Philosophy
I have recently been thinking about philosophy.
I have this friend who’s quite a bit older than I and during one of our meet ups somehow the topic of philosophy, dualism, “hard problem of consciousness”, “qualia”. The conversation didn’t really begin, we reached an early impasse and they didn’t seem interested in continuing past it regardless.
My beliefs are very materialist. Everything that exists is of material, and is measurable in some form. I do not believe anything metaphysical exists in any real sort of way. After all, if it’s impossible to measure, then what impact does it really have on the world, and does it really exist?
I am a systems thinker. I like to think of things as part of a system. I don’t believe this is fundamental to how the world works. I think existence is just matter in motion, and we may use systems to get better understandings of that matter and perhaps predict where it will be.
I also strongly believe that we as people need to find comfort in unanswered questions, and perhaps strive to scientifically understand them someday. Everything exists in the fog of the unknown until we know about it, and the lump sum of all human knowledge is far beyond any individual’s perception. We may, however, try our best.
I do not believe there is anything other than that which exists within our physical brains and systems of nerves. I believe that it is knowable to some extent, theoretically given the full “state” of the mind we may infer exactly everything it thinks.
There are some questions I don’t yet have answers to but have come across seeming explanations. For example, if the mind has some quantum mechanic behind its working, then it is not copy able (according to some quantum theory I do not understand). This means that we could not replicate a mind to any real extent, and that every biological human mind is unique. We could not theoretically emulate the mind, and that emulated mind would therefore not have the same consciousness as humans.
Consciousness only exists insofar as it is measurable. I think, and this experience of existence can be called consciousness. I may observe that other humans act as if they have the same sort of consciousness as I do. I may read on the science others have done and find out that my brain, and the brains of others, work much the same way. I can therefore infer that it is most likely than not true that other people are equally conscious as I.
I may never know for certain, but I don’t really care about certainty. I am never completely certain. All that matters is that other people act conscious, so I should act like they are conscious.
When discussing dualism with this other person, the first thing they asked in attempts to “convince” me of dualism was “what happens after you die?”. I answered that I don’t know, and I don’t really care. As I’ve already stated, I have come to find it comfortable to say that I do not have the answers.
I may infer from my beliefs on how the brain works what happens when that physical process ends. The experience of consciousness must end to. If thought is tied to brain matter, and brain matter dies, then my consciousness will simply cease to be. I will not know what this feels like, and I will never know. It is unknowable, and I don’t really see a point in deliberating or spending effort in thinking about it.
I am the sum of my experiences, each held materially in the signals sent through the brain on a constant basis. Once those cease, I will no longer be. I cannot fathom that if my “experience” of existing continues in any form after my material dies that I would be my same self.
For example, I would like to believe that my experience of being would continue in another person after I die. Even if true, I would not be the same person. The person I had been will die with the body, alongside the brain matter they once were. This cyclic theory is interesting, but it’s not really meaningful. All I have is this one life, and I will enjoy it as much as I can.
I do not care if there is a point to anything. I think life exists simply as a process of entropy, it’s existence ultimately using energy to do work in a way faster than if it had not existed. Given any condition where it can exist, it may exist simply to contribute to entropy. I think my experiences as an individual human person are the result of one such route that life has taken.
As unlikely as the circumstances may be, I exist, therefore they must have happened. Had they not have happened, I would not exist to deliberate on their unlikeliness.
I once thought philosophy a fundamental topic, perhaps as important as science or at least large parts of it. Now, I’m tending to think philosophy is only as important as it is a reflection on the human experience, and our history with this experience. It is still incredibly important, but ultimately not really useful if we want to understand the reality we live in.
If it isn’t material, it isn’t real. Metaphysical is oxymoronic with definite existence.
On p-zombies
I believe I understand the premise. I think there is an issue with the premise.
I hold that qualitative properties emerge from quantitative physical processes. From the physical processes of the mind emerges the quality of the experience. The physical process does not mysteriously produce experience, it is fundamentally that experience.
The p-zombie relies on dualism to exist. In my philosophical framework, a p-zombie cannot exist. Once the physical processes of the brain exist, the experience exists as well. The premise of a p-zombie dissolves under emergence.
I do not think the distinction between “soft” and “hard ” consciousness is meaningful. The feeling and experience is still an internal physical process. The felt quality is the process of perceiving red from our first-person perspectives. Felt experience, as it exists, does not require anything beyond the physical process to explain it. The experience is real, but there is no gap.
The exact mechanism on how the quality emerges from the quantity: what matters is that this is a physical process and one that might not be scientifically understood.
Babies!
Something that came up with this friend is the consciousness of babies. I cannot remember the specifics, but they suggested that babies have this experience of consciousness, and I of rejected that idea at the time. The idea of why pain is bad also came uo, and it hinged on this experience of consciousness.
My position on the consciousness of babies, and animals in general, depends on the argument from analogy. Babies and animals must experience consciousness in some capacity, for they act as if they do.
I am not any animal I might compare myself to. It is much harder to project my experience onto them as analogy. They clearly have something going on. As above, this “something” is an emergent property from the physical function of their brains.
Infants are a bit different. My main tension with this is that I do not remember being a baby. My first memory is from when I was likely just turned four or just under four years old. Before then, I must have had some experience of consciousness, but it did not involve as much memory. My current experience relies heavily on memory. The shift between the two was one of physical complexity and the depth of my memory. I may even recall exactly how that shift continued to occur throughout my childhood, and into my young adult life.
The infant experience becoming the adult experience strengthens my position against “hard consciousness”. Consciousness in its entirely is the emergent processes of the physical existence. Memories are themselves physical, so as they form in our brains so too does their experience.
In this conversation, another part of this point was on pain. My friend seemed to state that it is bad to cause pain on babies (and perhaps animals) because they have this “hard consciousness”, this feeling of pain. When I brought up my initial rejection of babies having the experience, this may have been confusing. Now I have explored my position, and I can clarify.
There is no separation between the physical signal of pain and the conscious experience of pain. Pain is pain.
some other stuff
Everything that exists is material and measurable. Type-B Physicalism or Materialism. On consciousness, Identity theory.
Unfalsifiable claims don’t do much work in explaining reality. “Logical Positivism” (Ayer, Carnap). Wittgenstein’s remark “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.
Inferring consciousness in others from behavioural and structural similarity. Argument from Analogy.
I exist, therefore the conditions for my existence must have occurred” Weak anthropic principle. Also, resists the teleological fallacy.
Qualitative properties emerge from quantitative physical processes. Emergentism, although I came to understand it through dialectical materialism.
My p-zombie argument, allegedly Daniel Dennett’s thoughts in “consciousness explained” although I have not read it and came to the conclusions myself based on my understanding of dialectical materialism.
Uncertainty is liveable and scientific understanding may close gaps with time. Not knowing what happens after death, and that’s fine. This is Epistemic Humility and Pragmatism.
Life exists as a process of entropy. Dissipative systems theory (Prigogine) and Jeremy England’s thermodynamic account of life’s origins. I probably got this from some video podcast.
Also, I may want to resolve the tension between what knowable means in practice. The quantum argument makes the mind non-copyable, and in this the mind is never truly knowable from inside physical reality.