The Einstein Pool, a science fiction novel by Jake Danger
Bear with me for a paragraph or two while I explain a philosophical concept with very immediate relevance to all of us:
Imagine a universe parallel to this one. Exactly the same down to the last molecule, the last event, the last quark. In this universe, at this very moment, there's a parallel Todd Gnarly writing a parallel blog entry. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between the two universes. Except one. Parallel Todd (and all the other parallel people) has no subjective consciousness - he's a zombie. Zombie Todd perfectly mimics my actions and can carry on a conversation just as I can. But there's nothing inside - no subjective experience. He has no more subjective consciousness than an image in a mirror does.
Scientifically speaking, what is the difference between this parallel universe full of zombies and the universe we actually live in? The only answer can be - none whatsoever. No technique that has ever been devised (or could ever be devised) by science could ever tell the difference between the two. It is this Zombie Universe that science describes, not the real universe we live in. Subjective experience is the ghost in the machine, the reality that objectivity-based science ignores because it lacks the tools to investigate it. In a word, the scientific materialists who insist that physicality = existence are confusing the map with the terrain. That is precisely why scientific materialism can never be a complete explanation of the phenomenon of existence - it explains everything except...everything.
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel
9 comments:
Dear Todd,Subjectivity is possible under a materialist thinking, even when describing an organism's reaction to a stimulus.Easy because different organisms react differently to the same stimulus even when from the same species or family. That can be put down to the training or learning of the organism which is a subjective experience about an objective reality.Now what you are implying is a discussion of the mind, which is supposed be immaterial. You are taking a Cartesian dualism approach to what has already been explained by material monism. That is that the mind is part of the body, not seperate.Our thoughts and behaviours are products of our biology and experience. No two living things have exact same DNA or life experience, therefore, even though they share a conceptually objective world, they always experience it subjectively.Peace Out,Anarchius SurreptiousPsychology Student
I find it impossible to imagine a world where non-subjective entities do anything of their own volition. An inanimate object will stay at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Animate objects, or entities, have similar inertial limitations but they also have internal forces triggered by internal systems including sensory systems. So zombie Jake is not going to write Zombie Einstein Pool unless by accident, external manipulation or internal motivation. (Even external motivation would require accidental causes or external motivation.) Without subjectivity there is no internal motivation.
Consciousness may just be external and internal stimuli causing signals to bounce around the nervous system, forming patterns, making and triggering memories, making valuations, considering intentions, predicting possible reactions and outcomes, everything continually re-evaluating through feedback loops... even if we can't understand the specific how's and why's. But we can understand that an entity that lacks subjectivity lacks motive. And an universe of entities that lacks motive would not resemble our own universe.
That's an interesting thought. The objection you usually here is based on the idea that self-reflection = consciousness, which is confusing consciousness with knowledge of consciousness, and which is obviously false unless babies and animals are not conscious.
My initial reaction is to accuse you of confusing volition with consciousness (couldn't a computer program, for example, be programmed with a will to survive without becoming conscious?). Then again, I'll have to do some serious thinking on this, because I suspect that the rabbit hole you brought up runs pretty deep...
If the universe is exactly the same AND scientific materialism is correct, then it would be impossible for their to exist an identical universe where there are zombies. In order for your argument to make sense you have to first presume materialism is incorrect and conciousness does not arise from physical or bio-chemical processes. You're essentially begging the question here.
Hmm....my first impression of your comment was the it's your argument that's circular, not mine. I wonder if they're both circular. Anyway, I'm arguing that these two universes cannot be the same unless we're all zombies. Anyway, to boil down my argument:
(1) The universe contains subjective experience (we subjectively experience our lives, a fact that requires to evidentiary support because it is obvious.
(2) Due to its very nature, science describes only the objective features of the universe.
(3) Therefore, no scientific description could possibly provide a complete explanation of the universe,
(4) Therefore, materialism is incomplete.
(5) Therefore, dualism.
The idea that subjective consciousness arises from chemical processes strikes me as ad hoc...
Part 1
Even a thermostat has a very limited kind of consciousness. It acquires sensory information from its environment and responds to it. It's obviously far-removed from the complexity of mammalian consciousness. As with most arguments if we don't agree on what consciousness is then we're just blathering.
"Anyway, I'm arguing that these two universes cannot be the same unless we're all zombies."
If they were the same they would be the same and we would be the same. If they were not the same then they we not be the same and we could be different (not zombies). That's kind of a tautology. How well you support the premises that the two universes are the same is where the work needs to be done. Your argument is valid but not sound as your premises are not self-evident nor adequately supported.
Subjective experience requires objective phenomenon. That's a pretty bold and broad claim on my part. If you can offer a counter-example wherein subjective experience could occur with
no current or previous history of objective phenomena I would be interested in considering it.
This universe does contain subjective experience. Does the zombie universe? Do the zombies have subjective experience? Or is all subjectivity experienced by a remote entity? If we, in our universe, are not experiencing things subjectively and locally there is a strong illusion to the contrary; An illusion that requires but lacks a supportable explanation.
" Due to its very nature, science describes only the objective features of the universe."
Science does objectively observe, measure and report on subjective experience. It's not infallible but it is science.
"(2) Due to its very nature, science describes only the objective features of the universe.
"
And yet technology (a product of scientific knowledge and processes) can alter subjective experience with pain medication and recreational drugs (to name just two general examples).
"(3) Therefore, no scientific description could possibly provide a complete explanation of the universe,"
No. There is a barrier to understanding subjective experience solely through objective observation. Even if we have a complete description of the objective phenomena that coalesce into a subjective experience, that description lacks the explanation of what that experience is like. Describing the complete neurological collection of stimuli cannot convey the subjective aspects (what it feels like) unless the entity reviewing the description has had similar experiences and understands the mapping between the objective descriptions and the subjective experiences. These descriptions are a language we're still learning. The poor accuracy of observational equipment and the complexity of brain function only serve to widen the gap between an observer who has actually had a similar experience being able to look at such a description and saying "I know what that feels like." But back to the point, the problem is not that subjective experience is independent of objective phenomena. The problem is that objective information cannot directly describe what something feels like. Even in language, if I try to describe a painful experience you can only empathize based on subjective experiences of your own.
Part 2
Therefore, materialism is not necessarily incomplete.
Even if it were dualism would still be an assumption. One that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
"The idea that subjective consciousness arises from chemical processes strikes me as ad hoc..."
Not even a little bit. First of all there is a strong correlation between chemical and electrochemical processes in the body and subjective consciousness. If you have any doubts try Ecstasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Effects
Or better yet give examples of subjective experience occurring in the absence of chemical processes. You may be tempted to cite "brain-dead" near death experiences. But I will point out that low level function of brains in oxygen deprived environments are likely generate and misinterpret information. The actual "deadness" of the brain will pretty much always be in question given that the people monitoring the dying person are usually more distracted by life saving techniques than by verify absolute secession of brain activity. And the brain of a person that is "coming back from the dead" is also going to be operating in a compromised state. It's also worth pointing out that "afterlife" scenarios described by survivors tend to be heavily influenced by their culture. Anyway, subjective experience without chemical processes... go with that.
Dear Janke Danger:
Your pretzel logic convinces me of something (drum roll please):
You, sir, are a p-zombie.
I'm sure that you're not aware that you're not aware, which only serves to prove that you're not aware. As far as I'm aware, anyway...
Post a Comment