Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
This may boil down to; perception leads to exploration or exploration leads to perception. The former being more susceptible to exploitation and explanation. Nonetheless, in terms of overreach as a trait- this can bring us, in succession to alternative observations, answers, and finally conclusions. In the realm of the non physical, conveyance of experience as description is latitudinal and is more likely to lead to more exploration and possibly away from conclusion.
Being a physicalist, explanations of such things reflexively make me suspicious, yet honest descriptions say much more about the awareness and perception of the subject and peak my curiosity.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2018 - 12:46pm PT
|
If I have this wrong, perhaps explain to the group the difference between a description and an explanation.
Too strange.
In my view, a description describes WHAT emerges (from what), comes into being, appears, and is experienced. When Ed says "there's causation all through QM," I suspect that's what he means. He's describing a linear flow of specific objects/forces as they morph from this to that, appear and vanish, do this and not that.
An explanation supplies a specific causal REASON (a "law" is not a reason, but a description) why THIS and NOT THAT emerges from a prior/existing object, force, field, etc. A "reason" is not that this occurs because of that, but supplies a REASON why this and only this happens. That something (Z) is observed to have a given effect on X does not explain WHY Z exerts that and only that effect on X, only that it does.
An interesting side-bar to this is the age-old question, why is there something instead of nothing?
Philosopher Brian Leftow has argued that the question cannot have a causal explanation (as any cause must itself have a cause) or a contingent explanation (as the factors giving the contingency must pre-exist), and that if there is an answer it must be something that exists necessarily (i.e. something that just exists, rather than is caused).
And contractor, when you surmise that describing experience is "latitudinal," do you mean, "Freedom from normal restraints, limitations, or regulations?" Ergo, in your experience, it is axiomatic that anyone describing "the non-physical realm" is essentially winging it? If so, tell us more about your experiences of doing so which lead you to that conclusion.
Happy 4th. Time to barbecue!
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
that the question cannot have a causal explanation (as any cause must itself have a cause)
Not necessarily. Causation could have come into existence without antecedents, perhaps like time, for instance, or even the known universe, the whole shebang.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes ... Ward has it correct "Time" has no cause and is an impersonal feature of God himself ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2018 - 06:37pm PT
|
Causation could have come into existence without antecedents, perhaps like time, for instance, or even the known universe, the whole shebang.
---
Sure could have, and there's no explaining any of it, even after causation began (in your thought experiment). Though the philosopher mentioned would argue with both of us - that a cause without a prior cause is logically incoherent.
Man, am I the only one who overate today? I gots like half a bird, a kilo of ribs, franks, various salads, frijoles, corn, pan dulce, several pies, and a bunch of other comida on board. Gotta lay it down for a bit...
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
That something (Z) is observed to have a given effect on X does not explain WHY Z exerts that and only that effect on X, only that it does.
And when X is observed to have a given effect on Z? And when Z exerts more than one effect on X? And when there are other letters of the alphabet?
Don't try to figure everything out. Pick a few things you want to learn about and get to know what effects, actions, colors, scents, noises, textures, vector bases, eigenvalues, or whatnot they have.
Having a nap is also preferable to chasing your own tail.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
And contractor, when you surmise that describing experience is "latitudinal," do you mean, "Freedom from normal restraints, limitations, or regulations?" Yes, exactly. And no, not my experience- I haven't explored these avenues as of yet. I suppose it's my way, as a born sceptic, to identify and engage legitimate exploration by others vs claims and assertions born of conditioning or bias.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
a cause without a prior cause is logically incoherent
God has no cause and is causeless.
Material logic and reason has no spiritual power.
That is why the gross materialists are always ultimately blind and clueless ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2018 - 09:11pm PT
|
Contractor, as a born sceptic as well, I question everything. Especially first assumptions - like the intuitive fact that we can explain anything whatsoever - though we can describe much, and with great accuracy. MH mentioned chasing your tail, and in my view, Chalmers' Hard Question is a case of that because it works off the first assumption that there is a mechanical explanation for mind, a trick question that will never have an answer because mechanical breakdowns describe, rather then explain. BTW, what is you belief per "legitimate explorations?" What criteria is your fancy?
As I mentioned earlier, when you get deep enough into mind, there's no "explaining" anything. To realize this is not some rhetorical game, rather an insight into the way our rational minds attempt to provide "reasons" that are not inherent in reality. And no "new data" will change that. Chasing your tail is to keep searching down the wrong street.
Ward hit on something earlier. A fun one to ponder: the whole shebang popped into being for no "reason" at all.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
Legitimate exploration Free of overreach driven by dogma, folklore, conditioning and lack of clarity or preconceived conclusion which is the easiest to identify as an illegitimate. I would suggest that unhindered exploration yeilds more questions or at least alternate avenues of exploration than answers or explanations. These are hard questions for the- "I don't give a shit" variety of agnostic that I tend to be.
However, to quit the dance and drive this on to the head of a pin- how does science explain, for lack of a better term, the spark without the typical assumed "function of" or "the conditions for"?
Was it (or is it) rudimentary, random and organic or perhaps it was complex and manipulated from conception or even a never ending cycle with no end or beginning and no architect? If this most basic question cannot be explained then who am I to question any legitimate exploration of the non physical that is honest and unprejudiced in it's description.
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
If I have this wrong, perhaps explain to the group the difference between a description and an explanation. An explanation has the word "because" in it. A description doesn't. But an explanation must contain a description.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
^^^^^^^
Yeah, I like that, nafod.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Not to be glib but your explanation "impossible to imagine" was not a good description.
I didn't get what Largo was going on about either, but I thought he "explained" it better (and I mean that) in his answer to you. So I looked here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/identity/
I suppose I agree with Largo that attempting to develop a metaphysical theory where we divide things into mental states and physical states and claim that each mental state corresponds in a "functional" way to unique physical state is "wrong" (a waste of time might be a better characterization, IMO). I mean, what would an "atomic" mental state even look like? Is every time the number 5 pops into my head an atomic mental state? Is that different from the mental state I have when the number 6 pops into my head? Why should the "physical state" of my brain have to be the same every time I have the mental state of "thinking of the number 5". These kinds of questions strike me as a bit absurd and basically a waste of time if you want to understand a little better how people think or even how the brain works.
I think when Largo said "impossible to imagine" that was beyond the point he was getting at, but I tend to agree with MH2, that some of these modern attempts at doing metaphysics amount to chasing one's tail.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
And I agree with yanqui. Not necessarily a waste of time, because that, too, is a fraught phrase, but trying to match up an atomic description with a mental perception does not seem a sensible scientific endeavour.
As is evident here I am happy to waste my time and will question but not castigate others for doing the same.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Causation could have come into existence without antecedents, perhaps like time, for instance, or even the known universe, the whole shebang.
When empiricists say this as an "explanation" or even "account," they are clearly put to their last trumps. This "explanation" is akin to "God did it."
Of course, I don't think that the empiricist account of "all there is" even begins to cope with a whole range of known phenomena, and that's before we even get to talking about "ultimate origins," etc.
Let's take the fact that the empirical account of universals and general terms is unworkable in principle. The following article gives an overview of present failings in deterministic algorithms and generalization. I've argued upthread that what this article describes is not going to be handled by "better algorithms" or more processing, but that's too much to argue again.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/3/17530232/self-driving-ai-winter-full-autonomy-waymo-tesla-uber
I said before, and I'll say again: The promise of hard-AI is a chimera that will not be realized, not because we just haven't figured out "the algorithm" or thrown enough processing at it yet, but because what all deterministic algorithms can in principle do is NOT what humans do.
All forms of "humans as impressive processors" reductions founder on the hard rocks of universals and general terms. And you cannot in principle "build up" genuine generalizations from whatever large mass of particular data. "Building up" from particulars to general terms is empiricist wishful thinking.
Keep wishing! I mean that! Keep researching, because more and more cool stuff is going to emerge, and I think that AI cars will end up being much more reliable than most human drivers, particularly the drunk and texting ones.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2018 - 09:06am PT
|
An explanation has the word "because" in it. A description doesn't. But an explanation must contain a description.
--
Nafod puts it well, IMO.
Once you go with the causal/determined/creation motif, all things and phenomenon must be attributable to prior determined, mechanical causes. That leads to Plato's first causes, and in turn, potentialities, which simply are "there," and which were not "created" by prior mechanical causes, ergo no "explanations." Everything that follows is of course not "because" of any thing or any phenomenon. It simply IS this way and not that, moment to moment, sans because.
And Yanque, when you said, "These kinds of questions strike me as a bit absurd and basically a waste of time if you want to understand a little better how people think or even how the brain works."
The fact is, a determined physicalist stance inevitably leads to the conclusion of identity theory - that mind states and mental content are identical, the objective and subjective are the same. I agree that this is absurd, but the question belongs to those believing in identity theory, not those who say bollocks.
And to Madbolters point, Strong AI geeks derive their beliefs not from looking at mind, but from looking at various processing models. Then they conflate the two believing that modeling will result in the same "output" as the real deal. Searl pointed out that we can model a fire, but it won't burn down the house. Strong AI folks believe it will.
But I agree that AI folks should keep keeping on. Wonderful things will emerge from this exciting work. But the notion that machines will be falling in love with each other and pondering their experience is again, Dr. Frankenstein drinking the bong water.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Dr. Frankenstein drinking the bong water.
Good one, John.
And I'm an anti-realist about humor.
;-)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
I would just hope we could try to be more discerning between (a) enabling woo on this thread and (b) addressing legitimate points or issues on this thread.
Easier said than done, for sure, esp when the MO (modus operandi) of a poster is to couch woo in a number of truths or truisms.
Hence the discernment. And there being a certain art (skill) to it.
Woo: "In the absence of a conscious entity, the moon remains a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup."
Worthy issue: It could be helpful to distinguish between artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial consciousness (AC).
Worthy issue: The difference, if any, between (a) construction by evolutionary means and (b) construction by engineering means. Another: the inclination of naysayers or deniers or partisans of one side or another to conflate the two - as if, in modeling intelligence or modeling consciousness, the difference in these TWO DISTINCT construction modes is likely not to matter.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
It's mostly philosophical bantering, entertaining at times, but going nowhere. E.g., describing vs explaining : high point="because"
;>/
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!