Through A Mirror Darkly

 Bobby has been sending me some interesting links to philosophers/scientists making very interesting points. This is my response to one of those links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWo7-azGHic

Kaufman was very interesting; a bit dense and rushed, but interesting. While I was listening to him I experienced one of those gestalt breakthroughs. As you know, I’ve been puzzling for years and asking, why is it that, in the absence of clear and compelling evidence, highly intelligent individuals insist that they have no free will but they are merely robots composed of biochemical/biomechanical phenomena which were 100% predictable to be exactly what they are today and what they will be forever (or at least as long as the universe exists) at the moment of the big bang?

Since the evidence is unclear at this point (although they keep insisting the evidence absolutely proves that point, said evidence is woefully inadequate to draw a final conclusion) what would compel an otherwise intelligent, even powerful, human being to decide that he has no free will, has no choice, and is not only a machine but a totally unintelligent machine which only manages to delude itself into its belief system, that is, the concept that there is an individual standing there thinking and saying these things.

This is understandable position for a dangerous individual who is causing great harm to society. He could argue it’s not my fault. I can’t help myself. I have no ability to control anything. I don’t even really exist.*  Again, however, this seems a very strange position for a highly respected and influential  member of society to take.  This is all the more true when you look at the passion with which they defend this position. It is not, in their minds, sufficient to believe it themselves or even to share this belief with those who agree. No! They must evangelize. They must spread the good word that none of us actually exist, that we are not real,  that we have no free will and are completely subject to the unfeeling will of reductionist mathematical physics.

As I listened to this presentation, I was suddenly struck by that what should have been obvious from the very first time I asked myself the question. They are true believers. Evidence is not valued by them because evidence threatens the possibility that their true belief just might possibly not be correct.  This is not to say that that belief is necessarily wrong, although, obviously, I think it is.  Instead,  it explains why they are so determined to degrade their own status so as to present themselves as no more conscious or capable of free will than a rock rolling in a stream or a maple seed fluttering in the breeze.

You might ask, why then would intelligent people who are so capable of an unusually large measure of control in their lives be so determined to deny that they have any? What, exactly, is that explanation?  I believe, and this is the greatest insight that occurred to me while listening to this presentation, that this is because they are in fact identical down at the most basic emotional level with the creationists and science deniers.

They do not deny science, to be sure. Yet,  although they are excellent scientists, when it comes to this philosophic issue, they transform into true believers for whom evidence, science, and logic are mere enemies of their deep rooted faith.   Remember that young earth creationists also insist that science is on their side. If you simply Google young earth creationism you will quickly find a large number of articles and YouTube presentations declaring that coal seams prove Noah’s flood or that fossils and even science in general proves Noah’s flood.   It is absurd nonsense, but it is affirmed with the same passion with which of these highly skilled and normally very logical scientists who usually develop conclusions based firmly on the data now devote themselves to contorting the data to fit their preconception.  Again, exactly the way creations do.

The greatest insight which dawned on me today was that the reason for doing this is exactly the same as that of any true believer, including the creationists. It is the need for certainty. We live in a very uncertain, chaotic world. Even that which should be predictable if you know everything is subject to chaos theory wherein even the tiniest variation will make a radical change in the ultimate outcome.  Just as so many people turn to conspiracy theories and blind religious faith in order to gain some sense of sanity and order in our so disordered and unpredictable universe, these scientists are turning to reductionist particle physics in order to create a structure for our universe which, if not desirable, is at least predictable.  As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be.

Better an unpleasant certainty than the fear of the bleak, dark, and unknown forest, or, as we have all heard so many times, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

This has been an issue which has puzzled me so greatly and so deeply for so very long. Why did I suddenly realize it in the middle of Kaufman's talk? I don’t know. I don’t even remember exactly what he was saying at the moment I realized it. Of course, his talk was declaring that there are things greater than mere mathematical reductionism and utterly predictable classical physics, I was thinking about the topic thanks to his insights, but at what exact point I suddenly realized this, I cannot say. Now that I have realized it,  it seems so blatantly obvious I wonder how I could have  been so dimwitted as to not see it from the very beginning. I can only turn as a defense to the brilliant Thomas Huxley who, upon reading Darwin’s theory of natural selection, is purported to have declared “Why didn’t I think of that?”

Sometimes the most insightful and, in the case of Darwin, brilliant insights are blatantly obvious…after someone finally realizes them.

*This also fits with the opening of Sapolsky’s first lecture (which I also enjoyed very much.  I intend to watch the rest of his course).   As he spoke I was struck by the memory of an interesting article I read some years back.  One of the terrifying events of the past, now unfortunately all too common, was when a sniper took over a tower at, I believe, the University of Texas, and began randomly shooting people. As I recall, he was the individual that was the subject of this later article. The point is that an individual, whoever he was, was changing from a highly respected and healthy member of society into something very strange. He eventually did commit murders and I’m fairly certain he was the sniper. After his death it was discovered that he had written a request for an autopsy after his demise. He felt something was wrong with his brain. Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly, the autopsy revealed a large tumor which was interfering with his higher brain functions.

He knew that something was wrong with him. He didn’t know the cause but he could feel his sense of self fading away. He could feel the sense of free will fading away.  As you know, my own belief is that we do have free will but it is very much constrained by our biology and the uncaring laws of reductionist mathematical physics. That is bleak. That is indeed a dark and terrifying forest. However,  there is a light within that forest, and the light is our sense of self, our sense of free will, at our struggle to maintain those against the forces of a universe that doesn’t care about us in any way, manner, or form.

Hear Me Roar

 Copying a Facebook post. I didn’t include the article which was about quantum reality versus observable reality because I didn’t think it was covering any new ground.

I simply must respond to this article. It irritates me so much. Actually, not the article. Just a single comment beginning it:  > If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Perhaps not, some say.<

Like all supposed paradoxes this is just a bad misuse of language and simple human confusion regarding the the nature of reality.

The answer to this supposed conundrum is what exactly do you mean by “sound”?

If no human is there to hear the sound a squirrel heard it. That’s a sound. No squirrels? Then a frog heard it. No frogs? Then a snail heard it. No snails… you get the picture.

But what is something extremely weird and improbable happened and no animals are within any range which could possibly have heard the sound? As it happens, sound is a series of compression waves in the air. Even if there were no ears to hear the sound there would still be compression waves and thus there would still be sound.

The Stuff Of Life

 Posted by my granddaughter:  A speculative piece on what I believe defines personality and whether personality persists in total isolation without external sources to react to.

https://soulleak.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/what-defines-personality/

An interesting article. Here is an excerpt: >But if a man was raised in a white, empty room without ever having human contact and assuming he does not need to be fed and has basic knowledge enough to be civilized and not like an animal, would he have personality? (In this example, he need not be fed for the sake of not having food to interact with). Without any faculties to react to, would he have intangible attributes of character?<

My response:  Interesting. Of course the problem with the thought experiment is raise a human being that way and they will simply die. Small children, especially babies, who don’t have sufficient human contact fail to thrive and die. Children adopted by Americans from highly neglectful orphanages have profound personality disorders that simply cannot be corrected. Look to Maslow‘s experiments with infant monkeys. Quite cruel, and today probably would not be permitted. However, quite informative.

Jun 20, 2018

PsychologicalScience.org

...the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/us-experiment-on-infants-withholding-affection/13213

 > In the United States, 1944, an experiment was conducted on 40 newborn infants to determine whether individuals could thrive alone on basic physiological needs without affection. Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility where they had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than what was necessary, never communicating with them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously and the environment was kept sterile, none of the babies becoming ill. 

The experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions. 

The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.<

We are social animals.  Without society, without socialization, we do not survive. The followers of Ayn Rand, so much of today’s conservative movement, ignores the basic nature of human beings. Their philosophy, if you want to call it that, makes as much sense as breatharianism. Yeah, there actually is such a thing. People who claim that you don’t need to eat food or even drink water, all you need to do is breathe.

Our need for human contact, for human touch, for human affection runs deep. So deep that it defines the very nature of what it means to be a living human being.  To expand on my granddaughter’s question, at what point do we cease to even care about our own survival?. Are these poor abused monkeys really monkeys? Where those poor abused babies really human?

One thing is clear, they did not even value their own survival in the absence of the affection of their own species.

To withdraw love and affection from those who love you and need you is one of the cruelest of all acts.  Whether you are a biblical literalist or an objective rationalist, it is clear that we are, as human beings, one great family.  Every stranger is a distant relative. We must care about each other and for each other or we will fail to thrive.

Self Denial To The Max

There is a reason that a proposed scientific conclusion, however firmly based in evidence it may seem to be, is invariably subjected to a long dip in a tank of hungry piranha. Critics of science simply do not understand just how savagely scientists attack each other’s findings. Even Einstein’s theories are subject to constant questioning and are repeatedly tested. The primary reason is that this is the only way to be certain that any data,or conclusion based on any data set, is in fact correct. There are many reasons it might be incorrect, but one of the main ones is that scientists are, after all, only human.

I’m pleased to learn from this article both the flaws of this highly touted experiment which is so loudly declared to conclusively prove something that I absolutely believe to be false, but also the long standing criticism which has always been obvious to me. What is the psychology behind highly intelligent individuals being almost bitterly determined to prove that they have no consciousness and no free will? What drives a person to want to be a conscious-less, mindless robot? I’d really love to see an in depth psychological study of the advocates of this peculiar position.

I would like to ask these individuals the following question.

I recall reading, I believe it was as far back as high school, a story about a boy in a psychiatric institution. He suffered horribly for reasons I cannot recall. In order to avoid the pain and suffering his emotions caused him, he decided he was a robot. He would walk about during the day carefully aligning the imaginary wires which plugged him into the wall, telling people not to step on those wires as they might accidentally disconnect him. I do not recall what caused his condition or if he was ever able to recover. However, it is very interesting that this child wanted to be an unconscious and unfeeling being to avoid the horrors of his suffering.

I recall a Star Trek episode of a similar theme in which a boy wanted to become Data and avoid feelings because he felt guilt over what he thought was a terrible crime he had accidentally committed.

So, what is it which drives you to wish to be an emotionless, non-conscious object? Why do you feel this compelling need to be a bio-chemical robot? What trauma drives you? Why are you so afraid of being responsible for your actions?

> ...why are so many intellectuals so intent on proving that they have no free will? (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out ironically, “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”) <

Scientific American

How a Flawed Experiment "Proved" that Free Will Doesn't Exist

https://apple.news/AhCXobNpkTnaR4KHC1RBTRg

Soul Brothers

https://aeon.co/essays/why-is-the-language-of-transhumanists-and-religion-so-similar

When I read this article I responded as follows:



Bobby, a really engaging and interesting article if you are interested in the subject (and I know you are).

Anyone else interested? I'm going to post a link to my blog for further discussion.

The discussion of Roko’s Basilisk is very amusing, while still frightening in potenia.

I must agree with a key point of the article, which is that from an outsider's view, there are surprising levels of similarity between the "religionist" and "transhumanist" positions. I see the both of them as different sides of the same coin. To put that in extreme focus terms, think of the Hitler versus Stalin situation in the 30s. Every Communist and every Nazi would declare with utter passion that they were the exact opposite of each other, eternal enemies with totally different visions of the future. Yet outsiders saw little difference between the societies they created -- secret police, torture, mass murder, propaganda, ad infinitum.

As regards this article I see both sides as deeply emotionalist and anti-rationalist. Each believes that their cause so profoundly that any criticism is seen as beyond the pale. In short, even the supposedly rational side is deeply faith based.

I find the whole concept of uploading oneself quite interesting. I also find it deeply flawed. Here are a few of the issues:

What exactly is meant by "consciousness"? The way it's described by transhumanists is identical to the soul. From a strictly rational view, whatever consciousness may exist, it must arise within the structure of the brain itself. There is no ghost in the machine, the two are inseparable, indeed identical. And yet transhumanists refer to their consciousness exactly in the same way that the religious refer to the soul. It is an awareness, and existence, a state of being entirely separate from physical reality.

This could be referred to as the Star Trek transporter problem. The transporter disassembles you, copying your patterns in the process and then sends the information in a datastream to a receiving transporter which rebuilds "you". But you have destroyed your brain. Your consciousness is gone. What you have created is a copy of yourself which, because it has your memories, thinks it is you. Even in the Star Trek universe this problem was acknowledged because occasionally there is a transporter accident in which multiple copies of a person are made. Starfleet regards all those copies as the original person even though we now have multiple "original persons".

The same issue arises with a copy of your intelligence. Once it's copied into machine form, into a computer state of zeros and ones, it could be copied indefinitely. So if we destroy your brain to copy it and then upload it into 1 million computer systems, there are now 1 million original yous. Each one will insist that it is in fact the actual real you and the others are the false ones. But in fact the real you will have been destroyed along with your brain, unless you accept the concept of a separate consciousness, a separate soul which does not depend upon the physical brain.

And then there's the problem of reprogramming. What if somebody hacks the new you? A teenage kid is bored and hacks the system decides to turn you into a… Who knows what? When she changes your data programming, it will change you. You can be turned into a monster, or a maniac, a saintly prophet; anything the hacker programs in, that will be the new you.

So the question quickly becomes, is that you at all? Was it ever you?

And let's never forget Roko’s Basilisk. The transhumanist view here is one of a perfect world which everybody is nice and everybody is good and no one will ever do anything bad or wrong. I find that unlikely.

Once you have become a computer program you would be helpless. Anyone who has retained their body (or perhaps become a cyborg) and is outside the system and can hack into it and do whatever they want to you. Imagine a Hitler, Stalin, or even any number of average personalities having complete control over not only you but the entire universe you inhabit.

I'm going to refer to the Heechee series again. All these issues are dealt with in novel form, including that emergency services may "save" your life by uploading you into a computer program if a disaster renders you unconscious and unable to continue to live in your body. If you have good health insurance you will now live wonderful life. If you don't, they make you pay back the debt by enslaving your program and selling it to whoever cares to bid on it.

As scary as the future is, and I'm certain it will have its horrors, I believe it will be better than things are now. However, I am forced to admit that that is a matter of faith.

Tinkering With Rights And Authority

I sharply disagree with this editorial. The Tinker decision, in which --...the Supreme Court proclaimed that schoolchildren don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”-- is a poor one.  Schools (k-12) are dedicated to education. While discussions of current events are critical to fulfilling that function, political protest can be profoundly disruptive.  The learning environment requires  mutual effort and cooperative interactions, while protest is defined as disruptive and conflict oriented.

Furthermore, the authority of the school is undermined by the Tinker decision.  If we insist that free speech rights can not be limited for students, how can the school limit vulgarity or defiance?  Why can a student not wear pornographic images?  Why must a student be silent while the teacher lectures?

Of course students do not lose their rights at the classroom door, but the nature of the educational experience does limit those rights under the special circumstance of attending classes.

The issue of the classic concept of schools acting in loco parentis, that is as a parent in the absence of the actual parents, has been deeply eroded, but surely some level of authority must exist if schools are to function.

Court ruling shows hazy high school freedom
http://lat.ms/1Dnd8Wg

I Dub Thee Human

In response to the following article I posted:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10206089793113528&id=1523406287&_rdr#

The author agrees with many of the points I have previously made, however I think he misses a critical point. He suggests we must redefine everything as "human beings" if they are to be regarded as possessing natural rights. Which is simply silly. I do not imagine a dog must be defined as a human being to allow for the possibility that the dog may have some rights.

Is it not much more reasonable to accept the point that because animals posess all the abilities and emotions which we possess, although at a much lower evolutionary level, therefore, they have rights although that those rights are less than ours.
I do not perceive that it is necessary to turn a dog into a human being in order to acknowledge that it has rights. Many have already pointed out that we need only concern ourselves with the rights of sentient beings. That is to say, beings which feel, that have a sense of self, and which can suffer or feel pleasure. There is no need to create a forced choice false dichotomy of nothing has rights except human beings, therefore we must redefine animals as human beings if we are to contend that they have rights.

Trust Me, I'm a Fully Qualified Do It Youself NueroPhysiologist!

In response to a friend's post inquiring about the effectiveness of nuero-enhancing medications, I said:

Have you considered direct electrical stimulation of the brain? 

From the Forum column of Scientific American February 2014: Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) applies electrodes to the scalp which then deliver miniscule amperages of current to the brain.  For reasons not fully understood this  causes adjustments in the electrical potentials of the membranes of the neurons closest to the electrodes, increasing or decreasing their likelihood of firing. Again, for reasons not entirely understood, measurable improvements in memory, language, attention, and other cognitive domains can result.

Although the authors go on to state that the FDA has not yet approved this procedure and that the consensus among experts is that it should be performed only under qualified supervision, they point out that it is:

A. Safe, portable, easy to implement, and inexpensive. (If used properly.)

B. Some do-it-yourselfers have already built and are using their own devices at home.

It is reported that the effects of this device make users smarter, faster, and more attentive.

I bet you and Nick could whip up one of these over a weekend. If you do, I'd love to see a video of the results.

PS, if you do try this and post a video to YouTube you will get more hits if Nick rubs his hands together and gleefully chortles "It's alive! It's alive!" at the end of the experiment.

Philosophers, Mathematicians, and Necromancers -- also, maybe some Hobbits

I can't let this one slip by. I'm watching Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. He's introducing a philosopher who has an interesting theory and I just can't let it stand as described. The man's name is Jan Westerhoff.

He contends that when you wake up, you may well be simply waking up into yet another dream. He offers as a mathematical proof, well, indicator of possibility, the following:

This is a significant chance that we are dreaming right now. Most people spend eight hours asleep and 16 hours awake in a 24-hour period. 20% of this sleep time is REM sleep, or rapid eye movement sleep. This means that any given individual is dreaming for about 20% of those eight hours. Therefore, we are in a dream state approximately 1.6 hours out of every day.  He concludes that this means we have a 1 in 10 chance of being asleep and dreaming at any given moment of any given day, including right now.

Ignoring the fundamental problem which somehow seems not to occur to him, that if we are asleep, none of the data he assumes to be factual can be trusted; I couldn't help but consider another set of numbers.

The age of the universe, as far as we know, is 13.7 billion years. Let us assume the human lifespan at 100 years, not an unreasonable assumption for the upcoming generation.  Ignoring the future, which cannot be accurately estimated since it could end with the heat death of the universe or could extend into infinity if there is a multiverse, this means that a human lifespan is only 1/137,000,000 of the age of the universe. Using Dr. Westerhoff's logic, we can therefore  conclude that the possibility that any single person is alive at this moment in time is nonexistent for all practical purposes.

I conclude that we should ignore the rest of what he had to say, since he is clearly dead. It is not wise to listen to the dead. Biblically, this is considered to be a terrible sin.  If you don't believe me, consider the case of the Witch of Endor. I also don't think it's practical from a scientific viewpoint. But it doesn't matter anyway, since according to his logic, all the rest of us are also almost certainly dead.

Thus, I finally conclude that it is unwise for philosophers to delve into areas best left to mathematicians.

PS,

If you're not familiar with the Bible, I assume that the term Witch of Endor strikes you as rather Hobbit like.  Nevertheless, it is biblical. Look it up.

PPS,

Yes, I know. He could also be not born yet. But I'm not a Mormon, so I'm not even gonna go there.

PPPS,

I'm a lot more philosopher than mathematician and a lot more poet than philosopher, therefore you're welcome to check my math.  Please send me any necessary corrections. To any mathematicians out there, I sincerely apologize for trespassing into your territory.  In my own defense, I point out that I didn't start it, that other guy did!

Well, back to Dr. Westerhoff...

Orange Kangaroos from Denmark

There seems to be something wrong with my brain. Well, I mean other than all the things that everybody already knows are wrong with my brain.

I've been watching Brain Games on National Geo TV. Interesting program. Quite often, I follow the correct pattern. In other words, the trick they play works.

Of course, it doesn't always come out that way. Today's program, for example, just isn't working out. A rather elaborate series of steps were supposed to lead me to think about an orange kangaroo from Denmark. Only it didn't. It led me to think of a red ichthyosaur from Dubai. No problem, I suppose. Except that they seem absolutely certain that I would have thought of an orange kangaroo from Denmark. Apparently everybody does. Everybody except me.

Next they asked if I, the viewer, would prefer to go to an ice cream store with only three flavors or one with many flavors. I chose the site with many flavors. Then they give a list of the choices available in that store, and asked what I would order. I was supposed to have found the first decision easy and the second decision hard. Only, the second decision was not at all difficult. I knew exactly what I desired without hesitation. I did not like most of the flavors which were offered. And even with a number of choices left, I simply chose my particular favorites.

So what's wrong with me?

It is not the first time this program has presented a situation which didn't seem to have the right effect on me. An earlier program asked me to count the number of ducks I saw a shooting gallery. I didn't see any. Then they asked me how many bunnies I saw in an identical sequence. Those I counted. Turns out I was supposed to see the figures as ducks the first time and the same figures as bunnies the second time. Only I never did see any ducks.

Then there was that that whole business about the strange room which makes people look different sizes than they actually are. We viewers were then asked to identify which woman was the taller of the two, and I correctly identified the one who was. They proceeded to claim that the two women were the same size. They then had the two women stand next to each other to prove it. In spite of their denial, the one I had identified as taller was was clearly at least half an inch higher.

Mind you, almost all of their deceptions have been effective with me. I usually make the same errors everybody makes. It's just that on a few occasions I can't even understand what I was supposed to see.

For now, I'm going to push play and see how the rest of the program works out.

Later: This show is really proving to be a bust for me. Maybe I am proving to be a bust for it. The next sequence showed a picture of one girl and the picture of another girl. You're supposed to pick the most attractive. Then they swap the pictures and most people apparently don't even notice. I find that extremely odd. Both of the girls were very pretty, but one was more attractive to me. I couldn't have mistaken one for the other.

This is especially strange for me, since I have massive problems recognizing faces, even those of people I know very well. By the way that's a confession. I don't lightly make it, as I find this disability extremely embarrassing, but it is the truth.

There was another sequence in which you had to choose among women. Although it wasn't the point of the program, I found it interesting that in both cases I chose a woman that was least likely to be chosen by the average person. In one case I was in a 30% minority in the other I was in a 20% minority. I am not certain what it means, but it's interesting.

Actually, I think I do know exactly what was going on to create the conflict between me and this particular episode. The point of of the program was that we make many of our choices on what I refer to as autopilot. Then, if we find ourselves forced into a wrong choice, we rationalize it and convince ourselves that it actually was our choice all along.

Since the conflict between our rationality and our rationalization is a particular philosophic obsession of mine, I expect the reason I wasn't so readily fooled by the tricks played is because I'm a bit more conscious of the reason I make decisions. After all, most of the time I'm tricked just like everybody else. It's just that every now and then, I manage to avoid that.

Which brings me back to the whole situation that started me writing today. Before I picked ichthyosaur, I considered indricothere. That would've led to an interesting situation. If I hadn't changed over to ichthyosaur, I would've ended up with a mental image of an ecru indricothere from Dubai. Orange kangaroos from Denmark, indeed!

An idle thought

Consciousness is a shadow cast by our neurons, 

A rainbow set alight by our electrochemical reactions.