Proactive Behaviour and Causality

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As for "if it ain't broke don't fix it," I guess my introspections have led me to the conclusion that it's broke. The actions of the core of my consciousness do not fit with the deterministic causation that has shaped our physical models of the world. This has led me to reevaluate the nature of identity and causality. This has led me to reevaluate the underlying nature of existence.

Paul,

This is kinda like where I am at and have been for a while. It goes way beyond a conceit or a feeling. It cuts right down into information gathering and creation.

Michael

[tjohnson]

When I watch lightning I often wonder how does it decide which path to take to get to the ground? You can see it zig zag it's way down but does it "know" where it will strike the earth before it leaves the atmosphere? I think the answer here lies in the principle of "least resistance". Maybe there is connection between what we call "free will" and least resistance. What looks like a freely made decision at one level may actually be simply the path of least resistance, and so maybe it's an energy conservation thing.

[Paul Mawdsley]

This is kinda like where I am at and have been for a while. It goes way beyond a conceit or a feeling. It cuts right down into information gathering and creation.

Michael,

Yes. Information gathering and creation are proactive enterprises that don't fit the reactive causation scheme. It comes as no surprise that your perspective has parallels to mine. I have often noticed we find ourselves on the same side of the fence on issues. Another thing that strikes me is the sense of how I have refused to let environmental and predispositional forces dictate my development and the direction of my life. Anyone who has chosen to take control of the course of his own development and the direction of his life, who has has expended great effort to turned things around from heading in a downhill direction and reached for his greater potential, has experienced a process that does not fit with reactive causation and determinism. It is hard to ignore what I have done in my own life to change my direction and shape my life, just as I'm sure it is hard for you to ignore what you have done to change and shape yours.

Paul

[Dragonfly]

As for "if it ain't broke don't fix it," I guess my introspections have led me to the conclusion that it's broke. The actions of the core of my consciousness do not fit with the deterministic causation that has shaped our physical models of the world.

How do you know that? What you call the core of your consciousness is merely the upper layer of a complex structure which is completely invisible to your introspection. Why couldn't that underlying structure be a deterministic system? Suppose you think "now I'm going to initiate some action" and follow that thought, is there any reason that thinking that thought and initiating that action couldn't be generated by a deterministic system?

In such a model there is no room for a thing to initiate its own actions. Even if we allow for the concept of springs or batteries which can allow a thing to move via internal energies, this does not allow it to initiate its own actions. Some outside force, either through current action or prior programming, must initiate the action to release the energy from the battery or the spring.

Is that different for humans? We have been programmed by evolution and our personal education and experience. Not with a fixed program that always does the same things, but with a very versatile, adaptive program. There isn't any reason however to believe that this program can't be generated by a deterministic system, except some psychological revulsion against the idea itself. Don't fall in the Payley watch trap. There is no need for skyhooks, cranes will do.

[BaalChatzaf]

As for the Einstein/Bohr debates, with a new view of causation we might just find a way to trace causation all the way down. How would proactive causation manifest itself at the foundations of existence?

At present we are fifteen orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length. I do not think we have either the resources or the wits to get to Rock Bottom, assuming that Rock Bottom exists. Don't hold your breath until we do. You will turn blue and faint.

Rejoice in what we do know and in our talent for muddling through. Whatever else humans are, they (we) are smart critters.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

At present we are fifteen orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length. I do not think we have either the resources or the wits to get to Rock Bottom, assuming that Rock Bottom exists. Don't hold your breath until we do. You will turn blue and faint.

Rejoice in what we do know and in our talent for muddling through. Whatever else humans are, they (we) are smart critters.

I'm doing my best to muddle through.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

What you call the core of your consciousness is merely the upper layer of a complex structure which is completely invisible to your introspection.

How do you know that?

Why couldn't that underlying structure be a deterministic system?

I know you don't like this idea but what if we assume, for the sake of exploration, that our naive intuition that we actually can initiate actions from some principle of motion within is right.

Suppose you think "now I'm going to initiate some action" and follow that thought, is there any reason that thinking that thought and initiating that action couldn't be generated by a deterministic system?

The difference between the same apparent event in a deterministic system and one in a proactive (for lack of a better word) system is that in the deterministic system the thought does not cause the action and in the proactive causal system it does. In the deterministic system the thought "now I'm going to initiate some action" is just a coincidental effect of the deterministic chain of action-reaction that generates the action. In the proactive causal system the assertion of "now I'm going to initiate some action" is the impulse that causes the action.

If we accept the deterministic view, we interpret events in a way that leads us to believe our introspections are illusory. If we accept the proactive causal view, we can interpret events in a way that allows us to trust introspective evidence. Note that it is the assumption of the nature of causation that determines the interpretation. The conclusion precedes the evidence. And conclusions about the nature of causation are the most abstract of inductive generalizations. Should we not question the nature of these conclusions before we assume our introspections are illusory?

Just as classical physics appears to work in most normal cases but special relativity, general relativity and quantum theory are required to account for evidence in the extremes, perhaps the action-reaction causation of determinism appears to work in most normal cases but breaks down when trying to account for evidence in the extremes. Saying that everything that does not conform to the action-reaction causation of determinism should be ignored, rationalized or trivialized will not advance our knowledge. Thankfully, all physicists did not take this stand when evidence arose to suggest classical physics could not account for evidence in extreme cases.

We have been programmed by evolution and our personal education and experience.

Evolution is another theory based on action-reaction deterministic causation. To say evolution programs us is to presume the deterministic interpretation of evolution. As I recall, there are some experiments whereby certain bacteria mutate at a rate that is not compatible with simple random models. Lamarckism is as dead as ether theory (both of which are deterministic theories) but the deterministic paradigm is dictating interpretations because we do not have an alternative. It could be leading to the ignoring, trivializing and rationalizing of evidence in extreme cases that might suggest some form of striving can influence the course of evolution. If so, the proactions of an organism could play a role in evolutionary programming and the direction of species evolution in general. Of course we will never consider such a possibility if we restrict ourselves to the deterministic paradigm.

There isn't any reason however to believe that this program can't be generated by a deterministic system, except some psychological revulsion against the idea itself.

I don't disagree. My psychological revulsion against the idea is real. This revulsion is caused by the fact that it doesn't fit my experience and the fact that I am comparing the interpretive ability of two different causal paradigms, of which the deterministic one requires me to ignore, trivialize and rationalize evidence. The proactive one doesn't.

[Paul Mawdsley]

When I watch lightning I often wonder how does it decide which path to take to get to the ground? You can see it zig zag it's way down but does it "know" where it will strike the earth before it leaves the atmosphere? I think the answer here lies in the principle of "least resistance". Maybe there is connection between what we call "free will" and least resistance. What looks like a freely made decision at one level may actually be simply the path of least resistance, and so maybe it's an energy conservation thing.

I have had similar thoughts. When I attempt to model such things I tend to think in terms of vortex dynamics and plasma physics. Of course, lightening is a naturally occurring terrestrial example of a plasma. My own wording is: things tend to maximize their degrees of freedom. It's the "cup is half full" version of the principle of least resistance. It is closely tied to the second law of thermodynamics.

The big question is: how do we get from acting on the principle of maximizing the degrees of freedom in physical particles to acting on the principle of gaining, maintaining, and increasing integration that is observed in animate matter? Answer: when the degrees of freedom are maximized by the action of particles maintaining the form of a whole system-- as when air and dust particles maintain the form of a vortex in a tornado, the particles acting on the principle of maximizing degrees of freedom are also acting to gain, maintain, and increase integration of the whole system. (Does this mean that the second law can lead to integration rather than just greater entropy?) In plasma physics this occurs when a force free filament is produced. This is why I have a sneaking suspicion that plasma physics will ultimately play a role in our understanding of the nature of life and consciousness. (Interesting note: force free plasma filaments tend to spontaneously curl themselves into the shape of a helix due to electromagnetic forces.)

Paul

Edited October 3, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[BaalChatzaf]

When I watch lightning I often wonder how does it decide which path to take to get to the ground? You can see it zig zag it's way down but does it "know" where it will strike the earth before it leaves the atmosphere? I think the answer here lies in the principle of "least resistance". Maybe there is connection between what we call "free will" and least resistance. What looks like a freely made decision at one level may actually be simply the path of least resistance, and so maybe it's an energy conservation thing.

I have had similar thoughts. When I attempt to model such things I tend to think in terms of vortex dynamics and plasma physics. Of course, lightening is a naturally occurring terrestrial example of a plasma. My own wording is: things tend to maximize their degrees of freedom. It's the "cup is half full" version of the principle of least resistance. It is closely tied to the second law of thermodynamics.

The big question is: how do we get from acting on the principle of maximizing the degrees of freedom in physical particles to acting on the principle of gaining, maintaining, and increasing integration that is observed in animate matter? Answer: when the degrees of freedom are maximized by the action of particles maintaining the form of a whole system-- as when air and dust particles maintain the form of a vortex in a tornado, the particles acting on the principle of maximizing degrees of freedom are also acting to gain, maintain, and increase integration of the whole system. (Does this mean that the second law can lead to integration rather than just greater entropy?) In plasma physics this occurs when a force free filament is produced. This is why I have a sneaking suspicion that plasma physics will ultimately play a role in our understanding of the nature of life and consciousness. (Interesting note: force free plasma filaments tend to spontaneously curl themselves into the shape of a helix due to electromagnetic forces.)

Paul

I see these things as manifestations of the principle of extremal action (sometime misstated at the principle of -least- action). The fact that we can derive the laws of physics (or a large number of them) by solving variational problems is one of the Abiding Miracles. When I see the principle of "least" action at work I fall to my knees in utter awe muttering gospody pomiloi (merciful God) like some Russian monk. (in a manner of speaking of course). The efficacy of action principles is really one of the truly impressive ideas of all times. Why should a principle that reeks of -telos- account for efficient causation?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Not sure where this fits in but another "fact" that I find amazing is the tenaciousness of life. Once it gets started it seems to have an incredible ability to survive in some form, including possibly on asteroids traveling through space. Now life requires energy to maintain it's organization which differentiates it from inanimate substance, which has structure, but not at the level of life forms. This "drive" to survive seems to be fighting against the law of thermodynamics (the one about entropy) since organization is more or less the opposite of entropy. This almost leads to a novel definition of life as "something that uses energy to maintain it's structure" and it stands to reason that it will use as little as possible so as to try and keep some in reserve in case none is available from the environment it in. Just some random thoughts

[BaalChatzaf]

Not sure where this fits in but another "fact" that I find amazing is the tenaciousness of life. Once it gets started it seems to have an incredible ability to survive in some form, including possibly on asteroids traveling through space. Now life requires energy to maintain it's organization which differentiates it from inanimate substance, which has structure, but not at the level of life forms. This "drive" to survive seems to be fighting against the law of thermodynamics (the one about entropy) since organization is more or less the opposite of entropy. This almost leads to a novel definition of life as "something that uses energy to maintain it's structure" and it stands to reason that it will use as little as possible so as to try and keep some in reserve in case none is available from the environment it in. Just some random thoughts

Entropy increases to a maximum in -closed- thermodynamic systems. We live (locally) in a wide open system. Sunshine streams in, seemingly without out. Living organisms will flourish as long as there is enough high grade energy to keep them going.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

What you call the core of your consciousness is merely the upper layer of a complex structure which is completely invisible to your introspection.

How do you know that?

Do you know what neurons are firing in your brain and what patterns cause certain thoughts? The only thing you can observe with introspection are those thoughts themselves.

I know you don't like this idea but what if we assume, for the sake of exploration, that our naive intuition that we actually can initiate actions from some principle of motion within is right.

The point is that I see no use for introducing such a very vague notion which doesn't explain anything, it's just like hypothesizing some god for physical phenomena you don't understand, for example the hypothesis that there is some god like Thor who hurls lightning bolts as an "explanation" of the phenomenon lightning.

Suppose you think "now I'm going to initiate some action" and follow that thought, is there any reason that thinking that thought and initiating that action couldn't be generated by a deterministic system?

The difference between the same apparent event in a deterministic system and one in a proactive (for lack of a better word) system is that in the deterministic system the thought does not cause the action and in the proactive causal system it does. In the deterministic system the thought "now I'm going to initiate some action" is just a coincidental effect of the deterministic chain of action-reaction that generates the action. In the proactive causal system the assertion of "now I'm going to initiate some action" is the impulse that causes the action.

But what is the difference between "a coincidental effect of the chain of action-reaction" and "cause"? When we say that A causes B, this means only that if we observe that A happens, invariably some time later we will observe that B happens, in other words, it is a perfectly deterministic chain. There is no other, "deeper", meaning of cause, it is just our interpretation of certain regularities we observe in the world around us and that we may summarize in the physical laws we have developed. Or do you have another definition for "cause"?

[BaalChatzaf]

But what is the difference between "a coincidental effect of the chain of action-reaction" and "cause"? When we say that A causes B, this means only that if we observe that A happens, invariably some time later we will observe that B happens, in other words, it is a perfectly deterministic chain. There is no other, "deeper", meaning of cause, it is just our interpretation of certain regularities we observe in the world around us and that we may summarize in the physical laws we have developed. Or do you have another definition for "cause"?

Aristotle identifies four causal principles. The material, the formal, the efficient and the final. The causal chain you referred to going from event A to event B is an example of efficient cause in the Aristotelean context. Final cause is the coming to be what something is which is the actualization of the potential. In the case of a sentient it is the accomplishment of purpose.

Telos has been pretty well purged from modern physics discourse but it shows up in biology as function. For example the heart if for pumping blood. This is not quite the same assertion as: the heart pumps blood.

In modern times we are pretty well conditioned to think of cause as in the example of a one billiard ball hitting another causing it to move. This is the example that Hume used.

Cause has taken on another hue with the concept of emergence which is faintly reminiscent of entelecheia. So we think of consciousness as an emergent of a state of being rather than being the effect an efficient causative agent (the kind of cause a reductionist view would favor).

There is more to cause than "first A happens then B happens" which was the view favored by Hume.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Cause has taken on another hue with the concept of emergence which is faintly reminiscent of entelecheia. So we think of consciousness as an emergent of a state of being rather than being the effect an efficient causative agent (the kind of cause a reductionist view would favor).

This is very vague, I don't understand what your argument is. There is nothing wrong with teleology in biology, it is a high level description of a process that makes it easy to grasp for us, as we can skip the many confusing details. We can say that the "cause" that many animals have eyes is the fact that these enable them to have a greater awareness of their environment, increasing their capacity to flee predators or to find prey. But the evolutionary process that leads to the development of eyes can be broken down in many small steps which follow each other by efficient causes. It can even be successfully emulated on a computer. The final cause is merely a shorthand summary, but it doesn't imply that any step of the process is not the result of an efficient cause. So it is easier for us to analyze the actions of a chess computer at the level of chess moves (the intentional level), which we can interpret against the background of the final cause of the actions of the computer: to beat its opponent or at least not to lose, than to analyze the logic of the variations in voltages and currents in the logic gates in its belly. It's just in our nature to look for intentions, which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view as it enables us to make better predictions, which is good for survival (and as a side-effect good for playing chess).

If we'd analyze at the low level description, we would start grouping elements in logical units, combining these into larger units etc., climbing from machine language to assembler routines and subroutines in higher computer languages etc. until we arrive at the intentional level of description, which gives an enormous reduction of data, so that we finally can see not only the trees but the wood as well (so it would be sensible to skip all the lower level descriptions as there is an easier way to find the high-level description immediately instead of doing all the tedious work the computer in fact does for us - by reading the output for example). The intentional level is the level at which the computer speaks our language and therefore it is the easiest to understand. But it is fully compatible with a description of dumb logic gates which don't have any intentions but obediently follow the laws of physics.

The lowest-level description (very many data) and the highest-level description (few data) describe one and the same thing, only at different levels of abstraction and corresponding amounts of data. The low-level description is very confusing for us, as there are many, many different configurations that would lead to the same higher-level description, which means that there is an enormous redundancy at the lower levels. But the fact that we can summarize the proces in terms of a final cause doesn't at all imply that the whole process isn't based on efficient causes, described at the lower levels. Therefore I don't see the relevance of something being "faintly reminiscent of entelecheia".

[BaalChatzaf]

This is very vague, I don't understand what your argument is. There is nothing wrong with teleology in

There is no argument, since I was not arguing a question. I was discussing some notions of causation.

I was pointing out that the modern notion of emergence is reminiscent of Aristotelian Entelechy.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entelechy

Quantum physics does not use efficient cause in the classical sense. For example what body or entity acts upon an electron to give it a spin? Efficient cause is the action of one entity upon another. Like two billiard balls colliding to impart motion. Or a sculptor carving a statue from a block of marble to use a more Aristotelian example.

In classical physics one body exerts a force upon another. That is efficient causation. This gets a little dicey when fields must be introduced. A field is an intermediary which enables action at a distance. For example Coulomb attraction/repulsion or gravitational attraction. Action at a distance clashes with efficient cause as Aristotle understood it. But let these difficulties pass for the moment. There still is a problem. We do not have a clear cut reduction of consciousness to particle-particle or field-particle interactions. One may claim a causal link of this kind, but it has yet to be demonstrated. I think consciousness has physical causes which can be traced back to basic matter interactions. But that is a belief, not a demonstrated fact. People like Roger Penrose have reservations in this regard.

Do not hold your breath until there is a bright clear resolution of this question, or you will turn blue.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

Quantum physics does not use efficient cause in the classical sense. For example what body or entity acts upon an electron to give it a spin? Efficient cause is the action of one entity upon another. Like two billiard balls colliding to impart motion. Or a sculptor carving a statue from a block of marble to use a more Aristotelian example.

In classical physics one body exerts a force upon another. That is efficient causation. This gets a little dicey when fields must be introduced. A field is an intermediary which enables action at a distance. For example Coulomb attraction/repulsion or gravitational attraction. Action at a distance clashes with efficient cause as Aristotle understood it. But let these difficulties pass for the moment. There still is a problem. We do not have a clear cut reduction of consciousness to particle-particle or field-particle interactions. One may claim a causal link of this kind, but it has yet to be demonstrated. I think consciousness has physical causes which can be traced back to basic matter interactions. But that is a belief, not a demonstrated fact. People like Roger Penrose have reservations in this regard.

Bob,

You help me see things more clearly.

Thanks,

Paul

Edited October 4, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[Paul Mawdsley]

Do you know what neurons are firing in your brain and what patterns cause certain thoughts? The only thing you can observe with introspection are those thoughts themselves.

You have framed the question in deterministic terms. I don't even know if neural firing = my awareness of thoughts. That is a theory. I'm not convinced that neural firing, regardless of how complex it gets, can produce, by itself, both the introspective/perceptual field and the entity that is aware of this field. The complexity generates consciousness argument doesn't work for me.

Life and consciousness represent the emergence of a new principle of behaviour that is not present in inanimate matter and the computer model of the brain. The organism and the psyche both act according to the principle of maximizing integration. Both behave as functionally holistic systems. As functionally holistic systems causation operates in a non-linear, non-local way (sounds like a quantum thing to do)whereby the nature and behaviour of the whole is intrinsically tied to the actions of the parts. The actions of the parts shape the form and behaviour of the whole, and the form of the whole determines the degrees of freedom, and thus the actions, of the parts. This cannot be said of computers. They are definitely systems that operate by linear and local causation. Nor can it be said of neural firings. They fit the model of a computer.

So it seems there is a piece missing to the puzzles of life and consciousness. If the organism and the psyche both behave as functionally holistic systems, and neural firings act by linear causation, then by what means are the parts connected holistically so that basic awareness can emerge in the psyche?

Paul

[tjohnson]

The actions of the parts shape the form and behaviour of the whole, and the form of the whole determines the degrees of freedom, and thus the actions, of the parts. This cannot be said of computers. They are definitely systems that operate by linear and local causation. Nor can it be said of neural firings. They fit the model of a computer.

I believe the theory of neural firings is substantially different from computers and many orders of magnitude more complex. Could you explain how you think it fits the model of a computer? One simple difference is how a neuron will fire will different frequencies depending on the strength of the stimuli. Compare that to the simple switching of an on/off memory address.

[Paul Mawdsley]

I believe the theory of neural firings is substantially different from computers and many orders of magnitude more complex. Could you explain how you think it fits the model of a computer? One simple difference is how a neuron will fire will different frequencies depending on the strength of the stimuli. Compare that to the simple switching of an on/off memory address.

My statement was one of general causation. Both systems fit the general local, linear causation of action-reaction. This is where I agree with Dragonfly that both behave like the deterministic model of causation. What I am saying is that there is a non-deterministic, or proactive, layer to existence at the physical foundations that gives rise to all we observe. Determinism is the illusion that is created with the emergence of inertia in the form of inanimate matter. Both computers and neural firings behave as deterministic systems.

Paul

[Dragonfly]

We do not have a clear cut reduction of consciousness to particle-particle or field-particle interactions.

No one claims that we have such a clear cut reduction (but we're working on it - give us a few decades). But the argument brought up by Objectivists is that there cannot be such a reduction, and when I ask why I never get a satisfactory answer, except some feeling that it cannot be true. The same is true for Searle - I've shown in an earlier post that he admitted that he logically only could conclude that compatibilism had the best papers, but that he didn't like it and therefore rejected it, trying to save the day by introducing vague notions of QM as a deus ex machina. I have never claimed to know that consciousness and free will can be reduced to a deterministic system, but I've consistently argued that there is no reason to claim that it is not possible. Where is the evidence?

One may claim a causal link of this kind, but it has yet to be demonstrated. I think consciousness has physical causes which can be traced back to basic matter interactions. But that is a belief, not a demonstrated fact. People like Roger Penrose have reservations in this regard.

No one disputes that the earlier work of Penrose in physics and mathematics is brilliant. But like with some other great minds his work has been deteriorating in later years. His Gödel argument against AI was seriously flawed. And there are very few physicists and biologists who take his ideas about quantum gravitation as source of consciousness serious. See for example L.P. Rosa, J. Faber, Quantum models of the mind: Are they compatible with environment decoherence?, Phys. Rev. E 70 (3) 31902 (2004). He is typically someone who is looking for a new crane where the old ones probably will work fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Paul Mawdsley]

No one claims that we have such a clear cut reduction (but we're working on it - give us a few decades). But the argument brought up by Objectivists is that there cannot be such a reduction, and when I ask why I never get a satisfactory answer, except some feeling that it cannot be true. The same is true for Searle - I've shown in an earlier post that he admitted that he logically only could conclude that compatibilism had the best papers, but that he didn't like it and therefore rejected it, trying to save the day by introducing vague notions of QM as a deus ex machina. I have never claimed to know that consciousness and free will can be reduced to a deterministic system, but I've consistently argued that there is no reason to claim that it is not possible. Where is the evidence?

Dragonfly,

You are right. You have not claimed to have a clear cut reduction. However, you do seem to have a clear cut dismissal of any other approach to the issue.

Objectivists (and others) are not able to provide much better than some vague sense of why reduction cannot provide us with a whole understanding of existence. One of the reasons is because it is explorations of the introspective landscape that provides the clues to something being missing in the reductive method and the deterministic scheme. Since one's introspective field is something that must be explored alone, since its features are not readily apparent, and since there is no common field in which we can be easily guided by others to discovery, identifying the features and dynamics of this landscape is extremely difficult. Communicating what one has discovered is equally difficult. The reasons for looking beyond reduction and determinism are vague not because there is no evidence. It's because the evidence is hard to reach and communicate, and communication takes the active exploration of the introspective landscape of all those involved.

You ask, "Where is the evidence?" and then you dismiss any reports of introspections as being nothing but vague feelings. You suggest introspections are unreliable and misleading because you have found them so. You seem to have devalued the information acquired from your introspections so you no longer consider it as evidence to anything but its misleading nature. You see little value in exploring the introspective landscape in the pursuit of understanding our existence, but this is where the evidence is found that others, like Searle, cannot ignore.

Since you do not see introspection as a means for acquiring evidence, no arguments based on introspective explorations will affect your perspective. Since most arguments against reduction and determinism have a strong thread of introspective evidence, you will not be influenced by such arguments. These discussions will always end at an impasse, not because there is no evidence, but because you do not grant introspective discoveries the status of evidence.

I thought you might be interested in my somewhat grand thought experiment as a means to continue the discussion without relying on introspective evidence. I have suggested the idea that causality be reconceived and a hypothetical universe be constructed based on this view of causality so we can consider how the apparently deterministic laws could emerge from a non-deterministic foundation. Your response is you don't see a need to create hypothetical universes if you can't see anything wrong with the deterministic model you already hold.

So you won't consider introspective evidence and you see no point in reconsidering the nature of causality or any hypothetical models it might produce. I have no other means to demonstrate my perspective for your, or anyone else's evaluation. You have successfully sealed yourself from having to consider my arguments. This is how science trumps philosophy. It is also how the physics establishment marginalizes the efforts of those, like Einstein and Penrose, who are moved in later years by an intuitive sense of there being something more than we are seeing and measuring.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

I suggested recently that plasma physics might play a role in our understanding of life and consciousness. I pointed out that "force free plasma filaments tend to spontaneously curl themselves into the shape of a helix due to electromagnetic forces." I have found a couple of articles that seem to be pointing in the same direction: see here or here (the second link is the less technical overview).

Could the amino acids be stable crystals that have evolved from simpler, less stable forms? And can they maintain a "cold" force free plasma filament that ultimately branches and shapes the structure and dynamics of cells and multicellular organisms? Is the emergence of life closely linked to the combining of the electromagnetic forces and currents associated with plasmas together with the stable structures of solids? If so, what is our physical picture of life currently missing?

Also, does an understanding of consciousness require an understanding of the dynamics and complexity of plasmas as well as the dynamics and complexity of neural firings? Is the root of awareness to be found in the flow of plasma filaments that might run through the core of our neural DNA and branch out to influence different parts of the brain? Might this, in combination with certain holistic aspects of quantum reality, be where we can find a way to account for qualia and the non-computational aspects of consciousness?

Just some questions from an overactive imagination.

Paul

[BaalChatzaf]

You ask, "Where is the evidence?" and then you dismiss any reports of introspections as being nothing but vague feelings. You suggest introspections are unreliable and misleading because you have found them so. You seem to have devalued the information acquired from your introspections so you no longer consider it as evidence to anything but its misleading nature. You see little value in exploring the introspective landscape in the pursuit of understanding our existence, but this is where the evidence is found that others, like Searle, cannot ignore.

Unfortunately introspection is private and there is no way a second party can verify or falsify (by objective and empirical means) your introspections. Introspections may be very useful for reaching assertions that can be put in the public domain for either corroberation or refutation, but introspections by themselves can not be distinguished from lunatic ravings by an external party. And THAT is the problem. There is no way of integrating introspections, qua introspections into science. You may see the Truth privately, but we Others have no way of knowing whether you are right or wrong. So we have to ignore YOUR introspections as being evidence of anything. Until a Mind Reading machine is invented, this will remain the case.

From the standpoint of science, introspections are ka ka.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

You can introspect or what-have-you all you want. Don't forget to apply for a patent!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, we see the results of introspections all the time. There is one fact that is not debatable: a person who does not introspect is not fully conscious in the human sense.

This leads us to use the results (i.e., behavior) as an indicator of what goes on "in there." Just because we cannot see electrons does not mean we cannot mess around with them. The same standard applies to introspection of others (with a greater margin for error due to the complexity).

I have no problem with this. This is a door in for those who wish to test introspection (and other facets of consciousness), and it actually is being tested all over the place by scientists.

Michael