|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:02 pm Post subject: 556 |
 |
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| So when I perceive a very clear and plain causal link between my sentience and my behavior, it is not scientific evidence I see, but some other kind of evidence. A kind of subjective evidence, though clearly an unbiased subjective evidence. Since I can't expect anyone else to verify my motives for acting some particular way, it is not intersubjectively verifiable, and thus not scientific evidence. |
Slow down. Your perception of a causal link is real. That doesn't imply a causal link exists.
I'm not sure what you mean by unbiased.
As I explained in my previous post, it isn't at all clear that a computer couldn't be made to emulate the behavior you described, which, even if in you is in some way caused by by subjective experience, in the computer could be modeled by some numeric variables with no subjective experience attached.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| However, I do think that, because the causal link is so plain to see, ... |
"plain to see" the causal link means the subjective sense of it is real, but doesn't at all imply the causal link is real.
As a matter of fact, they've done experiments where they've monitored brain activity and they can see what action a person will make, when given the task to choose randomly between some alternatives, before the point at which the person is aware of having made the decision (the subject is asked to watch a clock's second hand and not where it was when they were first decided). I don't think that means much, but some say it speaks toward free will being an illusion.
And again, this causal link, if it exists, has to be something neither deterministic, nor random, nor some combination of the two, and what that can be is hard to conceive. We call it "free will", but to me determinism and randomness are far more conceivable.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| ... it is perfectly reasonable when I see similar patterns of behavior in similar beings, to assume there is a link between sentience and that behavior. |
1) If you assume your subjective sense of a causal link means there is one.
2) If the same behavior can't be emulated via a program (which can certainly emulate anything that's some combination of randomness and determinism).
| BraveHat wrote: |
| To assume, in an unbiased way, that they also have sentience. You aren't saying that there is no evidence of sentience in similar things, you are saying there is no scientific evidence of sentience in similar things. |
I'm saying there's no more evidence for such sentience in similar things than in non-similar things, when there is no evidence that the properties by which the similar things are similar do or should correlate with sentience.
| extro wrote: |
| "Sentience is here" (pure solipsism) requires an assumption that somehow I turned out special. |
No, it doesn't. "Sentience is only here" would require that assumption. "Sentience is here" requires no assumption at all, only a recognition of the fact (even though it must subjectively recognized). It requires no explanation, just plain recognition. It means the exact same thing is "Sentience is at least here", and is therefore much simpler than "Sentience is everywhere".[/quote]
I've tested one object for a given property - no more than one. It tests positive. I've no sensible theory that would suggest why that property might correlate with other properties of that object, such that I could expect that property more likely to be present in objects that have those other properties. It is reasonable to wonder what other objects have this property. The possible conjectures are:
1) Only the tested object. Highly impropbable.
2) Only similar objects. But I have not the vaguest theory that suggests a reason between the one property and all the others by which similar objects are similar.
3) All objects.
4) ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:57 pm Post subject: 557 |
|
|
How about:
4) Some things are sentient just like some things are small, some thing are green, some things are spherical, some things are alive, some things are fast, and so on. Why would sentience be an exception to this general trend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: 558 |
|
|
| extro wrote: |
| I wrote: |
So when I perceive a very clear and plain causal link between my sentience and my behavior, it is not scientific evidence I see, but some other kind of evidence. A kind of subjective evidence, though clearly an unbiased subjective evidence. Since I can't expect anyone else to verify my motives for acting some particular way, it is not intersubjectively verifiable, and thus not scientific evidence. |
Slow down. Your perception of a causal link is real. That doesn't imply a causal link exists. |
I agree, but that's not what I'm saying.
1. I'm not saying my perception isn't real. I'm saying my perception of the causal link cannot be intersubjectively verified, so it cannot be considered scientific evidence.
2. I'm not saying my perception of the causal link implies that it exists (implication meaning it must follow). I'm saying that my perception suggests it exists, and is thus (subjective) evidence for it's existence. Put simply, the perception of something being true is actually (subjective) evidence of it's truth. The perception is like a personal Exhibit A, if you will. If I see an alien spaceship in the sky, that is evidence that the alien spaceship exists. It isn't until stronger evidence against it comes to light, say I was given a hallucinatory drug without knowing it, that the perception becomes weak evidence (but still evidence nonetheless). The difference between subjective and objective evidence is that the self is the only one who can do the weighing of it.
| extro wrote: |
| I'm not sure what you mean by unbiased. |
I'm not perceiving the causal link simply because I wish to or because I'm in favor of there being one.
| extro wrote: |
| As I explained in my previous post, it isn't at all clear that a computer couldn't be made to emulate the behavior you described, which, even if in you is in some way caused by by subjective experience, in the computer could be modeled by some numeric variables with no subjective experience attached. |
I understand that, and it's not required to be impossible for a computer to do so, in order to reasonably assume that the person next to me is sentient. Until there is evidence that this sort of computer is common, there's more subjective evidence to think the person next to me is sentient than there is subjective evidence to think he/she is programmed. Same thing with living things and nonliving things. There is more subject evidence to think that living things are sentient, then there is subject evidence to think that nonliving things are sentient. The subjective evidence for thinking the living thing is sentient is 1)My sentience appears to cause me to exhibit behavior B in condition C and 2)That living thing exhibited behavior B in condition C. I'm not saying this is completely sound reasoning, but it's the only reasoning we have to go on when talking about sentience in other things. The less possible it is for an object to exhibit some behavior B (similar to ours) in condition C (similar to ours), the less we can apply the only kind of reasoning we have for assuming sentience in it. It does not mean the non-living thing does not have sentience, it only means that we have no reasonable grounds for thinking so.
In short, I agree that we have no reason to believe sentience is limited to living things.
Where I disagree is that I think we do have reason to believe sentience exists in other living things (based on subjective evidence), and no reason to believe it exists in non-living things.
| extro wrote: |
| And again, this causal link, if it exists, has to be something neither deterministic, nor random, nor some combination of the two, and what that can be is hard to conceive. We call it "free will", but to me determinism and randomness are far more conceivable. |
That doesn't mean there isn't evidence for it. I walk around the corner to avoid talking with someone, because if I talk to them I have to experience the boredom qualia. Whatever description should be given to the apparentness of the link between this qualia and my behavior, even if the description is inconceivable, the apparentness itself is personal evidence that the link exists.
| extro wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| ... it is perfectly reasonable when I see similar patterns of behavior in similar beings, to assume there is a link between sentience and that behavior. |
1) If you assume your subjective sense of a causal link means there is one. |
my subjective perception of a causal link is evidence that there is one.
| extro wrote: |
2) If the same behavior can't be emulated via a program (which can certainly emulate anything that's some combination of randomness and determinism). |
Why the "can't"? Why can't it still be a reasonable assumption if there's simply no evidence that such a program is common? We're talking about reasonable assumptions, not rock-solid indisputable certainties.
| extro wrote: |
| I'm saying there's no more evidence for such sentience in similar things than in non-similar things, when there is no evidence that the properties by which the similar things are similar do or should correlate with sentience |
And I'm saying that the involuntary perception of correlation counts as subjective evidence for the correlation.
| extro wrote: |
The possible conjectures are:
1) Only the tested object. Highly impropbable.
2) Only similar objects. But I have not the vaguest theory that suggests a reason between the one property and all the others by which similar objects are similar.
3) All objects. |
4)Similar objects. As distinct from only similar objects. You keep sticking the word "only" in there, as if the best conjecture must be the one that somehow accounts for all there is. There is not even subjective evidence for linking sentience to non-similar objects, where as there is at least subjective evidence for linking sentience to similar objects, even though nothing indicates it is limited to similar objects.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:26 pm Post subject: 559 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| 4) Some things are sentient just like some things are small, some thing are green, some things are spherical, some things are alive, some things are fast, and so on. Why would sentience be an exception to this general trend? |
Chuck always says things better than I can 
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:56 am Post subject: 560 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
How about:
4) Some things are sentient just like some things are small, some thing are green, some things are spherical, some things are alive, some things are fast, and so on. Why would sentience be an exception to this general trend? |
Here's another general trend: the above properties are easily explainable in terms of more basic properties. More basic properties, like why does all matter have mass, are not so explainable. Sentience is not explainable in terms of other known properties, more like the property of having mass, than like the property of being green, or any of those other properties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:15 am Post subject: 561 |
|
|
| Why does it matter if the property is explainable? If I didn't know what caused colors it wouldn't mean everything was the same color. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:07 am Post subject: 562 |
|
|
This is the best way to sum up what I'm trying to say:
Suppose you're on a game show hosted by God, who knows what is sentient and what is not. He presents to you two groups and tells you that one group is entirely sentient and the other group is only partially sentient, but he doesn't tell you which is which. The two groups are: 1)every other living thing on Earth besides you and 2)Every nonliving thing on Earth. Your task is to answer which group is entirely sentient. If you guess right, you win a hundred million dollars. If you guess wrong, you die. Which group would you choose and why?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:08 am Post subject: 563 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
1. I'm not saying my perception isn't real. I'm saying my perception of the causal link cannot be intersubjectively verified, so it cannot be considered scientific evidence.
|
Understood, I agree.
| BraveHat wrote: |
2. I'm not saying my perception of the causal link implies that it exists (implication meaning it must follow). I'm saying that my perception suggests it exists, and is thus (subjective) evidence for it's existence.
|
I disagree.
The brain creates a model of a world with internal representations, some of these correlating to subjective experiences. Parts of that model may correspond to objective reality, other parts may correspond to a more naive theory about it. We are not, by nature, self-aware to the point of knowing our physical neural architecture and how it does what it does, nor do we need to be. A theoretical model, constructed by the brain, of a self with a free will that decides what we do, is as good a working model (if no better) than the truth in all its detail.
| BraveHat wrote: |
If I see an alien spaceship in the sky, that is evidence that the alien spaceship exists.
|
Because from experience, you know your sense of vision is almost always reliable. You have the subjective experience of seeing something, and unless there are explainable reasons otherwise, it can be intersubjectively verified that what you saw was a real external phenomena. Not so with this sense of having free will, or the sense that our subjective experiences contribute to actions.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
I'm not sure what you mean by unbiased.
|
I'm not perceiving the causal link simply because I wish to or because I'm in favor of there being one.
|
Perhaps you're hardwired to believe you have some sort of vital force ... again, a simplified subjectively experienced model of "you". All our subjective experiences are unlike the things they model, why not our subjective experience of self? Would it help us survive to have intimate knowledge of the deterministic neural mechanisms we cant control, that control us (assuming that's the case)?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
As I explained in my previous post, it isn't at all clear that a computer couldn't be made to emulate the behavior you described, which, even if in you is in some way caused by by subjective experience, in the computer could be modeled by some numeric variables with no subjective experience attached.
|
I understand that, and it's not required to be impossible for a computer to do so, in order to reasonably assume that the person next to me is sentient.
|
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't think other people are sentient. This has to do with whether subjective experiences have any effect on the physical. The behavior you describe as seeming like it requires subjective experience to motivate it can be emulated without subjective experience.
| BraveHat wrote: |
Until there is evidence that this sort of computer is common, there's more subjective evidence to think the person next to me is sentient than there is subjective evidence to think he/she is programmed.
|
I don't consider that evidence at all. What evidence?
| BraveHat wrote: |
In short, I agree that we have no reason to believe sentience is limited to living things.
Where I disagree is that I think we do have reason to believe sentience exists in other living things (based on subjective evidence), and no reason to believe it exists in non-living things.
|
I don't know what this is you're calling subjective evidence. I see no validity in it.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
And again, this causal link, if it exists, has to be something neither deterministic, nor random, nor some combination of the two, and what that can be is hard to conceive. We call it "free will", but to me determinism and randomness are far more conceivable. |
That doesn't mean there isn't evidence for it. |
It certainly doesn't mean there is evidence for it, and I don't see what you're calling evidence. A subjective sense that it's so? Until we started studying the brain, and even still most of the time when we don't think about it, our subjective experience is that the redness of an apple, as we experience it, is something out there, on the surface of the apple. But it isn't at all so. The redness on the surface of the apple is molecules that reflect a certain wavelength of light, something intersubjectively verifiable. The subjective experience of red is something altogether different.
A subjective experience of a thing is not evidence of the thing. That's different, though, than knowing the self-evident fact that I'm having subjective esperiences.
This "subjective evidence" you keep mentioning can be treated as food for though and motive for investigation, but by itself is not evidence at all, IMO.
| BraveHat wrote: |
I walk around the corner to avoid talking with someone, because if I talk to them I have to experience the boredom qualia. Whatever description should be given to the apparentness of the link between this qualia and my behavior, even if the description is inconceivable, the apparentness itself is personal evidence that the link exists.
|
"personal evidence" of the type you're talking about, I do not trust.
| BraveHat wrote: |
my subjective perception of a causal link is evidence that there is one.
|
Not at all.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
2) If the same behavior can't be emulated via a program (which can certainly emulate anything that's some combination of randomness and determinism).
|
Why the "can't"? Why can't it still be a reasonable assumption if there's simply no evidence that such a program is common? We're talking about reasonable assumptions, not rock-solid indisputable certainties.
|
It doesn't have to be common. Regarding subjective experiences having effects on the physical (causal powers), if a program can be written to do it, then it can be the result of a combination of determinism and randomness.
| BraveHat wrote: |
4)Similar objects. As distinct from only similar objects. You keep sticking the word "only" in there,
|
Similar objects, but not only similar objects, means similar objects and non-similar objects, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:12 am Post subject: 564 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why does it matter if the property is explainable? If I didn't know what caused colors it wouldn't mean everything was the same color. |
But we're noticing trends about what we do know. You're asking what if the trends were different, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:21 am Post subject: 565 |
|
|
| Some of what was unexplainable in the past is now explainable without a change in the status of what things have the formerly unexplained properties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:27 am Post subject: 566 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
This is the best way to sum up what I'm trying to say:
Suppose you're on a game show hosted by God, who knows what is sentient and what is not. He presents to you two groups and tells you that one group is entirely sentient and the other group is only partially sentient, but he doesn't tell you which is which. The two groups are: 1)every other living thing on Earth besides you and 2)Every nonliving thing on Earth. Your task is to answer which group is entirely sentient. If you guess right, you win a hundred million dollars. If you guess wrong, you die. Which group would you choose and why? |
You're asking me what I would do if God gave me a tremendous amount of information that we don't currently have, which is:
1) There is non-sentience
2) There is either a positive or negative correlation between sentience and living.
This is not information I have now.
I'd also quiz him on what is the difference between living and non-living. Isn't it all just matter following the laws of physics? There ls no "vital force" ... no "spark of life" ... in living things, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:33 am Post subject: 567 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Some of what was unexplainable in the past is now explainable without a change in the status of what things have the formerly unexplained properties. |
Agreed, but I'm going by a belief, which I feel is justified, that some of these unexplained things are very basic, irreducible properties - not just that we haven't found explanations in terms of simpler (more lower level, more fundamental) things, but that such explanations don't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:39 am Post subject: 568 |
|
|
| extro wrote: |
| Similar objects, but not only similar objects, means similar objects and non-similar objects, no? |
Again, not what I said. I didn't use the conjunction "similar objects, but not only similar objects". I said "similar objects" as distinct from "only similar objects". Meaning similar objects, period. Whether or not non-similar objects are sentient is not part of the conjecture. If I claim that only similar objects are sentient, I'm assuming, among other things, that no other objects are sentient, which nothing seems to suggest. If I claim that every object is sentient, I'm assuming that every object has sentience, which nothing seems to suggest. If I simply claim that similar objects have sentience without claiming anything about non-similar objects, I'm at least claiming something that seems to be suggested by subjective appearance (if not evidence, which apparently is under debate).
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:39 am Post subject: 569 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Agreed, but I'm going by a belief, which I feel is justified, that some of these unexplained things are very basic, irreducible properties - not just that we haven't found explanations in terms of simpler (more lower level, more fundamental) things, but that such explanations don't exist. |
I don't see how we can know that explanations will never be found nor why it should be considered likely that everything has the one specific such property. A sample size of one isn't much to go on and we already know that some things can have properties that others don't. Even if there are some such properties shared by everything, why believe that sentience is one of them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:52 am Post subject: 570 |
|
|
| extro wrote: |
You're asking me what I would do if God gave me a tremendous amount of information that we don't currently have, which is:
1) There is non-sentience |
Yes. In this scenario, an omniscient being is providing you with the information that there is non-sentience.
| extro wrote: |
| 2) There is either a positive or negative correlation between sentience and living. |
Not necessarily. The living/non-living grouping could just be mind games. The question is if that was all the information you had to go on, and the stakes were high, would you have grounds to choose one over the other?
| extro wrote: |
| This is not information I have now. |
Agreed, but this is a hypothetical situation in which you are given information 1)
| extro wrote: |
Id also quiz him on what is the difference between living and non-living. Isn't it all just matter following the laws of physics? There ls no "vital force" ... no "spark of life" ... in living things, right? |
If the living/non-living distinction is too ambiguous, I'll change the groups to something more specific. Group 1 is five humans and five cows. Group 2 is five mountains and five rocks. Which would you choose, and what would be your reasoning?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:13 am Post subject: 571 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| Similar objects, but not only similar objects, means similar objects and non-similar objects, no? |
Again, not what I said. I didn't use the conjunction "similar objects, but not only similar objects". I said "similar objects" as distinct from "only similar objects". Meaning similar objects, period. |
Similar objects is either:
1) Only similar objects.
2) Similar objects, but not only similar objects.
Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:14 am Post subject: 572 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| Similar objects, but not only similar objects, means similar objects and non-similar objects, no? |
Again, not what I said. I didn't use the conjunction "similar objects, but not only similar objects". I said "similar objects" as distinct from "only similar objects". Meaning similar objects, period. Whether or not non-similar objects are sentient is not part of the conjecture. If I claim that only similar objects are sentient, I'm assuming, among other things, that no other objects are sentient, which nothing seems to suggest. If I claim that every object is sentient, I'm assuming that every object has sentience, which nothing seems to suggest. If I simply claim that similar objects have sentience without claiming anything about non-similar objects, I'm at least claiming something that seems to be suggested by subjective appearance (if not evidence, which apparently is under debate). |
Wouldn't it be easier to claim nothing at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:37 am Post subject: 573 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| If the living/non-living distinction is too ambiguous, I'll change the groups to something more specific. Group 1 is five humans and five cows. Group 2 is five mountains and five rocks. Which would you choose, and what would be your reasoning? |
I'd start asking a lot of questions, to clarify the question. Like, what is sentience? Seriously, I don't see where this is going.
To me, your question is like this: God tells you that one of the following gives milk: Cows, or human mothers. Which do you choose? [edit: OK, that was a bad analogy to your question, but it was late. In any case, it's an artificial situation, assuming information we don't have, or have rational basis to believe from the info we do have]
I don't know if sentience is segregated into objects like rocks. You are, physically, a collection of atoms. Is the collection of ALL your atoms sentient? Or some subset? Is your left big toenail sentient? Is your heart sentient? Is the physical matter of your brain sentient? 100% of it? Some subset? [edit: Or is it not something physical this is sentient at all?] What is the "I" (you) that is sentient?
Perhaps space itself is sentient, and "I" is a subjective experience space is having when occupied by matter (my brain) that is building a model of an "I" within a model of a world.
When I suggest perhaps nothing is non-sentient, I hope it's obvious I don't mean a rock is aware of it's surroundings. But is the space occupied by the rock aware of the state of that space - some subjective experience of mass, etc, and/or whatever is associated with the matter of the rock?
We have zero knowledge of this stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:24 pm Post subject: 574 |
|
|
So here's an analogy to your question:
I land on a planet composed entirely of red and green rocks. I Randomly choose a rock and perform some test on it, the likes of which has never been performed before, and I notice it has a very unusual property P that is outside and not explainable by anything I've ever witnessed before. I have a thorough understanding of why certain rocks are green and certain ones are red. The rock I chose happens to be green, but I can't think of any conceivable connection between being green and property P. In fact, property P is such that I've reason to believe there can't even be a rational explanation associating it with any other properties I know of (this is true of sentience, due to its indescribable nature). The test I've performed is rather novel, and perhaps this property P is a property of all matter itself, at least on this planet.
Now God tells me that either the green rocks all have property P, while some of the red rocks have it, or vice versa.
Then, it is, I think, purely a matter of Bayesian probability that makes me conclude it is more likely the green rocks that have property P.
I would then be mystified by the fact that there is a significant correlation between the red/green property and property P which has no, and can have no, rational explanation. Mystified, because never before in the history of science has any significant correlation between different properties been encountered for which there could be no rational explanation. And again, not merely "I can't conceive how there could be", but "I can see how there can't be".
Oh ... here's a good one, to make the analogy (not to your question, but the actual situation) more complete: The test I performed on the rock was this: Under a somewhat accidental set of unusual circumstances that may or may not have played a part in what's happened, I merely picked up the rock in my hand, at which point I suddenly discover that in addition to my five senses, I have three new, utterly different, senses. However, rather strangely, and maddeningly (though the madness isn't noticeable to anyone), I am utterly unable to take any action that allows me to communicate to others that any such thing has happened. I notice other people picking up rocks, but just like me, they show no outward signs that any such thing has happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: 575 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Mystified, because never before in the history of science has any significant correlation between different properties been encountered for which there could be no rational explanation. |
Shouldn't we also be mystified by an unexplainable absence of correlation? Red rocks and green rocks both fall when dropped. We have an explanation for the absence of correlation between color and tendency to fall. Has there ever been a significant absence of correlation between different properties with no rational explanation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: 576 |
|
|
The problem is that you can find correlation where it exists due to sheer chance. Predicting a correlation and then finding it would be more convincing.
For example, imagine I toss a coin 100 times and have a 50-50 split.
Upon looking at the data however, I see that the first 50 tosses had a majority of heads (30-20), while the second half is split the other way.
It would be incorrect to say that heads are more likely at the beginning of coin-tossing, without repeating the experiment several times.
In cases where you cannot repeat the experiment, correlation is not as trustworthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject: 577 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Mystified, because never before in the history of science has any significant correlation between different properties been encountered for which there could be no rational explanation. |
Shouldn't we also be mystified by an unexplainable absence of correlation? Red rocks and green rocks both fall when dropped. We have an explanation for the absence of correlation between color and tendency to fall. Has there ever been a significant absence of correlation between different properties with no rational explanation? |
Isn't the explanation for the absence of correlation between color and tendency to fall simply that they are independent and unrelated? Absence of correlation between other properties would be no more mysterious than that, unless we had some reason to believe they should be dependent or related somehow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: 578 |
|
|
| I see similar objects with some different properties and some very different objects sharing some properties. I don't see why one condition is more mysterious than the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:11 pm Post subject: 579 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I see similar objects with some different properties and some very different objects sharing some properties. I don't see why one condition is more mysterious than the other. |
I'm not sure anyone suggested one of those is more mysterious than the other. What I suggested was:
| Quote: |
| Mystified, because never before in the history of science has any significant correlation between different properties been encountered for which there could be no rational explanation. |
Correlations are generally explainable. The very few exceptions I think are the basic laws of physics, which are observations of correlations that always hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:27 pm Post subject: 580 |
|
|
Extro, there's a lot I want to respond to, but I'm heading into run-throughs and then tech week for my show, and that has to take precedence. I might get around to responding this weekend, but there's a chance it may not be until mid February. I know you frequent these forums, but I'll send you a message in any case. This is a really interesting conversation, and even though I still think there are some misunderstandings on both of our parts, it's opened my mind to some new possibilities.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:38 pm Post subject: 581 |
|
|
I have no more reason to believe that there isn't a correlation between sentience and something else than I have to believe that everything isn't sentient. Should I assume for no reason that no correlation with anything is the default when I see correlations all over the place?
No correlation is often explainable. Two different colored rocks both fall because they're accelerated by a gravitational field which doesn't attract based on color. We have an explanation for the absence of correlation between color and tendency to fall. If everything is sentient then we don't have an explanation for the absence of correlation between being sentient and being alive, or between being sentient and being human, or between being sentient and being anything that claims sentience. I have no more reason to believe that a rock is sentient than I have to deny that it's possible. The best I can do is act in whatever manner I find useful when dealing with the possibility while admitting that I can never know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnP
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:26 am Post subject: 582 |
|
|
| I'm curious what this discussion is all about. I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in God in any conventional sense of the word and I haven't been inspired to create my own definition of the word. I've been content to believe that I'm just a small temporary bit of matter and energy in big enduring universe of matter and energy. It's true I've been intrigued by the idea of my own consciousness as a sort of immaterial feeling. However I don't see any contradiction between the fact that I have sentience and the idea of no God. Is someone saying that the existence of sentience compels belief in a God? If so, what is the nature of that God that must be believed in? If sentience does not compel a belief in God why is this dialogue in a thread about atheism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: 583 |
|
|
| I don't know what line of reasoning gets us from everything being sentient to an intelligent creator for the universe, but it's probably torturous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:31 pm Post subject: 584 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Should I assume for no reason that no correlation with anything is the default when I see correlations all over the place? |
What correlations do we know of with no possible explanation?
| Chuck wrote: |
| No correlation is often explainable. Two different colored rocks both fall because they're accelerated by a gravitational field which doesn't attract based on color. |
How do we know gravity doesn't attract based on color? A: Because we've observed no such correlation.
Correlations have explanations, exception being the basic laws of physics, which are the most universal correlations, and are accepted as axioms. Other correlations can be deduced from those. Where there is no correlation, it's because it isn't a law, and it can't be deduced.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We have an explanation for the absence of correlation between color and tendency to fall. |
That being because it isn't an observed law of physics, nor deducible from observed laws of physics - there's no reason to thing there would be such a correlation.
| Chuck wrote: |
| If everything is sentient then we don't have an explanation for the absence of correlation between being sentient and being alive, or between being sentient and being human, or between being sentient and being anything that claims sentience. |
We do: Because we haven't observed such a correlation, such that we could call it a law, and we can't deduce that there should be such a correlation from all observed correlations we know of. There's no reason to thing there would be such a correlation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: 585 |
|
|
I'll take stab at some of these, but last question first:
| JohnP wrote: |
| If sentience does not compel a belief in God why is this dialogue in a thread about atheism? |
1) We're kinda loose around here with threads straying off topic, especially in 7 year old threads.
2) It started in the "Ask about Christianity" topic, branched off into another about "Self-Evident Truths", and that came back here. The discussion kinda followed its participants.
3) There is a significant subset of atheists who espouse belief in nothing that science has no evidence of, and also often a belief that anything that is real can in principle be explained in science. I always felt sentience was such an obvious counterexample to such beliefs, however those with those beliefs usually switch the focus from sentience as we've been discussing to what some call "sentient behavior".
| JohnP wrote: |
| I'm curious what this discussion is all about. |
For me it started here: http://greylabyrinth.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6748&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=716
Then it moved here: http://greylabyrinth.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=14357
I would probably be the guilty party that brought it back to this thread, here: http://greylabyrinth.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6810&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=467
| JohnP wrote: |
| Is someone saying that the existence of sentience compels belief in a God? |
Depends on what you mean by God. The first link above was to Zag's post, which included:
| Zag wrote: |
| If you don't mind me defining God using the more extreme version of Einstein's definition (basically just the sum total of the physical laws, with no sentience or intent behind it), then I'll gladly join you. |
I questioned: Why exclude the sentience?
I don't question: Why exclude the white beard?
| JohnP wrote: |
| If so, what is the nature of that God that must be believed in? |
I couldn't say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnP
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:35 pm Post subject: 586 |
|
|
Okay. As I said I have no definition of God. It was hard to tell but based on the thread title I thought your point was something like:
Humans are sentient, therefore …< some reasoning >, … therefore such-and-such thing must exist. We’ll call that thing God.
After reading your point 3) it seems you intended more to argue against the confidence of some atheists rather than for the confidence of theists. That’s cool. I’m an atheist but I think I also know the limits of my certainty about anything.
BTW, I think consciousness is a deep and intriguing subject itself that probably deserves a thread of it’s own that is independent of theology issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:59 am Post subject: 587 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What correlations do we know of with no possible explanation? |
I know of no correlations that I know can't have explanations, so perhaps I shouldn't believe in them. I also know of no properties than can have no correlations, so perhaps I shouldn't believe in them either. I do see many properties with correlations. I should probably believe that most properties have correlations while for some properties it's not known or can't be known.
You make a good case for not being able to prove that everything isn't sentient, but I still see no reason to believe that it's true. It seems only undecidable. If I were to believe that every undecidable claim was true I'd end up believing things that contradict each other, so disbelief without the claim of impossibility seems more rational. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: 588 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I know of no correlations that I know can't have explanations, so perhaps I shouldn't believe in them. |
I think I agree with your intent there, though I think it needs further division.
First, putting the whole sentience thing completely aside, and dealing only with what hard science typically deals with, I think correlations fall into two categories:
1) The most basic laws of physics - correlations that are observed to hold universally, but are not explainable in terms of more basic laws. These are like axioms in a mathematical proof system. Of course, I don't know how we can ever be quite sure we've hit on one of these. Sub-atomic physics, string theory, etc, ... new findings ... may change what we held as axioms to be theorems deduced from lower-level axioms. In any case, these "axiomatic" correlations, that essentially are the basic laws, either:
1a) They exist - basic laws (correlations) that can't be explained as the result of more basic laws, or ...
1b) An infinite regress - every law is actually a correlation explainable as resulting from lower level laws.
2) Correlations that can be explained as the result of a combination of more basic laws.
Concerning sentience, I think there can't be an explanation of a correlation between it and anything else. The lack of any intersubjective verifiability means the correlation can't be observed, nor can the nature of subjective experiences be described in terms of simpler properties that are observed or deduced to correlate with anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:18 pm Post subject: 589 |
|
|
| Why should that make me think that everything is sentient? Shouldn't I need more to go on than just the facts that sentience exists and I can never know that it's not universal. I can never know that everything is sentient either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: 590 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why should that make me think that everything is sentient? Shouldn't I need more to go on than just the facts that sentience exists and I can never know that it's not universal. I can never know that everything is sentient either. |
Because you have no reason to believe in a correlation between it and an arbitrary subset of everything, or between it and some arbitrary set of physical properties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: 591 |
|
|
| I have no reason to accept any one such correlation as correct but any one of a great many might be correct. All things being sentient is just one of a vast number of possibilities. I have no reason to accept everything being sentient over any of the others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:22 pm Post subject: 592 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I have no reason to accept any one such correlation as correct but any one of a great many might be correct. All things being sentient is just one of a vast number of possibilities. I have no reason to accept everything being sentient over any of the others. |
I'm open to a suggestion as to a possible correlation between sentience and whatever as an example.
I've heard, for instance, suggestions (pure speculation) that it might be correlated with any "information processing", but I don't think "information processing" has a meaningful definition - I think it's just an interpretation.
My intuition is that the more complex the description of what it is sentience correlates with, the more reason there needs to be to believe it. The least complex descriptions are "everything" and "nothing", and the latter can be ruled out. "All points in space" would be low on the complexity scale of descriptions. The description of a biological neural network is highly complex ("biological neural network" is not a description). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:41 pm Post subject: 593 |
|
|
The simplest explanation is usually more likely that any one of the others but that doesn't mean it's likely to be true. When there are multiple other possible explanations then it's more likely to be one of the others even if each of them is more complicated. I could suggest other explanations, such as being human, as a possibility and you could point out for each such reason that it's less likely than absolutely everything, but that doesn't make absolutely everything more likely to be correct than some unknown one of the others.
A seven being the most likely roll for a pair of dice doesn't mean my next roll will probably be a seven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:08 pm Post subject: 594 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
The simplest explanation is usually more likely that any one of the others but that doesn't mean it's likely to be true. When there are multiple other possible explanations then it's more likely to be one of the others even if each of them is more complicated. I could suggest other explanations, such as being human, as a possibility and you could point out for each such reason that it's less likely than absolutely everything, but that doesn't make absolutely everything more likely to be correct than some unknown one of the others.
A seven being the most likely roll for a pair of dice doesn't mean my next roll will probably be a seven. |
But if I come up with a procedure that will enumerate an infinite number of descriptions of various sorts of gods, does that mean the existence of one of them is more likely than the simple "no god" scenario? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: 595 |
|
|
| Not convincingly since I don't know that a god exists like I know that sentience exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
