Posted on 11/07/2004 4:51:32 PM PST by Jo Nuvark
You misunderstand the concept of entropy.
The laws of thermodynamics imply that the total amount of disorder in the universe must always be increasing. However, within an isolated set of parameters, the amount of order can increase. This is perfectly allowable, as long as there is enough of an increase in disorder in other systems so as to make the total amount of disorder in the entire universe increase.
For instance, say you're cleaning a room. In the very isolated context of that room, you are creating order out of a disorderly situation. The increase in order in that situation is offset by the fact that, while you are moving around performing your cleaning duties, you are producing heat. Heat is disorder. You just can't see it, so you don't realize that it's there.
Order can be created out of chaos, as long as there is other chaos occurring concurrently.
I can't help but notice that you've gotten quite snippy since you didn't have oodles of FReepers giving you the reply you wanted.
A picture is worth a thousand words, eh?
Order does not imply design. Unless, that is, you believe that somewhere up in heaven there's a Department of Snowflakes, where angelic craftsmen carefully design and assemble each individual snowflake, no doubt using ancient snowflake hand-tooling techniques...
Fast one? I don't understand.
Basically. I like that one because it works on several levels to monkey with design theorists ;)
I agree.
Oh... I am having a great time. Hope you are too.
Thx for the challenge.
These people act so cultish in their nonsense. Still, I think they are a small minority and I rather resent the blue people assuming I'm as ignorant, just because I'm red.
Anyway, I'd rather have the poofists cultish ignorance than the arm-twisting extortion of the blue meanies.
Well, then, everyone's happy ;)
Well, the blue meanies, as you say, have just as much cultish ignorance as the poofists (I love the term, BTW). That ignorance just takes a different form.
You seem very well-read in philosophy...an area in which I am not so well-read. I was wondering if you knew some good basic readers that I could use as a sort of springboard.
Tell me if the following is a fair presentation of your view:
People who believe in God and believe the Bible is both literal and true should be free to raise their children to share those beliefs.
But as things stand now, children who attend government schools are taught that species evolved over long periods of time, and that contradicts the Bible's account of creation.
The government should not be teaching children that the religious beliefs of their parents are false. So government schools should teach creationism alongside evolution, presenting them as two different theories about the origins of the species.
Have I basically got it or am I missing something?
Because if that's the idea, I don't understand why there's no similar controversy about teaching Copernican astronomy (earth rotates around sun). I'm sure there's something Biblical Creationists have to say about that case, but I'm wondering what it is.
Peace.
The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is good, but pretty dense and filled with jargon.
Thank you for the crash course on the laws of physics.
About being "snippy". Actually, I am surprised the discussion went this direction. I was more alarmed at the yes vote being rejected by the CNN poll.
However, since it has gone this direction, I am having a wonderful time splashing in the primal ooze with such great friends.
Now about your metphor... Who is cleaning the room?
If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, and there is no person present to hear it fall, does it really make a sound?
I'm not sure. But I do no that my husband would still be wrong.
Don't we all. I suppose it is natural that we are both blind to and defensive of our own nonsense, to some degree. And arguing just seems to make us entrench ourselves in it further. It's best to never have a personal egoistic stake in the absurd to begin with.
But we're only human. And where would comedy be without it? Kind of endearing really, in a broad sense only (since some specific examples are best described as disturbing).
Sorry... I'm getting punchy.
That would be "know", not no.
Oh forget it!
A matter of definition. "Sound" is usually defined as a sense perception. So without creatures around capable of perceiving sound, it doesn't make a sound, but the vibrations still propagate through the air (and ground, and other things).
"You concoct absurd limitations. Indirect evidence of others' consciousness IS just that--EVIDENCE OF OTHERS' CONSCIOUSNESS."
How do you know? You know by direct experience that you are conscious but anything else is simply an extrapolation. You have only one data point, yourself, and from that you extrapolate the characteristics that you believe indicate consciousness. That is absurd.
"You fall into the Kantian nihilistic fallacy of the noumena. That you and I can even give it a name ("consciousness"), let alone discuss it, shows that we know something of it."
I know of consciousness by direct experience and because of biology, faith, or an overwhelming need to perserve my sanity I assume that you do too, but I don't have any scientific proof of that and never will since consciousness is a subjective experience; I can never experience your consciousness and you can never experience mine. We can view the similiarity of our reactions to various stimulii as evidence that we are both conscious but I don't really see any justification for this view beyond faith and tradition.
A computer can be programmed to behave in a manner similar to the way we assume conscious entities behave. Does that make it conscious? A computer can be programmed to react to its environment, plan, act in self-preservation, etc. Would you say that that computer was conscious?
Once again, you have a sample size of one, yourself, from which you infer the correlations between the existence of consciousness and behavior. I don't think a sample size of one is sufficient.
BURT: How do you know? You know by direct experience that you are conscious but anything else is simply an extrapolation. You have only one data point, yourself, and from that you extrapolate the characteristics that you believe indicate consciousness. That is absurd.
I don't think I can do better than my prior succinct response, but maybe I can rephrase. It's a bit long-winded, so you'll just have to stick with me:
I. VALIDITY AND UBIQUITY OF THE SENSES
You are committing the mistake of denying the ability to know the "outside" world. Let me explain--by your reasoning, only your own consciousness can be known to you, because you don't believe in the validity of your sense perceptions (stick with me here). With your reasoning, an astronomer can't study a star, b/c he isn't a star. That is, you reject the validity of all science, since evidence of the world (observations) all comes to us via our senses, and observations are the basis of science.
But the truth is, whatever arrives through your senses *IS* of the world (search your memories as far back as you can and you see that at some point in your extreme youth, there just aren't any more memories. Out of what nothingness did they emerge? Your senses were bombarded by the universe for some time before it started to stick. At some point AFTER your earliest memories, you became aware of your own consciousness--a fairly high level abstraction).
Sense perceptions can be hard to interpret correctly, but that is precisely why we have science. Evidence is ultimately all you have to play with. You can form useful abstractions from those observations (e.g. mathematics), but they are all ultimately based upon your observations (e.g. 2 sticks, 2 people, 2 cookies ==> 2! Eureka!).
Even the very way you come to understand your own consciousness (and everything else) is a result of the observations you make, and the introspection of how you understand, abstract, and label those observations (more later).
So, observations aren't lesser knowledge below introspective knowledge. They **ARE** knowledge.
II. INTROSPECTION CAN BE COMMUNICATED
You and I are both using this word "consciousness". We seem, at least to some large degree, to understand each other. You write to me about only being able to introspect your own consciousness. Why should you think that I could possibly understand you unless I too had such an introspective experience. And my responses to you, I hope, are not utterly asinine, but match understandings that you didn't even communicate to me. You and I are not parroting each other, but adding descriptive information that demonstrates we have an understanding. Repeating similar exchanges many times a day over a lifetime eventually becomes pretty convincing, doesn't it?
And why shouldn't we understand each other. We are both bombarded with many of the same observations. Those same observations lead us both to much the same understanding of what "consciousness" is (since, again, observations are the base of all understanding, as in Part I, above). Observations can be communicated. Your understanding of your own consciousness is a function of your observations. So of course you can communicate your understanding of your consciousness. You may think that I'm missing something by not being you. But by our dialogue, you find you are wrong.
III. UNIVERSE (INDEPENDENT OF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS) CANNOT BE DENIED.
The fact that you even attempt such communication reveals your own hidden doubt of your own position. You are acting as though you believe there are other conscious entities besides yourself. Why? Experiences lead you to such a belief (and to all beliefs). But what about experiences makes you clandestinely doubt your asserted belief (of the greater certainty of your consciousness versus your experiences)? Well, cogito ergo sum--one's own consciousness is literally undeniable. Surely there is no such certainty of the universe outside of consciousness. Well, an analysis of the meaing of "cogito ergo sum" refutes that. "I" implicit in every thought. Therefore I exist. "I think" implicit in every thought. Therefore my consciousness exists. But what does it mean to think? One cannot separate the notion of "thinking" from the object of thought. That is one doesn't EAT without EATING SOMETHING. One doesn't TOUCH without TOUCHING SOMETHING. And one doesn't THINK without THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING. Therefore SOMETHING exists. Is that something just "I" and "my consciousness"? Obviously not. The letters and words of this sentence are sufficient to demonstrate that there is something ELSE.
Consciousness we see, is meaningless without objects of consciousness OTHER than me and my consciousness. Therefore, a world beyond consciousnes must exist. And really, "consciousness" is a pretty empty term without those things.
Thus, I am certain of my own consciousness, but only BECAUSE I am certain of the outside world.
IV. NOW TO RESPOND...
Now the context is set to specifically address your latest claims:
"How do you know [there is consciousness other than my own]?" -- in the same way I know ANYTHING. By observation.
"You know by direct experience that you are conscious..." -- Experience is how I know anything at all. My awareness of my own consciousness, and child psychology demonstrates this pretty generally, is not my first realization. That is, it took MANY MANY experiences before I could formulate the idea of my consciousness. And I (you as well) still do not have a complete understanding of this observation-dependent notion. Scientific experimentation (i.e. more observations) can help.
"...but anything else is simply an extrapolation." -- Not "anything else", but "anything" period, if by "simply an extrapolation" you mean dependent entirely upon simple sense perceptions.
"You have only one data point, yourself,..." -- thankfully through the validity of sense perception, possibility of communication, and the discovery of other entities with properties I have come to associate with the meaning of "consciousnes", there are actually MANY MANY data points.
"and from that you extrapolate the characteristics that you believe indicate consciousness." -- Again, all beliefs, all knowledge, all meanings as I understand them are ultimately derived from "characteristics", if by that you mean sense perception. You hold in such low regard the very possibility of knowledge.
"I know of consciousness by direct experience..." -- you know of consciousness by sensory perception and many years of abstraction. And what you know of it, you see in other entities.
"and because of biology, faith, or an overwhelming need to perserve my sanity I assume that you do too," -- Funny you don't also then assume the wall next to you is conscious. No, it is your experience with me, matching the experiences that make up whatever it is you mean by "consciousness" that leads you to that conclusion.
"but I don't have any scientific proof of that and never will since consciousness is a subjective experience;" -- It isn't so much a matter of "proof" (whatever you mean by that, since science is about evidence, not certainty) as it is a matter of what you mean by "consciousness". Since all meanings are ultimately derived from observations, it is a matter of identifying those observations and how you reasoned from them.
"I can never experience your consciousness and you can never experience mine." -- by communication, we can be pretty sure we are experiencing the same thing.
"We can view the similiarity of our reactions to various stimulii as evidence that we are both conscious but I don't really see any justification for this view beyond faith and tradition." -- If observations are similar, then they are similar. It is an identity and has nothing to do with faith or tradition. And, evidence is what you get. That's what observations are. It IS of the universe. Those parts of the universe that you experience "directly" (your observations) are how you are led to everything, including the certainties of you, your consciousness, and the world beyond your consciousness. You somehow diminish it for lack of an impossible omniscience.
"A computer can be programmed to behave in a manner similar to the way we assume conscious entities behave. Does that make it conscious? A computer can be programmed to react to its environment, plan, act in self-preservation, etc. Would you say that that computer was conscious?" -- I disagree that such a computer has yet been developed, but I don't deny the future possibility. I will say this, if the properties you observe in any entity match the properties that make up your meaning of "consciousness", then, by your own meaning, it is conscious. If you think particular Apple II program is conscious, then it would behoove you to think to yourself not only what it is about the program that makes you think so, but also, what is it that led you to the very notion of "consciousness" that you possess.
And, the observations I have made that underly my notion of "consciousness" leave me with no rational means of denying the possibility of a manufactured consciousness. Those notions only tell me how I will know it if it is there.
V. IN SUMMARY
I really haven't said anything more than than my prior post, but maybe the elaboration reveals more clearly what was said so succinctly. Ultimately one's consciousness only takes on color, like the invisible man in a SplatBall tournament, with repeated interactions with the universe (observations). Not until it is colored do we recognize that it even exists. And, it is through those colors (observations) that it takes on meaning. We can use that meaning (those observations) to test for other consciousnesses. Once found, we can contrast and compare them, and even manipulate them. We can shoot the paint balls in places they've never been fired, and control the color of the paint and the force of the ball. Then we have a science of consciousness. And as a science, it allows us to learn REAL things about consciousness we never knew before.
And as a matter of fact, with chemicals and electrodes and study of disease, people have already been doing these things, and adding to our ideas of "consciousness". The science, my friend, is already here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.