Phil Forum : The Hard Problem

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p12

There’s no profit in thinking experience is something that exists. Existence is a condition only of sensible objects, and experience is very far from a sensible object. — Mww

Unfortunately, defining "experience" and "existence" has been a subject of debate in philosophy for millennia. Scientists typically try to limit experience to Empirical or A Posteriori Knowledge gained from sensory impressions. But Philosophers and Theologians often include Theoretical or A Priori (tautological) knowledge in their discussions of Consciousness. So, whether there is profit in talking about the ontological "existence" of Experience may depend on your worldview : Materialism or Idealism. Is unproven, but reasonable, Theoretical knowledge a form of non-sensory Experience? Some call Reason the sixth sense.

The confounding problem here is that human beings are capable of acting as-if concepts that exist only in the mind (e.g. fictional characters) are real. Apparently, posters in chat rooms for Game of Thrones or Lord of the Ring seem to gain some profit from imaginary beings. That's not to mention all the various gods of world religions that are treated as-if real in some sense. So, apparently there is Material "profit" and Ideal "profit". If we were discussing a material object here, your assertion would be accurate. But Consciousness is not that kind of thing.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p13

so the reality of the objects absolutely must be different. — Mww

That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental).

Unfortunately for the Realists, what we take for real objects is actually ideas in the mind that serve as symbols referring to a hidden "ultimate reality". That's the conclusion of Donald Hoffman, which he explains in an analogy between the Mind and a computer screen. What we interact with on our computer display is Icons, that are merely intermediate symbols of the "hidden" physical and mathematical functions inside.

We accept the simple abstract pixelated icon as-if it is the complex concrete mechanism inside the black box computer. And that acceptance is a useful belief for our non-technical purposes. What we see is 2D pixels, constructed by 4D computer processes, to represent some aspect of reality outside the box. Hence, Hoffman asserts : "we see the theories we believe". You and I act as-if our senses are reporting reality, when actually all they see is the symbols. In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy.

Donald Hoffman TED talk : https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY

The Case Against Reality : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evol ... -20160421/

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p13

Thanks ...but I must have missed something, it doesn't explain how consciousness came from matter ? — 3017amen

I suspect that the confusion comes from using the word "consciousness" as-if it's an object or substance. Instead, Consciousness is a process of transformation (awareness) from objects to meanings.

As suggested by Zelebg, consciousness is in the "bricks", the basic components of material reality. But only in the metaphorical sense of using a single step in place of a whole process. As I like to describe that process, everything in the world begins as a form of Information : the clay that composes the bricks, from which our reality is constructed. Eventually, the human mind interprets (consciousness) the coded information (matter) that our senses detect into the kind of decoded information that is meaningful for us (knowledge). For example, dots & dashes of Morse code are physical carriers of information that are meaningless, until interpreted. Information is in the code; the bricks are bits & bytes; Consciousness is the interpretation.

The process of converting being to knowing : 1. Information (potential) is the cause of change (difference). 2. Information (energy) is enformed into matter (bricks), 3. which are constructed into objects (house), 4. which can then be deconstructed into meaning (consciousness). Meaning is not the house itself, but the significance (what difference it makes) of the object to the observer. So what began as impersonal Information, eventually becomes transformed into personal value.

Now, that should be clear as Mississippi mud.

Synecdoche : a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... st/comment

Well, I suppose one could interpret that as a form of Metaphysical Will in nature. — 3017amen

Yes. In my thesis, I refer to the "force" or "intention" behind progressive evolution as EnFormAction, which is similar in effect to the various notions of World Will, proposed by philosophers, and of God's Will as proposed by theologians.

Unfortunately, it still leaves us with the all of the existential questions about the nature of such existence; the why's of higher consciousness, the metaphysical features of consciousness itself, so on and so forth..... — 3017amen

We may be getting closer to answering some of those existential puzzlers. But the answers will typically be in the form of metaphors based on our incomplete perceptions of reality. I'm currently reading cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman's book, The Case Against Reality. It proposes an evolutionary explanation for the emergence of Consciousness, and concludes that we perceive just enough of ultimate reality (symbolic objects) to negotiate the exigencies of the world (survival). That's because ultimate reality is more like Quantum than Classical physics, and would make survival decisions too complex & ambiguous for creatures with limited intelligence. [that's my brief summary of Hoffman's much deeper and broader analysis]

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... st/comment

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean panpsychism. It's also compatible with emergentism and even dualism in some way. I'm not sure if it even excludes any theory at all, so it doesn't mean much as an explanation. — Zelebg

I agree. That's why my thesis proposes a Programmer / Enformer / Creator outside of space-time. Panpsychism explains the intelligible order in the universe as an intrinsic (uncaused) property of space-time. But the actual First Cause of organization in the world must exist beyond the perceptual boundaries of space-time.

Einstein upset our intuitive understanding of space-time by saying that it is not absolute, but relative to the observer. Donald Hoffman refers to space-time as our "interface" (computer screen) between observer and ultimate reality : "we will find that the distinction we make . . . is an artifact of limitations of our space-time interface, not an insight into the nature of reality".

Donald Hoffman : The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... st/comment

There is no reason to call mental reality "ideality". English dictionary already suggests pretty meaningful distinction: actual/material/real vs virtual/mental/abstract. — Zelebg

I had my own reasons for coining the neologism "Ideality". Partly to serve as a contrast to the noun "Reality". And partly to make a distinction between belief in Realism versus Idealism. It also entails a distinction between Physics (actual/material/real) and Metaphysics (virtual/mental/abstract).

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... st/comment

But if you could sense every tiny vibration, or quality of each atom in every molecule, and see all of the electro-magnetic spectrum, then perhaps you would be staring into the pure chaos and things would only make less, not more sense. So limits are not necessarily a bad thing, they can help put things into a context or bring them under a certain perspective. — Zelebg

That's exactly why Evolution, according to Hoffman, has hid the "chaos" of ultimate reality from the eyes of humans with limited intelligence. That partial perception is sufficient for survival in an imperfect world, where fitness requires only enough "truth" to stay one step ahead of competitors.

Absolute "Truth" is concealed behind the curtain of intuitive classical Physics. Yet, highly-evolved humans have recently learned how to peek behind the curtain into the counter-intuitive realm of Quantum Physics. There, they are baffled by Virtual Particles and impossible Entanglements. But they continue doing science with the partial understanding of incomplete Standard Models..


This gives us confidence that reality is objectively real and indeed like what we think it is, as much as it matters to us at least. — Zelebg

Yes. In our human-scale macro world, we may be confident that reality is "like what we think it is". But Quantum Theory has revealed that the solid desk I perceive is "really" mostly open space, that our physical fingers would pass right through, if not repelled by strange forces in the space between protons and electrons. So, our pragmatic confidence is due to theoretical ignorance.



Richard Feynman : “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics"

Physicist Sean Carroll : "What’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have".

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p13

Thus the nature of subjective experience, aka qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg

In what sense can Qualia be physical? Is "redness" a force or a material object? That question is the crux of the mind-body debate. Physicalists try to define Qualia as-if they are real things apart from conscious minds. But that presumption is what makes the problem "hard".

Just as Minds are correlated with Brains, and Qualia with Objects, correlation does not prove causation. As Hume noted, even though not physically connected, proximity in space-time merely implies a connection for an intuitive cause-imputing mind. As you noted in the quote below, Qualia are relations between things, not things in themselves. As an abstract concept, the correlation "1 : 2" is meaningful even in the absence of physical objects. That's why Algebra works.

Qualia : The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

Correlation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder : "Beauty is no quality in things themselves : it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them ; and each mind perceives a different beauty."
___David Hume

It is important to note that being abstract or virtual does not mean immaterial per se, it only means it is not directly physical, but instead it exists in the relations between chunks of matter, like angle exist wherever two lines meet. — Zelebg

If abstract concepts in mind are material, what kind of matter are they made of : atoms of consciousness? In my thesis they are made of Information (i.e. mental relationships). I suppose you could call bits & bytes "atoms of information".

What does "not directly physical" mean? Is that a reference to Virtual Reality? If its existence is uncertain, in what sense is it real? In The Matrix, did Neo begin in the Real world, or in the Virtual simulated world? The bald kid answered that question, "there is no spoon". That's why Neo was able to dodge bullets : they were not real. [the movie is a metaphor of the Mind/Body problem ]

Virtual Particle : In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. [actually VP exhibit no characteristics (properties, qualities) until observed (measured).]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Virtual = simulation = imitation = illusion = deception

[Gnomon]

On the one hand, fields are real and modeled mathematically: — Mww

And on the other, fields are completely abstract and quantitatively incommensurable directly: — Mww

Yes. The intrinsic Either/Or aspect of our apparently dual "Reality" is what Einstein was talking about in his Theory of Relativity. What's real depends on who's looking. That's also why my personal worldview is based on a complementary Both/And perspective. For all practical purposes (science), what we perceive as concrete objects and physical effects is what is Real. But for theoretical purposes (philosophy), our perceptions of those objects are mental constructs. So discussions about Consciousness must make that distinction clear, or else, by reifying Consciousness, we run into the paradoxical "hard problem".

Like all mammals, the human species has evolved to trust their perceptions as reliable guides to survival in the "real" world. But, unlike other mammals, humans have also evolved a rational extension of perception (conception), which allows us to see aspects of the world that do not exist in space-time. For example, we can make survival decisions for now, based on past or future. We can build instruments to extend our natural perception into aspects of space-time that are otherwise invisible and intangible, hence unreal. We can create abstract concepts, such as Unicorns and Hobbits, and act as-if they are real.

Unfortunately, our cleverness leads us into seeing counter-intuitive and paradoxical "realities", such as quantum "wavicles". Thence, the question arises, "are they tangibly real, or merely useful ideas like mathematics?" For example, can we see or touch a magnetic field, or do we reify the field in order to explain otherwise inexplicable effects? Ancient people saw the effects of invisible Energy, and imagined invisible Spirits or Gods as the cause. Modern people see the effects of Magnetism on matter, and imagine a Force Field as the cause. Yet that field can be described, not in terms of material properties (redness, solidity, liquidity), but only of mathematical relationships (positive or negative).

The world that rational humans live in is both concrete (real) and abstract (ideal). Moreover, abstract ideas can have real effects, as in Memetics. So we have difficulty drawing a hard line between real & ideal. Which is why my worldview is BothAnd, until it's necessary to draw a distinction, as in theories of Consciousness.


Memetics : Memetics describes how an idea can propagate successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual. https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... q=memetics

BothAnd Principle : Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p15

But nevertheless, we can still differentiate two distinct categories of existence — Zelebg

So, what's the problem?. As far as I can tell, no one here is denying that humans have two ways of thinking about existence : sensory reality and mental ideality. Which category would you place Consciousness in : mental or physical --- or metaphysical?

unable to understand the difference between physical existence of actual electron in the outside world,virtual existence of simulated electron in a computer, and mental existence of imagined electron in the brain. — Zelebg

You equate "physical" and "actual", and I agree. But if a simulated electron is not physical & actual, what is it? Why do we call it "simulated"? If a "virtual" particle is not real, what is it? If an imaginary electron in a mind is not real, what is it? I call it "Ideal" : the idea of an electron. These are all conventional dictionary terms to describe those "distinct categories of existence".

Besides coinages for unconventional concepts (see Glossary), I do use some ordinary dictionary terms in personal ways to make a point about my personal worldview. For example, I use capitalized "Ideality" in the philosophical sense of "existence only in idea and not in reality", as the opposite of "Reality", as an allusion to the "Forms" of Platonic Idealism. Is that an example of "malfunctioning logic"? I also adopted a common philosophical term related to Aristotle's book on ideas that were not discussed under the heading of "physics" for my personal worldview. Would you place Consciousness in the category of Physics or Metaphysics?

Metaphysics --- Latin: Metaphysica, lit: "the beyond the physical". Is that hard for you to understand?

Perhaps if you will answer your own question [ "My question then, again, is whether mental existence of imagined electron is like physical existence of real electron or like virtual existence of simulated electron" ] in your own highlighted terms, we can compare terminologies to discover the cause of our failure to communicate. I'm hoping it's not due to immature robotics or a "malfunctioning logic and semantic unit". :joke:


Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html