The watch analogy

[Surya Deva]

Namaste Mitchell(The divine within me greets the divine within you)

We will not get very far with adhominem fallacies in this discussion. You accuse me of being a religious idelogue who is trying to find the spirit of my religion in science(QM specifically) by distorting and misrepresenting science to my ends. I can similarly accuse you of being a religious ideologue who is attemting to fend away the discoveries of QM because they oppose your religious views of an external, personal creator god creating a mechanical and ordered universe for us and to be a part of us. It is clear your religious views hinge on a realist paradigm and thus anything which contradicts that is undesiable to your religious views. I am not saying that this really is the case, but certainly this accusation can be made. So we can spend the rest of this discussion accusing each other of motives and get nowhere, or we can have a friendly, fruitful and polite discussion on the respective arguments we are making. Which do you prefer?

Science has developed an amazing methodology for getting at the truth about some things that amounts to an extension of sight to see the world with the eyes of reason beyond the limits of our senses, so that we have this unprecedented ability to discover new and unexpected things about the world. Furthermore it is a methodology that acheives a consensus like nothing else. Now I will argue against the premise of the naturalists that this is the limit of reality and rationality, but it is clear that other endeavors like philosophy and theology certainly do not have any means of achieving any consensus.

I agree that science is the most reliable and valid method we have to getting actual knowledge about reality. I am a great supporter of science, and my peers know me to be hardcore scientific in my mindset. However, your claim that science is rational and uses reasoning is problematic. I know science is empirical and it is all about measuring facts in nature and then explaining them using the hypothetic-deductive method. However, hypothesis is not rational for it depends on an ad-hoc conjecture(a criticism made by Karl Popper as well) In science one develops a theory of how things are working, and then attempts to explain things as per that theory. The facts that are observable are uncontestable, but theories are contestable. The history of science is a history of theories coming and going - what is known as falsificationism. So I object that science is rational, for if it was, its theories would not be open to falsification. There is an element of pure conjecture in science which is neither rational or empirical. This is why, despite your insistance there is consensus in science, there is in fact no consensus but competing theories(how many interpretatations exist of QM?) which rise and fall in popularity.

The method of science I accept is the pramana method of epistemology in Hindu science because it is not based on hypothesis, but on perception and inference. All objects are known to us first through perception only. Through perception we can investigate the properties of an object. Then whence we know the properties of that object, we can draw inferences of objects unseen or unknown. There are three types of reasoning identified: a priori, posterior and anaological. I will give general examples here of everyday reasoning: A priori reasoning: when I observe that after tasting one part of a glass of water and tasting salt, I infer that the rest of the water is salty. Posterior is when I observe that there is smoke billowing from a house, I infer that there is a fire. Anaological is when I observe that the sun is setting in one place, and simultaneously another is observing it rising, I conclude the unknown Earth is spherical or when I observe that a magnet when bought near a needle causes the needle to be attracted, I infer that there is an known force causing the needle to attract(Sanskrit: adrishya) or when I observe that an arrow sails forward and falls, I infer that gravity causes the object to fall because the initial cause should cause the arrow to sail forward forever at constant velocity, but because it falls, it entails that a force is acting down on it due to which it loses its momentum energy.

These are all arguments that were made in Hindu science in order to establish these conclusions using purely inference or rational methods. It begins with a simple observation, and the rest is all pure reasoning. This method was then used to derive many conclusions: the existence of atoms, mind, soul, unmanifest matter, reincarnation, evolution and involution. I accept these conclusions because they are based on valid scientific reasoning . Thus I reject the dogma that scientific methods cannot be used to establish religious conclusions. We can look at these arguments if you want. I am merely mentioning this simply to show why I accept that religion can also be scientific through and through.

If you want to call that Cartesian dogma despite the complete inaccuracy of that kind of prejudicial labeling, then I respond by suggesting that you yourself cling to the archaic Cartesian metaphysics of dualism in opposition to the discoveries of physiological and neurological sciences. It is simple minded approach that fails to deal with the scientific facts. However much in your theological approach to the world you want to identify the mind with the spirit of your religion, science makes it clear that the mind is very much a physical thing that can be altered by physical manipulations by an external physical agent. I don't think that this proves that the spirit does not exist, but if it does exist (as I believe it does) then it is far more subtle than this naive approach of dualism.

The Cartesian dogma is that religion and science are separate. Religion deals with the world of mind which is non-extended, indivisible and private, and science deals with the world of matter which is extended, disvisible and private - and never the twain shall meet. Descartes declared this in order to legitimate science and prove that it is not opposed to religion as it does not encroach on its territory. However this dogma is completely false, for we know that mind and matter are always interacting with one another and this is only possible if they were a common substance(disimilar substances do not interact) Therefore it was later concluded by materialists that mind was just another form of matter. I agree.

Now the fact that I agree that mind is matter means I cannot be a mind-body dualist. I reject the Cartesian dogma as strongly as the materialist does. The dualism I accept is Samkhya, which is a dualist tradition in Hindu science, which is observer-object dualism. That is that observers are not reducible to objects and vis versa. This is ontologically irrefutable for whatever it is observed is always distinct from the observer. I observe physical states and mental states and therefore I am neither the physical states or the mental states. I am distinct from them. I remain constant between physical and mental state changes(I am now big, I was small earlier; I am now thinking of Sam, I was thinking of John earlier) In modern philosophy of mind this is known as the hard problem of consciousness. It has not yet been conclusively demonstrated by anybody that conscousness can be reduced to matter. I am so far on the winning side.

LOL This is such a typical reaction of a religious ideologue. Yes the prevailing scientific opinions have met some uncomfortable events overturning of their worldview both when it was discovered that the universe was not steady state and when QM brought the viability of physical determinism to an end. BUT it is precisely these uncomfortable events where reality goes against all their instincts about what they think must be the case which proves to the scientist that there is an objective reality out there.

How can there be a objective reality out there if separability does not exist? We can only say of objects that they are interdependent and mutual relationships, and there is no separate object as such. If this was false then quantum entanglement would not be a reality. Is it not an empirically demonstrated fact through the violation of the test of the bell inequalities that no such thing as separability actually exists. That reality is in fact is interconnected and made out of mutual relationships.

For now I will leave out the the matter of reality(separability and reality are two different things) and let us just focus on this fact.

 

[Lawrence.O]

Surya Deva,

Could you be more clear about the three types of reasoning in pramana? As for your examples:

There are three types of reasoning identified: a priori, posterior and anaological. I will give general examples here of everyday reasoning: A priori reasoning: when I observe that after tasting one part of a glass of water and tasting salt, I infer that the rest of the water is salty.

That is actually a posteriori because it relies on the experience of saltiness in the water. A priori must rely on reason alone not experience. An similar example would be "the cup contains salt water and therefore I can infer the water tastes salty".

Posterior is when I observe that there is smoke billowing from a house, I infer that there is a fire.

I agree that's a posteriori.

Anaological is when I observe that the sun is setting in one place, and simultaneously another is observing it rising, I conclude the unknown Earth is spherical

I'm unsure in what way this is an analogy. What is the target and what is the source?

or when I observe that a magnet when bought near a needle causes the needle to be attracted, I infer that there is an known force causing the needle to attract(Sanskrit: adrishya)

Again what is this an analogy to?

or when I observe that an arrow sails forward and falls, I infer that gravity causes the object to fall because the initial cause should cause the arrow to sail forward forever at constant velocity, but because it falls, it entails that a force is acting down on it due to which it loses its momentum energy.

If that is why you come to the conclusion is very obviously a posteriori, it's empirical. It isn't an analogy unless you're have a similar situation you're comparing it to.

One more thing:

It has not yet been conclusively demonstrated by anybody that conscousness can be reduced to matter. I am so far on the winning side.

Be careful not to make an argument from ignorance (which is a fallacy). Something is not necessarily true because it has not been proven false. Likewise something is not false because it has not been proven true.

 

[mitchellmckain]

I am sorry but I have no interest in "Hindu science" nor any redefinitions you wish to make of words like "science". The only science I am interested in is that which is defined by the methodology of modern science that is used by the international science community. Nor do I have any interest in your criticism of that methodology or your attempts to appropriate, by means of empty rhetoric, the accomplishments of science for your own agenda. We have a history in which the liberation of science from theological trappings was fought and won and that is ground that I will fight with my life to defend for to turn back the clock to the ignorant squalor of the middle ages is utterly intolerable. The fact that you would never allow science any such liberty from your religious prejudices is of no interest to me whatsoever.

How can there be a objective reality out there if separability does not exist? We can only say of objects that they are interdependent and mutual relationships, and there is no separate object as such. If this was false then quantum entanglement would not be a reality. Is it not an empirically demonstrated fact through the violation of the test of the bell inequalities that no such thing as separability actually exists. That reality is in fact is interconnected and made out of mutual relationships.

For now I will leave out the the matter of reality(separability and reality are two different things) and let us just focus on this fact.

Everything in the physical universe is what it is by the mathematical relationships that it has within the whole mathematical structure of space and time. But I do not equate this with the limits of reality itself, and I certainly do not see this as in any way indicating that this physical universe is not an objective reality.

Perhaps some clarification of the terms objective and subjective are needed here. By subjective I mean what is perceived by and is real to the individual and by objective I mean something that is observer independent. The subjective is certainly our immediate contact with reality, and the objective is neccessarily an abstraction that we construct based on a communication with others.

The question of "whether there is an objective reality out there" is a matter of whether our subjective experience are consistent with the existence of something independent of our subjective experiences. That this is in fact the case is why science exists. Modern science is only possible because these mathematical relationships operate according to fixed mathematical rules regardless of what people may want or believe. This is what defines the limits of what modern science can inquire about and it is that limitation as well as other limitations that science itself has discovered that makes science completely compatable with my religious beliefs.

And thus even though MY subjective experiences are consistent with the existence of a physical world that is independent of our subjective experiences, I also find reason to conclude that reality is not limited to these mathematical relationships of time and space, and that there is an aspect to reality which is irreducibly subjective. And so I see good reason to believe that reality includes a spiritual aspect which is not a part of these mathematical relationships and thus cannot be abstracted from our subjective experiences, cannot be subjected to modern scientific inquiry, cannot be detected or manipulated by modern technology, and must therefore accept that there will necessarily always be a diversity of human thought about it.

As for what your "Hindu science" or religion can investigate, manipulate or whatever, I can make no comment. But regardless I remain disinterested. The world is wide and full of many many things and thus we have to make choices all the time about what things we will pursue and what we won't. And what I simply will not pursue include spectator sports, reality tv programs, and the religions of Islam and Hinduism (among many other things) -- or say rather that my interest in these things are extremely limited (fyi, it was pursuing an interest in Native American religion that brought me to this forum).

The dualism I accept is Samkhya, which is a dualist tradition in Hindu science, which is observer-object dualism.

There is something very similar in existentialism, and I have been an existentialist far longer than I have been a Christian. Thinking along these lines can demonstrate the limitations of modern scientific methodology quite effectively, for in its attempt to make observations which are observer independent, science creates a blind spot when it comes to seeking an understanding of the nature of the observer himself.

 

[Surya Deva]

Lawrence, thanks for poiting that out. You are right I accidentally mixed them up. Here are correct examples for a priori: I observe that dark rain clouds, and I infer that it is going to rain. I observe birds flying in a certain way, and I infer there is going to be an earthquake. These are all examples of inductive-deductive reasoning

There is another type of reasoning which is deductive. I I observe that the distinct properties of earth atoms(this is peculiar terms in Hindu science, it does not literally mean earth) is weight and extension. I observe that the distinct properties of light atoms is colour and temperature. I infer thus that light atoms are not earth atoms. They are distinct(Sanskrit visehsha) I similar observe that distinct properties of consciousness is pain, pleasure, knowledge, ignorance and desire. As these properties are not to be found in any of the physical elements, I infer that consciousness is distinct from the physical elements.

I'm unsure in what way this is an analogy. What is the target and what is the source?

Anaological reasoning is based on inferring an unknown entity that has not been observed. In the case of smoke from fire, the relation of pervasion between them has been observed in experience. However, when inferring such entities like gravity, magnetism and atoms which are all unknown to experience, we use reasoning of analogy. The analogy in the inference that when it is observed that when a magnet is bought near a needle, the needle moves, one infers a hidden force, because it is observed that all things require forces to be applied in order to move them, such as the arrow will not move until a force acts on it. In the case of the magnet it is observed that the needle moves, thus one concludes that that there must exist a hidden force.
Similarly, the motion of the arrow can be explained by the cause of the horizonral force provided, but its falling cannot be explained in terms of this force, therefore one must conclude there is a vertical force acting on it causing it to fall.

An argument given by Hindu science(I am not using the common term of describing it as "Hindu philosophy", because it is not philosophy as in speculation. It is based on observation and explaining observation which makes it science) for the existence of atoms is as follows. It is observed that all matter can be divided into smaller parts, and those into even smaller parts and so on. If this dividing was ad-infinitum, then it would be possible to divide a mustard seed into infinite parts, then use those infinite parts to build a mountain. This is absurd, because one begins with a mustard seed and arrives at a mountain. Therefore it follows there is a smallest entity which cannot be divided further that matter is composed of called paramanus. Then it explains their order of aggregation as such: it requires two paramanus to form a binary atom. It then requires two binary atoms to form a tertiary atom. These then go onto form all combinations and permutations of matter. However, it is also noted that two atoms will not combine unless the consistuent particles are compatible, as it is observed that only certain combinations of atoms react together in chemical reactions and this only takes place when energy is provided.The aggregate atom is made of out of its parent particles and is formed of the qualities of their combination. It is further explained how the states of matter whereby a solid state is observed to turn into a liquid state is owing to heat energy being provided which causes disjunction(another term peculiar to Hindu science) of the atoms in the solid state, providing them with energy and causing them to take on the arrangement of a liquid state.

What I find impressive about Hindu science(no bias, I promise) is how they arrived at all these conclusions using purely some observation and mostly reasoning. These conclusions did not appear again in the world until modern tims. I am therefore convinced of the Hindu pramana method's power in producing actual scientific knowledge. Other conclusions Hindu science arrived at was the heliocentric theory of gravitation(propounded by Aryabhatta, although it appears it was known prior to him) where he used similar reasoning to Newton and Copernicus to conclude the earth was a sphere and orbitted the sun under the influence of gravity. Also, knowledge of optics such as they knew that sky was not really blue but this was a conjunction of heat, air and light rays which gave the illusion of the sky being blue. It was concluded on the basis that the element space is not possessed of the properties of colour and temperature, but rather this is the property of light atoms. Therefore the colour of space was due to conjunction of space with light and temperature.

The other conclusions arrived at which are metaphysical entities(soul, karma, reincarnation, time cycles etc) are based on the same rigour that they used to arrive at gravity, magnetism, atoms etc
Hinduism is peculiar because it is the only religion where its religious doctrines are based on an epistemological method. It is not surprising to me that Hindu science would arrive at exactly the same conclusion as the Copenhagen interpretation. I think rational methods of science have been neglected in modern times, but it is something which was cultivated strongly in Hindu science.

Be careful not to make an argument from ignorance (which is a fallacy). Something is not necessarily true because it has not been proven false. Likewise something is not false because it has not been proven true.

In this case it is the burden of proof for the materialist to show that consciousness can be reduced to matter. As both observation and rational evidence shows they are not reducible, but disitnct. There is no reason to believe that they could ever be reduced to one another. If I try to fit a circle peg into a square hole, no matter how much I try, it will never happen. If then one argues that it may happen one day, they first have a burden of proof to show that it could happen at all.

 

[Surya Deva]

Lawrence, to answer your questions as to the methods Hindu science consists of. They are perception, inference and testimony. Perception consists of two kinds: ordinary observation and internal observation(e.g., of internal mental states) Both of these can be controlled in order to give objective observation. Ordinay observation is controlled by making sure that the object being observed is correctly observed and no doubt as to the character of that observation is present. I can at this moment observe my flat LCD computer screen and there is no doubt in my mind that the computer screen is there. However, if I were looking at it from a significant distance, it may look both like a computer screen or a painting, as long as doubt remains to its characteristics it is not valid perception(There are doubts of two kinds: the perceptual nature of things and the actual nature of things) Internal observation is observing ones mental states such as thoughts, imagination, dreams, awareness levels. This again can be controlled by simply remaining an observer of the internal states and not identifying with the internal states, by sustaining this observation one can observe the entire field of their mind.

Inference we have already discussed and this is used to establish conclusions that cannot be established by perception e.g., atoms.

Finally testimony is also controlled by making sure it is coming from a reliable authority e.g., a scientific peer group. There are many things I accept from science which I have not observed myself, but I trust them that they have indeed observed what they claim to have observed.
Another way of testing testimony is to make sure it is inerrant and free of contradictions. Hindu science being a religion trusts the authority of Risis or holy sages, such as the Buddha in having reached the states that he claimed to have reached. Those entities that cannot be proven through perception or inference, such as angels or the history of a divine personality, are accepted on testimony from relaible authority. However, this means of knowledge is considered secondary and inferior to knowledge gained through perception and inference, for it relies on trust and this is not enough. For this reason Hindu science primarily uses perception and inference. The vast majority of metaphysical entities are proven in this way(angels cannot be proven in this way)

 

[Surya Deva]

I am sorry but I have no interest in "Hindu science" nor any redefinitions you wish to make of words like "science".

Well this is what I am using to make my argument that an intelligence is required to guide matter to form irreducibly complex structures. In addition to this I use as secondary evidence findings from modern science because of the similiary between them. I will use anything I can get hold of to strengthen my case. I do believe I have a very strong case, because

1) Nobody has yet shown that chaos can produce irreducibly complex structures
2) Nobody has yet disproven the Copenhagen interpretation which demands that an observer is required to collapse the quantum state and bring objective reality into existence.
3) Nobody has yet disproven Samkhya and its conclusion that an efficient cause is required to collapse matter from its unmanifest state
4) Nobody has yet shown that consciousness can be reduced to matter

I am winning this one, if I do say so myself

The only science I am interested in is that which is defined by the methodology of modern science that is used by the international science community. Nor do I have any interest in your criticism of that methodology or your attempts to appropriate, by means of empty rhetoric, the accomplishments of science for your own agenda.

I do not do politics, I only do science. I do not care what a human group has said is science and what is not. Science is any valid method by which knowledge is arrived at which can be tested. Observations can be tested(if hydrogen and oxygen are bought together in a certain way they will produce water) logic can be tested(if the premises entail the conclusion) and testimony can be tested(if you say that in Paris there is the eiffel tower, I can go there and find it. Similaly internal observation(phenomenology) can be tested(If you watch your mind you will see how it jumps from one thought to another) All of these are valid methods and it makes no difference to their validity whether you accept them or not.

If you do not accept criticisms of the methodology of the modern scientific method then you are treating it as a faith. The critisisms of the methodology of science have been made by Karl Popper, a giant of philosophy of science and his criticisms have been accepted and the scientific method amended in order to accomodate falsification. Today, a theory is only valid if it gives the maximum scope for falsification. If it cannot be falsified it is rejected. It is a fact that scientific theories are constantly undergoing falsification, therefore you cannot assert any scientfic theory as absolute truth. To so do is known as positivism and this today is a defeated dogma in philosophy of science.

I will not accept any theory as fact. I will accept facts as facts. No matter how much you insist that the theory of natural selection is proven, I will reject it - because theory is based on hypothesis - speculation. No theory is ever proven, no how many successful trials it passes. Including QM.

We have a history in which the liberation of science from theological trappings was fought and won and that is ground that I will fight with my life to defend for to turn back the clock to the ignorant squalor of the middle ages is utterly intolerable. The fact that you would never allow science any such liberty from your religious prejudices is of no interest to me whatsoever.

Again, science and religion need not be separate. India did not experience the ignorant squalor, the plagues, the suppression of free thought and suppression of science that the West did. In our country free thinking was tolerated from the very start. We had hedonists, nihilists, relativits, idealists, materialists, atheists, dualists, mystics, realists are all coexisting together and debating with one another freely. In our religion itself we had Shiva worshippers, Divine mother worshippers, Vishnu worshippers, and impersonalists. In these traditions itself there were dualists, monists, non-dualists and every grade in between.

There is no other culture on this planet which gave such freedom to free thinking that we see in India. This lead to a very prosperous intellectual and material culture. We were the first to have proper urban cities with city planning, sanitation, plumbing, toilets, kitchens, roads, streets. The first to have universities and hospitals. The first to perform advanced surgeries and develop scientific systems of medicine with a databases of thousands of diseases. The first to have dockyards and navigate the seas. The first to have advanced linguistics sciences and the first to make vast disoveries in science and mathematics. The first to have republics and democracies. The first to have human, women and animal rights. The first to have manufacturing industries, such steel, zinc, diamonds, minerals and ores and export it to other lands. We were the richest land on earth from 1AD to the 18th century.

I do not aim to boast of the greatness of our Hindu civilisation, which is without a doubt tremendous and highly ignored in the West due to eurocentric history, but to show that not all religions on this planet were in the same state as Western ones. The fact that science and religion existed in harmony in India was the cause of its greatness. Similaly, when we are able to reconcile science and religion in the West, greatness will be ensued. Those opposing this are the real people keeping us from progressing.

Everything in the physical universe is what it is by the mathematical relationships that it has within the whole mathematical structure of space and time. But I do not equate this with the limits of reality itself, and I certainly do not see this as in any way indicating that this physical universe is not an objective reality.

Absolutely, it means there is no objective reality. Something only has a real and objective existence if it is independent. However, as it has been proven there is no separability in reality, then it means nothing exists separately, it exists in mutual relationships with everything else in existence. There is therefore nothing you can isolate to be a object. What it really is a mathematical function of everything else in existence.

Even without going as far as QM to the wavefunction, it was already apparent from atomic physics that whatever elements exists which seem to be separate from one another were really just different numbers of protons, electrons and neutrons. All atomic matter can be reduced to just these three consistuent particles. Similarly, in GUT, everything can be reduced to just 4 fundamental forces. And finally going to to QM everything can be reduced into a wavefunction.

You can no longer maintain that objective reality exists.

The question of "whether there is an objective reality out there" is a matter of whether our subjective experience are consistent with the existence of something independent of our subjective experiences. That this is in fact the case is why science exists.

You are relying on your perception as the test of reality? Then you are guilty of naive realism. The world of perception is dependent on our senses and our mind which organizes perception into sensible whole. The sense instruments that we have cannot see many which things are existent, gravity, magnetism, atoms and the quantum. If we had senses which could see the quantum we would not be seeing physical reality. If we had instruments which could see atoms we would be seeing constant and violent activity of atoms everywhere we looked.

It is clear that whatever we know of reality is what our senses report to us. A different set of senses would show another reality. As it stands and proven in QM there is no objective reality. You cannot escape this conclusion unless you do not accept that separability has been disproven by Bell's test.

You have admitted now that you believe in realism because it is your religion and you find corrobration of your religious views in science. Thereore, when you accused me of the same, you were in fact all along guilty of what you were accusing me of.
So I have reason to believe now that my accusation I could have made is correct, you are picking and choosing from QM and science that which supports your religious views.

I on the other hand am doing no such thing. It is a pure coincidence that QM supports my religious views, because my religion happens to have come to the same conclusion that QM has arrrived at. The facts support that the Copenhagen interpretation which insists on observer collapse is the prevailing interpretation in QM. The facts support the violation of the Bell inequalities has proven either separability or reality is false or both, and the facts support we are now using this fact to send information using quantum entanglement. I think as somebody who is a physicist you should be honest with these facts and keep your religion out of this.

I am on the winning side here

There is something very similar in existentialism, and I have been an existentialist far longer than I have been a Christian. Thinking along these lines can demonstrate the limitations of modern scientific methodology quite effectively, for in its attempt to make observations which are observer independent, science creates a blind spot when it comes to seeking an understanding of the nature of the observer himself.

Yes, there are definite similarities with existentialism as put forth by Sartre. The for-itself is not reducible to the in-it-self and this is irrefutable. However, Samkhya dualism is ontological observer-object dualism, which proves that ontologically these are distinct substances. They can never be reduced to one another. The hard problem of consciousness is the impossible problem of consciousness.

 

[LuisDantas]

In this case it is the burden of proof for the materialist to show that consciousness can be reduced to matter. As both observation and rational evidence shows they are not reducible, but disitnct. There is no reason to believe that they could ever be reduced to one another. If I try to fit a circle peg into a square hole, no matter how much I try, it will never happen. If then one argues that it may happen one day, they first have a burden of proof to show that it could happen at all.

Again, that is an arguable premise with very questionable support.

It was you who made a lot of claims about the nature and purpose of matter and life. It seems to me that you do have a lot of proof to offer indeed. Wild extrapolations of questionable interpretations of Quantum Physics statements for well outside its field will not serve the purpose.

 

[Surya Deva]

Nothing arguable about it, consciousness has not been reduced to mattter. If it had been we would have known about it. It is the single biggest problem in Philosophy of mind. The first person to do it will get a nobel prize. I have seen many attempts by the latest 21st century philosophers of mind and still nothing.

The burden of proof like with the materialist and nobody else. As far as the evidence is showing us they are distinct substances. Therefore, I am justified in asserting that because they are distinct, I will continue to exist after the death of my physical body. You too will . Materialism is a faith, and it should not try to pass of as anything else.

 

[Surya Deva]

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

Apr 20, 2007
Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).

Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it.

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - physicsworld.com

This proves that this is not my wild speculation, distortion or wishful thinking, but an official position held in
QM today and proven by several experiments. It is being reported in scientific journals.

Come on, the earth is not flat anymore Let's move on and accept that reality is observer-dependent.

 

[Lawrence.O]

Lawrence, thanks for poiting that out. You are right I accidentally mixed them up. Here are correct examples for a priori: I observe that dark rain clouds, and I infer that it is going to rain.

I'm not sure. You are still relying on the experience of observing and (presumably) using induction. A priori should be doable by a blind man lying in bed. It should be conclusions that can be reached solely through reasoning without any experience or observation. For example "if there are rain clouds then it is going to rain" is a priori because raining is (to quote Aristotle) a final cause of rain clouds. In other words rain clouds will inevitably lead to rain.

I observe birds flying in a certain way, and I infer there is going to be an earthquake. These are all examples of inductive-deductive reasoning

I'd argue that it is actually a case of a posteriori again due to the observation and unclear line of reasoning.

There is another type of reasoning which is deductive. I I observe that the distinct properties of earth atoms(this is peculiar terms in Hindu science, it does not literally mean earth) is weight and extension. I observe that the distinct properties of light atoms is colour and temperature. I infer thus that light atoms are not earth atoms.

Yes this could be written as a simple modus tollens. However, I'd say this is only sound as long as the properties in question are substantial and not accidental.

They are distinct(Sanskrit visehsha) I similar observe that distinct properties of consciousness is pain, pleasure, knowledge, ignorance and desire. As these properties are not to be found in any of the physical elements, I infer that consciousness is distinct from the physical elements.

What I wrote above is my problem with what you said in this quote. Assuming "pain, pleasure, knowledge, ignorance and desire" is a true and complete description of consciousness (I'd argue that first) you must show that they are not accidental properties of matter. That would be in regard to showing that brain=/=mind. Personally, I hold a different position that the mind is the activity of the brain and not the brain itself. Just like beating is the activity of the heart but not the heart itself.

Anaological reasoning is based on inferring an unknown entity that has not been observed.

That sounds far more like the definition of "extrapolate". From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of EXTRAPOLATEtransitive verb
1
: to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval

2
a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area <extrapolates present trends to construct an image of the future> b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data <extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others>

On the other hand, analogy:

Definition of ANALOGY1
: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

2
a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance

In the case of smoke from fire, the relation of pervasion between them has been observed in experience.

Then that's induction not analogy.

However, when inferring such entities like gravity, magnetism and atoms which are all unknown to experience, we use reasoning of analogy. The analogy in the inference that when it is observed that when a magnet is bought near a needle, the needle moves, one infers a hidden force, because it is observed that all things require forces to be applied in order to move them, such as the arrow will not move until a force acts on it. In the case of the magnet it is observed that the needle moves, thus one concludes that that there must exist a hidden force.

This is not analogy until you make it clear that you are reasoning by comparing a target and source and not by abduction (inference to the best explanation) which is not a type of deduction. I give an example below.

Similarly, the motion of the arrow can be explained by the cause of the horizonral force provided, but its falling cannot be explained in terms of this force, therefore one must conclude there is a vertical force acting on it causing it to fall.

This seems much more like abduction rather than an analogy. A proper analogy would be as follows:

Source:When a rock is thrown it flies in parabola.This is due to gravity.

Target: When an arrow is shot it flies in a parabola.

Conclusion: The trajectory of an arrow is similar to the trajectory of a rock, the trajectory of a rock is due to gravity, therefore the trajectory of an arrow is due to gravity.

Therefore it follows there is a smallest entity which cannot be divided further that matter is composed of called paramanus. Then it explains their order of aggregation as such: it requires two paramanus to form a binary atom. It then requires two binary atoms to form a tertiary atom. These then go onto form all combinations and permutations of matter. However, it is also noted that two atoms will not combine unless the consistuent particles are compatible, as it is observed that only certain combinations of atoms react together in chemical reactions and this only takes place when energy is provided.The aggregate atom is made of out of its parent particles and is formed of the qualities of their combination.

This is very very similar to the alchemists idea of matter. However those atoms arrange in structure of 2^n (e.g. 2, 4, 8, 16).

Hinduism is peculiar because it is the only religion where its religious doctrines are based on an epistemological method. It is not surprising to me that Hindu science would arrive at exactly the same conclusion as the Copenhagen interpretation. I think rational methods of science have been neglected in modern times, but it is something which was cultivated strongly in Hindu science.

Could you explain again why modern science is not rational? Also could you define "rational" before you start.

In this case it is the burden of proof for the materialist to show that consciousness can be reduced to matter.

I disagree. Regardless of where we decide the default position is (I would argue default is still naturalist) there are two reasons why the burden of proof is on you. First, you are making an argument to try to convince people. There is no reason for us to accept your arguments without evidence. Second, and more importantly, you are making an ontologically positive claim. Namely that an observer (apart from the material world) exists. When you make the claim about the existence of an entity, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[mitchellmckain]

1) Nobody has yet shown that chaos can produce irreducibly complex structures
2) Nobody has yet disproven the Copenhagen interpretation which demands that an observer is required to collapse the quantum state and bring objective reality into existence.
3) Nobody has yet disproven Samkhya and its conclusion that an efficient cause is required to collapse matter from its unmanifest state
4) Nobody has yet shown that consciousness can be reduced to matter
I am winning this one, if I do say so myself

Such gaps arguments are anything but a victory, they are only a losing battle that signal to everyone else the ultimate doom of your worldview.

If you do not accept criticisms of the methodology of the modern scientific method then you are treating it as a faith.

Of course. I am great believer in faith. I believe that all knowledge is based on faith. We put our faith in what works for us. Modern science has worked very well and shown us that it is indeed worthy of a great deal of faith. Apparently "Hindu science" or religion has worked for you and that's jolly good, but I remain disinterested.

You can no longer maintain that objective reality exists.

And yet I and the scientific community continue to do. It must be a miracle! LOL LOL

You have admitted now that you believe in realism because it is your religion and you find corrobration of your religious views in science.

I am a critical realist as are the vast majority of scientists because these are part of the premises upon which modern science operates. Critical realism includes a recognition of the limitations of human access to the objective reality to which it always goes in order to verify theory.

I think as somebody who is a physicist you should be honest with these facts and keep your religion out of this.

It is in fact I who insist that religion must be kept out of it and you who refuse to keep your religion out of it. I have only mentioned my religion to show a common cause but it appears that you are incapable of seeing any common cause with other religions but are only interested in using whatever you can find in science for rhetoric to support your religion over other religions. I find that absurd and abomnable. I am afraid you demonstrate that you belong in the same class as the irrational fundamentalists of my own religion.

I am on the winning side here

I already said that I have no interest in your efforts to appropriate the accomplishments of science with empty rhetoric. I now further say that I have no interest in your delusions either.

Yes, there are definite similarities with existentialism as put forth by Sartre. The for-itself is not reducible to the in-it-self and this is irrefutable. However, Samkhya dualism is ontological observer-object dualism, which proves that ontologically these are distinct substances. They can never be reduced to one another. The hard problem of consciousness is the impossible problem of consciousness.

Actually it is in the beginning of existentialism in Kierkegaard and the writings of Albert Camus that my interest in existentialism lies and certainly not where either Sartre or Nietche took it after that. Kierkegaard himself wrote about the subject and object nature of man's relationship to the world.

 

[Copernicus]

Lawrence is right, Surya. A priori knowledge is knowledge in the absence of experience. You keep trying to provide a role for the observer, but observation is inherently an experience.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I do not want to just repeat myself. Being a layman when it comes to physics, I very much appreciate Mitchell's perspective. While I think that it is accurate to say that the Copenhagen interpretation is the standard view among physicists, I think that there are alternative interpretations such as the many-worlds perspective that could be considered mainstream views held by respected physicists. These "interpretations" are not "scientific" in the sense that they make no testable predictions. They are philosophical positions.

Regarding the "mind is matter" issue, I have repeatedly tried to get Surya to see the difference between that and the mind viewed as an emergent, systemic phenomenon that emerges from physical interactions. I think that most of humanity believes intuitively in a spiritual plane of existence that is somehow independent of physical reality. My position is that minds cannot exist independently of matter, but that it would be a category mistake to equate the mind with the physical activity that sustains it. To the extent that there is a "spiritual reality", it is fully dependent on physical reality, but not vice versa. Surya is a radical reductionist who simply does not get that point of view. Moreover, he seems to take the opposite view that physical reality is fully dependent on spiritual existence.

Surya, there is another theme that we have touched on in this thread, and that is Indian philosophy. I appreciate the opportunity to expand my understanding of samkhya. You have heightened my interest in it. However, I think that you are making a huge mistake to confuse it with QM concepts. I can see where the Copenhagen interpretation would be hugely attractive to samkhya adherents simply because of the central role that it gives to observation.

We have spoken of Panini, an ancient Indian linguist who produced what is still arguably one of the greatest feats of language description ever produced. It served as the basis of a huge number of concepts in modern linguistic theory. Most 19th century European linguists were Sanskritists, although they did not tend to give a lot of credit to the Hindu tradition that they got so many ideas from.

Here's the thing, though. Westerners who have studied Panini have tended to say a lot of things about him that simply were inaccurate, because they did not objectively study what the Astadhyayisutrapatha said. (I learned this by observing the interaction between Indian linguists and westerners on many occasions as a graduate student "fly on the wall".) Generative linguists tended to call him the first generative grammarian, although his grammar was not based on intuitions of well-formedness, as generative theory is. I think that you are doing the same thing with QM. You are so anxious to blend QM with your own religious beliefs that you have become incapable of understanding the fundamental differences. Even if the Copenhagen interpretation is totally correct--that wave collapse can only take place when perceived by a sentient observer--that does not mean that physical reality itself is dependent on an observer. It only means that physical systems interact with each other in a certain way (if you want to view it in reductionist terms). In any case, that does not lead you to external, spiritually autonomous "purushas" any more than it leads you to a god.

 

[Lawrence.O]

Regarding the "mind is matter" issue, I have repeatedly tried to get Surya to see the difference between that and the mind viewed as an emergent, systemic phenomenon that emerges from physical interactions ... My position is that minds cannot exist independently of matter, but that it would be a category mistake to equate the mind with the physical activity that sustains it.

Could you expand on this distinction?

Even if the Copenhagen interpretation is totally correct--that wave collapse can only take place when perceived by a sentient observer--that does not mean that physical reality itself is dependent on an observer.

But that's the problem. The "observer" in the Copenhagen Interpretation is not taken to be sentient.

 

[Copernicus]

Could you expand on this distinction?

Without tripping myself up? My understanding of complexity theory is as dilettantish as my understanding of physics.

However, we could think of a brain as a very complex physical system made of associations that are constantly being facilitated or inhibited. Although we still do not really understand the complexity of brains, we can see an obvious connection between the physical behavior of brains and human cognition, which relies heavily on associations with experiences. Analogies (metaphors) are deeply embedded in our thought processes, and the process of "understanding" can best be understood as building associations with established experience. What it means to understand a new concept is to relate it to existing concepts. An embodied mind is a cognitive system that ultimately grounds out in bodily experiences, which is all that we have at birth. We build knowledge by a process of association and abstraction. How the brain enables all of this is an interesting research topic in many scientific fields, and that is what eclectic cognitive science is all about ultimately. I can talk about a mind-brain relationship in general, abstract terms, but I cannot relate the two in a fully satisfactory way because I just don't know enough about either brains or minds.

Regarding observers, I have tried to make the point that brains exist as very complex guidance systems for moving bodies. That is why animals have expensive brains (in terms of the energy needed to maintain them) and plants do not. Observation is obviously an important component of a guidance system, since it needs to detect obstacles and find energy sources to keep the brain going. Surya's religion takes observation as its fundamental concept and proceeds to explain everything else in terms of that mental function. I think that samkhya simply leads people to miss important insights as to why the faculty of observation exists in our mental systems. What gave rise to our self-awareness was ultimately the fact that we fit into this category of moving, self-replicating beings. Humans are just very good at predicting future events so that they can plan physical trajectories to maximize their chances of survival and replication, which wins them the prize for survival under current conditions existing on Earth.

But that's the problem. The "observer" in the Copenhagen Interpretation is not taken to be sentient.

That depends on how you define sentience. The standard definitions tend not to imply intelligent awareness, just awareness. All "observers" would be sentient by definition, but the idea that sentience implies intelligence probably ought to be the number one sense in dictionaries nowadays. That's the way most people use it.

 

[Lawrence.O]

How the brain enables all of this is an interesting research topic in many scientific fields, and that is what eclectic cognitive science is all about ultimately.

That is why I'm going into that field. I'm planning a career in cognitive neuroscience. I'm still an undergrad though.

However, we could think of a brain as a very complex physical system made of associations that are constantly being facilitated or inhibited.

Here's my crash course in cognitive science:

The current reigning paradigm in cognitive science is the computational theory of the mind (CTM). This framework is meant as an analogy to computers; brains perform procedures ("algorithms" in computer science) on representations ("data structures" in computer science). Therefore running a program is analogous to thinking. The facilitation and inhibition you are referring to is parallel constraint satisfaction which is part of the connectionism approach in the CTM.

Connectionism (see The Architecture of Mind by Rumelhart) has evolved into theoretical neuroscience which is the use of computer modeling of biologically realistic groups of neurons. This tries to integrate several approaches in CTM including rule-based thinking (see Steven Pinker), logic, analogy (see Gentner and Markham for a very interesting model), concepts and imagery (How the Mind Works by Pinker has a great section on imagery).

It also tries to incorporate theories that are against CTM such as embodiment (especially Dreyfus' extreme version), dynamic systems (attractors, phase transitions, complexity, chaos theory etc.), and sociology (Wharf hypothesis, east vs west thinking). Finally there fringe theories like Penrose's that try to stick in quantum mechanics.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, put George Lakoff on your list, as he is one of the seminal figures in the field. I recommend that you read Metaphors We Live By, if you haven't already. That's a very quick, readable book that requires no linguistic expertise. It discusses the way in which metaphor permeates language structure. That is the starting point for most of the other books that he has written since then. (I knew him well before that phase in his thinking.)

 

[Lawrence.O]

Well, put George Lakoff on your list, as he is one of the seminal figures in the field. I recommend that you read Metaphors We Live By, if you haven't already. That's a very quick, readable book that requires no linguistic expertise. It discusses the way in which metaphor permeates language structure. That is the starting point for most of the other books that he has written since then. (I knew him well before that phase in his thinking.)

Will do. Linguistics is a mandatory part of my program and I'm pretty excited about it.

 

[IF_u_knew]

The watch analogy is one of the most thoughtless arguments for God. Essentially it calls us to look around and without reflection marvel at the beauty of nature.

The thing is we know that there is a watch and we know that there are watchmakers.

Conversely, we know that there is a watch that we found, but we don't know that there's a God, only that there is a watchmaker.

I do not think that the op is a THOUGHTLESS op at all. Just thoughtless people doing what they do best ... being thoughtless.

Isaiah 45:7
I *form* the light, I CREATE evil (or darkness, as some versions have it); I *make* peace, I CREATE war.

What is there not to get? Of course there is a Creator.

 

[mitchellmckain]

But that's the problem. The "observer" in the Copenhagen Interpretation is not taken to be sentient.

No observer is required at all and this is easy to demonstrate. You can set up an experiment where a detector can be placed in one of two position and even if no one is looking at what the detector shows it still alters the wave function differently depending on where it is placed (and an observer can see the difference after the fact even though he does not see what the detector has measured). The wave collapse is occurring because of how the detector interacts with the wave and not because there is any observer involved at all.

Regarding the "mind is matter" issue, I have repeatedly tried to get Surya to see the difference between that and the mind viewed as an emergent, systemic phenomenon that emerges from physical interactions. I think that most of humanity believes intuitively in a spiritual plane of existence that is somehow independent of physical reality. My position is that minds cannot exist independently of matter, but that it would be a category mistake to equate the mind with the physical activity that sustains it. To the extent that there is a "spiritual reality", it is fully dependent on physical reality, but not vice versa. Surya is a radical reductionist who simply does not get that point of view. Moreover, he seems to take the opposite view that physical reality is fully dependent on spiritual existence.

Since the topic is raised, my position on the mind body problem is that of a dual aspect physicalist. I believe that the mind is an entirely physical thing but that it presents many of the features of dualism because the mind is actually a non-biological living entity (a meme organism rather than a gene organism). Its extreme dependence on the biological organism and the brain is a normal situation for living things which are always highly dependent on the proper environment in which they can live. This comes from an understanding of living organisms as self-organizing dynamic structures, which is a process that can occur in many mediums with a sufficiently complex non-linear far from equillibrium environment (again I reccommend Erich Jantsch's book on this topic).

What I see as the most significant evidence that the mind is such a thing is the fact that it has developed a means of passing an inheritance to the next generation that is entirely independent of the biological means in DNA.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Oh my Gwynnies! Scope this design:

[youtube]gEw8xpb1aRA[/youtube]
YouTube - Mandelbrot Set Zoom

Order from chaos, check.
Scope this quote:

However, Alain Aspect, a physicist who performed the first Bell-type experiment in the 1980s, thinks the team's philosophical conclusions are subjective. "There are other types of non-local models that are not addressed by either Leggett's inequalities or the experiment," he said. "But I rather share the view that such debates, and accompanying experiments such as those by [the Austrian team], allow us to look deeper into the mysteries of quantum mechanics."

~from Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - physicsworld.com
Agenda revealed, check.

No observation occurs without adding energy to an otherwise closed system. We use light to observe. The scanning-tunneling electron microscope uses electrons to observe. The question of whether or not we can make an observation without adding energy to the system is a hot topic in quantum computing; but where we stand now, if one wants to look into quantum decoherence and not make it into an agenda p), is that the wavelength tends to collapse.

No Surya, I don't see you winning here. I'd give the point to Mitchell. And I ain't got no degree. I'm a failed mathematician - but I'm still a mathematician.