From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science Worship was Re: Science and significance
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:51:17 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov23.141510.6455@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92) writes:
>Aren't these cascading attributions always as entertaining?
>
>>     = hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Sven)
>>>    = MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
>>>>   = epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (Eric Powers)
>>>>>  = MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
>>>>>> = epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (Eric Powers)
>
>>>>	You are correct!  Physics is not conscious.  But if physics  
>>>> gives rise to consciousness, then consciousness must follow the laws of  
>>>> physics. Another way of saying it is that consciousness is physics  
>>>> operating under a particular set of conditions.
>> 
>> While this is true, it is not relevant. Physics is a science that deals
>> with simple systems. Its laws are stated in such a way that they are 
>> useful for explaining and predicting the behavior of such systems. They 
>> are not practically useful for description of complex systems (try to
>> understand a computer entirely through electron motion) and they are 
>> probably useless for highly complex systems like living organisms and
>> conciousness.
>
>      I hope you're not trying to imply that we should throw out physics
>and simply state that consciousness follows some other set of laws -
>unless, of course, these other laws would simply be a subset of physics.

Look, man, I am a physicist, but physics <> physical world. Physics is 
science, i.e. a human artefact that explains nature and predicts its behavior.
Specifically, physics is such a science that is suitable for dealing with
the most fundamental natural phenomena. And while it must be possible in prin-
ciple to derive the description of higher-complexity phenomena from the laws
that describe the more basic phenomena, the new set of laws usually doesn't
look much like the basic laws used to derive it.

Here is an example entirely from physics:

Try to describe the motion of a macroscopic object by solving the system
of Schroedinger equations. No way... You have to use the macroscopic
approximation, i.e. classical mechanics, which can be derived from quantum
mechanics, but doesn't look much like it.

This is an illustration of the dialectic principle of transformation of
quantity to quality. It is often ridiculed in the West (and now, I suppose,
also in the East) because Engels formulated it in a superficial way, and 
because it was Engels who did it. But I recommend some independent study of
it - most people should be able to do better than Engels.

>
>>>      True. The problem we seem to have here is, is free will also
>>> physics? Do these conditions under which our neurons operate allow us to
>>> construct any kind of thought, regardless of whether it has anything to
>>> do with the "real" world - such as, "two plus two makes five"? I think
>>> so, because I can't see physical laws as conscious enough to weed out
>>> some thoughts and not others.
>> 
>> I find your definition of 'free will' (if this example is supposed to
>> illustrate it) very unusual.
>
>      Actually, it wasn't supposed to illustrate it - but I am surprised
>that you are surprised. How do you define free will?

I'd say it has to do with actions rather than thoughts.

>> 
>> It is doubtful if uncertainty has any significance in the thought process.
>> The basic objects might be on a scale large enough that U. effect is
>> negligible. (Just to add a little healthy scepticism.)
>
>      Agreed, even though synapse firing could be said to happen on the
>molecule level - added over a few billion (or so) synapses, maybe we
>could get an effect?

It should be obvious from my words that I don't pretend to have an answer.

>> 
>> This particular interpretation of science is plagued with consistency
>> problems. I prefer (for the reason that they work better) those interpreta-
>> tions that avoid dealing with 'absolute truth' altogether.
>
>      As you can see, we agree completely.

Absolutely.  :-)


	Sven
Newsgroups: alt.atheism