Ask the Creationist

[SentientMeat]

@o-w

Sentient, early on, when you claimed that “Everything is physical”, I assumed (reasonably, I think) that you meant that there were some sort of distinguishing characteristics, or properties, or a description or definition that the word “physical” represented, and that a good case could be made that everything could be shown to fit this description or have these distinguishing characteristics (with no remainder).

Yes, I do: a temporal arrangement of particles in spacetime. If a thing or process can reasonably be considered solely to be some kind of arrangement of matter and energy in space, over time, then I suggest that it be labelled physical. This word is an arbitrary choice or letters and phonemes.

But “be shown to fit this description”? That is impossible, for any label. Can you show me that the land-mass south of Irian Jaya fits the description “Australia”? Can you show me that those humans near the Aegean 3000 years ago fit the description “Ancient Greek”? No, you cannot. These labels are arbitrary conventions which we merely agree to follow.

Now, numerous posts later, I realize that my assumption was flat-out wrong: it seems that there are no distinguishing characteristics which would definitively identify something as “physical” (or anything else, for that matter); all such descriptions or definitions are arbitrary.

Labelling a thing as a word is arbitrary. One can, as I did with my definition of physical, set forth arbitrating criteria.

Now, the choice of which arbitrating criteria forms the definition or description of a sequence of letters or phonemes is, in my opinion, just as arbitrary as the choice of the letters and phonemes themselves (ie. there is no non-arbitrary philosophy). I would beg you to accept that this is irrelevant, a different debate, to the simple question of what labels we two human beings (SentientMeat and other-wise) apply to things like life, computers, Shakey the Robot and ultimately human beings, even when we’re not looking at them.

With this new understanding, Sentient, I can step off the roundabout. What do I think? I think if one arbitrarily declares that the universe is arbitrary, we all become Humpty-Dumptys; posting words that mean just what we choose them to mean—neither more nor less. “Everything is Everything” is a statement that gives no information: it’s a roundabout.

I absolutely, 100% agree. We post words which mean what we choose to mean and ask each other if they make the same choice. Can we now put this behind us and continue to talk about what you, you, YOU call physical, or life, or computation, and what you don’t?

Please answer this question “Yes” or “No”: Is Shakey the Robot, in your opinion, solely an arrangement of photons, charges, memory which is as physical as the table in front of you?

[SentientMeat]

And, having read the past 3 pages yet again, it is this exchange which defines the roundabout you are still stuck on:

SM: Why can’t a “calling entity” be physical?
o-w:Because you need a calling entity in order to call a calling entity “physical”.

This answer is a non sequitur. Calling entities can be computers like Shakey, we have both agreed. Now substitute:

SM: Why can’t a “calling entity” be a computer?
o-w:Because you need a calling entity in order to call a calling entity “a computer”.

You see the logical disjunct here? We could substitute any words in to bring out the logical structure of your answer : “Why can’t X be in the set A?” “Because X=X” is your trivially true but irrelevant reply. Given that you and I are calling entities, we can proceed to ask each other what we do label things as.

I have provided a definition of “physical”: an arrangement of particles in spacetime.
I have provided a definition of “computation”: input and output configurations differing via access to working memory.
I have provided a definition of “life”: a combination of growth, metabolism, motion, replication and stimulus response.
I suggested which part of the definition of “process” was relevant: Advance in time.
I have provided an example of Shakey, a computer which labels things in its visual field as “box” or “not box”.

Again I ask: do we agree that the computational processes which cause Shakey’s ability to label things are entirely physical?
I struggle to see what more I can do to get you off the roundabout, although your agreement that processes like life and computation are physical (as labelled by the tautologically necessary labeller, you!) is a great step for future reference.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@SM

I have provided a definition of “physical”: an arrangement of particles in spacetime.

This definition is useful as a differentiation between the physical and the non-physical. (The non-physical being such as delusions - granting that even delusions have a physical basis.) When used to describe the whole universe, it has no advantage over “an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. Debating which of these two constitutes the “real” universe is futile and silly, don’t you think? Or would you propose a scientific test to decide the question?

[SentientMeat]

When used to describe the whole universe, it has no advantage over “an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. Debating which of these two constitutes the “real” universe is futile and silly, don’t you think? Or would you propose a scientific test to decide the question?

There are still data which must be accomodated by either description. First and foremost is that my consciousness is only a number of years old, whereas it seems that something existed before my consciousness, the alternative conclusions being that my consciousness emerged from something which was not my consciousness, or I was conscious for the aeons before I was born. I feel that we can still debate these two alternatives, with me arguing for the former. Indeed, that is precisely is what is happening over here.

Are such debates futile or silly? Maybe so, but for some reason, my brain seeks them out nonetheless.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

You suggest that “I was conscious for the aeons before I was born.” is a consequence of saying that “the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. I do not see how that follows.

Please be clear that I am not advocating subjectivism. I suggest only that the debate is without substance. And of course, I am in no position to ridicule anyone for taking any philosophical position whatsoever.

[SentientMeat]

You suggest that “I was conscious for the aeons before I was born.” is a consequence of saying that “the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness”. I do not see how that follows.

It is a consequence (ie one of two alternative consequences). We then debate which one of those two is the consequence we plump for. If the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness, then either that consciousness existed for billions for years or it emerged from that which was not it.

If you disagree that the first alternative follows, then you, like me, are an emergentist. Hey presto, debate has yielded useful agreement or disagreement between us (and we might go on to discuss what kind of emergentist you are: reductive-supervenience like me or non-reductive like epiphenomenalists?)

I suggest only that the debate is without substance.

Well then, set forth one which you think is substantial and I’ll gladly contribute (or, if I think it isn’t, will politely withold such an opinion :).)

[other-wise]

Sentient, I started writing a response, but it was just a rehash of my previous posts. I simply don’t know how to work with arbitrary labels when the things that they label are arbitrary themselves. And to me, saying that “physical” is a concept that did not exist for 13.7 billion years, while at the same time saying that 13.7 billion years ago the universe was “physical” is like saying a flower produced the seed it grew from.

We can’t make our ends meet, friend. So be it. I think I’ve learned from this thread (although at the moment, I couldn’t tell you what… it just sure feels like I’ve learned something). I’ll be saving this thread to re-read it a few more times… maybe I’ll gain an insight I didn’t catch before.

I’ll also try to keep your views in mind at our next encounter, to avoid getting us sucked onto the roundabout; I can’t admit to understanding your views any better, but their parameters do seem clearer (As physicist Christopher Stubbs said regarding his work: “We’re entering a state of much more sophisticated confusion.”)

[other-wise]

Sentient, I started writing a response, but it was just a rehash of my previous posts. I simply don’t know how to work with arbitrary labels when the things that they label are arbitrary themselves. And to me, saying that “physical” is a concept that did not exist for 13.7 billion years, while at the same time saying that 13.7 billion years ago the universe was “physical” is like saying a flower produced the seed it grew from.

We can’t make our ends meet, friend. So be it. Thank you for making me think; I’ve learned a lot from this thread (although at the moment, I couldn’t tell you what… it just sure feels like I’ve learned something). I’ll be saving this thread to re-read it a few more times… maybe I’ll gain a pivotal insight I didn’t catch before.

I’ll also try to keep your views in mind at our next encounter, to avoid getting us sucked onto the roundabout; I can’t admit to understanding your views any better, but their parameters do seem clearer (As physicist Christopher Stubbs said regarding his work: “We’re entering a state of much more sophisticated confusion.”)

[other-wise]

Well, that was weird.

Sentient, you can ignore that first draft (which I swear posted itself). It’s the same as the second post which I actually posted, except that I forgot to thank you.

o-w

[SentientMeat]

Oh, OK, that’s the end? You kept saying you’d come back to what I considered the most important parts of several posts after you’d asked, Columbo-like, jusht one more question.

Nevertheless, thanks in return, and do please read through the past 3 pages a couple more times. My position is far more simple than you seem to think, and yet we get caught up in diversion after diversion when all I really want to know is what you call things. Ask yourself how you justify to yourself the labels you use, such as “Australia”, “Ancient Greek” and “weird”, and then ask whether the labels “arrangement”, “physical” or even “arbitrary” are any different whatsoever in this regard. (And I was rather amazed how you immediately accepted when I labelled something “arbitrary”, but would accept my labelling of something “physical” over your dead body!) As I’ve said before, if we refuse to indicate any position we do hold, we are default nihilists, and should not be surprised if others seem wary of engaging in meaningful debate with us.

Maybe one final example of a labelling device would be useful: Honeybees label nectar sources “near” and “far”. Like us (or Shakey) causing arbitrarily chosen symbols to appear on a screen, so the honey bee displays a round symbol for “within 75m” and a waggly symbol for “further than 75m” on the hexagonal comb (with the orientation to the sun similarly labelling the direction).

Again, this labelling protocol is only possible by access to memory: specifically, the stored sequence of images received by their eyes as they fly. The bee’s cognition upon arrival at the comb (when its eyes at that moment are receiving different sequences) is thus:

IF (past  sequence)=x THEN label “near” 
  ELSE IF (past sequence!=x)  THEN label “far”.

The particular choice of symbol is arbitrarily selected from natural variations (eg. highly complex symbols are not naturally selected since they are too much effort, just as the symbols we construct labels out of are the simple Roman alphabet of minimal strokes).

I would hope that instead of asking me for a definition in order to differentiate bees from non-bees, you would just go ahead and used the label, as though you understand perfectly well what a bee is and we need not waste our time or electricity on such a distraction. I would hope that we could agree that bees (which came before humans and Shakey, and long before you and me) are labelling devices, and were still labellers when you and other humans weren’t around. I would even avoid the “p” word if you could avoid the “a” word, and simply ask you whether you accepted that the process by which a bee labelled things was understood and explained. If we did agree so, I guess that the particular label we attached to that processing apparatus comprising the bee’s neuroanatomy doesn’t really…

…matter.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@SentientMeat

If the universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness, then either that consciousness existed for billions for years or it emerged from that which was not it.

You’re right about that. “The universe is an arrangement of perceptions in consciousness” implies panpsychism, given the absence of sentient individual consciousnesses for part (most) of its history. It does not imply that my* individual* consciousness was there at the big bang. However, if one accepts the Hindu “Atman is Brahman” doctrine, and thus my individual consciousness is an aspect of the universal consciousness, then you’re closer yet to being right. Your friend Mr. Ramachandran seems to flirt with this view.

[other-wise]

@SentientMeat

Oh, OK, that’s the end? You kept saying you’d come back to what I considered the most important parts of several posts after you’d asked, Columbo-like, jusht one more question.

My apologies. What did I say I’d come back to that I haven’t already addressed?

(BTW, what ever happened with Shipmans Quantum Honeybees?)

[Liberal]

Whatever happened to Stone Girl?

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

Yeah. She was hot.

[SentientMeat]

@o-w

My apologies. What did I say I’d come back to that I haven’t already addressed?

Never mind, they’ll crop up again next time. You obviously consider the answers you have given to be relevant to those points, whereas I simply can’t see it. Read the last 3 pages again, and perhaps you could write an OP some time in future setting out the specific proposition for debate.

(BTW, what ever happened with Shipmans Quantum Honeybees?)

Like Penrose’s quantum consciousness, the appeal to quantum weirdness is possible (although unlikely, indeed impossible to many) but ultimately unnecessary given the vast computational power of even a few million neurons if they are interconnected (as they are in insect neuroanatomy). Yet again, we all know the questions - even the toddler can keep asking them ad infinitum. Roundabout exits and progress in a debate require us to accept premises and focus in order to avoid the infinity of possible distractions. And again, if a single explanatory gap renders an entire scientific field fundamentally flawed, why then, we must all become Creationists.

[SentientMeat]

Sorry, quantum consciousness conscidered impossible by many.

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@SentientMeat

. . .the appeal to quantum weirdness is possible

Did you find Chalmers’ comment on this as funny as I did?

The attractiveness of quantum theories of consciousness may stem from a Law of Minimization of Mystery: consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the two mysteries have a common source.

[other-wise]

@SentientMeat

Never mind, they’ll crop up again next time. You obviously consider the answers you have given to be relevant to those points, whereas I simply can’t see it. Read the last 3 pages again, and perhaps you could write an OP some time in future setting out the specific proposition for debate.

I was scanning your exchange with II Gyan II in hope of finding some new angle to understand your viewpoint, when I was struck by this (bolding mine):

@SentientMeat

Waves, or accelerations, or computer programs don’t necessarily weigh anything or have spatial co-ordinates either. I am suggesting that consciousness is, effectively, a running program.

That surprised me. I thought that in your worldview waves and computer programs do have spatial coordinates.

Like Penrose’s quantum consciousness, the appeal to quantum weirdness is possible (although unlikely, indeed impossible to many) but ultimately unnecessary given the vast computational power of even a few million neurons if they are interconnected (as they are in insect neuroanatomy). Yet again, we all know the questions - even the toddler can keep asking them ad infinitum. Roundabout exits and progress in a debate require us to accept premises and focus in order to avoid the infinity of possible distractions. And again, if a single explanatory gap renders an entire scientific field fundamentally flawed, why then, we must all become Creationists.

Actually, I was just wondering if anyone had figured out how to test Shipmans theory, or had come up with an alternate explanation for the presence of the flag manifold in both the mathematics of QM and the dance of the honeybees (my fault- I worded the question poorly).

[SentientMeat]

@o-w

That surprised me. I thought that in your worldview waves and computer programs do have spatial coordinates.

Well, yes, but perhaps not in the way Gyan was specifying (of a single spatial location with no temporal element), not perhaps in any way that was relevant (since what the program does is far more important than where the apparatus is). It was hard enough keeping this thread on track, let’s not start pulling in stuff from others arbitrar… feck it. Enough!

I was just wondering if anyone had figured out how to test Shipmans theory

Not that I know of. Which, of course, makes it either protoscience, or pseudoscience.

or had come up with an alternate explanation for the presence of the flag manifold in both the mathematics of QM and the dance of the honeybees

From your own source: “When you have a physical phenomenon like the honeybee dance, and it follows a mathematical structure, you have to ask what are the physical laws that are causing it to happen.”
At this point Shipman departs from safely grounded scholarship and enters instead the airy realm of speculation.

She says herself that the hexagons are coincidental: just the arbitrar… oh, errm, natural, statistical selection of an efficient close-pack arrangement. And yet the shape of the symbols cannot have been selected, purely and simply, by evolutionary statistics in exactly the same way? Why not? Seeing the “flag manifold” is like playing Stairway to Heaven backwards and hearing Satanic lyrics (click link near bottom of page).