Suprisingly I find that Behaviorism is very beautiful. The definition of
Positive Reinforcement is "Any environmental stimulus which increases the
likelihood of a behavior recurring." Positive Reinforcement can be nothing
but Quality itself. Is anyone familiar with Thorndyke's law of effect?
I would like for you to read some correspondence between myself and Kenneth
Stanley who may or may not have a Ph.d in Computer Engineering. He is close;
I know that. The context of our discussion is my assertion that qualia are
outside of science. I define awareness mechanically and behaviorally and say
that a system is aware if and only if it can respond behaviorally to its
external environment. Thus I say, a door is aware of my hand because it
responds to my hand by opening. This mirrors Pirsig's assertions in Lila
that you can have value in science by interchanging such words as tends with
prefers such that An Object in Motion Prefers to Stay in Motion.
One more point before I paste our discussion. Dr. Skinner through the study
of animals in the sterile, cold laboratory that one should never ever punish
another. He was a man of great compassion to his fellow human beings and
would go to immense trouble to avoid being aversive to another. Behaviorism
is sorely misunderstood. Here is our discussion.
-----------------------------
Dear Dr. Stanley, (I presume, but perhaps not yet?)
Let me see if I can respond to some of your thinking.
["They are always embodied in the constituent substructures. The only
reason
why you say needn't is because you think the mind is that way. However,
you do not know that. In our empirical experience as scientists we have
not seen any examples that I am aware where the underlying properties do
not explain "emergent" properties. If you know of some, point them out and
point me to a place where I can research what you say. Although this is
philosophy, a little empiricism won't hurt us. "
It seems you are not being "empirical" at all. In my empirical
experience, assuming something does not exist just because I haven't seen
it or seen evidence for it is an extremely foolish disposition.]
How do you deal with the argument from overwhelming lack of evidence? For
instance, if I claim that there is a purple turtle holding up the world, and
you looking as hard as you can are unable to find one, then isn't it prudent
to assume that unless no further evidence surfaces, then there probably is
no purple turtle? I realize that epistemic abeyance is a sound thinking,
however, induction appears to be the vehicle that has allowed science to
accomplish what it has in the last 500 years. I think that my argument is an
inductive one. It is built out of my position as a monist. It is also built
out of my position as a realist. I believe that it is a beautiful philosophy
for if true, then it means that awarenessitself is the fundamental building
block of the universe.
[What is rather much more practical is to make no assumptions, and wait for
evidence to come in. There is just as much reason to believe something
exists as does not exist, barring evidence.]
This is a good point. However, there is also the idea of going with what
works. Or of going with your strength. On the other hand, one could operate
out of an atheoretical data gathering technique. This is a very good
practice, however, it is very difficult not to leap to conclusions.
Obviously my thoughts on this matter are not clear.
[When you mention science, you act as if science has observed
everything. But scientific observation has actually yielded the opposite
situation: almost every major scientific paradigm bottoms out in a vast
unknown and unexplained foundation. Evolution works, but how did the
first DNA/cell get formed? Relativity is a beautiful theory, but how can
we unify all of phsyics? Quantum mechanics explains a probabalistic
nature of reality, but then what IS reality? The Big Bang explains the
origin of the universe, but what explains the Big Bang? With such a
massive preponderance of unanswered fundamental questions, there is just
as much reason to believe that more than phsyical matter and energy exists
as there is to believe that only physical matter and energy explains
everything.]
But, when you argue from a scientific perspective, by definition things must
fall within empirical reach, in order to be within the grasp of science. God
is such an example of this. The Christian arguments against atheism assert
that God can not be seen or heard externally. That he is outside of the five
senses. Thus, if this is true, the question of God falls outside the realm
of science. This is neither good nor bad. It just is in the same way that 2
+ 2 are 4. Consciousness as defined by David Chalmers et. al. in terms of
qualia is the same. Another's private events are just that, private. They
can not be observed empirically, and are outside of science. Although the
standard argument is that you can observe your own personal events, this
type of observation is introspection and is considered by most scientists to
be outside of science because you can not observe your personal events
objectively.
[In fact, it seems to me there is more reason to believe that it does not
explain everything. It certainly doesn't explain the origin of
itself. (i.e. the origin of the universe) It is completely
counter-intuitive to assert that there is no causal explanation of the
existence of the universe, from an empirical perspective.]
I read A Brief History of Time by Hawking, and he presented some good
evidence for an ever-existing universe with no big bang.
[ Whatever cause
there may be, it seems, is almost certainly not material in nature, since
the cause, whatever it may be, CREATED material. Thus there appears to be
a more fundamental set of conditions which are not based in material
reality.]
I personally favor the idea that the universe has always been, and that
change is the essence of reality. That all things are one thing, and the one
thing continually changes form. These forms are illusions, like the Sand
Castles on the Beach. The beach itself is only sand. Beaches and Sand and
Sand Castles and Reality are arbitrary constructs. If sand was all there was
then there wouldn't be sand. There would just be.
[So to assert that somehow everything observed is materially explainable is
equally naive as asserting that there are non-material "mind" elements
which are also part of reality.]
Except that the material explanations have yielded and continue to yield
positive results, while non-material explanations such as evil-spirits fail
to have any prediction power. Again an inductive argument, but it's the best
I've got.
[It would in fact not be surprising if there are extra-material properties
to reality, since they would presumably explain material coming into
existence at all, and it is perfectly reasonable (as a possibility, not as
a fact) that some of those extra-material properties might be qualia.]
First off how would you interface with extra-material properites? Secondly,
wouldn't it be just as easily assumable that those evil spirits and that
purple turtle exist also?
[The idea of a door being self-aware seems to be another point where you
contradict your own supposed philosophical disposition. You talk about
knowing what we know in science from observation, but SELF-awareness by
definition can ONLY be observed from the INSIDE. So you would have to
have been a door to find out that it is aware of anything. I doubt you
have been a door, and thus you have no reason to believe the door is self
aware anymore than someone else has reason to believe in qualia as a
separate group of non-physical properties. Ultimately, you are being just
as biased and un-scientific as those whose views you oppose.]
Please forgive me. I meant awareness only. Not self-awareness. This is my
argument, and it is based out of my definition of awareness. Here is how I
have built it. I observe my wife, and I believe that she is aware. There is
no way I can prove that, since I have no direct access to her awareness.
Thus I am led to a material/scientific definition of awareness.
How do I know my wife is aware? I say, "Honey, are you aware that I am in
this room?" and she responds with an affirmative. I poke her in the side,
and she jumps. The door opens, and she turns her head. Scientifically,
materially, realistically, and behaviorally, she is aware of her external
environment if and only if she responds to it in some physical way. That may
be as imperceptible as neurons firing, or it may be as obvious as her
screaming. But for her to be aware of some external entity, she must respond
behaviorally to it.
When I place my hand on the door and open the door, the door responds to my
hand by opening. The door is aware of my hand. The water in the shower is
aware of my presence because it moves in response to me.
This is my argument, and I want to make sure that I qualify it specifically
for you:
If anyone argues from a strictly material/scientific explanation of the
universe then they accept the fact that all things must be explainable from
a materially observable position. The only way to define awareness
physically, is to say that awareness is the ability of a system to respond
to its external environment. Thus, science must accept either that
1) The universe consists of multiple systems of awareness and the processes
that force change in the universe are aware. The entire universe and every
changing system within that universe constitutes awareness.
or
2) Reject this possibility and admit that solving the problem of awareness
is outside the realm of science.
Being a monist, a Buddhist, and a Behaviorist I prefer the first
explanation. Seems kind of nice to me.
[In calling you biased and un-scientific I do not mean anything personal of
course, I am merely arguing for a more rigid adherance to your own
scientific philosophy. I do respect the interesting discussion and ideas
that you bring up. :)]
Thank you for writing,
I hope you respond back to me!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Think about it.
-David Prince
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:47 BST