Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

switching to psycho-analyzing mode, the other reason why "Bits" is the more popular answer is probably that it's more sophisticated. Most people won't even know what a bit is. Also, it's what technical people spend all their time with. Computer science in general and computability theory and information theory in particular are all about Bits. Anyone who does anything with software has completely abstracted away from matter and only works at the level of bits. this obviously should not be a serious philosophical consideration, but it probably matters.

[silverspawn]

So the simplicity arguments seem to go in favor of panpsychism. Separately, there is the phenomenological aspect. It is not the case that consciousness starts to fade into the background as you stop thinking. After skimping on formal meditation for months, I decided to meditate for a solid hour yesterday evening, and it was the most intense experience I've had in forever. As thoughts become less frequent, experience gets stronger rather than weaker; this is the opposite of what the "Bits" view would predict.

And ok, I had physical pain from not moving for too long, so perhaps the brain is doing some kind of weird intense processing of this physical input? But even then, people who go into sensory deprivation tanks, or just reach meditative states where they minimize inputs of any kind, usually always report intense and often blissful experiences.

This doesn't *prove* anything; perhaps the brain just starts doing random computations if it has nothing else to do, and these are very blissful for some reason. But it sure fits the atoms view better.

[silverspawn]

And thirdly, there is the phenomenological binding problem. Why does our experience appear unified? Why do we see images as one thing? This can't be an illusion because it has causal properties; look at an optical illusion, say that you see the lines that aren't there; boom that's a causal effect. Binding is real and it does something.

Afaik, no-one has ever proposed how this is possible if consciousness are caused by information flow.

[faust]

what is more real; bits or atoms? what is the cause of consciousness; bits or atoms?

the popular answer is "bits".

Is it? I can see how it might be among people who spend a lot of time thinking about AI, but I believe that the average person's answer would be atoms. Or, of course "neither, it's God" or something along those lines.

I guess my answer would also be neither. If pressed, my favorite explanation is that atoms are the result of consciousness rather than its cause.

[silverspawn]

Good question. Idk what the general public thinks. But bits is popular among AI people, as you say, and unfortunately, AI will likely be built by AI people.

I believe Your position would be Idealism

[Awaclus]

I think that made-up concepts are still real in the sense that we can clearly observe what effects they have, which I think aligns with people's intuitive understanding of bits, money, ideologies and other things we acknowledge are made up and also use for our benefit all the time. For some reason, it doesn't seem to align with people's intuitive understanding of things like conspiracy theories, alternative medicine or fake news (that most people claim are either real or made up, not both), even though that contradicts the very obvious fact that these things have real effects on people, which almost everyone implicitly admits by being worried about them.

So, I would say that bits and atoms are equally real. I have no idea what the cause of consciousness is.

[faust]

I believe Your position would be Idealism

I suppose so. Though it would be objective idealism rather than subjective idealism, which is an important distinction (when I read idealism, my immediate association was subjective idealism and I wanted to contradict you).

[infangthief]

I like a non-reductionist approach. See Dooyeweerd's Aspects of experience.

I would say that bits cannot be reduced to or explained by atoms; atoms cannot be reduced to bits; consciousness cannot be reduced to either.

Using an aspects approach, we could say things like:

• Bits have not reality in a Physical sense, but they are real in an Analytic sense.
• Consiousness has no reality in a Physical sense, but it is real in a Sensitive/Psychic sense.
• Fake news has no reality in a Formative/Historic sense, but it is real in a Social sense.

[silverspawn]

I think that made-up concepts are still real in the sense that we can clearly observe what effects they have, which I think aligns with people's intuitive understanding of bits, money, ideologies and other things we acknowledge are made up and also use for our benefit all the time. For some reason, it doesn't seem to align with people's intuitive understanding of things like conspiracy theories, alternative medicine or fake news (that most people claim are either real or made up, not both), even though that contradicts the very obvious fact that these things have real effects on people, which almost everyone implicitly admits by being worried about them.

Conspiracy theories and similar concepts are "real" by that definition but not *fundamental*. I.e., if you say that someone believes in a conspiracy theory, this is just a really compact, high-level way to talk about atoms. (Atoms in their brain, in this case.) Similar with fake news, education, fashion, etc.

This distinction isn't usually drawn, but it's essential here. So far, every law of physics we know works on the fundamental level, i.e. atoms (although "atoms" is really just a shorthand for "quantum fields", the things that are **actually** fundamental). High level concepts matter exactly insofar as they're reducible to low level concepts. There's no mention of conspiracy theories in the laws of physics.

This is why it's a big deal that bits are reducible to atoms but not vice versa. If consciousness comes from bits, then this is inconsistent with every other law of physics.

[silverspawn]

I would say that bits cannot be reduced to or explained by atoms; atoms cannot be reduced to bits; consciousness cannot be reduced to either.

I don't see how this isn't just trivially false. Take a computer, simulate every atom, and you get a perfect model of what it will do; a better and more precise model than one that has bits as primitives. That is reducing bits to atoms.

[Awaclus]

Conspiracy theories and similar concepts are "real" by that definition but not *fundamental*. I.e., if you say that someone believes in a conspiracy theory, this is just a really compact, high-level way to talk about atoms. (Atoms in their brain, in this case.) Similar with fake news, education, fashion, etc.

This distinction isn't usually drawn, but it's essential here. So far, every law of physics we know works on the fundamental level, i.e. atoms (although "atoms" is really just a shorthand for "quantum fields", the things that are **actually** fundamental). High level concepts matter exactly insofar as they're reducible to low level concepts. There's no mention of conspiracy theories in the laws of physics.

This is why it's a big deal that bits are reducible to atoms but not vice versa. If consciousness comes from bits, then this is inconsistent with every other law of physics.

Oh, I see. I'm not a physicist so my understanding of things goes only so far, but aren't atoms still a high level concept? How do subatomic particles fit into this?

[silverspawn]

yeah, they are. Like said, "atoms" was really meant to be a standin for "whatever the lowest level physical thing is"; probably quantum fields.

[Awaclus]

Okay. Well, it seems like either consciousness must come from the lowest level physical thing, unless there somehow is something independent of physics that causes consciousness.

[infangthief]

I would say that bits cannot be reduced to or explained by atoms; atoms cannot be reduced to bits; consciousness cannot be reduced to either.

I don't see how this isn't just trivially false. Take a computer, simulate every atom, and you get a perfect model of what it will do; a better and more precise model than one that has bits as primitives. That is reducing bits to atoms.

If we're talking about bits in a hardware register, then yes, they are made up of atoms and exist physically. (But even in that case, "exists physically" is not the same as saying "has no non-physical meaning".)

But as you're talking about bits as a candidate for a universal building block, then I assume you mean "the concept of a bit", i.e. a way of assigning 1 or 0 to every entity, rather than anything like a physical bit in hardware. Such a concept doesn't have physical reality.

[silverspawn]

If we're talking about bits in a hardware register, then yes, they are made up of atoms and exist physically. (But even in that case, "exists physically" is not the same as saying "has no non-physical meaning".)

But as you're talking about bits as a candidate for a universal building block, then I assume you mean "the concept of a bit", i.e. a way of assigning 1 or 0 to every entity, rather than anything like a physical bit in hardware. Such a concept doesn't have physical reality.

I totally grant the distinction. But my point is, if every instance of a bit, like in a brain or computer or in DNA is reducible to physics, then why do you believe that the concept is fundamental beyond that? Where is the evidence for this?

[silverspawn]

This deduction will apply to all Sit and Go games at 5.3% for buy-ins to poker cash games and Poker Tournament Tickets. Buy-in dialogue windows will now show the additional tax in a breakdown, along with the increased buy-in. All points of entry and re-entry as well as all rebuys and add-ons will be charged at the full rate.

yes thank you this does not at all make the rake completely unplayable and cause me to have zero interest in your site

[silverspawn]

They specifically charge 5% extra only for people in Germany. What the hell?

[silverspawn]

I assume this is the result of some regulatory decision to fight gambling addiction, but making it more expensive is a ridiculous way to go about it

[silverspawn]

This Password is to long.

...

[infangthief]

If we're talking about bits in a hardware register, then yes, they are made up of atoms and exist physically. (But even in that case, "exists physically" is not the same as saying "has no non-physical meaning".)

But as you're talking about bits as a candidate for a universal building block, then I assume you mean "the concept of a bit", i.e. a way of assigning 1 or 0 to every entity, rather than anything like a physical bit in hardware. Such a concept doesn't have physical reality.

I totally grant the distinction. But my point is, if every instance of a bit, like in a brain or computer or in DNA is reducible to physics, then why do you believe that the concept is fundamental beyond that? Where is the evidence for this?

Pretty much any instance of binary categorisation is, for me, evidence of the analytical aspect of a bit. And probably none of them are for you.

Take Zendo Questions for example. It is presumably possible to describe each Yes/No decision in terms of the movement of particles in my brain. But if you do that, I would say all you have done is described the physical aspect of what happened, not the analytical aspect. The analytical aspect recognises the meaning of the Yes/No decision.

And beyond that, Zendo Questions has a Lingual aspect, a Social aspect, an Aesthetic aspect. As a non-reductionist I like to consider each of these aspects of meaning, without saying "ah but it is just particles and energy and stuff".

[silverspawn]

This is actually not what I would say. With how you phrased it right now, I would question whether this view cashes out at anything. What is the difference between being a non-reductionist in this way and a reductionist? My definition of reductionism is that the laws of physics are all written over a single layer of physical stuff), and you seem to agree with this? (Except that consciousness is an exception?)

[silverspawn]

great, so my landlady fell and people broke in to get her, then put in a new lock. Someone was supposed to bring a key today but didn't and now it's mast midnight and I have to get up early. I'm now locked into the house except I can technically get out through balcony -> garden -> freedom. Also there's another person living in this house who probably doesn't know what's going on

[silverspawn]

this is a pretty ridiculous situation

[infangthief]

This is actually not what I would say. With how you phrased it right now, I would question whether this view cashes out at anything. What is the difference between being a non-reductionist in this way and a reductionist? My definition of reductionism is that the laws of physics are all written over a single layer of physical stuff), and you seem to agree with this? (Except that consciousness is an exception?)

The laws of physics describe what happens physically. Yes, fine. But this is just reductionism within the physical aspect. The difference between a general reductionist and a non-reductionist is whether they then say "and that describes everything that happened".

I would consider the Dooyeweerd's 15 Aspects as a kind of 15-dimensional space. When something happens, it is like a shape in multi-dimensional space. Describing what happened physically is like projecting that shape onto one axis. But that doesn't describe the whole shape.

Each aspect/dimension is potentially a discipline, with its concepts, theories etc.

I don't think consciousness is an exception to other things. I haven't really thought about consiousness much, but probably my consciousness has Physical, Biotic and Sensory aspects to it.

Or if you consider an abstract concept of consciousness, that is probably a feature of the Sensory aspect, like a concept of mass for the Physical aspect, a concept of a bit for the Analytical aspect, or a concept of beauty for the Aesthetic aspect.

[silverspawn]

The laws of physics describe what happens physically. Yes, fine. But this is just reductionism within the physical aspect. The difference between a general reductionist and a non-reductionist is whether they then say "and that describes everything that happened".

So, say someone listen's to Beethoven's ninth symphony. I can see how you look at that and say "the physical aspect (how the particles bounce around) is not everything that happened". I can also see how someone looks at that and says "the physical aspect is everything that happened". This is why I'm still unvonvinced that there is a real difference here.

The claim I would want to make is "the non-physical aspects are all perfectly reconstructible from the physical aspect". Tell me the exact position of every particle in the room, and I could in principle tell you everything about what happened, about every aspect, physical, sensory, biotic, whatever.

If you agree with that claim, then I'd argue there is no real difference here, only a disagreement about language, e.g. what it means to be "everything" or "a reductionist".