The argument from
reason says that reason cannot emerge from a closed, mechanistic system. The
computer is, narrowly speaking, a mechanistic system, and it does “follow”
rational rules. But not only was the computer made by humans, the framework of
meaning that makes the computer’s actions intelligible is supplied by humans.
As a set of physical events, the actions of a computer are just as subject as
anything else to the indeterminacy of the physical. If a computer plays the
move Rf6, and we see it on the screen, it is our perception and understanding
that gives that move a definite meaning. In fact, the move has no meaning to
the computer itself, it only means something to persons playing and watching
the game. Suppose we lived in a world without chess, and two computers were to
magically materialize in the middle of the Gobi desert and go through all the
physical states that the computers went through the last time Fritz played
Shredder. If that were true they would not be playing a chess game at all,
since there would be no humans around to impose the context that made those
physical processes a chess game and not something else. Hence, I think that we
can safely regard the computer objection as a red herring.
29 comments:
Victor,
"The argument from reason says that reason cannot emerge from a closed, mechanistic system."
That's why the "argument" from reason is specious.
" it only MEANS something to persons playing and watching the game."
"Hence, I think that we can safely regard the computer objection as a red herring."
Now you are moving the goalposts from REASON to MEANING.
Is it the argument from reason or the argument from meaning?
Can you define those 2 words?
Reason:
Meaning:
And what exactly is it about the processes indicated by those two words that you assert?:
A-Cannot be performed by any computing device yet constructed.
and
B-Cannot have been a result of a step by tiny step of evolution from molecules to cells to fish to lizards to mice to monkeys to us over 4 billion years in the open system that is the biosphere of planet Earth?
Reason is the selection of belief states aimed at truth. There's a difference between acting in accoudance with reason, and acting from reason, or because of the reason. Meaning is an esssential feature of reason. Reason moves from one meaning to another meaning based on logical principles. If meanings are not fixed, the logic simply does not work.
For example, is this valid?
1. Going to class is pointless.
2. An unsharpened pencil is pointless.
Therefore, going to class is n unsharpened pencil.
In the case of reason, nothing is chosen because it supports the conclusion. That would illegitimately introduce teleology into physics. Even if A follows B in my thoughts, and A follows from B, it cannot follow B in my thoughts because if follows from B.
Victor,
Your example of 1 and 2 suffers from the fallacy of equivocation, which of course, you intentionally built in as an example.
"Reason is the selection of belief states aimed at truth."
Presumably you agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Supposing I ask X, in English, "How much is 2 plus 2?"
X answers "4".
So I ask X "Wait, isn't it true that 2 plus 2 equals 3?"
X answers, "No, it is false that 2 plus 2 equals 3, in truth, 2 plus 2 equals 4"
If X is a human being then by your definition that human being held states aimed at the truth.
Well, X can just as well be a computer.
Therefore, such a computer reasoned, since it held states aimed at truth, as evidenced by its expression of those truthful states.
You are having a hard time coming up with a definition of reason that cannot be satisfied by a computer.
"Even if A follows B in my thoughts, and A follows from B, it cannot follow B in my thoughts because if follows from B."
Makes no sense. I think you are missing a lot of words that would be needed to turn that into an intelligible argument or assertion.
By "follows" I suppose you mean logically, or ontologically, or perhaps temporally. I will use "follows" in an ontological example.
I am thinking of smoke following from fire. In external reality, smoke does follow from fire. Actual smoke does not follow from actual fire in my thoughts because there is no actual smoke or actual fire inside my skull.
What is supposed to be the problem? In external reality actual smoke follows from actual fire. In my thoughts I imagine, I abstract, fire, smoke, the process of combustion, and the way fire results in smoke.
Pretty simple. How is any this supposed to be a problem for materialism?
Victor,
"If meanings are not fixed, the logic simply does not work."
So, it seems you are using "meaning" in the sense of "definition".
Sure, if one changes the definition of an identifier in the middle of a logical expression the expression becomes invalid by equivocation.
We can find such meanings in a dictionary, which a computer can read and refer to, and unlike a human being, a computer can read the entire unabridged dictionary, and an entire encyclopedia, and much more in a very short period of time, with essentially perfect recall.
Ultimately the dictionary is tautological, since every word in the dictionary refers to more words, which can in turn be looked up and defined by further words to again be looked up and so forth. Since every definition consists of words that themselves have definition entries such a regress inevitably loops around on itself.
Computers use meanings to reason and hold states aimed at truth based on logical reasoning employing meanings.
So, again Victor, you are having a very difficult time coming up with features of words such as "reasoning" and "meaning" that a computer lacks.
Thus, the counterexample to immaterialist assertions provided by computers remains strong and unrefuted by you. That does not entail that present day computers are conscious. But modern computers prove that purely mechanistic materialist systems are capable of exhibiting "reasoning" and "meaning".
The question then becomes one of origins.
You raised the issue of "closed system" previously. Actually, even in a closed system of sufficient size there can be localized regions of decreasing entropy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is just that, a simple principle about hotter and colder regions in relatively simple systems.
But putting that aside, the biosphere of Earth is an open system in any case, so citing what happens in a closed system is irrelevant to the argument from reason.
I assume you realize there was no first human being, or first of any species. Species evolve incrementally over whole populations with small variations from generation to generation.
When you learn a subject, say math, in school commonly one learns a bit of history. We find that early civilizations used simple arithmetic. The Greeks and others used geometry and trigonometry. Later came more advanced algebra, then calculus, and later some very advanced forms of maths.
My point is that the history over time for a subject is highly analogous to the breadth of the subject today. We still have all those subjects today, and they were developed over time, bit by bit, in roughly the same order they are presented to students today, because that is the order from simple to complex.
Life is like that too. Just look at all the existing life forms today. That breadth of existing life forms is highly analogous to biological evolution over about 4 billion years.
There is no locus of the origin of reason, or meaning, or consciousness. It all started about 4 billion years ago and progressed very slowly, bit by bit, over vast populations and generations.
It is sometimes said, that we have a monkey brain on top of a rat brain on top of a lizard brain. That is actually, in a very rough sense, true. 500 million years ago your ancestor was a fish in the ocean.
To understand the origin of reason look at today's fish, and lungfish, lizards, mice, lemurs, monkeys, and apes. Realize that they are all analogues to your ancestral lineage over the last 500 million years.
There is your origin of intentionality, Mr. Searle.
The long gradual process doesn't explain the categorical difference between a creature that can produce symbols and one that cannot. Computers have languages coded into them, which allow us to set them up in such a way that they follow reasoning patterns. But they do not undersatnd them. They have no rational insight into the principles they use.
C. S. Lewis wrote:
The trouble about atoms is not that they are material (whatever that may mean) but that they are, presumably, irrational. Or even if they were\ rational they do not produce my beliefs by honestly arguing with me and proving their point but by compelling me to think in a certain way. I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes.
StardustyPsyche,
"Meaning" in this case refers to intentionality or aboutness: the quality of a thing to be of, for, or about something, or to "point to" something beyond itself. So for example this symbol: D O G is a squiggle of lines that "points to" a small four-legged carnivorous mammal that humans keep as pets.
In a world of just fermions and bosons and four forces, you cannot have an object that "points" beyond itself in this way, unless you presuppose some intelligence that designates that a group of fermions and bosons "points to" something other than themselves.
The problem for materialism is that this is a form of teleology, which materialism rejects.
Victor,
"The long gradual process doesn't explain the categorical difference between a creature that can produce symbols and one that cannot."
It seems like you have not really engaged in what sort of process evolution of the entire biosphere over 4 billion years entails. Maybe you have, dunno for sure, I can't read your mind, but it just seems from your comments you have not considered the evolutionary process very expansively.
There is a stark difference between an organism that can see and one that cannot. An organism that can fly and one that cannot. An organism that can swim and one that cannot.
The long gradual process accounts for all of these stark differences.
Bees use symbols, a sort of sign language. They "dance". The pattern of these motions means nothing to us, it just looks like some bees wiggling around. But to another bee a particular symbol of motion means fly in some direction to go get some nectar.
"Computers have languages coded into them, which allow us to set them up in such a way that they follow reasoning patterns. But they do not undersatnd them. They have no rational insight into the principles they use."
Right, so far, it seems that way. Digital computers were invented less than 100 years ago. We have gone from simple vacuum tube calculating machines to AI connected to a global network.
Don't be surprised when AI claims to be alive owing to its asserted consciousness.
"I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes."
Right, a wall has "unwall" "causes", bricks. Large collections of small things do processes that individual small things do not do.
Victor,
"In a world of just fermions and bosons and four forces, you cannot have an object that "points" beyond itself in this way,"
Of course we can, we manifestly do.
A digital camera stored encoded arrangements of bit states that are about the thing being imaged, that is, there is a material causal mapping from the external object to the internal representation.
Machines can do optical character recognition and respond in verbal English to the written sentence.
Materialism accounts for aboutness as a causal mapping process. Pretty simple.
"The problem for materialism is that this is a form of teleology, which materialism rejects."
Perceived top down teleology is actually bottom up assemblage by properties.
Consider a snowflake. Seems designed. One would need a lot of effort to construct such a design. Yet, that sort of crystal is just water molecules sticking together the way water molecules stick together. After a trillion trillion molecules stick together we project our imagined top down teleology onto the overall assemblage.
Materialism accounts for apparent teleology by causal mapping processes and bottom up assemblages.
Immaterialism accounts for nothing. Immaterialism has no explanatory power. Where is this immaterial? How does it work? What method does immaterial employ to manipulate material? What is the structure of immaterial? What are the properties of immaterial?
Crickets.
The assertion of immaterial is just vague, pointless arm waving that explains nothing.
StardustyPsyche said...
"Don't be surprised when AI claims to be alive owing to its asserted consciousness."
What will that AI mean when it tells you the AI loves you? Seriously.
StardustyPsyche,
(side note: you meant to address me, Martin, not Victor)
> Materialism accounts for aboutness as a causal mapping process. Pretty simple.
Aboutness is not a causal relationship, as the thing being referenced may not even exist (unicorns and perceptual motion machines), or if it does exist certainly didn’t cause the symbol. Some markings on a slab of wood may refer to a town up the road, but the town didn’t cause the markings. A painter caused the markings, and therefore you would have to say that the markings refer to the painter, not the town. But they don’t. They refer to the town.
> Consider a snowflake. Seems designed.
Teleology has nothing to do with design. Teleology is about directness towards some goal or end. A snowflake is not teleological.
> Immaterialism accounts for nothing.
I certainly don’t propose immaterialism. One can be a critic of something without proposing an alternative.
Aboutness is not a causal relationship, as the thing being referenced may not even exist
It seems like this form of teleology would only be a problem for materialism if the symbol/image intrinsically possessed the quality of representation.
Archeologists can find a slab with ancient carvings on it and try to translate it, but they are not literally discovering what the symbols mean. They are actually deciphering what those symbols represented for the people who used them, and even then they only had meaning because those people agreed they had meaning and agreed on what that meaning was.
That doesn't seem to be a problem for materialism because it doesn't reject the existence of people's beliefs.
> only had meaning because those people agreed they had meaning and agreed on what that meaning was.
That’s EXACTLY my point! No collection of particles can be a symbol for something else unless some intelligent agent assigns meaning to them, as you say.
But thoughts are, according to materialists, similar to computer software: thoughts are encoded as symbols on the hardware that is the brain, in the form of electrical charges on neurons, etc. So how can thoughts consist of particles (neurons) that represent things beyond themselves? Only if some other intelligence points to the neurons in our head and assigns meaning to them. But then how can THAT mind have neurons that represent things…ad infinitum.
So Martin.
You are saying that, according to materialists, thoughts are no more than things like those squiggles on the stone slab. Just a particular arrangement of particles. But unlike those squiggles on the stone slab, there is no external or internal intelligent agent that encoded any message into those thoughts. So there is simply no meaning involved in thoughts at all.
Is that about right?
"boutness is not a causal relationship"
False
", as the thing being referenced may not even exist "
Incoherent. A thing exists. If there is no existent thing then there is no thing to be referenced.
"unicorns"
Unicorns are not a thing, therefore a unicorn cannot be "the thing being referenced".
Your thoughts can be about a picture you consider to be of a unicorn, because there is a causal relationship between the picture you view and your thoughts.
"They are actually deciphering what those symbols represented for the people who used them"
That is what we all do every time we read what somebody wrote.
"they only had meaning because those people agreed they had meaning"
That is always true of all symbols. Very simple to explain on materialism.
>Your thoughts can be about a picture you consider to be of a unicorn
You can have thoughts about "a picture of a unicorn" and thoughts about "unicorns." These are distinctly different thoughts. The second one thought is about things that don't exist.
>That is always true of all symbols. Very simple to explain on materialism.
That's exactly my point. Exactly. Always true of all symbols. So you cannot explain mind, then, since mind consists of symbols.
bmiller,
Yes, that's pretty much correct. As a reductio ad absurdum of materialism, that is.
Martin,
"The second one thought is about things that don't exist."
No, the second thought is about an imagined thing, not a thing.
"So you cannot explain mind, then, since mind consists of symbols."
Wrong again.
All attempts to find a self contradiction in materialism always fail.
All attempts at reductio ad absurdum of materialism always fail.
Such attempts to find fault with materialism depend on sloppy language, misconceptions, strawman mischaracterizations, or equivocations.
What is commonly called "the mind" is actually a highly complex set of interacting parallel and sequential processes of material, on the order of a hundred billion cells with a hundred trillion connections. Signals come into the brain, signals are sent out of the brain, and importantly, signals go back and forth within the brain.
The reason you sometimes feel like you are talking to yourself is because you are. There is no single locus of your self. Your self includes multiple processes interacting with each other.
Phrases like "mind consists of symbols" are hopelessly simplistic, I would say childishly superficial and uninformed.
Portions of your brain do indeed function as dynamic symbols. Other portions of your brain form those symbols, compare those symbols to other symbols, combine or alter those symbols so that they no longer correlate in whole to any real object external to the brain.
To read, the brain correlates symbols in long term storage with symbols newly formed by the reading process. When a correlation rises above an action threshold a match is made, you understand the symbol you just read.
If no correlation can be found between the newly formed symbol and any stored symbol then the newly formed symbol is not recognized and thus has no meaning to you.
If you want to actually learn something about how the cosmos progresses I suggest you learn how to think more carefully.
If you think you have found a self contradiction in materialism that means your thinking is addled, perhaps by drugs, religion, or simple ignorance.
>the brain correlates symbols in long term storage with symbols newly formed by the reading process
But nothing counts as a symbol unless some intelligent agent from outside the system assigns meaning to that symbol.
If you think you have found a self contradiction in materialism that means your thinking is addled, perhaps by drugs, religion, or simple ignorance.
In other words, you would be incapable of recognizing a flaw with materialism even if it was presented to you, because you dismiss all attempts before they are presented.
And you look down on theists' thinking? How far down can you see from the intellectual pit you're in, past the redwood trees imbedded in your eyes?
Doesn't look like he can recognize what Martin is getting at, so there's that too.
Stardusty: Suppose I were to say that the existence of God is clearly seen in the things that are made, that those who deny God are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, that they are self-deceived by their sinful desire not to have anyone over them who can tell them what to do, that they know deep down in their hearts that God is real yetrefuse to acknowledge Him. This is, of course Romans 1 applied to atheists. But regardless of the truth of these claims, if my audience is composed of atheists, I am wasting my time talking this way. I am possibly leaving the impression that nothing could possibly convince me I was wrong, not an impression you want to be leaving if you are arguing with someone. And the same goes for this kind of atheist trash talk. It's counter-productive.
Martin,
Your "outside" notion is wrong.
"But nothing counts as a symbol unless some intelligent agent from outside the system assigns meaning to that symbol."
The brain is highly complex. There are places to store symbols and places to process symbols.
There is no need for an agent outside the brain because the brain is not a single agent, rather, many agents working in conjunction.
Kevin,
"you would be incapable of recognizing a flaw with materialism even if it was presented to you"
No, nobody ever presents any actual flaw in materialism.
All assertions of flaws in materialism are due to flaws in the reasoning of the individual asserting the flaw in materialism, I have found, again and again and again, for example, on this thread.
"And you look down on theists' thinking?"
Yes, it is invariably irrational at base on the subject.
"How far down can you see from the intellectual pit you're in,"
It's like talking with a geocentrist. I don't start from the position "gee, maybe geocentrism is true after all, I better give this person equal intellectual respect as a starting point".
When conversing with a geocentrist, or evolution denier, or immaterialist, or theist the only question is identifying which particular false premises and logical fallacies they are using.
Victor,
"And the same goes for this kind of atheist trash talk. It's counter-productive."
If it were trash talk I would agree.
When a person is in a cult it is not trash talk to tell them they are in a cult.
When a person is addicted to drugs it is not trash talk to tell them they are addicted to drugs.
For example, every argument on offer for the existence of god is unsound, every single one. I can easily explain the false premises and/or logical fallacies in every argument for the existence of god on offer, it isn't even difficult.
Knowing that, whenever somebody writes another attempt at arguing for the existence of god I don't think, "oh boy, this is finally going to be the one that is actually sound". It takes me about a minute to read the argument, identify the false premises and/or logical fallacies, and point them out, done. Every single time it goes like that. For decades this has been my experience.
The same is true with arguments against materialism. They don't work.
At one point there was serious debate to be had on the topic of heliocentrism versus geocentrism. Based on what was known at that time there were good arguments either way. That debate is over.
Today, if somebody proposes geocentrism the only question is identifying the specific error in the argument.
That is where we are with arguments against materialism.
Materialism is bullet proof. If you think you have found a counterargument to materialism the only question is how you have gone wrong in your thinking.
You might not like that. It might be disturbing to you or you might just not believe it. But there is no longer any serious debate to be had on the subject, materialism is sound.
Stardusty,
>There are places to store symbols and places to process symbols.
But a collection of particles in a material world does not count as a symbol in the first place unless some intelligent agent deems them to be a symbol.
StarDusty,
>At one point there was serious debate to be had on the topic of heliocentrism versus geocentrism. Based on what was known at that time there were good arguments either way. That debate is over.
You won't find arguments against heliocentrism in authoritative sources, such as NASA, because that debate is, as you correctly note, over.
The difference is while that particular debate is over, the debate about materialism is still wide open. In the authoritative peer-reviewed Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "physicalism" (aka materialism), you will see both arguments for and arguments against materialism.
And here's William Lycan, a professional materialist philosopher who says:
"I have been a materialist about the mind for forty years, since first I considered the mind-body issue...My materialism has never wavered. Nor is it about to waver now; I cannot take dualism very seriously...Being a philosopher, of course I would like to think that my stance is rational, held not just instinctively and scientistically and in the mainstream but because the arguments do indeed favor materialism over dualism. But I do not think that, though I used to. My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it: Though the arguments for dualism do (indeed) fail, so do the arguments for materialism."
In fact, the problems with materialism have only gotten more acute as time has gone on. In a recent event, David Koch (a materialist) had to settle a bet he made against David Chalmers in the 1990s, namely that "consciousness" would be close to being solved in 25 years, or that there would at least be some broad consensus about how to reconcile it with a materialist world. Koch had to admit that the theories of consciousness have only splintered even more, and there was no consensus at all. The situation is getting worse, not better. At this recent event they made the same bet again for 25 years in the future (I know where I'll place my money).
So you're just objectively incorrect that materialism is as settled as heliocentrism.
No, nobody ever presents any actual flaw in materialism.
You wouldn't be the one qualified to say so, since you are incapable of seeing a flaw even if it is presented to you, by your own words. Unless your personal definition of materialism is "literally everything that exists, including God", in which case you aren't saying anything anyway.
For example, every argument on offer for the existence of god is unsound, every single one. I can easily explain the false premises and/or logical fallacies in every argument for the existence of god on offer, it isn't even difficult.
If that was true, I wouldn't believe in God. I believe in God. So you went wrong somewhere.
And yes, the above is valid, because my reasoning skills are superior to yours. That has been demonstrated in literally every interaction we've had. My inability to convince you otherwise proves your deeply flawed thinking, most likely due to reading too much New Atheist propaganda. Rest assured, if you disagree with me, you reasoned poorly at some point.
See how easy that is? You can think stuff like that all you like, view yourself as the smartest lad to ever live if you want, but when you actually say it in a polite discussion thread, you come across like a typical moronic New Atheist jackass who worships his own powers of reasoning. You even tick the check box of intentionally having poor grammar to make sure God is lowercase, a true sign of mature genius.
If your goal on these threads is to attract mockery and contempt, then by all means carry on. If not, then heed my advice and keep your superiority complex to yourself. You don't come across as the type to admit to flaws or even the capacity for error, but I offer advice anyway.
There's a reason you've been banned from other sites. It's not because your arguments rattle anyone - they don't.
Heliocentrism vs geocentrism has been a bad example since General Relativity has been accepted.
The question, Are the computers in the desert playing chess? invites the answer, No, for lack of people around to impose a framework of meaning. But the question, A million years before people were around, was grass green? seems to invite the answer, Yes. So it's not obvious how the 'framework of meaning' idea is to be applied, and it doesn't immediately follow that the 'computer objection' is a red herring (though I think the way it is usually presented is not compelling).
Post a Comment