Galen Strawson's argument for why physical reality is experiential

SelfSim said:

But I certainly don't see that as depending on some superfluous, realist, belief-based-looking assumed definition like: 'existence predicates eternal existence'.

Click to expand...

Sure, it doesn't have to - I was just indicating that I was accepting that premise in the post I was replying to.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Sure, it doesn't have to - I was just indicating that I was accepting that premise in the post I was replying to.

Click to expand...

Accept it how? .. As being 'true', as in it being an article of faith?

SelfSim said:

Accept it how? .. As being 'true', as in it being an article of faith?

Click to expand...

No, for the sake of argument.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

This needs clarification so as not to be misinterpreted. All the matter in the universe had a beginning and did not exist in that form, i.e. as matter, prior to that. But all the resources necessary for matter to be produced were present as far back as our current models can take us.

Click to expand...

Then all resources necessary for matter of all the universe to be produced is the necessary existence and always existed. But if necessary existence it would not change.

It's more parsimonious and more consistent with the evidence to suppose that, if existence predicates eternal existence (as seems reasonable), the fundamental quantum states from which the universe we know arose/emerged have always existed, and that consciousness emerged from that (with the evolution of brains).

Citation?

Click to expand...

Have you looked through this thread?
Are you aware of many developments in quantum mechanics? The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility

SelfSim said:

I certainly don't see that as depending on some superfluous, realist, belief-based-looking assumed definition like: 'existence predicates eternal existence'.
I suppose one might try for arguing the case of math models of different kinds of infinities, which might be interesting though .. in which case, such a model is in need of a good, testable description(?)

Click to expand...

There was something there already, or everything of the universe came into being without cause.

I believe things, I don't know anyone who doesn't, but here I talk about what can be reasoned.

FredVB said:

Then all resources necessary for matter of all the universe to be produced is the necessary existence and always existed. But if necessary existence it would not change.

Click to expand...

Word salad .. The only 'truth' in that statement that I can see, is an assumed one .. an article of faith .. and not much more than that.

FredVB said:

There was something there already, or everything of the universe came into being without cause.

Click to expand...

That's your belief .. and you're welcomed to hold it.
What's more interesting for the broader scientifically and logically thinking community, is how we actually come to such realisations.

FredVB said:

I believe things, I don't know anyone who doesn't, but here I talk about what can be reasoned.

Click to expand...

The trick is knowing what a belief is and how you come to knowing that one is.
Logical reasoning will only ever, at best, reflect initially assumed 'truths'.
You need objective evidence as the posit in order such reasoning to return something of practical use.

FredVB said:

Then all resources necessary for matter of all the universe to be produced is the necessary existence and always existed. But if necessary existence it would not change.

Click to expand...

Why?

Have you looked through this thread?
Are you aware of many developments in quantum mechanics? The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility

Click to expand...

Yes, and yes. There's no evidence that quantum mechanics has any direct connection to consciousness other than it takes consciousness to appreciate it. The fact the pop-sci articles play fast and loose with the concept of panpsychism lends it no particular credence.

There are a few well-known figures who support it, but the main argument for it seems to be that they can't think of an alternative; none that I've seen explain consciousness, and most raise more unanswerable questions than they purport to answer. Tononi is making progress, but unless you dilute the meaning of consciousness beyond utility, it seems clear that integrated information is necessary but not sufficient.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

... Yes, and yes. There's no evidence that quantum mechanics has any direct connection to consciousness other than it takes consciousness to appreciate it. The fact the pop-sci articles play fast and loose with the concept of panpsychism lends it no particular credence.

Click to expand...

I agree that the content of pop-sci articles, which are clearly intended as entertainment only, belong to that particular context .. and not a scientific one.
However, what you mean by 'quantum mechanics' when you reference the topic, is also produced by conscious mind (a claim which is easily evidenced). Any inferences that QM is a 'thing' separate from the scientifically thinking mind which conceives it, IMO, almost amounts to some kind of weird distancing of the modelling role a mind plays when invoking QM explanations.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

There are a few well-known figures who support it, but the main argument for it seems to be that they can't think of an alternative; none that I've seen explain consciousness, and most raise more unanswerable questions than they purport to answer.

Click to expand...

Still, consciousness, I think, is fundamentally useful in any philosophy of science, even if science struggles with its explanations for consciousness.

I think that Panpsychism misses the insight (which is plain as a nose on a face to me) .. ie: that the 'reality' it references, (having properties of sentience, or subjective experience), also has a more common meaning we give it, (like: 'external objects'), but both meanings are assigned using the exact same process.
This process is a belief based process which all philosophies have at their core .. (starting with usually assumed, undeclared, posits such as: 'truth exists').
Science doesn't follow that process when assigning its meanings .. which is why it is different from a philosophies. Science wants to test such posits, and then make its concluded meanings on the basis of those tests. 'Truth' in science, then becomes no better than its last best tested theories of its version of what it calls 'reality' (which I call 'objective reality') - and QM reality is one of those.

Hope that makes sense(?)

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Tononi is making progress, but unless you dilute the meaning of consciousness beyond utility, it seems clear that integrated information is necessary but not sufficient.

Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean here?

SelfSim said:

... what you mean by 'quantum mechanics' when you reference the topic, is also produced by conscious mind (a claim which is easily evidenced). Any inferences that QM is a 'thing' separate from the scientifically thinking mind which conceives it, IMO, almost amounts to some kind of weird distancing of the modelling role a mind plays when invoking QM explanations.

Click to expand...

You're right, I should have phrased it better. Clearly, given our current models, 'everything' is quantum mechanical. What I meant by 'quantum mechanics' in that context was specific quantum effects with macro-scale influence. There are plausible examples of specific micro-scale quantum effects that biological systems use to macro-scale effect (see Quantum Biology), but there is no evidence I'm aware of that consciousness is directly associated with such effects. It's possible that the brain processes that generate consciousness use such effects, e.g. for optimisation, or even to enable consciousness, but there's no evidence for it (Penrose & Hameroff notwithstanding).

Can you explain what you mean here?

Click to expand...

Sure - last I heard (admittedly some time ago), Tononi et al. were effectively equating the phi of a system with its degree or level of consciousness. Since IIT has a mathematical basis, some commentators have described relatively simple systems with Phi's (the measure of II) as high as or many times higher than human-level Phi, or complex systems which it seems quite inappropriate to describe as conscious; this seems problematic for the IIT 'fundamentalist'. For example, Scott Aaronson has a fairly detailed article on the problem:


Of course, the usual problem of lacking an objective definition of precisely what we mean by consciousness is partly to blame; Nagel's 'what it is like to be an xxx', or 'subjective experience', etc., aren't really adequate. Tononi et al. must be trivially correct if the degree of consciousness is defined as proportional to the value of Phi, but what does this mean? how do we relate it to our own conscious experience?

I suspect they're missing the evolutionary perspective, that consciousness evolved as (or as part of) a selectively advantageous behavioural dynamic involving flexible problem solving, visualisation, planning, complex social interaction, etc., so involves a particular kind of integrated information processing.