METAZOA, Animal life and the birth of the mind, Peter Godfey-Smith

Philosophy
41

I’m very impressed!

I think the only philosophical difference of significance we have is this idea of emergence. I have the same problem with my favorite philosopher Dennett. Like Dennett I’m a compatibalist. He also takes a degree not kind approach. He suggests that freewill emerges due to complex physical and cultural processes it isn’t real in the way we think of reality. I agree that you have to have an understanding of abstract reality to get there but I say it was there from the beginning and is represented by randomness. In other words it is a physical property. It is kind of captured in Einstein saying god doesn’t play dice. I would just add god doesn’t play dice but he/it did give us a degree of freewill. My contention is that any theory of consciousness has to include randomness. Whatever that is.

42

Yes it does. Thank you.

Still his answer is scientific not philosophical. That is not a criticism just an observation. I’m still curious how he links science to philosophy.

43

This is a much better discussion than I have found on the internet in years. I have a hard time understanding why people have abandoned this format in favor of “social media”.

I don’t want to disrupt the conversation between lausten and white4u but I wanted to clarify what I meant by knowing isn’t intelligence. I defined intelligence as the ability to respond to the environment. The ability to make “choices”. Does an atom make choices? I suppose it does at the level of quantum mechanics but at the level we experience life how is that manifested? Isn’t that the philosophical question?

As an aside isn’t the ability of atoms to make “choices” key to quantum computing?

44

IMO, philosophy logically describes a law of nature that is applicable to a range of causal universal properties. A guiding equation inherent in the expressed pattern.

One might say that the Universe is a quasi-intelligent geometric object that emerged from an immeasurably chaotic event , by a gradual ordering chronology in accordance with the changing guiding equations caused by the cooling plasma.

What is Plasma?

Plasma is superheated matter – so hot that the electrons are ripped away from the atoms forming an ionized gas. It comprises over 99% of the visible universe. In the night sky, plasma glows in the form of stars, nebulas, and even the auroras that sometimes ripple above the north and south poles. That branch of lightning that cracks the sky is plasma, so are the neon signs along our city streets. And so is our sun, the star that makes life on earth possible.

Plasma is often called “the fourth state of matter,” along with solid, liquid and gas. Just as a liquid will boil, changing into a gas when energy is added, heating a gas will form a plasma – a soup of positively charged particles (ions) and negatively charged particles (electrons).

Because so much of the universe is made of plasma, its behavior and properties are of intense interest to scientists in many disciplines. Importantly, at the temperatures required for the goal of practical fusion energy, all matter is in the form of plasma.

Researchers have used the properties of plasma as a charged gas to confine it with magnetic fields and to heat it to temperatures hotter than the core of the sun. Other researchers pursue plasmas for making computer chips, rocket propulsion, cleaning the environment, destroying biological hazards, healing wounds and other exciting applications…

https://www.psfc.mit.edu/vision/what_is_plasma#:

When examples of these guiding equations are found they are added to the list
of organisms (patterns) with a “common denominator” that enables codification of the organism’s potential abilities, and translation into human communication (maths, narratives).

The universe itself needs no such thing, it treats everything in accordance with their inherent relational potentials and recognizes all values as true at the time of interaction

From simple disorder springs order, from complex order springs disorder (entropy).

45

I didn’t feel at all disrupted

46

Then you must have a look at ORCH-OR. It’s function rests “non-computability”

As to the mechanics of “perception” and “cognition”, Anil Seth present a very attractive landscape of the state of the conscious network that can only make “best guesses” from second hand data against data previously memorized.
Good stuff.

1 Like
47

I talk about this stuff with people and they look at you like you are from a different planet. I was starting to think maybe I was crazy. I’m going to move on to something else because the disagreements seem nitpicky.

I was thinking of going down the road that lausten suggested with his tautology comment but see no reason to get twisted around semantics. As far as I can tell nobody is saying that Orch OR is the end all theory of consciousness. It’s obviously some very complex science that at the same time is intuitively satisfying.

48

[quote=“wolfhnd, post:47, topic:8495”]
I was thinking of going down the road that lausten suggested with his tautology comment but see no reason to get twisted around semantics.

As far as I can tell nobody is saying that Orch OR is the end all theory of consciousness. It’s obviously some very complex science that at the same time is intuitively satisfying.

Correct, at this time it is speculative, but it has spurred a truly deep investigation into the phenomenon of consciousness, the "hard problem.

Tegmark proposes that consciousness is an emergent “state” of certain patterns, an excellent proposal.

Penrose and Hameroff propose that these patterns originate as “sets of quanta” and that only a dynamic multi-trillion cellular and neural data processing network can deliver the fine-grain representation of conscious cognition or self-reference.

This network exists and forms the cytology and neurology, able to process all required data for self-referential cognition. The actual transport highways are paved with microtubules, that do the data transporting.

IMO, man-made religions will never be able to offer a knowable understanding of universal mechanics, Hence, God is an “unknowable” causality yet can be “known”?
IMO, that equation is inherently flawed.

OTOH, man-made mathematics are based on observed regular patterns and describe the actual mathematical guiding equations (dynamical universal mechanics) with a high degree of accuracy.

For me it is the maths that make the difference between “uncritical belief” and “verifiable understanding” .

49

And here is from the horse’s mouth.

50

Yes I agree.

I’m glad you included the god part. I have always said I was not an atheist. If you say you are an atheist you have to prove what is unprovable by definition. All we have is “scientific” information about reality which is restricted to the natural environment. Anything supernatural lies beyond our abilities. My friends insist I’m an atheist. Their argument is pretty sound. Basically you can’t believe in something you say is unknowable. Here is the problem with their argument. I believe in the big bang theory. It seems to me you can’t know what or if something existed before the big bang. I see no reason why I shouldn’t assign the word god to the unknowable. Philosophically it comes down to the virtue of humility. The utility of humility is it prevents you from chasing your tail. Knowing what you can’t know keeps you focused on what you can know.

There is a philosophical school called Utilitarianism.

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one’s own good.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Like all philosophy it is self evident, tautological if you like. But the virtues necessary to implement the philosophy are not.

1 Like
51

How much time do you have?

1 Like
52

Unless you are going to put it in a cultural context it shouldn’t take long.

That takes us back to the question of the philosophy of science. Earlier I said that science is cultural evolution but it’s deeper than that. When an animal comes to a split in a trail and uses it sense of smell to decide which split to take it is doing science. It has formulated a hypothesis that the stronger or weaker scent is the “right” way to go. You could say it is just instinct but often there is a bit of learning involved and what are instincts but genetic learning? With culture we have the same situation. It is built up over many generations of selection. The information isn’t stored genetically but rather in individuals, books etc. The bottom line is no cultural selection no science as we know it.

As it relates to the question of god the supernatural falls outside the realm of the senses through which all learning takes place. Even with my very broad definition of science there is no way to related the question of god to physical reality. It other words it is not a scientific question. No amount of science will disprove god. Making scientific arguments against god strengthens the theists position because it puts you in the position of proving the unprovable. It’s a kind of logical fallacy. The opposite fallacy of the the unfalsifiability fallacy. It is called the absence of evidence fallacy.

As I also said philosophy is a kill joy. Here is the relevant practical part of all this. As a person that is interested in computers you have a good handle on logic. But you also must be aware that logic can give the “wrong” answers. That is why philosophy has moved away from the idea of right and wrong answers. It is now primarily concerned with language and logic. Science kind of stole the “big questions”. The old style of philosophy is still widely practice but the answers are less arrogant you might say. Even with science however the idea of right and wrong answers or laws is less prevalent. In the past it was assumed that things were not nearly infinitely reducible. Now science is focused on greater and greater accuracy and precision but not so much final solutions. And certainly it has never been the case that science assumed that logic was anything more than a tool. Science has always been about what the senses can detect. Senses extended by technology for sure but still experimentation is primary.

53

I don’t buy that. It comes back to recognizing the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.

That is recognizing the difference between your physical biological body and the thoughts it produces.

… Which brings me to Stephen Gould’s NOMA, his non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion and the key he was missing. Namely, failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between the realm of Physical Reality and realm of our Human Mindscapes (both individually and collectively).

Science and religion are subgroups of Human Mindscape, whereas Physical Reality simply IS, regardless of human anything.

Science seeks to objectively learn about this physical world that we find ourselves embedded within, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our brain’s Mindscape.

Religion and Philosophy are all about the human Mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

What’s the point? It’s about better appreciating our ‘frame of reference’. Our dreams and desires aren’t the center of Creation. Earth is. Our gods are reflections of our own egos and Earth is the stage that created all of its characters.

This is important because too many have convinced themselves that they actually have a personal Almighty God in their back pockets, when in fact it’s merely their own Egos transformed. Our Gods come from within us and are as transient as governments and the human species itself.

Perhaps what needs to be recognized with greater clarity is that God’s are as real as the people who believe in them, want to make them.
But God’s are not part of Earth’s natural physical processes, the one’s that brought about and nurtures all life.

I like that summary. Another caveat is that scientific conclusions are dependent upon the evidence, the facts at hand. So it’s to be expected that increasing information will lead to more nuanced understanding.

As a side note, I’m appalled when people talk like Einstein proved Newton wrong. Einstein may have radically changed our philosophical storyline, but the actual science was like one Russian Doll within the next. - After all Newton’s physics remains paramount, except when pushing the extremes of physics, outside of our daily experiences (sans our communicator units and modern electronics jazz and that Planck Scale playground.)

As another side note, I’m sorry my days are so crowded, I’ve enjoyed you comments, not that I always agree, but you do tend to seem pretty solid. I think it would be fun to bump into you at a bar on a lazy afternoon. Have a fun conversation like we used to do in those fun old days (ps 70 is bearing down on me).

54

Of course you are right. It is as hard for a non philosopher to practice philosophy as it is for a non scientist to practice science. :slight_smile:

In fact it is one of the things I try to work hard at, to show people that abstract reality is real.

The needed clarification is that god is a concept independent of religion or actual definition. I started off by saying if you are not going to discuss it terms of culture then it is a short discussion. I thought that was sufficient to set the framework. It turns out there is no definition that is independent of culture or for that matter the language to discuss anything. I just wanted to skip to the absence of evidence fallacy. Which is reflected in the absence of a universal definition of god. It turns out it is very hard to even talk about something you have no evidence exists. I suppose concepts such as the “god gene” could bring it back to being sciency but I don’t think such a thing exists either.

I split reality into physical and abstract reality. It obviously is just a thinking tool. You can’t actually isolate one from the other. I suppose all categories are reductionist.

Anyway enough of my rambling. Your points are well taken and I appreciate them.

I’m not a fan of Stephen Gould but to be fair he did back off of some of his nonsense latter in life. What he basically admitted to was he was doing a bit of social engineering with his philosophy and had been somewhat dishonest. As far as I can tell he was was trying to get around biological and cultural determinism by any means necessary. His heart may have been in the right place but cheating never helps.

55

It can’t if philosophers remain tethered to the past, it limits their ability to truly embrace science’s physicalist findings.

Invoking any form of meta-physics, be it primal cosmic specks of consciousness, or whatnot, indicates insufficient curiosity to do the homework required for gaining an understanding of Evolution’s and biology’s revelations.

Too much of the philosophy I’m exposed to in the popular press, or YouTube world, remain mired in the matrix of western exceptionalism, … self-absorbed, self-serving, and always searching for the ultimate answer, if not God, the search for truth (in a reality that has countless individual perspectives ¿ ).

Until philosophers learn to see beyond their own susceptibility to gratuitous mind games and conceits, it’s more like a May Pole dance, then addressing humanity’s current crisis.

— Determinism —

Also that determinism thing is more a manmade edifice - after all, we still need to proceed through the day making choices, each determined by who knows how many important factors, . . . in the real world all those factors swim within yet more subtile influences below the surface.
Of course, we need to come to a reckoning with all the ways that we are determined, nature, nurture, circumstance - so okay no Free-Will exists in an idealistic philosophical manner. But, we still influence our fates, the Karma thing, and the “what goes around comes around,” and different ways we can channel how we react to situations that will determine some future outcomes, and so on.

So for me it’s fun to talk about and think about, but not too worried about…

56

This is why it’s hard to take you seriously @wolfhnd .

Logically fallacious (a website about fallacies) has two examples for the Unfalsifiability fallacy.

I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus. Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment.

And

Priests can literally turn wine into the blood of Jesus.

In other words something stated as true that has been proposed with no possible way to show it’s false. Not the other way around. Something that can’t be falsified can’t have a hypothesis, it’s not science. Scientists know this, in fact, it’s commonly known.

There is no opposite fallacy for this. The absence of evidence isn’t evidence for absence, but it’s not evidence for anything, by definition.

What are you talking about?

57

As a former Episcopal Lay minister turned humanist/atheist, no they can’t and don’t. This is a fallacy believed by Vulgar. Where it came from, I don’t know, but I highly suspect that at one time, before the Reformation, the Papacy/Pope did teach this and it carried over into the Anglican/Episcopal Church, as well as the Lutheran Church too.

BTW, I know you were throwing the statement out there because it’s one of the things religious believe.

58

I’m not wolfhnd, but I’m also irritated by old style philosophy.

Look at the society and level of human discourse these days.

What have philosophers done worth note?

It’s feels more like a private club, than something of general societal value.

1 Like
59

I know you are, and I know your answer, and we’ve discussed it.

There are schools of philosophy. But to say there is an “old” one doesn’t fit with anything that someone who knows what those schools are, would understand. How old does it have to be to be considered “old”? Philosophy and science both rest on earlier versions. Their history is the history of changes and sometimes you need to understand the old theory to know what is being proposed in the new.

wolfhnd says things like

Summarize that, and you get, ‘logic can be wrong, so now philosophy is concerned with language and logic’.

60

What we were talking about was “recognizing the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide”. I mangled it because I had been working all day in the heat and was in a hurry to get back to it. I may deal with that but first.

Absence of evidence fallacy. This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

In this case the argument that there is no god based on no scientific evidence falsely shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim that there is no god. What you’re missing is that in philosophy you’re not necessarily looking for “truth” as commonly understood. It may have in the past when philosophy was primarily concerned with the “big questions”. Today it has shifted more to truth statements similar to mathematical proofs. As I said I think it is a reaction to science kind of stealing the big questions such as consciousness etc. Philosophy is looking for a new niche because the environment has changed. You could write our question out as, no evidence that god exists is not equal to evidence that god doesn’t exist. It is simple evidence of no evidence. It gets worse as I said because by definition god is supernatural. Which we could write that out as supernatural equals beyond falsification, not unfalsifiable. The whole point of the term supernatural is to define something as beyond falsification. You can make true statements using that logic such as supernatural = not subject to falsification by natural means.

What philosophy teaches us in this case is that the business of proving god doesn’t exist is a waste of time. That is what the Absence of evidence fallacy is all about. It keeps you from going down bunny holes. The question of whether god exists can end with asking for evidence that god exists. That avoids the absence of evidence fallacy. That is why many philosophers do not buy into the unfalsifiability fallacy as understood by scientists. Logic exists independent of physical evidence. A statement is logical based on internal consistency without reference to physical reality. For example if you say that I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus there is nothing illogical about that. If you say that you have scientific evidence of tiny invisible unicorns living in my anus that would be illogical. By saying something is invisible means it is not subject to the scientific method.
Logic doesn’t answer questions, it is just a tool you can use to answer questions. Logic, philosophy, mathematics, etc. belong to abstract reality. Science belongs to physical reality. Science uses the tools of mathematics and logic to answer questions raised by evidence. What you shouldn’t do is confuse mathematics and logic with evidence. You don’t confuse a hammer with a house. You could build a house without a hammer, say a mud brick house.

There are further complications however. When I say that logic exists independent of physical reality that only applies to formal logic. Informal logic is a property of nature. I think that is where scientists get confused. It’s the question of what makes abstract reality real. There actually is a scientific argument for that. Abstract reality becomes real through interaction with physical reality. For example money isn’t real but it "transcends’’ (almost as horrible a word as emergence :slight_smile: ) physical reality by changing the meaning of time and space. Money allows for trade without regard to space or distance and with little regard for time in ways physical commodities such as gold cannot. You can easily live without gold but it is hard to live without money because the cultural environment has changed the meaning of the physical environment.

You can extend the above argument to the question of god. God doesn’t have to be real to be part of abstract reality. It is not as easy as the case for the abstraction we call money but it can be done. God changes the meaning of time and space by altering the way cultures respond to the physical environment. If that is a good or bad thing is not the question. That comes down to values which are ultimately subjective.

I don’t want to get into the subjective nature of values but it is enough to understand that they are related to time and space. Do your values address the immediate future or some distant point in the future? Which one you pick will alter your values. I’m hungry right now or I will be hungry in the future for example. The intrinsic value of food is not fixed. But dependent on conditions in the environment and judgement calls.