TPF : Science Mechanistic

[Gnomon]

What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/ ... 473/gnomon

What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? — Restitutor


Computer information processing is simply a mechanical procedure --- one thing after another --- as envisioned by Shannon. And some people still expect those assembly-line mechanisms to soon become Conscious, emulating human Sentience, as the data through-put increases. Yet "computing" is easy compared to "knowing".

For example, the brain stores data, not as localized physical registers, but distributed & interrelated as non-local pattern. Similarly, the human Self-image (Me) is not a physical pattern of dots, but a meta-physical design of meaningful relationships. So, the "Fundamental" difference, is an Integrated System versus a linear procedure.

Therefore, it's plausible that, as AI becomes more internally integrated and self-referenced (feedback), it might become Conscious, in some artificial or alien sense. But, I suspect that a novel manner of manipulating Information may be necessary.

PS___ This is just a riff on your insightful question, not an authoritative answer to the riddle of the "hard question".

[Gnomon]

Your thinking is rather last decade. The systems that run modern AIs use many interconnected processors operating in parallel, and a complex ballet of distributed processing is a more accurate metaphor than an assembly line. Furthermore,neuromorphic hardware that will massively increase the degree of parallelism while also dramatically dropping the power consumption is around the corner. — wonderer1

Again, your aspersion has missed the point of the original question : What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?

Parallel processing --- multiple assembly lines --- increases Mechanical through-put, but has nothing to do with Consciousness, or Philosophy. Neuromorphic hardware is an attempt to mechanically mimic the structure of the human brain. But the salient Function of the brain, for its owner, is not fast thinking, but the creation of Awareness & Self-Consciousness. In this 20th decade of the 20th century, can you point to a working example of Machine Consciousness? As I said before : "computing" is easy compared to "knowing".


Neuromorphic Machine Consciousness :
These questions are rooted in what is called machine consciousness. How do we create consciousness when we don't understand it or its objective in humans?
https://www.servomagazine.com/magazine/ ... c-machines


ChatGPT: Has a chatbot finally achieved self-awareness? :
So, ChatGPT knows that it has an internal state which reflects the memory of what has been said so far. But it still vehemently insists on not having feelings or consciousness.
https://lamarr-institute.org/blog/chatg ... awareness/

[Gnomon]

The fact that quantum physics appears to undermine the concept of objectivity was part of the major news out of the Solvay Conference in 1927. Why was Albert Einstein compelled to ask the question 'doesn't the moon continue to exist if we're not observing it?' The later Bohr-Einstein debates were mainly about this. Hey, don't take it from me, here it is from John Wheeler: — Wayfarer

As usual, the implicit debate within the dialog is between the utility of Practical Realistic Physicists (Feynman) versus the futility of Philosophical Idealistic Physicists (Wheeler, Heisenberg). The former produce tangible results --- television, computers, cell phones, and nuclear weapons --- while the latter postulate abstract concepts --- words, ideas, principles, etc.

So, we're talking past each other, about apples vs appleness ; specifications vs generalities ; objectivity vs subjectivity ; matter vs mind. But, why are we talking about Apples & Bombs on a philosophy forum? You can't eat "appleness", so what good is it? Apparently, for some of us, a full belly is better than a satisfied mind. Why don't the fruitful utilitarian belly-fillers just go away and leave us fruitless futilitarian mind-fillers alone?


What is the difference between a philosopher and a physicist?
Physics is concerned with unravelling the complexities of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale. Philosophy deals with foundational questions of the most general kind: what there is, what we know and how we came to know it, and how we ought to act and structure our lives.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergr ... philosophy

↪180 Proof

[Gnomon]

Not being as such, but of the objects of experience. Questions about what objectively exists are different to questions about the nature of existence, which are much broader in scope. — Wayfarer
You are confusing what you would like to be for what is. — Restitutor

Pardon the intrusion, but ↪Wayfarer could reflect that accusation right back at you. You seem to be confusing what you believe with "what is". Yet, your science-based worldview {insert label here} is what you are convinced exists, not by personal perception, but based on hearsay from those who see by proxy for you, perhaps via artificial technology instead of natural perception. Is that an accurate assessment?

But Way is talking about what we know via our innate human Reasoning*1. For example, Quantum Physics includes subatomic Quarks in its list of "what exists" in Nature. But no one has ever seen a quark*2. So, when you say, "if it looks like a Quark, and quacks like a Quark, it must be a Quark", you are stating a belief or opinion, not an objective observation. In other words, if the indirect evidence fits our abstract definition of a Quark, it must be the thing named. That's the Nominal Fallacy.

Do you believe in Mathematics? Is it natural? Is it mechanistic? Are imaginary numbers Real? In what sense does Math exist? Have you ever seen an example with your eyes? How do you know that (2 + 2 always = 4)? By direct observation, or because a teacher told you so, or because you have done the math often enough to infer . . . not that the equation exists physically, but that it is True philosophically? What are the philosophical consequences of mechanistic mathematics with infinities between the inputs & outputs? Just kidding. Don't burn out your brain computing a mechanical answer.


*1. Nature of Existence :
Existence is comprised of space, time, and consciousness. These characteristics manifest in the perceptible forms of capability, activity, and awareness, respectively.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... rid=117288
Note --- Space is inferred from observing Matter, and Time is inferred by observing Change. Is Consciousness perceptible or conceptible? Is Awareness a directly knowable physical feature of Nature, or a meta-physical aspect known only via Rational Inference? If Apprehension of meaning is known via perception, what does it look like? How do you know?

*2. How Do We Know Quarks Exist If They Have Never Been Directly Detected?
It comes down to indirect effects — how quarks influence their surroundings.
http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/ ... y-detected
Note --- Reasoning from "indirect effects" to Existence is also how we know Energy exists, even though no one has ever seen, touched, or tasted Energy. For example, a Photon goes from invisible Potential to visible Effects so fast that we never see the particle itself. So, the existence of Energy is not objective, but subjective : known by logical inference, not by observation.

*3. What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?
Werner Heisenberg, among others, interpreted the mathematics to mean that reality doesn’t exist until observed. “The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible,” he wrote. . . . But quantum theory is entirely unclear about what constitutes a “measurement.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... t-reality/
Note --- A measurement must be perceptible in some sense. Quantum measurements are inferred indirectly via mathematical analysis of abstract scattering patterns. {see image below}
What is the "nature" of Quark existence? Is it Real or Ideal? How do you know?

CAN YOU SEE THE QUARK IN THIS PICTURE?
Atom%20smashing.webp

[Gnomon]

I can add that once brain state is identified as the physical form of information then a mechanistic theory works for me and the loose ends have been taken care of. — Mark Nyquist

The inter-action of neurons may well be mechanistic, but the general brain "state" is a snapshot (static) pattern or relationship, which requires a sentient observer to "see". For example, a political "state" is not a physical object or collection of objects, but the collective opinion of those who identify with that particular polity. In mathematical Statistics, a particular "state" is a datum, that in itself has no value, but only in relation to other states or data. Hence, "data" is relevant to "information" & meaning.

[Gnomon]

You've seen the range of information definitions that show up here. Two that seem to be scientific but are not are Shannon information and what physicists call physical information. Both of these reduce to abstract concepts that must be supported by brain state. — Mark Nyquist
So, do you think in the absence of any mind that basic logical principles such as the law of the excluded middle would not hold? My view would be that the law of the excluded middle and other such simple principles are discovered by rational sentient beings who have the wits to discern them. That such principles are discerned by intelligence, not 'supported by brain state'. The unique thing about them is that they're independent of any particular mind, but only discernable to reason. That is what gives them the status as foundational to rational thought (nous). — Wayfarer


I may be opening a new can of /worms/ neurons here. But, I wonder if AI mechanisms --- emulating brain states --- can reason*1 (infer novel ideas), or do they just compute (add & subtract via parallel processing)? Some people seem to assume that self-programming computers (non-biological machines) are reasoning*2. Does reasoning require some non-mechanical non-linear (1+1+1+ ~ +1 = X) feature, in order to discover X the unknown?*3

For example, Quantum physics has determined that the matter a machine is made of is fundamentally non-deterministic*4. Do the non-local & indeterminate properties of sub-atomic matter provide lower-level-loopholes to allow our biological machines (brains) to make unpredictable-illogical-paradoxical quantum leaps of reasoning? Does Rational Inference require some emotional commitment?*5

Does the human brain have some non-mechanical feature/quality (e.g. Holism ; multi-level integration of sub-systems) that overcomes the physical limitations of a deterministic mechanical system? Does that freedom from material & linear-logical bondage allow the feedback loops that we call "Consciousness"? Not sayin', just askin'. Hmmm.

*1. To Reason vs To Compute :
Reason and calculate are semantically related. In some cases you can use "Reason" instead a verb "Calculate".
Calculate verb - To decide the size, amount, number, or distance of (something) without actual measurement.
Reason verb - To form an opinion or reach a conclusion through reasoning and information.
https://thesaurus.plus/related/calculate/reason

*2. Reasoning in AI :
In fact, for centuries, it was the ability to reason that set humans apart from other animals and machines. But now, with the reasoning in AI, that distinction has been breached.
https://emeritus.org/in/learn/what-is-reasoning-in-ai/

*3. What Artificial Intelligence Still Can’t Do :
1) Use “common sense.”
2) Learn continuously and adapt on the fly.
3) Understand cause and effect.
4) Reason ethically.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkoc ... 14bc541186

*4. Why is quantum physics not deterministic? :
Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic because it has to incorporate two incompatible properties into one whole.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-quantum-ph ... erministic

*5. Emotions as Inferences :
This chapter reviews emotions as inferences. The process of understanding principles is tractable, whereas the work of following them is not. It also suggests a solution as to why emotions are puzzling. In addition, it illustrates how emotions and reasoning influence one another
https://academic.oup.com/book/11984/cha ... m=fulltext

[Gnomon]

↪180 Proof
I seem to remember that Nietszche had quite a lot to say about nihilism, which he ascribed to the dominance of scientific rationalism and the empty promisses of enlightenment rationalism among other things. And nihilism is precisely the sense of there being no purpose, no meaning, no raison d'etre. And then the New Left also had something to say about the instrumentalisation of reason - that reason, instead of being understood as a kind of animating principle or logos, was now simply means to ends, the discovery of effective causality, the prerogative of individual subjects, and so on. And on a popular level, the upsurge of mindless entertainment, drug addiction and many other social ills can be ascribed in part to the absence of a sense of purpose. — Wayfarer

Other than Zarathustra, I'm not familiar with Nietzsche's opinions on Reason & Purpose. But one definition of Nihilism may shed some light*1. It seems to equate the emotional "emptiness" of an apathetic-materialistic-mechanistic worldview with a lack of values*1 (Ethics ; Axiology). Yet, maybe our post-enlightenment pragmatic values are appropriately Instrumental (means), and only lack the feeling of idealistic Intrinsic values (ultimate ends). Can't we have both Kirk's Feeling and Spock's Reasoning?

Your response to ↪180 Proof's challenge to define "purpose" is spot-on ; but then he may not share your philosophical purposes/values. The pre-enlightenment epitome of "Good" was God. So, what ultimate value could fill that role today? Perhaps you can address the question of "higher" values/purposes, in the context of a modern materialistic-mechanistic worldview.


*1. Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
Note --- I'm guessing that he was rejecting only "higher" values, not base values.

*2. Value Theory :
Traditionally, philosophical investigations in value theory have sought to understand the concept of "the good". . . . . It is useful to distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory

*3. Nihilism :
It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism’s impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety, anger, and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It’s helpful to note, then, that he believed we could – at a terrible price – eventually work through nihilism. If we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind.
https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
Note --- Apparently, the post-modern reaction merely meekly accepted the meandering uncharted course resulting from the rejection of Imperial Religion. Could there be a new star to steer by, that avoids the extremes of divine Theocracy and despotic Autocracy? Ironically, Tr*mpism may combine the worst of both paths.

[Gnomon]

It seems to me like the most common scientific response to largely philosophical claims about the essential and apparent meaningless and purposelessness of "the world" has been to shrug, say "well that's just philosophy," and to go right on assuming purpose exists in theories. — Count Timothy von Icarus

↪180 Proof "corrected" ↪Wayfarer's observation that "much of modern thought" is Nihilistic*1. But I think he missed the point. Way didn't say that "modern science" is nihilistic, but "modern thought". Which I'm guessing is a reference to academic Philosophy, or the philosophy of science, or more generally Post-Modern philosophy*2 --- not a denigration of pragmatic Science per se. Maybe Way will clarify his referent, but I doubt he was concerned about the lack of ethical values in practical scientific endeavors.

Like you, I have seen multiple uses of the term "Purpose" in scientific papers. But they are usually referring to the apparent objectives of local organs or organisms, not the universal purpose of a divine creator*3. However, it seems strange that scientists infer purposeful behavior in creatures, but don't attempt to trace that teleological trail back to its original impulse. Perhaps, due to professional concern about the controversial implications of what they might find.

When astronomers tracked cosmic cause & effect back to a point-of-origin, they found evidence for an (ex nihilo???) "creation" event --- which could be interpreted in terms of one's religious myths. But such circumstantial evidence could also be interpreted in terms of non-religious philosophical concepts, such as a logically necessary First Cause or Prime Mover --- or even a Multiverse. Unfortunately, such abstract hypothetical concepts, in themselves, can't provide much motivation for personal Purpose, to find the best way to live in an "apparently" mechanical world.

But if we interpret the obvious step-by-step progression of evolution as-if it's something like a computer program, at least we may be able to infer, hypothetically, where Nature came from and where it's going. Moreover, since we have learned that the foundations of physics are not rigidly determinate or mechanical*4, we may see a role for human Will --- guided by philosophical principles --- in reaching our own little goals.



*1. Quote from post in this thread :
Okay, clearer, though this observation concerns modern science and not, as you have said, "much of modern thought", and does not entail "nihilism" either (pace Nietzsche; vide Spinoza & vide Peirce). Apparently, you prefer pre-modern science ..

*2. Does postmodernism entail nihilism? :
Postmodernism is the stance that meaning isn't universal and outside ourselves. Nihilism is the stance that meaning is essentially a fiction.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... l-nihilism

*3. Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer :
Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/

*4. Quantum Non-Mechanics :
The Quantum Universe in which we live, whether we want to accept it or not, may seem on the surface to be mechanical and linear but it is not.
https://larrygmaguire.medium.com/quantu ... 0357a2a47b

[Gnomon]

As do I. So why my posts provoke such a never-ending stream of vituperation from you is not at all clear to me, but it is exceedingly tiresome, and the least productive and useful aspect of my participation here, so you will forgive me if in future I fail to response to your needless provocations. — Wayfarer


↪180 Proof seems to envision his role on this forum as a Socratic gad-fly pecking & poking the transcendent pretensions of quixotic philosophy. But in practice, he sounds more like Poe's rapping-tapping raven, constantly croaking "nevermore", and preaching "despair" for those who wish to distinguish idealistic Philosophy from pragmatic Science. You'll do well to not open the door.

PS___But sometimes it's hard to resist responding to some blood-dripping tid-bit of provocation. That may be because he so craftily encapsulates the essence of shadowy Scientism into open-ended leading questions.

[Gnomon]

IMO though, the success of neo-mechanism has plenty to do with the philosophical, religious, and social context of the late-19th and early 20th century. It didn't just support a new way of looking at the sciences, but an entire "world view," on a level with the religion its advocates were self-consciously attempting to supplant. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The classical mechanistic model of physics was formulated by Newton*1, but I wasn't familiar with the Neo-Mechanistic Model (NMM)*2. My understanding is that Newton's deterministic mechanics was called into question by the indeterminism of Quantum physics. Yet, for most practical scientific purposes, classical physics is still applicable, on the macro scale. But, what about the cosmic scale?

For speculative philosophical purposes, Newton's notion of a divinely-designed Cosmic Mechanism was forced to adapt to the new reality of a non-mechanical foundation. Fundamentally, the world mechanism seems to have some degree of freedom to evolve in unpredictable directions. Some might interpret that uncertainty to directionless randomness, while others will see it as providing opportunities for progression in complexity, and perhaps for freewill choices.

A quick google makes NMM sound like the doctrine of Scientism*3 : the world is a physical mechanism grinding on interminably, without original impulse or final output. Hence no direction or reason. And especially, no creation event or transcendent origin. So, I'm guessing that NMM is more of a reactionary*4 worldview than a scientific model. It retains Newton's Laws, but omits G*D's Laws. Does that inference sound correct to you?

As you suggested, Scientism seems to provide some of the essential functions of a religious worldview*5 --- except of course, the emotional values that stem from belief in a prescient guiding hand behind the vagaries of nature. Perhaps the universal extent & power of physical Nature is close enough for pragmatic purposes*6. In the Age of Spiritual Machines*7, I suppose online forums may serve the communal purpose of a church.



*1. Classical mechanics :
The "classical" in "classical mechanics" does not refer to classical antiquity, . . . Instead, the qualifier distinguishes classical mechanics from physics developed after the revolutions of the early 20th century, which revealed limitations of classical mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics

*2. The Neo-Mechanistic Model :
They seek to explain how something works and not make claims about the ultimate reality of things.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/81693

*3. Doctrine of Scientism :
"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Note --- For philosophical (cultural science) purposes, personal perspectives are inherent, since their objects are entirely subjective. And their focus is primarily on psychological "experience". Which is obviously "natural", but clearly not empirical.

*4. Reactionary : return to status quo

*5. What is the philosophical definition of religion?
Religion attempts to offer a view of all of life and the universe and to offer answers to most , if not all, of the most basic and important questions which occur to humans all over the planet. The answers offered by Religion are not often subject to the careful scrutiny of reason and logic.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences ... ligion.htm
Note --- Even philosophical Reason is suspect for those opposed to traditional religions. In its place we substitute documented Observation. Ironically, for some of us secular Philosophy provides universal answers without the necessity for a formal Creed or Authorized Bible. Adherents of Scientism seem to assume that there is, somewhere out there, an official document of scientific Truth --- but I haven't seem it.

*6. Scientism :
Mathematician Alexander Grothendieck, in his 1971 essay "The New Universal Church", characterized scientism as a religion-like ideology that advocates scientific reductionism, scientific authoritarianism, political technocracy and technological salvation, while denying the epistemological validity of feelings and experiences such as love, emotion, beauty and fulfillment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

*7. The Age of Spiritual Machines is the ultimate guide on our road into the next century.
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Spiritual-Ma ... 0140282025

PS___ Perhaps the primary advantage of Scientism is that, in theory, it provides hard (empirical) evidence to disprove aspects (beliefs) of traditional religions that one does not agree with. But, in practice we still seem to have never-ending philosophical dialogs & disputes about those age-old non-empirical open-questions.