Why Iam Not Conscious
Why Iam Not ConsciousThere's been a spate of books recently attempting to explain the nature of consciousness. There are dualists and monists and verificationalists and gnostics, - the whole shooting match - all attempting to answer the question of the nature of consciousness, perhaps the most fundamental philosophical question most people think they are faced with.
I don't believe I'm conscious. Here's why.
Nobody's been able to define consciousness particularly satisfactorily. Most appeal either to intuition or neurology, both unconvincing as bedrocks for this discussion. Along with the nebulous goal comes the nebulous arguments: the scientist with her conjuring tricks and freak shows, as well as a side-line in confusing falsehood with lack-of-evidence, and the intuitionist with his warm fuzzy hand-waving, and warm glowing feelings, and a side-line in confusing truth with lack-of-deniability.
Sand upon shifting sand, faulty towers are built towards heaven.
I thought of what this reminded me of, and it was the issue in the middle ages of the nature of the soul. Historically, you can see the two issues as being closely related. I'm not saying that the steps in the arguments are at all similar, just the nature of the process. The issue also has, in the manner of discussion, a number of similarities to the classical form/matter distinction.
Similarly, when philosophical or political traditions have fallen into trouble, they seem to resort to similar forms of argument: appeals to intuition or magic tricks covering the holes in the theory.
This, I think (as best I can), at a more metaphorical level, is for me the nature of consciousness. It is much that our dominant cultural paradigm cannot structure in terms of the individual. When something becomes explainable, derivable, it seems to fall out of the conscious and become automatonic. Consciousness is the dirty secret behind our assumptions.
Which paradigmatic assumptions? I don't know, I'm within them as much as you. Perhaps Eastern traditions offer alternatives to many of them, but it is just as likely that the two traditions coincide on some particular notion, and no historical footing is left for considering alternatives. But there is hope in that paradigms shift with time.
I very much believe that any new paradigm will have its own hole, its own 'shameful scandal', and this is ours. Neurologists try to prove it is of size zero by removing things to the explicable mechanistic domain, and intuitionists try to paper over the cracks. Why not accept the flaw and work around it? Ignore the issue where it's not relevant, as it usually isn't (it certainly seems considerably less obtrusive than the 'soul', perhaps this was a motivation for the change).
Consciousness for me, then, is a linguistic thing, the spare room full of junk you lock when visitors come around. Admit it. You'll always need one, and it'd be good if it were as unobtrusive as possible. It's a ragbag of leftovers and outliers from taxonomies, not something I have, biologically, but something conceptual/lingustic that I acquire when I acquire cultural paradigms.
-- DanSheppard
Sounds like you should read Hofstadter and Dennett. But maybe you have. ;) How did you guess. ;)
This seems very similar in its root to my own concept that consciousness is an illusion. However, I take a more ScientificMethod tack to it. The traditional concept of consciousness (FreeWill, etc.) seems to me to contradict fundamental theories of physics, and if you assume consciousness does not exist, you don't end up with any external anomalies, only internal ones (i.e. I feel like I'm conscious). Those internal anomalies can be explained in two ways: 1) Consciousness really does exist and physics is messed, 2) consciousness doesn't really exist and my mind is playing tricks on me (which has been known to happen with optical illusions, etc.) By OccamsRazor, the second option is more useful, and so that is what I believe. Besides, it gels nicely with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Interjection - how does #2 work? Why do minds get to exist, but not consciousness?
What's wrong with consciousness as just an emergent property of various features of our brains? (Such as, which should be OK with both of you, our language modules.) Consciousness can at least be identified as the I symbol; the consistent pattern of thoughts that are evoked when we say "I am" or "I think" or somesuch (as well as on an almost continuous basis whenever we are thinking of just about anything), and which appears to be a universal symbol among members of the human species.
In evolutionary terms, it seems obvious that the ability to distinguish between "self" and "not-self" has adaptive benefits for organisms which have the ability to alter their immediate environment.
What if we could get DavidChalmers involved in this one?
What do you mean, get him involved? Chalmers summarily (and correctly) dismisses the idea that consciousness could have an "evolutionary explanation". See The Conscious Mind chapter 3, section 6. I doubt he is going to waste his time here.
The suggestion was made regarding the general topic, i.e. consciousness being illusory, rather than any evolutionary issue. ... Sometimes it's worth asking or enquiring about things one may not think possible ....
I for one hold to the opposite point of view, namely, that consciousness is an axiom and therefore not subject to "proof": I am conscious, and that's that. If I were not, then I would be unable to believe any ideas at all, much less "prove" them, so I must believe that I am conscious, as a precondition of any proof, or of any belief or knowledge whatever. I can't say "I see X" or "I know Y" and deny the existence of the "I" which sees and knows. That would be a StolenConceptFallacy.
Some people say, "Consciousness is proof of the supernatural," and others say, "That's right; so, in rejecting the supernatural, I reject consciousness." I think that's a false alternative. Consciousness exists, but it is nothing supernatural; it is a natural phenomenon (in humans) and should be ultimately susceptible to natural explanation. There is no evidence that the usual supernatural explanations are true (or even plausible). I expect that physics and other sciences will someday explain why people are conscious, and explain precisely what conditions are necessary in order for consciousness, in general, to arise and exist - but in order for scientists to even investigate such matters, they must start with the idea that there is something to investigate - that consciousness is real. And if they ever do explain it, the explanation won't erase consciousness: science can explain things, but it cannot "explain them away." Realizing that a table is made of molecules does not make the table an "illusion." We merely know more about the table than we did before. So it will be with consciousness.
-- EdwardKiser (revised this in early July 2001; the ideas are the same)
And, of course, there's a lot of empirical evidence that consciousness exists, whether we have a precise definition or not. :)
So, how do you know that something exists if you don't know what it is? -- MichaelSchuerig
How much do you have to know about it to know it exists? Don't you have to know something exists before you can know anything about it?
How can you do one without the other? But more to the point, we know about all sorts of stuff for which we lack a precise definition. I can't define "potato" but I can pick one out at the grocery store. Similarly for the vast majority of things that people know about. Some fundamental things might not be definable (non-circularly) in terms of other things at all, but that doesn't stop us from knowing about them. For example, I couldn't tell you definitions of "left" and "right", and perhaps no meaningful definitions of these things are possible, but I know which side of the road to drive on. (Defining them in terms of angles doesn't count. I'll just ask you to define the angles, and so on until you run out of definitions.) -- BenKovitz
Reading all this, I feel I may be approaching consciousness, which could be good enough. But it's late, and I should be sleeping. Can someone please tell me WhyIamNotUnconscious? already? -- WaldenMathews
Definition of the term. :) Conscious behavior is that more similar to average awake people than dead people or animals or computers etc.
Let's not get into this. It's more of a powder-keg than a definition of life.
a being is conscious when it can reason about its existence, instead of merely existing. Thus plants are not, while dogs are - dogs can even lie, which means they can make a prediction about their behavior and the behavior of others. It all boils down to the ability to use the if concept - if I do A, X happens, otherwise Y happens; I want Y, so I should not do A, applied to a future behavior. -- PeteHardie
Okay, fine. You win, but please let's take it to a new page: DefinitionOfConsciousness
Nobody's been able to define consciousness particularly satisfactorily.
I don't believe I'm conscious.
These two statements don't follow each other. Cogito ergo sum is why we know we exist, are conscious, are aware. But this makes no statement on the nature of existence, consciousness, or awareness. -- JasonYip
My practice is that when someone tells me they are not conscious, I believe them. But if their behavior is indistinguishable from someone who claims to be conscious, I treat them both using the same "rules". -- RonJeffries
Me too. I treat all people who go around announcing their consciousness level the same, and I don't even wait to see how their behaviors otherwise match up. -- WaldenMathews
What is there to consciousness over and above behavior? I think this is kind of what DanSheppard is getting at. Clearly, it's not stuff (either physical or soul-stuff): nobody's espousing a phlogiston theory of consciousness. So, if it exists, it must be some state of some actual stuff, and the actual stuff is part of our bodies (brain plus whatever else turns out to be needed).
Speaking of behavior, let's look at how we use the word "consciousness"; that should provide a good (and uniformly accessible) starting point.
I myself don't use the word at all; I will talk about people being "conscious", but by that I just mean "not asleep" - and I'd use the same term about squirrels, or whatever other animal with a sleep-wake cycle you'd care to name.
And I think about thinking a lot - it's hard to write software and avoid thinking about thinking. So if I can think about thinking perfectly well without recourse to the term consciousness, it's not a very useful term, and I suspect it doesn't actually refer to anything.
How do you guys use the term consciousness? -- GeorgePaci
Well, it's possible to be conscious, but not conscious of something...
This is tough. It's like trying to define knowledge. If you know something, but you don't know that you know it, then do you really? Can one be conscious without being self-conscious? -- WaldenMathews
To be awake is to be reactive and not conscious. One can do many complex tasks, including driving home from work, without being at all conscious of them.
Okay, I'll bite.
One writer commented on the possibility that physics would have to be "messed" if we are conscious, and that he preferred non-consciousness because it fit with "evolution by natural selection". Another writer claims that "nobody's espousing a phlogiston theory of consciousness". Unfortunately, what is being presented here is (unknowingly) doing exactly that. If you believe in modern physics and evolution, then eventually you will find that they lead to the equivalent of a "phlogiston theory of consciousness".
But, first things first. I think that it is important for us to distinguish between knowing that we are conscious from knowing how we are conscious. I would agree that knowing that we are conscious is axiomatic. We presume it, and I do not think that we can escape the presumption. I also think that it is a very safe presumption. It is so fundamental, empirical, even obvious, that it is ridiculous to debate it. However, many will debate it anyway. I see no need. On the other hand, there is the how.
Much of the dispute over the how of consciousness seems fruitless due to its basis in speculation. Everyone seems to have an opinion, and the dispute quickly degrades into arguments over whose opinion is more authoritative. That is generally a useless exercise. Some of us prefer a "scientific" approach.
Up until about a century ago, pursuing a "scientific" approach would be straightforward. But not today. Today, there is much disagreement over what constitutes a truly "scientific" approach. If two people can not agree on what constitutes a "scientific" approach, then one can not expect that they will ever agree on the "results" of a "scientific" investigation. There are three aspects of a scientific approach that seem most pertinent here.
First, some people define a scientific approach as excluding supernatural phenomenon. They state categorically that supernatural phenomenon do not exist. Of course, if such phenomenon do exist, their statements to the contrary do not make it disappear. However, it does limit the usefulness and correctness of their approach. It seems that this viewpoint may have arisen as an eventual corruption of the realization that supernatural phenomenon may exist but can not be tested (essentially by definition). This leads to the second aspect.
Some people have recently (last century) adopted the point of view that a scientific approach does not have to include testability and related characteristics. In other words, they redefine the ScientificMethod to eliminate the model-test-revise process. Without the requirement to be tested, one's opinion gains relevance significantly.
Third, in the process of redefining the ScientificMethod, an additional key characteristic was dropped. The new ScientificMethod no longer assumes (axiomatically) determinism. The redefinition had many other impacts, but this one is crucial and tends to be overlooked. Therefore, I will attempt to explain it carefully. Determinism is the assumption that natural processes operate consistently and predictably -- given the same conditions, a natural process will always produce the same results. Without determinism, experiments are not repeatable. If experiments are not repeatable, then testing is pointless. Obviously, this characteristic is closely related to testability. Determinism is what allows us to create chemical formulas and mathematical equations about natural processes. Determinism gives us the LawOfCauseAndEffect?. Determinism is so fundamental that it tends to be invisible to most of us.
These changes to the ScientificMethod are neither new nor accidental. Those changes are a return to a philosophy known as Epicureanism (after the Greek philosopher Epicurus) or Atomism. One of its greatest spokesman, Lucretius, said:
"Here too is a point I'm eager to have you learn. Though atoms fall straight downward through the void by their own weight, yet at uncertain times and at uncertain points, they swerve a bit -- enough that one may say that they changed direction."Epicurus assigned many other special characteristics to the newly invented but unobserved atom. But this amazing ability of the atom to experience an effect (swerve) without a cause (it supposedly causes itself) was leveraged to explain various phenomenon up to and including the human soul and free will (I think we can include consciousness in their intent).
Eventually, NielsBohr (inventor of the BohrModelOfTheAtom?) borrowed this concept to allow his orbiting electrons to execute a "quantum leap" -- to spontaneously (without cause) change orbit and energy level. This concept was also incorporated into the HeisenbergUncertaintyPrinciple, a foundation of QuantumMechanics and, hence, the TheoryOfRelativity?. Those are the foundations of modern physics and, hence, much of modern philosophy.
I am not a expert, but as I understand physics, QuantumMechanics is all about extremely small things, and the TheoryOfRelativity? is about extremely large things. Moreover, physicists cannot yet combine the two theories into a single whole theory of everything. String theory is an attempt to combine the two. The HeisenbergUncertaintyPrinciple (1927) is part of QuantumMechanics, but is not a foundation of the TheoryOfRelativity?. (1905 Special Relativity, 1915 General Relativity)
It is useful to note that the ancient atomists also said:
But have they really gained anything, or advanced humanity?
If you accept that anyone who can talk is now a scientist, able to spout theories that can no longer be tested, then you are probably content. However, if you want the "real" ScientificMethod back, then you will not find very many people practicing it any more. And if you apply it to what is being spouted, you will find lots of noise and very little signal. Evolution is a perfect example. Go back and read what Darwin wrote. Did he really do much science?
I realize that I have been verbose, and possibly I have overspoken. Much of this probably (eventually) belongs elsewhere. If the WikiCommunity consents, we can discuss it further. I am content and prepared for however it goes.
If I have offended anyone, I apologize. I intend to challenge your assumptions and reasoning, not your person.
You make a mistake when you say that testing is worthless when experiments are non-repeatable. Theories of history and astronomy can never be examined in the laboratory directly, and never could, but they do make predictions that one can go back and check. Darwin's theory is an example of science at its finest for this very reason - it can be tested, and has been tested, though the time scales are too great for us to work with, and the theory is not deterministic.
Determinism deserves a second note. Historical theories cannot be deterministic, simply because of the huge number of variables to consider. The appearance of the asteroid that caused the K-T extinction is a random event in current biological theory, and rightly so, since it lies beyond its scope. That does not make historical theories inherently unscientific, and that does not change that the universe as a whole might be deterministic. Whether or not it is, is an issue of some contention - see QuantumPhysics.
Have we gained anything? Never mind precisely what ought to be called science and what ought not, for it matters very little. I think it would be hard to say we have not moved any closer to the truth, and I think that's what counts.
-- JoshuaGrosse
I assert that the fundamental purpose and criteria of science is to explain how the Universe and its constituents work within the limits of human ability. Science, by definition, must resolve such questions, or at least make progress towards such a resolution. Anything that does not, is not science (it may still be useful though). I claim this as the universal and practical definition of science. Some people may nitpick it, but my observation is that essentially everyone means this when they refer to science. This is their expectation when considering the realm of science.
Ultimately, people desire scientific laws -- those reliable explanations of phenomenon upon which one can build a fortune or plan a future. To attain that status, an explanation must generate predictions that can be tested, and the explanation must have withstood such testing for a sizable time period (withstood the test of time). Before it reaches that status, it must first pass through the stages of hypothesis (relatively untested) and theory (tested, but still somewhat doubted). Notice that the status is always tentative -- an explanation can NEVER be unquestionably proven. This follows from the fact that an explanation can ALWAYS be trivially disproven: by providing a single verifiable counterexample. Such a disproof immediately robs the explanation of its previous status.
Testability is not limited to the lab or, rather, the lab is the Universe. Therefore, some astronomical conjectures are (potentially) testable. However, humans can not travel into the past to perform tests. We can not "...go back and check.." our "predictions". Therefore, historical theories are an oxymoron. Instead, they are historical assumptions (suppositions, axioms).
JoshuaGrosse's comments provide a good example of science falsely so called and of TheDumbingDownOfHumanity?. Notice, for example, the OrthodoxParadox? he gives concerning Darwin's theory:
Is it fair to make comments at halftime? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a prediction is. Forecasting some unknown part of the present is as much a prediction as forecasting some part of the future, it places just as much of a constraint on theories. So while we can't do experiments with large scale evolution, we can see what evolutionary theory predicts about (say) the foot structure of theropods, and then go find out whether we were right. As with theories that forecast the future, we can never be completely certain, but we still have the same method of hypothesis-testing available to us, and I do not think anything you said above disqualifies that from the sphere of science.
Evolutionary conjecture such as "predicting" the foot structure of theropods is NOT pre-dicting or fore-casting. It is far more like playing Monday night quarterback, second-guessing how the game would have turned out if the quarterback had played it "right". Both are after-the-fact (note the prefixes pre- and fore-) and untestable. With both evolution and football, there is no way to resolve who is correct. You can ask a billion people what they think about both and you can get a billion answers, and you have no reliable way to resolve them down to the correct answer. In such cases, you are not engaging in science and you will not resolve the question. You are engaging in an opinion poll.
JoshuaGrosse's example of the K-T asteroid is similar. How can anyone actually resolve that question (and all the questions that it begs)? If you can not repeat the event (testability), and you can not go back in time to observe the event (first-person account), then you can not resolve such questions about the event (generally including whether the event occurred at all). Yet JoshuaGrosse presents the event as an unqualified fact! This sloppy thinking and careless presentation are what I am talking about; even the best "scientists" of today engage in such activity, basing their conjectures on the similar behavior and results of their predecessors. And you blindly buy it!
Explanations concerning such things as the theropod foot structure and the K-T asteroid, even the big explanation "evolution", are conjectures, opinions, suppositions, assumptions, axioms. They are adult fairy tales. They are not laws, theories, or even hypotheses. When they take on the level of orthodoxy exhibited here, I say that they have graduated to mythology and religion. Evolution, in particular, is an OrthodoxParadox? that you either accept or not. It does not fall into the arena of science; it is outside the range of questions that humans can directly investigate and resolve.
This is easily demonstrated by the lack of scientific activity that accompanies such conjectures. Where is the acknowledgement of the assumptions being used? Where is the raw data, available for all to review? Where is the presentation of the reasoning that leads one from the assumptions and data to the conclusions? Where is the discussion of how the conjecture may be falsified/verified? Where is the occasional acknowledgement that the presenter has reached a boundary of scientific inquiry, where human limitations prevent further progress?
Two people arguing for their favorite conjecture about some ancient event or unobservable phenomenon is NOT hypothesis testing. It is simply arguing. It will resolve nothing except that they are foolish enough to engage in such arguing. The fact that you claim not to be able to see anything in what I have said that disqualifies that as science is my point - science as it was originated has nearly disappeared along with the quality of thinking and education. Today, when you point out a fallacy in somebody's statements, they are more likely to think that you are making a sexual innuendo rather than be able to follow the discussion.
I DARE YOU to re-read the sources of your favorite "scientific theories" and evaluate them in the terms that I have presented. I am confident that most of my readers have never read, or even seen, an original source document for any of the major "scientific theories" that they believe. Go buy a copy and read it. I expect that you will find that we are far further from the "truth" than you currently believe. However, then I would at least hope to have an interesting discussion with some meaty content. OrthodoxyIsMonotony?.
By the way, I am now certain that this discourse does not (solely) belong here. However, I do not know where it does belong.
Thank you for not reading what I wrote. If the foot structure of a theropod is not known before the prediction is made, then it is forecasting - not of what its foot will be, but of what the outcome of the experiment of examining its foot will be. It is a method of falsification. And yes, I have read one or two sourcebooks presenting historical and evolutionary theses, and yes, better ones do present raw data, reasoning, and frequently though not always admit when something is undecidable. I'm not sure where your invective is coming from but it does not match up with the real world, and without further points will not be refuted again.
-- JoshuaGrosse
I apologize if I leave you with the sense of being personally attacked. As I said above, I intend to attack complacency and bad reasoning, not people. Elsewhere on this WikiWeb, there are requests for more diversity of viewpoints. I find your quaint, brief, and pitifully inadequate dismissals unacceptable. I will gladly welcome even the most vehement attacks, if they also contain some real content to be considered. I will ignore the venom and digest the meat. However, I have no intention of presenting myself in that way and I will carefully evaluate my presentation in that light.
Your threat to cease further (empty) response is an empty threat. If you intend only noise, feel free to squelch it.
I read your comments regarding theropods carefully and repeatedly over the course of a week; I responded with several paragraphs. Your additional comments help illuminate the disconnect between us, though. You assert that examining the theropods' foot constitutes an "experiment" which can falsify one's "predictions (forecast)" of its structure.
Exactly how does looking at a few bones constitute an "experiment"?
Exactly how could this "experiment" falsify one's "predictions"?
How do you justify redefining the terms prediction and forecast so that you can use them to describe an activity (specifying the foot structure) that occurs several million years (evolutionary model) after the last living theropod died (ending the opportunity to actually examine the foot structure)?
One could make any claims about the theropods' foot structure that one pleased, and there is no way that they could be falsified. Some may scoff at some proposals and some may acclaim others, but none of the proposals can be verified without an intact theropod foot (preferably several). Many of the proposals would be unverifiable without a living, moving theropod. Likewise with the K-T asteroid, etc.
An experiment, by definition, must provide feedback. That feedback is the essence of falsifiability.
I acknowledge no experiment, hence no means of falsification, hence no science and no refutation.
The threat to respond no further is simply to ensure points are not repeated ad infinitum, please don't take it as a personal insult. If you want I'd be happy to elaborate. In commenting on theropod feet specifically, I was thinking of this. The bones in bird feet have an intricate arrangement not shared by other modern vertebrates, with enough independent peculiarities to be exceptionally unlikely to have evolved twice. Now I advance a theory that theropods are not related to modern birds but are in fact closer related to modern lizards. To help verify this (of course I can never prove it true) I could go look at their feet. If I find a theropod whose feet show the same peculiarities as those of birds, my theory is untenable. I can get feedback on my theory, I can falsify it. I see nothing to complain about.
-- JoshuaGrosse
What is the alternative? I agree that 'science' is often thought to be based in some reality rather than opinion, but we know this cannot be the case. Since it is a fiction, we can ask what science tends to be. Well it turns out to be a set of mutually consistent (mostly) opinions of the world, based on some number of observations. It doesn't produce truth in the normal sense. Therefore an appeal to authority is all we have, be it the authority of experience or the authority of others' experiences.
With regard to the existence or not of consciousness, very little thought is required to see that the label exists, and it points at something. So consciousness definitely exists for those who label it so; it is unlikely, however, that it has the properties assigned to it (e.g. freewill). -- RichardHenderson
Certainly, very little thought is required to see that "the label exists". It's much less clear that you can see so easily that "it points at something".
We experience something we label consciousness. That is what the label points at. The experiences themselves cannot be fabricated, but they can be misinterpreted.
We experience a whole lot of stuff. We wave vaguely at it and say "there, that's consciousness". I don't think it's clear that there's any thing that the label "points at", or that if there is it's any different from, say, "being human". Doubtless, the experiences themselves cannot be fabricated (though I'm in some doubt as to what that statement really means), but consciousness is alleged to be, not the experiences themselves, but some unspecified common quality that they have, or some unspecified context in which they are set. It's legitimate to debate whether that exists.
Note that people who say things like "I am not conscious" or "there is no such thing as consciousness" are not denying the experiences. As for lacking the properties it's usually ascribed, I reckon that "Consciousness exists but doesn't have any of the properties usually ascribed to it" is much the same as "Consciousness does not exist". Compare "God exists. He's a small piece of adhesive tape stuck to my desk, has no special powers or metaphysical status, had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, and is no more entitled to be called good than any other piece of adhesive tape." I'm not sure why Richard singles out free will, though.
I wholeheartedly agree that science is inherently infused with opinion - science is a human activity and humans are ridiculously far from infallible. You mentioned reality, upon which I would like to expound. We should remember that humans perceive reality filtered through our very limited senses. We are easily confused or deceived. We have very limited computational and cognitive abilities. Compared to the vastness and complexity of the Universe, we are completely inadequate to provide an explanation. Nevertheless, I assert that it is useful to try.
Your comment that we are only left with an appeal to authority is quite appropriate and well said.
However, how can you assert that consciousness exists for those who label it so, then assert that it is unlikely that it has the properties (such as free will) assigned to it? If we create consciousness by asserting it, then we must be able to create its properties by similar assertion. And we would be outside the realm of science since we have apparently adopted a purely metaphysical view. On the other hand, if consciousness exists in the realm of science, then your claim that it is "unlikely" to have certain properties seems quite unscientific and out of place.
Your claim that science consists of a mostly mutually-consistent set of opinions based on observations is certainly the widely-held view, but it is an OrthodoxParadox?. When science was young, it was valid. However, it is no longer so.
The mutually consistent aspect disappeared primarily during the last century with the advent of the HeisenbergUncertaintyPrinciple, QuantumMechanics, the TheoryOfRelativity?, and related conjectures. These proposals contain explicitly-known inconsistencies and contradictions among themselves, and relative to other theories and even laws.
While science still consists of a set of opinions, the quality of the opinions has degraded radically.
First, they are hardly based on observations anymore. Very few scientists actually conduct experiments anymore, especially in the arenas being debated here. Also, it has become uncommon for a scientist to share his raw data anymore. While this seems intended to prevent other scientists from pre-empting his success, it has the additional consequence of severely limiting their verification. Indeed, it has even become easy for "scientists" to completely fake their "discoveries", as many recent hoaxes have revealed. It has also become common for "scientists" to conduct their "research" by building on the results of other scientists, without suitable understanding and verification of the underlying observations. Good scientific opinions can not be generated from bad or missing observations.
Second, the quality of the reasoning behind the opinions has dropped. Opinions can be evaluated on a quality spectrum regarding their scientific usability. This is the essence of the ScientificMethod -- observe, create an opinion that explains the observations, devise an experiment to verify the opinion, repeat. Very good opinions become hypotheses, theories, then laws. Today, opinions seem mostly constrained by their media value rather than their scientific value. Cleverness is valued over content. Timeliness is valued over timelessness. Obtaining grants and keeping tenure is valued over purity and real progress. In the past, it seems that a certain high quality of thinking was exercised that prevented such opinions from prevailing. Today, it seems that such high quality of thinking is rarely being exercised, and nonsense prevails.
Third, the number of opinions and opinion-makers has dramatically increased during the last century. Our collective ability to filter them has not kept pace at all. I would love to be involved in a project that would apply today's technology in an attempt to address this. However, I think there are many obstacles, mostly non-technical, that preclude it.
In summary, the idea that science is still being practiced primarily as you described above is an OrthodoxParadox?. It is acceptable to think and say so (the "real world" mentioned above by JoshuaGrosse), but it is exactly opposite of the reality (the actual practice observed in our companies, media, and academia). As is somewhat evidenced here, if one chooses to pursue real science in an unorthodox direction, one will find strong opposition -- but one will find essentially no money, no tenure, no support, no publication. Without those, one finds progress difficult and the audience tiny. The orthodoxy will then justify itself because of one's lack of progress and audience!
That science has degraded to non-science (both in content and in process) is the main point of my comments on this page. This is the hard thing to hear, the diverse viewpoint, that I challenge you all to consider. I do not care if you agree with me (I prefer that you do not), but I eagerly await someone with the ability and desire to find the weak points in my view. I must assume that such weaknesses exist since I am also human, yet my humanity implies that I can not find them on my own.
Some very weak points: Contrary to your statements above, each of relativity and quantum mechanics are perfectly internally consistent. There is some difficulty in getting the two to match up, but the problem is now not so much a lack of solutions as an over-abundance (eg the several different theories), which we do not have the experimental data to distinguish between - and any decent publication on them will admit as much. Elsewhere, observations still play a key role in most scientific theories, and most experimenters do in fact make available huge quantities of raw data. Especially in fields like biology and archaeology.
You do have some good points about the unfortunate amount of opinion in some modern science and the difficulty of challenging scientific orthodoxy. There are many cases where orthodoxy has left over baggage that is hard to get rid of. But your statements about theories being evaluated solely on media appeal are wrong. Certainly, interesting and new ideas get more press, especially in pop sci but also in journals, but they rarely end up as the mainstream position unless they have significantly more ground to them.
-- JoshGrosse
It isn't a matter of good science and bad science, it is simply a matter of limits. Science relies on a statistical set of observations. It creates theories to try and make predictions as well as define a particular data-set. Thus it is experiential. There is no 'truth' there, just observation and experience. It cannot be any other way. So I can easily assert anything I like. You can disagree. No problem. So, is consciousness a complete fabrication? No. There is a group of phenomena that people commonly class as consciousness. Therefore we attach the label. It points at an abstract, as some combination of similar observations.
Various properties are assigned to the 'thing' at the end of the label (the referent). One of those properties is 'freewill'. In a global sense freewill is contradictory, requiring magic. In a local sense, there is the feeling of freewill based on a limited knowledge boundary. We just don't see the process before we are conscious of it, so we believe that we started it. A simple mistake, but difficult to avoid. -- RichardHenderson
This is difficult because there are more than two voices, defence against claims of bad science being criticisms of Rob's position, not yours. I don't think free will is contradictory, though, so much as poorly defined. Free from what? -- JoshuaGrosse
Yes indeed. I am double tracking a bit. Sorry. Rob's claim of bad science. I feel he is against pseudoscience, which is theory based on unverifiable claims/predictions. Fair enough, but the criticism he has of quantum physics is misplaced. Quantum physics is one of the best verified theories ever, bar none. We wouldn't be doing this without transistors, for instance. 'Causality' itself has internal inconsistencies when it is examined, but that deserves a separate discussion. Bohr had excellent instincts. I wonder how much he knew of 'middle way' philosophies? Or maybe he just realized that the universe, to the limits of knowledge, just is.
On the other track. Consciousness. I take self-consciousness as the basis of most formulations. Just as cogito ergo cogito, so any concept justifies itself by being identified. No problem. It is simply a label for a class of (self)observations. Freewill is one of the classic 'extra' qualities that is posited. It isn't important however. We can rest with the 'cogito' if you feel that's more relevant.
QuantumPhysics is NOT one of the best verified theories ever, but it is an excellent example of what I am talking about. This is one of the many common misconceptions that have become prevalent in today's so-called science. Like others, it is based on bad information and poor thinking.
You cite the existence and prevalence of transistors as verification of QuantumPhysics. But you could not be further from the truth. Transistors have nothing to do with QuantumPhysics; their existence and prevalence is an excellent verification of ElectromagneticTheory?. Likewise, the rest of our wide variety of technologies are dependent on and provide verification of ElectromagneticTheory?. I doubt that you could find a single product on the market that has anything to do with QuantumPhysics. Indeed, I doubt that you could find any significant practical discussion of QuantumPhysics anywhere. For all practical purposes, QuantumPhysics is irrelevant to the real world. Because of that, there has been little cause or opportunity to officially falsify it.
Regarding the supposed perfect internal consistency of both QuantumPhysics and the TheoryOfRelativity?, allow me to re-burst your bubble. As I described in detail above, both of these theories contradict the LawOfCauseAndEffect? due to their reliance on the BohrModelOfTheAtom? (and perhaps more). Also, for example, they model electrons as mathematical points - zero volume. Tell me how you get a finite electrical charge into zero volume, giving an infinite charge density? This is not an oversimplification, it is what the theories actually require. Supposedly, most scientists working with these theories are aware of the inconsistency but simply ignore it.
Demonstrating severe misunderstandings here. You may not be able to find products on the market that show quantum mechanical effects, but cloud chambers and superfluids aren't exactly rare. There is no logical inconsistency in having infinite charge density, and you can't claim that there is a physical inconsistency unless you know for a fact that such things are impossible in the real world, which you can't possibly. In fact, the claim that the Bohr model of the atom somehow violates causality is so absurd that one wonders if this whole discussion is based on that all too common reason for criticizing modern physics, a simple failure to grokk its basic concepts.
I was not specifying products that show quantum mechanical effects; I was commenting on the example (transistors) of products that supposedly verify QuantumPhysics. Cloud chambers do not show or verify quantum mechanical effects - they are based on simple physics and just happen to be used in related "research". As stated, cloud chambers are indeed not rare. However, superfluids are most definitely rare. They are claimed to demonstrate behavior dependent on QuantumPhysics, hence they may help verify it, but there are no products even remotely available based on that technology. Thank you for demonstrating my point with your two examples; cloud chambers are a good example of the many products that people think of as demonstrating QuantumPhysics when they in fact have nothing to do with it other than common (mis)association, and superfluids are a good example of a technology that may demonstrate QuantumPhysics but for which there are no products. I challenge you to find a single significant commercial product that directly depends on QuantumPhysics for its proper function.
The logical and physical inconsistency of infinite charge density comes from the fact that we know that it is not true. We know that an atom occupies a non-zero volume, yet Bohr models it as zero volume anyway. For some purposes, the difference is unimportant and the model is usable. But for many purposes, the difference is significant and our continued use of the model becomes questionable. For QuantumPhysics, the difference is absolutely critical and our continued use of the model becomes damnable. The Bohr model is a model that we know that we are misusing.
The claim that the Bohr model violates causality is NOT absurd, nor a failure on my part to grok its basic concepts. As I mentioned (far) above, the violation of causality is an explicit characteristic of the Bohr model that was intentionally adopted by NielsBohr. It is well documented and well known by those of us who have actually bothered to grok its basic concepts. Indeed, there is even a sci-fi television series based on it that is named "Quantum Leap" after the characteristic of the Bohr model upon which it is based. Who is failing to grok the basic concepts?
Regarding my ability to claim an inconsistency unless I know for a fact that such things are impossible, I assert that you are engaging in one of the most basic of fallacies -- reversing the burden of proof. Everything that we know about our universe tells us that infinite densities are unreachable (even a black hole has a non-zero volume). The burden of proof rests with NielsBohr; he made the (indirect) assertion that an infinite charge density is reachable, even commonplace (every electron!). No one has ever observed such a phenomenon, yet he asserts it, and you support it, nonetheless. That is not science. It is nonsense.
What if we admit that some things are undecidable (free will, the nature of consciousness, Big Bang, and other goodies)? We only need to be worried about the quality of arguments when the next guy tells us he solved such a problem. We can assign some empyric undefined probability (it is likely that free will exists because of this evidence, or it is likely that the universe started with the BigBang), we can have faith that if a phenomenon repeatedly conformed to a specific model, the next time it will happen it will still conform. It's only a matter of language and how we can get together (believers / non-believers, optimists/pessimists, materialists/religious/agnostics) without wasting time in debates over the side issues. We certainly need a great deal of good faith and principles so that nobody will advertise his ideas under false labels (proven, demonstrably, blah, blah).
Is it that difficult?
Admitting that some things are undecidable is an excellent alternative, and it is exactly what I am advocating. The fundamental problem with today's so-called science is the lack of admission of undecidability. Whether due to a lack of honesty, a lack of critical thinking skills, or a lack of diligent research, the result is always bad science or non-science (nonsense).
JoshuaGrosse's theropod foot structure is a good example. There is no way that anyone will ever be able to decide what a theropod's foot structure really was. Yet Josh dares to call it an example of good science verifiable by experiment. Josh blindly regurgitates the contents of his college textbooks, and then thinks that he is thinking. As such, he becomes another unwitting victim of the hoaxes and other such tom-foolery that masquerades as science.
Actually, most textbooks don't mention any of this - certainly not mine, as they're math textbooks. It's just what you get from understanding how biology and cladistics in particular work. Of course no-one will ever be able to decide what a theropod foot was really like, but then science was never about proving things, only about disproving things. Suggest you read a few more actual papers.
"Of course no-one will ever be able to decide what a theropod foot was really like..." - you vehemently claimed exactly the opposite in the discussion above, Josh. Most people would require that experimentation must, by definition, grant the ability to make such a decision (at least to some degree). That is the essence of falsification (the disproving part). Your acknowledgement that such a decision can never be made is an admission of my point - that the theropod's foot structure is not subject to experimentation. If it is not subject to experimentation, then discussion of it is outside the realm of science. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I never said you couldn't make any decisions, just that you can't prove a particular model is correct. You can't interpret my statement that proof is impossible as a statement that disproof is impossible and then criticize me for supposedly being inconsistent in my claims falsification is possible!
Regarding textbooks, I probably should have included the public media and high school as well as college, since you and many of the other contributors seem to be relying on what you can remember from those sources. I am disappointed that a math major does not have a better grasp on the concept of "proof" and on the distinctions between conjectures, hypotheses, theorems, and laws. Such a grasp would help prevent the wild assertions that you (and others) have presented here.
Yeah, right. I don't suppose it has occurred to you that when everyone has a different concept of proof than the one you are trying to advance, it might be you that is mistaken?
One person (you) does not make an everyone.
QuantumPhysics is NOT one of the best verified theories ever
I doubt there are any theory that is verified to the level as QuantumPhysics. For example, the agreement between the calculated result based on QuantumElectrodynamics? and experiment is something like 1 part in 10^8 (or is it 10^10 or 10^13? Need to look it up).
You cite the existence and prevalence of transistors as verification of QuantumPhysics. But you could not be further from the truth. Transistors have nothing to do with QuantumPhysics; their existence and prevalence is an excellent verification of ElectromagneticTheory?.
AFAIK, ElectromagneticTheory? (or any classical non-quantum theory) cannot explain a transistor (based on semiconductor), you need the tunnelling effect of QuantumPhysics to get the exponential dependency between the gate voltage and the resulting current.
-- OliverChung
The response from OliverChung is another wonderful example of what I am talking about -- he makes a statement, throws out a number or two, and then claims to have said something significant. The "calculated result" of what, Oliver???
Even if the experiment that Oliver is referring to has produced good results, that does not necessarily mean that it verifies QuantumPhysics. Not even if the experimenter asserts as much. Tying the experiment to QuantumPhysics is a separate exercise requiring a proper line of reasoning to justify it. Oliver obviously did not do that here, nor did he report any useful information about someone else having done it.
Having dealt with that, allow me to address the more fundamental question that has been raised. What exactly justifies the title of "best verified theory ever"? It has been mentioned several times, and it appears to be rather important to several of the contributors here. Let's talk about it.
I have been thinking about this subject extensively during the two months that have passed since Oliver presented his little tidbit above. Just recently, I received the latest issue of a newsletter that provides a perfect response. Please allow me to quote a bit at length from an article by Dr. Charles W. Lucas (Ph.D. in Physics):
Nope, because it isn't true. Except for atomic numbers, which serve as the independent variable, and cosmic abundances, which require a broader theory, the parameters on the periodic table all come out of the machinery or easily could if we had better tools for calculations. The assumed values are all things like the mass of a proton and the strength of the electromagnetic force, which are common to all elements so don't matter for the above claim.
The bit about all sorts of theories being electromagnetic because they use c is assuming that this constant is at heart electromagnetic. It isn't in most models. Rather, it has to do with the way space and time relate, and will appear naturally in any relativistic theory, of which Maxwellian electromagnetism is a part.
His results are summarized here:
The only law to meet that criteria seems to be the LawOfCauseAndEffect?. QuantumPhysics, Relativity, etc. do not meet even the basic criteria for a scientific theory, so they are hereby disqualified and disproven. Some elements of those "theories" (the truly scientific and verified portions) would properly become subsumed into the fundamental new model of Classical Electrodynamics.
So, Lucas makes up some criteria, dismisses all the work that previous people have done, and pushes some theory of his own in their place. This is, believe it or not, a big warning sign that the person in question is likely a crank* physicist. So are claims to explain everything - the universe ain't that simple - singling out aspects of theories like virtual particles as "unphysical" (whatever that means), and especially not providing any equations. I'm sure you can find a detailed criticism of Lucas' model somewhere or another, and I'm sure you'd be interested in doing so if you are genuinely interested in the way the universe works. I'm not going to provide one, since I got tired of criticizing poor physics a long time ago, but someone else is welcome to take over.
* - Not in the sense of someone who is advancing a new model, but in someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't care to, just so long as he sounds persuasive. Circle-squarers and so forth.
Pitiful attack on the person (AdHominem), without addressing the issues.
By the way, I retract my earlier claim that this discussion does not belong here. Indeed, we have come full circle. Physics took a wrong turn as it began its attempt to explain free will, consciousness, etc. back in the time of Epicurus. Dr. Lucas and others have returned us to a solid understanding of science, and revealed that discussions of consciousness et al are interesting, but they are not science. Likewise, much else that gets presented as science does not stand when evaluated under reasonable criteria. Much of the detail of this content does belong with discussions of science and the particular theories, in addition to here.
from http://www.commonsensescience.org/o16-mol.htm
The Nucleus of an Oxygen O-16 Atom
The nucleus of an atom is located in a small volume at the center of an atom. The nucleus of Oxygen-16 is shown here.
Modern science asserts that the nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons. Since protons strongly repel each other, the Strong Force was invented to hold the nucleus together. Unlike other forces, the Strong Force does not decrease with the square of distance between the objects of force.
In the CSS model of the nucleus, a geometrical packing scheme for electrons and protons describes the shells of the nucleus. A common feature of a shell is the "triplet" structure consisting of an electron and a small proton on either side of the electron (as illustrated by the nucleus of Oxygen).
The CSS model accurately predicts the nuclear "magic numbers" and explains the physical origin of nuclear spins and the liquid drop features of nucleides.
The CSS model correctly predicts the spin (angular momentum) in hundreds of nuclides, whether stable or unstable. Quantum nuclear shell models cannot do this with so few assumptions.
Rational argument isn't of much use here. Mostly agree. It can be of use but we must step outside of our rational world, which can never reveal the whole truth.
Now we know we cannot know. Pages like this reveal intelligent arguments interesting as they are, ultimately are self-referential and lead in circles.
So what is useful? We open our minds and feel. This takes practice, it can be enlightening and disturbing. Feeling also does not reveal the whole truth. This is not a trade off, we don't discard our thinking but we recognize that balance is required.
It is a 3-way balancing act, knowing, feeling then leads us to do.
When it comes together, you know it, you feel it and you act true what you know and following how you feel.
This is useful to me. Am I conscious? - I really don't care. Am I living? - this I care about and I am exploring what it means for me to be able to suck the marrow out of life. -- PaulCaswell
Eventually, NielsBohr (inventor of the BohrModelOfTheAtom??) borrowed this concept to allow his orbiting electrons to execute a "quantum leap" -- to spontaneously (without cause) change orbit and energy level. This concept was also incorporated into the HeisenbergUncertaintyPrinciple, a foundation of QuantumMechanics and, hence, the TheoryOfRelativity?. Those are the foundations of modern physics and, hence, much of modern philosophy.
Quantum leap WITHOUT CAUSE? The PRECISE CAUSE is being struck by a photon that is absorbs, bringing it to a higher energy state.
Even if you say, "well NielsBohr didn't say that; someone else added that to the model later," it still crumbles your evidence for the assertion that modern physics and modern philosophy are irrevocably entrenched in non-scientific assumptions. Maybe he knew the electrons were jumping, but couldn't explain why with the tools available to him at the time. One can create very useful knowledge from unexplained, observed phenomenon.
Take FightClub. Native Americans noticed clothes cleaned in one part of the river became a lot cleaner than when cleaned in a different part of the river. They didn't know there was lye doing the trick, but they exploited that part of the river anyway. Maybe a myth or two about demons or gods dying, crying, or pissing in that part of the river were created out of the whole mess, but the welfare of the tribe was advanced by their propagation anyway.
Quantum leap WITHOUT CAUSE?
Yes. See WithoutCause . (moved to WithoutCause)
Returning to the subject (consciousness), I find the MentalStateCalledFlow very interesting: when I'm in such a state, I'm clearly aware of the problem I'm working on, but I don't seem to be self-aware (or self-conscious - is that the same thing?). -- DavidCary
I am now certain that this discourse does not (solely) belong here. However, I do not know where it does belong.
I think the Awareness Wiki, http://aware.wiki.taoriver.net/, is more appropriate. Any objections to moving it there? (I would be delighted to find an even more appropriate place).
-- DavidCary
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours. -- RichardBach
EditText of this page
(last edited March 12, 2012)
or FindPage with title or text search