On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a > mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs > about the mathematical nature of the universe. > > The purpose of brains is to find/discover useful inferences about their environments. If our environment is ultimately some type of mathematical universe, then why should it be impossible for it to generate beings that can discover this fact and develop true beliefs about the environment they're born into? > Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random > (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions > lead to the development of beings who are then able to correctly (or even > approximately) discover those physical laws and initial conditions. > > Who says the selection of laws is random? The beings who have brains in a sense "self-select" those universes where there is utility in having a brain. If the reality (laws and initial conditions) aren't discernible/exploitable/inferable then there's no sense in developing a brain in those universes (nor even storing a memory of failed evolutionary experiments in DNA (or any medium)) and you don't get life or beings with brains to appreciate such disordered/unpredictable/nonsensical universes. > If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since evolution > seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not truth. So how do > evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory like that? > > False beliefs are detrimental to survival. E.g. if a society believed that winter would not come again, they might not store food away for those harder times. If another society didn't believe in GR, they wouldn't have been able to make GPS satellites and be able to efficiently navigate from point A to point B with satellite navigation. Again, all this gets back to the utility of brains. Why would it make sense to devote 25% of our metabolic energy to this "thinking thing" if it did not in some way make up for its cost via improved rates of survival? > However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not true) - > this is more consistent - since it also predicts that evolved beings will > develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling) theories. > > Does everything that is true have to be useful? Are the digits of Pi beyond the first thousand or so useful for anything (aside from thought experiments)? Jason > Rex > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will see my >> posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines (evolution is a very >> very bad name for natural selection). >> >> But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of view >> is similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he said that natural selection is >> what introduces the Kantian a prioris in the mind since evolution makes the >> mind. Kant is famous for positing synthetic a priory truths that are self >> evident and toward which we can not create any simpler explanation. >> >> You are following the Kantian lines, that are part of the folk >> metaphysics of today: There are an external reality that is inaccessible to >> us, and that external reality is the "True Reality". Kant called phenomena >> what we observe and the external inaccessible reality is what Kant call >> noumena. Only by means of experimentation on phenomena we can known >> something about the true external reality . The results are scientific >> models and theories. Internally there are only subjective things : >> feelings, values etc. Only what is objectivated by science are facts. the >> subjective gain objective status by means of science or direct shared >> observation. Since internal states are not observable, this positivistic >> metaphisics despise all of this, including metaphysincs. So it is self >> reinforcing and self contradictory at the same time. >> >> But I think that this is not that way. the noumenal external reality >> does not exist. the reality is in the mind. The external reality is purely >> mathematical an evolution creates the conscious experiences, the values, >> feelings and perceptions (including tacticle and visual) necessary to >> maintain the body in this mathematical four dimensional reality along the >> time dimension. >> >> Then there are no two realities but a single meaningful one, that is >> mental. and the models are the true external reality or an approximation to >> it, that is mathematical. we share almost identical internal realities >> because we share the same mind functional architecture. >> >> But there is more. QM and GR are not the only mathematical structures out >> there. Both need other mathematical structures to work and the space time >> generate other structures along the time dimension,seen locally as >> evolution: it generates structures that are in the physiology of living and >> non living beings but also in the mind of inteligent beings. It could be >> said that a perfect mind is also a mathematical structure toward which our >> mind is evolving. natural selection does not produce arbitrary forms, but >> optimize designs close to an optimum of efficiency and simplicity for a >> task, many times in ways that apparently look weird but other times are >> very clear. there are mathematical relations in living beings. >> >> In terms of behaviours, there are also mathematical relations in game >> theory that may be used in the future to relate love, goodness, evil and so >> on to mathematical entities, and degrees of good and evil in terms of >> variations of entropy. Being will be also something objectivable >> mathematically in the future. I think that a notion of mind or soul, can be >> also a ideal mathematical structure towards which our evolved minds try to >> imitate in his evolved imperfection, in the same way that by convergent >> evolution the fin of a dolphin and a shark tend to the same ideal dorsal >> fin. And this Mind really encloses not phisically, but mathematically, the >> universe and we are part of it and this Mind is the ultimate reality. It is >> not an evolved mind but a "mathematical" one in the platonic sense but also >> in the same way that we are not maths, but math is our model, He is not >> only that. >> >> 2015-01-20 3:33 GMT+01:00 Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic. Axioms >>> and logic exist within conscious experience - not vice versa. >>> Consciousness comes before everything else. >>> >>> It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences. However, what >>> consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self-evident. Further, >>> what any particular conscious experience “means” is also not self-evident. >>> >>> For example: The experience of color is directly known and >>> incontrovertible. But what the experience of color *means* is not directly >>> known - any proposed explanation is inferential and controvertible. >>> >>> We do not have direct access to meaning. >>> >>> We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience. >>> >>> So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside (i.e., >>> objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness, by conscious >>> processes, on a foundation of conscious experience. >>> >>> Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based >>> entirely on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning, and >>> arrived at via conscious processes which are equally lacking in intrinsic >>> meaning. >>> >>> It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are what >>> they are. And what else do we have other than the way things “seem”? I >>> experience what I experience - nothing further can be known. >>> >>> HOWEVER - while we could just stop there - most of us don’t. >>> >>> For most of us, it seems that non-accepting, questioning, doubting, >>> believing, disbelieving, desiring, grasping, wanting, unsatisfied conscious >>> experiences just keep piling up. >>> >>> Why is this? >>> >>> Well - it seems like there is either an explanation for this - or it >>> just a brute fact that has no explanation. >>> >>> If there is no explanation, then we should just accept our >>> non-acceptance, our non-stoppingness, and let it go. Or not. Doesn’t >>> matter. >>> >>> Alternatively, if there is an explanation - then there are two options: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> The explanation is not accessible to us because our conscious >>> experiences do not “point” towards the truth of the way things are. >>> 2. >>> >>> The explanation is accessible to us, because our conscious >>> experiences *do* point towards the truth of the way things are. >>> >>> >>> Again, if we believe that option 1 is correct, we can just stop. Or >>> not. It doesn’t matter. >>> >>> So - let’s *provisionally* assume that option 2 is correct. >>> >>> I say “provisionally” instead of “axiomatically” because we will revisit >>> this assumption. Once we’ve gone as far as we can in working out the >>> implications of it being true - we will return to this assumption and see >>> if it still makes sense in light of where we ended up. >>> >>> At this point I am willing to grant that modern science provides the >>> best methodology for translating (extrapolating?) from our truth-pointing >>> conscious experiences to models that represent the accessible parts of how >>> things “really” are. >>> >>> To the extent that anything can be said about how things really are >>> “outside of” conscious experience - science says it. >>> >>> But we never have direct access to the truth - all we have are our >>> models of the truth, which (hopefully) improve over time as we distill out >>> the valid parts of our truth-pointing conscious experiences. >>> >>> Okay - now, having said all of that - what models has modern science >>> developed? Apparently there are two fundamental theories: General >>> Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. >>> >>> From Wikipedia: >>> >>> GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on the force of gravity >>> for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and >>> high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, >>> QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational >>> forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and >>> low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully >>> implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions between the >>> three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force. >>> >>> Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with >>> tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories >>> when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with >>> their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are >>> currently formulated, are mutually incompatible - they cannot both be >>> right. Since the usual domains of applicability of GR and QFT are so >>> different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be >>> used. As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QFT is only an >>> apparent issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as >>> those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the >>> universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). >>> >>> Now - in addition to those two fundamental theories, we have other >>> higher level theories, which are in principle reducible to GR+QFT. Chief >>> among these is the Theory of Evolution. Wikipedia again: >>> >>> Evolution – change in heritable traits of biological organisms over >>> generations due to natural selection, mutation, gene flow, and genetic >>> drift. Also known as descent with modification. >>> >>> So - ultimately evolution reduces to GR+QFT as applied to some set of >>> initial conditions (IC) that existed approximately 14 billion years ago. >>> >>> I introduce evolution here because it explains how relatively complex >>> “entities” such as human beings can “arise” from relatively simple initial >>> conditions. All that is required is for GR+QFT to support the existence of >>> patterns in matter such that: >>> >>> (1) The patterns vary in structure, in function, or in behaviour. >>> >>> (2) The likelihood of continuance (i.e. survival of the original or the >>> production of copies) of a pattern depends upon the variations in (1). >>> >>> (3) A pattern’s characteristics are transmitted during reproduction so >>> that there is some correlation between the nature of original patterns and >>> their copies. >>> >>> Given that GR+QFT satisfy these requirements, it is possible to picture >>> how the right set of initial conditions (IC) can lead to simple replicators >>> gradually evolving into more complex replicators like humans. >>> >>> In this picture, human ability and behavior doesn’t arise suddenly out >>> of a vacuum - rather it gradually develops from simpler behaviors. >>> >>> So there is a continuum from the simple to the complex. From prions, >>> viruses, and bacteria to tetrabaena socialis and caenorhabditis elegans >>> to insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, apes, chimpanzees, and (most complex >>> of all) humans. >>> >>> Note that “evolution” doesn’t do any real work here. GR+QFT+IC do all >>> of the work. Every aspect of evolution “reduces” to some aspect of >>> GR+QFT+IC. >>> >>> Any state of matter or change in the state of matter, including “living” >>> matter, is explicable in terms of GR+QFT+IC. >>> >>> Evolution just provides a conceptual bridge between the fundamental laws >>> and entities of physics and the abstract higher level “patterns” that we >>> more immediately perceive in our conscious experience - like plants, >>> animals, etc. >>> >>> Further note that computers are also complex patterns of matter - and >>> their behaviors and abilities are reducible to and based in GR+QFT+IC, just >>> like everything else. It is only the patterns that are different, not the >>> underlying principles. Computers are a moderately complex by-product of >>> human evolution and human selection - and not directly acted on by >>> evolution and natural selection. But their patterns may yet become complex >>> enough to survive and evolve without further human involvement. >>> >>> Now - given all that: why do humans have the behaviors and abilities >>> that they have? Why are we “this way” instead of “some other way”? >>> >>> Evolution says that we behave the way we do and have the abilities that >>> we have because those behaviors and abilities are part of the patterns that >>> have most successfully survived and reproduced inside the system described >>> by GR+QFT+IC. >>> >>> We have our behaviors and abilities because they “work” (or at least >>> have worked in the past) to enable survival and reproduction. However - >>> they do no actual work because any change in any state of matter is >>> ultimately due to GR+QFT+IC - which do all of the real work. Talk of >>> “behaviors” and “abilities” is another type of bridge between what exists - >>> GR+QFT+IC - and what we perceive - behavior. >>> >>> Why do we engage in philosophy, mathematics, and science? Why do we >>> concern ourselves with ethics and political theory? These activities are >>> all just aspects of the set of evolved patterns that constitute the human >>> species. We do these things because the are the inevitable manifestations >>> of the survival and replication of patterns of matter whose state changes >>> are governed by GR+QFT+IC. >>> >>> Note that the question of free will is ultimately about the causes of >>> behavior. GR+QFT+IC+Evo fully address the question of why we behave as we >>> do, without the need for anything like free will. >>> >>> So - why punish or reward people if they are not “free” of >>> GR+QFT+IC+Evo? >>> >>> Because if you “want” to change their behavior, this is what works. >>> Most animals, including humans, will change their behavior in response to >>> circumstances that either threaten or improve their ability to survive and >>> reproduce. >>> >>> Why? Because the evolution of the patterns that these animals consist >>> of has resulted in flexible and adaptable (though still reductionistically >>> mechanistic) behaviors under a wide variety of circumstances. >>> >>> And that’s all there is to it. It is useless to punish or reward >>> animals whose patterns are not sufficiently flexible to change behaviors in >>> response. The punishment or reward should be selected to match the >>> animal’s inventory of adaptive responses. >>> >>> The point is not the reward or the punishment. These are just means to >>> an end. The point is the desired change in behavior (in either the animal >>> being administered to, or other animals who may be encouraged or deterred >>> by what they observe). >>> >>> Further note that why you “want” to change another animals behavior is >>> also explicable within the framework of GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>> >>> Next we will consider how conscious experience fits into GR+QFT+IC. >>> >>> It is certainly true that my experience of consciousness and my >>> conception of GR+QFT+IC do not overlap. For example - my experience of >>> seeing the color yellow does not overlap with my mental conception of the >>> photons, quarks, electrons, retinas, neurons, and visual cortices that are >>> described by the GR+QFT+IC framework. >>> >>> However - GR+QFT+IC *does* seem to provide a satisfying explanation of >>> the *mechanics* of how I detect, process, and represent color, and >>> evolution explains why I have the “ability” to see color. >>> >>> Even so - there is still an unsatisfying “conceptual gap” between my >>> experience of color and my understanding of the physics of color. >>> >>> How can we explain this gap? >>> >>> One possibility is to claim that “future science” will close the gap for >>> us. However - I doubt that this is true because GR+QFT is already so >>> successful in explaining all observed behaviors of matter. There is no >>> promising theoretical gap in our understanding of the behavior of matter >>> that matches up with the conceptual gap we feel exists between >>> consciousness and matter. >>> >>> So - I think a more promising approach is to show that the conceptual >>> gap is more apparent than real. The gap isn’t because we are missing the >>> existence of some force or particle. Rather the gap is due to us not >>> looking at the existing facts in the right way. >>> >>> In the GR+QFT+IC framework, our abilities and behaviors (including >>> beliefs) have evolved because they “work” - not because they are >>> necessarily truth-pointing. >>> >>> So our belief in an explanatory gap between our conscious experience and >>> our conceptual model of reality *is* necessarily a result of our evolution. >>> >>> We have evolved to cognitively conceptualize reality in one way >>> (GR+QFT+IC) and we have evolved to represent our direct *experience* of >>> reality in another way (colors, feelings, sensations) - and because there >>> has been no evolutionary pressure to synchronize these two views, we >>> haven’t - and so the perceived mismatch is a kind of cognitive illusion. >>> >>> Perhaps, as it turns out, that conscious experience just *does* >>> accompany certain kinds of patterns in matter and that’s all that there is >>> to it. The fact that this seems odd to us is just a quirk of our cognitive >>> evolution. Maybe it would seem otherwise with minor changes to our evolved >>> matter patterns - but there is no evolutionary pressure pushing in this >>> direction, so we have not gone in that direction. >>> >>> In this view - conscious experience is an aspect of patterns of matter - >>> and thus just an aspect of matter - and our intuition that it is something >>> *other* than matter is just an accident of evolutionary history. >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Belief is a state of mind. >>> 2. >>> >>> States of mind are just brain states. >>> 3. >>> >>> Brain states are just patterns of matter. >>> 4. >>> >>> Patterns of matter are just matter. >>> 5. >>> >>> Matter is just GR+QFT+IC. >>> 6. >>> >>> The fact that there *seems* to be a unsatisfying epistemic gap in >>> step 2) is just an accident of history stemming from GR+QFT+IC. In fact, >>> the step in #2 is no less valid than the steps in #3 or #4, both of which >>> seem pretty unobjectionable. >>> >>> >>> When I wear my physicalist hat, this is basically the position that I >>> take. >>> >>> SO - we have come full circle. >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> We started with the assumption that our conscious experience was >>> “truth-pointing”. >>> 2. >>> >>> We granted that modern science is the best way to distill out the >>> truthful aspect of conscious experience. >>> 3. >>> >>> We summarized how modern science explains human behavior and ability. >>> 4. >>> >>> We discussed how that explanation of human behavior and ability >>> could result in an apparent conceptual gap between GR+QFT+IC and our >>> conscious experience. >>> 5. >>> >>> We proposed a solution to this conceptual gap. >>> >>> >>> Now - given all of this - given where we ended up - let’s revisit our >>> assumption in #1. >>> >>> Does the model of the world that modern science has constructed give us >>> more or less confidence that our conscious experience is, in fact, >>> “truth-pointing”? >>> >>> And the answer is: less. In this framework, consciousness is a product >>> of evolution - and evolution only concerns itself with what promotes >>> survivability and reproductive success - not with what is true. So >>> GR+QFT+IC+Evo supports the belief that our conscious experience is *useful* >>> in that sense - but not that it is truth-pointing. >>> >>> However - if we change our starting assumption from: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Conscious experience is truth-pointing >>> >>> >>> to >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Conscious experience is survival/reproduction-enabling. >>> >>> >>> Then we are on more consistent ground. Then we can assert that modern >>> science is the best way to distill out the survival-enabling aspects of our >>> conscious experience, and that the most useful model of reality for >>> enabling survival is GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>> >>> Which actually makes some sense... >>> >>> I initially claimed that conscious experience had no directly accessible >>> intrinsic meaning. A conscious experience just is what it is. Only by >>> fitting it into a larger narrative framework does any particular conscious >>> experience acquire meaning. >>> >>> However - the narrative framework of GR+QFT+IC also lacks any ultimate >>> meaning. >>> >>> My experience of seeing yellow “means” that there are particular >>> patterns of photons, quarks, and electrons - but what do these patterns >>> mean? Nothing! They don’t mean anything beyond themselves - they just are >>> what they are. >>> >>> So - assuming that there is something beyond conscious experience which >>> we can know “through” conscious experience, still leaves us with an >>> ultimately meaningless reality. >>> >>> Reversing the order of our earlier list: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> There is no larger meaning or purpose behind GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>> 2. >>> >>> Matter is just GR+QFT+IC. >>> 3. >>> >>> Patterns of matter are just matter. >>> 4. >>> >>> Brain states are just patterns of matter. >>> 5. >>> >>> States of mind are just brain states. >>> 6. >>> >>> Consciousness is just states of mind. >>> 7. >>> >>> There is no larger meaning or purpose behind Consciousness. >>> >>> >>> IN SUMMARY: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Consciousness is the fundamental fact. >>> 2. >>> >>> The fact of consciousness is directly known. >>> 3. >>> >>> The fact of consciousness is the only directly known fact. >>> 4. >>> >>> The contents of consciousness are experienced but are without >>> intrinsic meaning. >>> 5. >>> >>> It is reasonable to stop here. >>> 6. >>> >>> Most of us do not stop there. >>> 7. >>> >>> Either there is a reason that we do not stop there, or there is not. >>> 8. >>> >>> If we believe there is not, we can stop here. >>> 9. >>> >>> If we believe that there is a reason, this reason is either >>> accessible or it is not. >>> 10. >>> >>> For it to be accessible, conscious experience must be >>> “truth-pointing” >>> 11. >>> >>> If conscious experience is not “truth-pointing” then we might as >>> well stop here. >>> 12. >>> >>> If we assume that it is truth pointing, modern science provides the >>> best way to distill out the truthful aspects of experience. >>> 13. >>> >>> Science ultimately leads us to GR+QFT+IC+Evo. >>> 14. >>> >>> GR+QFT+IC+Evo does not concern itself with truth - only with >>> survival and reproduction. >>> 15. >>> >>> Our assumption that consciousness is truth-pointing must be weakened >>> to “consciousness is survival-enabling”. >>> 16. >>> >>> GR+QFT+IC+Evo is ultimately as without intrinsic meaning as bare >>> conscious experience. >>> 17. >>> >>> Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether we stop at #5, #8, #11, >>> or #16. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Alberto. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
