forward in some sense.)
I hope that's a mite clearer.
I do not believe in anything supernatural. I have witnessed things that others would certainly label that way but I take the position that if they occur, then they are by definition natural. I merely do not presently have a conceptual framework within which to explain them. (So I'm not going to flipping well invent one and start talking rubbish about ectoplasms or whatever.) I cannot assume that what is only rarely observed and cannot be presently measured does not exist (electrons?) for that reason. It seems evident that science has not yet finished explaining all natural phenomena. (We know sweet fanny adams about the oceans for instance but it doesn't mean there aren't sea monsters out there because we don't know about them except through second hand stories. A useful inquiry, it seems to me, would be 'if there were sea monsters would that explain anything that we can observe'?)
If something exists it exists whether I believe in it or not. It does not require me for its existence. It is I who may require to 'try it on for size' and see where it takes me. If I like the journey AND I get a new and wider perspective for my inquiry that is all that can be asked. "Yes but is true?", is completely beside the point. Newton's model wasn't true, in a strict sense but it got us closer to a bit more truth than we'd had before. Reminds me of the incredibly beautiful Tibetan Mandala that is created in sand every year and then, ceremoniously swept away.
And I leave you with this thought..... please don't ever apologize again for being long winded. You'll just make me feel terrible!
Boltonian, Daddy0Marcos and others - and, of course, our kind host, Boltonian - a quick thank you for this little safe haven. I do enjoy CiF and all. But it can be a bit disheartening (c.f. the Grayling thread). Which, I admit, is to contribute nothing to discussion of collective consciousness, ontology, language etc...
Thanks (I don't really deserve two thank yous :)). The idea here is to be able to explore a few things without it denegerating into a competitive sport, as so often happens on CiF. I deliberately refrained from contributing to the ACG thread, apart from a rather facetious comment last night (after a glass of wine, I confess), because we have been here many times before and I am beginning to bore myself with the same old line.
sarab:
I promise not to apologise for long-windedness again.
Thank you for the clarification.
You say that things exist independently of you, which suggests an objective reality out there of which our perception is some sort of approximation. The Platonic view, if you like.
I would like to put forward a couple of alternative scenarios for consideration:
1) That a world exists outside our being but as we can never gain access to it we have no idea what it might be like. It is unlikely to bear any resemblance to our perceived world, except by the most extraordinary coincidence. All our information about the world comes to us through our senses and is mediated in the brain. Each individual life form has a different set of perceptive equipment and will see the world differently, so why should our perception be any closer to reality than any others?
2) As we are each subjective individuals and can only access the world through our own subjective equipment, how do we know that there is anything at all beyond ourselves. When I dream I am convinced that I am relating to the world but when I wake I realise that it was happening in my head and there was no external world. This is solipsism, of course.
wrt language. Are you saying that we cannot have sensations without a language to express it? And that we expand the boundaries of our knowledge incrementally, so that language and concept develop hand over hand, as it were? I would agree, for the most part, but I often find myself looking at a beautiful view or painting, or listening to a particularly moving piece of music for which I have no language to express my feelings. But they are real and memorable nonetheless.
I agree that all phenomena that exist in the world must be natural, however unlikely they might seem to us at a particular juncture in time. You mentioned the oceans. I would add the Earth in general - we know more about the interior of the Sun than we do of our own planet.
By supernatural I mean belief without testable evidence. For example, I say that God exists because it says so in the Bible and it must be true because the Bible is the word of God. How do we know that the Bible is the word of God - because it says so in the Bible. Proved only by a self-referencing circular argument. Similarly, I know that Jesus is the son of God because He has spoken to me and told me. Again, no testable or falisifiable evidence.
Now to the nub of your post. I agree that 'Truth' is relative to the observer at a particular point in time and, therefore, it cannot be absolute. The Existentialist position. Also, our collective idea of truth (as human beings) is a distillation of our experience to date, which is why Newtonian physics was the last word for so long, and even now works for most things most of the time. However, given our propensity (or limitation) of trying to formulate truths from historical data we will fail to spot the big things - history is a very poor guide to the future. I am not sure what else we can do, though.
I think I now understand more clearly the idea of 'Mask' and the development of one's individual world view.
How does this square, I wonder, with Matt Ridley's assertion (in 'Nature via Nurture), based on twin study research, that our adult behaviour is determined 50% by our genes; 45% by outside the home childhood environment (the Jesuit position); and 5% by the inside the home childhood environment?
There its lots more to explore here and thanks for such a thought-provoking post.
I would be interested in others' views, questions and angles.
If anyone comes across any of the contributors here on CiF or any others who would find this interesting please invite them to join in.
Lots to think about in yours too. I'm going to be swamped for a few days so please excuse the uncharacteristic silence! But in the words of the governor of California, I'll be back. :-)
Hello all, I am another refugee from what was turning into a bit of a bitchy-fest with a well known individual on CiF. I've read the comments and there is a lot to discuss, I see it's all quite open and I like the tangents some of you are taking. I will not make any comments as yet since I'd rather think them through and I'll try and make them a bit more cogent than my contributions on CiF. I am neither a philosopher, scientist or theologian - unfortunately I'm a Social Scientist (this is a bit of a problem for me since I think the epistomoligical fundations of Social Science are flawed) yet I find balance with my other hat in legal theory. To that end I found the questions on free will particularly interesting from an applied point of view. But I hope I'm open to ideas, I'll try not to let my prejudices get in the way and I promise to stay silent when I haven't a clue, which you can really get away with on CiF. Not that it matters but I've changed my name from CiF but anyone familiar with Verdian Baritones should know who I am.
I guess you have changed from Alfred to Simon - I too enjoy Italian opera. Favourite tenor - Beniamino Gigli.
You are very welcome here, where the behaviour you refer to is discouraged. That is one reason (and the three day rule)why I set up the blog. I prefer discussion to point scoring and I love learning, which is very difficult on CiF. Having said that I do enjoy the cut and thrust of it occasionally and this site is not meant to replace anything. I no longer engage with the fellow in question - I find it simply a waste of my time.
I hope you do comment on things that interest you whether you have expertise or not. I have little depth of knowledge about very much but I am interested in most things, at least those that I feel are important.
I hope Krapotkin can sort his IT problems out and re-join us because he was on the WML side of the debate and I would be interested in why he feels that circumstantial evidence is either inadmissible or insufficient here. CiF is not really the place for an in-depth examination of anything.
If there is anybody else tuning in with views on the likelihood of the historical Jesus having existed and, if he did, what his nature might have been, please post a comment.
(I'm the commenter formerly known as cynicalsteve....how I wish I'd chosen another name *there*....)
Just lookin' out of curiosity....
Is there just the one thread?
Won't post anything meaty at present, except to say what many of you probably already know; that re the ant colony q, Hofstedter has written about this in his oblique way (in GEB).
Anyhow, I take on board what some of you have said about CiF, and promise that if I do come back, I'll be on my best behaviour....
Meanwhile, thanks for the opportunity boltonian (Ian from Bolton? or just a general boltonian?!)
Hi Steve. Welcome - I have enjoyed your posts on CiF and look forward to your contributions here.
Just one thread - it was suggested I started others but I failed the test. Please pick up on anything you feel you want to discuss, either a current, past or yet to be topic.
Funnily enough I have a brother called Ian. I was born in Bolton but we moved when I was 18 months old. It left me with a legacy of supporting Bolton Wanderers - the whole family comes from the town, so I had no choice. These days I do not really follow the game but it seemed like an uncontroversial (if unimaginative)display name.
Hi boltonian, I thought I might stop by and see what's happening over here. I was intending to reply to some of the posts, but I couldn't find a way to change my current username (I'm not telling) to my actual name, and before soon it was up to 400 and didn't seem worth it. Little did I know... I've followed and enjoyed your posts (and Krapotkin) for a while now on Cif, and see that you guys get further stuck in here, without the trolling. Can't promise to contribute anything profond but I'll chip in if I can.
Boltonian : I have been keeping an eye on your militant cell here and have come close to posting on several occasions.
There is a pattern on this blog of people taking part for a while and then disappearing, as you've noted yourself.
The problem from my point of view is that issues have been raised in terms, to which I couldn't immediately relate. For example, I've spent weeks pondering at odd moments whether I am still a mysterian. Certainly, I've been gradually moving away from that position, but does this altering stance affect other positions, interpretations of personal experiences and core beliefs ?
Another possible reason for the pattern of "absenteeism" is that people prefer the knockabout, which passes for debate on CiF.
There's lots of interesting stuff on here already, but it must be a bit daunting for newcomers to read and digest all the existing subject matter.
As it's your blog and you seem to have read the most relevant books, I suggest you pick a topic each month or write a short piece as they do on CiF and invite comments. The purpose would be to start a clean sheet, which might help psychologically.
My better half is also a Buddhist, but of the Mahayana variety. I think she's been practising for over 10 years now. It was undoubtedly during our frequent trips to Nepal that she first got hooked. It does seem a bit obsessive and although I think it has helped her in some ways, like any belief system it seems to cut off certain lines of enquiry.
Was it Basildon writing recently on CiF, who also confessed to being a (Zen) Buddhist practitioner ?
Steve : how long did it take you to read GEB ? Must admit I can only handle about 5 pages in a session.
I read Holographic Universe recently, which is very wacky, but that's the way I like it. Also re-reading Singularity. Haven't felt the need to read any more Wolfram, but I still like the basic idea.
pttp - fancy bumping into you here....can't remember how long it took to read GEB. Remember it as a great book, though, even though I'm not a big classy music groupie, and the Bach element was rather lost on me. As were, to some extent, the Godel bits. Come to think of it, I know nothing about art, either, so that's Escher sidelined....seriously, though, I did enjoy the Godel side. I was hamstrung, sadly, because the maths at that level was beyond my wall. It's a funny thing - I doubt I dropped a single perecentage point in any maths exam at school, right up to A level, and beyond to S level further maths. It was all too easy. Then, no problem at uni, for a year or so (although maths was just a sideline). Then, one day, WHAM! We started doing stuff that I just couldn't visualise, and despite trying hard a few times since, I'd hit a wall. A humiliating experience. It was as if they'd all suddenly started speaking SerboCroat. So don't go trying to engage me on the finer points of Godel's theorem (yes, ChooChoo, I'm looking at you....)
Sadly, also, GEB is one of four excellent books that at various times I've lent to others, and never had returned. So, if anyone out there has any of these books and a strange sense of guilt, please get in touch:
GEB An early hardback edition of "1066 and all that" "The Green Man" by Kingsley Amis A fascinating, now out of print, book by one of the Duncan Campbells, detailing lots of the secret underground places in Britain - the extra tube stations, deep shelters, that sort of thing.
(I won't deny there are some things on my shelves that are loooooong term loans; but a couple of Le Carre's hardly compensate for the above....)
I note Adam Rutherford's post above - congrats on your K ! Sorry you didn't join in the bun fight, Adam.
Sorry it's all a bit off topic, but will try to *think* tomorrow....
Well done, Adam, for the interest your piece generated - must be a record.
It amuses me that certain posters complain about 'Yet another religious/anti-religion thread' yet they seem to attract the most attention. Metaphysics, or whatever grand title we give to it, really is important to us. Why? That might be an interesting thread.
pttp:
I have never thought of myself as 'Militant' before - WML called me a militant agnostic, which I still think is an oxymoron. Perhaps we define our own terms:
'Wad some pow'r the giftie gie us to see oorsels as others see us.'
Yes, I have noticed the bursts of enthusiasm followed by periods of idleness. I went away for a few weeks and almost nothing happened in that time, so we have more or less started again. I hope people like elephantschild and yakaboo etc return at some point.
I will think about your suggestion but I would like others, with more knowledge than me, to come up with interesting pieces that we could all comment on.
Spacepenguin visited for a while - I hope he looks in from time to time as he has lots of interesting things to say on scientific issues - he is also a bit of a mysterian.
Steve: GEB? My maths remained at 'O' level standard. My dad loved maths (he was an engineer) and was slightly disappointed that I did not share his enthusiasm. But now, whenever I read people like Feynman, I wish I had paid a bit more attention.
A couple of other things occur to me. I am sure you are right, pttp, that some find posting here daunting. I have asked friends to contribute and, although they will look in, some have been a little intimidated.
How do we overcome this?
I would also like to get a few others from CiF involved, such as tonyellis, GoM, Gerry71, jeremyjames, Bill Ingle, Humanzee etc. I know that CiF can be exciting but this blog offers something different and is certainly not in competition with CiF.
I have asked for all those that visit to leave a message, so perhaps we can get an idea as to how many people read but don't post.
I know very little about Mahayana Buddhism but would be interested to explore how it differs from the Therevada version. I went to Nepal a few years ago and walked to Annapurna Base Camp from Pokara - fabulous. Also spent a week exploring the Kathmandu valley - great holiday.
Boltonian : I think militant was an excessive description for Dawkins, but maybe apposite for some atheists on CiF. My usage as applied to you wasn't intended seriously. I agree militant agnostic tends to the oxymoronic.
I'll admit to deploying baiting tactics at CiF, but I'll try not to do it here.
In this context, I'd also apologise to ChooChoo for a rather snide remark on CiF, which again was intended to be lighthearted. It's very easy to get a bit carried away on CiF especially when you're following several threads.
The Hofstedter book Steve mentioned, that I'm currently struggling with, is the Eternal Golden Braid "Goedel, Escher, Bach". It's going to be a long term project. I'd heard of Goedel, longtime admirer of Escher, listened to Bach in my teens. Mindbending stuff all of it.
Did you note the further progress announced towards the development of the quantum computer ?
Dear Boltonian, Thank you for your welcome. We can agree with Gigli but when it comes to sopranos I am as militant as they are, a true believer and I cannot and will not be moved, Tebaldi forever. I feel some of us are daunted since it seems, to me at least that we may not feel qualified to comment. CiF is fun since you can hide behind bluster and rhetoric where here a real attempt to exchange ideas forces us to think, hard at the best of times. There could be two strings to the threads. The first could be as it is now with issues growing organically and being discussed. The second could involve us 'parasites' interjecting with small even child like questions (the best kind), or requesting clarification, maybe just to keep up. I'm sure when a thread where we have a point to make comes our way we can jump in. We all have holes in our knowledge so let's own up, without ridicule and ask those questions. Though having said that I'm not ready to take the plunge just yet. I almost started with the historical Jesus point and ended up with Karl Barth, without ever even having made the point I wanted to make, I'll try and edit it on word and get back to you. Would be great if Mark Vernon could join us. One final point on CiF, I was just going through past articles and came accross one by Martin Rees from 10th June 2006 on ethics in science, excellent article,,,,,, five responses.
I assume we're all ruling out the deterministic line, that if you know where everything is, and what it's doing, that you can calculate everything for ever and a day. (I recall reading once that, when setting a snooker shot, if you ignored the gravitational effect of a single electron on the edge of the universe, you couldn't calculate even approximately the path of one ball after seven cushion bounces. Sounds crazy - hope it's true!)
So, if it's not determinism, what makes us choose? And what makes ChooChoo's bug choose which way to go? Is my choice different from the bug's choice? Well, I think my choice does differ from the bug's. I would say that, given the same sensory inputs, the bug would always make the same choice; I don't think I do. (I can't be sure; I can never repeat the experiment.) Or is my choice an illusion? Heck, I hope not. There'd just be no *point* in that case, would there?
Since I'm floundering a little now, what if we turn the question around - can we imagine *not* having free will? I'm gonna have to think about this.
Sorry, boltonian, I seem to have asked plenty of questions without going anywhere....will try again later....
Incidentally, if you're looking for recruits, can I suggest endlessdyad? He/she's good on this stuff, seems up for a good clean debate - and appears exasperated by the argybargy *over there*.
Finally, can I plug my doggerel, which I've appended to Adam's thread at CiF?
Boltonian : just rambling through and found this comment of yours
"On consciousness, someone here suggested we were about a decade or so away from building a quantum computer which might, in time, allow us to recreate, molecule by molecule, the human brain. That might give us a clue to the nature of consciousness".
Kurzweil says that the quantum computer isn't required for his project and that it will be achievable within the current paradigm. A friend with academic and commercial form in this area (AI & neural nets) recently suggested that Kurzweil's approach is going to run into a dead end and that wetware could be the way forward. I've never been convinced myself that the data held in the brain can be meaningfully transferred/converted onto another medium, but I suppose that wetware is slightly more plausible. The problem as I see it is the very large number of pathways/combinations involved and the feeling that there are no logical patterns to interpret.
I'd be happy for someone with more knowledge to shred the above.
Steve : agree with your comment about endlessdyad in case s/he takes a peek here.
Free will doesn't occur because we cannot calculate future brain states , that would just be a lack of knowledge .
Even with the assumption of a metaphysical soul of some sort free will would not be truly explicable . There would have to be some sort of essence of the self that reacted to external stimuli and tugged at various neurons to react in an authentically 'soulful' way . Such a thing would be beyond any notions of material cause and effect and therefore beyond scientific explanation .
If you allow the supernatural free will is possible , but never understandable .
First of all quantum computers - I know next to nothing about the subject but had just read (Churchland, I think) that we will soon be able to build a brain using such technology. I would be interested in knowing more about 'Wetware' technology.
pttp: thanks for the links. No, I didn't take the 'Militant' tag seriously - I just found it funny when WML accused me of miltant agnosticism and dogmatic uncertainty. I think militant is overused but are individuals on all sides of the religious debate who are (and perhaps need to be) completely certain of their position and will not countenance variations to that. Quite often, I have noticed, they will move from being extreme at one end of the spectrum to equally so at the other. For example, the most vehement atheists (those who are certain that there is no possibility of any superior being(s) existing anywhere) are often former (equally vehement) religious believers. The question I am interested in is why so many need certainly as the core of their existence whilst the rest of us do not.
We have discussed Wolfram once or twice here before. I do not have the skills to be able to judge but most who do have not been overly impressed. If anybody can explain a bit more to me in simple language I would be very grateful.
Don't worry, Steve, I have zillions of questions and hardly any answers. I do not, though, rule out determinism. In fact, if you asked me to put money on it, I would go for a completely determined world but that we cannot possibly (ever?) know where all the pieces are and how they interact, so for all practical purposes it is not determined. More than this, we have evolved so that the concept of free will is central to our survival as social beings - without which no morals (and no humanity?). So even if we can intellectually accept the concept of determinism we could never behave in that way without jeopardising our survival as a species.
Simon (if I may) - my favourite sopranos, in no particular order: Cotrubas; Popp (saw at Covent Garden years ago); Te Kanawa (ditto); Schwarzkopf (the first opera I ever heard - and which converted me - was Marriage of Figaro with her as the Countess); Sutherland (particularly the sublime sextet from Rigoletto with Pavarotti); Tebaldi (of course); and Callas (with Di Stefano).
The historical Jesus issue is fascinating and I would like to explore that further. I would like to get Krapotkin involved when he is able to re-connect.
I do not see any problem with anybody interjecting with questions or comments at any stage. It is often the naive point that opens up the discussion. Also, there is no reason why anybody cannot start a new topic - perhaps based on a recent book they have read. Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time R4 programmes often provoke thoughts for me, which I might throw in from time to time. If nobody responds we just move on to something others are interested in.
If you could get Mark Vernon to contribute that would be great as I came to CiF in the first place via his website. Also, please invite enlesslydad, any others you think might be interested, to come and take a look.
You guys keep surprising me....I'd have bet long odds on you all ruling out determinism (albeit from different reasonings), but spacepenguin and boltonian himself still see it as an option. (But then again, I'm sure some thought I might even be a determinism groupie.... ;-) )
I was also fairly sure that the big D had been unequivocably shown to be nonsense by various philosophers and physicists (not that those two vocations seem to be distinct these days....)
As I see it, there are three major problems with D.
1) Practically, you just can't gather the info you need to a sufficient degree of accuracy. Chaos theory showed us that. Even minuscule variations in input can cause huge - and unpredictable - changes in output, when plugged into the sort of iterative equations needed.
2) Theoretically, Heisenberg. You just *can't* catalogue everything.
3) Supposing, though, that you could get such complete data. Where would you store it? Whether with paper & pencil, or computerised, you'd need a construct at least as big as the original data set itself (and that's before you've installed the "Desktop Ritchie"....) But then you haven't catalogued your storage device, so you're back to square one....
spacepenguin I'm not big on souls, as you've probably gathered, so I'm rather more interested in seeing how (and whether, if you like) we can arrive at a concept of FW *without* a deus ex machina. I wasn't clear as to whether you were saying you thought that impossible?
On an unrelated note, I rather liked the "militant agnostic" tag, and think you should embrace it. The idea of "dogmatic uncertainty" tickles me - although it's not my position. Maybe I'll get there, though....
Thanks for this. Here is my reasoning for determinism.
1) Everything we have encountered is subject to laws. We might not fully understand the depths of those laws but we think that they exist. So, bosons behave in this way but not that; gravity always exerts this force; the strong nuclear force operates only over such and such a distance; electrons in an atom cannot exist in the same quantum state etc etc.
If this is so then we can extrapolate that everything (even that which we have yet to discover) is governed by strict laws. There is no room here for free will because we are all made, 100%, of these things that are subject to such laws.
2) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not undermine this (SpaceP will correct me if I have this wrong) because all it says is that both a quantum entity's location and momentum cannot be known - the more one knows of one the less one can know of the other. It is still governed by Heisenberg's equation, which also has no room for free will. Just because we cannot know these things does not mean they are not subject to equally strict laws. Otherwise we must be saying that quantum entities are capricious and equations describing their properties would be impossible.
3) All this does not mean that we will ever be able to know or collate the knowledge required to predict the future. So, your point 3 I agree with. Chaos theory to my mind simply supports this - it is our lack of knowledge that gives us the concept of free will not the actuality.
So, we have two divergent concepts here. Our brain needs to see the world as cause and effect - hence our tendency to fatalism and the idea of a deus ex machina. This is why we see the world as determined at some levels, and the more we understand about genetics the more, I guess, we will tend to move this way. Many people now see alchoholics, for example, as being victims of their genetic inheritance rather than as feckless, weak-willed ne'er do wells.
On the other hand we have been programmed to live at a very deep level as if free will was available to all of us. This means we have choices and are free to exercise those choices. We can, therefore, draw up a moral code for what is and is not acceptable behaviour and impose sanctions for transgression. This belief (rather than the actuality) might have stopped us from destroying ourselves thus far. Other hominids might not have developed this trait and died out as a result. Even fatalists live their lives as if free will exists because we must. But this does not mean that free will exists just that we live as if it does.
We have a tendency to categorise everything because our brains work this way but that does not mean that categories actually exist. At one level all our physics is mere metaphor because, even supposing an objective reality exists, we could never know or understand it - we are limited by our perceptive and cerebral equipment. For example, when I was at school electrons were portrayed as tiny balls revolving around larger balls in the nucleus (Bohr's model) but we knew even then that this was incorrect but trying to visualise what an electron is really like is beyond most of us.
(Pokes head round door - 'Did someone mention my name a while back?')
I have, in fact, been looking in at fairly regular intervals, and following the discussion. If I have not posted for some time it is not so much that I feel daunted (though there is an element of that) but because of lack of time. As bocanegra observed, the various issues under discussion require a fair amount of thought, and often, in my case, a flurry of googling and the occasional dash to the library, and I tend to be slow in ordering and articulating such ideas as I have. (And although I may use the ideas gathered from my reading as the starting point, I am like sarab in that I feel happier putting together the pieces of the jigsaw myself, however inadequate the results - which is perhaps why I am generally better at research than synthesis.) As it is, I have been neglecting other things which ought to have been occupying my time - a research project which should have been finished months ago; family history investigations on behalf of family and friends; and a garden which needs rescuing from a year's neglect thanks to an enforced period of inactivity following surgery last year (even a garden designed to be a relatively low-maintenance organised wilderness reverts to jungle with astonishing rapidity).
I also followed the marathon CiF thread and was tempted to butt in when WML once again got on his 'lack of evidence for a historical Jesus' hobby horse. But endlessdyad is clearly far better qualified than I to take him up on that issue, and I feel, in any case, that there is little point. He clearly isn't likely to change his mind - the most he ever does is to side step, and he does not appear to have much understanding of historical method or the uses of textual analysis in evaluating the sources he dismisses so firmly. He did, though, appear to confirm what I had suspected from various assertions he had made on other threads; that his views are based on a selective reading of mainly 19th century biblical scholars, topped up, evidently, with ideas gleaned from Doherty. Not very sound.
I was also intrigued by a reference which pttp made on the same thread to 'mystical' experience, partly because of my recent reading on the subject, but also for personal reasons, having myself had one or two experiences which might be in that category (a long time ago, and not as the result of any special practice or the ingestion of mind altering substances).
*****************
To revert to one or two topics discussed a while back:
Ant colonies and the possibility of collective consciousness: An ant colony (or termites, or bees) can perhaps be seen as in some respects a single organism, but is there such a thing as a 'hive mind'? Can a system where the individual organic elements communicate through exchange of chemical traces, pheremones, gesture etc be seen as in any way analogous to a (slow thinking) brain? And could such a 'brain' give rise to any form of consciousness? If so, I doubt very much that it would be anything we could recognise as such.
Boltonian: On the question of whether or not we can understand how animals other than ourselves 'think', I agree that we cannot know what it is like to be a cat, or whatever, and that people do have a tendency to anthropomorphise, but I think that it is nevertheless possible to understand some aspects of their behaviour with a degree of objectivity. For example: a domestic cat is different from a feral cat of the same species, in that adults retain elements of kittenish behaviour - playing with their prey, for example, which is the way kittens learn to hunt, or purring and kneading with their paws, which kittens do when being washed by their mother and when suckling. Feral cats outgrow this behaviour, and from this animal behaviourists deduce that the domestic cat relates to its human companions in somewhat the same way as it did to its mother. By the same token, a domestic dog behaves in relation to its owner or owners as if to members of a dog pack. So perhaps, to that degree, we may have some insight into their 'thinking', or at least their emotional responses.
*************
On another subject: daddyOmarcos cought my attention when he described the feeling of detachment between thought and action. Although he was talking about a sporting activity, I have experienced something similar in a more cerebral context In particular I recall an occasion long ago, when I was in the 6th form at school. I was writing an essay in a French Literature exam on an aspect of Racine's 'Britannicus' - not an aspect we had specifically covered in class, but then I was an awkward bugger and always preferred to approach such things from my own angle rather than regurgitating something which had already been discussed and analysed to death - and I remember that feeling of detachment and of time slowing down. It seemed as if I had all the time in the world, and the essay seemed to write itself (to good effect, evidently, since I got a spectacularly high mark for it)
Enough for now (probably more than enough) I will try and post again when I can find the time
Surely Heisenberg's principle goes further than saying that momentum and position can't both be determined exactly, but also says that you just can't think of these concepts (m & p) on the scale of tiny objects? I, too, await a better clarification of this from spacepenguin or any other interested physicist.
You also said : "Otherwise we must be saying that quantum entities are capricious and equations describing their properties would be impossible."
Isn't that the point of quantum entities - that they're capricious?!
I hope all is well after your op and the garden is now back under control.
I am going to follow your good example and do some thinking (and even a bit of research)before responding to your post in any depth. I am particularly intrigued about how we get a handle on another creatures' feelings. I can see how we use observation to infer motives and habits etc. I will reflect on your domestic/feral cat example and see where I get to.
Spot on re-WML and his pseudo historical approach to things, particularly evident with the Jesus issue. I think he confuses evidence with proof (he seems to be uncomfortable with anything that is uncertain)but I have long since given up debating with him; I cannot relate to his black and white world.
steve:
Likewise I will need to do some research on H'sUP before responding. I am sure SpaceP's scholarly wisdom will put us right.
My understanding (probably flawed)is that quantum entities behave probabilistically, rather than capriciously, but we do not know what causes them to be in place A rather than B when observed. Are there underlying laws that we cannot see that determine this? For example, radioactive material decays at a specific rate but we do not know what causes atom A to decay when it does, all we know is that the quantity decays at that rate.
Likewise the molecules that comprise air do not all gather in one corner of the room, which technically they could. They spread evenly throughout the space, but what causes atom A to be here and atom B to be there?
On freewill, I have diametrically the opposite sentiment to Steve: I am constantly surprised why dismissal of the reality of freewill is not more generally accepted.
If I imagine a world in which freewill is an illusion that is necessary for the functioning of some mental processes and compare it with the world as we find it, I find that i am contemplating the same self world. I can find no necessity for, but only problems with the concept of freewill.
What controls freewill? Where does it come from? Is it random or determined? How does it affect material structures?
As (I think) I have said earlier, freewill is a consequence of a subjective viewpoint that reflects our own incomprehension of the entity that is ourselves.
For similar reasons there are huge problems with the idea of consciousness: just because we feel we have it, we assume we understand and know what it is, despite the fact that any other consciousness is unknown to us.
What can we do to account for the world? The only sustainable strategy is to strive as best we can towards an objective viewpoint. Of course we cannot in the end escape outside ourselves, and we will make stupid mistakes, but we can take heart in the knowledge that Science has provided an extraordinarily successful exemplar for this process.
I'm always interested to hear about others' unusual experiences. And as we've been circling round the issue, I'll begin.
I used a fairly well-known meditation technique where you imagine a single point of light, like a distant star and project your consciousness into it. This is designed to release consciousness from the gravity exerted by ego. It is fairly radical, though and not easy.
I've used drugs, fasting and sheer mental effort as well to achieve altered states.
My contention is that mystical experience is the basis for all religion and a catalyst in the evolution of consciousness.
Steve : Sorry if you've already covered this; I missed the original bug talk. If an insect learns, wouldn't it be capable of a different response with the same inputs ?
spacepenguin : your post about future brain states has left me baffled. Can you help ?
The uncertainty principle treats the outcome of a measurement on the quantum scale as ontologically probabilistic (that is the uncertainty is not caused by imprecise measurements ) rather than deterministic .
As regards momentum , boltonian is mostly right . The concept is critical to quantum theory but , as with many things quantum , it is defined differently than in classical mechanics .
In any event none of this is relevant to free will . Without some metaphysical 'youness' influencing your physical body libertarian free will is impossible regardless of how unpredictable the universe is .
Difficult for me to say anything here because I largely agree with you.
SpaceP:
Many thanks.
Just a thought to all. There have been various references to spiritual experiences. I imagine we have all had these, either self-induced or not, and I wonder why we think of them as such and not as 'Normal' phenomena.
Anybody who has played sport will have experienced 'The zone'; exams have been mentioned; all art forms; scenery; buildings; in fact almost anything can be the trigger for this heightened sensation. Do we just lump them (difficult to explain or intensive emotional reactions)into a category called, 'Spiritual experiences' and leave it at that - as if calling them something somehow explains them?
I have a very strong feeling sometimes that I am not alone in my subjective being. Difficult to explain but I am sure it is not unique to me. Now this might well be a rational function of the brain enabling me to solve problems through subconscious dialogue (or something like that). On the other hand it might not. I cannot tap into this feeling at will always and perhaps that is where meditation training (or a short-cut using mind-altering drugs) comes in and allows this elevated state of consciousness to be induced.
I keep promising myself one day to learn meditation but I understand that it is not easy and takes a lot of time to master. One day.
I have just re-read this and realised I have not written it very well but at this late hour (for me, I know some of you are night owls, as I once was)I am too tired (but not emotional)to re-write - I just hope it is coherent enough to make some sense.
You think you've got people put in the right boxes, then they come up with views opposite to that expected....most frustrating..... ;-)
Martin (if I have him right) doubts the existence of FW. It would certainly be difficult to prove you wrong, Martin. Personally, apart from feeling as if I *do* have FW, I can only say that if I haven't, I might as well stop trying to "behave well", on the grounds that my misbehaviour is already preset, so don't blame me. I just see that as a bleak option; not that I believe in denying reality. I suppose one might argue that the absence of total anarchy is evidence for FW?
spacepenguin (thanks BTW for the HUP clarification) then argues that without a metaphysical youness, FW isn't possible.
I recognise the risk of backing myself into a corner here, having argued against pure determinism, but I don't feel this is right, either. The "youness" I can accept, but not the metaphysical side of that. Can we not be individuals, without a metaphysical or supernatural involvement? Weighty tomes have no doubt been written on that issue, so I don't suppose it can be answered in a single paragraph....anyway, woe betide anyone who outs me on CiF as having belief in a gut feeling without evidence :-)
pttp asks "If an insect learns, wouldn't it be capable of a different response with the same inputs ?"
I don't know, but I'm sure it's been studied. My guess would be that it could learn to give a different response to the same input (on a trial & error basis), but that it would then always give the *same* different response....if you see what I mean. I suppose I'm arguing that bugs are deterministic in a way that we aren't. Which only leads us on a journey through the phyla in search of a neat line where we can distinguish those creatures with free will from the robots; and I suspect that would be fruitless.
Amusing to see that several of you share my private view of WML; he's an irritating little sod, but at least he's *our* ILS.... (delete if I've crossed the line, boltonian)
Hello Boltonian and others - just thought I'd let you know that I am following this interesting set of discussions. As others have pleaded, don't have time for a substantial, significant set of rambling responses.
Pttp - please don't apologise. It's all good fun on CiF. As Hildegard of Bingen once said...
And, while speaking of apologies, sorry Adam Rutherford. Hope I was not rude in my criticism of the argumentation in your article.
762 comments:
1 – 200 of 762 Newer› Newest»Hello, Boltonian,
Nothing specifically about Free Will from me today, but here's a quick message to let you know that I've bookmarked your blog, the one you mentioned in CiF on Monday, 26th March.
I'm glad you've got it up and running and I look forward to reading more of your blogs. This one on Free Will is a major brain teaser and will be a very fruitful topic of discussion. I hope it encourages others from CiF to carry on those fascinating discussions that sadly wind up after 3 days. The topics are just too wide-ranging and fascinating to be treated with justice on CiF, but I do like the fact that Theo Hobson addresses issues that get everybody up in arms and airing their opinions and knowledge about these crucial matters, in my opinion.
Vis-a-vis the subjects discussed on CiF, I particularly appreciated the threads where you discussed such matters as Cosmology with Space Penguin and others. This adds a new dimension (no pun intended) to discussions of metaphysics for me. Until recently, I've been interested in the more dogmatic aspects of the debate on secularism and faith, but I think there's a tendency for arguments on this aspect to become hackneyed and sterile.
I'm keen, however, to branch out into the more philosophical and scientific foundations of this subject. I look forward to reading more of your stuff and to commenting on it.
Thanks again for taking the initiative and setting up this blog.
Best regards
basildon from CiF
Just stopped in to bookmark your blog. I have enjoyed your comments on Cif and look forward to more of the same. A quick bite and back to my tractor, best of luck with this blog.
I started to jot a few thoughts down about free will, but then made a decision to leave it until later as it's past my bedtime.
Hi boltonian, just looking in to say that I found your blogspot. I just found the CIF the other day really interesting, so i 'll try to keep tabs on this, though 'll mainly be reading everyone else's posts, or asking questions!...cheers.
Ah found you, damned technology, far to complicated! Well done boltonian, very innovative.
I hope this can continue overe time at a pace we can deal with. Life does get inn the way of a good debate doesn't it.
Kind regards to all
Krapotkin
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/
Interesting, if not always well argued podcast if anyone is interested.
Regards
Krapotkin
Dear all
Many thanks for contributing.
I thought we'd start with free will as that was raised by Krapotkin. This is really only a starter for 10. No rules, except manners, and let's just go wherever it takes us.
If anybody spots Spacepenguin anywhere on Cif could you let him know where we are.
I must get back to work now but I will post something later today.
K - thanks for the link.
Right, here goes.
If the laws of physics (whatever they turn out to be) are fixed and immutable how can we not live in a determined world?
So, masses and forces are fixed for each quantum entity. If this is so then all of our being, which is made up of these things must behave accordingly.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle might or might not allow variation to this (because we don't really understand why it is as it seems to be). How does the observer interact with the quantum world and does it really exist only as a potentiality of all possible states until observed?
Our definition of free will is governed by consciousness. We believe (all of us) that we have, to a certain extent, a conscious ability to exercise choice. How much choice is a subject for much debate but we all agree that we have some choice as to how we behave.
This trait, I suggest, is a survival mechanism that we have developed. Without an ability to choose there is no morality and without this we would have wiped ourselves out by now, as other hominids might have done already.
The more we understand about genetics the less real choice we appear to have.
If I am right and we inhabit a completely determined world how would we respond to this knowledge?
This might lead on to a discussion about the nature of consciousness. What is it?
What do you think?
Boltonian, a good starter for ten!
Much of what you say I'll go along with, especially as genetics is moving apace and showing us more about how we operate.
The survival mechanism I most certainly go with, being a Darwinian I don't have much choice there!
However, predetermined world is an exploration we need to have. Let us assume that the moment the Big Bang occured an atom or two was inevtably going to end up in our solar syetem, by its very nature that would seem so. Let us assume that the laws of nature are immutable, for the moment at least, at least physically.
Let us assume that that evolutiion has taken us to where we are as a species capable of thought, analysis etc. And then lets look at choices.
I have no doubt that every choice we make is governed by the external agents acting around us. I am beginnig to se that we are a to all intents and purposes a chemical computer with one aim, to pass on our genes to the ensure the survival of the species. Although one way or another I've thought along those lines for a decades.
And then lets look at the possibilty that we are, to our knowledge, the one species capable of changing the rules of our own existance. That by either self interest and/or co-operation we can change the moment. As I've posted before we are in my view creatures of the moment we exist in, the influences around at that moment and the desired result. Even if 99% of the choice/decision was taken up by logical deduction of facts and influences, it may still leave a critical 1% of free choice to conclude the action.
I would suggest we have that 1% choice. I can understand the notion that that its predetermined, but I would suggest that at any given time logical deduction of facts is determined by what view one has of morality, the cultural priorites that are inherent in ones social and cultural upbringing, genetic inheritance etc. Ones mans meat etc.
There is also the horny subject of temperament, character whatever phrase one wishes to apply. The optimost and the pessamist. That state of mind can and does (trust me I've been there) alter the choice, the perception of what one sees. It is not predetermined because (although I can think of a way to say it is!). It is to some extend random in nature, its perception of a single moment in time.
Its been a contention of mine for about a decade that philosophy only deals with a straight line logicalal trail, it does not deal with mental states to well. The ups and downs of existance.
So even if the theory of the chemical/electrical actions that our brain acts upon is correct, then it has to be able to accept arbitrary incidents, otherwise people wouldn't make such stupid choices at times would they?
I would suggest that within the parameters of the external agents acting on the momnet we have a free will and determine our own futures, unlike other speices as far as we know.
Finally, for now, I'd also like to point back to the Nietze quote about believing we are here for a purpose. That ,I think, has a great deal to do with why we need reasons, they don't have to be religious, they can be scientific and rational, but my point would be that we seem to be unable to take on board that simple survival and passing on our genes is the only actual reason we have for existance. What we make of it is our choice.
Okay then ladies and gentlemen, tear it to bits that's the idea!
my goodness. Lots to ponder.
This is going to sound like a bit of a ramble. Let's say that your actual 1% of choice is correct for the moment. If we ever managed to prove this I suggest it would have a serious effect on our well-being as a species because I would be 99% not responsible for my actions and who will say which is the 1%?
Second point. Einstein once said that time was not real, even though his relativity theories depended on something called 'Spacetime.'
I agree. There is no objective past, only one's own memory, which, as we know, is not always reliable in terms of accuracy of recall. Certainly mine is not these days. If we had all attended a music concert together last night we would each have a different memory of the event (I don't mean the quality of the music) in terms of size of orchestra, colour of the decor, type of lighting etc. So, who is right. Even a battery of camers cannot capture the whole thing.
There is no future because it has not yet happened.
But the present does not exist either because there is not a moment which is neither past nor future, so time cannot exist.
How, then, does this square with your suggestion that we live in the moment?
Temperament is interesting but why is that not a genetic inheritance? 100% of me comes from two people.
If we are 100% a chemical computer, what is consciousness? Where is it? And what is its purpose?
We make stupid choices because we do not have all the information we need. Our chemical computer is of limited capacity and most of it is used to keep us alive.
I would like you to expand on the bit about the limitations of philosophy if you could.
I accept that seeking a purpose in life is fairly fundamental to many of us - you can see it on CiF, among the atheists as well as the religious, but why is that? How does that confer a benefit? And, not everybody has it - if it is important to us - why not?
Must go and eat now. BTW how was your dinner last night, K?
What does everybody else think? Please join in.
Sapient Lunatic was my xbox name for a while, {I use that name no more ;} so I will go with that. No slant intended to Sapient because I can see his wisdom. {You all speak so well ;}
Just found CiF today. The mediocre article with the great debate... I think this is more in line with what should happen. {of course it should be noted that you don't own blogger and that could lead tooo... issues. Setting up a blog with an account hosted by Dreamhost is easy and I always liked the name... There are many other good hosts out there as well :}
I am curious about this Spacepenguin you speak of. And Being that I am part Sapient I hope that he shows up. You all seem very intelligent/ interesting/ loving/ Truth Seeking... and I am looking forward to delving into such discussion with you.
I Know Nothing was my Answer to the Question of Life. In time it actually became the Question...
For that I am very grateful...
And as to the question of whether FreeWill exists or not my personal opinion is that it does... if you believe in it. But you can also give it up. god may even give it back if you ask the sky.
no more time for now.
{OK. a little...}
Ever read Plotinus? He thought he knew something or some god that GOD didn't know...
He may have been right and he may have been wrong. Any thoughts?
hi boltonian,
I said I'd drop by, so I have.
this one's too much for me though (maybe - I'll think about it). what I'm really interested in is how to get our species off the path to extinction and on the path to evolution; more specifically, just as an example, can we continue to have economic growth indefinitely, or even for the next couple of generations. is it growth that will ultimately kill us - and if so, how do we change it if corporate power wants it? is this the kind of stuff you might cover, or is it too political - not really science, religion or philosophy? surely it's philosophy? Just had an incredibly conversation with a guy in japan who disagreed with me - love to drag him into a discussion like that.
Welcome Sapient and yakaboo
S - although I have not read Plotinus (must do one day) I am aware of his 'One' idea. I assume that must have been an influence on Schopenhauer, whose 'Blind will to exist' had a similar quality. Spacepenguin, by the way, is a very wise bird and I hope he comes along at some point.
Y - we will go wherever the discussion takes us. For me, this is also a fascinating topic but I will need a bit of time to get my thoughts together. Perhaps others might have a view. Your Japanese friend would be very welcome to join us.
B, dinner eatable thanks, order what you want, take what you get! Thats the steppes!
Will read and digest over the day and think how to respond. If we take care here we may even come close to a workable theory!
Limits of philosophy, well you can drive logic down most any road according to your belief system for one.
Stupid decisons, well I'm not soi sure with the point about not having all the info, I watch people drive cars here in a way that woukd stun you and as each incident occurs they have as all the info required to make the correct choice, but don't. Selfeshness, bravado etc.
Any driver here so gotta go for now
Have a nice day all.
Hey All,
Token atheist here to keep the pot stirring, great to debate with youyesterday Boltanian, Have bookmarked this and look forward to rigorise debate in the future! Will respond your last post yesterday soon.
>Interestingly, we are able to predict or anticipate our own decisions. Work by physiology professor Benjamin Libet at the University of California shows that neural activity to initiate an action actually occurs about a third of a second before the brain has made the decision to take the action. The implication, according to Libet, is that the decision is really an illusion, "consciousness is out of the loop".<
(From The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil).
Pttp, that’s interesting, didn’t know that, maybe implies we have a third of a second of free will!? I think Susan Blackmore and Jack (?) Dennett are getting to that conclusion as well. Fascinating. Can you be a bat, was Nagels way of looking at it I seem to remember.
I’d just like to make a point here, I think it would be good if we can attempt to be accessible in what we put forward. I notice one or two people seem to think this is a bit beyond them. Please, no it isn’t, all views are valid, all lines are worthy of exploring, neither science nor philosophy has much consensus on this issue. Maybe we can find a step forward between us.
I say this because I think science/skeptics called ‘em what you will, have made a bit of a pigs ear of making the case to the public on a series of issues, from climate change to stem cells to GM food. I reason that this has led to a rise in faith based belief systems. In the US its actually got hold of political power and a huge % of people think the worlds 6,000 years old. Very scary. Islam also has political power although I would suggest that’s more to do with culture shock having lived in Saudi and Iraq 20 years ago. Either way the case for the ‘Age of Reason’ needs to made in a way accessible to all. I used a balloon with glitter in it to show my child what the big bang was, silly but it worked better than try to explain how the galaxies are moving away from each other and what dark matter might be.
I recently took a deliberately more skeptical line on climate change on CiF, man I got abused up hill and down dale. I predicted it would happen. What got me was that the shear vitriol flying around in the guise of fact. I know a Prof in Russia who is adamant that we do not consider the ‘aggressiveness of the sun over the past century”. It’s a point of view from a learned man with no axe to grind. Some seem determined not to allow that voice. But that’s something we can debate another day. I just ask for tolerance and consideration of positions in way that can be clearly understood, even if not agreed with.
That brings me to another reason I think this is a valuable exercise. We all have to make choices, illusory or predetermined they might be, to us they are ‘real’. I am a father a bit late in life, (I thought we were kissing, but then what would I know!), I have to decide soon where my child is raised and educated, Russia? UK? Spain? Whatever. Debates like this assist in helping make the choice. Having an IQ that can get me into MENSA by the way, didn’t stop me making a catastrophically bad decision 15 years ago. So being smart isn’t all its cracked up to be. The cost emotionally and financially took years to overcome. It was only an evening class in philosophy/sociology, (a choice I think I made!) because the alternative was to live in a black hole in my head and I wanted answers. I chose to act rather than slide. Education as cognitive therapy in retrospect. The lecturer got me into a well know Uni as a mature student, now that was an easy choice as I couldn’t see another way, well I could but that was a bit severe! Hence my comment B about how you perceive things at a given time, Susan Blackmore’s Mary the colour scientist is an interesting analogy.
So knowledge for its own sake is a very useful tool to deal with the tomorrow that might arrive soon. So thanks for the patience as I dribbled that out, but I truly welcome the chance to have contact with home and debate matters I’m removed from here, bit of an isolated life at times, Stranger in a Strange Land as Heinlein wrote, no matter how long I’ve been here!
And a final thought B, Einstein as you raised him, also used the word god. As a theologian threw at me one day Hawking, Darwin and Einstein all used the word and were believers. I suggest its how you look at it. Darwin knew the storm he or Wallace would create when one of them published, Einstein lived in a world where religion was still a powerful lobby, as did Darwin, and Hawking used it for dramatic effect I suggest. All a matter of perception, all a matter of the times.
I keep having these thoughts and they’re only half a second old!! Is there a duality in all this, two differing perspectives that may explain. Is there no true link between matter and mind, or is one simply the result of the other? Is there a gulf between the natural laws of the universe and how we perceive what we see?
My brain hurts! See you later.
Hi Emma
Welcome and thanks for joining us. I doubt you will be the only atheist.
pttp
Interesting. Does this not strengthen the case for determinism, or have I misunderstood?
I would just like to endorse what K has said about contributors. I doubt any of us are 'Experts' in every (or in my case any)field but that should not prevent us from floating ideas, asking questions and even voicing strong opinions. For me this is about exploration and challenging my own prejudices as much as offering opinions and thoughts.
I agree that it is important to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Climate change, evolution, the certainty of scientific theory etc.
Back to the subject.
If consciousness is not a decision-making tool what is its purpose? In fact, what is it? Some scientists specialising in this area (Churchland, for example)think that it is nothing more than a feature of the brain function as a parallel processing machine. We can't isolate it because it does not live in any specific part of the brain. I must say that he didn't produce sufficient evidence for me to make his argument conclusive.
What are the alternatives, though? Is it a separate, non-material part of our make-up? If so, how do we get hold of it and how does it link to the body? These are the problems all dualist have faced and not answered.
Another option is that God is mind. This sort of idea is gaining ground with some theoretical physicists such as Chown and, to lesser degree, Davies. I am wading through the latest Smolin at the moment, so I will have to wait to see what he says. Funnily enough, they all mention God quite a lot. Now this might just be shorthand for everything we don't understand (very BIG subject). Their ideas are pretty similar and rest on the idea that if the multiverse is a reality then so are simulated universes. In fact, they both suggest that they are more likely to occur than real ones, so the probablity is that we live in one as well. If so, we are nothing more than the creation of a large intelligence and computer programme.
Now this idea would have been ridiculed a few years ago but now we are not a million miles away from building the first quantum computer, which will increase processing power by several orders of magnitude. Some scientist are saying that this will enable us to reconstruct the brain molecule by molecule. So, if Churchland is right we will be able to create consciousness in a computer within the next few decades.
To answer your last question K I think reality is nothing like our perception of it. And we wouldn't understand it even if we could perceive it. Every living thing, including human beings, have different perceptive equipment and it would be a remarkable coincidence if any one of us perceived what was really there.
Where is Spacepenguin when you need him - he has lots of interesting things to say on this?
Interesting personal story, K.
I am living life backwards - I'll enlarge on that another day.
Boltonian : you haven't misunderstood as such. I think it's true as far as it goes : decisions are based on data held in the unconscious mind. I should admit to a slight Jungian bias here, because I don't believe the unconscious is confined to the individual. I'm not an afficianado of Jung; I've just read 2 books and probably don't agree with his take on synchronicity. I think the quote also raises the question : how much do we program our unconscious and how much is it automatically programmed by our experience ?
Any way, as an example, I want to cite my earliest meaningful decision, which wasn't simply an exercise of free will, but is capable of a more interesting analysis. I refused to participate in the school Empire Day parade, although I knew that this would cause big problems for me. My teacher, Miss Godlove, had made a remark (under her breath), which questioned whether the British Empire was worth celebrating and this struck a chord with me; at the same time, I realised that I could assert my individuality in this situation and cock a snook at authority. A confrontation with the headmaster enabled me to test my will against his, knowing I had moral authority on my side. I didn't know these concepts at the time, but I can remember exactly how I felt and that is how I can interpret my feelings now.
Krapotkin : Einstein was an agnostic who specifically rejected the Judaeo-Christian concept of God. Hawking has made some very profound statements about matter and energy, but as far as I know he doesn't speculate about anything "before" Big Bang. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi
Pttp
As far as I know you are absolutley correct, I was just using an example. I think I wrote that badly as it happens. A memory of a debate I once had. And using personal experience is a good idea for this I think. I rememeber writing a short paper on Durkhiems anomie, at the time it was like describing myself. Very cathartic!
B
Time that seems to be a bit of a fulcrum about our positions at the moment, I am going to try to outline what I remember about the nature of time in a philosophical sense, and some issues related to it So if you wish to watch an embarrsing test of a fading memory stay tuned! I haven’t got a clue what if anything about Quantum Theory has to say about time. Like to learn though. All I know of the Space-Time continuim is that Jean Luc Pikard knew how to deal with it! So you can enlighen me there please.
Anyway, in recodred history (notice the caveats that are flowing now) Plato and Aristotle started the debate about whether time exists independently of events that occur. If there was a time without change, a frozen moment, it must follow that time exists only if there are events to fill the time. Leibnitz says time does not exist independently from the actions. Newton however reckons that time is an empty vessel into which actions are placed, but exists whether actions take place or not.
Then I think its fatalism (your position to an extent and no reflection on your charcter B!), whatever will happen in the future is already unavoidable, predetermined, (that is that no human interventaion can alter it).The main argument againt this is that it’s a matter of semantics, nobody can make a true prediction turn out to be false. So there are lots of positions (propositions about matters that are both future and contingent) that are neither true nor false right now. i.e. the sun will rise tomorrow. That proposition either has no truth value right now, or else has indeterminate value. When the time comes, the sun will or won’t rise and the proposition will come to be either true or false and from then on that proposition will forever be either true or false.
However, there are sometimes propositions about the future that are neither true nor false, the “Open Future”. As I remember its about giving some value to a propositition, and that may vary at differing in times and context .
Then there’s the The Big Bang Theory. If The Big Bang Theory is true (I hope, given that I‘ve blown up ballons in my face for this!), then the universe had a beginning. Does that mean that time also had a beginning? Or was there an infinite expanse of “empty” time before the universe ever popped up? If there are infinite universes is there infinite time? Very open debate that one as I recall. Obviously there is the debate about twhether there is an end, is time is open or closed, can there be two or more unconnected times. Can’t remember the others.
Then there was the Scotsman, McTaggart argued that there is no such thing as time, that the appearance of a temporal order to the world is just that, a mere appearance.
McT suggests two ways in which positions in time can be placed. A). is that positionn is according to its properties, a week into the future, a day in the past etc But there is also a two place (B) position, a week earlier than a fixed point, in time, the day before yeasterday for instance. B is not considerd by the Scot as real because it moves in context to an action, but A) is fundamnetal., you can’t have B without A.
There are also a lot of contradicions in this, semantics, future and past tenses cannot exist together. At some point the future becomes the present. I always thought of this as more of a grammatical question to be a bit cynical about it, but it has been taken very seriously.
But to be fair I seem to recall he graspped the paradox he created, “time is but a spatial temporal notion” and I’ve been quoting that for ages!!! And I’ve probably got it wrong! I usually accuse the wife of that when she’s getting ready to go out!
It follows then that there is a debate about how fast does time pass? That is a human construct in it’s own right, so how do we arrive at a coherent answer? Is there a natural law, I have no idea personally. I expect somebody will know.
Presentism suggests that that only present objects exist, now there’s a surpise! It’s the universe can’t exist unless you can see it anthropic principle really. Anything you can’t place in the present doesn’t exist, so there goes Einstien!
Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. Theory is/was/ maybe says that, so Einsteins back.
Growing Universe Theory is just that, only objects that are either past or present -- but not objects that are future – exist, but the universe is always growing, as more and more things are added on to the front end (temporally speaking).
Presentism seems fairly straight forward doesn’t it,but if there really are no non-present objects, then it is hard to see what we are referring to when we say Bobby Moore and 1966. And if no present objects how do we understand history?
You can get into concepts of time travel doing this, there’s more that I know or remember.
So is this a moment in time? Yes,but how do I place it in a context? Even if it’s a dream, then there is still an action, which requires a vessel. So I’m back to Descartes “I think therefore I am”. If there is no moment, how was there a past or a future?
Well I’m sure that’s cleared it all up for everyone!!!!!
Temperament. I would wouldn’t say it wasn’t genetic inheritance as it happens. It’s abig debate in my house about the tiddler, where from? How did she? Whose bloody family is to blame for that trait and which ones did we set up ourselves? Essentially I am going to be contraversial here and say the nature-nurture debate is redundant. Because what I observe is the influence of both. I used to go along with the Jesuit saying ‘give me the child for the first seven years and I’ll give you the man’. Now I don’t, there has to be some form of genetic and social inheritance involved.
The czarina and I have a fair few debates on this one. A fairly constant cry from me is ‘how can people be so stupid, it’s got to be b…y genetic “!, whether its work, drivng, shopping something will happen which will stupefy me. Now I was not one for the nature perspective, political upbringing I imagine and for years I was taught about the decimation of the Russian inteligensia, the purges of the officer class etc. Can’t say I thought it would have any real effect because you send the next lot to school and voila, next inteligensia.
Observation for over a decade has convinced me that it’s a genetic issue to some extent. I better leave it at that or I’ll get into hot water over this!
Limitations of philosophy. Partly my conjecture is about the use of logic, I contend you can drive it down any road given your belief system. The Dialectic is an example, Hegel and Marx. Another point is the fact that academia treats subjects as if everyone is actually logical, which is pretty contestable in real life. And finally a lot of philosophy is based on ‘thought experiments’ which you can’t really prove. As I said I can wander the universe in my mind, that’s my immagination, but in reality aside from not having $20m lieing around to squander, physics would suggest it’s a very unlikely proposition, energy needed, distance travelled etc, at this moment in time!!!
Perception. Maybe B, maybe, so how do we know which team to shout for? Assuming you can get a ticket of course.
And you’re gettinhg ahead of me on consiousness! Sorry if there are grammatical and spelling errors, somehow my splellcheck has gone on this computer! And I am a lousy typist!
Hello everybody
I have been following this discussion with great interest, on the CiF thread and here, and it has got me thinking furiously. I am not well read in matters of philosophy, and most of what I have read is in the form of second-hand summaries, probably poorly understood, but you have said that anyone is welcome to join in, so here goes.
Much of what follows touches on points already raised or touched on tangentially, so if I seem at times to be chewing over the obvious, I ask your forbearance.
My starting point is the simplest dictionary definition of 'free will' - The power of acting without necessity - a concept which can be considered from a religious, ethical or scientific point of view. Setting aside the religious angle, since Christian theological discussions of the subject seem to end up tied in paradoxical knots and I am not qualified to comment on other belief systems, this leaves the ethical and the scientific.
On the deterministic side of the argument, clearly none of us willed our own existence, and there are many things which affect us but which we have no control over and which constrain our conscious and unconscious decisions and actions - principally:
The laws of physics
Genetics
Nurture - the society, environment and family we grow up in, and the kind of education we receive.
The laws of physics, as far as we know, apply only within the physical universe which we can observe. In a singularity (a black hole, say, or whatever existed before the Big Bang) all bets are off: questions of spacetime, causality, whatever, are meaningless. And to what extent does the universe make sense only because we are here to observe and make sense of it?
The theory Boltonian refers to, that we might live in a simulated universe ('God is mind') is a fascinating one. I entertain a fantasy that some day a scientist of group of scientists will announce that they have solved the last problems, all questions have been answered, and the universe and all within it is understood in its entirety. At which point the physical universe will disappear, to be replaced by, in effect, a sign saying:
GAME OVER
NEXT LEVEL? Y/N
Genetics is clearly a major limiting factor for us as a species and individually, since it determines our physical and mental potential. However much one might wish it, one cannot become a champion athlete if one lacks the necessary physique, or a theoretical physicist if on lacks the mental capacity. On the other hand the 'selfish gene' hypothesis - that ultimately we are no more than engines of gene propagation, is to my mind of little relevance in this context. It is an interesting and provocative way of examining the dynamics of evolution, but reductionist in the extreme and therefore of limited usefulness. The gene is a package of information,not an object, and DNA is the medium, not the message (George C Williams 'A Package of Information@ in 'The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution@ ed John Brockman, 1995) What matters is the evolving phenotype.
Nurture obviously affects the way in which genetic potential is expressed. A person reared in a restrictive society is likely to conform to the expectations of that society. Someone growing up in a disfuntional or abusive family may never realise their potential. Someone raised and educated in an environment which genuinely encourages them to develop the power of independent thought will have greater potential capacity, and probably more opportunity, for exercising choice than someone educated in the Gradgrind tradition, or simply trained to pass tests.
Despite these constraints and limitations, most people do seem to think that they make choices of their own will, at a practical or a moral level, and in both large and small matters, and this, I suppose, is where the question of consciousness or 'mind' comes in. Some scientists have put forward a hypothesis that mind is a quantum phenomenon (I'm afraid I can't cite sources off hand) although I gather that there are serious objections to this. It's an interesting idea, though, and might even account for the results of Libet's experiments.
I certainly feel that my professional life has been at least partly directed by a series of willed choices, as has my personal life to a lesser extent, and they were not always obvious or conventional choices. At the age of 16 I decided, without prior consultation or discussion, what subject I wished to study at university, and what profession I wanted to work in - to the surprise of my parents (who were supportive) and my teachers (several of whom tried very hard to dissuade me). It was an unusual choice at the time - more so than it would be now. The interests which led to my choice were undoubtedly fostered by my upbringing, but they were not my only interests, and my academic abilities suggested other options. My subsequent career was determined to some extent by what jobs were available at any given time, but the decisions as to what kind of jobs I wanted to apply for, and whether to sieze or reject opportunities as they presented themselves were mine (and, again, not always conventional).
I suppose, therefore, that in philosophical terms, I take a compatabilist view - that within determinist constraints a person acts freely when they will the act and could have acted otherwise (Hobbes), and insofar as individuals have the ability to act differently from what is expected, free will is possible (Dennett).
I have been toying with the idea of a simulated universe lately. It has been an enjoyable outlook so far. I think what we accept or believe has a very powerful role in how we perceive this world. If you try to see the world through the eyes of someone with limited ideas about it... things start to look that way... Thankfully I grew up an Atheist so my thoughts on what this world is have never been fully contained. As an adult I can look for God everywhere because I am not limiting such a power.
I accept the current scientific theory as the highest level of Logic we have gotten too as a species. So that bends my thought towards a type of the Growing Universe theory. I guess I currently see it as a kind of Spore game {coming soon from Will Wright and EA} in a Quantum computer. The present is really the only thing that actually exists {for Life at least} and that is when all action takes place. Whether you are sitting/ running/ sleeping/ speaking/ recollecting/ dreaming with open eyes about the future through the lens of your past/ ...
The past does exist but as a recording or a database. The future is ours to grow into. This leads to thoughts about what the subconscious could be. Such as... We are all individually recorded as life. But our thoughts are heard by GOD or gods. This becomes the Collective Subconscious or Consciousness that is then reintroduced into our individual consciousness based upon our receptivity.
This way of looking at our reality has actually led to a great improvement in my memory {through imagination if you can call it that ;} If I can't remember something I ask for it or directions to it. Can't remember where your keys are? Ask for directions... It is funny how often it works and just plain fun to try to do. Think in terms of bodily actions and just keep asking and accepting the answers that Feel good/positive/correct. Don't get discouraged and never forget how funny it is that you are doing this. Use the Force...{? Luke}
Until you can get it down you will be led astray in many laughable ways. I realize it sounds a little crazy but who is to say what is Crazy. We are all crazy because we all do not Know... But I think we are getting there. My thanks go out to you and those Truth Seekers of the past that helped us get this far. I like to try to go back as far as possible which is why I brought up Plotinus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
He is one of my four favorite intellectual Greeks. Of course the others are Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. They were all seekers and creators of Truth in my mind... through what I see as their influence in our current world.
I am reading The Urantia Book online right now and I think it is quite beautiful even if it is far to Christian for my tastes. They name Rantowoc as the first soul to complete the circle on this planet. They say he was of the Red People so that must mean Native American or Australian Aborigine. I am leaning towards Australia... Which could mean that Australia is at least our spiritual home.
I don't know if I believe any of this shit i say but I sure do enjoy it. Thanks for giving me a place to spout off.
Evening all (as the great Sgt Dixon used to say)
Just back from a fish supper at Harry Ramsden's, if that means anything to anybody. Up early and back to London tomorrow, so I will make this brief and hope to get some time tomorrow to explore a bit more.
pttp and K - you have both come up with some stuff that needs much thought.
I have never read Jung, partly because I got so angry with Freud that I assumed all psychologists were frauds. That was a long time ago and I should give him a go.
Last Q in first para is very interesting. Is there any difference between the conscious and unconscious at all? When I dream there isn't, or perhaps I am wrong here? I just have a gut feeling, knowing not much more than zero about the subject, that we make that distinction. There are lots of ways we can tap into the sub-conscious - and people do (with and without the aid of drugs).
Incidentally, one of the things I find irritating about much philosophy is the compulsion to categorise.
Loved your anecdote - was she really called Miss Godlove? I'll come back to that because K picked up on it.
You surprise me about Einstein's agnosticism. I know he rejected the Judaeo-Christian idea of God but still thought he was a deist of some kind.
Time. Here goes.
QED needs electrons to move backwards and forwards in time as they absorb and release photons. Physics friends, however, say that this should not be taken too seriously - it is really a metaphor. To this I say what is not a metaphor? Negative and positive charge is a metaphor, so is quantum spin, and electrons orbiting nuclei,and QCD etc.
I need to read your learned piece on time a couple more times, K, before I comment.
Temperament I am convinced really drives our prejudices and, therefore, our philosophies (although they must be flexible to a degree). I read Hume, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and I think that these people are on to something. Hegel and Marx are plain wrong, about almost everything, in my view. Kant - mixed. And Heidegger I cannot stand, although a philosopher friend says I should give him another chance because he dealt with some pretty deep concepts.
Incidentally, I hadn't realised why Hegel made no sense to me and why he influenced so many that came after him until I recently read Popper's devastating demolition job in vol 1 of 'The Open Society and its Enemies.'
I agree that temperament is caused by a mix of genes and learning. Mat Ridley wrote an excellent attempt to demolish the sterile nature/nurture debate in his book, 'Nature via Nurture.' He poses some real challenges. For example, he says that a meritocracy (that everybody these days seems to want) favours those with genetic advantages (nature) over everybody else, whereas inherited privilege tend to favour nurture. The exact opposite, I suspect, of what most meritocrats believe. This is a simplified version of a complex argument but there are other counter-intuitive ideas in there as well.Has anyone read it - or anything by him (I have read three of his and they are well worth a go)?
His conclusion, using lots of twin study research is that 50% of adult behaviour is genetic, 45% from childhood outside the home environment (The Jesuit position) and only 5% from within the home environment. This is again simplified because parents choose schools and often friends as well, at least in early childhood.
Must go now but I will think about the nature of time on the train tomorrow morning.
Anybody else got a view?
E and S
I posted mine bedore I had read yours. Skimmed them both and want to explore them a bit more over the next day or two.
S - your notion of asking for things is far from crazy. My mum, a strong agnostic (you see where my leanings come from), does that whenever she has a problem and tells me it works every time.
Boltonian : sorry, I think it was Godlove. Then I had a teacher called Mrs Bidgood for 2 years !
I haven't read any philosophy to speak of. I've inferred Einstein's agnosticism from the way he phrases his God comments.
I think there is a continuum of consciousness and that there are no defining attributes, which separate conscious and unconscious. Eg. lucid dreams, fugue states, trance states, virtual reality.
"Although we have the illusion of receiving high-resolution images from our eyes, what the optic nerve sends to the brain is just outlines and clues about points of interest in our visual field. We then essentially hallucinate the world from cortical memories that interpret a series of extremely low-resolution movies in parallel channels.... the optic nerve carries 10-12 output channels, each of which carries only minimal information about a given scene. One group of what are called ganglion cells sends information only about edges (changes in contrast). Another group detects only large areas of uniform colour, whereas a third group is sensitive only to the backgrounds behind figures of interest". (Ray K again, this time drawing on the work of Frank Werblin and his 2001 study published in Nature).
I seem to think, therefore I seem to be.
All. Well what an overwhelminh amount od info and comments. Fabulaous.
There is a great deal to digest here, quite a bit of positioning to grap
I may not, due to commitments, be able to post fpr a few days so I'll read all this ,get thouroughly confused and see what I can add to the debate. We made need to stop at some point and precis where this is going, see if we have anythinhg here.
B, on Hegel and Marx I am 100% in agreement, got it totally wrong.
O a Harry Ramsden, you lucky person, long, long time since I had the pleasure, Brighton or Bournemouth can't remember, but it was BC, "before child".
Simultaed universe appeals to by way of thinkihg, but a little pragmatist inside says mmmmmm, maybe!
Pttp, sorry I have really not expalined the Einstein god bit very well have I, can't have any misinterpretations.
I have a theolgian friend over about 10 years, we poften discuss these topics over a sherbert or three! At one point he insisted that Einstein, Hawking and Darwin were all of a faith. Iwas how he read whatever it was he's read of them.
I was aghast to be honest, so set about showing him they were skepotics, athiests etc.
Darwins wife was religious and it doid cause him some issues as one or two of their children died of I think consumption, he truly recognisded the furore he or Wallce would createwith the religious establisment if when one of them published. He knew he was 'killing god'.
Einstein used the word a few times as an abstract descriptiomn ad was for sure a non-believer as far as I know.
Hawking used the phrase 'maybe we can now understand gods universe' as the last sentance in a Brief History of Time. As a literary devive to add some power and no doubt to sell a few more books. I hope that clears up my position on that, they are all atheists/non-believers and always were. The theolgian had selectively read to suit his belief sysyetm was my real point.
Enjoy your days everyone, its sunny and +15 here!!
Krapotkin : thanks for the elaboration. I think Hawking's final statement in Brief History of Time is quite enigmatic, rather than mischievous sarcasm, which seems to be Dawkins' limited interpretation of it.
elephantschild : I hope you will make further contributions; even if it's only in the form of illustrative anecdotes. I've had a couple of game over moments in the course of psychological explorations, but don't claim to have progressed to the next level.
Sapient Lunatic : I haven't read your Greeks, and have only the vaguest understanding of their importance in developing rationalism. I'm prejudiced against Urantia, due to discussions with a follower on another forum. Nevertheless, he did make an interesting comment about the relationship between Lucifer and Jesus in Christian mythology, which I found stimulating.
yakaboo : I'm very interested in politics and my overriding concern apart from my own selfish desires is for further evolution of homo sapiens sapiens. My greatest fear is that irrational ideologies (often religious in nature) actually threaten our existence more than (say) climate change.
emma100 : Even Dawkins doesn't refer to himself as an atheist, but I'd be happy to be challenged by you or anyone else, because then I'll have to make more effort, which may lead to greater understanding, even if it means I have to modify my views.
basildon : I believe science and technology offer a more interesting basis for examining existence than classical philosophy. BUT, if you can quote or summarise relevant philosophers when appropriate then that would be educational for me, at least.
I hope a few more people will join in as well.
A few random thoughts.
pttp:
Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy (a first class intro to the subject) says that philosophy lies between theology and science in terms of certainty. Theology depends on faith whereas science requires evidence based on predictive experiment. Philosophy cannot have the level of proof required of scientific theory but requires a logic that is far more rigorous than theology.
Your definition of consciousness seems intuitively to be right to me.
Your quote on how we create complete pictures from scant evidence is good. I have felt for some time that this might be the clue as to why we need certainty. We are geared towards filling in the gaps, so when we come to concepts we naturally do the same. Hence religious faith, faith in science to provide answers, faith that there is no god etc. But why can some of us live with uncertainty? Perhaps it is only a question of degree?
K:
We went to the original Harry Ramsden's in Guiseley, West Yorkshire. It was ok but those in the party who had been before thought it had gone downhill.
It is true that many philosophers and scientists had to disguise their agnosticism/atheism and often they were published only after death.
Yes, we should summarise where we have got to periodically. I would be happy to jot a few things down for starters over the Easter weekend. I could put it in a Word doc and email to anybody who is interested. So, either let me have your email or create a separate account using your screen name and post that so I can contact you. I will need to ask for clarification on some issues, which will be beyond the capacity of my small brain. Are there any other suggestions as to how it could be done? Or whether we should do it at all?
Big Bang is looking less and less like the start of anything and so time, if it exists at all, might not have begun then. If we have constructed time as a convenience for us would that not explain why it only travels in one direction, unlike the other dimensions?
Elephantschild:
I have wrestled with compatibilism recently on an online philosophy course and found it unsatisfying. It seemed to be a compromise for the sake of saving a degree of free will. Perhaps you could give me a synopsis of what you mean by the word - my source came from Blackburn and I found the entire book (Think!) lightweight, so I might have prejudged his take on compatibilism.
Love your 'Game over' scenario, and why not?
Sapient:
Let me put this into the pot. It might make no sense whatsoever. You suggest that the present is all that exists. What if that is the only aspect of time that does not exist? The past exists as memory and the future as thoughts but the present cannot exist because, as I said earlier, there is not a moment that is neither past nor future. just an idea.
K:
You have mentioned lack of logic in some of our behaviors. Isn't this just about our lack of knowledge. I imagine all behaviors are supremely logical at all times - it is just that we can't always see it. All of our understanding comes to us through our own perceptive equipment and mediated in our own brain, therefore our view of the world is partial and subjective.
Descartes said 'Cogito ergo sum' often translated as 'I think, therefore I am.'
This might be going too far - all we can say is ,'There are thoughts.'Perhaps we could put it the other way round, 'I am, therefore I think.'
The offer to send my summary to you is addressed to everybody, by the way.
There’s some wonderful things being posted here I’m sorry I’ll have to read and digest to see if I can add anything to it.
Pttp, I just like to think Hawking was being a bit mischievous! He can’t be profound all time. Can he??
Elephantschild, I wholly agree with your point about the Natural Laws being about the physical laws of the universe, do you think there is a duality we are missing here? Because that is what I fundamentally feel comfortable with. I also like your definition of nurture, mostly because it seems to coincide with mine!!.
Sapient Lunatic, you have a fabulous attitude, you’re the most sane one here!
Boltonian’ I love Poppers “Open Society”, excellent stuff.
B
On the Big Bang I agree because I was going to post about time and measurement being a human construct.
The lack of logic bit was me feeling moody after watching the driving on the way home again, an accident every couple of klms. Not me by the way! How, I ask do they do it?
Yes I was turning Descartes round as well today! Or is it maybe I’m thinking so I might be? hotstevedata@yahoo.co.uk
Anyway read on at your leisure I couldn’t stop!! Passed the time away on a flight today!
Perception
I have been cogitating the proposition that we all have a differing perception of the world/ life/ the universe and everything and find that although I agree in a theoretical sense, I have to question that proposition as well. To do that I need to outline a series of directions of thoughts and perhaps even some definitions. First what it is that we are perceiving? Are we talking of information in the abstract, knowledge, memes, concepts perhaps; are we talking of physical forms? Are we talking of what is plausible or are we talking about a concept that has intellectual appeal, but no empirical evidence to support it other than logical linear processing?
When we say perception what are we meaning. Objective or subjective understanding, actual or imagined?
Now why I ask these, and I hope more as they come to mind, questions I have to admit to spending the majority of my working life in the design of the built environment, not saying what specifically it isn’t relevant, but what it does it to immediately state my pre conceptions of the built form. I would contend that there is a commonality of perception, in a visual sense of what a square is, a circle, a rhomboid etc is. Lets face it everyone seems to know more about building design than those of us that do it! Sorry too many dinner party arguments about that one. However, to be able to comment upon a form you need consensus of what that form is, I suggest that there is. Its place in a space, its mass, the (I love this phrase) spatial leaks around and into that form are actual, they are there and can be understood on a simple geometric level. Whether or not they are seen as a work of art, a utilitarian box, or a mess or out of context is a different concept. That is a subjective perception; that is an opinion based on social/genetic inheritance, environmental influences, education and learning experiences, emotional response the list can of course be endless.
So even if we accept that a choice, a decision, an opinion is triggered by a series of electrical/chemical actions in an organic brain, then the actions that occur have to be influenced by the historical process and order in which knowledge or otherwise was inputted. Whether the mind is a product of the brain or vise versa, there has been an action, there has been a process and there is a result, That result has to lie somewhere, it requires a vessel of some description in which to rest. So is that vessel consciousness? Is that vessel simply a repository for a result? Is it in existence at all? If it is how, does it take action on the information provided? Why does it take action on the information provided? If it isn’t hen how does the action get directed? There is something I suggest and it needs definition, I am not puersuaded by Churchland on this one, that’s its simply a product of a series of predetermined actions.
If it is a life threatening or comfort enhancing action that is required, perhaps we can point to evolutionary survival as the motive. If, however, it is an action required simply to enhance a feeling of awe, doubt, pain or pleasure why would we do it at all, except by choice? If its because it assists the individual in placing them in the world, placing them in a social order, giving them a sense of self worth, then I would contend that its an act of well being that seems to imply a conscious will, rather than a predetermined act. All actions the brain takes, however it does it, are only as good as the information provided, junk in, junk out. To change a position takes imagination at the very least, its takes influence, some are more easily influenced than other perhaps, but its all based around whatever information was inputted in the first instance and what influenced some little neutron to act the way it did.
So if I go back, I’m accepting the organic/chemical/electrical neutron driven computer theory, but I question the result of its actions always giving a differing view on all matters. I suggest that there a number of commonalities that imply common perception, all other issues of context are down to individual experience, knowledge etc. A square is not an individual experience. I even suggest that to an extent that is measurable, because to an extent that’s what a marketing strategy sets out to do. To find the commonalities, to expose the differences and apply a strategy to the perception of an object. Not perfect but doable. Its how advertising is done isn’t it, reactions to known perceptions.
How people feel about a space, how they respond on a variety of levels does differ, although designing them, I can say not as differing as you think. People’s responses to spaces and shapes are relatively predicable, because they are grounded in a common understanding of them.
It’s like what came first the chicken or the egg? If you have to hand the fossil records, an evolutionary biologist and a geologist, let us say, I would suggest that you have a plausible chance of answering the question. Forget the chicken, but assume a bird. It took the bird to lay the egg to make the first genetic copy of the bird. It doesn’t however necessarily follow that it took a bird to lay the egg, A feathered dinosaur might have managed that by having an illicit affair with a bat for all I know. Its not really relevant, but I can demonstrate that given enough fact I can get a plausible conclusion if I have enough skill.
If I take the wonderful hypothesis of Churchland, and I think a few others, that we may be in a simulated computer universe I can do the following. I can ask how plausible is it in actuality. I can say that I can construct in my mind, the concept that the entire universe I know of, and beyond, is a huge ball of some description, it is infinite. But my meager imagination says what the hell is infinity, it’s a concept so far beyond me that I have to ground it, put it in the only context this moment in times knowledge allows me. So I have to deduct that this infinity has to have an end, that end is the interface to a beginning.
So as a kid I said, okay I am in a bubble of energy and that bubble of energy is vast to me, it is however minuscule to something else and that something else might be a sheep and my universe is a cell of energy in the sheep’s blood stream. And the sheep is in a field, and the field is on a farm and the farm is in a country. That country is on a continent and that continent is on a planet. You can see where this goes can’t you! But if not, the planet is in a system and the system is in a galaxy and the galaxy is in a universe and the universe is an energy cell in a sheep’s blood stream ad infinitum. Its just a matter of infinite scale and an over active imagination. It’s quite logical in a linear sense. If it defies any natural laws then what natural laws would they be? I can construct it my head, but it’s highly implausible in reality, it cannot be grounded in any sort of fact. Being plausible, not necessarily absolutely provable is an advantage for any hypnosis. Big Bang is not 100% provable, we weren’t there, but it’s plausible.
I was recently exchanging emails with The Richard Dawkins Foundation looking for some early learning tools about evolution for the kid. We exchanged a few funny stories about children’s perception and I proffered a point about an aunt who is a scientist, god help us, who doesn’t accept that we share a common ancestor that was an ape of some type, because and I quote ‘after all these years none of them can talk or read”. Logical enough in its own way, but I digress. One of the comments that they made was how funny it is that over active imaginations in kids worry us, “oh mustn’t let little Johnny watch to much Dr Who, he’s there’s a time machine down the road”. But when an adult comes up with a concept that has no grounding, isn’t plausible except in the mind it’s called genius. I rather liked that one!
So that leads me to the thought that perhaps we are looking for a complex answer to a simple question, or is it a simple answer to a complex question. Do we know the correct question to be asking? I just ask. Is there a duality here that just doesn’t conform to what knowledge we presently have or are we over stating the question? If what we don’t know is infinite, then how can we expect to answer the question at this moment in time?
I admire people like Churchland by the way, they are the “ginger groups” that push the envelope, they are the people with the Right Stuff to me. But they are also the people that the general public distrusts as mad scientist cooking up the end of the world in lab. It’s the “perception” of what they say, rather than what they actually say. Bit of a paradox that one isn’t it. I can only conclude that the education system need to address that issue, or conversely we are mostly stupid I suppose.
Hope I’m not boring the pants of any one, I just enjoy doing this, don’t care if I get a D- for this, it’s nice to explore it.
So time again! I was a bit late for an important meet and nearly missed the flight today, which is highly unusual for me. It made the team laugh (they’re sacked by the way! Only kidding!) given the stick I dish out about punctuality, but it made me think about numbers and constructs then you posted about Big Bang and time (and measurement can I add, gills, hands, furlongs etc), are human constructs! We are in accord on that one.
Everyone, thanks a lot for putting your thoughts in, keep us thinking.
Elephantschild:
I forgot to say - I agreed with your response to WML on the Theo Hobson thread. I have been trying to say that to him for ages but you put it far better than I could.
K:
Lots to think about. Have you read 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis' - very interesting and plausible?
krapotkin : I just like to think Hawking was being a bit mischievous! He can’t be profound all time. Can he??
Profound and mischievous ?
I interpreted this to mean that he was prepared to admit the possibility of a unified theory and that he's saying this would require a deeper understanding of creation than we currently have, because of the inherent contradictions between relativity and quantum theory. I think any unifying theory would have to incorporate non-material elements.
That time is a property of matter but not a property of the energy from which it's created. Any way, this is my favourite bit of Hawking :
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.
"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
pttp: thanks for your encouragement. If I am ignorant of the writing of far greater minds than mine it is for lack of time (I can't even keep up with the literature in my own discipline) and not lack of interest. As my username implies (for those who recognise the reference), I am infinitely curious.
I tend to agree with you on philosophy v science. Philosophers pursue interesting and often profound ideas (some of them contradictory) to their logical conclusions but, as both Kropotkin and Boltonian have pointed out, there can ultimately be no proof. Which is not to say that these ideas are not valuable in the current discussion. The further reaches of theoretical physics seem in any case to be converging on philosophy. And was not physics once termed 'natural philosophy?
As regards Darwin's beliefs - or lack of - he certainly parted company with orthodox Christianity, probably some time in the 1840s, but not necessarily because of his conclusions regarding the origin of species and evolution (within 20 years or so of his publishing many, if not most leading Christians in England seem to have come to the conclusion that these hypotheses were not incompatible with their beliefs), but with doubts arising from his own illness and the death of his young daughter, Annie. The best clue we have to his thoughts on the matter are his comments when working on his autobiography in 1879. 'My judgement often fluctuates ... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying God. I think that generally (and more and more often as I grow older) but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.' Agnosticism would seem to be the logical position in any case. Science cannot prove the existence of God, but nor can science disprove it. I have always taken Hawking's reference to 'the mind of God' as a metaphor, but maybe he was just being mischievous after all.
Boltonian: thanks also. I am not sure that I can take you any further on the subject of compatabilism. I confess that I grabbed it from a quick trawl of wikipedia, since I could not find anything on the subject of free will in the limited number of reference books I had to hand (I did say that most of my knowledge of philosophy was from second hand summaries!) The summaries there (if I understood them correctly) seemed to chime with my own, independent thoughts on the subject, and to be logical as far as they went. If you haven't already been there, wiki at least provides references for further reading on the subject.
Could you expand on your statement that the Big Bang hypothesis is now seeming less likely? It is a while since I did any reading on the subject, and I would be interested to know more.
K. Again, thanks for the response. I haven't had time to give much thought to it as yet, but will get back to you.
*********************
The questions of time and consciousness were raised some time back. Both are slippery concepts, but since they are fundamental to the issues in question, here is my pennyworth.
According to Einstein's elegant theory, time is relative and a function of space/time, 'real' or otherwise. The only constant within space time is the speed of light, which might not be quite as constant as once thought, since there now seems to be some evidence that it was faster in the early stages of the universe.
Is time linear? or is it simply that we experience it as linear because of our limited perceptions? I have been toying with the idea that if an observer could view space/time from outside the universe, time would appear as a medium in which all things, past, present and future, coexist. A human being in that context might look something like a continuous, elongated but finite pasta shape, and if a single moment 'the present' could be isolated, like a two dimensional section through that shape. Just another thought game.
The future does not exist for us, except in our imaginations, because we cannot go there. On the cosmic level we can make probabalistic predictions based on the observed data. Thus we can predict what will happen to our sun in the long term, on the basis of our observations of other stars of similar type at different stages of their existence. But we cannot predict with certainty what will happen tomorrow. We cannot visit the future in any real sense, but we can send messages into the future, in the genes of our descendants, in the durable artefacts we make, or in our writings or other recorded data. Messages in a bottle, though, since we cannot know where they will end up, or whether they will survive at all.
If the past does not exist I am in trouble (I am an archaeologist/historian).
Joking apart, we cannot visit the past, either, or influence it in any way (although in the novel 'Timescape' the physicist Gregory Benford toyed with the idea of transmitting tachyons (hypothetical particles which travel faster than light and therefore backwards in time)to communicate with people in the past in order to change history. The scientists conducting the experiment could never know if they had succeded, of course, because if they had, it would not have been their past or present which were changed.
The past can send messages to us, though. The Hubble telescope has captured images of distant galaxies as they were billions of years in the past. Suns have gone nova and seeded the galaxies with the elements to form new stars and the physical components of life (we are indeed stardust). On our own planet rock strata and the fossils they contain give us information about a very different earth in the past. Our ancestors back to the earliest single-celled entities have bequeathed us their genes. Written works of literature or philosophy tell us something of how people thought and viewed the world in the past. And on a more humble level, letters, diaries, legal documents, wills and probate inventories etc. reveal how people ordered their lives, as do surviving, random artefacts - more reliably in many cases than the great monuments which were intended to survive, since many of the latter amount to propaganda.
Sapientlunatic's analogy with a ROM database may be apt, but what a database!
Boltonian posed the question what is consciousness and what is its purpose. My questions, also.
Clearly, at one level (maybe the only level) consciousness is indeed a function of chemistry and electrical impulses within the structure of the brain, but is that all? or is there a 'ghost in the machine' Maybe we will get an answer if/when we succeed in constructing a computer which is a true analogue of the human brain, -assuming, also, that we can establish with certainty that it also 'thinks' in a way we can relate to (I suspect the Turing test is too crude). Will such a machine have mind/consciousness in the same sense as we do? I tend to think not, but have no objective grounds for such an opinion.
but whether or not consciousness is an illusion, what purpose does it serve other than to enable us to wonder about ourselves and the universe in which we exist? Does it give us an adaptive advantate? It would not appear so, judging by the mess we are making of our world.
And what of imagination - the ability to postulate that which does not exist, and in some cases could not possibly exist? Is this anything more than an extension of the 'story telling' process by which we organise the input of our senses?
Sapientlunatic's exposition of the idea of the unconscious and the collective unconscious triggers another chain of thought. I was aware of Jung's ideas in a general way, of course, but had never really followed them through. Presumably this is where intuition comes in (cue another personal anecdote). I once shocked a colleague profoundly by saying that intuition played a significant role in the processing of data during research. He thought I meant guesswork. What I meant in fact was that I tried to approach an investigation as far as possible without any preconceived ideas, simply accumulating data until something gelled and a pattern emerged from my busy subconscious, often while I was doing something else. I could then go back and review the data with my conscious, reasoning mind, to see if it fitted the pattern. I have also, once or twice, felt when learning something new as if I was rediscovering knowledge or a skill which I had once known and forgotten. The collective unconscious?
Enough for now - mor than enough for on post, maybe. I will check back some time tomorrow.
elephantschild : I was an IT analyst/trouble-shooter for 28 years and also used that approach to problem-solving. Letting the subconscious trains of thought take the strain. What I envision happening in the subconscious realm is analogous to distributed parallel processing, where different algorithms are being executed independently as incoming data is integrated into the database. We know that one of the most important facets of human intelligence is pattern recognition and I believe that this must also happen subconsciously. It is, of course, a widely recognised ability, acknowledged in the phrase "I'll sleep on it".
Reverse-engineering the human brain and using this knowledge to build a computer system able to simulate it is one of key postulates of The Singularity is Near, to which I've referred on CiF and quoted from here. Ray K's estimate is that the requisite hardware to emulate human intelligence will be available by the end of the decade with supercomputers and by PC at the end of the following decade. He states that we will have effective software models of human intelligence by the mid-2020s and that the Turing test will be passed by the end of that decade. I agree that the classical Turing test will soon be seen as inadequate.
I can understand your scepticism about the value of acquiring consciousness, given the current parlous state of the world. I would argue that consciousness has evolved along with the brain and that it has conferred very distinct advantages on our species.
I'd also like to mention in this regard, the work of David Lewis-Williams whose neuropsychological theory suggests that trance states precipitated by dancing marathons inspired rock and cave art, among the earliest forms of representational art so far identified.
Given your area of professional expertise, I'd be grateful for any insights you might have into the validity and importance of the above. A summary is available here :
http://www.antiquityofman.com/Trance_Lewis-Williams.html
Elephantschild:
Re- Big Bang. I said that it looks less likely to be the start. I did not mean to imply that it had not happened. Most theoretical physics writers I have read recently think that Big Bang was merely one event in many (possibly an infinite number).
Re-intuition I think most scientists now accept that breakthroughs occur from a leap of the mind, without the supporting data, rather than from painstakingly accumulating the evidence. An example of this for me is Michael Ventris' intuitive thoughts that led to the decipherment of linear B. It still needed John Chadwick's leg work to prove it, though.
Thanks for the Compatibility ref - I will follow it up.
pttp and K:
I have read a few physicists who think that the universe is energy neutral and that it emerged from a vacuum fluctuation using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
My questions are: 'Why did it happen?' and,' Where did the virtual particles that created the universe come from in the first place?' I am sure this is a very naive way to look at it but my brain needs causation.
There might be an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of dimensions and, if time (at least as we perceive it) is a human construct, there is no need for causation. But, if we cannot envisage infinity or something existing without a prior cause how can we ever get close to any sort of understanding?
I hand't realised that a quantum computer was so near to being a reality. It will be very interesting to see what happens - worth staying alive for!
--------------
Has anybody heard of, or read anything by, Stephen Wolfram. Chown rates him very highly? His hypothesis is that the whole of the universe is a Turing machine and can be reduced to four lines of computer language. He suggests that our mathematical approach will only ever give us an incomplete view. He likens it to judging how the world looks from the light shed by a street lamp on a dark night. He tends to work alone and has been largely ignored by the mainstream.
A couple more thoughts.
Elephantschild:
I read the Wikipedia entry on Compatibilism. Does it say, do you think, anything more than Free Will is an illusion if everyting has a prior cause?
In a way it wouldn't matter, so long as we all believed we had it to some degree (which I think is the case).
K:
Just re-read some of your earlier posts. You make an excellent point about scale.
I have thought for some time that we can handle things that are not too much bigger than ourselves and not too smaller. This has grown as we have gained the technology. So, we can picture (just about) the universe and atoms but nothing really larger or smaller than that.
Carl Sagan once wrote that if we could break open an electron (a so-called fundamental particle) we would find a myriad of universes in there.
Can a microbe, for example, perceive a human being - certainly not as we perceive ourselves?
Another thing occurs to me. It has often been said that human beings are the only creatures capable of conscious, reasoning thought. How do we know? We cannot put oursleves in the place of, say, a cat. We can only make judgements based on our own experience and observation. This is why we have a compulsion to anthropormorphise.
Yakaboo:
My rather glib response is that neither climate change nor self-harm will be the biggest threat to the species but something external that we have not forseen (perhaps an asteroid collision).
My guess is that we are too well established as a species to wipe ourselves out entirely. We might suffere a catastrophic population crash followed by several hundred years of 'Dark ages.'
It has been suggested that this has happened to us before because there is so little variation in our genome compared with, say, apes. This points to us all being descended from a small population that began to grow relatively recently.
Krapotkin:
Natural Laws/duality: I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but if I have understood you correctly, then yes, I suppose there is an implicit duality.
On the one hand there are what are often referred to as the 'laws' of physics, based on a certainty that our current model of the universe is testable and that, within the model, matter and forces (above the quantum level, at least) behave and interact in predictable and consistent ways. The model may be modified and expanded in the light of new discoveries and insights, but only in ways constent with the 'laws' already established, and these 'laws'apply invariably and limit what is possible.
We could also, I suppose, talk of the 'laws' of genetics, since the ways that living organisms act and interact to form an ecosystem is determined for the most part by behaviours and physical forms which are the product of evolution and genetic inheritance - even the human ability to manage and alter the environment to a greater degree than any other animal.
On the other hand there is Natural Law in the philosophical or ethical sense, which is a social construct relating to a specific concept of human nature. It presupposes that ethical standards can be objectively derived, but those standards are, in fact, contingent and mutable. As I seem to remember you pointed out on the CiF thread, different societies may have different ideas about what constitutes moral behavious and what is most conducive to the good of society and the well-being of individuals within society. So I suppose that as a determining factor it comes under the heading of 'nurture'.
pttp:
I hadn't come across 'The Singularity is Here' until you mentioned it on the CiF thread, but was familiar with the concept of the technological singularity (it tends to crop up quite a lot in recent SF)
As regards your query concerning the significance of cave paintings, I gather from the summary that Lewis Williams is using insights gained from the study of shamanistic beliefs in a modern African society to interpret cave paintings in the same region. It seems a valid approach, although I am not sure how far his ideas can be seen has having validity for all similar examples prehistoric art.
My knowledge of the subject, such as it is, is confined to the upper palaeolithic cave art of southern Europe, and the problem of interpretation there is that the art itself, in the context of a sometimes meagrely attested material culture, is the only certain evidence we have. Ethnological studies of recent and contemporary societies in other parts of the world present a range of possible comparative models, but there is no guarantee that any of these is applicable to a society far in the past.
When I was an undergraduate we had drummed into us 'the limits of reasonable inference', i.e. we can infer custom from repeated evidence of practice, but we cannot infer belief from custom. It seemed to me at the time to be a very limiting approach, and archaeologists keep pushing the boundaries, but it remains true that when we are dealing with the beliefs of prehistoric peoples, we can never get beyond theorizing.
The known examples of S.European cave art cover a pretty long time span - probably around 15000 years - and show considerable development during that period, from rudimentary outlines and patterns to elaborate figurative images, so it is probable in any case, that no one interpretation would fit all.
Although the later, figurative images are often vivid and aesthetically pleasing, the fact that they are in deep caves and often superimposed in haphazard fashion indicates, at least, that this was not 'art for art's sake'. The animals are sometimes depicted pierced with arrows, or dead, and the simplest interpretation is that they were a symbolic attempt by the hunter-gatherers who created them, to control their environment (sympathetic magic). There are also a few images of human figures with animal attributes, or wearing animal costurm, which could be indicative of some form of shamanism, Another possibility is that the animals depicted had totemic significance, and some people have sggested more elaborate symbolisms based, for example, on the grouping of animals and markings in different areas of the caves. The most that can be said with confidence is that they are evidently expressions of some form of belief system.
Decorative, symbolic, and perhaps even figurative art may be as old as the species homo sapiens sapiens itself, so who knows where the original impulse came from. It seems to be universal.
Boltonian:
For a more extensive overview of compatibilism, giving the arguments pro and con, and with refs, see
http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
My own intuitive feeling is that if, in a broadly deterministic world, a rational individual is presented with two or more equal options for action or decision, s/he may, at least sometimes have regulative control to choose freely between the options. It seemed to me that this position seemed to fit best within a compatabilist view; but what do I know.
The 'leap of the mind' - Yes, exactly!. Suddenly finding that you see the solution to a problem without any conscious awareness of how you reached that point. In my limited experience it can happen both when one is working with a specific set of data (as Ventris was) and when examining a problem for the first time - in which case, I presume, the unconscious mind produces the solution from one's general store of knowledge. No great conceptual breakthroughs in my case, though. If only!
The question of whether animals other than man are capable of conscious reasoning has sometimes occurred to me, too. Perhaps some are, given the right environmental stimulus. My mother once had a pair of burmese cats which occasionally displayed what appeared to be problem solving behaviour.
elephantschild:
Some good stuff here. Two things from your post that I am interested in pursuing:
1) The nature of morality and moral relativism. Is there any objective morally superior society? I think not but would be happy to be convinced otherwise. How can we say that ours morals in this place, at this time and at our stage of development are superior to any others from other periods and places? My morals are firmly rooted in the Open Society but that does not mean that they are superior to those of a more totalitarian or tribal regime that might tolerate or encourage slavery, oppression of minorities, human and animal sacrifice etc. Or does it? What do people feel?
2) Had the neolithic revolution not occurred would we have destroyed our food supply by over-killing. I have read a few articles claiming evidence for this but someone on CiF, who said he/she had some expertise in the field denied it. It feels intuitively right to me that necessity (through population growth and diminshing resources) drove the neolithic revolution. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Boltonian : I take your (Russell's) point about the position of philosophy relative to science/theology. However, I'm sticking with my view that scientific advances have revealed a reality, which can't be understood in terms of traditional philosophy.
The truth, in my opinion, can't be approached by rational thought processes, although it can subsequently be appreciated and interpreted by them.
Wolfram is referenced quite heavily in Singularity, but mainly just for Cellular Automata. A New Kind of Science seems interesting, but I've only read about 50 of the 1000+ pages, so far. I'll attempt to summarise from what I've learnt : the application of mathematics in science may have been useful, but ultimately led to a dead-end. The complexity of the material world can be explained by very simple rules or algorithms, which better explain the behaviour of processes in every sphere of existence. Widely recognised as a genius in his younger days, Wolfram may be right that he's identified the way forward for all of science to progress. It's also (just) possible that he's flipped into insanity and that his theory is a peculiar form of delusion. The fact that he's spawned a highly successful company and has previously been recognised for leading edge advances in science may argue against this, though.
elephantschild : Thanks for your very fair review of the Lewis-Williams theory. The linked page discusses common themes in San and upper Paleolithic art and introduces the controversial 3-stage explanation by which rock/cave art images may be categorised. As you've referred to your view of standard methodology being unnecessarily limiting, I feel justified in offering the following even if it fails to meet normal academic criteria with respect to intellectual rigour.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/legacy/paleolithic/art/art.html
My current view is that evolution of our species occurred in many places at different times and therefore I'm predisposed to seek common underlying causes. My own experiments with fasting, for example, have convinced me that altered states of consciousness would have been common in prehistoric societies. I haven't experimented with sensory deprivation, eg. being holed up in a cave, but have read accounts, which suggest that this is also sufficient to precipitate altered states. The use of hallucinogenic drugs (in both ancient and modern societies) is well known to facilitate altered states. Similar states are also achievable with meditation, but this has to be seen as a relatively recent development.
pttp:
Many thanks for the Wolfram info. I had not heard of him until I read Marcus Chown's latest opus.
The problem I have with science is that many people give it more credit for providing answers than it is due. The more we learn the less we seem to know. I am ploughing through Lee Smolin's recently published book, 'The Trouble with Physics,' and it is rather depressing if one is looking for answers (so far).
I am not sure that science is helping us very much with a picture of reality, although it does give us some insight into our perceived picture of the world.
I am interested in your view that our species developed in several different places independently. Do you have any evidence? I understand that we have a very narrow genome compared with our nearest relatives and that this tends to suggest a common, recent heritage.
Elaine Morgan's book on the aquatic ape hypothesis is well worth reading. She suggests that water is the key to our evolutionary development. We have very few natural advantages but the ability to swim is one. Bi-pedalism would have assisted our ability to fish (at the expense of a smaller pelvis). This would have allowed the development of large brain because standing upright allows us to support a heavier head, which walking on all fours would not permit. A large brain, therefore, is a by product of bi-pedalism.
There all sorts of clues to this, such as the way our hair grows compared with apes, our nose shape, and the fact that our babies are born covered with vernix - the only land mammal we know of that is. Babies are also comfortable being born in water.
The penalty we pay for this adaptation is that we have a small pelvis and our babies are born helpless with much of their development happening outside the womb. This means that we need to spend a very long time dependent on our parents - relatively more than any other mammal, I think.
Yesterday the weather was beautiful and the garden beckoned. Today the outdoors is not so inviting, so it's back to the keyboard
Boltonian:
Morality and moral relativism. Interestingly, the NYT supplement in last Sunday's Observer had a piece on the primatologist Frans de Waal's theory that in empathic and altruistic behaviour patterns in non-human primates, and chimps in particular, we can discern the origins and basis of human morality. This is contrasted with the view of philosophers that conscious reasoning, rather than emotions such as sympathy, plays the largest part in shaping human ethical behaviour, and that biological analysis cannot bridge the gap between 'is' and 'ought': between the description of behaviour and the issue of why it is right or wrong.
Altruistic behaviour which supports the individual within a group is certainly advantageous, in that it is conducive to the coherence and thus the success of the group, but insofar as it is emotionally driven, it depends on the members of the group being intimately acquainted with one another. It would work very well within a small social group of people linked by kinship, for example, but once they begin to associate in larger groups, things become much more complex. The manner in which individuals identify with the social groups they relate to is like a nest of Chinese boxes. At the centre is the nuclear and extended family, then the immediate community such as the village then the clan or city state, then tribe, perhaps, or nation. And the intensity of identification weakens as we work outwards. Relationships within the larger groups, where individuals do not know one another personally, therefore have to be informed by a common set of ethical values (which may be culturally influenced).
My guess is that such values tended to evolve on a more or less pragmatic basis as the societies themselves evolved and became more complex, and that the articulation, validation and elaboration of those values by philosophers, and their codification as rules within systems of religious belief, was secondary. The value systems may have differed at different times and in different places, but their relative value overall can, I think, be judged objectively according to their effectiveness in balancing the interests and well being of the individual against the stability and smooth-functioning of the society of which the individual forms a part.
All the various systems seem to be founded on one or other of two approaches. The most common, throughout history, places the emphasis on the responsibility of the individual towards society as, for example, in traditional Chinese society based on Confucianism, or Japanese society under the shoguns. The other, more dominant in modern western society, places the emphasis on the responsibility of individuals towards one another. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The first can produce a very stable society, but one in which the needs and happiness of the individual may be forcibly overridden; the other (in theory, at least) entails less indivual suffering, but can permit a 'me first' 'look after number one', competetive attitude which is counterproductive in terms of social cohesion.
Each system can see the flaws in the other, and there will be a natural tendency to see the values prevailing in one's own society as 'better'. There is also a tendency to confuse abstract moral values with purely cultural norms (as can be seen, for example. in some muslim communities). The question is, what moral values should prevail in a community which is becoming global? Because in that context ideas of moral relativism may become untenable. Already there has been some convergence, in that certain things once widely considered acceptable, even natural, such as slavery, or infanticide, are now generally considered to be morally wrong.
My own feeling is that this would have to be a system which encourages people to relate positively to others, even those they do not know, as individuals in whom they can see themselves; and fosters empathy, consideration for the feelings of the other and respect (the 'love your neighbour as yourself, and that includes your enemies' approach), while allowing a degree of moral pluralism. Idealistic, I know, given that human beings seem to find it a lot easier to define themselves in relation to what is 'other' and to look for differences rather than similarities, but the alternatives appear to be perpetual conflict, world-wide totalitarianism, or an amoral free-for-all.
On your second point, the idea that the neolithic 'revolution' was driven by the destruction of resources available to support hunter-gatherer communities and the necessity of finding alternatives does not seem to be supported by the evidence. Hunter-gathering seems, in fact, to be a highly sustainable choice, in that the balance between population and resources is self-regulating, because it works within the ecosystem. I knew one prehistorian who used to maintain that we would have been better of as a species if we had stuck to that way of life. The indigenous peoples of mainland Australia, for example, managed to survive for upwards of 40.000 years without exhausting the food supply, and it is thought that before the arrival of Europeans, the population had remained stable for several thousand years, at least. It is true that when modern man entered an ecosystem for the first time, in Australia, New Zealand or the Americas at least, their arrival led to the exinction of many animals ( although in N America, changes in climate following the last ice age were almost certainly a contributory factor). But after that, an equilibrium was reached. Hunter-gatherers could and often did manage their environment, for example by creating forest clearings and enlarging watering holes to attract game, but not in ways that involved large-scale alteration of that environment.
The transition from hunting and gathering to farming seems to have been fairly gradual and to have spread from the fertile crescent of the near east as much by a process of acculturation as by movement of peoples. It probably began because people found it convenient to have at least some of their food stocks to hand, thereby avoiding the necessity of being frequently on the move, and at some point this process acquired its own momentum as it began to result in wholesale changes to the environment. The advantages which accrued included the maintenance of a larger, static population in which greater diversification of activity and more complex social institutions became possible. The downside is that, from the beginning, it has required ever more elaborate manoevres to sustain the balancing act between resources and our increasing demands on the environment.
I have not read Elaine Morgan's book, but I remember reading about her hypothesis when it was first published. The arguments seem very plausible (I learned only recently that Chimps can' swim!). Either way, bipedalism does seem to have been a prerequisite for the development of a large brain.
pttp:
To expand on what I wrote before about Lewis-Williams' theory: I think that his ideas concerning shamanism in relation to palaeolithic cave art are at the very least interesting, and may be applicable in some cases, although I am never comfortable with the 'one interpretation fits all' approach.
I am not,hoever, convinced by the thesis that the origins of art can be explained by neurological stimulation through the use of phsychoactive drugs or other mind-altering techniques.
For a critique of this theory see:
www.wynja.com/arch/entoptic.html
To interpret all the various and varied examples of S European cave art according to recent and modern recorded shamanistic beliefs and practice presupposes that there has been no subtantial development in the thinking of hunter-gatherers during the past 35,000 years or so. Possible indications of shamanism in the S European examples (e.g. the depiction of human figures in animal costume or with animal attributes) are in any case very rare.
The images suggest complex symbolisms, and it is very likely that they were associated with various ceremonial practices (possibly including initiation rites) but whether these ceremonies ever involved inducing altered states of mind must remain conjectural. Various other plausible interpretations have been advanced (although the old idea that they relate to hunting magic is now largely discredited), and I therefore subscribe to the view that upper palaeolithic art is polysemic.
As to your idea that the evolution of our species (by which I presume you mean homo sapiens sapiens) occurred in many places at different times, I'm not sure. H. sapiens sapiens certainly coexisted for a time with other closely related species, both in Africa and elsewhere, but the others all became extinct. And I seem to remember reading that the evidence of mitochondrial DNA points to a single origin for modern man in Africa.
erratum:
I meant to say that Chimps cannot swim!
Boltonian : Sorry my last post was sloppy. I accept that "out of Africa" is currently the only game in town. What I meant to suggest was that the mental evolution, which seems to have given rise to adoption of cultural and religious practices happened in many places at different times. Shamanistic practices derive from altered states of consciousness and there are common themes, whatever method of inducing trance is used.
Eg. long before I knew about the half-human half-animal paintings, I'd seen people taking on characteristics of animals.
Science is raising such fundamental questions about every aspect of existence, that philosophy doesn't have a firm foundation on which to pontificate. I've introduced some evidence that the central, but slippery concepts of free will and consciousness, for example, are anything but cut and dried.
I'm still open to anyone introducing elements of philosophy into the discussion and I've admitted my almost complete ignorance in this area.
elephantschild : Thanks for your comments and I apologise for my misleading comment about evolution.
Anyone interested in reading the original paper can find it here :
http://www.rockart.wits.ac.za/origins/external_pages/publications/files/Lewis-Williams%20&%20Dowson%201988%20The%20signs%20of%20all%20times.pdf
elephantschild:
Good stuff on altruism. I like your idea of the choice between serving the individual and society. Have you read Popper's, 'Open Society and its Enemies?' In your terminology he suggests that there is really no contest and that making society pre-eminent leads inexorably to totalitarianism, corruption and oppression.
I agree with that but, I suspect, only because I have been brought up with those values and not because the morals of an open society are instrinsically superior.
Your response to my neolithic revolution enquiry was interesting. I accept that it happened over a long period and there were many factors involved but I still think that necessity, driven by scarcity of resources, played some part. I would be interested in your views on this: http://www.waspress.co.uk/
journal_20063/abstracts/index.php#200631
A thought occurs to me. If we as homo sapien sapiens are guilty of squandering the earth's resources, locally as well as globally, why were was paleolithic/mesolithic man not capable of doing likewise? After all I doubt we have evolved very much genetically in that last 10,000 years.
There is loads of good stuff on shamanism on the Before Farming website.
----------------------
pttp:
Philosophy was science at one time and the two seem to be coming together again. Most philosophers were mathematicians or scientists of one sort or another and it is only recently that they have become separated.
This (artificial)divide, in my view, has coincided with the decline in philosphical reasoning. The best philosophy (certainly metaphysics)is now being written by scientists.
Boltonian , I think the web needs a place like this . Kudos to you .
Wow , there is a lot going on in this thread .
Just picking up on a few things that caught my eye while scrolling ...
The Big Bang .
At the moment there is no escaping an initial boundary condition for space time . Guth , Borde and Vilkein showed that any spacetime with a positive cosmological constant must be past incomplete . Eternal inflation , the most popular current theory , can only be future eternal .
Many cosmologists believe that quantum physics may hold the answer to the boundary condition problem . However this still doesn't answer what , if anything , came before the boundary .
One answer I have seen is basically the old answer Bertrand Russel gave ; it is a meaningless question to ask what happened before there was time for things to happen in .
This , I think , is an unsatisfying answer and with the decline of positivism many others appear to think so too . It is not so much a matter of time as cause . If a thing can occur without causation , i.e. necessary preconditions , then the universe is absurd and science is no more than stamp collecting .
Another answer is the Venger notion that a quantum fluctuation occurred in nothing . This is problematic as it requires the utter absence of anything to follow the laws of physics . The laws of physics being , to most people , just the observation of regularities in matter. Venger seems to imply that the laws of physics can somehow bootstrap the universe into existence without there being any matter/energy at all . This begs the obvious question ; what are the laws of physics and where do they come from if not the inherent nature of matter ?
Determinism , Consciousness and Free Will .
I think discussions of such matters are plagued by the language of folk psychology . Under a naturalistic account of the brain , there is no 'you' in the sense you instinctively mean . There cannot be .
If the brain is all there is to consciousness then brain states don't dictate consciousness ; they are consciousness . There is no abstracted self with agency being pulled this way and that by genes expressed in the brain and environmental factors . Genes expressed in the brain form networks which process information from the senses about the environment . That is it , bits of matter reacting against other bits of matter.
The thoughts 'you' have are neuronal firing patterns in the language and visual networks in the brain .
To me this seems an insufficient account of consciousness . I think the subjective experience of thinking , feeling , drinking etc is irreducible to brain states . No matter how much we know about a brain in action , we won't know what it is like to be that brain in action .
I realize this isn't much of a contribution , but this was a densely packed thread . I hope I can be more useful in future debates .
SpaceP:
Welcome. And thanks for your post.
The Masters beckons (as well as a glass or two of Burgundy) so I will read it again, digest and respond sometime soon.
What do others think?
BTW I have just fired my latest broadside at ACG. Have you noticed that he has not once, on any of these threads, answered either of us? Ummmm. A friend of mine studied philosophy under him at Birkbeck and his view was that he (Grayling)was very entertaining, loved to show off his knowledge and hated being contradicted. I have read a few of his books and they are lightweight, tendentious and not terriby well thought through. But maybe that's just my prejudice.
Boltonian :
I look forward to your responses and others if they appear .
What you say about Grayling is broadly true . I've not seen him respond to any philosophical or historical points of any weight raised against him in this or any other thread .
He did respond when I reminded him that the Roman Empire was at least as morally repellent as the dark ages . He said admiring Roman architecture does not entail admiring slavery . When I made the obvious counterpoint that admiring Christian hospitals does not entail admiring the inquisition there was silence .
I think what raises my hackles about his arguments is the underlying "this is the only rational way to see things" tone coupled with his manifest irrationality in believing in such things as a 'true' classical inheritance or moral progress under naturalism .
I've never read any of his books . I do a fair bit of reading of journal papers in pdf format , especially about religion and naturalism , when I can find them and I don't recall him being cited in any of them.
Hi Boltonian and SpacePenguin
Thought I'd pay this site a visit - like many of the other posters I've come via CiF. I've admired your posts on CiF for a long time. Nice work!
SpaceP I agree with you and Copplestone - Russell gave up thinking too quickly on that question.
I can't abide ACG or indeed Dawkins on religion and find myself strangely attracted to the rubbish that they write. Are they really unable to find a reasonable and polite tone? Do you think they believe the stuff they write? Other atheists are able to write with far more insight and sensitivity on religious matters - Roy Hattersley is a good example of this, for my money.
Forgive me for a probable disjointed entry. Concentration is fleeting with frequent interruptions from children. Rather than ignore them, I can only focus for a short term. Also, forgive for, no doubt, an obvious lack of knowledge.
Relevant to a distinction between the conscious and the subconscious, I have been exposed to methamphetamine users, who by the nature of the drug, lack sleep. At some point, due, in my view, to this sleep deficit, one's conscious mind becomes subsumed to the subconscious. The boundary between the two is tenuous at best and one's perception is, even more than normal, subject to irrationality. So, it is my opinion that their is a distinction between the subconscious and the conscious, but the terms of that distinction are based upon allowing cognitive functioning some down time.
In regards to a 'leap of the mind', I definitely believe that is not a non-typical logical reaction. Many times, rather than attempting a linear means to solve a problem, I give myself time to 'use a side-door' so to speak. Is that an "outside the box" comparison?
Is there such a thing as an objectively morally superior society? I am uncertain. I have concluded that some people have inferior morals. Does that suggest then that someone else has superior morals, and with extrapolation that a society theoretically would have superior morals vis-a-vis the next?
Shucks, gotta go. Thanks all for the informative discussion. Hope my ignorance is amusing rather than insulting.
gerry71:
Thanks and welcome.
Agree about ACG and Dawkins.
They both, as I understand it, belong to the same humanist society where, doubtless, they reinforce each others' prejudices.
Grayling has got out of the habit of understanding that all he can do, as a philosopher, is weigh up the available evidence and suggest possible answers. Journalism demands instant, black and white certainties and this is where he obviously derives a portion of his income these days. He is in danger of becoming a parody.
Also, I think his personality finds it difficult to admit to us lowly folk that there might be other legitimate views. The way he caricatures his opponents as 'Foaming at the mouth religious fundamentalists' tells you that neither he, nor his groupies, have actually read the critical posts. He seems to have shifted his position somewhat to include all exclusive ideologies and then accuses his critics of being unintelligent! I really think he has boxed himself into a corner on this.
9mile:
An interesting and thoughtful post. I agree that the divide between consciousness/unconsciousness is artificial in some way. But why?
How is the divide determined. It clearly serves a purpose. Perhaps our brain is like Occam's razor in that we only process the minimum information we need to survive.
It still doesn't get us closer to understanding what consciousnes actually is and whether we are alone on the planet in this regard. It must, presumably, confer a benefit on our species.
Do we come back to the idea that the universe needs to be observed in order to exist?
SpaceP:
I am reading Smolin's latest - very intersting so far, if a little gloomy.
I have never really been comfortable with the 'vacuum fluctuation' theory to explain the cosmos for the same reasons you have put. It might also be that I don't understand it well enough.
If the universe was created out of nothing and it is infinite and eternal, then our finite brains will never be able to comprehend it because we cannot imagine what such concepts would mean.
On consciousness, someone here suggested we were about a decade or so away from building a quantum computer which might, in time, allow us to recreate, molecule by molecule, the human brain. That might give us a clue to the nature of consciousness.
Do you think consciousness is more than just the function of the brain - more of a dualist position?
Interesting stuff.
Gerry71 :
I seem to remember that Russell never fully accepted the big bang theory . It is easier to say the universe is just there and that's it when it has always been there . Creation ex nihilo is very awkward .
I think that ACG and Dawkins are simply the type of person that needs to have the world 'wrapped up' in their own minds . For them 'truth' is both knowable and absolute . I think it is telling that despite their atheism they both still believe in objective moral progress .
boltonian :
Smolin has some fascinating ideas , I know very little about LQG but it seems like a worthwhile approach . Both him and Woit are spot on about the sociology of science in my view .
"If the universe was created out of nothing and it is infinite and eternal, then our finite brains will never be able to comprehend it because we cannot imagine what such concepts would mean."
I think most people who back the infinite regress idea don't believe there was a beginning an infinite amount of time ago , they believe that there was no beginning . This brings up two questions ; Is there such a thing as an actual infinity in nature ? Why eternal something instead of eternal nothing ?
-----
I think that even in a perfect simulation of the brain we still couldn't tell if it was conscious because of the zombie problem .
I am a dualist , I drifted from the Dennett position when I realised that I hadn't missed something , he had simply failed to account for consciousness . I hovered around epiphenomenalism for a while until I realised that it was dualism for those who don't want to admit to supernatural beliefs . Now I am , on the balance of probabilities , an interactionist dualist like Popper .
Boltonian
To return, if I may, to the subject of hunter/gatherer societies and the transition to farming.
I did not mean to imply that palaeolithic and mesolithic peoples were inherently incapable of squandering the earth's resources. My point was that where people are dependent on the unmodified natural environment they will tend to operate within the constraints imposed by it, and such things as population and group size within any given area will to a large extent be controlled by it. The evidence suggests, in fact, that nomadic hunter/gatherer societies have generally managed to function in a state of equilibrium with their environment for as long as that environment remains stable.
Agricultural societies, on the other hand, in their attempt to control their local environment, will make changes beneficial only to themselves, which tends to destabilise the equilibrium and, since successful agriculture and animal husbandry can support increasingly large populations, the potential for instability beomes ever greater.
As to what kick-started the transition. the most plausible suggestion I have seen is that in an optimum area such as the fertile crescent, where the food supply was relatively abundant, varied and readily accessible, hunter/gatherers may have adopted a more sedentary life style and begun to develop social and economic patterns accordingly. Sedentism would have created the conditions necessary for more intensive attempts at managing the food supply - initially, perhaps, by creating gardens for the growing of plant foods, and creating conditions to attract game. If/when increases in the population led to pressure on resources, they may then have been more inclined to adapt further, rather than to revert to the more traditional response of migration. To that degree, then, you may be right, but it does not seem that it was an inevitable and necessary response, simply one of several possibilities.
In the northern hemisphere the rapid changes in climate following the retreat of the ice could have provided further stimulus for adaptive response, but were not, I think, a primary cause
*************
I have not, I regret to say, read Popper's 'Open Society and its Enemies' - something else to add to my 'to do' list. I agree, though, that it does seem that where society comes before the individual, this tends to lead to oppression and totalitarianism.
In that connection, Lafcadio Hearn's view of traditional Japanese society is interesting. He settled there about 40 years after the country was first opened to the west, and in 'Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation' published in 1904, he wrote:
'That all are polite, that nobody quarrels, that everybody smiles, that pain and sorrow remain invisible, that the new police have nothing to do, would seem to prove a morally superior humanity. But for the trained sociologist it would prove something different, and suggest something very terrible. It would prove to him that this society had been moulded under immense coercion. [...] He would immediately perceive that ethos and custom had not yet become dissociated, and that the conduct of each person was regulated by the will of the rest. He would know that personality could not develop in such a social medium - that no individual superiority dare assert itself, that no competition would be tolerated'.
***************
On the subject of ACG, I am familiar only with what he has written on CiF - polemic supported chiefly by assertion and rhetoric. My reading of his character on this basis alone is in agreement with what everyone here has said. The same goes for Dawkins - a respectable scientist in his own field, even if his approach and some of his ideas are open to criticism. but who seems to lose the plot when it comes to the subject of religion, and to abandon any real attempt at objectivity and academic rigour. (maybe he feels that these are unnecessary when dealing with matters he holds in such contempt)
In terms of describing the world and how people and societies function in the world the concept of freewill is unnecessary. Not only is it unnecessary it gives rise to a lot of contradiction (what causes it to function? Is it random? How does it interact with a physical world? etc).
I feel that the biggest error in philosophy is to attempt to engage with the personal (and subjective) point of view. Within this point of view freewill, even the notion of self as a distinct entity, will appear to be necessary assumptions. However, I find that all arguments that start from this point of view reduce to a form of solipsism. Of course freewill sits easily at the heart of the solipsistic world (though in a solipsistic world + God freewill could just about be dispensed with).
Far too much philosophical debate starts from the position of how something (objects, morality, value etc) appears to ME. However (outside solipsism) anyone receiving such communication is obviously not the authorial 'ME', yet makes the tacit assumption that the reader or interlocutor shares the same faculties and can therefore comprehend the authors point of view.
Science has achieved success through making the logically impossible attempt to objectify the argument and escape from the personal, subjective point of view. Often the use of passive tense or use of the first person plural underlines this suspension of disbelief. Illogical or not, the crucial step is to put the assumption of our shared faculties, before the argument and place the objects of discussion in an objectified (attempting to be objective) framework.
If the same procedure is used in Philosophy, freewill is not necessary to account for anyone's actions, it remains only necessary to explain what a person's use of the term 'freewill' means in any context. In this way although there is no place for 'freewill' as a primal cause, a sense of 'freewill' or choice is as necessary as much else of our mental faculties if we are to successfully make our way around the world.
MartinRDB (How do you sign youself in to this blog?)
Hello Martin
Welcome and thanks for the post.
You should be offered a box for your screen or display name when you register through Google. This should appear when you click on 'Leave your comment.'
SpaceP:
Either an infinite regress or no beginning is rather beyond my imagination but that is not to discount it. I am just pointing out that the limitation of our (my) brain governs serious investigation into possible answers. Einstein famously used familiar ideas to form the basic concepts of his theories - I would argue that most breakthroughs are of this nature. So, if we can't form the concepts in the first place how can we proceed?
Ah, dualism. I cannot see how mind, as distinct from brain, can be identified. How can we determine its properties scientifically and how does it connect and interact with the body, unless you are proposing a Spinoza type immanent and all pervasive 'Thing' which we might call God.
Elephantschild:
Thanks for the clafification. The reason I persisted is not because I know anything about stone age life but that I see adversity as the trigger to progress so often in our journey, at least in historical times.
Martin:
Solipsism is an interesting angle. Russell tells a joke in his 'History of Western Philosophy' to the effect that a woman wrote to him asserting that she was a solipsist but couldn't understand why she seemed to be the only one.
Solipsism is rather the end of the story, so if we wish to carry on discussing things and learning we will need to assume that there is a world outside one's brain. This does not, of course, mean that there is.
Popper used to get irritated by those who tried to find out what the real, as opposed to the perceived, world was like. 'If we can't gain access to it what is the point of bothering about it,' was more or less his point. But there again he was a terribly serious fellow by all accounts.
I agree that science is an attempt to discover the world objectively but I still perceive everything through my brain and I don't see how I can avoid this. I still have to make an assumption that you are more or less like me and that you have an independent existence.
That is why we make huge assumptions about the motivations and minds of animals, with a tendency to anthropomorphise.
We cannot be really objective because we are subjective beings.
What do others think?
We are subjective beings and we cannot know 'things in themselves', but Science gives us at the very least an idea of what we cannot experience, for example the particulate structure of matter. Whilst these ideas are in a sense provisional in that ultimately they are inferentially derived models, the totality of Scientific models provides a powerful account of an important part of the (theoretically unknowable) objective world. The Scientific account has no need for 'freewill', in fact as I implied earlier, the Scientific account is weakened by 'freewill'. Imagine a world without 'freewill', in what way would it be different from the world we know? So long as people could have the sense of 'freewill' without actually having 'freewill' then there would be no difference.
How is this objectivity achieved, when we are all subjective beings? Well I am achieving this objectivity as I write this, for language does not belong to the private and subjective sphere, but belongs to a public sphere outside ourselves. Our use of language may contribute to a form of negotiation of the parameters of the language (as in a small way your blog is doing with the concept of freewill), but language is a system of signs that is independent of our subjectivity and crucially bears a systematic relationship to objects and phenomena in the objective world. In this language system there exist signs that do not relate to concepts that have no verifiable existence. Such concepts include freewill (distinct from a sense of freewill perhaps?), the soul, God, fairies, unicorns etc.
Thanks for Russells solipsism joke. Solipsism is important, I believe, as a tool of analysis: if we accept our subjective box we are accepting solipsism.
MartinRDB (all the blog notes came up in German before and seemed to assume that I already had an account; this time it was in English and clearer for me)
Martin
A couple of very quick responses before I have to dash to London.
1) In a way it does not not matter whether we have free will or not providd we all believe we have but we also need to agree how much - difficult. However, it is still an interesting question.
2) Although we believe language to be in the public sphere we can never know if you receive anything like what I transmit. As an analogy, I do not know that you have the same sensation as me when I experience the colour red. We make assumptions but that is not the same as knowing.
Thus lies a whole potentiality for misunderstanding and error.
Will try to expand later.
Responses to language may well be coloured by individual experiences, but the relationship of the words (signs) to whatever they signify is a product of the community within which individuals engage. One single person is a small part of the overall fabric of communicated experiences and responses, that has developed over time. Language cannot be a solipsistic experience: if an individual makes a linguistic mistake, participation in the language system obliges the mistake to be corrected (I suspect that this is a part of how we learn a language).
My position is that any argument from the point of view of the individual self will not do; so far as I can see, perhaps it is my hypothesis, all such arguments reduce to solipsism, which logically destroys the concept of communication and meaning (so this communicative activity is a denial of such an account).
On the colour 'red' canard: there is a very good argument to say that our senses are very much the same (admitting a few specific exceptions such as lack of the green sensing cone cell in colour blindness). Again this involves taking a perspective outside the individual and accepting that Science must not be held subservient to Philosophy. As human beings we share in a common gene pool, that has hardly altered over the last several thousand years. My genes that code for red sensing cone cells are the same as anyone else's; thus there is no reason to doubt that the primal sensations are much the same and certainly not unique. Of course an individual's experiences will create associations that colour what we make of our senses. Nevertheless, red is a word that we commonly understand to signify a common experience.
Your first point “In a way it does not not matter whether we have free will or not provided we all believe we have, but we also need to agree how much” includes an aspect that I have not given sufficient consideration. To discount the reality of freewill, does not mean that the degree of 'sense of freewill' is unimportant nor inappropriate in an account of an individual actions. This must be important in any value based or moral context.
HappyClappy:
Welcome (when you arrive). I will post my questions here on Friday when I am next at home.
Martinrdb:
I will respond soon but I would like to get other views as well.
Any thoughts anybody?
boltonian :
"Either an infinite regress or no beginning is rather beyond my imagination but that is not to discount it. I am just pointing out that the limitation of our (my) brain governs serious investigation into possible answers. Einstein famously used familiar ideas to form the basic concepts of his theories - I would argue that most breakthroughs are of this nature. So, if we can't form the concepts in the first place how can we proceed?"
I'd say that although we can't fully conceptualize , say , infinity we can identify its mathematical properties and be guided by the numbers . The question is does the universe really dance to a mathematical tune or can we only see the part of the universe that does ?
"Ah, dualism. I cannot see how mind, as distinct from brain, can be identified. How can we determine its properties scientifically and how does it connect and interact with the body, unless you are proposing a Spinoza type immanent and all pervasive 'Thing' which we might call God."
If mind is non material , it has no physical extension , then perhaps its properties are not fully definable . The interaction question is the 'hard problem' for dualism just as qualia is the hard problem for monism . I think some of the answers may be found in parapsychology , though I admit that is not a widely held view .
MartinRDB :
"Well I am achieving this objectivity as I write this, for language does not belong to the private and subjective sphere, but belongs to a public sphere outside ourselves."
Doesn't this imply that the plural of subjective is objective ? We may still be unable to get to underlying objective reality , should such a thing exist , as a collective .
"Doesn't this imply that the plural of subjective is objective?"
Well it implies an external world and is therefore a move towards objectivity and "as a collective" it at least assures the objective existence of simple things (things we do not tend to argue about).
"We may still be unable to get to underlying objective reality" - in absolute terms, yes. Kant's 'ding an sich' may be limitless and include factors that are outside human conception, but the collective pursuit of knowledge (Science basically) can give us an idea of that which we cannot experience directly and which hitherto was undreamt of.
Take the particulate model, an aspect of it such as the workings of DNA: in Kant's day the mysteries of the inheritance of parental traits and of common viral diseases would have to belong to the world of things in themselves. Whilst there may be some equivocation about aspects of gene expression, there is no sense in denying the objective reality of the scientific model and the particulate scientific model upon which it depends. The objectivity is further entrenched when we have to engage with the consequences of application of these models. Specific elements of these models are based on inferences, but these elements are bound together into a coherent self supporting structure.
If we do not want to admit this as objective reality we at least must concede that objective reality must contain something very much like it.
“should such a thing exist” if you are reading this, then of course! That's the point (see Russell's solipsism joke above).
HappyClappy:
The questions I promised to post.
Everybody else:
If you have already seen these, apologies.
SpaceP:
Thanks for the response - I will consider and reply. You have been very quiet on the 'God' thread so far.
Christian beliefs
It is difficult to summarise the beliefs of a religion called Christianity because there are about 22,000 sects or churches (source: Encyclopaedia Britannica) each believing slightly different versions of the truth but these are some commonly held tenets:
• They sometimes believe in the literal truth of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) and sometimes interpret parts as metaphor;
• They believe that the Bible is the word of God;
• Some believe that it was written at the time of the events they describe;
• Some believe that those who do not believe their doctrine will suffer eternal torment in Hell;
• All say that one must accept the whole message (of whichever version) and cannot take the bits one wishes and leave the rest;
• Some believe that those ordained have special privileges as intermediaries from God and that their interpretation of the Bible is the true one; and
• Some believe that men die utterly at the time of death and that only those believers who have led a sin-free life will be restored to life when the Kingdom of God is created upon the Earth.
Critical analysis
To believe in the literal truth of the Bible flies in the face of everything we currently know about Middle Eastern and Mediterranean history and culture. Even following the invention of alphabetic writing about 800 BC literacy remained the preserve of a tiny elite.
We know that cultural beliefs were passed on from one generation to another in pre-literate societies by stories memorised by highly trained specialists. In order to make them memorable and understandable to all within the society they were created as word pictures – poems, in a word. These poems were full of references that would be thoroughly understood by the audience for whom they were intended, only some of which are evident today.
The Bible mythology was a common one in the Middle East at the time – the Sumerian creation stories bear a remarkable resemblance to that found in the Scriptures. This surely points to a common cultural ancestry. The Bible is a collection of Jewish myths, religious exhortations, history and songs of praise written at various times after, and some times long after, the events described. Much of it was collected and assembled during the period of the Babylonian exile when the identity of the Jews as a separate and distinct people was really forged.
Christians sometimes point to various prophecies in the Old Testament to ‘Prove’ that the Bible is the word of God. Objections to this pseudo-scientific approach include:
• Only those examples that can be stretched to show a possible correlation between prophecy and subsequent outcome are chosen;
• Prediction and fulfilment of the prediction both occur in the past, so there is no way of knowing which came first;
• The prophecy is not given a timescale so one can say that such and such has come to pass whenever something like it has occurred. Given the great stretch of time and the imprecise nature of the prophecies it is hardly surprising that anyone can ‘Prove’ anything to his own satisfaction;
• Prophecies like the destruction of Babylon and the diminishing of Egypt are hardly prescient. Kingdoms and empires rise and fall all the time and when they fall they are usually destroyed. Babylon and Egypt had fallen before (and risen again, several times in Egypt’s case);
• If much of the Bible were written down during the exile, as scholars believe, then it would be unremarkable to allude to events that had already occurred or, in the case of Babylon, the foretelling of a fervently desired outcome (Mene mene tekel uparsin); and
• Some of the more fundamentalist Christians believe, as I understand it, that most scientific discovery is spurious – that the laws of Physics and Mathematics are wrong; that the Periodic Table is a fantasy; that geology is a lie; that medical science has not happened; that dinosaurs did not exist; that the universe outside our solar system is a nonsense; that evolution is a fairy story; that DNA is not the foundation for life; and that life began 6,000 years ago and the Earth was created in six days; etc. etc. etc.
Presumably, Christians believe that God did not literally write the words but instructed human beings to do the task. How do we know that these are God’s words? All religious writings claim to be inspired by God in some way but where is the proof that He instructed the authors to write exactly these words and in these languages – Hebrew and Greek? Why, for instance, if Moses is supposed to have composed the first five books of the Bible, are they not written in his own language, which was Egyptian? How did Moses know about Adam – was there a diary or did God dictate the story?
God is supposed to have talked directly with the early patriarchs and the prophets but not to many people since, why not?
Why is the Bible the word of God and other religious writings, such as the Koran not (and vice versa if one is Muslim)?
How do Christians reconcile the differing natures of God within the Bible? For example, the God of Moses was a jealous God and, ‘You shall serve none other god but me.’ This suggests that other gods existed but His chosen people must not worship these. Whereas the God of Jesus was a compassionate, loving and forgiving God who loved sinners more than the righteous. ‘Turn the other cheek,’ had replaced ‘An eye for an eye.’
How can the Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ be reconciled with the divinely inspired Joshua’s brutal treatment of the Canaanites, who after all were the residents of the area the invading Israelites wished to live? This seems like God-ordained genocide.
Why did God choose the Jews as his people and not any other part of His creation? If He did why do gentiles worship Him if the Covenant is between Israelites and God? He tells the Israelites to destroy all non-Jews living in the Promised Land – why?
God seems to demand absolute obedience, subservience and adoration at all times – is this evidence of a kind, loving, forgiving and gentle God?
He suggests that Moses lead His people out of Egypt and then hardens the heart of Pharaoh to prevent them from going and subsequently inflicts all manner of plagues on Egypt for this when it is God who has caused it to happen in the first place!
How can 2.5 million people (603,000 adult males according to the Bible) and all their animals survive in the desert for 40 years – manna was only provided by God for the people?
How can all these people be addressed by one man at the same time, as Aaron did?
How can Judah have fathered three sons, who all grow to maturity, then marry his son’s widow who bears twins, one of whom grows to maturity and fathers two sons, Hezron and Hamal; all by the age of 42? He cannot be much older than this at the time of the journey to Egypt as Joseph is 39 and Judah is about 3 years older.
How do Christians answer all the other questions posed by Bishop Colenso concerning the logic of the numbers in the Pentateuch and Joshua? The numbers are not only contradictory, sometimes in the same book, but also wildly improbable.
If Jesus were God’s only begotten son, who are the ‘Sons of God’ mentioned at the beginning of Job? Why is God chatting with Satan? Why does He strike a deal with Satan to subject his faithful man Job to such capricious cruelty? Is this a loving God? If God is omnipotent why does he permit Satan to exist?
When God destroyed humanity (The Flood) in disgust at His creation’s behaviour (despite His afflicting us with original sin in the first place) He started again but with the same genetic line (Noah) and with the same dose of original sin. And lo! and behold He got the same result! This is either sheer vindictiveness or very unintelligent.
How do Christians KNOW that the accounts of events in the Bible were written down contemporaneously when every other piece of available evidence points to the fact that most of it was recorded after (and sometimes long after) the event? This does not mean the authors are wrong necessarily but it does increase the likelihood of error.
For example, the Gospels of the New Testament were written in Koine (not the language Jesus spoke, which was Aramaic). Those who wrote them were not contempories of Jesus and, so far as we know, Jesus did not write anything down at all. There are differences in the Gospels (particularly between the synoptics and John), which are sometimes difficult to reconcile, such as the accounts of His ministry and resurrection.
The earliest manuscripts for the gospels have been dated to the 2nd century AD and not likely to have been written before 60 AD according to some scholars and after the Jewish revolt (70 AD) by others. Paul’s letters were composed earlier but not until at least 25 years after the death of Jesus and some of those are known to be the work of later editors.
Mark is generally thought to have been the first of the surviving four gospels to have been written and to be the most reliable. It is disputed whether a fifth (Q) provided the source, along with Mark, for the gospels we know as Luke and Matthew.
Matthew uses the demands of a Roman census as the reason for the Holy family to travel to David’s town of Bethlehem. There was a census in Palestine around this time but not until ten years after the death of Herod the Great and not in Judea. Also, nobody had to travel anywhere and certainly not to the home of one’s ancestors. Imagine the administrative chaos that would entail and what would it achieve anyway?
John was composed later, probably around 100 AD, and is the least historically accurate of the four. Why have some writings, such as Thomas, been rejected by the early church and others accepted? Who decided which were the words of God and which not? How do the Dead Sea scrolls fit in to the picture – were they the word of God as revealed to the Qumran community or not?
Some Christians believe in the Jewish eschatology that the Kingdom of God will arrive on earth and the chosen will be restored to life. However, Christianity believes that Jesus was the Messiah as Jesus himself possibly believed. Jesus fully expected the Kingdom of God to occur in his lifetime and perhaps his quote from the Psalm 22 just prior to death is genuine, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’
The Apostle Paul followed the same line as Jesus but allowed Gentiles to participate in the coming Kingdom. This is a view that probably would not have been supported by Jesus unless they became Jewish converts, as Peter later insisted. Paul knew, however, that circumcision would be a step too far for most gentiles and the church would probably not have long survived his death had this been the price to pay for faith.
Why did God not create his earthly kingdom when his Son expected? When will it happen? When Jesus comes on clouds, as Daniel foretold, to proclaim the kingdom will he be God announcing himself?
Do Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do they also believe Isaiah’s prophecy that the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David? If so, was Jesus descended from David through Joseph, as Luke has it? This would mean that Joseph was Jesus’ father and he cannot be if he is the Son of God and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Jesus, therefore, cannot be both the Messiah (Christ) and the Son of God.
If Jesus is the Son of God and God is omniscient did He foresee his own death? If yes, then Judas should be treated as a hero for playing such crucial part at great expense to himself. Also, Jesus must have engineered his own death if it were God’s plan for him to become the saviour of the world. Is this not suicide, which is a mortal sin according to the Church?
Pontius Pilate is portrayed in the Gospels as an essentially good man but weak and is exasperated by the demand of the Jewish Temple hierarchy for Jesus’ execution. This is not the Pontius Pilate we know from other sources. He was a ruthless and brutal governor with a track record of executing troublemakers and asking questions later. In fact, he was removed from office by the Emperor Tiberius in 36 AD because these unpleasant traits threatened to destabilise Judea. In any event the High Priest Caiaphas had no authority to demand execution except for blasphemy and, under Jewish law at the time Jesus was not guilty of this. Crucifixion was the normal Roman mode of execution for troublemakers (stoning was the usual Jewish punishment for blasphemy) and it is likely that Pontius Pilate wanted to send out a strong message to other potential agitators, particularly in the highly-charged atmosphere of an overcrowded Jerusalem at Passover.
There is a philosophical problem in proving the existence of God. As St Anselm suggested, God created the greatest thing we can possibly conceive and so He must be even greater than that. However, this must mean that He is literally inconceivable and so how can we possibly know that He exists.
Do Christians believe in the existence of the Holy Trinity as determined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (almost 300 years after the death of Jesus)? How can Jesus be his own father? How can three be one? What is God’s manifestation as father if His Son aspect is a human being and His spiritual being has no corporeal existence? Where is the mention of the Holy Trinity in the Bible?
Many Christians believe in the existence of Hell. Where is this mentioned in the Old Testament? How does this square with Sheol – is it the same place?
Jesus is often said to have died to save mankind and that He is our redeemer. What do these actually mean? What has He saved us from? What changed as a result of His death? What did he redeem us from? My dictionary defines ‘Redeem’ as to buy back or free from obligation. What has been bought back and from what obligation are we freed? Does it refer to Original Sin? If so, has it ceased to exist? Also, did not God afflict us with Original Sin in the first place?
The Christian God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent (all good). If there is wickedness in the world then He cannot be all three. Does Satan exist? Was Jesus really tempted by him? What about God’s deal with Satan in Job? Then how can God be omnipotent if Satan has the power to corrupt? If God created Satan to bring evil into the world then He cannot be benevolent.
Christianity is based on faith in that there is no room for doubt. Faith = certainty. This contradicts the Christian virtue of humility. Either Christians do not value humility or they have doubt about their beliefs but not both.
What is the nature of God? Does He have a body? Can a mind without a body really exist? What is ‘Mind?’ If it is a combination of intellect and will what purpose would it serve if it was disembodied?
Christianity in general firmly believes that God has entrusted us with the gift of free will. How free is free? Do we all have absolute freedom to behave as we wish or does genetic inheritance and upbringing play a role in limiting that freedom? (What is it the Jesuits say about giving them a child of seven and they will produce a devout believer for life?) If so, how can we be totally free?
Whether we suffer eternal salvation or torment depends on a number of factors, according to many Christians:
• Whether we have lived a sin-free life;
• Whether we have genuinely tried to exercise our gift of free will for the general good;
• Whether we believe in whichever sect’s interpretation of God.
To take each in turn, are any of us capable of living a sin-free life, particularly as we are cursed with original sin. It seems odd that God has afflicted us with a capacity for evil and then punishes us forever because we sometimes behave that way. Why so afflict us in the first place?
How are actions against intentions to be judged? If we genuinely try but fail to do the best, partly because of our limitations (presumably God given), does that count as good? If, on the other hand, we behave in a completely self-centred manner and unintentionally do good to others, how does that weigh in the scales of justice? So, if a person wants and tries to do good but cannot do other than harm does he rank higher than one who tries to serve only himself but inadvertently benefits the world? Why does God not make this clear?
How should we decide which interpretation of God to believe? Some sects are strict about belief and entry to Heaven. Why has God not been more explicit? If a person lives a sin-free life (or tries to) and yet has no faith will he be admitted to Heaven or is he condemned to eternal torment? Why does God demand absolute obedience and belief in Him if He has given us the freedom to choose? Why should He wish anybody to suffer torment if He is a benevolent God? Why did Jesus say that he loved sinners more than the righteous (presumably because they were more in need of his help) if they were to be excluded from Heaven in the final analysis unless they repented?
Is Christianity not based on a circular argument – we know the truth because the Bible tells us what the truth is; the Bible was written by divinely inspired human beings; we know they were divinely inspired because it says so in the Bible?
Science tries to base its enquiries on facts by building a premise on known phenomena and then developing an argument to form some possible hypotheses. Only when these have been tested over and over again to see if results predicted by the hypotheses actually occur will one (or none) of these become a theory. And still scientists are dissatisfied, knowing that theory is not truth, so they carry out more and more experiments in order to test the theory to destruction. When this has been accomplished, as happens to almost all theories eventually, one starts again to build a new one from a premise based on known facts.
Religion by contrast starts from a conclusion (a desired state) – a different one for each of the 22,000 Christian sects and churches, which is different again from Judaism and its variations, from Islam and from the Eastern faiths. It then tries to prove this conclusion through a highly selective pseudo-scientific approach, instillation of fear, force, the tempting prospect of some sort of immortality if one obeys the rules etc.
If a British Christian, let’s say, were born instead into a Muslim or Hindu family in India he would believe unquestioningly in that religion. How can Christianity, therefore, claim to be the absolute and unvarnished truth if truth depends on where one happens to be born?
Conclusion
Christianity is based on a dogma not finally agreed until long after the historical events on which it depends. Once that dogma had been agreed by a sufficiently powerful group alternative views were ruthlessly suppressed.
The God of the Old Testament is unpleasant – vindictive, jealous, angry, violent and vain.
Jesus was a historical figure – a devout Jew from a rural backwater who proclaimed, as did others around this time, an eschatological message and not that he was divine and formed one element of a Trinity.
Christianity is but one of many world religions and to say that they have access to the truth and that everybody else on the planet is misguided is arrogance.
A literalist view of the Bible is so obviously nonsense and blind to generations of historical scholarship, scientific discovery, and philosophical reasoning.
Christians (and all devoutly religious people) are temperamentally inclined to elevate their need for certainty above objective reasoning. This does not always apply to other aspects of their lives. It would appear to require a selective suppression of one’s critical faculties, which can be dangerous. It might be only a short step from this to enforcing one’s beliefs on others who have not yet seen the light. This we can see from the behaviour of so-called ‘Fundamentalist’ elements within Islam, as well as historically with Christianity.
Randolph Churchill’s comment on having just read the Bible from beginning to end to win a bet was, ‘God! God’s a sod.’
‘For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all that he condemns, or can say that he has examined to the bottom his own, or other men’s opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than to constrain others.’ John Locke.
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ Shakespeare (Hamlet).
SpaceP:
'I'd say that although we can't fully conceptualize , say , infinity we can identify its mathematical properties and be guided by the numbers . The question is does the universe really dance to a mathematical tune or can we only see the part of the universe that does ?'
A lot of physicists think that much of what we have so far uncovered is metaphor, including mathematical proofs. I am not so learned to be able to make a judgement but, of course, all language is a metaphor at one level.
Wolfram's view is that maths presents a very limited description of the world.
How do we solve the problems of dualism? Is it really a question of belief without evidence?
MartinRDB:
'if you are reading this, then of course! That's the point (see Russell's solipsism joke above).'
I would argue that it does not preclude an entirely subjective world. The joke is amusing but it does not mean that solipsism is impossible.
To go back to Descartes, when I dream I believe that there are lots of different characters doing all sorts of different things but when I wake up I find that they are all a product of my mind - solipsism with knobs on.
"If we do not want to admit this as objective reality we at least must concede that objective reality must contain something very much like it."
Why must we concede that ? Couldn't we say there is no such thing as objective reality ? Perhaps we are given our empirical beliefs by subjective forces entirely unknowable to us . This doesn't make sense , but the whole point is that just as atheism simply states that the reason there is something rather than nothing can be anything other than 'God' , the notion of objective reality is open to the same 'it's something else' attack .
boltonian :
I look forward to your response . I have been quiet on the God thread because 1) The more I think about God questions the less sense God questions make . I have rejected both atheism and a personal God , I'm not entirely sure we are capable of framing the right questions to find out what is there , let alone of obtaining meaningful answers . And 2) I have a killer hangover .
SpaceP:
See my initial response above.
You are absolved from all responsibility for the day given your second reason.
One of my great interests in life is fine wine - a wonderful but expensive hobby. Anyway, I am spending lots of time at the moment away in London and one evening a group of us working on the project and staying at the same hotel enjoyed a nice dinner with lots of wine before heading for the pub for a nightcap. Unfortunately, the nightcap was two hours and several pints of beer long - I reckoned it had been about 20 years since I had drunk that amount of alchohol. Not nice the next morning.
-------------
I hope a few from the 'God' thread will join us here - some very thoughtful and intelligent posts there. I keep trying to plug our site. I have passed the address around a few friends as well.
Boltonian,
You weren't kidding when you said you had some questions!
I'll be happy to engage on these. I am quite sure that I won't have answers to all of them, but I do believe there are good answers to many.
Given the time, are you content for me to do this bit by bit in the next few days or weeks?
Good blog. I like it.
HC
OK, Boltonian, I'll make a quick start on responding to your thoughtful questions, and then go to bed. I am writing as an evangelical Christian who by no means knows all the answers, but am convinced enough to try to present soe orthodox thoughts. As my shorthand, I am not going to qualify my thoughts with comments like "of course, you may not believe this" or whatever. That goes without saying.
"The Christian God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent (all good). If there is wickedness in the world then He cannot be all three."
What do you mean here? Omnipotent in what sense? The Bible makes clear that God cannot do everything (for example, He cannot tell a lie). A small distinction, perhaps, but worth making.
Your point is predicated on a single assumption, namely that God is fundamentally an interventionist. Where he sees wickedness, you seem to assert, He will strike it down. But this is not at all the Biblical account of God, which makes clear that (even in Eden) He allows informed choice, albeit with consequence, and that consequence may include separation from God.
"Does Satan exist? Was Jesus really tempted by him?"
The Bible says, emphatically, yes and yes. It is unhelpful to think of him as a red devil with a hot poker (the evocative image to the largely non-literate church, of course). On the latter, it's worth emphasising that the fact of being tempted is not the same as capitulating to temptation.
"What about God’s deal with Satan in Job? Then how can God be omnipotent if Satan has the power to corrupt? If God created Satan to bring evil into the world then He cannot be benevolent."
See above. Job 1 makes clear that Satan only acts with God's permission, so the two are in no way equivalent in power or status. God is the creator, Satan the creation.
God did not create Satan as the bringer of evil, but as an angel (I think an archangel) in charge of music in heaven (if you want refs I can provide them). The consequences of Satan's fall cannot be equated to a desire on the part of God to see that outcome realised.
Martin RDB and others have talked about God as an idea involving the 'supernatural" in this thread, and that is a subject which I think should be talked about a little more.
In my earlier post I referred to Hegel and Augustine as good places to start reading about theology, and they weren't picked at random. Augustine equates God with the platonic idea of "the good". Hegel discusses the Trinity as an extended metaphor for God (which we continue to accept on Augustine's terms) as transcendent, personal yet immanent, and discusses just what this means.
Derrida talks about religion as "good conduct" and that's an important idea too. The idea that there is some form of overarching good is the justification for this, and our ideas of God's nature shapes what "good conduct" will consist of. The church has one idea here, the other Abrahamic faiths have slightly different answers, but the answers of any of the three should be familiar to believers of the other two. The gospels also talk about "good conduct" a great deal; this is what loving your neighbour means, as many of the parables discuss. Others, in Luke, notably, cover the idea of form versus substance. Jesus is shown not to fetishise forms. When he has to choose between acting to save someone's life or remaining within the strict confines of the correct behaviour for the Sabbath he breaks the taboo about working on the Sabbath. This is a consistent theme, and I think it's a very important one.
I spoke earlier about the importance of understand what we meant by 'truth' and that is a very important idea. The writers of the Bible were not materialists, and did not accept the idea that 'truth meant something that one's senses could detect, any more than contemporary novelists would accept such a notion (so Heart of Darkness is a lot more than a ripping yarn about Africa). They frequently told stories whose purpose was to convey a moral position, they were not writing what people of this day and age would describe as 'history'. There are several authors who discuss this, and it would be helpful to look at the writing of Philo of Alexandria and Meister Eckhart as two obvious sources.
Philo of Alexandria was a jewish writer whose life began in the pre-Christian era and lasted until about 50 CE. Meister Eckhart taught at Paris in the 14th C (he occupied Aquinas' chair about 100 years after Aquinas).
So what do we mean by God? Augustine suggests that God is beyond our understanding, and so can't be contained by our miserable imaginations. God can't be a being; to claim this would be just such an attempt at confinement, and more alert readers may have noticed that I try to avoid using pronouns when I talk about God; English pronouns all have a flavour of "being" and also a flavour of "gender"; more confinement. What we are left with is a mystery and an urge to more than we have been. If the late 20th century has taught us nothing else, I think it has shown us that expediency is a dead end, and there are alternative ways to make sense of our lives.
HappyClappy and Johnr:
Welcome and thank you for your contributions.
HC: more than happy for you to do it bit by bit. I have a few more, by the way, but I thought we should start with these.
Have you read Bishop Colenso's critique of the Pentateuch and Joshua, by the way. If so, what do you think?
Boltonian
In your questions addressed to Happyclappy above, you said 'All[Christians] say that one must accept the whole message (of whatever version) and cannot take the bits one wishes and leave the rest'
If in 'the whole message' you include any of the 'commonly held tenets' which you list, I am not sure that this is true. The Christian sect with which I am best acquainted is the Society of Friends (Quakers), since my father was a Quaker (also, incidentally, a scientist) and my mother, originally Anglican, eventually joined them.
From their beginnings in the 17th century Quakers, while remaining Christ-centred, have never considered subscription to any precise definition of belief to be a test of faith, and have placed a good deal of emphasis on the transforming power of personal religious experience, moderated and disciplined by the consensus of the community (since not all such subjective experience is necessarily authentic or useful), and expressed in personal and communal conduct. It could, perhaps, be summarised as a form of practical mysticism.
God (as noted by Johnr above), is understood as being both transendental (beyond, and never to be fully defined or understood by finite human minds) and immanent (within the world/universe). Their understanding is, furthermore, that there is, and has always been, 'that of God' within everyone (not to be confused with what people generally understand by 'conscience'), and that Christ is the full and perfect manifestation of God working within and through mankind. The starting point of the religious journey is the discovery of the divine spark within oneself and its recognition within others, but the journey must be guided by the example and teaching of Jesus (insofar as it can be discerned in the writings of the NT, and by the spirit of Christ within the community.
This has led to a belief in continuing revelation, and the modern Quaker position is that the profound questions of meaning posed by religion must be continually rethought and re-expressed in the light of new knowledge and new experience. They have never been inclined to a literal reading of the Bible in all its parts, or to regard it as the final authority.
It is a liberal theology which has so far found no difficulty embracing the results of modern scientific enquiry or of 19th and 20th century Biblical criticism, with a presumption, of course, that there is a spiritual dimension to existence which reductionist science does not address.
Although I am agnostic, I find this open appproach and its practical expression particularly interesting and can see its attractions.
I am currently reading John Hick's 'The New Frontier of Religion and Science', in which he explores the various kinds of personal religious experience (all religions) in the light of modern neuroscience and the question of consciousness. At the outset he makes a clear distinction between, on the one hand, institutional forms of religion, which are cumulative developments influenced by social, cultural, historical and other factors and, on the other hand, mystical experience, which is purely personal. The first may be informed and given impetus for development by the second, but may be divisive and harmful in its expression as often as it is beneficial. The second is common to all major religions, theistic and non-theistic, and though it may be interpreted sometimes within the framework of specific belief systems, it also reveals much that is common to all.
elephantschild:
Perhaps I should have said all versions of Christianity that I am familiar with. I have discussed this issue with Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostalists, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians and what were formerly known as Congregationalists (United Reformed). I have not investigated all 22,000 Christian sects. Since I wrote this I have discovered that Unitarians are similarly undogmatic but these, I suggest, are the exceptions.
In fact, I discussed this very thing recently with a German Protestant friend of mine (who is also an industrial Chemist) and he was insistent that one had to to accept the whole message. Also, I am not sure how one can call oneself a Christian if one denies the divinity of Jesus.
Boltonian
It depends, I suppose, what is meant by ;the divinity of Jess. If it means literally the Son of God, virgin birth and all, or that he was literally God in human form, then I suspect that there are a good many people around (some theologians and Anglican bishops included) who continue to regard themselves as Christians without subscribing to those particular interpretations.
As I understand it, the Quaker view seems to allow for a different interpretation without displacing Christ from a central position in their faith, but maybe I have not explained it very well.
elephantschild:
If Quakers refer to Jesus as 'Christ' at the very least they believe him to be the Messiah. Jesus might or might not have thought himself the Messiah but Christians must believe that he truly is, otherwise they cannot be Christians. I know that not all Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God (not least because of the contradiction of His being both), although all mainstream churches do. But to be a Christian one has to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and lived as the Gospels say he did (despite the contradictions therein).
That level of doctrinal conformity is not so with Therevada Buddhism. It is not even necessary to accept that Gautama lived the life tradition suggests he did to be Buddhist (or even that he existed at all). It is simply not a core element of their belief system. I have never come across the concept of heresy in Therevada Buddhism (the branch I know most about).
Some Buddhists believe in God, others do not. Most, I suspect, are agnostic.
Boltonian
I take your point, although I have never heard or read any Quaker use the word 'Messiah' and, as I indicated, they do not go in for dogma or doctrinal definitions. I guess that if you were to ask any group of Quakers what they meant by the term 'Christ', you might get a variety of different answers, none of which would necessarily correspond to what the early gentile converts or their successors understood by it.
Since I am not a Quaker, I am not in the best position to act as apologist for their beliefs, so the best that I can do is to quote from a book written by one who was - 'Approach to Quakerism' by Edward B Castle.
'With a bold leap through centuries of controversy as to how the Divine Godhead could exist in the man Jesus, early Friends declared that they knew, because they had experienced how the divine Light lived and worked in their own consciousness. The difference between Christ and themselves was the difference between the absolute and the relative. They had experienced a measure of the Spirit working in themselves and in other men, but to Christ, God had given Spririt without measure.... The Word, the Light of Christ, comes from the eternal God who works through men in history.'
That said, my father once remarked that many Attenders (i.e. those not admitted to full membership of the Society of Friends), and probably some Members, also, might best be described as agnostic, but evidently found something of great value in their participation in Quaker Meetings. Quakerism is a very broad 'church'
Hello, Biskieboo here.
This is the only question I am going to attempt to comment on for the moment.
"Why did Jesus say that he loved sinners more than the righteous (presumably because they were more in need of his help) if they were to be excluded from Heaven in the final analysis unless they repented?"
My interpretation is that Jesus was saying that the righteous actually had a lot more work to do than the "sinners". We are all sinners, and the righteous are too short-sighted to realise that they are included in this category. It is much better to be starting from a position knowing that you have some work to do, than thinking that you are already there when you are not (if you see what I mean?).
I often say to people "if the sinners didn't go to church then there would be nobody there" and that includes the minister/vicar.
Nobody is going to go to heaven if you have had to have lived a sin-free life. We all sin. The difference is that believers (should) try to look out for their own sinning, try to limit it as much as they are able, and ask for forgiveness when they have sinned.
That's it from me for now.
Good morning, Biskieboo, and welcome.
Thank you for your post and I hope you will continue to contribute.
I will respond soon - I hope others will too, especially as the 'God' thread will soon close.
elephantschild:
My quick response is that I thought Christos was the Greek (Koine) for 'Messiah' and that the two terms were interchangeable. Also, that Messiah means what the Jewish scriptures (see Isaiah, in particular) says it means. If Christ does not mean this what does it mean?
I know that people who are agnostic get something out of religion. Some accept the values but not the metaphysics. My point is that this is not policy and certainly not encouraged (perhaps certain branches are becoming less dogmatic with falling attendances). You hint that Quakers also make this distinction, however benignly, by dividing Attenders from Members.
In response to Spacepenguin, “Why must we concede that? (that objective reality must contain something very much like the scientific picture) Couldn't we say there is no such thing as objective reality? Perhaps we are given our empirical beliefs by subjective forces entirely unknowable to us. This doesn't make sense, but the whole point is that just as atheism simply states that the reason there is something rather than nothing can be anything other than 'God', the notion of objective reality is open to the same 'it's something else' attack”.
You are right that it doesn’t make sense; I understand that Leibnitz may have had a similar theory (we are all like clocks ticking in coordination with each other – I think this may be called occasionalism – but my knowledge is second or third hand), but in order to coordinate everything he had to depend on a supernatural force. Such views do illustrate the convolutions that are required to suggest that there is no objective reality. If there is no objective reality and you are not the only one, the relationship of you to whatever else becomes arbitrary.
My thesis does depend on the argument of the contradiction of a private language, which, in the solipsistic case, I think is a very strong argument.
I would be interested if some of you, who have a more professional interest in this, might wish to discuss the validity of the private language argument.
Use of language, communication, breaks out of the subjective bubble and implies an external reality. I could not possibly claim that Science reveals all of objective reality, but it engages with objective reality (or the thing in itself) and so provides us with a model for at the very least an aspect of that which we cannot know directly.
boltonian :
"A lot of physicists think that much of what we have so far uncovered is metaphor, including mathematical proofs. I am not so learned to be able to make a judgement but, of course, all language is a metaphor at one level."
In blunt terms what we have uncovered so far is partially successful though , probably necessarily , incomplete explainitory models for what makes our sensory equipment go ping . I'm not a fan of positivism , but in scientific terms that is all we can say about the scientific method . In other words I think physics is metaphor all the way down .
"Wolfram's view is that maths presents a very limited description of the world."
I'm not familiar with Wolfram's work , but looking at the reviews it seems more that he believes the notion of rigorous proof is limiting . His use of cellular automata to explain the world is mathematical . As a side note I think the title of one review sums up my initial reaction : "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity"
"How do we solve the problems of dualism? Is it really a question of belief without evidence?"
I would say some form of dualism , dual aspect monism say , is supportable on purely philosophical grounds The case for interactionist dualism , in my view , isn't strong enough on philosophical grounds alone (the cons outweigh the pros) . I think the evidence from parapsychology is required to make the case . Of course parapsychology is controversial in its own right .
MartinRDB :
"My thesis does depend on the argument of the contradiction of a private language, which, in the solipsistic case, I think is a very strong argument."
I think the private language argument , if true , implies that if the universe is entirely subjective there can be only one subjective experiencer or that what we subjectively believe is not freely chosen . This however implies an underlying set of rules for meshing individual experience together that could be called objective reality .
Boltonian
Agreed that Christos is the translation of 'Messiah' in the koine, although whether the original gentile converts unfamiliar with Jewish eschatology always understood the concept in quite the same way as their Jewish contemporaries is perhaps open to question. I woud argue that there began, in any case, to be a divergence once it became clear that the Kingdom of God might not be arriving in the near future and that perhaps the nature of the Kingdom might have to be reconsidered ('My kingdom is not of this world'?). Ideas about the nature of Christ have developed over time, and Quakers have never felt the need to confine themselves to definitions derived from the NT or the Council of Nicaea, or as propounded at any other historical point in time. Yesterday I was talking to a neighbour who is a Quaker and took the opportunity to ask whether Quakers necessarily regarded Jesus as the Messiah. Her answer was, as I expected, an emphatic 'no'. She also confirmed that there are Quakers who regard themselves as agnostic, or whose beliefs might best be described as non-theistic.
The fundamental approach of Quakerism, as I understand it, is that there is a spiritual dimension to existence which is both internal (the 'Inner Light', or 'that of God in everone') and external, and that this Spirit, cultivated and consulted individually and collectively, is what informs and guides all aspects of the life of a Quaker. To quote from 'Quaker Faith and Practice' (1994): 'As Friends we commit ourselves to a way of worship which allows Good to teach and transform us. We have found corporately that the Spirit, if rightly followed, will lead into truth, unity and love: all our testimonies grow from this teaching.' For historical reasons, if nothing else, Quakerism is a broadly Christian movement and draws on the teachings of Jesus as transmitted in the NT, but - 'Friends maintain that expressions of faith must be related to personal experience. Some may find Christian language full of meaning: some do not. Our understanding of our own religious tradition may sometimes be enhanced by insights of other faiths. The deeper realities of our faith are beyond verbal formulation and our way of worship based on silent waiting testifies to this' (ibid.) As regards the Quaker understanding of the meaning of 'Christ', this is a matter for the individual. At a guess there are many today who would see a clear distinction between Jesus the man and teacher, and Christ as a mythical paradigm of the Spirit working in and through man.
As regards the distinction between Attenders and Members, I think you are reading too much into this. 'Member' means member of a Monthly Meeting - the larger assembly of local Meetings within a given district which deliberates and makes decisions on administrative and other affairs of the church. (There are also Quarterly and Yearly Meetings which consider these matters on a national and international level, and a Meeting for Sufferings, set up originaly to support members and their families who were subject to persecution for their faith, which is now a standing body of representatives acting, in a sense, as the executive branch of the Society. Details of the way in which these operate are given in 'Quaker Faith and Practice' - they are egalitarian and somewhat idiosyncratic in their procedures.) Membership requires only a sincerity of purpose and commitment to Quaker values and practics, but implies also an acceptance of certain responsibilities, including responsibility to participate in meetings for church affairs, willingness to serve in verious regional and national groups, shared pastoral responsibility, and some degree of financial commitment, according to means.
An Attender is someone who attends a particular meeting frequently and is registered as doing so, but who has not (or not yet), for whatever reason, applied for membership.
Within Meetings for Worship there is no hierarchy: all are equal, Members, Attenders, young and old, highly educated or otherwise, and anyone may speak if they feel moved or prompted to do so. Such 'ministry' may consist of personal testimony or insight or questions, and is generally brief (lengthy discourse is not encouraged).
Any individual aged 16 or over may apply for membership to the Monthly Meeting. Under the present system, the Meeting then appoints two Friends to visit the applicant and, following this, the visitors will then report back to the Meeting, which will make the decision collectively. To quote again:
'As a part of a spiritual journey on the part of the person applying, the visit should be a sensitive exchange of thought between seekers: it should provide an opportunity for, and result in, mutual understanding and enrichment. It should not, however, be undertaken in the spirit of examination'
'The visitors should seek to help the applicant towards a fuller understanding of Quaker faith and practice and the implications of membership, where this is needed. They should ensure that the applicant understands the nature of Quaker worship as a corporate waiting on God, where inspiration and guidance may be received. The applicant should understand why we dispense with outward forms, and should have considered seriously whether worship without them will be spiritually satisfying. Visitors will make it clear that the Society is essentially Christian in its inspiration, although it asks for no specific affirmation of faith and understands Christianity primarily in terms of discipleship.'
'Our theology and practice are inseperable, and the visitors will need to find out how far the desire for memebership arises from a clear understanding of this rather than from an appreciation of some particular aspect of our practice, such as our social witness, our peace testimony, or our mostly silent worship.'
However -
'Complete agreement with all our testimonies is not necessary.'
**************
Inicidentally, apropos Buddhism, my neighbour mentioned that she knows some Quakers who are also Buddhists. It is not in any way an exclusive faith.
correction of misquote in second para.
'Some find Christian language ...' should read 'Some find traditional Christian language full of meaning: some do not'
Apoologies for various other typos.
SpaceP and Martin RDB:
Here are a few thoughts.
Schopenhauer thought that the entire cosmos (including us) was one'Thing' - the blind will to exist.
Now, if bosons and fermions are interchangeable - Smolin thinks we will have answers to this and much more in the very near future - and things like non-locality and the wave function bear any resemblance to reality why is this not possible? Why should everything be discrete? This is also the Spinoza position (sort of).
Consciousness might be nothing more than one position in time and space for the purpose of observing the universe (which might be required for it to exist at all, except as a potentiality). This comes back to whoever said earlier in the thread that existence is purely in the moment.
I admit that this leads towards solipsism but then we cannot say that this is not our position.
BTW Smolin also suggests (not finished the book yet) that time does not really exist and this will be proved one way or t'other withing the next few years.
Elephantschild:
Many thanks for the Quaker information. Very interesting, especially the undogmatic approach. It seems, from what you say, that it is almost non-Christian - merely using the Jesus of the Gospels as way or articulating their values.
HappyClappy:
Thanks for this.
God not omnipotent? What is your source?
God intervenes all the time - the sun stands still for Joshua, the ram in the thicket that saved Isaac, manna from heaven, the tablets of stone, the miracles of Jesus etc etc.
God created Satan and then had a wager with him about the behaviour of Job following a series of what I can only think of as tortures inflicted by God. Very strange.
Biskieboo:
Many thanks.
Isn't this saying that sinners will be more highly rewarded than the righteous? I was trying to ascertain the entry requirements for Heaven. Is it belief in God or good behaviour? Or even the results of our behaviours, whatever our motivations?
Of course I should have mentioned entanglement in my second full para.
Boltonian
'....it is almost non-Christian - merely using the Jesus of the Gospels as a way of articulating their values'
That seems to me a somewhat reductive interpretation of the complexity I was trying to convey, although it would be one of many positions which Quakerism can accommodate.
BTW It was probably obvious from the context, but perhaps I should have stated when I wrote '...Christ as a mythical paradigm ...' that I meant 'mythical' in the Platonic sense.
PS Thanks for putting me on to 'The Trouble with Physics'. I have not started reading it yet - it will have to join the queue - but it looks most interesting.
boltonian :
"Schopenhauer thought that the entire cosmos (including us) was one'Thing' - the blind will to exist.
Now, if bosons and fermions are interchangeable - Smolin thinks we will have answers to this and much more in the very near future - and things like non-locality and the wave function bear any resemblance to reality why is this not possible? Why should everything be discrete? This is also the Spinoza position (sort of)."
QM is discrete . Trying to find a way to make space time discrete occupies a lot of physicists . Wolfram's CA ideas are about as discrete as you get . Lots of discrete things in an entangled state are still discrete .
"Consciousness might be nothing more than one position in time and space for the purpose of observing the universe (which might be required for it to exist at all, except as a potentiality). This comes back to whoever said earlier in the thread that existence is purely in the moment."
That's almost as abstract a notion of consciousness as dualism . If the brain is the substrate of consciousness , then consciousness must be many points in time and space throughout the brain .
Elephantschild:
Many thanks.
Yes, I was just trying to explore some sort of guiding principle and coming up with a gross oversimplification. I accept that people do things for very different reasons. In the 'Mainstream' churches it is at least easier to articulate what the congregation SHOULD be there for and what they ought to believe (not all do, of course). Quakerism seems almost like Buddhism in that there is no cast-iron doctrine that one must subscribe to - it is much more about how one lives one's life.
SpaceP:
I was really just playing about with ideas - I do not have a fully worked out metaphysical hypothesis.
I just think that we are miles away from any sort of understanding of either reality or consciousness. Duality does not do it for me but I don't really have an alternative. Perhaps if I live long enough to see a robotic brain built from scratch we might get some sort of answer - even a negative one that the brain is not consciousness.
The first half of Smolin's book is a bit depressing but it is starting to warm up a little as he begins to discuss positives rather than the inadequacies of string theory.
If spacetime comprises discrete 'Thingies' what are the units and what are their properties? Does spacetime really exist? Or is it a useful concept to get us further down the road, like Newtonian aether,and we can discard it when something better comes along?
Hi Biskieboo here again. Here's a short reply to this:
"Isn't this saying that sinners will be more highly rewarded than the righteous? I was trying to ascertain the entry requirements for Heaven. Is it belief in God or good behaviour? Or even the results of our behaviours, whatever our motivations?"
Matthew Ch7 v21-23 makes it clear that only by obeying God can one get into heaven. It is NOT enough to claim Jesus as your lord. Good deeds are not enough either (Ephesians ch2v8).
I think this actually sounds pretty fair. You can't just say you are a Christian and then behave badly and still expect to go to heaven. And you can't just do good deeds and expect it either. Some people are not able to do good deeds eg someone who is severely physically disabled, but they are not excluded from going to heaven.
I would like to think that it is what is in peoples' hearts that is the crux of the matter; the striving to do what is right.
Two other points:
Jesus said he did not come to invite good people to be his followers, but came to invite sinners (Mark ch2 v17). I know I am a sinner so he is talking about me.
He also said that "anyone who isn't against us is for us" (Mark Ch9 v40) which I think is pretty cool.
I'm sure the next question you will be wanting to ask is "how do we know we are obeying God" so I'll start thinking about that one now........
Hi Biskieboo
I am not sure I have any fellow feeling with a god, despite apparently being made in His image, who demands obedience from me and then fails utterly to make clear what this might mean.
'It is easier for a camel etc.....'
'To him that hath, more shall be given.'
In fact, I would not warm to a god who demands obedience (and adoration), even if it were made clear what it entails, especially when he has given me the free will to choose. I guess this means I am doomed.
Also, who says what are good deeds? They vary from generation to generation and from place to place. Is it the motivation or the outcome that is most important?
As Nietzsche did not quite put it - at the centre of Christainity sits a big, fat lie; the meek have not inherited the earth - it is merely jam tomorrow and business as usual.
What do others think?
Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Reflections on Stephen Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science'
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0464.html
pttp:
Great links. I have skimmed them but need to spend a little time trying to absorb the science.
Perhaps SpaceP or Krapotkin, whenever he returns from his Siberian exile, might be better qualified to comment than me.
I must get round to reading 'Singularity' but I have so much on my list - half-read and not begun - that it might be a while.
Hello Boltonian,
Actually God does not "demand" anything as far as I can see.
Surely a God who has given us free will is expressly NOT demanding obedience and worship, but leaving it up to us whether we do so or not?
Maybe you were lucky enough to have been raised by parents who gave you clear boundaries and good moral guidance. For someone such as myself who was not, I have had to explore these issues for myself and I've made a fair amount of blunders along the way.
I find the moral guidance in the new testament very clear, and the ten commandments an excellent set of rules to try to live up to.
Doing good deeds is a decidedly tricky area. I don't go out of my way to purposely "do good deeds" for individuals as I do not know if the particular deed in question is actually "good" in the sense that I do not know if it is the *best* thing for the individual I might be doing the deed for.
For me, my faith is much more about self-development than going around "doing good". That is not to say that I do not involve myself with issues and campaigns that I feel do "collective good", but even here you have to be very careful.
I don't know what other believers think on this issue, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.
It is very dangerous territory when one person thinks that they know what is best for another. I'd rather leave that up to God.
boltonian :
"I just think that we are miles away from any sort of understanding of either reality or consciousness. Duality does not do it for me but I don't really have an alternative."
I think a full and complete scientific understanding of reality or consciousness may be impossible . There seems to be , I think , a conceptual problem with consciousness and , say , the origin of the universe that goes beyond methodology .
Dualism of some kind , not necessarily interactionist dualism but property dualism or epiphenomenalism say , is still , in a naturalistic framework , popular with philosophers of mind . The basic problem is that a thought seems to be a different type of thing from the neural firing that correlates with that thought .
"Perhaps if I live long enough to see a robotic brain built from scratch we might get some sort of answer - even a negative one that the brain is not consciousness."
How could you test a robot for consciousness as we understand what the word means ? If you poke around Kurzweil's site that pttp linked to there is a debate about just that subject between Kurzweil and a computer science professor from Yale .
"The first half of Smolin's book is a bit depressing but it is starting to warm up a little as he begins to discuss positives rather than the inadequacies of string theory."
But bashing string theory is fun !
"If spacetime comprises discrete 'Thingies' what are the units and what are their properties? Does spacetime really exist? Or is it a useful concept to get us further down the road, like Newtonian aether,and we can discard it when something better comes along?"
There is some debate about this . Is space time fundamental , or is it emergent from the behavior of matter . I'm not sure that asking if space time 'exists' is a useful scientific question , the question is does it do useful explanatory work ? I find I become more positivist the more abstract things get in physics .
Regarding the links pttp dropped ..
The simulation argument is an interesting one , I think you know it quite well . There is a link to the paper that kicked off , as far as I can tell , the mainstream speculation .
The Wolfram review pretty much confirms what I thought when I first saw the idea of a CA universe . Interesting , but probably wrong .
Good morning, Biskieboo (Great name, by the way)
You said this on a previous post:
'Matthew Ch7 v21-23 makes it clear that only by obeying God can one get into heaven.'
In fact, if there is one theme running through the scriptures it is that God does demand obedience and worship. Fear of God is probably the most common sentiment, at least in the Old Testament. Just one example from Judges (10, 7),
'And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of the Philistines...' and this for daring not to worship Him.
SpaceP and everybody:
How would we know our robot had consciousness? We wouldn't; in the same way that we don't know whether animals have. We can carry out experiments that would help us make assumptions but no more than that. But, doesn't that road lead to solipsism? I don't even know that my wife, for example, has an independent existence outside my mind because everything I know about the world comes to me through that channel.
Perhaps there is a fundamental reason why our attempts to establish any sort of handle on objective reality is doomed. Perhaps because we cannot break out of our subjectivity or that our brain is too restrictive or for some other, deeper reason. Perhaps like the 'Game over' scenario from Elephantschild earlier.
I have not read Wlfram's stuff either, except waht other have written. I am not competent to judge whether CA is useful or a chimera.
I will revisit the sites pttp gave us and play around when I have some time - it looks fascinating.
Thoughts are very interesting. Of what are they made? Where do they go? Are they material? If they stay within the brain then does that not point to a solipsistic monism?
"How would we know our robot had consciousness? We wouldn't; in the same way that we don't know whether animals have. We can carry out experiments that would help us make assumptions but no more than that. But, doesn't that road lead to solipsism? I don't even know that my wife, for example, has an independent existence outside my mind because everything I know about the world comes to me through that channel."
I suppose the difference is that our knowledge of our own consciousness leads us to think that other people , and some animals , also have that subjective experience . If we build a robot to test if a robot can be consciousness we first have to find a way to detect consciousness itself , not just the neural correlates . I can't see how any test could do that .
"Perhaps there is a fundamental reason why our attempts to establish any sort of handle on objective reality is doomed. Perhaps because we cannot break out of our subjectivity or that our brain is too restrictive or for some other, deeper reason. Perhaps like the 'Game over' scenario from Elephantschild earlier."
This sounds like mysterianism . You may be right , or perhaps the scientific method falls at the last hurdle and the meditators and mystics are closer to reality .
"Thoughts are very interesting. Of what are they made? Where do they go? Are they material? If they stay within the brain then does that not point to a solipsistic monism?"
The information processing in the brain is clearly , in my view , material . It is that extra thing , the subjective awareness of thoughts , that seem to be of a different order of being .
Is a thought and its neural correlate the same thing ? If not then thoughts have no spacial extension and therefore cannot be material . That would point to a dualism of some kind .
Hello again.
A lot of people tie themselves up in knots when they look at the old testament. I tend to look at certain parts of the old testament as a history of where and why it all went wrong. Jesus had to come and try to sort it all out again so it obviously wasn't all going to plan. Mostly because people weren't doing what God through Moses had said they should be (ten commandments).
When I tell my son something eg "knives are sharp and you shouldn't touch them" and then he goes and cuts his finger on one because he hasn't listened, I tend to be cross with him. I'm telling him stuff that is for his own good, not mine, but I still get cross. It doesn't mean that I don't love him.
The passage you refer to is an interesting one. God had rescued the Israelites from the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, the Amalekites, and the Maonites, phew!
No wonder He is then a bit peeved when they then start worshipping other Gods!
Spacepenguin, Boltonian and everyone:
Consciousness: I am playing catch-up here, and some of the information I am playing around with is only half digested but, for what it is worth, I am with Spacepenguin in thinking that consciousness is not reducible to purely physical brain activity. Neuroscientists tend to be materialists and to look for a physical explanation, but if they reason that because there is a clearly observed correlation between neural activity and conscious states the two are therefore essentially the same, they are ignoring a logical gap: correlation does not prove identity. Epiphenomenalism, whatever form it takes, seems to be just a way of fudging round the issue, and still leaves a problem. If consciousness is, so to speak, just a side effect of neural activity in the brain, what purpose does it serve? If it has no executive function independent of neural activity, no power to affect behaviour via the brain, it is functionless, so why did it ever evolve? (the question I posed earlier). None of the suggested explanations I have seen seem to provide a satisfactory answer, and there does not appear to be any way in which physical brain states and conscious mental states can be demonstrated experimentally to be simply attributes of the same 'thing'. Earlier on I referred to the hypothesis that consciousness might be explicable in terms of quantum coherence. I tracked this down to Roger Penrose, but does anyone have any further information?
Some would argue that there is, in fact, observational evidence for consciousness having a function, in that conscious mental activity seems to be able to effect alterations in the structure of the brain - in meditating Buddhist monks, for example, or London cab drivers learning 'The Knowledge'. It suggests a two-way interaction, at least, although some might argue that it is a 'chicken or egg' situation.
Dualism points to the possibility of free will. Libet seems to have concluded as much as a result of his experiments (although I gather that his results have not been replicated and there has been criticism of his methodology). He has written that 'Potentially available to the conscious function is the possibility of stopping or vetoing the final progress of the volitional process, so that no actual muscle action ensues. Consciousness would thus affect the outcome of the volitional process, even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral process.' and that 'The conscious veto is a control process different from simply becoming aware of the wish to act...There is no experimental evidence against the possibility that the control function may appear without development by prior unconscious process.' His experiments, of course, related only to a minor physical action.
BTW Having read a bit more n the subject, I realise that I may have been misinterpreting the compatabilist position. I am perhaps closer to the position of Hans Kung - '..within the limits of what is conditioned and what is inate I am free' to which I would add '..and the limits of choice which any given circumstance presents'.
*****************
Consciousness, subjectivity and solipsism: I don't buy solipsism, if only because, if followed through to a conclusion, it seems to lead to a reductio ad absurdum. The key here is language, as Martin pointed out. Animals - the higher mammal, at least- do appear to have a form of consciousness, in that they behave as if aware of themselves as distinct from other animals, and communicate to a limited degree with others of their own species by means of body language, smell, a limited range of sounds etc. (cats and dogs kept as pets relate to their human owners as if to members of their own species). The higher primates may have a greater degree self awareness (chimps are apparently able to recognize themselves in a mirror), but human consciousness is, as far as we know, unique, in that language enables us to articulate abstract ideas and therefore to observe ourselves thinking - to be aware of being conscious. Language and human consciousness are, in fact, inextricably interrelated; neither is possible without the other. And with language I can communicate and receive ideas and thoughts, even if these are compromised in the transmission by subjectivity, and can establish that the beings with whom I share similar physical attributes and who react in the same way as myself to the same stimuli, appear also to possess the same kind of consciousness and to have more or less the same perception of the world
Thoughts and ideas which 'I' receive my means of language can modify or alter the way I think or perceive things, and thoughts which I transmit in the same way sometimes appear to modify the thinking and ideas of these 'others'. For example, I am interested in theoretical physics and cosmology, and although I have difficulty in conceptualising some of the ideas involved, most of what I read on the subject seems to make sense. But all these ideas originate with others; I would be quite incapable of producing them myself, because I am incapable of the reasoning necessary to formulate them (if there is a mathematical equivalent of dyslexia, I have it, and never got beyond a GCE 'O' level in the subject). If I exist in a virtual reality, then the 'others' who transmit the information might simply be constructs without consciousness, programmed for some reason to do this, but the simpler option - that they do have an independent, conscious existence - seems a more rational assumption, even if I cannot prove objectively that this is so (and even if they and I are part of a simulated universe).
************************
Spacepenguin said that '...perhaps meditators and mystics are closer to reality'. This is a subject which I would be interested in pursuing further, if anyone has any ideas.
biskieboo:
Have you read Bishop Colenso's criticism of the Pentateuch and Joshua? This demonstrates quite clearly the incoherence of those books.
'No wonder He is then a bit peeved when they then start worshipping other Gods!'
God is not supposed to be peeved - he is perfect and benevolent and, therefore, incapable of these human characteristics (allegedly). Now, impatience is a human weakness and to impute that to God is anthropomorphism. And that is the whole point. God is very human - angry, jealous, loving, generous, dictatorial, etc because He was created by us. That is why His nature is different in Judges than He is in Daniel (composed much later). The God in Joshua is barely recognisable as the same being in John.
SpaceP, Elephantschild and others:
Consciousness might simply be a by product of a large brain, which in itself could be a by product of bi-pedalism. It has obviously conferred some benefit, otherwise we might have lost it (although we have not been around that long) but perhaps not the competitive advantage that we think.
I am not sure that language and consciousness are interdependent. We know of lots of creatures with highly developed language characteristics yet we have no proof that they are capable of conscious thought. We have a great capacity for anthropomorphism and most of the experiments that I have read about (I am not an expert in this field) are guilty of rather loose interpretation of the results.
Solipsism, subjectivity and the nature of consciousness.
Solipsism is a reductio ad absurdum but that does not make it impossible and language does not get you out of it because everything comes to you through one's own brain. Having said that I think it unlikely but it is difficult (for me) to prove.
Subjectivity, though, we cannot escape. It is only by making assumptions about others we can make any sense of the world. That is why when somebody behaves so unlike us, like the recent Virginia Tech tragedy, that it is so shocking. More so than hundreds of deaths in Iraq each week - we can at least rationalise that and put ourselves into that position.
I have not yet encountered a theory of consciousness that does not have enormous holes - and that includes duality and epiphenomenalism.
Hans Kung - I would like to say something about him at some stage but I have run out of time. His quote might not leave much room for free will, though.
Anyway - good stuff. Any other views?
Elephantschild :
I agree that epiphenomenalism doesn't make much sense in a materialistic monism framework ,
but I don't think consciousness can be made sense of in such a context . Mysterians like Robert Wright and Stephen Pinker basically just declare the whole matter to be unknowable to science . Pinker's view is that we evolved brains to answer wholly different types of questions .
Penrose's Orch-OR theory of consciousness , I think it is called , is not widely accepted .
There are problems with decoherence in the brain and a few other things as well . He developed his theory because he thought that the mind is not computable , as we can intuit
certain mathematical truths without proof . This is not a widely held view . In any case , I'm not aware of his theory having anything helpful to say about qualia .
I like that Hans Kung quote although , again , under naturalism there is only what is innate
and what is conditioned . There is nothing else .
"If I exist in a virtual reality, then the 'others' who transmit the information might simply be constructs without consciousness, programmed for some reason to do this, but the simpler option - that they do have an independent, conscious existence - seems a more rational assumption, even if I cannot prove objectively that this is so (and even if they and I are part of a simulated universe)."
Perhaps we are all constructs who are programmed to think we are conscious ? Or is thinking you are conscious what consciousness is ?
I don't think the language argument undermines strong solipsism . If everything is a figment of your imagination then the notion of acquiring information is illusionary . You could already know everything you think you are learning from someone . You just don't know it .
Its gone very quiet.
Does anybody have a response or thought.
I will give a synopsis of Lee Smolin's latest when I have finished it.
Apologies for the silence. There have been too many other things demanding my attention over the weekend.
Boltonian:
'I am not sure that language and consciousness are interdependent. We know of lots of creatures with highly developed language characteristics yet we have no proof that they are capable of conscious thought.'
It depends, I suppose, on how you define consciousness.
see http.//plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
It may be that there are degrees of consciousness. Some animals do, indeed, display evidence of well developed language characteristics, but nothing which has been observed suggests that these languages, in whatever form, are applied to anything other than what is immediate and present.
My point was that, as far as we can tell, only humans have developed a highly complex, abstract, symbolic language capable of articulating and communicating what is abstract (not present) and formulating complex ideas. I would argue that it is this ability which enables what I, at least, understand by human consciousness - the ability to be aware of and to monitor our own thought processes; to think about thinking and attribute the same capacity to others. Many animals may be self-aware and have some form of access consciousness (the ability to form mental representations) without being self-conscious in the same way, or having any 'theory of mind', since their capacity for language (probably) would not permit abstract thought to the same degree.
Human consciusness and the capacity for complex language may both be products of a large brain, and the development of both is likely to have been enabled by bipedalism. The ability to produce the range of vocal sounds necessary for human speech is the result of the larynx moving further down the throat - not possible in quadripedal apes. (Although other forms of complex language might be possible - in squid like creatures with chromatophores, for example.)
Spacepenguin
'If everthing is a figment of your imagination, then the notion of acquiring information is illusionary. You could already know everthything you think you are learning from someone. You just don't know it.'
In that case, would it follow that the limited brain (nowhere near the size of a planet) and the equally limited mind which I imagine that I have are part of something greater of which I am not directly aware. Could I be, in fact, the god of my own universe?
I have not had enough time to put together a long response, but the point about the language argument is not so much that it take the individual out of solipsism, one of my main points is to try to establish some distance from the individual, but the language argument does firmly remove the discussion outside solipsism; in fact there is no discussion within solipsism, there is no time and there is no memory and language signifies nothing.
Yes of course the attempt to establish some distance from the individual is ultimately unrealisable; which is why there is always some margin of error in our objectified knowledge (knowledge that includes science); nevertheless this is what we must try to do if we wish to understand the material objective world (as I said before acts of communication are assertions of the reality of an objective, individual independent world).
Solipsism, according to my argument, is only possible if it is not expressed, because the act of its expressed communication is a denial of the idea. The reductio ad absurdum aspect is, to me, beside the point. Solipsism is a useful concept in the analysis of metaphysical concepts. I would contend that religious ideas, freewill and spiritual dualism are solipsistic concepts which necessarily defy rational discussion. By all means we may have these ideas as individuals, but expression of these ideas creates a form of nonsense.
Consciousness obviously belongs to the individual or personal perspective, but it is very tempting to feel that it ought to have some objective meaning. However, apart from describing it as a form of awareness, it is not easy to pin down. Discussion of the conscious and he unconscious often appears to imply that there is a clear cut distinction, but expressions such as 'very conscious' 'acutely conscious' and 'dimly conscious' suggest this is not so. Am I alone in finding that a conscious failure to find a solution to a question or problem is often followed by an unconscious success, when the solution seems to come to me à propos of nothing? On the other hand the communicated consciousness is self evident, but not the same thing, so this leads me to conclude that personal consciousness is inherently inaccessible.
Some general comments are nevertheless possible: when we see an object, the brain processes information from retinal rod and cone cells and creates a representation of the object, which we take as synonymous with the object itself; nevertheless the representation exists only in the brain, but at least enables us to say we are conscious of the object. In actual fact it is not difficult to demonstrate that the brain supplies missing data using memory and other parallel data to complete the picture. For example the blind spot automatically 'sees' the background colour that it cannot detect and in dim light we interpret colours that we are in fact not capable of detecting. There are parallels in other senses, all of which creates more questions than answers about the conscious/unconscious divide. To put this another way: our unconscious is responsible for much of which we assume to be conscious. I think this means that the concept of the conscious is less helpful than at first it seems to be.
Elephantschild and Martin:
Thanks. I have had a quick look at your link, E, and will read it more throughly later today.
I would like to digest your posts and compile a response either later today or tomorrow.
Meanwhile I hope others will join in too.
I wonder if we could entice GrandOldMan from CiF to contribute.
Biskieboo, HappyClappy - any thoughts on my replies to your posts?
Hi folks.
Boltonian-
Yes, OK point taken, God should not get cross because He is indeed perfect. God is love.
I think that we (people) actually project all those other characteristics onto God. God must be constant, He must always be love.
The Israelites interpret God's actions as anger. This doesn't mean that it actually was. You could interpret His action's as loving if looked at from another perspective.
I'm thinking of times when a little "tough love" is required (to borrow the American phrase).
Take for example a mother of a heroin addict. Which is the more loving action which she could take to help her son with his addiction -
1) give him enough money to always be able to buy enough heroin
2) refuse her son's requests for money to buy heroin
Is the loving mother the one that keeps her son a heroin addict, or the one which makes clear that she will not help him fund his addiction?
Is it that God is different in the old testament books, or is it that the people writing them had different interpretations of His actions as they grew to know Him better?
I have started reading the Old Testament again and hope to go right through it this time, so thanks for the kick to get me going!
All:
This is a very quick response - just a few (not well organised) thoughts.
Language:
When I dream (back to Descartes) I can speak and think that I am really speaking to other (objective) beings. When I awake I realise that all this was happening in my brain.
Of course one needs references and experiences from which to draw on as the substance of the dream but why cannot these also be manufactured within the brain? Have you ever been in a dream, realised you are dreaming and thought that you have awoken from it only to be still in another dream?
Language is also very approximate - it seems to me unlikely that sender and receiver are communicating the same message.
BTW I am not saying that solipsism is likely to be the case - just trying to put a logical argument for it.
Yes, the larynx is very important because we lost something as well as gained the ability to articulate more complex ideas. We can choke to death far more easily than other primates because our air and food passages are basically the same to make room for the larynx.
The idea of creating complete pictures from scant evidence, at which our brain seems to be particularly adept, I think might explain lots about our psyche. When we examine what we really know about the world it is not very much but we think we know lots. We seem to be programmed to fill vacuums. We all do it all the time but it is almost always assumption, usually induction. Religious faith based on all sorts of elaborate and unprovable tenets is a universal case in point.
I agree that consciousness is a continuum, rather than a fixed state but can we get a bit closer? Some animals, like the higher marine mammals, do have a sophisticated language system but are they conscious? Are they aware of their surroundings beyond their immediate environment and are they capable of rationale thought and discussion about themselves and their surroundings?
Perhaps consciousness (however we define it)increases with organic complexity and relative brain size. If so, this would tend to count against dualism.
Biskieboo:
I thought that the Bible was the unadorned word of God. If you are saying that it was written and interpreted by people then that opens up a Pandora's box of problems.
Who did God communicate with and how? Was it somebody different from those who wrote it down? If it was an interpretation, who interpreted it and how do we know that they got it right? If we are able to interpret the words freely now how do we know that this is really what God meant? If the Bible is not meant to be taken literally how should we decide what it really means? Who is qualified to perform this task? Why does God not make things a little clearer? There are more than 22,000 sects and churches in the world, each with its own interpretation (and some of them in conflict with one another). Why is the Bible so opaque, leading to such confusion?
Elephantschild :
I don't think it would necessarily follow , after all if you are not in control of your own universe how could you be God of it ?
MartinRDB :
"Solipsism is a useful concept in the analysis of metaphysical concepts. I would contend that religious ideas, freewill and spiritual dualism are solipsistic concepts which necessarily defy rational discussion."
Why are those things soliphistic ? They , possibly , defy a materialistic ontology but I don't think they imply soliphism necessarily .
I think consciousness is very difficult to adequately define . This , I believe , is the cause of a lot of disagreement . I would roughly define it as the experience of having thoughts and sensations . Though what that actually means when you unpack the definition is probably ambiguous .
Perhaps we have simply reached the conceptual limit of the human brain ?
boltonian :
"Perhaps consciousness (however we define it)increases with organic complexity and relative brain size. If so, this would tend to count against dualism."
If you define consciousness as "the experience of having thoughts and sensations" then consciousness either exists or it doesn't . The use of consciousness to denote information processing ability may be a red herring .
The second point I would make is that the main argument for dualism , of some kind , is the different nature of mental events and neural events .
Imagine watching your brain on a super sophisticated real time fMRI scanner . In theory you are watching your thoughts . Anybody watching the scanner with you knows everything physical that is happening in your brain . I would contend that they are still not watching your thoughts even though they have access to all the physical information in your brain . They still do not know all there is to know about what it is like to be you thinking .
For a hypothetical but plausible physical explanation of consciousness see
http://www.tartanhen.co.uk/ebooks/
expedient_mind/TITLE.htm
Anonymous:
Welcome and thanks for the link.
You can use a display name (most use their CiF identity) if you would like a handle or, of course, remain anonymous should you prefer.
Solipsism, if taken seriously, would make ethics impossible, since ethics is concerned with the nature of our relationships with others.
I'd suggest too that all of the so-called 'religions of the book' (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are all, above all outwardly-focussed. Read "Totalité et infini" (Lévinas).
Another important thread running through this discussion is the nature of texts and how seriously we should take them. This is always a difficult question, even for relatively recent texts, and in the case of works which are some thousands of years old it has to be said that it's often very difficult to be confident about just what was written in the first place, complicated for most of by the translation problem, which means that we are forced to accept someone else's reading of what the text really said. Having just helped my wife to make sense of the French original of a text she had been pointed to (but in the English translation) I've recently had to deal with this at first hand.
The translator had added some sub-headings to the text which is not good practice anyway, but they'd completely misconstrued at least one paragraph, and in so doing had, I thought, completely missed the point of the whole piece. The tutor who read the essay, which quote the original, and my translation of it, agreed with my reading. WHat this shows, I think, is that it's always a good thing to read what was written in the first place if you possibly can. And always treat every text as if it were open to more than one reading; it will be.
JohnR :
"Solipsism, if taken seriously, would make ethics impossible, since ethics is concerned with the nature of our relationships with others."
I don't think anyone is actually taking it seriously here , it is just a useful way of keeping yourself humble about what we can reliably know about reality .
JohnR:
Ethics is only important if anything really exists outside the mind. It might, nonetheless, still be an idealistic concept.
This, to me, does not refute idealism or solipsism. It is the Kantian argument that morals exist independently of our phenomenal existence. Why?
SpaceP:
Thoughts, as I have said previously, are fascinating things, for all the reasons you give. Just because we cannot reconstruct them in terms of electrical impulses does not, to me, mean they cannot exist as stored memory (chemical or quantum states). I come back to Ockam's razor. Why invent an ethereal something when whatever we at looking for might lie equally in the material mass of the brain?
I am playing Devil's advocate here - I just cannot get my head round dualism. What is it that is not material?
boltonian :
"Thoughts, as I have said previously, are fascinating things, for all the reasons you give. Just because we cannot reconstruct them in terms of electrical impulses does not, to me, mean they cannot exist as stored memory (chemical or quantum states). I come back to Ockam's razor. Why invent an ethereal something when whatever we at looking for might lie equally in the material mass of the brain?
I am playing Devil's advocate here - I just cannot get my head round dualism. What is it that is not material?"
What is not material is the experience of the thought . This doesn't involve an ethereal substance necessarily , that would be interactionist dualism which as I've said is unconvincing from argument alone .
Consciousness may be generated in the brain , but where does the experience of thinking occur ? A thought has no extension in space , its neural correlate does .
When you visualize a boat , say , where is the boat ? Is your neural representation of a boat the same thing , down to the last particular , as your mental picture of the boat ? If so then theoretically a computer model of your brain could know your experience of thinking about a boat equally as well as you do . If that is true then it follows that your subjective awareness is not unique to you and could be modeled in any substrate . If that is true then you could be replicated by a system of cogs and gears . This seems intuitively impossible , though of course that doesn't mean it is .
I suppose my point is that even if you had every possible material measurement of the brain while thinking , you would still not be able to reconstruct everything the owner of the brain experiences while thinking .
SpaceP:
My initial response before bed is that our brain is conditioned to create complete pictures from very little information and perhaps that lies at the bottom of our thoughts. We have just enough pattern in our brains to construct a boat but it never appears other than as an image in our memory. A bit like photographs. We live,therefore, in the past at all times.
I can already see flaws in my own argument but I am too tired to rectify it. Try again tomorrow.
Hey, that attack was a bit unexpected wasn't it? I admit to teasing WML a bit but he rather asked for it (as he usually does).
I have just realised it is the 27th and I have just turned 52. Why, I wonder, do we celebrate getting another year nearer the grave? Perhaps birthdays are some sort of compensation.
boltonian :
"My initial response before bed is that our brain is conditioned to create complete pictures from very little information and perhaps that lies at the bottom of our thoughts. We have just enough pattern in our brains to construct a boat but it never appears other than as an image in our memory. A bit like photographs. We live,therefore, in the past at all times."
Your point about living in the past , in the brains recreation of reality , is interesting but the point I'm making is really about subjective experience not being recreatable even with a full account of the brain . Hence consciousness involves something beyond neural correlates of thoughts .
"Hey, that attack was a bit unexpected wasn't it? I admit to teasing WML a bit but he rather asked for it (as he usually does)."
I've lost my patience with WML , I've been debating him off and on for months and all he has ever done is either respond with sarcasm , wriggled out of any substantive points or just ignored replies to his decelerations .
I think SB is unused to atheists looking so irrational and just wanted to defend the tribe .
"I have just realised it is the 27th and I have just turned 52. Why, I wonder, do we celebrate getting another year nearer the grave? Perhaps birthdays are some sort of compensation."
I'm facing the big three-o next year , though I suspect you will have no sympathy . Happy birthday anyway .
Boltonian,
the Kantian concepts of the noumenon and the phenomenon are important to our understanding of the world we all live in. All we are ever able to understand about anything, Kant proposed, is the phenomenon - our perception of the thing in question. Its objective reality must exist if we are all able to perceive it, but the nature of this is unknowable, because we are never able to do more than perceive the phenomenon.
The clear implication of this is that all of our knowledge is contingent; we can never know if our knowledge is complete or not. The only exception to this is knowledge based on 'pure reason' but this turns out to be a very limited category, as Kant established in the Critique of Pure Reason.
To talk of things existing 'within' or 'outside' the mind I'd regard as meaningless. Until we apply our reason we are unable to perceive anything, and our perceptions are all we can evaluate. To say 'but I can touch it..' adds nothing; all you have done is perceive it by touch rather than sight or sound, so the situation remains unchanged.
There does remain the possibility of acquiring knowledge by pure reason, but this would reduce valid knowledge to pure mathematics and (perhaps) some of the more abstruse portions of philosophy. Otherwise we are back in the realms of practical reason - knowledge based on experience as well as reason.
Happy Birthday Boltonian.
I think we should think of birthdays as celebrating having survived another year, rather than being one year closer to the grave. Think positive!
"I thought that the Bible was the unadorned word of God. If you are saying that it was written and interpreted by people then that opens up a Pandora's box of problems."
I think you would be hard pushed to find many Christians in our country who would say that every word in the bible is literal truth. America and possibly Africa may well be another story.
It is indeed a Pandora's box, but I quite like them so it just makes it more interesting to me. I enjoy looking for the meaning.
What's been going on with WML then? Somebody fill me in.
On the "reality" issue:
what about mind altering drugs such as LSD?
what about psychosis?
Where do these fit in?
The mind does a lot of "filling in the blanks" when LSD or psychosis is involved.
Are the distortions that are experienced in the mind or outside the mind?
I don't have any answers, but I have got experience of LSD use and pyschosis (the latter probably due to use of the former) so wondered what peoples' thoughts were about it.
I've just found the CIF thread. Looks like fun! Off to read it now.
JohnR:
It is quite a long time since I read Kant but I thought that his ethics were based on objectivity. In other words it was our link to the noumenal world. I think Schopenhauer, who revered him, refuted this but substituted music as our conduit to reality.
I agree with your general thrust - my sympathies lie most decidedly with the empiricists. Russell felt that basic arithmetic, though, was objectively true, whether we existed or not. So, 2+2=4 under all circumstances and in all possible worlds. How we prove that is another matter.
Biskieboo:
WML has been rather unpleasant (so, what's new?) to Spacepenguin and I for a few threads recently - to the point of accusing us of hidden agendas and ascribing views to us that we do not hold. All of this without a scintilla of evidence. So, we pointed out that his attitude, sarcasm and general unpleasantness were rather unwelcome we were accused of being horrible to him by somebody else. Anyway, I used to find his debating style amusing but now it has become simply tiresome. I am sure you will have read the thread by now - but there were others prior to this.
Getting older does not really bother me - my wife says I have gained another year of wisdom (from an admittedly low base).
'The mind does a lot of "filling in the blanks" when LSD or psychosis is involved.'
The brain works in precisely that way - it creates complete pictures from scant information. I think I said earlier in this thread that this might be behind why we seem to crave certainty and reach conclusions without the supporting evidence. Of course, I don't have the evidence to support this assertion -LoL.
The distortions can only work within the brain (whether mind and brain are synonymous is central to the consciousness discussion on this thread) because everything we know is mediated within the brain - see JohnR's post above.
I do not think that solipsism can be disproved and it is not my point to try to do so. In its own terms it is self-consistent and all encompassing. I would not dispute if I were described as solipsist agnostic. Of course this does not mean that I think solipsism to be at all likely and following the private language argument, I am sure of is that it is pointless to discuss solipsism as a feasible (rather than a theoretical) proposition.
On the other hand it is instructive to discuss how solipsistic ideas work: they appeal to the subjectivity of the individual and the notion of “what it feels like to be me”. Religious and spiritual beliefs rest on assertions that the beliefs must be true because my beliefs are so strong that they must be true and in so doing necessarily invoke a non material world. Once this is achieved the basis for belief in the material world is undermined and is not obviously necessary. Descartes and Berkeley’s view that God is kind enough to assure us that our impressions of reality are in fact real simply extends the logic of this kind of argument. I gather from secondary sources that Leibnitz postulates an unlimited number of solipsistic worlds all coordinated by an omnipotent deity. If you go down this route, why should the so-called ‘material world’ be anything other than illusionary?
To me these ideas simply exemplify the convolutions that result from these lines of reasoning.
Freewill is at home in the non-material world, unless of course the deity deems otherwise, but is ultimately implausible and contradictory if the non material world is not accepted.
Whilst I am unruffled by the idea that ‘freewill’ is simply the sense of having freewill, instinctively it seems odd that consciousness might be equally illusionary. Since, after all, we are individuals we do find these ideas to be deeply ingrained. I have been thinking about Boltonian’s comments about how the brain functions (programmed suggests teleology). This may be the most important starting point, to look at how our thoughts and senses are prescribed by our biological condition. I know that Philosophy hates the idea that it should be secondary to another academic area, but then I think that Philosophy has gone wrong in permitting arguments which start form the interior individual point of view rather than from an attempt at an exterior objectified stand point. Apart from hitting a solipsistic blank wall when trying to identify subjective concepts such as consciousness or free will, there is also an embarrassing tendency to lapse into amateur cod psychology.
I do not want to appear to know a lot about Kant as my limited knowledge is second hand or short extracts, but I do feel that space, time and causality are necessarily ingrained in our thinking processes, and I would add that this is a Biological necessity. Even in the eighteenth century, he was impressed by the success of Science and hoped to put Philosophy on a similarly sound foundation.
JohnR describes the Kantian perspective with admirable clarity. My suggestion as I have previously written, is that although we can “we can never know if our knowledge is complete or not”, Science can at least provide a convincing model for what, at least in part, it (objective reality or the noumenon) might be like.
The robot/computer consciousness question (Spacepenguin and Boltonian) is much like the Turing test. If a device is produced that could provide an output that is indistinguishable form consciousness, what would this tell us about consciousness? If a computer like device is able to refer to a notion of its own consciousness, the initial response for many would be dismissive; but on what grounds? Another way of putting this is: in what way is asking what it feels like to be you, to have your thoughts and to experience things, different from asking the same question of a computer. Isn’t it the case that our subjectivity is a closed book to anyone else? I cannot see how I can use my own subjectivity as an objective argument.
Boltonian:
Two points, each quite distinct.
First, mathematics is a self-created, self-perpetuating universe. Yes, it is true, it has to be if its is self-consistent. Its relevance to the real world is always rather dubious, except as an exercise in reasoning. Russell, in his Sceptical Essays talks about the assumption that mathematics can be used to describe the physical world. Interestingly enough, he thought that this assumption was far from self-evident, though I'm not sure that I entirely agree with him there. Kant, of course, regarded mathematics as one of the cases where a priori knowledge was indeed possible.
The second point concerns Kant, whose major contribution to western thought was not his ethics, but his account of knowledge, which he covers in the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason most notably. For a shorter and rather chattier introduction to his thought you might try Martin Heidegger's The Essence of Human Freedom, which was based on the lecture notes of a course he gave at Freiburg. It's published by Continuum (London, 2005) and shows how Aristotle and Kant's ideas form the basis of contemporary metaphysics (in Heidegger's sense: thinking about thinking). Kant's ideas on the contingency of all our knowledge about the world we live in are arguably the major underpinning of most of the philosophy of science.
What he is say, in effect, is that all we can ever do is the best we can with what we believe we know, but we will always have to accept that as time passes other observations may suggest other explanations. All you need look at as an example is the history of the thinking about the structure of matter from the mid-19th C until the present day, as we have progressed from indivisible atoms to protons and electrons to present thinking about quarks. At each stage more observations have suggested that the basis for our previous explanations was less than adequate, and I am afraid that much of our knowledge proceeds on this basis.
Some interesting stuff here:
http://www.alternativescience.com/
I like this page, do we really need a brain?:
http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm
JohnR, your example of the structure of matter is not so convincing because the description 'inadequate' is inappropriate. The development of our understanding since the mid 19th C has been by and large a process of adding more detail to the overall picture, even the success of wave mechanics has done little to contradict previous understanding. This is surely an important point: did Kant meen that the gap between our understanding and the objective reality is constant? I doubt it. Despite current ideas about fundamental sub-atomic particles, it cannot be said that the atomic model has been overturned. Nor is there any prospect of a rejection of the atomic model.
The missing point in these kind of discussions is that insufficient attention is given to the structure of knowledge, in which ideas, such as the atomic model, are part of a large framework of knowledge. A rejection of such a fundamental concept would destroy the whole structure.
As an example, if the sun had failed to rise or altered its apparent course during the early middle ages, it would have been regarded as an amazing, even miraculous phenomenon, but not much more. Today such an event would completely destroy our basic concept of the physical universe. It is an impossibility to us in a way that it was not for those living 1000 years ago. Why is this? - Because our understanding of the sun, the planets etc are locked together in a structure in which the appearance of the sun's progression across the sky is incidental.
If Kant is right to distinguish objective reality from our perceptions of that reality, there is nothing that prevents our models of how we imagine objective reality to become increasingly sophistocated. Since objective reality is a fixed concept, any model, whilst remaining debateable is contingent on reality and not arbitrary.
Biskieboo :
Tread carefully at that site , I've come across it before and the anti-darwinian stuff is not very convincing .
MartinRDB :
"The development of our understanding since the mid 19th C has been by and large a process of adding more detail to the overall picture, even the success of wave mechanics has done little to contradict previous understanding."
Wave mechanics marked a fundamental shift in our understanding of matter . The old concept of a planetary atomic model was completely overturned . The toy model of atomic structure isn't used anymore . Even more fundamental , in my view , is the switch from understanding nature as continuous to discrete .
"If Kant is right to distinguish objective reality from our perceptions of that reality, there is nothing that prevents our models of how we imagine objective reality to become increasingly sophistocated. Since objective reality is a fixed concept, any model, whilst remaining debateable is contingent on reality and not arbitrary."
Isn't implied that objective reality may be unconceptualisable (what a horrible word) ? We may string together little islands of understanding , but they may float on an infinite sea of concepts that we can never perceive as concepts . The universe may simply be fundamentally incoherent .
Spacepenguin, I think your very last comment is a tease more than anything. On the atomic model "completely overturned" overstates the case, in fact, as I am sure you know, part of the problem with the 'planetry' model was that it could not be overturned. In essence, however surprising some of the conclusions, Physical Science has provided more detail to atomic theory.
On the question of what thoughts and the awareness of having thoughts are I would like to suggest an analogy: reading data relating to brain activity and wondering where the impressions of thoughts were, might be akin to wondering where the music is when viewing a microscopic scan of a CD.
Although we know how complex computers are, I do not think we have reached the stage where we could say that the brain is not sufficiently complex to account for what it does.
Certainly we need to be as clear as we can in identifying the inadequacies of our understanding, but I think we need take care that lack of understanding is not used as supportive evidence for anything immaterial or material.
MartinRDB :
"Spacepenguin, I think your very last comment is a tease more than anything. On the atomic model "completely overturned" overstates the case, in fact, as I am sure you know, part of the problem with the 'planetry' model was that it could not be overturned. In essence, however surprising some of the conclusions, Physical Science has provided more detail to atomic theory."
Well in the sense that the atomic model states there is a limit to the divisibility of matter it wasn't overturned . The analogy of electrons orbiting a nucleus in the manner of the planets orbiting the sun has been . The conceptual nature of what an atom is was overturned by wave mechanics .
My last comment wasn't a tease , why should the universe be logical ? It seems equally possible we can only know the logical bits of it . The frothing mass of incoherence we cannot know may be the main part of existence . Perhaps consciousness and questions about the origin of the universe are clues to this state of affairs .
"On the question of what thoughts and the awareness of having thoughts are I would like to suggest an analogy: reading data relating to brain activity and wondering where the impressions of thoughts were, might be akin to wondering where the music is when viewing a microscopic scan of a CD."
That is precisely my point . The physical information about that brain state is not the same as the experience of that brain state . No matter how much information you have , you will still be missing some subjective quality . If that is the case then there is something about the experience of thinking that cannot be captured materially .
"Although we know how complex computers are, I do not think we have reached the stage where we could say that the brain is not sufficiently complex to account for what it does."
The brain is complex enough to account for what it does , the question is what is it doing ?
"Certainly we need to be as clear as we can in identifying the inadequacies of our understanding, but I think we need take care that lack of understanding is not used as supportive evidence for anything immaterial or material."
I see what you are saying , but there are conceptual problems with consciousness , as I stated before , that actively argue against empirical , i.e scientific , progress on this issue .
All
I have been out of the loop for a few days, so I am just catching up. Great discussion happening here. I would like to summarise if I can (to try to get a few things clear in my own head as much as anything). These are in no particular order.
These are a few of the options we have so far - please feel free to add to or correct them, as I am sure I have misrepresented some of your suggestions:
1) The world is material and there exists such a thing as objective reality (in other words a world independent of us, or anything else);
2) The world is immaterial and objective (comprising perhaps pure information);
3) The world is objective and what we perceive bears some relation to reality;
4) The world is objective but what we perceive is nothing like what is really out there;
5) The world is objective but there is no way of knowing what reality might look like because we are subjective beings;
6) All we can know is that there are thoughts which we have access to;
7) We are completely material beings and all our subjective experiences (what we can know) are the result of the workings of the chemical computer, which we call the brain;
8) Our experience comprises a mix of hardware, software (the brain and the electrical impulses flowing along synapses) and output (using the CD analogy, which is more than the sum of the brain's parts (duality);
9)Consciousness is an effect (or side-effect)of the workings of the brain and we will be able to test this when we are able to build a complete simulation of the brain;
10) Consciousness is more than the sum of the material parts and this will again be tested (how might be an issue here)when we are able to build a complete simulation of the brain;
11)If consciousness is not merely a function of the brain what is it and where does it come from?
12) The world only exists when it it is observed, otherwise it is merely a potentiality (the Copenhagen interpretation);
13) Solipsism is feasible and not possible to disprove.
14)We are simply not equipped to evaluate these options and therefore they will all remain equally valid;
15)There is no logic to anything out there - only what we impose on the world through our limited perceptions (what might be termed the absurdist position);
16) All physics is simply metaphor, including our description of atoms, and bears little resemblance to anything other than our own terms of reference;
17) We can never know whether we have discovered the truth, therefore it will be forever out of our reach even if, by some chance, we have stumbled on it;
18) The existence of ethics and language would seem to count against, but not refute, solipsism;
19) There might or might not be some higher being that influences the world and our existence in it;
20) We might or might not be part of a simulated world;
21) Free will exists within a determined world (compatibilism);
22) We live completely determined lives and free will is an illusion (possibly a survival mechanism);
23) We have a large degree of free will, which we might think of as the religious position;
24) It is impossible to know anything a priori (empiricism);
25) Some things, such as mathematics, can be understood a priori;
26) Do (strong) feelings, such as religious conviction, have any part in our search, or can they be dismissed as not capable of predictive experiment - in other words science is the only game in town?
Thoughts on these most welcome. Are some more likely than others and, if so, what evidence can we muster?
*******
Smolin, by the way, thinks that science has lost its way and that physics, in particular, has gone up a blind alley with string theory.
He, and his colleagues, are challenging quantum mechanics and Special Relativity in an attempt to break out of this narrow view of the world.
boltonian :
Perhaps it's time to start a new thread for one of those topics ? You can always keep old threads open for the discussions to continue.
SpaceP:
Fine.
Would anybody like to suggest possible topics - I am happy to keep more than one thread going if I can work the system?
Ideas welcome.
To Spacepenguin: “why should the universe be logical ? It seems equally possible we can only know the logical bits of it . The frothing mass of incoherence we cannot know may be the main part of existence . Perhaps consciousness and questions about the origin of the universe are clues to this state of affairs”
This is fine as a subjective and highly personal mystical even religious credo (having a link to some of my comments about solipsism and a private language), but if the response to something that we do not understand is to suggest that it is possibly fundamentally incoherent, the effect is to close down discussion. It does not lead anywhere; in fact the suggestion is, that there is nowhere to lead towards. All I can say is 'we didn't get where we are today with this line of thinking'!
My general point about subjective quality is that it is something to distance ourselves from. Obviously you know nothing about my subjective quality and if you felt you were missing out on something, it really would not make any sense – I could try to reassure you that you were not missing out on anything! On the other hand I am not missing out on my own subjective quality, but that is the subjective for you. If it were not so, it would not be subjective any more. My sense of consciousness is fine on a subjective level, but as I have indicated earlier, outside of this it is very dubious and ill-defined. If I am referring to someone else's consciousness, there is little to say beyond some fairly straight forward behavioural observations.
I am fairly sure that there is a considerably more to discover about the workings of the brain and just as it is obviously possible to convert the ultra-microscopic topography of a CD into sound wave characteristics and even dots on a page, the details of neuronal activity and interconnections may elicit an interpretation that correlates with what we say and do, including some correlation to our visual and spatial awareness. But I do not see that the subjective will remain anything other than subjective and you will still be able to ask your question about the your subjective self still being unaccounted for. This is where solipsism re enters, because if I interpret your remarks about fundamental incoherrence to apply to the subjective, then I am hardly in any position to disagree, in fact it is another way of stating the private language argument (which is after all an argument about incoherence).
By the way I doubt that you have misconstrued Heissenberg, wave-particle duality and not knowing what electrons are up to, so I think you will understand if I maintain that enriched is a better description than overturned.
Boltonian: I cannot add corrections because I might start amending points that were not supposed to be mine. I am not sure what to suggest with your thread, but I suppose you could group together some of your summarised points (2 or 3 groups) as new starting points.
Building on MartinRDB's suggestion I could split the threads into three:
1) Physics;
2) Philosophy; and
3) Consciousness/psychology.
I am aware that they all inter-relate and maybe these are false divisions. Can anybody suggest alternatives?
I also realise that we have touched on evolution and anthropology here, which I would not like to lose. Yet more comments have suggested the environment, political and economic developments etc as possible future topics.
I would like some ideas as to whether people would wish to divide our discussion in this way (or others) or just let it flow and comment on what interests you.
I am also aware that some have contributed only once or twice - is that because nobody is raising topics that interest you or that you have little time, or for other reasons? Please feel free to start a new topic - I will make it a separate thread if that is what is wanted.
Some early regular contributors have been quiet of late, namely pttp and Krapotkin, although I think K is out in the wilds somewhere and might be incomunicado.
I would be interested to know what people are reading and learning at the moment.
In addition to the Smolin, I am reading some essays by Stephen Jay Gould; a book on genetics by Sean B. Carroll; 'The Classical World' by Robin Lane Fox; and a history of classical China, India and Greece by Karen Armstrong. I am about to start a book on Existentialism and now want to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (inspired by this discussion)and Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations,' amongst others.
And another thing - I would like to find the time to re-read all 20 of O'Brien's Aubrey/Maturin novels.
MartinRDB :
I totally agree that if the Universe is incoherent then it shuts down meaningful discussion . But the Universe doesn't exist to be discussed by us :-) .
I think we both agree that humans evolved to have problem solving abilities to deal with mating , eating and other issues related to reproductive fitness . Why should we expect that apparatus to function for all things in the universe ?
I think we may agree about subjectivity , but disagree on its importance . I think the fact that we cannot , in principle I would say , empirically study subjective states suggests that there is more to consciousness than can be accounted for by reduction to neural correlates . At least by what I define as consciousness which is the awareness of thoughts .
I think quantum theory did overturn the previous concept of what matter is . The term "classical limit" is often used to denote the point where QM becomes relevant and classical physics fails . The notion that subatomic particles are like billiard balls pinging into each other was overturned . Something like entanglement , say , is not even conceivable under the classical model . As Einstein said : "This discovery [quantum theory] set science a new task : that of finding a new conceptual basis for physics"
How would you say QM enriched rather than overturned classical physics ?
Boltonian :
I vote for your three topic solution . In other blogs they sometimes paste relevant posts from old threads to begin new topics , which you could also do .
As you ask about what people are reading ... At the moment I'm reading "Sneaking a look at God's Cards" by Giancarlo Ghirardi which is , coincidently , about quantum theory . On the back burner I also have Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris which is about convergence in evolution and Road to Reality by Roger Penrose which is a densely mathematical book about , well , mathematics and physics .
Is the Karen Armstrong book mostly about religion in those regions ? I'm quite interested in how China and India ( or rather the cultures that have existed in what we now call China and India ) have interacted over the millennia .
All
I have started a new blog here:
http://boltonianphysics.blogspot.com/
At SpaceP's suggestion I have copied and pasted a couple of posts to start things off. If this works I will set up another two:
Philosophy and Mind.
Any other suggestions welcome.
SpaceP:
Karen Armstrong seems to be really concerned with the cultural development of those civilizations, of which religion, of course, plays a central role.
Just having re-read those two posts by MartinRDB and SpaceP it occurs to me that they touch on all three of the topics I have proposed, so how would we go about categorizing this discussion?
boltonian :
I was suggesting that you open new threads , not whole new blogs !
It will be interesting to see how things go .
I posted on the other "blog" but maybe I should not have? Sorry, a bit lame for a first attempt to enter the conversation
LesterJones
SpaceP;
Lester:
Not your fault.
I think I have made a bit of a hash of this.
Perhaps we should just return here while I think of how to do what I should have done in the first place. Help welcome.
I will copy and paste from physics.
Lesterjones said:
MartinRDB and Space Penguin
Maybe an interesting way of thinking about the problem of subjectivity within Consciousness is to tackle the question "Can Consciousness be experienced by only one entity?", in other words, is it possible to be really conscious without sharing the experience with another of ones species? Using the definition that SpacePenguin offered and one which I also find comfortable, being that Consciousness is the awareness of ones own awareness, then pure subjectivity is not possible. An entity must be aware of its thoughts in relation to the thoughts of another entity; otherwise one would not be fully aware that one was actually conscious. Consciousness cannot exist in a vacuum so to speak. To be fully conscious an entity must have a sense of self which is only possible in relation to a sense of another of the same species. One must be Objectively Subjective in ones understanding of what it is to be Subjective.
This really muddies the waters when it comes to pure subjectivity, does it not?
03 May 2007 05:12
Delete
boltonian said...
Lesterjones:
Welcome.
Just a thought - what if we are conscious but only within our own subjectivity. Like a dream, where I think I am awake and in the world but I am not and my sensation of myself is purely within my own mind. There is no external world within which I am conscious - it is an illusion.
Now, it might be said (I think Martin hinted at it in an earlier post) that without experience of an external world there would be nothing to dream about but that is very difficult to prove.
SpaceP:
I don't know how to do that.
03 May 2007 09:47
Lesterjones :
You make an excellent point . I think pure awareness is conceivable without that awareness necessarily relating to thoughts . I believe that some meditators would say they experience that state . That said I think you are right in that all thoughts are in some way related to something outside of pure 'mind self' . I'm not sure why that other entity has to be of the same species , in terms of mind your own body could be thought of as a separate entity . Intuitively at least .
As an aside I wonder if awareness without thoughts would count as consciousness ?
boltonian :
I was thinking of different threads like here for instance : http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ (a good blog by the way) . I don't know how you would do that though , is there a help page ?
SpacePenguin
Thanks, and your right about the same species comment, I suppose I merely meant a consciousness that was on a similar plane to ones own.
As far as consciousness without thoughts, Im afraid that this state is all too obvious these days!
Im sorry but I have posted an answer to Boltonian on the other thread again but I would be interested in any thoughts on it. Should I post on this thread in future?
LesterJones :
"Thanks, and your right about the same species comment, I suppose I merely meant a consciousness that was on a similar plane to ones own."
I think for thoughts to occur they have to be about something outside of the sense of self , but I don't think that something has to be conscious . As I said in some ways we consider , say , a limb to be outside the mental sense of self . We often refer to our bodies , including our brains , as possessions of the self not the self itself (excuse the hideous phrasing) .
"As far as consciousness without thoughts, Im afraid that this state is all too obvious these days!"
As is typing without thoughts , a glance through most CiF threads would confirm that .
"Im sorry but I have posted an answer to Boltonian on the other thread again but I would be interested in any thoughts on it. Should I post on this thread in future?"
If you mean the physics blog then I reckon you should repost your answer here . I can't see any posts on http://boltonianphysics.blogspot.com beyond the first one .
Lesterjones said...
Boltonian
Thanks for the welcome.
I think that for the sake of philisophical anchorage one has to decide at some point about where they stand on Solipsism. Its not unlike the discussions that rage about on CiF on the existence of God. Solipism comes under the same catagory of unknowable, unprovable and ultimately unimportant. What is important is to decide where to place ones flag of faith, what ground to claim, and try and make inroads on the questions of existence from there.
Otherwise theres is nothing but uncertainty, which for better or worse seems to be a state that the human psyche is not comfortable with. So ground rules are constantly sought, philosophy itself is the search for certainty, even if that be to be certain of uncertainty.
So, consciousness is in my view a product of Evolution , arguably a by-product of another evolving feature of the species that eventually became Homo-Sapian, either way, it happened and allows us to now consider this Universe in a way that no other living creature has done(to our knowledge).
If we are forever to wallow in the supposition that each of us or in fact only one of us is the actual harbourer of the Universe we will never make any progress. So treat Solipsism as you would the existence of God, be Agnostic until such time as the ultimate truth on the matter is revealed. Consider it but dont become lost in it.
In the case of Solipsism I feel more comfortable in a material world, and as that is the world that overwhelmingly even a solipsist experiences we might as well plant a flag there and see from there in which direction we can travel. I realise that this position is considerably open to criticism but I challenge anyone on this board to take solipsism to its extreme without experiencing mental breakdown.
So for the sake of analysis such concepts as solipsism are fantastic tools when it comes to trying to understand the way we all experience the world, but eventually we are forced to say the Universe is real and material and has substance within the context of the plane on which we exist.
If we move from this starting flag and then say that Consciousness is a consequence of Evolution, and Evolution a consequence of the workings of the material Universe then we can see Consciousness at least as a functioning phenomena that subjects the conscious being to its existence. A good analogy might be that we are all plugged into consciousness, that although it exists within the workings of the brain there has to be other brains also plugged in for any one brain to experience consciouness.
Its almost a conceit of consciousness to consider itself seperate from the material Universe because it has to be a product of the Universe and is thus subject to the workings of the Universe.
(This means holding onto what Evolution and the material Universe has allowed the Human species to aquire, and embracing the idea that we only have it because of the fact that life exists to pass on the genes and really no more. It is that act of supposed cold amorality that has offered us the vision and opportunity to find warmth and morality.
Consciousness is the seriously most beautiful part of the workings of life and the Universe.)
That said, its also within the above reasoning, possible to suggest that the consciousness we all share is also seperate from the universe and survives purely within our shared experience, that the functioning of consciousness is a gift from the material universe but the growth of the shared experience and thus the understanding of the universe are purely our own. It is this dialectic that might disallow us from ever really understanding the universe, leaving the Universe forever as an illogical "frothing mass of incoherence". We may be able to understand everthing about driving but little about the internal combustion engine.
I apologise if this is a little ranty but Ive just come in, swigged a glass of red and posted this train of thought. I am very open to being put right.
03 May 2007 11:03
Delete
boltonian said...
Lesterjones:
I will copy your comment to t'other blog to keep it in one place and then try to respond. Then I can return to my glass (or two) of red wine.
Here we are!
My clock seems to have gone crazy even though the computer clock says 20 14. Strange.
Good post, LJ and thanks.
There has been much discussion about solipsism on this thread which you might enjoy reading.
I agree that we must make certain assumptions just to get through life. Even the arch sceptic Hume acknowledged that. The problem is comes when we cease to regard them as assumptions and take them as fact and thus find it difficult to amend our views, whatever the emerging evidence. We do need a degree of certainty (some more than others), which I am sure the anthropologists and evolutionary biologists here could account for.
SpaceP:
I think we had better stay here for the time being, at least until one of us can fathom the technology.
03 May 2007 12:12
Pouring my own glass of wine ..
Lesterjones :
This is somewhat tangential , so i hope you will forgive me , but your post has helped me crystallize why it is that I find myself more intellectually aggravated by ardent atheists than the religious .
I realise that it is not atheism per se that bothers me but its frequent , near universal , partner naturalism . The notion that all physical effects must have physical causes . If theism is incomplete (and I believe it is) because the 'God' is unexplained then naturalism is incomplete because there cannot be an ultimately physical cause for the universe .
If the laws of physics are simply observations of regularities in spacetime then they cannot exist prior to the existence of spacetime . The appearance of spacetime out of nothing requires 'nothing' to follow the laws of physics . This though means that the laws of physics somehow coexisted with 'nothing' and somehow had a physical effect . This breaks the fundamental rule of naturalism .
This is not to say theism and naturalism are equally good ways of trying to understand the universe , simply that both must , in the end , fail at the last . The religious call it a holy mystery , but metaphysical naturalists rarely seem prepared to admit the problem exists .
Sorry about that ..
You are spot on about solipsism . As I've said before it is a tool to keep us humble about the nature of our knowledge . I think empiricism tied to the scientific method is the best hope we have to be , if not right then at least less wrong .
"We may be able to understand everthing about driving but little about the internal combustion engine."
I like the analogy . I personally like the notion , true as far as we can tell , that the least we are is condensed light pondering itself .
boltonian :
I agree , maybe someone here knows something about blogspot .
SpaceP:
I think this is spot on.
It is the first very faltering step towards wisdom.
Christianity (and Islam for that matter)bangs on about humility and yet deals in certainties - where is the humility in knowing, and boasting, that one has access to the truth?
Science is often little better in that it (or some of its adherents)assumes that everything is knowable and discoverable through the scientific method.
There are certain mutual acquaintances from CiF who seem to think that we know a great deal more than we possibly can. We might be able to say that x or y is more likely to be the case given our current (poor) state of knowledge but this might be reversed tomorrow.
In my view this has to be the only way to approach any sort of learning, otherwise one falls foul of dogmatism and a purblind faith in a particular world view, sans evidence.
SpacePenguin
I most certainly forgive any tangential thinking and I do agree, theres something unsettling about anything to finite in its scope. There is a certain style of Atheism that constructs concrete truths as desperately as a certain style of Theism,. I would say both are equally guilty of failing to own up to the thier failings.
Concerning your comment "If the laws of physics are simply observations of regularities in spacetime then they cannot exist prior to the existence of spacetime . The appearance of spacetime out of nothing requires 'nothing' to follow the laws of physics . This though means that the laws of physics somehow coexisted with 'nothing' and somehow had a physical effect . This breaks the fundamental rule of naturalism"
Can I just suggest some observations? Firstly, that the laws of physics may not be constant throughout the whole Universe, we are already experiencing trouble with both Dark matter and dark energy, whilst how the laws of physics work within a black hole is theoretical only . We do not know whether the laws of physics are universal. I suppose the question is "why does the Universe work the way that it does?", at least the observable quantifiable Universe that we are able to understand thus far. As Einstein pondered (badly paraphrased), Was the good Lord confined in his creation to the laws of physics? Cant we not assume that the laws of physics that we now experience might not be different in other universes (past, current or future) as a consequence of each different Universe "interpreting" the moment of singularity differently? It may be that although quantum field theory, thermodynamics, and general relativity provide a good description of the workings of the Universe as we currently observe our plane of it, it may not follow that after each Big Bang these same laws emerge. Might it not be possible for a nother set of rules to appear?
Also, why should we not assume the laws of physics can come from nothing? Working backwards may imply this result, but is it not possible that the big bang itself is just that, the moment that the laws of physics actually do come from nothing? Something like the result of a quantum fluctuation.
(Of course there is a difference between facts and conventions and that appears to be a weakness of Naturalism, mistaking one for another, but without doing so at some point all thought systems break down into solipsism again)
Hope you guys enjoyed your wine by the way!
LJ:
A couple of points in your response to SpaceP.
I agree with your first para - dogmatism is not confined to religious believers. For me it is dogmatism that is the enemy of learning not religion.
Susskind - the string theorist - says that a landscape of an infinity of universes is the inevitable consequence of string theory. There are bubble universes being created all the time, of which ours (initiated by Big Bang)is one. Each has a different set of conditions correlating to the variations on the theme of string theory. Ours, perforce, is perfect for carbon-based life to emerge. He is also, incidentally, a supporter of the strong anthropic principle.
Smolin and his team at Perimeter, challenge the assumptions of string theory, partly because it has yet to be corroborated by predictive experiment and partly because it is, what he calls, background-dependent. In other words string theory depends for its success on a certain set of background conditions, whereas, for example, General Relativity would work whatever the conditions.
Smolin and others are working on certain issues that challenge both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which seem to be yielding fruit. He also says that these hypotheses will be proved one way or t'other very soon, partially through the experiments at CERN in the LHC. If these two foundational theories are overturned it will have a huge effect on the world of theoretical physics. For example, it has been suggested that the speed of light was different in the early stages of Big Bang than it is now. If this were so, it would remove one of the anchors of our knowledge.
If Smolin is right it will just demonstrate to me how little we really know. Our problem is that we are limited by the parameters of our brain and, whilst I am sure we can expand its cognitive capabilities somewhat, I doubt we have the physical wherewithal to comprehend whatever reality might comprise.
I might be wrong but how could we ever prove that we had reached the truth or the limits of our understanding anyway? We cannot know what we do not know. Perhaps it is this quest that keeps us going as a species.
What would this mean, if it were true, in evolutionary terms? If our questing and curious nature is essential to our survival it is obviously as a result of the fact that we are conscious beings. Yet consciousness might be a by product of a large brain, which is in itself a by product of bi-pedalism.
Unless, of course, some form of strong anthropic system is at work....
boltonian :
"Science is often little better in that it (or some of its adherents)assumes that everything is knowable and discoverable through the scientific method."
I think this is another reason why certain types of atheists who claim just such a thing annoy me . Science is much more important to me than religion and I fear some people want to turn science into a religion of sorts . Those people who need existential certainty , but cannot accept religion for whatever reason .
LesterJones :
"Also, why should we not assume the laws of physics can come from nothing? Working backwards may imply this result, but is it not possible that the big bang itself is just that, the moment that the laws of physics actually do come from nothing? Something like the result of a quantum fluctuation."
That implies a causeless effect . There was nothing and then , for no reason , there was something . After all a quantum fluctuation requires a quantum vacuum which must be explained , so the question is just pushed back one level ( a bit like saying 'god did it' ).
It seems to have gone a little quiet. Please feel free to start another topic or continue from an earlier one. Let us know what you are reading or anything that you have learned recently.
I have just bought a book called 'The Black Swan - the impact of the highly improbable,' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It sounds promising but it means that all the rest of my half finished books might have to wait a little while longer.
I have finally finished the Smolin. If anybody else has read either this or the Taleb I would be interested in your views.
I go away on hols for two weeks starting on Saturday and will be out of earshot for that time. I would be grateful if you could keep the discussions flowing in the meantime.
Appreciate your studious comments; however, have any of you cybernauts actually had an experiential take on understanding. An epiphany of sorts? Imagine one's intellect inscribed as an hourglass bottom ~ seasonal grains of knowledge liberally peppered atop our lumpy cortex ~ a veritable holographic pile of sands in time. And so where; what; or who'd be that cook aloom in the upper other glass? Ah, yes one might say, rolling over, what upper other? That's my figure-8.
I too have long since discounted the rational equation Descartes dittoed in Latin. The more a traveler drifts off a beaten path the more imaginative and unreal all matter begets. 12 years back I drove an old GMC jeep I retired from plowing snow from Ottawa to Colon, Panama where by chance a new ferry service had just been instituted one month. Prior to that my jeep would have had to be placed aboard a container ship for 10 times the ferry fare; but wondrously a used Norwegian ship that once serviced the Baltic had been purchased by Colombians and so my mission naturally drifted, like sands of time, across to South America, eventually to cross the equator. Upon my third night in Quito at 2800 meters some drunk collided with my parked home on wheels [I asleep in the rear], causing me to remain in Quito for the next 4 months, whereupon I began visiting the British Center where I read up on Darwin.
I learned the Galapagos was incorporated as a province of Ecuador but one year prior to the arrival of the HMS Beagle which had already been out of London over 3 years on a 5 year circumnavigation. Not only that but because of Elizabethan pirates, eg. Drake, followed by whalers, mostly American, the tortoise count was at a 30% low. The Dodo bird had become extinct in 1681. My feeling, Darwin an avid sportsman who shot many a bird, was not a conservationist and should have contemplated de-evolution as a direct consequence of the British Industrial Revolution.
When my 5 months in Ecuador were reaching their limit and there existed a war with Peru I turned north and revisited Cartegena. One day, while talking to an ex-London cabbie I had befriended, a lady happened along and matter-of-factly placed the latest copy of the TIME magazine in my hand. The one word coverstory: EVOLUTION? in yellow caught my eye. As I read I learned that a western expedition of archaeologists went to Siberia when Perestroika permitted and found a section of Precambrian wherein an incredible selection of species except for the last phylum (mammilary) were exhibited side by side ~ within a 30 million year window; precluding natural selection which would take a minimum of 3 billion years to randomly select. The possible explanation was a sudden abundance of oxygen, once the oceans were replete, creating ideal conditions for all life.
http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism.htm
http://illusioncontest.neuralcorrelate.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=109
Hi guys,
Come here from the CiF threads and find it a blessed relief to find a place where it's possible to explore these issues without without haveing to wade through all the name calling and abuse. Very much a dilettante when it comes to both science and philosophy, but find the issues fascinating.
Anyway, was wondering what you guys think about the idea that an ant colony might have some kind of collective consciousness.
Unfortunately, it's quite late at night and I don't time to properly read through all that's been written so far. I shall over the next few days endeavor to try and do so. Meanwhile, if similar issues have already been addressed on this blog and you don't want to repeat yourselves, I be grateful if someone would point me towards the correct posts.
daddyOmarcos:
You are very welcome.
Please read through the thread and post your contribution. It doesn't need to follow a particular discussion topic - anything that grabs your fancy is ok.
Look forward to hearing from you.
boltonian: "Science is often little better in that it (or some of its adherents)assumes that everything is knowable and discoverable through the scientific method."
I would expand that to "knowable and discoverable through the *current* scientific method." The history of science and the history of religion have this much in common, that there has been a tendency to regard the limitations of our own ability to observe as defining the boundaries of what exists to be observed. I am a rank amateur deeply in love with quantum physics, with the discovery of Chaos which identified the operation of the infinite and astounding implicate order theory which deserves a great deal more attention. It is worth dancing in the street (in my view) that we have reached the point where we are able to recognize (well, where some of our more brilliant oberservers are able to recognize) the evidence of such wonders as these. And what we know must always and will always give way to what we learn how to think about...
sarab:
Welcome to our blog.
You make a very interesting point about current methods.
Previous generations, I am sure, thought that they were being supremely logical in their search for the truth. Aristotle, for example, who after all was the inventor (so far as we know) of formal logic, was very wrong about many things.
I wonder if the generations to come will think of our scientific methods as limited, quaint and largely wrong.
Lots of people (not least on CiF) bang on about evidence supporting a particular assertion. The problem for me is that 'Evidence' means different things to different people - is is not indisputable.
Also, we are addicted to trying to predict the future by studying the past. As Popper and others have pointed out ad nauseam this is futile. I am reading Taleb's book, called 'Black Swan' at the moment on this very subject - fascinating. I will give a brief summary when I have finished it.
Thanks again and keep posting.
Hello there, Boltonian and others.
Daddy0Marcos - your ant colony question is fascinating. Whatever the answer is, the very workings of an ant colony - from the little I know about them - are quite astounding.
Does an ant colony have a collective consciousness of sorts?. (What exactly do you mean by consciousness, btw? - an easy question, of course...). I am not a philosopher, let alone a philosopher of mind, but I guess that to argue an ant colony would have some sort of collective consciousness might make sense in relation to a functionalist sort of approach to the philosophy of mind: i.e. (in v generalised terms) we need not consider problems of mind etc in terms of what the darn thing is, but in terms of what it does. What makes mental states what they are is not the kind of thing they are - whether firing of neurons or the decidedly non-material abstractions of 'mind' - but what they do. Thus (and I am jumping a bit here), some find it v useful - understandably - to compare our minds (which they would identify completely with our brains) with, say, computers. They both, it would appear, seem to 'do' the same sorts of things: transfer information, connect information etc.
For what it is worth, I am not so easily inclined to this way of thinking, though I can see it is hardly stupid. (I find John Searle's 'Chinese Room' argument is a suasive highlighting of the profound difficulties of comparing minds and computers). Moreover, whatever the intricate firing and interconnections between different (unconscious, I assume) neurons, consciousness is a unified experience on the part of a subject.
Perhaps jumping again - this brings me back to the ants. Ostensibly, we might - loosely - compare them to neurons, say, transmitting x, y, z etc. The problem is, if consciousness presupposes a conscious subject, in whom or what is the consciousness - to which the ants are contributing/constitutive parts - instantiated? Open to more on this...while I have inclinations on this subject, I am, if honest, an agnostic - I really can't speak with much assurance.
At the same time, even an ant colony suggests to me that there is something about the nature of groups, of sociality that renders them greater than the sum of their parts. Jumping yet again - a huge jump - I am always interested to think of ourselves as bearing this ineluctably relational dimension. (If you are at all into Thomistic thought, there is a fascinating exploration of relationality at the very core of being - along with that much maligned way of thinking, namely substantiality - by a guy called Norris Clarke: he argues that, in decidedly unfashionable Thomistic terms, "to be is to be substance-in-relation", and that relationality, far from being associated with potentiality / imperfection is related to act / perfection - I am not wholly au fait with Thomistic metaphysics, but it is interesting nonetheless). But that is for another time. And the above are just some mental meanderings (whether reasoned through my mind or caused by my brain).
SaraB - bearing in mind what Boltonian says about 'evidence' below your post, perhaps I could - if this isn't too patronising - add a tiny parenthesis to your sound point on science (and religion):
"The history of science and the history of religion have this much in common, that there has been a tendency to regard the limitations of our own ability to observe [in particular ways] as defining the boundaries of what exists to be observed"
I wonder about something else, which may be connected. This is just a very, very vague thought. (And I'm not - or dont think I am - anti-science). From the 19thc in particular, a pressing question for Christian thinkers - Prottie and Cathoholic - was wrt the question of historical development: how can doctrine develop? Can understanding of faith, or incarnational theology, or whatever 'develop'? C.f. all manner of thinkers (the most obvious - simply because of the title of his work - is Newman and his Essay on the Development of Doctrine).
Religious traditions - though I know the Cathoholic one in more detail - thereafter have attempted to deal with this question: I think it came from the explosion of historiography in that century, along with all the ideological movements and blossoming analytical techniques (textual criticism etc). They have learned - or have had a pressure - to cope with being traditional, not in the sense of static, but in the sense of dynamic, open to organic growth (but ever wary, of course, of, if you will, 'mutations'). Whether or not all of their doctrines are so much nonsense is, in some ways, besides the point - I don't write this as an apologist. By thinking about the structure of their thought, though, by drawing both on previous resources but also meeting new challenges, they have managed to, in some senses, develop.
Wrt 'science' (in that - if i may use the term - ideological sense i it is used on CiF threads among other contexts), there seems to be v little concern for such genealogies. I kind of understand why: it isn't, ostensibly, 'useful'. But the kind of 'science' that is alluded to - and by this I don't mean practice or research so much as the ideology, the commonly drawn epistemological/metaphysical conclusions - isn't so aware of its historical genesis. And it isn't so aware that it might face future tensions (perhaps philosophy of mind offers a good example). As presented by its proponents, it strikes me very much as a tradition in the static sense. It would refuse to countenance 'non-materialistic' knowledge/ontology while remaining - seemingly - ignorant of the trouble even a materialist has at defining materiality (something which s/he cannot do simply by - as the mantra goes - 'by recourse to evidence').
This is black and white, I admit, but wonder whether there is something in this and whether, from what I understand, quantum physics might offer some more prompts for more intellectual humility, I'd love to hear.
One last thought:
"The sign of a degenerate intellectual movement is that it mistakes intellectual humility for humiliation"
I just made that up & I have no idea whether it is true, but it sounded nice in my head. No, brain. No, mind.
Ok, I have gone on way way way too long, longer than George Eliot's sentences in Middlemarch, but without the nuance and poise. I will try to be more Raymond Carver next time. Best to all of you. ChooChoo.
ChooChoo
Hello and welcome.
Lots to think about in your post. Have to dash just now but will try to respond later.
I would be interested in others' views on any of the recent posts.
Could I also ask two (unrelated) questions, both of which recently came up in conversations with friends. I ask these questions out of curiosity and ignorance.
First, how on earth do we understand the actions of animals (by which I don't necessarily exclude human animals). Take a tiny insect. Was having a rollie in my back garden and saw this black(?) ant. Next to it was an even smaller insect. I have no idea what it is called: it is red and was too small for me to make out its body clearly, though I could see a blur of legs, a 'front' and 'back'. It would flitter about. Stop briefly. Then move in another direction and so on. I think there is a train of thought that sees such a simple creature in mechanistic terms, and I know that I often (without really thinking about it) think in these terms. But is it totally satisfactory? Can I really come up with a simple cause and effect explanation for why at that given moment, this little red insect (let's call him Sufjan) moved to the right in that particular way? It seems difficult - and deceptively complicated - to unpack a chain of cause and effect, in a sense. (Or so it seems to ignoramus me). Yet, it would likewise seem implausible to attribute a reason to Sufjan's movement, as if the little blighter deliberated and decided upon that course of action...
Second, on a different tack. (I should note that I am quite happy to work with evolution, sociobiologists notwithstanding). But, what are the current theories for how asexual reproduction - which I understand must have been the original - eventually gave rise to sexual reproduction. Speaking with my friend, we both initially posited a sort of merging and blurring. Yet part of me feels uneasy insofar as there is a qualitative difference between asexual / sexual.
On both these questions, it may well be that I have missed some obvious points. Would love to be informed and hear more...
Finally, is there anyone here who has read both Russell's and Copleston's histories of philosophy? (I haven't met anyone who honestly has, though that may reflect my circle of friends. Suffice it to say, I haven't - did Russell's years back, though dont remember all of it. Remember enjoying it, though I am guessing, for example, his treatment of Aquinas would be considered inadequate by modern Thomists and even non-Thomists). How do they compare? Thanks...
ChooChoo
First part of your post fascinates me and I have some (unsubstantiated) views, which I will post in the next couple of days.
I recently read Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' and cannot recommend it too highly, particularly for those just coming to the subject.
Choo Choo, your parenthesis goes some way to correcting a very poorly abbreviated point about dogma.
My own reading on other people's thought about thought came to an end years ago when I discovered that I preferred to do the jigsaw puzzle myself. That sounds insufferably arrogant, I know, as though I presumed I could do better than some of the greatest minds of Western civilization. In fact, it arose from wanting to turn the 'thing' around in my own hands and see what I could discover about it rather than comparing it with the discoveries of others. A little like wanting to see whether you can solve an equation (the same one that has been set every year for donkey's years in the same class), without parrot learning someone else's solution - however elegant and brilliant it might be.
I have so far come up with a number of 'sets' towards a solution (that I can never finally arrive at) with which I am quite childishly delighted. This is not because they are 'right' and prove everyone else wrong. It is because I saw them for myself and they give me a partial description which works.
Defining these observations as working descriptions rather than conclusions is itself a 'set' because it considers 'proof' as a necessarily temporary, best available model.
Having put that in place, I find that the entire business of inquiry becomes an awe-inspiring game rather than a matter of life and death in which being 'right' is life (to the interpretation of the world I have called THE truth) and being wrong is death. Then I notice that my own life works rather better if I approach it in the same way. And I begin to see that there are unquestioned assumptions in the very questions we ask.
For instance, suppose we throw out the underlying assumption that it is necessary to arrive at the truth and desirable to achieve certainty about anything. And then, just suppose that we assume, instead, that the best we can do or could desire to do is produce the best description of which we are presently capable of that which we are presently capable of observing AND in such a way that it improves both our understanding and our experience of whatever we are trying to describe (thought, love, will, god, reality whatever).
Because we do not live in a purely abstract world, the questions of what happens after I ask a particular question or if I ask it in a particular way is part of the answer. What are the presupposition in the question 'does an ant colony have consciousness?' What are the presuppositions in the question, 'What kind of consciousness does an ant colony have'? Which of those questions will produce a more satisfying answer in the sense of providing a description that works? And which question you prefer and why is just as important, will tell you just as much, as the question itself.
We are beginning to abandon the illusion that the observer can be separated from the thing observed to give a kind of 'pure' objectivity. If we go further and say that, if it were even possible to do that, it would not be useful we can take a breather from the tyranny of certainty. We can even create the space in which to observe ourselves observing and enjoy the fact that there is nothing we can learn about that does not teach us more about ourselves than that which we are learning about. For myself, I cannot (now) imagine why I would wish it otherwise. By the same token there is nothing we can observe about ourselves that does not teach us something about the universe in which we have our experience.
I view evolution thus: what a blessing (or remarkable gift of chance) that we have the illusion of time (Einstein's description) to allow it to take place. I don't much mind exactly how it happened because I've never been one for cogs and wheels, taxonomy and (or taxidermy either!)and mechanism as valuable as these may be. I loathe the very question 'is evolution true' because because it is a dishonest question arising from either scientific or religious dogma. But I'd start getting really interested in how it happened, cogs and wheels (from asexual to sexual reproduction for instance) and all if the inquiry were framed within the question, 'Does evolution help to describe the world we can observe and ourselves in relation to that world as we presently understand it?' then you'd see me leaping up and down like the kid at the back of the classroom with her hand up, going, "Ooh, ooh, I know!" :-) (And in case you're wondering, my position would be yes, of course it does. It's a wonderful description, full of holes and discrepancies for the time being but still wonderful.)
Good grief I am long winded. (Hope that makes you feel better Choo Choo.) So here's my cliche for the day, (cue to stop reading and go make a cup of tea): framing the questions to allow the possibility of 'wrong' answers will produce much more satisfying answers than trying to find the 'right' answers.
See you later I have to make spaghetti and examine the tomato sauce of God.
Like ChooChoo I find the behaviour of other species fascinating, especially when comparing it with the human variety. On a warm, sunny day recently I saw a number of sheep in a field sheltering under an oak tree. There were too many of them to fit in the shade, so some were sitting in the sun, although remaining close to the others. This was despite the fact that there were several other shady trees in the field. It seemed likely that their instinct to stay together for protection was stronger than the motivation to stay cool. And I found myself wondering how this behaviour would be understood if the sheep had language. Would they interpret the urge to stay together, even if they had to suffer in the heat, as a moral rule ("we should stay together")? Would the more "independently minded" ones (there were one or two) who found shelter elsewhere be accused of selfishness, or recklessness (since they'd probably have rationalised that staying together was "morally right" because it protected the group)? And does this tell us anything about our own sense of free will and responsibility? Just some thoughts to add to the mix!
PassingStarship:
Welcome.
All:
Here are a few random thoughts prompted by the last few posts.
We cannot know what it is like to be anything other than ourselves. All else is assumption. The further we are from whatever it is we are studying the less we will understand because all our conclusions are based on evidence tainted by anthropomorphism, because we can do no other. I can just about understand what it might be like to be you but only by imagining myself in your position and making some big assumptions because we are genetically almost indistinguishable. That is not the same thing as seeing the world through your eyes.
For example, when we study the behaviour of, say, a cat, we make assumptions about its motivations based on observation. But those assumptions are biased by our own experience no matter how objective we try to make our experiments. We could map and observe every neurone of the cat's brain at all times during its life but we would be no nearer to knowing what it is like to be a cat.
We have no idea whether a cat is capable of conscious thought or not. It used to be the received wisdom when I was at school, admittedly many eons ago, that mankind was the only creature on the planet capable of such a thing. How on earth can we make that assertion when we do not know what consciousness is?
The reference to the collective consciousness of colonies is interesting. I was reading something a while ago about bacteria in our gut. They seem to act both as self-serving organisms and a sort of surrogate brain that makes decisions benefiting its host. How do they know how and when to behave in a certain way? Who makes the decision to do x or y at a given time. Is it purely mechanistic?
Someone mentioned Searle's Chinese room earlier. I will need to re-read it but I found it unconvincing but that might be because I found the whole book rather lightweight.
Evolution, like any current theory about anything, is almost certainly not the last word on the subject. My guess is that future generations will think us rather primitive for believing such a thing as anything like the truth.
We create complete pictures from scant information, possibly because that is what our brain does to allow us to make decisions. So, rather that saying that we have these things that appear to be true given our current state of knowledge, we are compelled to string them together, create wholly spurious categories and pretend that they are all part of some coherent whole. But it is us that has created the 'Whole' - it does not exist independently in nature.
Time was mentioned by someone. I posted something much earlier which might bear repetition. Einstein once said that he thought that time did not exist other than as a human construct, thus undermining his own relativity theories, which depended on the concept of Spacetime. Having said that he also said that all current theories, except the second law of Thermodynamics, would one day be overturned.
Time is supposed to move in one direction only (unlike the three dimensions of space) from the past, through the present to the future.
The past cannot be objectively verified because it exists only as a solipsistic memory. If you and I, for example, had attended a particular event last night and were asked about it by a third party we would not be able to agree on all the details. Even if there were a battery of cameras it would not be able to capture every aspect of the evening. There is no such thing as the objective past, it is merely a series of sensations in one's brain.
The future is pure supposition because it has not happened yet and so remains speculation - and rather poor speculation at that.
The present assumes that there is an instant that is neither past nor future. We have no evidence that such a moment exists.
So, does time exist, other than as a convenient concept for our use? Does any other life form on the planet use time as a tool?
Hi folks,
I need some love. My sense of humour has got me into trouble again, this time on the Sue Blackmore thread. I feel ganged up on and have just been accused of being a "whited sepulchre" by doesnotexist. I didn't know what it meant til I looked it up and that just made me feel worse.
I haven't really got anything else to say at the moment. At least my dog still loves me :(
Oh, dear sweet reason! Boltonion, the more I read of your posts the more I appreciate them. I would rather try to figure my way out of just about any mess with you than with most other fellow theists I have come across. One of the assertions of Christianity (and one or two other religions besides) is that God is truth, or Truth is an aspect of God. I would rather have your love of truth, (the essence of the thing), any day than the name of a god who is never allowed to be more than the construct that I prefer to believe in and who must, therefore, be defended against all challenges, especially the more truthful ones!
Biskieboo (in the sternest and most loving voice I can muster) if you must play in the traffic you are going to get hit by cars. Fortunately this traffic is composed of hot air and indigestion and there is no need whatever to take it personally. Use it as an exercise in observing human fear and perhaps speculate as to what could possibly be so terrifying, or so offensive about a bunch of ideas about belief in God that people (theist and atheist) have to attack them as though their lives depended on it? Is there some sense in which their lives actually DO depend on it? That might be fun. Meanwhile, please don't play in the traffic unless you are sure that you will not take the 18 wheelers that will certainly mow you down so personally! (Affectionately...)
Thank you all for humouring me with my ant question. Soon after posting it, it occurred to me that it was a little too vague and I started trying to think of some more intelligent questions to post, but I am glad that people have picked it up and decided to run with it. It is a question that has fascinated for several years since it became part of what was an epiphany for me. I have to confess, after the mushrooms wore off I switched from being a believer to being, like ChooChoo, an agnostic on this one. But it still occupies my thoughts every now and then.
I'll come back to the ant question after running through some of the things I've been thinking since my previous post. But before I do, I better answer what I mean by consciousness: self-awareness. I guess my question is, does an ant have some kind of self-awareness? [I wrote this post before Boltonian's post and am inserting this parenthesis at the end. Of course, Boltonian is right in that we can never understand what it is like to be an ant, but being a slow writer I don't want to start all over again] On the level of the individual ant, I find it almost impossible to believe that it does in any sense that is recognisable to us.
So, what's been occupying me lately? A few events I'd like to mention here. The first came from the Blackmore thread on CiF on Friday when I asked if anyone with a knowledge of neuroscience could shed light on the workings of the brain in relation to faith and reason. Somebody provided a link to a site that referred to neurological studies on monks and nuns showing activity in the part of the brain dealing with space and time decreases during meditation. I can't say I found this terribly surprising from my limited experience of meditation, but I found it very interesting nevertheless. Later that evening I was training in my martial art. My teacher has for a while now been trying to break my habit of standing toe to toe with my opponent and slugging it out when sparring and instead start matching his every move, so that when he's attacking I'm defending (think of your reaction if someone's making to flick paint at you), instead of waiting until after he's launched his attack, by which time it's too late (why people will react quicker to flying paint than a flying fist is a mystery to me). On Friday we had something of a breakthrough when for a few moments it was working, and it felt similar to meditation - heightened sense of awareness and a quiet mind. But surely a pretty good sense of space and time would be necessary in sparring, I thought to myself as I recalled the study I'd read about earlier in the day.
Then yesterday morning, in the Guardian's sports pages, I read John Barnes recalling his famous solo goal in 1984 when he cut through the entire Brazil defence. I thought of the study again when he used the term "out of body experience" to describe how it felt. It reminded me of a tournament I took part in a year ago where after a shaky start I recovered to finish second in my belt category. My best fight came in the semi-final, where I felt a strange detachment between my thoughts and my actions, like I was doing a commentary, but as an impartial observer removed from the action. I also thought about something that Roger Federer has said about his tennis, which is that when he is in the zone and everything is going right time feels like it has slowed down.
Now, coming back from this diversion to consciousness. I take on board the functionalist approach to the mind that ChooChoo reminds us of, and I don't even find the Chinese Room argument that convincing. There is so much we don't know about the brain that to build an exact computer replica might entail devising a new generation of computers entirely unrecognisable in their workings from the ones we have today. But I don't really buy the functionalist approach anyway, so I ask what if we are making a basic and fundamental mistake in framing such issues in terms of "philosophy of the mind"? After all, eastern philosophical systems often talk of achieving unity of mind, body and spirit. Even if we leave aside for the moment the more contentious issue of spirit, even the most strident atheists would struggle to mount a convincing argument for a non-existence of body, so why should consciousness reside in the physical mind and not the body? Why not talk of a "philosophy of the body"? Meditation can teach to centre our consciousness in different parts of the body. Under a functionalist approach such consciousness is nothing more than a trick of the mind, but clearly the functionalist approach isn't universally accepted by posters here.
So, if for the sake of argument we accept the idea the mind is not the subject of consciousness, maybe our highly developed (compared to insects) brains are not a pre-requisite for consciousness. Maybe Sufjan, lacking a brain able to distinguish time and space but most certainly in possession of a body, exists in a conscious state of bliss not wholly dissimilar to nirvana as he flitters around ChooChoo's garden like Roger Federer at Wimbledon centre court.
Of course, none of these ideas are particularly original. Like SaraB, I have mostly been trying to solve this jigsaw puzzle on my own and don't doubt that many have asked the same questions and considered the same solutions before.
PassingStarship's idea of a sheep's sense of morality is extremely novel (to me anyway), intriguing and worthy of thought. I also like the idea of rebel sheep (were they black sheep?). It's funny how animals have personality traits that we associate with humans (or is it just that we look for them in order to feel closer to them). A few years ago, when I lived in Mexico City, my flatmates and I adopted a mongrel street dog, Eddie, who had strong traces of golden retriever in him but disproportionately long limbs, which made his movements sometimes less than graceful. Once when we going down the stairs for his walk, I heard a thud beside me, only to find when I looked down that Eddie was on his feet but looking back at me sheepishly to see if I had noticed him falling flat on his belly. That's when I discovered that dogs feel embarassment [Boltonian's point notwithstanding - we do get sentimental about our pets and will grasp at anything we feel increases our emotional connection to them].
I've been extremely impressed with everyone's posts here. Also at how you are so prolific here and also on the CiF threads. (It takes me far too long to write the briefest of posts).
SaraB -
Don't worry it only lasted about 5 minutes - I bounce back pretty quickly :)
Thanks all for some thought-provoking stuff.
Firstly, Biskieboo:
There is always a refuge here. You will not find agreement, necessarily, but I hope you will always find courtesy and understanding. I will echo Sarab's sentiments in that CiF can be a rough place - that is part of its excitement.
I try very hard to be polite but I have lost it occasionally, particularly with one well known provocatively rude poster, as I think you are aware. He brings out the worst in me so I do not engage with him any more. I am not advocating that for you, just saying that your experience is fairly common.
Sarab:
Many thanks.
Two things I battle against constantly in life; one is self-pity, which I loathe with all my being (I would like some expert in anthropology to give me the reason why it is of benefit to us one day), and the other is prejudice. I am guilty of both but realise that they get in the way of learning, which is why I value the views of others so much. If it is possible to be a fierce agnostic then I am one - some, however, would call me a serial fence-sitter.
daddyOmarcos:
Hey, speed is not important here. I am one of the slowest thinkers on the planet, which is why I set this up so that we can discuss things at leisure, without the pressure of the three day rule on CiF.
Some very interesting thoughts. I have been criticised in the past for using relativity (in the non-Einsteinian sense) but I will give it a go here. Imagine yourself as a beetle - you could relate to things that were the size, say, of a flea but would have no concept of microbes. You might have a vague concept of badgers or kestrels (because they could eat you)but not of elephants.
We, given our large relative brain size, can perceive things both relatively smaller and larger than ourselves but not hugely so. we can envisage (just) quantum particles and our observable universe. Beyond that we struggle. Imagining multiple dimensions, for example, is impossible for most of us.
Let's say we are all part of some huge organism of which our observable universe is but a small part how would we envisage it? Carl Sagan once said that if we were able to break open an electron (a so-called fundamental particle) we would find a multiplicity of universes.
Regarding pets, I am convinced that we attribute emotions to them based on our own needs. I am not sure how we break out of anthropomorphism. The nature of our gods through the ages are also largely anthropomorphic.
I cannot solve jigsaw puzzles on my own and long ago gave up trying. I realised 30 years ago that my strength lay in building on others' ideas, much as I would love to be an original thinker.
Boltonian, you are actually starting to scare me. I'm not used to agreeing with anyone so unreservedly! You raise so many things I'd like to talk about from a 'yes exactly and have you noticed this? perspective. :-) But to focus, I also struggle horribly with self pity - which I also loathe.
For the past seven years I have been consciously engaged in a discipline of which perhaps the foundation is the proposition that the self is both a construct and a prison which requires its own construct of the (apparently) external world for survival. The self-construct quickly attains a kind of life of its own (sometimes referred to as 'the mask') which sets its own survival above all else - and therefore also the validity of the 'mirror' or world construct on which it depends. It is as if we were each a method actor who had succeeded in assuming a role so perfectly that we identify survival with the survival of the character (mask) and of the world construct that supports it.
Self pity and offence are tyrannies which reassert the life, importance - indeed centrality - of the mask. They obstruct learning because they impose an a priori agenda that acts as a filter on everything we learn. I find this to be so.
Another proposal is that language is just another word for reality. And another is that truth does not require belief but belief is required, (in the possibility that something may be true), before it is possible to determine its truth (or otherwise). (In the language of the scientist that would be expressed as 'you cannot prove a negative'.)
Thus what we can learn is absolutely dependent on the position we assume, for instance, about the importance of 'me' in all this. (And truly many of those who talk most loudly about the insignificance of the human 'insect' toil under the yoke of a very significant 'me' indeed.) And this too is found in the language of science which says that you cannot separate the observer from the thing observed.
In the sense that all thought builds on the previous thoughts of others (or seems to flower organically from that thought, like the story of the hundredth monkey), there may be no such thing as original thought. Or you could just as truthfully say that whatever you see for yourself is original in every case.
In my little world there is no more original thought than the one that gives rise to a loathing of self-pity when that is so foreign to what we call human nature. And serial fence sitting looks to me like a stubborn and dogged determination not to construe anything - and specially not 'the absolute' - in any way which is dictated by the wishful thinking of the 'me-thing'! (Bravo then.)
Oh look - anthropormophism, something we may actually disagree about. Oh goody! (But next time or my husband may start to feel like a computer widower again.)
DaddyO, I have many times watched my cat make graceful leap to land in a distinctly ungraceful heap. If you laughed she behaved exactly like an outraged (and embarrassed) person. If you did not,she carried on as though nothing had happened. Every time and with no exception. But it was when I started hanging around with Native Americans that my ideas about what animals 'think' got blown out of the water. The only thing I can safely say (and somewhat shakily) is that I do not know any more. (Of course I never really did.) But I don't think it's safe to say that consciousness is a human prerogative.
You say something interesting about the (nercessary?) relationship between mind and brain. I'd refer you to Karl Pribram's work, if I had not just realized that I know of it only second hand - by reading what others have said of it. So first, I suppose, I need to rectify that.
For now.
sarab:
Thank you for sharing this.
I am not sure that I have grasped all of it, so this post is by way of a test of my understanding.
Where does the 'Mask' come from that requires an external construct within which to function? Why does the external world so constructed not always fit the 'Mask?' Some people are very ill at ease with the world they inhabit and none (I surmise) totally comfortable.
If the 'Mask' is at the level of the individual then I would argue that its survival is not the highest priority - there are myriad examples of individuals sacrificing themselves for others. How does this concept square with Darwinian evolution, whereby survival lives at the species level?
'Language is another word for reality.'
There was much debate earlier in the thread about the role of public language. Whilst I agree that language is critical to our understanding of the world (such that it is) it is very approximate and subjective. By that I mean I cannot know that you have received what I have transmitted - all I can know is what I would have understood were I to receive that message.
An example might be my understanding of your words - it is more than possible that I have completely misunderstood almost everything you said. And it is certain that others will understand something different from me because we each have a unique set of experiences on which we base our interpretations.
Separating the observer from the observed is, I suggest, the key limitation to our understanding of the world. It prevents us from perceiving reality because we are incapable of stepping outside ourselves. All we can do, therefore, is try to reach some sort of view of the perceived world based on our collective observations. This only works because we (as human beings) are genetically so similar that an assumption that we experience similar sensations from the same stimuli might not be too wide of the mark. But it is an assumption nonetheless. Other creatures less genetically similar would experience something very different (we assume) but we cannot gain access to what that might be.
You mentioned wishful thinking. I have tried over the years to eliminate (not entirely successfully) this from my analysis of the world. I cannot see how any supernatural belief system (for which there is no independent evidence) can be anything other than this at its core. 'I believe what I want to believe because I want to believe it.'
This does not preclude the existence, of course, of beings of far superior intelligence that we would find indistinguishable from gods.
This is why I am agnostic.
Sorry for being so long-winded and apologies if I have traduced your concept in any way. Happy to be corrected.
Boltonian: you couldn't be any more long winded than I and you did not traduce anything. You did show up how tired and stupid I was when I posted.
I made the idiotic mistake of (my all too frequent piece of sloppiness!) of employing a language for which I (and others) have assigned a specific meaning without establishing how I was using that language beforehand. It is something I get particularly annoyed with myself about because it is sometimes a deliberate device (and particularly loathsome, I think) used in debate when the intention is to make the 'opposition' appear stupider than the proponent. (Not that I see you as the opposition to begin with.)
The 'mask' is a proposition thus: identity is accumulated from childhood onwards. The child is 'told' explicitly or through experience that he/she is beautiful/ugly, stupid/clever, important/unimportant, clumsy/graceful, like/unlike another, ad infinitum. These assertions are 'proved' through experience. They become the bedrock of an identity (mask) so definite (= 'attains a kind of life of its own') that it is easier for most of us to be willing to sacrifice life itself (by an act of heroism for example) than to consider the possibility that 'who we say we are' (the mask) does not exist. In the simplest possible terms this can also be expressed in terms of 'conditioning' to perceive ourselves as consisting of a personality made of elements that have been suggested to us, or that we have suggested to ourselves and which is not only illusory, but may dictate destructive and deeply painful behaviors and experiences. We may repeat such behaviors/experiences because of the circular process by which, for example, 'the person I am' always/never does x in a given situation.
The only universe we know is the universe as it appears to us i.e. the human universe. The only complete human 'mechanism' we actually know is our own. We do not habitually recognize the limitations of our own identity construct but anyone can test the usefulness of this proposition at any time by demolishing and reconstructing any specific aspect of their 'character' that they choose.
The rather glib 'language is another word for reality' merely asserts that we cannot think about anything for which we do not have a concept (language). This what is available for us to think, talk, even be consciously aware of is circumscribed the language we have developed to describe the world in which we live. Thus by the time we get to the question of how much we understand of one another's communication we have already passed over the fact that there is an interdependency between the 'amount' of reality that is, or may be there to be described and the reality that description makes available.
This being the case a basis from which to begin that inquiry which makes (Aristotle?) life worth living is not 'is this true?' but does this proposition give me a *useful* working model with which to describe what can be observed? Working from the basis of a useful model we see more than we could see previously, we develop new language with which to explore (for us) new reality to the point where the model is no longer useful. We move from the Newtonian to the quantum model, for instance, and though much of the classical model is later shown to have been based on false assumptions, yet it provided the vehicle that carried us to the an entirely unimagined 'reality'.
Thus it may be reasonably argued that the value of any model that is assumed to be (temporarily) 'true' can be assessed just as vaidly in terms of whether it produces happiness - not for the abstract, historical 'humanity' which exists only in the mind but for the concrete human and those concrete humans in his/her immediate world of experience - as it can for whether it expands the boundaries of what we recognize and and can rationally inquire about. (Thus truth does not require belief but belief is sometimes required before we can determine it. And I should have added 'determine it, not as absolute for there is nothing absolute about the *oberver*, but as useful, as taking as forward in some sense.)
I hope that's a mite clearer.
I do not believe in anything supernatural. I have witnessed things that others would certainly label that way but I take the position that if they occur, then they are by definition natural. I merely do not presently have a conceptual framework within which to explain them. (So I'm not going to flipping well invent one and start talking rubbish about ectoplasms or whatever.) I cannot assume that what is only rarely observed and cannot be presently measured does not exist (electrons?) for that reason. It seems evident that science has not yet finished explaining all natural phenomena. (We know sweet fanny adams about the oceans for instance but it doesn't mean there aren't sea monsters out there because we don't know about them except through second hand stories. A useful inquiry, it seems to me, would be 'if there were sea monsters would that explain anything that we can observe'?)
If something exists it exists whether I believe in it or not. It does not require me for its existence. It is I who may require to 'try it on for size' and see where it takes me. If I like the journey AND I get a new and wider perspective for my inquiry that is all that can be asked. "Yes but is true?", is completely beside the point. Newton's model wasn't true, in a strict sense but it got us closer to a bit more truth than we'd had before. Reminds me of the incredibly beautiful Tibetan Mandala that is created in sand every year and then, ceremoniously swept away.
And I leave you with this thought..... please don't ever apologize again for being long winded. You'll just make me feel terrible!
Boltonian, Daddy0Marcos and others - and, of course, our kind host, Boltonian - a quick thank you for this little safe haven. I do enjoy CiF and all. But it can be a bit disheartening (c.f. the Grayling thread). Which, I admit, is to contribute nothing to discussion of collective consciousness, ontology, language etc...
I will start at the bottom and work upwards.
ChooChoo:
Thanks (I don't really deserve two thank yous :)). The idea here is to be able to explore a few things without it denegerating into a competitive sport, as so often happens on CiF. I deliberately refrained from contributing to the ACG thread, apart from a rather facetious comment last night (after a glass of wine, I confess), because we have been here many times before and I am beginning to bore myself with the same old line.
sarab:
I promise not to apologise for long-windedness again.
Thank you for the clarification.
You say that things exist independently of you, which suggests an objective reality out there of which our perception is some sort of approximation. The Platonic view, if you like.
I would like to put forward a couple of alternative scenarios for consideration:
1) That a world exists outside our being but as we can never gain access to it we have no idea what it might be like. It is unlikely to bear any resemblance to our perceived world, except by the most extraordinary coincidence. All our information about the world comes to us through our senses and is mediated in the brain. Each individual life form has a different set of perceptive equipment and will see the world differently, so why should our perception be any closer to reality than any others?
2) As we are each subjective individuals and can only access the world through our own subjective equipment, how do we know that there is anything at all beyond ourselves. When I dream I am convinced that I am relating to the world but when I wake I realise that it was happening in my head and there was no external world. This is solipsism, of course.
wrt language. Are you saying that we cannot have sensations without a language to express it? And that we expand the boundaries of our knowledge incrementally, so that language and concept develop hand over hand, as it were? I would agree, for the most part, but I often find myself looking at a beautiful view or painting, or listening to a particularly moving piece of music for which I have no language to express my feelings. But they are real and memorable nonetheless.
I agree that all phenomena that exist in the world must be natural, however unlikely they might seem to us at a particular juncture in time. You mentioned the oceans. I would add the Earth in general - we know more about the interior of the Sun than we do of our own planet.
By supernatural I mean belief without testable evidence. For example, I say that God exists because it says so in the Bible and it must be true because the Bible is the word of God. How do we know that the Bible is the word of God - because it says so in the Bible. Proved only by a self-referencing circular argument. Similarly, I know that Jesus is the son of God because He has spoken to me and told me. Again, no testable or falisifiable evidence.
Now to the nub of your post. I agree that 'Truth' is relative to the observer at a particular point in time and, therefore, it cannot be absolute. The Existentialist position. Also, our collective idea of truth (as human beings) is a distillation of our experience to date, which is why Newtonian physics was the last word for so long, and even now works for most things most of the time. However, given our propensity (or limitation) of trying to formulate truths from historical data we will fail to spot the big things - history is a very poor guide to the future. I am not sure what else we can do, though.
I think I now understand more clearly the idea of 'Mask' and the development of one's individual world view.
How does this square, I wonder, with Matt Ridley's assertion (in 'Nature via Nurture), based on twin study research, that our adult behaviour is determined 50% by our genes; 45% by outside the home childhood environment (the Jesuit position); and 5% by the inside the home childhood environment?
There its lots more to explore here and thanks for such a thought-provoking post.
I would be interested in others' views, questions and angles.
If anyone comes across any of the contributors here on CiF or any others who would find this interesting please invite them to join in.
Lots to think about in yours too. I'm going to be swamped for a few days so please excuse the uncharacteristic silence! But in the words of the governor of California, I'll be back. :-)
Hello all, I am another refugee from what was turning into a bit of a bitchy-fest with a well known individual on CiF. I've read the comments and there is a lot to discuss, I see it's all quite open and I like the tangents some of you are taking. I will not make any comments as yet since I'd rather think them through and I'll try and make them a bit more cogent than my contributions on CiF. I am neither a philosopher, scientist or theologian - unfortunately I'm a Social Scientist (this is a bit of a problem for me since I think the epistomoligical fundations of Social Science are flawed) yet I find balance with my other hat in legal theory. To that end I found the questions on free will particularly interesting from an applied point of view. But I hope I'm open to ideas, I'll try not to let my prejudices get in the way and I promise to stay silent when I haven't a clue, which you can really get away with on CiF. Not that it matters but I've changed my name from CiF but anyone familiar with Verdian Baritones should know who I am.
Bocanegra:
I guess you have changed from Alfred to Simon - I too enjoy Italian opera. Favourite tenor - Beniamino Gigli.
You are very welcome here, where the behaviour you refer to is discouraged. That is one reason (and the three day rule)why I set up the blog. I prefer discussion to point scoring and I love learning, which is very difficult on CiF. Having said that I do enjoy the cut and thrust of it occasionally and this site is not meant to replace anything. I no longer engage with the fellow in question - I find it simply a waste of my time.
I hope you do comment on things that interest you whether you have expertise or not. I have little depth of knowledge about very much but I am interested in most things, at least those that I feel are important.
I hope Krapotkin can sort his IT problems out and re-join us because he was on the WML side of the debate and I would be interested in why he feels that circumstantial evidence is either inadmissible or insufficient here. CiF is not really the place for an in-depth examination of anything.
If there is anybody else tuning in with views on the likelihood of the historical Jesus having existed and, if he did, what his nature might have been, please post a comment.
Just popped over from the the CiF Adam Rutherford thread - don't have much time now but I'm looking forward to have a good look round
LondonFido:
You are very welcome. Looking forward to your contributions.
Hi Boltonian!
Hi Folks!
(I'm the commenter formerly known as cynicalsteve....how I wish I'd chosen another name *there*....)
Just lookin' out of curiosity....
Is there just the one thread?
Won't post anything meaty at present, except to say what many of you probably already know; that re the ant colony q, Hofstedter has written about this in his oblique way (in GEB).
Anyhow, I take on board what some of you have said about CiF, and promise that if I do come back, I'll be on my best behaviour....
Meanwhile, thanks for the opportunity boltonian (Ian from Bolton? or just a general boltonian?!)
Hi Steve. Welcome - I have enjoyed your posts on CiF and look forward to your contributions here.
Just one thread - it was suggested I started others but I failed the test. Please pick up on anything you feel you want to discuss, either a current, past or yet to be topic.
Funnily enough I have a brother called Ian. I was born in Bolton but we moved when I was 18 months old. It left me with a legacy of supporting Bolton Wanderers - the whole family comes from the town, so I had no choice. These days I do not really follow the game but it seemed like an uncontroversial (if unimaginative)display name.
Hi boltonian, I thought I might stop by and see what's happening over here. I was intending to reply to some of the posts, but I couldn't find a way to change my current username (I'm not telling) to my actual name, and before soon it was up to 400 and didn't seem worth it. Little did I know...
I've followed and enjoyed your posts (and Krapotkin) for a while now on Cif, and see that you guys get further stuck in here, without the trolling. Can't promise to contribute anything profond but I'll chip in if I can.
Cheers
Adam
Boltonian : I have been keeping an eye on your militant cell here and have come close to posting on several occasions.
There is a pattern on this blog of people taking part for a while and then disappearing, as you've noted yourself.
The problem from my point of view is that issues have been raised in terms, to which I couldn't immediately relate. For example, I've spent weeks pondering at odd moments whether I am still a mysterian. Certainly, I've been gradually moving away from that position, but does this altering stance affect other positions, interpretations of personal experiences and core beliefs ?
Another possible reason for the pattern of "absenteeism" is that people prefer the knockabout, which passes for debate on CiF.
There's lots of interesting stuff on here already, but it must be a bit daunting for newcomers to read and digest all the existing subject matter.
As it's your blog and you seem to have read the most relevant books, I suggest you pick a topic each month or write a short piece as they do on CiF and invite comments.
The purpose would be to start a clean sheet, which might help psychologically.
My better half is also a Buddhist, but of the Mahayana variety. I think she's been practising for over 10 years now. It was undoubtedly during our frequent trips to Nepal that she first got hooked. It does seem a bit obsessive and although I think it has helped her in some ways, like any belief system it seems to cut off certain lines of enquiry.
Was it Basildon writing recently on CiF, who also confessed to being a (Zen) Buddhist practitioner ?
Steve : how long did it take you to read GEB ? Must admit I can only handle about 5 pages in a session.
I read Holographic Universe recently, which is very wacky, but that's the way I like it. Also re-reading Singularity. Haven't felt the need to read any more Wolfram, but I still like the basic idea.
pttp - fancy bumping into you here....can't remember how long it took to read GEB. Remember it as a great book, though, even though I'm not a big classy music groupie, and the Bach element was rather lost on me. As were, to some extent, the Godel bits. Come to think of it, I know nothing about art, either, so that's Escher sidelined....seriously, though, I did enjoy the Godel side. I was hamstrung, sadly, because the maths at that level was beyond my wall. It's a funny thing - I doubt I dropped a single perecentage point in any maths exam at school, right up to A level, and beyond to S level further maths. It was all too easy. Then, no problem at uni, for a year or so (although maths was just a sideline). Then, one day, WHAM! We started doing stuff that I just couldn't visualise, and despite trying hard a few times since, I'd hit a wall. A humiliating experience. It was as if they'd all suddenly started speaking SerboCroat. So don't go trying to engage me on the finer points of Godel's theorem (yes, ChooChoo, I'm looking at you....)
Sadly, also, GEB is one of four excellent books that at various times I've lent to others, and never had returned. So, if anyone out there has any of these books and a strange sense of guilt, please get in touch:
GEB
An early hardback edition of "1066 and all that"
"The Green Man" by Kingsley Amis
A fascinating, now out of print, book by one of the Duncan Campbells, detailing lots of the secret underground places in Britain - the extra tube stations, deep shelters, that sort of thing.
(I won't deny there are some things on my shelves that are loooooong term loans; but a couple of Le Carre's hardly compensate for the above....)
I note Adam Rutherford's post above - congrats on your K ! Sorry you didn't join in the bun fight, Adam.
Sorry it's all a bit off topic, but will try to *think* tomorrow....
Hi all
Thanks for looking in.
Well done, Adam, for the interest your piece generated - must be a record.
It amuses me that certain posters complain about 'Yet another religious/anti-religion thread' yet they seem to attract the most attention. Metaphysics, or whatever grand title we give to it, really is important to us. Why? That might be an interesting thread.
pttp:
I have never thought of myself as 'Militant' before - WML called me a militant agnostic, which I still think is an oxymoron. Perhaps we define our own terms:
'Wad some pow'r the giftie gie us to see oorsels as others see us.'
Yes, I have noticed the bursts of enthusiasm followed by periods of idleness. I went away for a few weeks and almost nothing happened in that time, so we have more or less started again. I hope people like elephantschild and yakaboo etc return at some point.
I will think about your suggestion but I would like others, with more knowledge than me, to come up with interesting pieces that we could all comment on.
Spacepenguin visited for a while - I hope he looks in from time to time as he has lots of interesting things to say on scientific issues - he is also a bit of a mysterian.
Steve: GEB? My maths remained at 'O' level standard. My dad loved maths (he was an engineer) and was slightly disappointed that I did not share his enthusiasm. But now, whenever I read people like Feynman, I wish I had paid a bit more attention.
A couple of other things occur to me. I am sure you are right, pttp, that some find posting here daunting. I have asked friends to contribute and, although they will look in, some have been a little intimidated.
How do we overcome this?
I would also like to get a few others from CiF involved, such as tonyellis, GoM, Gerry71, jeremyjames, Bill Ingle, Humanzee etc. I know that CiF can be exciting but this blog offers something different and is certainly not in competition with CiF.
I have asked for all those that visit to leave a message, so perhaps we can get an idea as to how many people read but don't post.
I know very little about Mahayana Buddhism but would be interested to explore how it differs from the Therevada version. I went to Nepal a few years ago and walked to Annapurna Base Camp from Pokara - fabulous. Also spent a week exploring the Kathmandu valley - great holiday.
Boltonian : I think militant was an excessive description for Dawkins, but maybe apposite for some atheists on CiF. My usage as applied to you wasn't intended seriously. I agree militant agnostic tends to the oxymoronic.
I'll admit to deploying baiting tactics at CiF, but I'll try not to do it here.
In this context, I'd also apologise to ChooChoo for a rather snide remark on CiF, which again was intended to be lighthearted. It's very easy to get a bit carried away on CiF especially when you're following several threads.
The Hofstedter book Steve mentioned, that I'm currently struggling with, is the Eternal Golden Braid "Goedel, Escher, Bach". It's going to be a long term project. I'd heard of Goedel, longtime admirer of Escher, listened to Bach in my teens. Mindbending stuff all of it.
Did you note the further progress announced towards the development of the quantum computer ?
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn12082-atom-trap-is-a-step-towards-a-quantum-computer-.html
Also some interesting articles on black holes and creation theories recently.
David Deutsch's remarks in today's NS lead article are well worth reading. I like many worlds.
Yes ABC is a classic, but for my money Annapurna circuit is the best walk in the world, albeit a bit crowded in season.
Dear Boltonian,
Thank you for your welcome. We can agree with Gigli but when it comes to sopranos I am as militant as they are, a true believer and I cannot and will not be moved, Tebaldi forever.
I feel some of us are daunted since it seems, to me at least that we may not feel qualified to comment. CiF is fun since you can hide behind bluster and rhetoric where here a real attempt to exchange ideas forces us to think, hard at the best of times. There could be two strings to the threads. The first could be as it is now with issues growing organically and being discussed. The second could involve us 'parasites' interjecting with small even child like questions (the best kind), or requesting clarification, maybe just to keep up. I'm sure when a thread where we have a point to make comes our way we can jump in. We all have holes in our knowledge so let's own up, without ridicule and ask those questions. Though having said that I'm not ready to take the plunge just yet. I almost started with the historical Jesus point and ended up with Karl Barth, without ever even having made the point I wanted to make, I'll try and edit it on word and get back to you. Would be great if Mark Vernon could join us. One final point on CiF, I was just going through past articles and came accross one by Martin Rees from 10th June 2006 on ethics in science, excellent article,,,,,, five responses.
OK, so free will.
I assume we're all ruling out the deterministic line, that if you know where everything is, and what it's doing, that you can calculate everything for ever and a day. (I recall reading once that, when setting a snooker shot, if you ignored the gravitational effect of a single electron on the edge of the universe, you couldn't calculate even approximately the path of one ball after seven cushion bounces. Sounds crazy - hope it's true!)
So, if it's not determinism, what makes us choose? And what makes ChooChoo's bug choose which way to go? Is my choice different from the bug's choice? Well, I think my choice does differ from the bug's. I would say that, given the same sensory inputs, the bug would always make the same choice; I don't think I do. (I can't be sure; I can never repeat the experiment.) Or is my choice an illusion? Heck, I hope not. There'd just be no *point* in that case, would there?
Since I'm floundering a little now, what if we turn the question around - can we imagine *not* having free will? I'm gonna have to think about this.
Sorry, boltonian, I seem to have asked plenty of questions without going anywhere....will try again later....
Incidentally, if you're looking for recruits, can I suggest endlessdyad? He/she's good on this stuff, seems up for a good clean debate - and appears exasperated by the argybargy *over there*.
Finally, can I plug my doggerel, which I've appended to Adam's thread at CiF?
Tschuss.
Boltonian : just rambling through and found this comment of yours
"On consciousness, someone here suggested we were about a decade or so away from building a quantum computer which might, in time, allow us to recreate, molecule by molecule, the human brain. That might give us a clue to the nature of consciousness".
Kurzweil says that the quantum computer isn't required for his project and that it will be achievable within the current paradigm. A friend with academic and commercial form in this area (AI & neural nets) recently suggested that Kurzweil's approach is going to run into a dead end and that wetware could be the way forward. I've never been convinced myself that the data held in the brain can be meaningfully transferred/converted onto another medium, but I suppose that wetware is slightly more plausible. The problem as I see it is the very large number of pathways/combinations involved and the feeling that there are no logical patterns to interpret.
I'd be happy for someone with more knowledge to shred the above.
Steve : agree with your comment about endlessdyad in case s/he takes a peek here.
Also, you tempted me to respond to your CiF post.
steve :
Free will doesn't occur because we cannot calculate future brain states , that would just be a lack of knowledge .
Even with the assumption of a metaphysical soul of some sort free will would not be truly explicable . There would have to be some sort of essence of the self that reacted to external stimuli and tugged at various neurons to react in an authentically 'soulful' way . Such a thing would be beyond any notions of material cause and effect and therefore beyond
scientific explanation .
If you allow the supernatural free will is possible , but never understandable .
Dear all
Thanks for all these.
Where to start?
First of all quantum computers - I know next to nothing about the subject but had just read (Churchland, I think) that we will soon be able to build a brain using such technology. I would be interested in knowing more about 'Wetware' technology.
pttp: thanks for the links. No, I didn't take the 'Militant' tag seriously - I just found it funny when WML accused me of miltant agnosticism and dogmatic uncertainty. I think militant is overused but are individuals on all sides of the religious debate who are (and perhaps need to be) completely certain of their position and will not countenance variations to that. Quite often, I have noticed, they will move from being extreme at one end of the spectrum to equally so at the other. For example, the most vehement atheists (those who are certain that there is no possibility of any superior being(s) existing anywhere) are often former (equally vehement) religious believers. The question I am interested in is why so many need certainly as the core of their existence whilst the rest of us do not.
We have discussed Wolfram once or twice here before. I do not have the skills to be able to judge but most who do have not been overly impressed. If anybody can explain a bit more to me in simple language I would be very grateful.
Don't worry, Steve, I have zillions of questions and hardly any answers. I do not, though, rule out determinism. In fact, if you asked me to put money on it, I would go for a completely determined world but that we cannot possibly (ever?) know where all the pieces are and how they interact, so for all practical purposes it is not determined. More than this, we have evolved so that the concept of free will is central to our survival as social beings - without which no morals (and no humanity?). So even if we can intellectually accept the concept of determinism we could never behave in that way without jeopardising our survival as a species.
Simon (if I may) - my favourite sopranos, in no particular order: Cotrubas; Popp (saw at Covent Garden years ago); Te Kanawa (ditto); Schwarzkopf (the first opera I ever heard - and which converted me - was Marriage of Figaro with her as the Countess); Sutherland (particularly the sublime sextet from Rigoletto with Pavarotti); Tebaldi (of course); and Callas (with Di Stefano).
The historical Jesus issue is fascinating and I would like to explore that further. I would like to get Krapotkin involved when he is able to re-connect.
I do not see any problem with anybody interjecting with questions or comments at any stage. It is often the naive point that opens up the discussion. Also, there is no reason why anybody cannot start a new topic - perhaps based on a recent book they have read. Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time R4 programmes often provoke thoughts for me, which I might throw in from time to time. If nobody responds we just move on to something others are interested in.
If you could get Mark Vernon to contribute that would be great as I came to CiF in the first place via his website. Also, please invite enlesslydad, any others you think might be interested, to come and take a look.
I think that's it - back to work.
Keep posting.
PS - all doggerels are welcome.
You guys keep surprising me....I'd have bet long odds on you all ruling out determinism (albeit from different reasonings), but spacepenguin and boltonian himself still see it as an option. (But then again, I'm sure some thought I might even be a determinism groupie.... ;-) )
I was also fairly sure that the big D had been unequivocably shown to be nonsense by various philosophers and physicists (not that those two vocations seem to be distinct these days....)
As I see it, there are three major problems with D.
1) Practically, you just can't gather the info you need to a sufficient degree of accuracy. Chaos theory showed us that. Even minuscule variations in input can cause huge - and unpredictable - changes in output, when plugged into the sort of iterative equations needed.
2) Theoretically, Heisenberg. You just *can't* catalogue everything.
3) Supposing, though, that you could get such complete data. Where would you store it? Whether with paper & pencil, or computerised, you'd need a construct at least as big as the original data set itself (and that's before you've installed the "Desktop Ritchie"....) But then you haven't catalogued your storage device, so you're back to square one....
spacepenguin
I'm not big on souls, as you've probably gathered, so I'm rather more interested in seeing how (and whether, if you like) we can arrive at a concept of FW *without* a deus ex machina. I wasn't clear as to whether you were saying you thought that impossible?
On an unrelated note, I rather liked the "militant agnostic" tag, and think you should embrace it. The idea of "dogmatic uncertainty" tickles me - although it's not my position. Maybe I'll get there, though....
steve:
Thanks for this. Here is my reasoning for determinism.
1) Everything we have encountered is subject to laws. We might not fully understand the depths of those laws but we think that they exist. So, bosons behave in this way but not that; gravity always exerts this force; the strong nuclear force operates only over such and such a distance; electrons in an atom cannot exist in the same quantum state etc etc.
If this is so then we can extrapolate that everything (even that which we have yet to discover) is governed by strict laws. There is no room here for free will because we are all made, 100%, of these things that are subject to such laws.
2) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not undermine this (SpaceP will correct me if I have this wrong) because all it says is that both a quantum entity's location and momentum cannot be known - the more one knows of one the less one can know of the other. It is still governed by Heisenberg's equation, which also has no room for free will. Just because we cannot know these things does not mean they are not subject to equally strict laws. Otherwise we must be saying that quantum entities are capricious and equations describing their properties would be impossible.
3) All this does not mean that we will ever be able to know or collate the knowledge required to predict the future. So, your point 3 I agree with. Chaos theory to my mind simply supports this - it is our lack of knowledge that gives us the concept of free will not the actuality.
So, we have two divergent concepts here. Our brain needs to see the world as cause and effect - hence our tendency to fatalism and the idea of a deus ex machina. This is why we see the world as determined at some levels, and the more we understand about genetics the more, I guess, we will tend to move this way. Many people now see alchoholics, for example, as being victims of their genetic inheritance rather than as feckless, weak-willed ne'er do wells.
On the other hand we have been programmed to live at a very deep level as if free will was available to all of us. This means we have choices and are free to exercise those choices. We can, therefore, draw up a moral code for what is and is not acceptable behaviour and impose sanctions for transgression. This belief (rather than the actuality) might have stopped us from destroying ourselves thus far. Other hominids might not have developed this trait and died out as a result. Even fatalists live their lives as if free will exists because we must. But this does not mean that free will exists just that we live as if it does.
We have a tendency to categorise everything because our brains work this way but that does not mean that categories actually exist. At one level all our physics is mere metaphor because, even supposing an objective reality exists, we could never know or understand it - we are limited by our perceptive and cerebral equipment. For example, when I was at school electrons were portrayed as tiny balls revolving around larger balls in the nucleus (Bohr's model) but we knew even then that this was incorrect but trying to visualise what an electron is really like is beyond most of us.
SpaceP:
Good to see you back.
(Pokes head round door - 'Did someone mention my name a while back?')
I have, in fact, been looking in at fairly regular intervals, and following the discussion. If I have not posted for some time it is not so much that I feel daunted (though there is an element of that) but because of lack of time. As bocanegra observed, the various issues under discussion require a fair amount of thought, and often, in my case, a flurry of googling and the occasional dash to the library, and I tend to be slow in ordering and articulating such ideas as I have. (And although I may use the ideas gathered from my reading as the starting point, I am like sarab in that I feel happier putting together the pieces of the jigsaw myself, however inadequate the results - which is perhaps why I am generally better at research than synthesis.) As it is, I have been neglecting other things which ought to have been occupying my time - a research project which should have been finished months ago; family history investigations on behalf of family and friends; and a garden which needs rescuing from a year's neglect thanks to an enforced period of inactivity following surgery last year (even a garden designed to be a relatively low-maintenance organised wilderness reverts to jungle with astonishing rapidity).
I also followed the marathon CiF thread and was tempted to butt in when WML once again got on his 'lack of evidence for a historical Jesus' hobby horse. But endlessdyad is clearly far better qualified than I to take him up on that issue, and I feel, in any case, that there is little point. He clearly isn't likely to change his mind - the most he ever does is to side step, and he does not appear to have much understanding of historical method or the uses of textual analysis in evaluating the sources he dismisses so firmly. He did, though, appear to confirm what I had suspected from various assertions he had made on other threads; that his views are based on a selective reading of mainly 19th century biblical scholars, topped up, evidently, with ideas gleaned from Doherty. Not very sound.
I was also intrigued by a reference which pttp made on the same thread to 'mystical' experience, partly because of my recent reading on the subject, but also for personal reasons, having myself had one or two experiences which might be in that category (a long time ago, and not as the result of any special practice or the ingestion of mind altering substances).
*****************
To revert to one or two topics discussed a while back:
Ant colonies and the possibility of collective consciousness: An ant colony (or termites, or bees) can perhaps be seen as in some respects a single organism, but is there such a thing as a 'hive mind'? Can a system where the individual organic elements communicate through exchange of chemical traces, pheremones, gesture etc be seen as in any way analogous to a (slow thinking) brain? And could such a 'brain' give rise to any form of consciousness? If so, I doubt very much that it would be anything we could recognise as such.
Boltonian: On the question of whether or not we can understand how animals other than ourselves 'think', I agree that we cannot know what it is like to be a cat, or whatever, and that people do have a tendency to anthropomorphise, but I think that it is nevertheless possible to understand some aspects of their behaviour with a degree of objectivity. For example: a domestic cat is different from a feral cat of the same species, in that adults retain elements of kittenish behaviour - playing with their prey, for example, which is the way kittens learn to hunt, or purring and kneading with their paws, which kittens do when being washed by their mother and when suckling. Feral cats outgrow this behaviour, and from this animal behaviourists deduce that the domestic cat relates to its human companions in somewhat the same way as it did to its mother. By the same token, a domestic dog behaves in relation to its owner or owners as if to members of a dog pack. So perhaps, to that degree, we may have some insight into their 'thinking', or at least their emotional responses.
*************
On another subject: daddyOmarcos cought my attention when he described the feeling of detachment between thought and action. Although he was talking about a sporting activity, I have experienced something similar in a more cerebral context In particular I recall an occasion long ago, when I was in the 6th form at school. I was writing an essay in a French Literature exam on an aspect of Racine's 'Britannicus' - not an aspect we had specifically covered in class, but then I was an awkward bugger and always preferred to approach such things from my own angle rather than regurgitating something which had already been discussed and analysed to death - and I remember that feeling of detachment and of time slowing down. It seemed as if I had all the time in the world, and the essay seemed to write itself (to good effect, evidently, since I got a spectacularly high mark for it)
Enough for now (probably more than enough) I will try and post again when I can find the time
boltonian - I have to disagree with your point 2)
Surely Heisenberg's principle goes further than saying that momentum and position can't both be determined exactly, but also says that you just can't think of these concepts (m & p) on the scale of tiny objects? I, too, await a better clarification of this from spacepenguin or any other interested physicist.
You also said : "Otherwise we must be saying that quantum entities are capricious and equations describing their properties would be impossible."
Isn't that the point of quantum entities - that they're capricious?!
E:
Great to see you back.
I hope all is well after your op and the garden is now back under control.
I am going to follow your good example and do some thinking (and even a bit of research)before responding to your post in any depth. I am particularly intrigued about how we get a handle on another creatures' feelings. I can see how we use observation to infer motives and habits etc. I will reflect on your domestic/feral cat example and see where I get to.
Spot on re-WML and his pseudo historical approach to things, particularly evident with the Jesus issue. I think he confuses evidence with proof (he seems to be uncomfortable with anything that is uncertain)but I have long since given up debating with him; I cannot relate to his black and white world.
steve:
Likewise I will need to do some research on H'sUP before responding. I am sure SpaceP's scholarly wisdom will put us right.
My understanding (probably flawed)is that quantum entities behave probabilistically, rather than capriciously, but we do not know what causes them to be in place A rather than B when observed. Are there underlying laws that we cannot see that determine this? For example, radioactive material decays at a specific rate but we do not know what causes atom A to decay when it does, all we know is that the quantity decays at that rate.
Likewise the molecules that comprise air do not all gather in one corner of the room, which technically they could. They spread evenly throughout the space, but what causes atom A to be here and atom B to be there?
All good, thought-provoking stuff.
On freewill, I have diametrically the opposite sentiment to Steve: I am constantly surprised why dismissal of the reality of freewill is not more generally accepted.
If I imagine a world in which freewill is an illusion that is necessary for the functioning of some mental processes and compare it with the world as we find it, I find that i am contemplating the same self world. I can find no necessity for, but only problems with the concept of freewill.
What controls freewill? Where does it come from? Is it random or determined? How does it affect material structures?
As (I think) I have said earlier, freewill is a consequence of a subjective viewpoint that reflects our own incomprehension of the entity that is ourselves.
For similar reasons there are huge problems with the idea of consciousness: just because we feel we have it, we assume we understand and know what it is, despite the fact that any other consciousness is unknown to us.
What can we do to account for the world? The only sustainable strategy is to strive as best we can towards an objective viewpoint. Of course we cannot in the end escape outside ourselves, and we will make stupid mistakes, but we can take heart in the knowledge that Science has provided an extraordinarily successful exemplar for this process.
elephantschild :
I'm glad you're back, too.
I'm always interested to hear about others' unusual experiences.
And as we've been circling round the issue, I'll begin.
I used a fairly well-known meditation technique where you imagine a single point of light, like a distant star and project your consciousness into it. This is designed to release consciousness from the gravity exerted by ego. It is fairly radical, though and not easy.
I've used drugs, fasting and sheer mental effort as well to achieve altered states.
My contention is that mystical experience is the basis for all religion and a catalyst in the evolution of consciousness.
Steve : Sorry if you've already covered this; I missed the original bug talk. If an insect learns, wouldn't it be capable of a different response with the same inputs ?
spacepenguin : your post about future brain states has left me baffled. Can you help ?
steve , boltonian :
The uncertainty principle treats the outcome of a measurement on the quantum scale as ontologically probabilistic (that is the uncertainty is not caused by imprecise measurements ) rather than deterministic .
As regards momentum , boltonian is mostly right . The concept is critical to quantum theory but , as with many things quantum , it is defined differently than in classical mechanics .
In any event none of this is relevant to free will . Without some metaphysical 'youness' influencing your physical body libertarian free will is impossible regardless of how unpredictable the universe is .
pttp :
I'm happy to try , what did you find baffling ?
Martin:
Welcome back also.
Difficult for me to say anything here because I largely agree with you.
SpaceP:
Many thanks.
Just a thought to all. There have been various references to spiritual experiences. I imagine we have all had these, either self-induced or not, and I wonder why we think of them as such and not as 'Normal' phenomena.
Anybody who has played sport will have experienced 'The zone'; exams have been mentioned; all art forms; scenery; buildings; in fact almost anything can be the trigger for this heightened sensation. Do we just lump them (difficult to explain or intensive emotional reactions)into a category called, 'Spiritual experiences' and leave it at that - as if calling them something somehow explains them?
I have a very strong feeling sometimes that I am not alone in my subjective being. Difficult to explain but I am sure it is not unique to me. Now this might well be a rational function of the brain enabling me to solve problems through subconscious dialogue (or something like that). On the other hand it might not. I cannot tap into this feeling at will always and perhaps that is where meditation training (or a short-cut using mind-altering drugs) comes in and allows this elevated state of consciousness to be induced.
I keep promising myself one day to learn meditation but I understand that it is not easy and takes a lot of time to master. One day.
I have just re-read this and realised I have not written it very well but at this late hour (for me, I know some of you are night owls, as I once was)I am too tired (but not emotional)to re-write - I just hope it is coherent enough to make some sense.
You think you've got people put in the right boxes, then they come up with views opposite to that expected....most frustrating..... ;-)
Martin (if I have him right) doubts the existence of FW. It would certainly be difficult to prove you wrong, Martin. Personally, apart from feeling as if I *do* have FW, I can only say that if I haven't, I might as well stop trying to "behave well", on the grounds that my misbehaviour is already preset, so don't blame me. I just see that as a bleak option; not that I believe in denying reality. I suppose one might argue that the absence of total anarchy is evidence for FW?
spacepenguin (thanks BTW for the HUP clarification) then argues that without a metaphysical youness, FW isn't possible.
I recognise the risk of backing myself into a corner here, having argued against pure determinism, but I don't feel this is right, either. The "youness" I can accept, but not the metaphysical side of that. Can we not be individuals, without a metaphysical or supernatural involvement? Weighty tomes have no doubt been written on that issue, so I don't suppose it can be answered in a single paragraph....anyway, woe betide anyone who outs me on CiF as having belief in a gut feeling without evidence :-)
pttp asks "If an insect learns, wouldn't it be capable of a different response with the same inputs ?"
I don't know, but I'm sure it's been studied. My guess would be that it could learn to give a different response to the same input (on a trial & error basis), but that it would then always give the *same* different response....if you see what I mean. I suppose I'm arguing that bugs are deterministic in a way that we aren't. Which only leads us on a journey through the phyla in search of a neat line where we can distinguish those creatures with free will from the robots; and I suspect that would be fruitless.
Amusing to see that several of you share my private view of WML; he's an irritating little sod, but at least he's *our* ILS.... (delete if I've crossed the line, boltonian)
Tschuss
Hello Boltonian and others - just thought I'd let you know that I am following this interesting set of discussions. As others have pleaded, don't have time for a substantial, significant set of rambling responses.
Pttp - please don't apologise. It's all good fun on CiF. As Hildegard of Bingen once said...
And, while speaking of apologies, sorry Adam Rutherford. Hope I was not rude in my criticism of the argumentation in your article.
Post a Comment