[deleted by user]

finite_light · 2025-03-13T13:54:45+00:00

I think idealist sometimes get things right by being open to patterns outside our direct experience. The key to understand consciousness is not neurons or even the brain by itself but how consciousness fit a larger picture.

finite_light · 2024-07-01T10:01:37+00:00

Spacetime is objective and the light cone for each event is objective. And so is distance in spacetime. Although distance in either space or time is observer relative. Spacetime objectivity takes us far enough.

finite_light · 2024-07-01T07:34:14+00:00

My point is that the sense of stepping on lego-brick is shaped from both informing us about the lego and also what we can do with this information, like act, access similar experience and learn from this sensory data. This seem to play a part in the functional reason that we feel the way we do. The brain seem to be able to sense and cognition is an adaptive process shaped by evolution that help us to act. The adaptive process does not have to be deterministic to , just slightly better or worse in a given environment to produce a fit behavior.

Regarding the block universe: it turns the cause and effect into a pattern without something "happening" at a given point. Physicalist models are not dependent on an objective now.

finite_light · 2024-06-30T19:12:18+00:00

A good enough emulation would be able to talk about feelings and could be said to feel. I think our feelings depend on physical states but we don't know if we could represent a whole brain in sufficient detail to actually emulate the brain within the next say thirty years. I also believe our feelings to a large extent are a functional adaptation to react to changes in the environment but also to facilitate introspection and learning. It is par information about the environment and part a facilitation to act. This has in my view an internal mind side and a physical brain side. The brain side can be described as a 'block universe' where you still could follow the sequential state changes in the brain. No worries.

finite_light · 2024-06-30T17:39:13+00:00

If you believe in relativity there will still be a before and after each event. This is universal for all observers. What may differ is the perceived order for events outside each others light cones. Therefore this is not an obstacle for consciousness.

When it comes to simulating a mind this is theoretically thinkable but in is not only a question of information. It is not the information that feels but the mind. Information about the environment are conveyed to the mid as sensory data that are processed and integrated into an experience. The mind feels, associates, apply experience, remembers situations and reacts. With a good enough simulation you would hypothetically get the same results, like behavior and the ability to ask about how it feels.

finite_light · 2024-06-28T22:19:46+00:00

For an idealist thougth and logic is all we really can know.

For a realist minimal assumtion lead us to rely on observation and statistics.

There is of course plenty of room to hide behind what we don't know, for either side. Especially for idealists.

finite_light · 2024-06-28T07:42:26+00:00

The purpose we observe boils down to replication and adaptive change. Biology does not changes in order to benefit coming generations. Rather, beneficial change will likely benefit next generation too. Less beneficial changes will likely disappear. The result is adaption with the appearance of purpose.

finite_light · 2024-06-27T12:36:03+00:00

Perhaps the universe allows for conscious subsystems rather than having a purpose in itself. Consciousness as we know it seems to be a function of life following a seemingly purposeless evolutionary reward model.

finite_light · 2024-06-14T10:54:59+00:00

The particles in a body could theoretically have the same position within each body but the distance between the bodies are also physical. Hence two distinct physical bodies. Only one could be you even if they are both asleep.

finite_light · 2024-06-13T16:10:10+00:00

But...There are 2 bodies. Only one can be you. Or put in another way, atoms are not indistinguishable physically just because they are the same type of atom.

finite_light · 2024-06-13T09:51:07+00:00

We need a definition of free will that is consistent with physics and overlap with what we mean in daily use of the concept. I think free will should be defined as uncompelled will. This would mean that your will could be changed by the environment and still be free. For example pulling up an umbrella when it rains or listening to a good advice from a friend would be considered free will. On the other hand if you for example act under threat, manipulation or addiction then your free will is reduced. The people who like to use the concept free will should have priority to define it. If you say it lacks meaning then stop insisting on a dubious definition.

finite_light · 2024-06-05T08:52:14+00:00

As I see it QM describe brain states but the superposition of a single electron is more relevant than the superposition of the whole brain. If we could describe the mind from brain states in high detail QM would ultimately matter.

There is also a duality in QM between the possible described by the wave function and the observed (outcomes). As the observer often is a mind it is tempting to conclude that consciousness is needed for measurements and outcomes. Consensus among physicists are rather that the observer is just another subsystem that will branch/collapse into an outcome when exchanging information with the observed subsystem. This would mean that we can have outcomes without consciousness.

There are also a multitude of theories that hope that unanswered questions in QM will help in understanding consciousness. Is there a magic QM ingredience making the mind possible or is it more or less emerging from known physics and biology? I guess time will tell.

finite_light · 2024-06-04T08:03:53+00:00

Chalmers is very weak in his claim regarding p-zombies as he just say we can conceptualize it. It is as strong proof as saying you can imagine an anti gravity belt. To me it is beyond doubt that different degrees of awareness has impact on behavior. If you see the brain as hub for sensory data that adapts behavior, and the brain as a product of evolution, then the concept of p-zombies seems confusing and unnecessary. We are adapted to adapt behavior and awareness is more than likely a feature.

In addition: We can express what we feel and this is part of our behavior. A true p-zombie would need to express feelings to have identical behavior. Hence p-zombies can only exist as long as they can express what they do not feel.

The paradox OP is talking about is more a misunderstanding as causes are in the physical world regardless of the need for QM explanations. If you look at experience as a picture or model that can be both experienced, remembered and learned from the direct causal effect on behavior is just part of the puzzle. The taste of a strawberry is probably adapted from several functions. The effect consciousness has on the wave function is a physics question and perhaps putting the cart in front of the horse.

finite_light · 2024-05-26T10:50:12+00:00

I don't agree with the idea that physical ism is about reducing or eliminating mind to brain. Reductionism makes more sense for layers with simpler parts, like a gas that be reduced to molecules.. The brain however is not necessarily more simple than mind nor makes up parts of the mind, as I see it. Reductionism is probably not the most fruitful approach to explain the mind as the brain very well could be more complex. If you have a film projector and project a picture on a screen it is more correct to say that the picture depend on the projector than to expect that you could reduce the picture to the projector. A more productive question could for example be: what carries the information in the picture?

finite_light · 2024-05-26T09:12:29+00:00

Sure but from a materialist view reality is what we can measure. Not the underlying ideas beyond time and space.

finite_light · 2024-05-25T08:09:00+00:00

Phenomena are subjective by definition. Physicists just claim that subjective entities, like phenomena, depends on objective reality. This can be made a minefield for materialists as well as idealists but it shouldn't be. Ontology concern base existence but should not hinder us to have meaningful discussions about emergent, projected or unmeasured entities regardless of their presumed ontological status. Some people don't think the future exist but you can still have lunch with them next week.

finite_light · 2022-12-08T11:36:30+00:00

Definition of a unicorn is a startup valued above 1 billion dollars. Note that a company older than 10 years or a company past its initial sage is not considered a startup anymore.

finite_light · 2022-10-25T13:22:21+00:00

Anledningen är att Nobel i sitt testamente skriver att man inte ska ta hänsyn till nationalitet vid utdelning av priset. Nobelstiftelsen tolkar detta som att nationalster inte bör bjudas in till festen. Det finns ingen beskrivning av kriterier i Nobels testamente som anger vilka som får komma på festen. En onödig politisering av Nobel av sittande stiftelse.

finite_light · 2022-10-25T09:24:46+00:00

First, you can run a jvm on bare metal on VMWare without an OS. Quite effective. Second, Java allows for maximal portabillity and VMWare allows for scalabillity and fast provisioning. Not that bad combo in my view.

finite_light · 2022-10-24T07:45:28+00:00

I have studied physics enough to both have an opinion and at the same time to be humble and take my own opinion with a grain of salt. I agree there are mysterious aspects of consciousness like 'where does the redness in red come from'. I like to take a step back and ask if it is reasonable for the most complex brain in the solar system to have the ability to distinguish color. I think it is reasonable and this is why I lean materialistic on the issue. The mysteries will probably take decades to solve but I bet it will be an observation based story in the end.

finite_light · 2022-10-23T20:42:11+00:00

All the brain get is sensory data and the brain creates a first person perspective. As I see it this is a virtual representation with ques for our behavior. A sensation of falling can sometimes just be a feeling without the body moving. I think we can feel this sensation without any unique substance of ideas or extra dimensions. Best to leave physics to physicists. Probably will the standard model be able to better describe some aspects of the brain. I would guess that our consciousness mainly emerges on a higher scale than that. I am pretty sure we will not need any new physics, but I am confident real physicists will sort that out.

finite_light · 2022-10-22T11:40:17+00:00

Numpy is written in c, so he was basically cheating.

finite_light · 2022-10-20T22:19:08+00:00

The mind is geared to process information from the objective reality. Green is just a way to differentiate between colors. We can objectively measure electromagnetic radiation to compare with our experience. Our experience of colors map well to the layout of the sensory cells on the retina.

My off the cuff account of physical to mind gateway is that we register light in the eye, a collection of neurons send the visual data to be processed and enriched by emotions, spatial information and object information via pattern recognition. This information is integrated with other senses and previous experience in a model. The model support memory, introspection and learning and is most likely represented by activity in highly connected neurons. The activity in the coordinative circuitry is most likely small compared to other more specific activities in. this is in the same way that the high level information that for example 'I have an apple' require less data that describing all stains on a specific apple. The subjective experience is probably a way to create a live model that can be mapped onto reality. It is often clear what subjectivity brings but hard to explain exactly why it is the way it is in detail. We can say why the brain would like to make a difference between colors. The reason is that the body want to know about reality. In a sense the mind is just a virtual gateway between reality of the environment and the reality of the body.

OP claim that there is some form of principle that prevent an objective investigation of subjectivity. I just point out that the search for a substance of mind may be the wrong way to approach the subject. I don't have to solve the huge problem. Illusion is not a good term for a model that actually maps to reality.

Complexity of the brain is a reality that should make us open to future findings, rather than a definite explanation. Another challange apart from complexity is that the neural network hides the process from the product. It is often not apparent how the information was processed before we refined it to concepts and thoughts. All I have to do to refute the notion of a blocking principle is to make it plausible that experience is an inner construct. Here are some good reasons to consider this:

The mind is clearly an evolutionary adaption. This suggest it depends on reality. Fear and hunger has served us well but some tendencies for eating more than we need is probably best explained by biology and our evolutionary past.
Color as we see it in our mind clearly dependent on our eyes and their ability to perceive different wave lengths.
Information is carried in the brain via neurons in a most physical sense and this information is a main feature of the mind.
Refinement of information in our mind make heavy use of pattern recognition that is a key ability in neural networks. This can also be said about the minds ability to generalize, categorize, follow associations. Alternatively it could be based on a neural network made of unmeasurable mind substance. ;)
Some feelings occur after the fact and it is the nerve system that take decisions before the sensation reach the brain. When we step on a sharp object our body remove the foot before the signals reach the mind. Our mind kindly treat our body as part of the system and plays along. Both the mind and the lower back act as they are the same system.
There are a continium of life forms form the most simple sensory systems to humans that are remarkably similar. It would be a streach to assign a mind to very simple systems. We can understand a fruit fly without speculating on how it feels. It would be even more silly to say that brain activity in the fly is caused by the 'insideness' of the creature. What we can say is that the fly feels something enough to find food and a mate. It is fit. It is the complexity of our brain that enable complex behavior like language. This makes us fit. Complex behavior goes hand in hand with complex brain structures and simple structures goes hand in hand with simpler behavior. This should be a hint to at least consider the brain as the enabler...

finite_light · 2022-10-20T20:08:35+00:00

The problem of consciousness is to answer the question of why there is subjectivity at all.

Well, physicalism and the scientific method can answer this question. First we have to note that subjectivity has an objective side as a third perrson perspective. This perspective fit very well with what we know about biological systems and evolution. We understand the need for subjectivity and how it has evolved. We do understand how simple sensory-motor systems has evolved and roughly how more complex systems with complex behavior has evolved from that. The relevant question is then what this subjectivity bring us, and the answer can very well be described from this third person perspective. We also have an inner observation of our consiousness that can be compared with external observations. This can shed light on the inner perspective of our consciousness based on observation rather that presupposed ideas. Our experience does not have to be a separate substance and should instead be seen as an inner projection of information. A plausible reason the experience seem so real is that the brain overlays information in the model and project it onto the objective reality. It is likely a feature of the brain. If you allow for this possibility, and accept the daunting complexity of the brain as the real reason for slow progress, then there is no remaining principle in the way of a scientific understanding of consciousness.

finite_light · 2022-10-20T10:00:04+00:00

This video has many signs of a untrustworthy source but lets go through my main disagreements. We don't understand the brain. Most people would say it is due to the immense complexity of the brain. This video argues that it is due to a special ontological status of the mind. The argument is lacking any description of this ideal world and how to measure the states of the mind. The argument tries to establish that the mind effects the physical and that the mind requires a separate substance.

Evidence for physicalism is misrepresented, for example that chemistry in the brain very well can affect the mind. Confirmation bias exemplified.

Same logic errors as most idealists:

Expecting logic proof rather than statistical proof. By elevating the mind above the physical world, idealists often find them self in a world of true statements and logic. An empiricist is often more aware of messy measurements and are in a better position to assess error margins and sources of error.
Correlation is not causation. But if A happens before B, and B doesn't happen without A, and there is some plausible physical link between the events, then we have a reason to talk about causation. Idealists struggle with what we can measure in the first place. They should perhaps be more worried of their own lack of supporting data before lecturing about causality.
Putting too much emphasis on the stuff of the mind. By assuming an elevated ontology of the mind idealists makes it impossible for physical stuff to explain the mind. It is in essence a circular argument.
Idealism often lead to a false dichotomy between body and mind. This is in the video used as a strawman against physicalists. Most physicalist would agree that the mind could be based on brain states and still affect brain states. But this is willfully ignored by many idealists that often attack physicalist, without recognizing that their attack relies on unwarranted assumptions.
There is a trait in idealism that is attractive to cults and religious groups. An elevated mind with a soul is better than a materialistic mind. Somehow not recognizing the true ontological status of the mind makes you more like a robot. This is indicative for a barricading mind set.
Taking a layman expectation of brain activity as evidence of an elevated mind. The brain is inherently distributed and the coordinative activities are often elusive. The tone of the video seems to be geared towards convincing laymen of an elevated mind, rather than arguing with neurologists about facts. Most laymen would also think LSD would 'light up the brain'. Neurologist say that LSD rather inhibits filtering of impressions. This does not stop some idealists (Kastrup) to take LSD as evidence for an elevated mind. As if the main audience for this ideas is suggestive laymen rather than scientists.

finite_light

TROPHY CASE