[MD] On Time?

Fri Dec 9 20:51:26 PST 2005

Scott: 
Boy, have you been reading in more than I have been saying.

[Case]
It would help if you left less to the imagination.

1. I am not down on mathematics. On the contrary, I agree with the mystics
Plotinus, Rudolf Steiner, and Franklin Merrell-Wolff who say that studying
mathematics is great training for self-transformation (though not the only
thing needed). My only point was that the mathematics of points and
continuity do not seem to be the right mathematics for quantum gravity
theories. Other mathematics will be needed.

[Case]
Beyond their value as a mental pull-ups, mathematical discoveries have
shaped history; all of it. If you like mathematical mystics why not the
Pythagoreans? 

Scott:
2. I am not down on science. I am only down on those who think that there is
scientific evidence for the belief that consciousness emerged from a world
without it.

[Case]
Such evidence abounds.

Scott:
3. I think you've confused me with Platt on Godel's Theorem. What I take it
to indicate is that mathematics is forever open, that there will never be an
end to mathematical exploration, and I consider this to be a Good Thing.

[Case]
Sorry for the confusion but: Exactly! I previously cited the discovery of
irrational numbers as the first proof for this.

Scott:
4. I am not a solipsist. All I am saying is that the unperceived world is
not spatio-temporal. I say this because if one assumes that it is, then
there is no possibility of awareness. I have given my argument for why I
think this, and you do everything but respond to it. I also gave my spiel on
modern physics to show that it indicates that there is good reason to think
that space and time are not fundamental. All you say is that if the brain
can contain a representation of the past then it can be aware of the past. 
That does not follow. Just having multiple representations in the same place
does not mean that there is awareness. One representation will be in one set
of synapses (or whatever), and another in another. This does not address my
objection, which is (again):

[Case}
I have said over and over that I do not think this world it limited to those
dimension either. I don't know how many dimensions there are but we have
access to more than space and time. All of my speculation on brain function
was to show how the brain might accomplish this. The brain is sufficiently
complex to overcome you one synapse at a time business. This is a limitation
you suppose out of nowhere. 

-----------------------------------------------
Scott:
What you call a temporal buffer is nothing more than a set of synapses or
neurons in some state, right? So how is that set seen as a whole -- as a
color splotch, for example? Well, all there is one signal from one synapse,
another from another, etc., all resulting in some other set of synapses
being in some other state. So the fact that various representations coexist
internally does not solve the problem. In other words, there is no
difference as far as *consciousness* is concerned between the brain or any
strictly spatio-temporal system, and the amoeba.

Case concluded:
But, exactly how does your conception of consciousness overcome this?

Scott:
By not assuming that the world is fundamentally spatio-temporal. Instead I
think that consciousness creates the spatio-temporality of things. As a
bonus, this theory provides an interesting interpretation of quantum
physics.

[Case]
I am not now nor have I ever said that the world is fundamentally
spacio-temporal. I think that neither the external world nor our internal
representations are limited to the spacio-temporal and that any assumptions
based on this being the case are wrong. Despite my denials, you keep saying
it must be so limited and therefore... What I have been saying is that
brains are sufficiently complex to generate representations in some number
of dimensions greater than whatever number time is and that there is no
reason to postulate something unseen and undefined to account for this. I am
perfectly willing to call the brain a black box, stop speculating on how it
does it and just note that it does. Not only do these black boxes transcend
the spacio-temporal but the progressive development of this capacity is well
documented in the fossil record and in the variation of species living
today. 

But this business about there being no difference between the brain
(presumably a human brain but for these purposes any brain will do) and an
amoeba is just silliness based on fallacy.

--------------------------------------------------------

Scott on Chalmers "c" consciousness and Scott's "C" consciousness:
They refer to different aspects.

On the two "definitions" (Chalmers' and mine) I don't see them as referring
to two different things. The Chalmers' description is, as you noted, just
attempting to identify what is referred to by 'consciousness'
pre-philosophically. My big 'C' remark is how I think of consciousness
philosophically. That is, I am saying that this dynamic/static contradictory
identity is "what is going on" in each of Chalmers' examples, and of course
in every perceptive, conceptual, affective, and cognitive event.

[Case]
Chamlers is describing qualia. You are talking about the generative source
of all things. Calling these two the same mystifies me. I don't even what to
know what pre-philosophical is supposed to mean.

--------------------------------------------------
[Case]
I have said on several occasions that I don't think the homunculus problem
is solvable. I must of have missed the memo where Kant was uninstated. As
for this spatio-temporal thing I have said constantly in this thread that I
do not regard the matter as settled or necessarily limiting. You continue to
present it as a stumbling block, why? I thought the comment below put it
pretty succinctly. But again your objection seems to center on Time.

Scott:
I don't recall your saying it -- and I think I would have noticed if you
had. I say this because that is the whole issue. My objection ("how can
there be awareness of anything bigger than...") IS the homunculus problem.
It was created by Cartesian dualism. It persists in materialism, but not in
idealism. So now you are telling me that it is unsolvable IN YOUR
METAPHYSICS. So why not change your metaphysics?

You uninstated Kant by saying that the brain copies external objects into
internal representations. Kant denied this, holding that the internal
representations are determined by the subject, that the objective world is
unknowable. And it looked like you were reinstating it when you said "Our
access to the world of objects is limited to their persistent knocking on
our doors", but I guess not.

[Case]
Actually what I have said in the past is that there is no logical escape
from solipsism. I tend to identify the homunculus with that position but
that is not necessarily so and I have no problem with stopping. In any case
I do change my metaphysics and adopt materialism through a leap of faith.
What I am adopting is an acceptance that there are things in the universe
other than myself. As to the nature of these things, I have to rely on my
sense impressions of them. I did not mean to imply that the brain records
exact copies of external objects into internal representations anymore that
squiggles in vinyl or patterns of magnetic charges are exact copies of sound
waves. But I do not understand that Kant means that these internal
representations are totally subjective either. The internal representations
are the result of the interaction of the subject with objects. Our internal
representations are also continuously evaluated and tested against these
objects in the external world. I agree that the external world is unknowable
in any absolute sense but it IS knowable in a practical sense to the extent
that there is correpondence between it and our internal respresentations. It
is also describable to others and independent subjects can arrive as some
agreement about how external objects are represented internally to each.
Without appeal to these external referents all is fantasy.

You seem to be willing to dismiss the world of objects as irrelevant without
bothering to offer up what is relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------

Scott:
Because as consciousness evolves, so does nature. The original participators
lived in a different world than we do. It is only when it evolved to the
state where nature appeared to us to be void of spirit that one could
imagine that there was a time without consciousness, and hence the need to
invent a theory of emergence.

[Case]
If you wish to pull this reverse zwa-be-dah, I suppose you can but I see no
reason for it nor how it helps. All participators across all times live in
different worlds. The probability that any two individuals will have any
degree of correspondence in their world views is a function of proximity in
space and time. But I just got an e-mail that Barfield has shipped, so this
topic is on hold.

---------------------------------
Scott:
Recording is not the problem. It is being aware of what is being recorded
that is the problem. And -- once more -- if the nexus is a system of bits
(synapses, atoms, whatever) each separated from all the others, how is
awareness of anything larger than a bit possible?

[Case]
This goes back to the amoeba problem. I stated much earlier that the amoeba
does not have consciousness because of this very issue. That amoeba operates
on the basis of individual chemical reactions. With plants, multicelluar
forms emerge on the same basis: one chemical interaction at a time.

Organisms with nervous systems do over come this problem. I have speculated
that the nervous system is a temporal buffer that overcomes the
spacio-temporal problem but allow multiple instants to coexist internally.
You keep insisting that this can't happen because of the spacio-temporal
problem. Whatever allows this breaching of the spacio-temporal barrier it
does get breached and I see no reason to ascribe this to poorly conceived
acausal agency.

But, exactly how does your conception of consciousness overcome this?
------------------------------------

Case continued:
But transcendence of space and time are the result of the brain's ability to
allow multiple temporal representations to exist simultaneously. The result
is space in no-space and time in no-time or "the color blue."

Scott said:
They may well exist simultaneously, but what is "seeing" them as a whole?
And are you after all this now agreeing with me that it is perception that
creates space and time? If so, why do you need a theory of emergence?, and
more important, why are you trying to explain perception in terms of
spatio-temporal objects?

[Case]
I don't think perception creates space and time I think it records it. What
is created is a representation of "world of objects." A theory of emergence
is needed in order for consciousness at this level to occur. You need
something sufficiently complex to create the recording.

Scott:
Well, you're back at expounding what Dennett calls the "Cartesian Theater".
That's the source of the homunculus problem.

[Case]
No, I am saying the nervous systems allow multiple internal representations
to be organized internal and to exist simultaneously. We call this
awareness.
--------------------------------------------------

Case continued:
The specific nature of time is intertwined with the nature of space; since
they are supposed to be the same thing. We think of space as continuous so
perhaps time is as well. However in order to talk about space we have to
divide it up into units of measurement. The same occurs with time. Even if
it is continuous we don't seem to be able to do much with it until it is
carved into units.

Euclid begins with: A point is that which has no parts. Does this referred
strictly to space but does it apply to time as well?

We often speak of a point in time but I wonder what significance this has.
Whenever we talk about the past or future, we seem to be talking about
periods of time, time as a certain number of units past or future. Is there
a fundamental unit of time? If you say that a "point" is "that which has no
parts," can you say that an "instant" is "that which has no duration"? Is
there a geometry for this?

Scott:
I'll interrupt here. First, one should be aware that a mathematical point
and a mathematical continuous line are mathematical creations. There is no
reason to assume that physical reality has points or continuity. Newton did,
and Einstein also, but quantum physics challenges this. In quantum gravity
theories, it is more or less accepted that there is basic unit of time (and
of space -- the latter called the Planck length, I forget what they call the
time one, maybe Planck time). Because of the Uncertainty Principle, anything
smaller is meaningless. Space and time are also thought to be meaningless in
black holes. (Even in special relativity, there is no space and time for a
photon). Furthermore, they (the quantum gravity folks) are trying to work
out what they call "background-independent theories", which is to say a
theory in which space and time are NOT the background, but are derived
within the theory.

[Case]
On several occasions you have dismissed the importance of mathematical
descriptions. While there is no necessity of correspondence between
mathematical descriptions and reality, there are correspondences and
mathematics is the most precise and unambiguous language we have for
describing nature or at least our internal representations of nature. You
can't dismiss mathematics on one hand and talk about quantum gravity on the
other. The Uncertainty Principle does not say that anything smaller that a
certain size is meaningless nor does physics say that black holes render
space and time meaningless. They are saying that our current theories do not
totally account for what is going on.

Again, this does not seem to be sufficient reason to abandon the enterprise.
-------------------------------------------

Case continued:
It would seem that the most significant point in time is "Now". I would
conjecture that "Now" is the "instant" in which all probability achieves
100% in other words it is the instant of absolute certainty. Every other
instant is probabilistic in relation to the "Now instant". I suspect this is
tautological but it is interesting. For example can probability hold at 100%
for some duration? That would make the fundamental unit of time the duration
for which all of the quantum uncertainties can be said that have been
resolved. I am going to hazard a guess that this would be a very very short
duration. Smaller even than itsy bitsy.

Scott:
Well, what you seem to be ignoring is that we don't experience an "instant"
of time. "Now" is a duration. If time were a succession of points (discrete
or continuous, it doesn't matter -- in the continuous case, one can assume a
sequence of discrete snapshots), one has to ask, what endures so that we
hear a whole note lasting a second in a piece of music, and not 440 changes
in air pressure (which in turn consist of a zillion electromagnetic events).

[Case]
The "Now" instant like all instants is of no duration. The only thing that
distinguishes the "Now" from any other instant is that there is no
uncertainty in the "Now". I suspect that in a geometry that would include
this, a succession of instants would form a surface rather than a line.

If it doesn't matter whether time is continuous or discrete why do you think
this is of central importance? And how does consciousness over come that
problem?

----------------------------------------- 
Scott:
No, I am attempting to point out that assuming that time is "out there"
raises unresolvable paradox. (Note: when I say "time", you can always
substitute "things changing" to avoid the Newton/Leibniz debate over whether
time is something in itself (Newton) or just relations (Leibniz).) To say it
is successive raises the homunculus problem. To say it is durational raises
the problem of what delimits durations. It can't be any change, since things
are changing as we listen to a one-second note, so then something endures
over changes. What all this leads to is not asking whether anything at all
can exist, but that time and awareness are inseparable, that awareness
creates time (and space). The paradox arises when it is assumed that space
and time exist prior to awareness. Of course reversing this assumption
raises other problems, namely, what is timelessness (eternity) "like". Well,
I don't know. All I know is that mystics assure us that eternity is real,
that time is (as Plato put it) a measurement of eternity.

[Case]
I am saying that nervous systems have evolved and overcome this supposed
limitation. There is no paradox. I also see no reason to assume that because
no one sees trees falling in the forest they don't fall any more than I
assume that my house disappears when I go to work.

You say, "The paradox arises when it is assumed that space and time exist
prior to awareness." Who assumes that time and space exist prior to
awareness? It is fair to say that something exists prior to awareness or at
least I am willing to accept this much on faith. After all to deny this is
solipsism. Time and space are our descriptions of this something.

But there are much larger problems with your formulation at least as I
understand it. You have mostly said what your position is not, rather than
what it is, so feel free to correct any misunderstanding. You seem to be
saying that because of this alleged spacio-temporal barrier all scientific
theories should be thrown out in favor of a theory based on consciousness.
Whatever logic impels you, this is the exact position taken by Christian
apologists who reject what they like to call philosophical naturalism. They
maintain that to deny the possibily of supernatural agency is logically
inconsistant. This allows them to say that as long as their system has some
logical validity it is acceptable. It does not have to conform to anything
observable by multiple observers. It does not have to be testable in any
way. As a result the laws of physics are really just suggestions and can be
set aside anytime God wills it.

This seems like a rather extreme interpretation of Gödel: Since truth is
separate from provability, we can declare whatever we like to be true and
never have to worry about the messy business of conforming to anything at
all. I think a more rational view of Gödel would be, that although truth may
not be provable; it should lead quickly to something that is provable.

Modern physics does not throw Newton out the window, it subsumes it. It
offers up the same predictions or accounts for them in a more complete way.
You say for example the consciousness evolves and drags the rest of nature
with along in its wake. I am saying that nature is change and consciousness
emerges as a result. There is a whole body of research and thought to
support my version. You have offered up nothing but negatives to support
yours. Your version seems flawed to me in the inadequacy of your description
of consciousness, inability to spell out on what basis any two people could
come to an agreement about it and your refusal to state how it offers a
better interpretation.

There is no argument that our internal representations do not fully capture
the intricacies of the external world. Nor  that it is possible to construct
an internally consistent internal world with no correspondence to the
external world (we typically call this insanity). But individual survival
and evolutionary success rather demand that some contact between the two.

I have found your paradox interesting to play with but I would say it is
either a puzzle of language or some version of Zeno's paradox but it is not
sufficiently disturbing to jump off a philosophical cliff over.

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/