We currently don't have a definition of consciousness on which people agree and which allows you to determine whether something is conscious or not. It is therefore not surprising that you don't believe that scaling simple systems produces "consciousness", but unless you think that consciousness is some kind of magic that does not follow from the laws of physics, there must be some kind of reductionist thinking can explain the phenomenon, given sufficient computational power to do the math.
Measured by conscious observers, and results perceived by conscious observers. There is no way around it.
The laws of physics are “universally” agreed truths about certain mental phenomena experienced by the conscious observers that conscious observers have so far interacted with.
"observation" in terms of quantum mechanics doesn't require a conscious observer, only some interaction which affects the result. From the Wikipedia page on the observer effect[0] and a cited quote therein from Werner Heisenberg[1].
Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious (versus merely existent, as in a unicellular microorganism) is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137[1]
So two hydrogen atoms bonding with an oxygen and forming a water molecule and releasing 'heat' only happens when a conscious observer is around? Interesting universe you live in.
I, personally, enjoy a universe independant of the whims of observers.
> So two hydrogen atoms bonding with an oxygen and forming a water molecule and releasing 'heat' only happens when a conscious observer is around?
The GP's arguments lead to greater weirdness than that. If the laws of science are mere mental phenomena (which I think is what he's saying), then we have no reason to think that things will ever behave in one way rather than another, because our thoughts about things point to nothing beyond our own minds.
If he were right, then reacting hydrogen with oxygen may produce heat and water; alternatively it may produce a chocolate cake with orange candles and a golf ball in the middle. Because the laws of science would exist only in our minds and wouldn't be about reality, we'd have no way of knowing: one prediction would be as rational, or irrational, as the other.
Since reality isn't like this, we know he's wrong, and that the laws of physics exist independently of observers.
>If he were right, then reacting hydrogen with oxygen may produce heat and water; alternatively it may produce a chocolate cake with orange candles and a golf ball in the middle. Because the laws of science would exist only in our minds and wouldn't be about reality, we'd have no way of knowing: one prediction would be as rational, or irrational, as the other.
Everything we know is through the observation and mental formulation of our mind. This is just an unavoidable fact.
We make proofs of physical phenomena entirely through observation with our sensory receptors. Whatever scientific experiment you have, whether its watching a plant grow in a certain way or particle collision in the Hydron collider, is through the beliefs of an observer.
The question in my view, is how universal these mental conceptions are. After all, we all similarly agree on some basic observations. There is a ball here. The ball blew up, this detector turned on and off at these times, etc.
If however, there were hypothetically some other observer that did not agree with you on these basic beliefs, such that they said that the detector turned on at time 2 and not 1, then what is the reality? What method do you have to confirm what is reality when two observers disagree on what was observed?
It is easy to throw this thought to the wind and say, there can be other perception of reality possible, but that to me seems faith, not logic.
Clearly, we know reality through our senses and our ideas. That is uncontroversial. The problem is when one says (as I think you are) that our sensual perceptions and ideas are all we know, and that we can reasonably doubt that they ever refer to reality.
We know reality by means of our senses and ideas. We don't know our senses and ideas as such.
To repeat myself: if your claim is true, then the person who says "reacting hydrogen and oxygen will produce water and heat" can be no more, and no less, correct than the person who says "reacting hydrogen and oxygen will produce jello in the shape of George Washington's nose". Because if, as I think you claim, we know nothing but the "mental formulation of our mind", then our thoughts don't point to reality; and if this is true, we can't predict anything about reality. And therefore each of these two claims about chemistry is as valid as the other. Do you agree with this?
> If however, there were hypothetically some other observer that did not agree with you on these basic beliefs, such that they said that the detector turned on at time 2 and not 1, then what is the reality? What method do you have to confirm what is reality when two observers disagree on what was observed?
This is a red herring. We may never know who is right; that is different from saying that there is no reality to know.
>Clearly, we know reality through our senses and our ideas. That is uncontroversial. The problem is when one says (as I think you are) that our sensual perceptions and ideas are all we know, and that we can reasonably doubt that they ever refer to reality.
We know reality by means of our senses and ideas. We don't know our senses and ideas as such.
I am failing to see the distinction here. If your only conception of "reality" is through your sensual perceptions, how can you know anything beyond that? How does reality then differ from mental conception of your sensual receptors? To me this is equivalent to saying, "there is a spiritual world that doesn't interact with anything and we cant prove it but it exists". The only thing I can think of is that reality is shared among several observers, who all agree on it.
This is why I brought up the hypothetical scenario of two scientists who disagreed on whether the detector turned on at t=1 or t=2.
If you were the only being on this planet so that no one could disagree with you, and you for some reason were high on LSD for the entirely of your life and saw flying rocks, would that not be your reality? Every scientific test you do would fit your findings, as perceived and evaluated by you. If there was a community of such people who never saw a rock standing still, what would be the real truth?
And if you say "but there is still a reality, none of those people would just know it", then I can ask, how do you know we don't fit that same bill, where some other observer could look at us and say "those guys are all seeing an illusion, its actually this way"
>This is a red herring. We may never know who is right; that is different from saying that there is no reality to know.
But what determines who is right? That is my question. What answer can you give me besides "a conscious observer?", or "a collection of conscious observers who all agree".
And if you can't determine who is right, what meaning is there to it being reality? Why is one conscious experience any more correct than the other?
1. Do you agree that it is rational to think that burning hydrogen in oxygen will produce water and heat (prediction A), and irrational to think that it will produce a juicy stake that can play tennis (prediction B)?
2. If yes to 1, do you agree that A is correct (or at least closer to being correct), and B is incorrect (or at least further from being correct)?
3. If yes to 2, do you agree that there must be something against which A and B are both measured that makes one right and the other wrong?
4. If yes to 3, do you agree that the thing against which A and B are measured must be independent of them both?
5. If yes to 4, do you agree that there is a reality independent of our observations, and which our observations presuppose and are caused by?
I think you're saying that we can reasonably think that our sensual perceptions and ideas are all we know, and that we can reasonably doubt that they ever refer to reality, but I want to confirm this.
> And if you say "but there is still a reality, none of those people would just know it", then I can ask, how do you know we don't fit that same bill, where some other observer could look at us and say "those guys are all seeing an illusion, its actually this way"
See point 1, above. I suggest that nobody really systematically doubts their observations. But if you honestly disagree with point 1 then let me know.
> But what determines who is right? That is my question.
Obviously that is sometimes impossible to answer, depending on the situation. But sometimes (more often) it's not. Again, do you disagree with point 1 above?
>who disagreed on whether the detector turned on at t=1 or t=2
This is an already answered question by relativity and causality.
Since light has a constant speed and also a propagation speed there are operations that observers will not agree on the order of... but they will always agree on the order of causality. The cup will always get pushed off the table first before it's broken on the ground.
You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory.
What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived?
That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory.
That theory can posit "actually, there's matter, and there seems to be matter which does not possess this same capacity of observation, therefore this inert matter must have formed first, and then [insert hypothesis of your choice] that's how the observer arose".
That's valid.
However, it's not a fact, and it's not the only theory.
The theory I'm entertaining instead, is this: the observing phenomenon is as much a fundamental part of the universe as gravity. The reason some things don't seem to possess it is that we can't directly perceive other's observing phenomena, and it's only when this phenomena binds with matter in such a way (time, appearance, scale, complexity, frequency) that it can communicate with similar binding phenomena, then there is recognition: "you have a face, you're smiling, you seem to be alive, so I'm going to assign the observer trait to you".
Now that I recognize other observers we can communicate and form a theory, and see what we can agree on. Then and only then I can say "well let's pretend that there are no observers and see what we can agree on". And thus the laws of physics are born, as a mental model.
> You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory.
I agree with the map-territory distinction -- but the laws of physics (or, better, the "way things behave") is primarily in the territory, and only derivatively in the map. Our map may be more or less accurate, but the map presupposes the territory. Otherwise, nothing we can say about reality is more or less true than anything else, and absurdity results (like the hydrogen-oxygen example I gave before). If the way things behave is solely a property of the map, not of the territory, then it must be the case that we can't predict what will happen when we react hydrogen with oxygen. But we can predict this, and therefore the way things behave is a property of the territory. The map that says hydrogen+oxygen=water+heat is a better map -- that is, closer to the territory -- than one that says hydrogen+oxygen=chocolate bunny. But again, better vs worse map presupposes the territory, and presupposes that the stuff on the map points to real stuff on the territory, however imperfectly.
Are you in agreement with this as far as it goes? Do you agree with my premise that we can predict what will happen when we react H and O?
> What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived? That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory.
Surely the fundamental fact is existence? Without this, there can be no observation, no observer, and no observed object. These things, like any individual thing, presuppose existence.
Further, your statement presupposes other things: for example, the law of non-contradiction (which is a facet of existence). Your statement says that there is a 'thing', that it observes, and that it constructs a theory. It must therefore take for granted that there is not nothing; that the 'thing' doesn't not observe; and that it doesn't not construct a theory. Otherwise the statement is meaningless.
This is just the beginning of what I could say, but your argument, like any argument, presupposes existence, the laws of logic, non-contradiction, the distinction of one object from another (the law of identity), etc. So we can't take an observer as a fundamental fact. More generally, we can't take any particular thing as the fundamental fact. Universal knowledge precedes particular knowledge. Existence in general precedes existence of the particular.
I'm not sure if this directly affects our disagreement, but it might help understand where I'm coming from :-)
> Are you in agreement with this as far as it goes? Do you agree with my premise that we can predict what will happen when we react H and O?
I do agree with the second premise, but I'd say that's just saying we have a really good map for that particular area of the terrain. If you're going to your aunt's and you have a really good map, you're not going to show up in hong kong (I'm mapping the example onto your hydrogen-oxygen case).
But fundamentally, "the laws of physics" are still information as digested by the human brain. At one point our map of physics didn't include relativity. Now it does. The terrain did, but the map didn't.
With this in mind, it's crucial to remember that our current map has nearly no information about consciousness. It's like you have really detailed information about your aunt's neighbor in Chicago, and you know that Hong Kong exists and is Eastward. So you just assume that it's a straight road. Someone might suggest there's a few mountains in the way, but fundamentally you have no idea how to actually connect both points of the map.
Materliasm is essentially that to me, looking at the very detailed map of current physics, wiping their hands and saying yup that should be enough, it's a straight line from here.
>Surely the fundamental fact is existence?
I try to refrain from making an observer-observation distinction. To quote Krishnamurti "the observer is the observed".
Moving the discussion in this direction feels like another map, the map of logic. Within the framework of logic, I do agree with those terms. However, I don't think reality obeys logic in so much as logic is another way for us to make sense of the phenomena around us.
I hope I don't annoy you by another analogy: Imagine we're watching a wolf and his cub, and I ask which comes first. You say the father of course, because he was born earlier. This is true. However, I was asking which of them was ahead, that is in the present moment which of them will arrive first. You were answering from knowledge, not from direct observation.
Maps, models, and logic, are within the realm of thoughts. But experientially, without following and validating the narrative of thoughts, can you directly observe that there is existence without observation? Your thoughts will immediately tell you that this is already a contradiction: can you observe that there is no observer? Can you discern in your own experience "this is observation", "this is existence". Could they be one and the same?
This is where I'm coming from. Thank you for engaging in these topics which are tricky to discuss :)
I think the initial problem with your argument remains. If the 'laws of physics' (honestly I'm not keen on that term except for casual use -- can we say 'way things behave'?) only exist in the human brain, and not in reality, then we have the problem that our map does not point to any territory. All maps are imperfect, but the 'map' that includes relativity is more accurate than the one that includes Newtonian mechanics, which in turn is more accurate that the one that includes Aristotelian physics, which in turn is more accurate that the one that says a giant dragon in the sky controls everything, etc. But again, the map presupposes a territory. The fact that one map is better than the other presupposes something independent of any map that each map must be measured against to determine its accuracy. Given that each map is attempting to describe the 'way things behave', it implies that a territory, independent of any map, exists; and further, that the 'way things behave' exists on the territory. Agree?
And therefore, the original statement that I took issue with, which was "[t]he laws of physics are 'universally' agreed truths about certain mental phenomena experienced by the conscious observers that conscious observers have so far interacted with" must be false.
> Materliasm is essentially that to me, looking at the very detailed map of current physics, wiping their hands and saying yup that should be enough, it's a straight line from here.
Oh I totally agree with you about that. I'm not a materialist at all, as my comment history will reveal. Materialism cannot account for the obvious fact of consciousness, or the fact that the human mind is capable of reasoning. In general, any philosophy that tries to reduce all reality to a single principle (like matter, number, energy, power, dialectic, the self, etc) is suspect, IMO. Starting with 'existence' as the first principle avoids this problem.
> I try to refrain from making an observer-observation distinction. To quote Krishnamurti "the observer is the observed"... I don't think reality obeys logic in so much as logic is another way for us to make sense of the phenomena around us.
This must imply that someone who says 'the observer is not the observed' (assuming he means these terms in the same sense as Krishnamurti) is wrong, but this only makes sense if one accepts logic as an unbreakable and truly-existing principle.
So I would disagree that logic is a map; instead, logic must be presupposed by any statement or any belief; it must be presupposed by any map. (I think logic is 'baked into' existence itself -- it's inseperable from existence -- in some sense it is existence.) Again, if we deny the law of non-contradiction (one of the first principles of logic), anything we say, believe or think can be true or false in the same sense at the same time, so any attempt to make any sense of reality will inevitable not even get to first base. Hence, nothing we say would have any meaning whatsoever. So hence, I disagree that logic is within the realm of thoughts (except insofar as it's something we grasp or see - meaning it's only derivatively in the realm of thought).
> Can you discern in your own experience "this is observation", "this is existence". Could they be one and the same?
I'd respond by saying that all these questions presuppose something, which is existence, for the reasons I gave in this and my previous post. The fact that you can ask these questions, and that there is any meaning in the questions, presupposes that (for example) the law of non-contradiction exists independently of you (and me, etc).
> Thank you for engaging in these topics which are tricky to discuss :)
No that's not what is being said. The laws of physics are a mental model. There is something they map on to, but we can only form an incomplete map. They're a reduction in order to understand, and thus as much as they're formed by our observations, they're equally informed by our biases and limitations.
No I am not saying that things don't happen when there is no observer around. I am saying, `what` actually happened is entirely based on perception of mind, and is completely subject to interpretation.
To give an analogy, imagine the universe really was a collection of bits.[0,1,2,3,4].
We are some program which give means meaning to these bits.
Another program on the other hand interprets these bits another way, perhaps even in a language completely incomprehensible to us.
The state of the universe can change to another set of bits, but each observer could still form completely different sets of perceptions, or change of perceptions.
