Mathematicians vs. Philosophers: Cage Match

[IheartIheartTesla]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

I wouldn't go as far as your first sentence. It is true that physicists rely a great deal on approximations, but as long as one fully understands the uncertainties associated with the approximation and regions where it is not valid, this is mathematically rigorous (it wouldn't be useful if it weren't).

I'm not sure I agree. There was a fairly long period of time where infinities in quantum field theory were swept under the carpet, and the prevailing view was that it hadnt been conclusively proven that the theories were self consistent, yet were in wide use. I think those theories would fail the bar of mathematical rigor although they worked fairly well

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we listen to many neuroscientists consciousness is an illusion or unimportant.

I'm not sure if anybody has actually said this, but in any case, it is not actually a scientific statement and it does not address the problem.

47 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I'm not sure I agree. There was a fairly long period of time where infinities in quantum field theory were swept under the carpet, and the prevailing view was that it hadnt been conclusively proven that the theories were self consistent, yet were in wide use. I think those theories would fail the bar of mathematical rigor although they worked fairly well

Well, we're still sweeping the infinities under the carpet, we just have a better name for it now and a better idea of when it is possible to do this and when it is not. I don't think the infinities mean the math is not rigorous so much as they indicate a theory being pushed into a region where it doesn't belong. Such divergences predate quantum field theory by quite a bit: the same thing happened with the energy of a classical electron (when assuming it was a point particle) and with black body radiation (i.e. the Rayleigh-Jeans law).

[Ariadne23]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we listen to many neuroscientists consciousness is an illusion or unimportant.

I would characterize it as a very important illusion. Without the illusion, we fall into what Zizek would call The Real, which is what people face, for example, when they experience a trauma they cannot put words to, i.e., they cannot manufacture a coherent narrative, and it falls out of consciousness. That guy in Anathem who negotiated multiple realities? He was cool with The Real.

35 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I'm not sure if anybody has actually said this, but in any case, it is not actually a scientific statement and it does not address the problem.

What scientists are we trying to address it for? Psychologists? Neuroscientists? Physicists, so we can sort out the chaff of human bias from reality-independent-of-perceiver by knowing the character of consciousness? 

[maarsen]

Mathematics has issues at the very basic level also. Is 1 a prime number or not? 

[Altherion]

7 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

What scientists are we trying to address it for? Psychologists? Neuroscientists? Physicists, so we can sort out the chaff of human bias from reality-independent-of-perceiver by knowing the character of consciousness? 

I meant for ordinary people. There is a long list of questions which I think most people have asked themselves about consciousness and calling it an illusion does not help answer them.

13 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Mathematics has issues at the very basic level also. Is 1 a prime number or not? 

It is not. Quite a long time ago, there were some mathematicians who lumped it in with the primes, but doing so breaks quite a few things so every modern definition of prime numbers excludes it.

[Ariadne23]

13 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Mathematics has issues at the very basic level also. Is 1 a prime number or not? 

The philosophical answer is no, as a matter of stipulation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ariadne,

In Anathem it is sentient consciousness bearing entities that allowed Fraa Jad to slip between and be conscious of multiple narratives.  Without consciousness there is nothing that would important forkings in the multiverse.

Have you read any David Deutsch yet?

[Ariadne23]

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

I meant for ordinary people. There is a long list of questions which I think most people have asked themselves about consciousness and calling it an illusion does not help answer them.

Calling consciousness the ability to form a coherent narrative and place yourself in it does a lot for us, I think.

What kind of questions do you think ordinary people are trying to answer?

[Altherion]

7 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

Calling consciousness the ability to form a coherent narrative and place yourself in it does a lot for us, I think.

What kind of questions do you think ordinary people are trying to answer?

Where does it come from? Is it the same for all human beings or qualitatively different for some than others? Does anything non-human (i.e. animals, plants, etc.) have it?

[Ariadne23]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Where does it come from? Is it the same for all human beings or qualitatively different for some than others? Does anything non-human (i.e. animals, plants, etc.) have it?

(1) Language, or, more accurately, the ability to use symbols to represent things in the world.

(2) Basically, absent some induced state or brain damage, but those who have a more robust ability to use symbols and maintain a coherent narrative will seem more conscious, or "sane," than those who have genetic or developmental impairments.

(3) If it has the ability to use symbols to create a narrative, I'd say so. I have no idea if chimps or dolphins are telling each other stories about what happened to them that morning.

[Altherion]

10 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

(1) Language, or, more accurately, the ability to use symbols to represent things in the world.

But language and the ability to use symbols is not something we are born with; it is something taught. Do you think that, for example, feral children lack consciousness?

Quote

(2) Basically, absent some induced state or brain damage, but those who have a more robust ability to use symbols and maintain a coherent narrative will seem more conscious, or "sane," than those who have genetic or developmental impairments.

This is something we all assume, but how can it be known for sure? Since we can't read each others' minds, all we have are the external outputs (i.e. speech and action) and those are subject to the same problems one encounters when attempting to evaluate artificial intelligence. I personally agree with your assessment, but it is really difficult to prove.

 

[Ariadne23]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

But language and the ability to use symbols is not something we are born with; it is something taught. Do you think that, for example, feral children lack consciousness?

This is something we all assume, but how can it be known for sure? Since we can't read each others' minds, all we have are the external outputs (i.e. speech and action) and those are subject to the same problems one encounters when attempting to evaluate artificial intelligence. I personally agree with your assessment, but it is really difficult to prove.

 

(1) In a sense, yes. Because we are not born being able to form a narrative. But we start thinking symbolically soon thereafter whether we are taught to or not, i.e., a current similar experience might be symbolically understood in reference to a similar past one. But a baby cannot resolve a person's different moods into a narrative of the same person, so no narrative ability.

(2) Neuroscience and psychology. There are theories of anaesthesia that postulate that it works by scrambling your ability to form a coherent narrative. Laypeople think of it as being like sleeping, but it surely is not. An then, clinical evidence from psychology. Branches of psychoanalysis use this theory for treatment of even the very serious disorders. After being long discredited, it's having a resurgergece now that we can see specific reactions in the brain to, say, resolution of transference, e.g., its finally verifiable. You might be able to see fMRI evidence of resolution of a fractured narrative as well, or something like that. It might involve some of the same areas of the brain as waking up from anaesthesia.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ariadne, Altherion,

Have either of you read James Gleick's book The Information?  He has a section that discusses the effect literacy has on a given society and by extension the individual's in that society.  He quotes a philosopher who goes so far as to claim that literacy, the abilty to record and later review earlier thoughts, is the true starting point of human consciousness.

It is and interesting book.

[maarsen]

I think the essence of consciousness is not just what Scot posted above but also the ability to take those earlier thoughts and use them to change one's behaviour. 

[Ariadne23]

One could maybe think of both those ideas as an expansion of narrative capability further into, as Scot suggests, the past and, as maarsen suggests, the future?

Evidence in favor: people are a lot better at imagining changing their behavior in the future than they are at actually doing it.

[maarsen]

2 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

One could maybe think of both those ideas as an expansion of narrative capability further into, as Scot suggests, the past and, as maarsen suggests, the future?

Evidence in favor: people are a lot better at imagining changing their behavior in the future than they are at actually doing it.

Behaviour is easier to change if food is not involved.

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

Behaviour is easier to change if food is not involved.

How do you mean?

[maarsen]

Dieting doesn't seem to work. 

[Ariadne23]

Shit try quitting smoking. But this is why implementation intention works maybe. Studies show that if you say to yourself "when I wake up tomorrow, I will go to the kitchen and eat an avocado and a grapefruit for breakfast," and picture this happening, you are more likely to meet with success in changing your behavior. That is because, I think, of the power of solidifying a future narrative, like I think your point about changing behavior suggested. So that's evidence in favor of your point earlier, I think.

[The Mance]

Do those studies correct for the increased chance of remembering the intent to act after such a pointed declaration the night before, or do they just attribute success to increased resolve?