The reason why science has trouble with consciousness

[Burning ghost]

Mgrinder -

I think you need to address address the question about natural laws and things more thoroughly. I don't think the question can be answered conclusively unless the terms are defined, and I don't think it is important to answer the question conclusively only to investigate it to help express the direction of your idea.

For me, and for most people, physical is what can be objectively measured. Centuries ago subatomic physics was metaphysics because we didn't possess the means to measure such things. All laws inferred by physical experimentation are physical laws, this used to be called experimental philosophy.

If you use any kind of physical data in the procedure of establishing a law of consciousness then it is a physical law.

There is a lot to be said about the development of modern science in constrast with empiricism and metaphysics. You can certainly present good arguments here to uncover science and suggest an opening for something else, but I am not sure of how useful any "something else" is.

I have found a opening in how we differentiate between subjective and objective. By looking at these terms I can only conclude that I possess subjective views and that objectivity is a presupposed subjective view, but then I only reveal another dynamic of the explanatory gap because I find myself asking how I can possess a subjective view in the first place.

I think most importantly we can suggest that consciousness is a law. If true can we ever know what this law is and if not what is its use to us if we cannot define it as a natural/physical law?

From here I would suggest you present counter arguments, or new perspectives, of empiricism and physicalism. The pattern of philosophy over the centuries has been one that waxes and wanes between rationalism and empiricism.

-- Updated August 5th, 2016, 2:22 am to add the following --

As an example of investigatiom into the question of what comes first the natural law or the bodies that adhere to the law we can see a misrepresentation and misapplication of causality.

By this what I am saying is the laws of nature are causal interrelations. The question then becomes about how these laws are presented and objectified (given to human habit in our everyday use of viewing the world).

In reference to causality it should be clear enough that if causality is obscured from reason then we cannot engage in empirical measure. The scienticific method requires a "necessary belief" (apologies for that concocted phrase!) in causality being obscured in regard to phenomenon rather than "behaving" non-causally. Meaning science does not look for non-causal relation in order to construct mathematical representations of natural laws.

[Mgrinder]

Mgrinder wrote:

.......... Nobody can give any sort of account of how consciousness emerges. When I say this, I am talking about qualia and experiences, an explanation as to why it is like something to exist with nausea. It is not like 50 years ago at all. Therefore, it seems very likely that emergentism for consciousness is not true at all. If we have no idea how the problem can be solved today, if not even a hand wavey account can be given, there is a problem.

OK, and philosophy always looks into these concepts - but does science really care {most of the time}

For 9 yeaars now a popular post here on this forum has been "Can a man-made computer become conscious?"
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... p?f=2&t=19

And that debate still goes on - Meantime I've done some research - Computer scientists are not asking 'if' it can be done
- they are trying ot do it - It is sometime called Hard AI.

See what I'm trying to say - science follows its own direction - Like the mountain climber who is asked why climb the mountain and then answers - because it is there - Same for science - If a computer can be made conscious the scientist will try to do it - And couldn't care less about the fact that there is no universal definition of consciousness - And for that matter
whether consciousness really exists - If the mountain is there science will try go climb it - And no philosophical constructs or limigtations will stand in the way.

I see what you are saying, but I don't see that it has any bearing on my argument. Of course Ai people are trying to build a good AI. They will probably succeed, just as we succeeded in predicting the properties of materials before they are made the first time. The problem was solved by more computing power, of course. However, there will be no way to tell if this computer is actually conscious, or just calculating the right answer to any question or situation put to it, so that it just seems conscious. HAving a good AI simply does not answer the question of what is consciousness.

I could put on a moose costume and act like a moose. Suppose this fools everyone into thinking I am a moose. Does this make me a moose? No. Suppose a computer fools everyone into thinking it is a person, does it make the computer conscious? Not necessarily. It's a crappy test for consciousness.

Incidentally, if you read my essay, you find that this theory, if correct, definitively answers whether or not computers are conscious. It depends on how they are built. The way they are built today makes them not conscious like us. In my theory, a human like conscious experience with memories and a sense of self requires a molecular interaction with a complicated wavefunction, so that memories and a sense of self are referenced at once. In contrast, a computer, as they are built today, accesses memories in a step by step fashion, by shuffling electrons about through gates. AS the electrons change state, they would have a primal qualia in this theory, but not one like ours.

-- Updated Fri Aug 05, 2016 5:07 am to add the following --

Mgrinder -

I think you need to address address the question about natural laws and things more thoroughly. I don't think the question can be answered conclusively unless the terms are defined, and I don't think it is important to answer the question conclusively only to investigate it to help express the direction of your idea.

Is that supposed to be "I think it is important to answer the question" or "I don't think it is important to answer the question"?

Anyways, I'm not really sure what you want me to do. Also, why don't you just do it? Why do I have to? If you're interested, what is stopping you?

For me, and for most people, physical is what can be objectively measured. Centuries ago subatomic physics was metaphysics because we didn't possess the means to measure such things. All laws inferred by physical experimentation are physical laws, this used to be called experimental philosophy.

If you use any kind of physical data in the procedure of establishing a law of consciousness then it is a physical law.

There is a lot to be said about the development of modern science in constrast with empiricism and metaphysics. You can certainly present good arguments here to uncover science and suggest an opening for something else, but I am not sure of how useful any "something else" is.

I have found a opening in how we differentiate between subjective and objective. By looking at these terms I can only conclude that I possess subjective views and that objectivity is a presupposed subjective view, but then I only reveal another dynamic of the explanatory gap because I find myself asking how I can possess a subjective view in the first place.

I think most importantly we can suggest that consciousness is a law. If true can we ever know what this law is and if not what is its use to us if we cannot define it as a natural/physical law?

From here I would suggest you present counter arguments, or new perspectives, of empiricism and physicalism. The pattern of philosophy over the centuries has been one that waxes and wanes between rationalism and empiricism.

Again, not really sure what you are saying, and, as before, why don't you do it? What you are writing is vague (I am not being flippant when I say that, honestly) and I honestly am not sure what you want. Even if I could follow it, why should I bother to try to do what you are asking? Why don't you do it?

-- Updated August 5th, 2016, 2:22 am to add the following --

As an example of investigatiom into the question of what comes first the natural law or the bodies that adhere to the law we can see a misrepresentation and misapplication of causality.

By this what I am saying is the laws of nature are causal interrelations. The question then becomes about how these laws are presented and objectified (given to human habit in our everyday use of viewing the world).

In reference to causality it should be clear enough that if causality is obscured from reason then we cannot engage in empirical measure. The scienticific method requires a "necessary belief" (apologies for that concocted phrase!) in causality being obscured in regard to phenomenon rather than "behaving" non-causally. Meaning science does not look for non-causal relation in order to construct mathematical representations of natural laws.

NO idea what you are on about. It's not just that your grammar is off, I just can't follow what you are saying.

If I may suggest a more productive way to go about it.: Why don't you find something I am saying that you think is wrong, and attack it with argumentation? That's kind of what happens in philosophy a lot.

Instead you are saying: "I don't get this mgrinder, write it better for me, and I'm not going to really say what I don't get, or say precisely what I think is wrong. I'm going to guesture at something I don't like. Now get to fixing it mgrinder!" I hope you can see how this is not productive. It's all you really do on this forum (when engaging with me), and it's not productive. Understand? Please answer. Because this is annoying.

[Rr6]

"Rr6...I think that time is the biggest mystery of them all, and that it is somehow tied into and dependent upon our consciousness.

Hard AI makes think of differrent ways men and womens brains function. More bilateral action with women.

I think most people believe men and women think differrently and Ive tried to show, that, even when all are considered exactly equal, they can be operating at 90 degrees to each other, and this is optimal for defininning the primary 3D, polyhedral structure of Universe.

Fuller states, that, men are pushers { externalized physically? } and women are attractors { internalized physically? }

\**/ woman Xx internalized physically

*Y* man Xy is externallized physically.

Vibration = frequency = ^v^v or as \/\/\/\/\/
...'what we have, is modification/moderation of angle and frequency'... R B Fuller

The following does not do justice to the trajectory I believe is going on at Space ( ) - Time^v - Space )( scales of existence.

( ^v )( V^ ) or as (><)(><)

r6

[Burning ghost]

Mgrinder -

I'll start from a simple position then. You say that physics possesses non-physical things called laws. I would say that physical laws are physical because they refer to physical things (as would most people).

So I very clearly here refute any suggestion that natural laws are not physical because that is not how they are defined.

This leads back to the question of whether the natural/physical laws come before the natural/physical objects. If you don't know what physical means then there is an obvious problem because you say "non-physical" without first showing what "physical" means.

[Rr6]

Eternally existent, cosmic laws/principles are expressed via occupied space.

Eternally existent, cosmic laws/principles are complemetary too eternally existent, occupied space.

Consciousness ( temporal lobes } occurs as observed time { temporality }, and deduces eternally existent, abstract { metaphysical-1 } cosmic laws/principles and abstract time.

Physical/energy { occupied space } = fermions { occupied space }, bosons { occupied space } and any aggregate collection thereof. Seems pretty simple to me.

r6

[Mgrinder]

Mgrinder -

I'll start from a simple position then. You say that physics possesses non-physical things called laws. I would say that physical laws are physical because they refer to physical things (as would most people).

So I very clearly here refute any suggestion that natural laws are not physical because that is not how they are defined.

This leads back to the question of whether the natural/physical laws come before the natural/physical objects. If you don't know what physical means then there is an obvious problem because you say "non-physical" without first showing what "physical" means.

A physical law is a rule we have found out about nature, such as the total momentum before a collision equals the total after. How is a rule physical? In Texas hold 'em poker, the rule is that you get two cards initially. How is this rule a physical thing? It isn't.

The terms "physical" and "non physical" are useful language terms, but are not rigorously definable. Kind of like boat". Versus "non boat". There is no way to rigorously define what a boat is, or what physical means. However, if you're going to use the term, a rule is non physical. End of story. I personally give up with the distinction, and just state there is a universal calculation mechanism, it seems to sort of match our notion of "non physical", and that is all that can be said.

[Rainman]

Mgrinder -
The terms "physical" and "non physical" are useful language terms, but are not rigorously definable. Kind of like boat". Versus "non boat". There is no way to rigorously define what a boat is, or what physical means. However, if you're going to use the term, a rule is non physical. End of story. I personally give up with the distinction, and just state there is a universal calculation mechanism, it seems to sort of match our notion of "non physical", and that is all that can be said.

Physical should mean "observable". As in 'all observables in the Observable Universe are physical'. All else is non-physical and thus non-observable and is non-existent....yet (who knows what future science will discover). But to classify consciousness as physical or non-physical this early in our scientific history might be a mistake. To use a Facebook phrasing, "it's complicated". I think that sometime in the future we might think of "consciousness" as being an old-fashioned term meaning a historical point on a sliding-scale of ...'intelligencyness". heh heh.

[Bohm2]

You say that physics possesses non-physical things called laws. I would say that physical laws are physical because they refer to physical things (as would most people).

There are quite a few scientists and philosophers who view laws as belonging to a new category of ontology. According to them, laws of physics are themselves metaphysically fundamental elements of ontology. That is, they are entities, in a very broad sense, although they don’t fall into any of the usual ontological categories. Thus, this view holds that laws of nature exist external to matter, space-time, etc. and govern evolution of events:

Governing Laws holds that there is something — namely, the governing laws — outside of the mosaic that places restrictions on the distributions of properties in the mosaic.

This view contrasts with the essentialist view on laws of nature that holds that something within the mosaic, itself, places restrictions on the distributions of properties in the mosaic:

On this view, the distribution of properties in the universe is determined by the intrinsic natures of the properties themselves. Properties within the mosaic do the required explanatory work, so there appears to be no need to postulate theoretical entities outside the mosaic.

So if one subscribes to the first view, material stuff doesn't have to calculate anything. It is the laws themselves as entities that produce or govern and thereby explain the evolution of events.

[Rainman]

You say that physics possesses non-physical things called laws. I would say that physical laws are physical because they refer to physical things (as would most people).

There are quite a few scientists and philosophers who view laws as belonging to a new category of ontology. According to them, laws of physics are themselves metaphysically fundamental elements of ontology. That is, they are entities, in a very broad sense, although they don’t fall into any of the usual ontological categories. Thus, this view holds that laws of nature exist external to matter, space-time, etc. and govern evolution of events:

I don't quite understand how the Observable Universe (which is everything that exists physically) can be controlled or governed or ruled by any non-physical 'thing'. The laws can't exist in and of themselves because they are not physical...ie. don't exist in the Observable Universe. Or, to say that laws "exist" external to matter and govern the evolution of events. To me that is like saying the Tooth Fairy can take away your tooth. Tooth Fairy is non-physical and only a concept but teeth are real. I really don't understand how "laws" that are not part of the physical,Observable Universe can interact with anything? How can the non-physical interact or control or do anything to the physical? How can concepts/laws cross the boundary that is the physical universe? I think the Observable Universe is what it is. Laws or rules or natural guidances or gods are all just human-created concepts. Useful but not existing in and of themselves.

[Burning ghost]

Mgrinder -

You say a physical law is something we've found out about nature.

How have we found this out? Why do we call it a law?

[Belinda]

Some facts are more lawlike than others. Those constant conjunctions that fit with all other known constant conjunctions are laws of science. If those are called "laws of nature" the implication is that the laws transcend relativity and are out of this world.

[Quotidian]

'Natural laws' are the observed regularities of nature. It is what allows science to make any predictions whatever. Of course the paradigmatic laws are Newton's laws of motion, on the basis of which a vast range of phenomena can be successfully predicted.

But I don't believe science ever has, or even can, explain those laws, even while relying on them to make predictions and do their work. Speculation about why they exist, is not actually a scientific matter at all but a metaphysical question.

But at the same time, such laws are not simply human inventions, because they predict results which can generally be described as observer-independent. In other words, F=MA is not a matter of human convention, it is something about the way objects behave that has been discovered by humans. But of course it is true that what we call 'laws' are not physical things, they're more like parameters or constraints.

[UniversalAlien]

"In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit."
- Max Planck


"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
- Max Planck


Max Planck was one ot the giants of theoretical physics in the 20th Century.

[Quotidian]

also a committed albeit non-orthodox Christian, hence the top comment above. Not that this is a criticism, but might be worth mentioning.

[Bohm2]

I don't quite understand how the Observable Universe (which is everything that exists physically) can be controlled or governed or ruled by any non-physical 'thing'. The laws can't exist in and of themselves because they are not physical...ie. don't exist in the Observable Universe. Or, to say that laws "exist" external to matter and govern the evolution of events. To me that is like saying the Tooth Fairy can take away your tooth. Tooth Fairy is non-physical and only a concept but teeth are real. I really don't understand how "laws" that are not part of the physical,Observable Universe can interact with anything? How can the non-physical interact or control or do anything to the physical? How can concepts/laws cross the boundary that is the physical universe? I think the Observable Universe is what it is. Laws or rules or natural guidances or gods are all just human-created concepts. Useful but not existing in and of themselves.

The problem with physicalism and it's historical predecessor materialism, is that there is no fixed conception of body/matter running through scientific developments that can serve as a metaphysical base for what there is. Science progresses in unforeseen ways. Consequently, physicalism is empty/vacuous. The physical is whatever physics tells us there is. But physics is an on-going enterprise and changes/evolves and since, it's impossible to predict the ontology of a future physics , physicalism is vacuous:

“The physical” in physicalism may mean either something like, “whatever current physics claims exists,” or something like, “whatever the true ultimate physics claims exists.” If we adopt the former option, then physicalism is most probably false, because current physics is most probably false. If we choose the latter, then physicalism is quite an empty thesis, because we do not have any idea about what kind of entities the true ultimate physics will postulate.

The open and evolving character of physical theory means that over the course of history physicists have postulated a wide variety of different sorts of entities that fail to exhibit any shared feature which makes them all nonetheless “physical”. Since the only constraints on what gets postulated in physics are considerations of explanatory adequacy, empirical adequacy, and any other demands on the rational conduct of scientific inquiry, the class of physical entities viewed historically (i.e., those entities that have been, are, or will be postulated by physicists) exhibits no integrity beyond being the class of entities postulated by physicists in the course of doing their work.

As mentioned previously, primitivism about laws has been defended by a number of prominent physicists and philosophers of physics. In particular, Tim Maudlin has written a book (The Metaphysics within Physics) defending this position. He argues that rather than trying to analyze nomic facts in terms of non-nomic facts, as Humeans do, we should treat lawfulness as a primitive notion in our ontology. Laws are simply ‘the patterns that nature respects’, with no further analysis needed.
A review of his Tim Maudlin's book can be found here:
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23334-the-metap ... n-physics/

Whether one buys this position or not is not that important. The fact is that this position cannot be ruled out. And non-Humeanism appears to be a popular position among philosophers as this poll suggests, although I'm not sure if all non-Humeans would fully endorse Maudlin's view:

11. Laws of nature: non-Humean 57.1%; Humean 24.7%; other 18.2%.

What philosophers believe
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... s-believe/