From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 05:27:36 BST
Mark,
Scott said:
What is your "lots of evidence"? I'm not aware of any scientific
evidence that can distinguish between the following two hypotheses:
A.
Consciousness is a product of spatio-temporal activity.
msh says:
Are you saying you can't think of an example of ST activity that has
a retardant if not destructive impact on human consciousness?
Anesthesia? How about chopping off someone's head and placing it on
his chest to cool for a couple of hours?
scott:
B.
Consciousness produces the spatio-temporal framework.
msh said:
Please give an example, as clear as mine, of human consciousness
creating a spatio-temporal framework, preferably on a meaningful
human scale.
Scott:
I am saying that that evidence does not distinguish between the two
hypotheses. No physical evidence can, which is to say that both hypotheses
are metaphysical, not scientific. If B is true, then the ST activity you
mention is just more non-ST that perception has turned into ST form. Think
of the brain and the anesthesia and the view from the window as all existing
in some unknowable non-ST way, and perception being like a tuner that turns
it into an ST form. We know that color, sound, taste, smell, and touch are
all produced in the act of perception, so the B hypothesis adds space and
time to that list. We know that this is what happens in dreams. Now assume
normal waking consciousness is a different kind of dream, one that is shared
(which makes scientific investigation of it possible). That is the B
hypothesis.
scott:
though quantum non-locality and uncertainty at the Planck limit
suggest (B),
msh says:
O great. Now I gotta go brush up on my understanding of Planck
length and time to continue the conversation? My take on the subject
is that no one really knows anything about what things are like under
Planck conditions, not in any pragmatic way. Any evidence coming
from this realm will almost by definition be uncertain and
inconsistent, if not anecdotal. But I ain't no quantum physicist.
Do you have a particular physicist's view in mind? You're not gonna
send me to Chris Langan are you?
Scott:
All one needs to be aware of is that when things get tiny enough, position
(a spatial measurement) has an uncertainty in inverse proportion to the
uncertainty of momentum (a temporal measurement), likewise energy and time,
and other pairs of variables. And that this uncertainty is essential to the
theory, that is, it is not just a limitation of our ability to measure. That
is, the laws of space and time that work in what we perceive, become fuzzy
at the limit. (Samuel Avery's *The Dimensional Structure of Consciousness*
is a non-technical exploration of this -- don't know who Chris Langan is).
msh said:
Anyway, I'm aware that there are a variety of conflicting views re
the relationship between mind and reality, even to the point where
the two are linked in mutual dependence, but you are not suggesting
there is anything even approaching a consensus, are you? That
Science should do the right thing and just dump that old pesky
materialism completely?
Besides, the fact that the idea of the primacy of consciousness is
being discussed by physicists supports my claim that science is not
closed to exploring the possibility.
Scott:
No, there is no consensus, but the important thing is that science has no
need to assume materialism. So that is not a reason for not dumping it. All
discussion of the relation between mental reality and perceived reality is
metaphysical, and should not affect the science being done, if it is good
science. (And note your preconception when you said "mind and reality").
scott said:
and a consideration of consciousness' ability to be aware
of something continuing in time, requires (B), as I see it.
msh says:
Not sure what you mean by this. I don't think we ARE aware of things
persisting through time, when things are not materially present. I
think we assume persistence to maintain a shred of sanity in day to
day life, a very pragmatic assumption.
Scott:
I was thinking of when things are materially present, but either way, there
is the same problem. What I mean by this is that, say, for the half second
that a tone in a melody lasts, we are aware of it *as* a lasting tone. "Now"
is not a point. If ST activity is all there is, and if we assume that ST
activity consists of all these electrons and photons and quarks buzzing
around, there is no possibility of that lasting tone. One part of that
buzzing cannot be aware of another, since there is separation in space
and/or time between each bit of it. There is no communication between one
bit and another larger than a photon. Where does awareness of something as
big as a half second tone come from, under these assumptions?
msh said before:
Isn't it possible that we are unwilling to suspend our analytical
faculties and make a leap of faith,<skip>
Scott said:
I look on this as the "religion is for wimps" argument, with the
corollary that secularism is for the macho ... <
msh:
Then you go to say that in fact religion is for the tough guys....
not for those wimpy secularists... So let's call it even. Instead
of "we are not afraid" I should have said "we prefer." Besides, I
don't think I was offering an argument so much as an alternative
explanation of why someone might not make the leap of faith.
Scott:
Fair enough.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 29 2005 - 20:06:59 BST