From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Science Worship was Re: Science and significance
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:15:10 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

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.

>>      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?

(snip)
>>> two humans have contradictory thoughts.  Obviously, the physical  
>>> circumstances between the two are not the same,
> 
> For one thing, they do not share the same spatial coordinates. And so on.
> What you say is trivially obvious.

      In other words, physics merely constitute our thought processes,
they do not limit our thoughts - do we agree?

>>>                                             or physics would have  
>>> given rise to the same thought in both.  Probably some protein is  
>>> screwed up in one of their brains due to genetic mutation, and has  
>>> caused this untrue thought that 2+2= 5, or that God exists, or  
>>> whatever.
>>
>>      Yet again, our brains are physical entities operating under
>> physical laws (to some extent Quantum Mechanics and its Uncertainty, but
>> never mind that for a while);
> 
> 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?

>> but why should these laws restrict us to
>> constructing only logically correct thoughts? How are the laws of
>> physics to see the difference?
> 
> I agree with you - logic doesn't seem to be a consequence of any laws of
> physics (even when this sentence is modified to be meaningful :-).

      Ah, but I think that's what mr. Powers was getting at all the
time, before he disappeared from the network - if logic isn't physical,
what is it? Myself, I'm having trouble with that one.

>>>	I know which thought is true, and therefore whose brain is  
>>> messed up.  However, they don't!
>>
>>      Well, *I* know what 2+2 *really* makes.
> 
> I'd say you abused the words 'know' and 'really'. "2+2=4" is a theorem 
> based on a few axioms. Nothing particularly 'real' until connected with
> real world in our mind.

      Maybe I should've included a smiley. My knowledge of the result of
2+2 is based on, if nothing else, empirical testing; my brain may be
'messed up', as mr. Powers put it, but that doesn't change 2+2=4.

>>  Doesn't stop me from
>> *thinking* otherwise, if that pleases me, though.

(chop-chop)
>>>> Don't forget relativity here, my good Watson! One statement may be
>>>> better at describing the phenomenon we are observing than is the  
>>>> other statement; but in and of themselves, they are both merely  
>>>> statements.
> 
> I don't see what this has to do with relativity.

      Well, the statement I referred to (and just deleted) concerned
absolute truth; nobody was talking of einsteinian relativity.

>>>	I'm sorry, I lost you here.  Science assumes that one  
>>> statement will be closer to the (yes, absolute) truth than the other,  
>>> if they are not both completely wrong.
> 
> 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.

>>>  I'm not sure what you mean by  
>>> "they are both merely statements."  Do you mean they are ultimately  
>>> valueless?
>>
>>      What I was trying to do was to separate the truth from the
>> statement, so to speak. As you've noticed, I'm going down the premise
>> that I can make any statement I wish to make, regardless of its
>> correctness - a rather easily provable premise, so I find it good.
> 
> Depends on how you define "any statement". I'd say your tacit definition
> is "any combination of terms from a given set". But a more difficult
> question (to which I have no answer) is "Can you invent any term you wish?"

      Well, I can't prove it, but I think so - mainly because I have yet
to find myself incapable of inventing any such thing. Not smart enough
at times, maybe, but never inherently incapable.

>> Therefore, a statement on its own is worthless, and doesn't necessarily
>> say anything about the external world whatsoever. 
>>      They CAN be of value, though - in some situations, if they have
>> some correlation to the "real" world. One can hold that "E=mc2" is
>> fairly "true" without being too far off the mark - but you can thank
>> Einstein for that amount of "truth", not the statement itself.
> 
> I assume what you want to say is that a statement is true (or not) only
> within a certain system of statements.

      If you're referring to some kind of relativity of truth, then
you're probably completely correct. I was speaking of the *value* of a
statement - in itself, I don't think it has any.

>>>>> One premise of science invalidates the other.
> 
> This cannot be true at a given one time.

      Powers seems to think so - if I could only prove him wrong, but
this kind of philosophy of science isn't really my home ground.

(snip)
>>>	I would agree.  I have yet to see any belief system so far  
>>> out that it does not contain at least one truth.
> 
> How about this: "I am God, and I created everything else at my will", and
> every other statement in the system has to be consistent with this. Or 
> another one: "I exist, but you don't" etc.

-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-
           ..`Opinions'? What's that, mom - some new kind of dessert?
"Every day for us, something new / Open mind for a different view /
 And nothing else matters..."       -----       Metallica