An alternate look at Naturalism

First you have to break the assumed equivalence between "natural" and "material" (or physical).

Consider it broken. I'm still waiting to hear how science should change.

Then you have to find a way, using the methodology of science, to investigate theories of consciousness other than the strictly brain based model you have at the moment. Koch and others have started down that path already. But even he insisting that consciousness is a feature of the physical universe, like gravity. He's not prepared to go further and consider that it might be the other way around: that the universe is a manifestation of consciousness; that consciousness is absolutely fundamental.

I'm sure scientists who think this may be the case are trying to figure out how to investigate it. Note that the Standard Model is pretty robust and yet has no inkling of additional particles or forces that might account for consciousness. And if consciousness is somehow fundamental but not reflected in our fundamental models, then it's getting a bit supernatural again.

At a guess, the way to investigate mind using science is to do what parapsychologists are doing already: investigating how mind can work beyond the body. But science, in my view, cracked open the doors of science and let consciousness in with quantum physics. Schrödinger and Heisenberg saw this but later materialists have attempted to exclude or downplay the role of consciousness.

So far there is no role for consciousness. No need to toss it in if observations can be explained without it. Perhaps future observations will require it.

If quantum mysticism proves helpful, I'm sure scientists will jump on it.

~~ Paul

Consider it broken. (Naturalism vs Physicalism) I'm still waiting to hear how science should change.

I'm sure scientists who think this may be the case are trying to figure out how to investigate it. Note that the Standard Model is pretty robust and yet has no inkling of additional particles or forces that might account for consciousness. And if consciousness is somehow fundamental but not reflected in our fundamental models, then it's getting a bit supernatural again.

So far there is no role for consciousness. No need to toss it in if observations can be explained without it. Perhaps future observations will require it.

If quantum mysticism proves helpful, I'm sure scientists will jump on it.

~~ Paul

The methodological change Philosophy of Science requires is to acknowledge that there is a separate level of measurement, apart from those units of measure that refer to physical processes.  Besides SI units, there are units of measure for entropy, logic, information in bits, productivity from organization, etc....... 

Physical processes and their own units on one level (methodological materialism)
Informational processes with their own units on another level (methodological informationalism)

you need both levels and how they interface to begin to understand reality.  (of course there may be more levels)

There are no particles that carry "consciousness".  So quantum physical outcomes are well explained in the context of physics.  However, there are no physics units of measure that address qubits.  They are - like regular bits at a different level.

Paul, you act as if science doesn't measure the outcomes of mind and mental work.  Is there the same (neg)entropy on the surface of a piece of blank paper with a nervous doodle, as a page where someone has coded an algorithm that when applied can usefully sort data.  I suggest the code was created after hours of consideration and proofing.  

More important, can we measure changes in probability in the real world, as the information object that was represented on the paper is used in real life?  Can we measure its increase in productivity?  Can we measure the affective results of higher user satisfaction at the better data? 

Naturalism needs to include information as a natural level of interaction and lose the belief that matter has some "magic molecule combination" whose property emerges as mind.  Did living things exist using information to evolve - in no less a fashion as they used hydro-carbon bonds.

I'm sure scientists who think this may be the case are trying to figure out how to investigate it. Note that the Standard Model is pretty robust and yet has no inkling of additional particles or forces that might account for consciousness. And if consciousness is somehow fundamental but not reflected in our fundamental models, then it's getting a bit supernatural again.

So far there is no role for consciousness. No need to toss it in if observations can be explained without it. Perhaps future observations will require it.

If quantum mysticism proves helpful, I'm sure scientists will jump on it.

The Standard Model is robust, and yet quantum mechanics is an incredibly complex  field with numerous, equally contentious theories for how exactly different parts of it work. We have absolutely, positively no trace whatsoever of supersymmetric partner particles, yet numerous scientists think they exist, or at least continue to search for them. Of course, SUSY is just one theory - but they aren't dissuaded by or defeated by the fact that they're searching (hard) and have been for some time and have come up with literally nothing. 

Consciousness is not dissimilar. There are a variety of different theories, ranging from idealism, to the fact that it's illusory, and everything in between, with rational and well-reasoned people speckled across the spectrum. Your statement "there is no role for consciousness. No need to toss it in if observations can be explained without it" is one you make to sound objectively true when it is entirely debatable. There are loads of phenomena that strike directly at the heart consciousness' role in the Universe. Whether or not the scientific establishment chooses to heed that evidence is not material to my point here - it is, at the very least, entirely debatable what role consciousness does or does not play. Thus, it's entirely fair to suggest that it ought to be "tossed in" if you take that evidence seriously, because no current model accommodates consciousness in any manner. 

Note further your assumption that consciousness would have to have some detectable particle under the Standard Model - an unfounded assumption that is based on an a priori adherence to the notion that there must be some "physicial" basis for everything we experience. It's just another arrogant assumption of what "has to be".

I find it interesting that you think scientists at large would "jump" on anything relating to what might be considered out of the realm of what is typically accepted as "scientific" evidence (too many loaded terms to come up with a better way of saying that). As if scientists don't have their own biases (they do).

Naturalism needs to include information as a natural level of interaction and lose the belief that matter has some "magic molecule combination" whose property emerges as mind.  Did living things exist using information to evolve - in no less a fashion as they used hydro-carbon bonds.

You appear to know for a fact that mind is not brain function.

~~ Paul

Note further your assumption that consciousness would have to have some detectable particle under the Standard Model - an unfounded assumption that is based on an a priori adherence to the notion that there must be some "physicial" basis for everything we experience. It's just another arrogant assumption of what "has to be".

It could be a particle or a force or a property of existing particles. Are you suggesting we could get all the amazing complexity of consciousness without a trace of it in our low-level physical models?

I find it interesting that you think scientists at large would "jump" on anything relating to what might be considered out of the realm of what is typically accepted as "scientific" evidence (too many loaded terms to come up with a better way of saying that). As if scientists don't have their own biases (they do).

I find it interesting that you think every young scientist would be indoctrinated into the Sooper Sekrit Physics Society and agree to tow the line.

~~ Paul

First you have to break the assumed equivalence between "natural" and "material" (or physical). Then you have to find a way, using the methodology of science, to investigate theories of consciousness other than the strictly brain based model you have at the moment. Koch and others have started down that path already. But even he insisting that consciousness is a feature of the physical universe, like gravity. He's not prepared to go further and consider that it might be the other way around: that the universe is a manifestation of consciousness; that consciousness is absolutely fundamental.

At a guess, the way to investigate mind using science is to do what parapsychologists are doing already: investigating how mind can work beyond the body. But science, in my view, cracked open the doors of science and let consciousness in with quantum physics. Schrödinger and Heisenberg saw this but later materialists have attempted to exclude or downplay the role of consciousness.

Schrödinger wrote:

 

And Heisenberg, very appropriately for this discussion, said:


Some of the early quantum physicists held similar views of the world which has come to be known as quantum mysticism: a fact either glossed over or dismissed by materialists.

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-my...otten.html

Not so fast there Kar. You don't know enough to draw such a conclusion. There were contemporaries of both men holding opposing views; one was Einstein.

PBS Spacetime: The quantum experiment that broke reality https://youtu.be/p-MNSLsjjdo

PBS Spacetime: Pilot wave theory and quantum realism https://youtu.be/RlXdsyctD50

It could be a particle or a force or a property of existing particles. Are you suggesting we could get all the amazing complexity of consciousness without a trace of it in our low-level physical models?

I find it interesting that you think every young scientist would be indoctrinated into the Sooper Sekrit Physics Society and agree to tow the line.

~~ Paul

It could be any number of things. I'm not suggesting anything other than: to argue that consciousness doesn't play a fundamental role in the Universe just because we haven't found a detectable particle for it is... an incredibly weak argument.

Hilarious. Do you think, Paul, that I'm suggesting that there's a massive organized conspiracy for not allowing any sort of outside thought beyond methodological naturalism or materialism in the sciences, such that there's a literal hushed agreement to prevent such a thing from happening? What a blatant strawman. It's well documented that higher education in the natural sciences indoctrinates its students, in a way, into believing that anything outside materialism is unfounded nonsense. See Alex's interview on Skeptiko with Dr. Julia Mossbridge from Northwestern, or any other number of sources regarding that topic.

Your comment amounts to unintelligent mockery. There's a worldview bias in natural science education. It's not a magical, conspiracy style arrangement. It's that a lot of the people who work in natural science academia know their bounds, know they have to get grant money and have to keep their jobs, and that they either don't buy into any paranormal research or outside-the-mainstream thoughts, or they do and are not willing to discuss any of it for fear of their job security. As a result, that worldview is conveyed to the students in many of those programs - whether the students heed and absorb it is another thing altogether, but it can hardly be denied that this is the case. No "Sooper Sekrit Physics Society" needed (honestly cannot get over how utterly dense that was to say).

Surely, there are plenty of young scientists who don't "tow the line" and don't buy into that approach. But not every scientist, indeed very few, talks about this stuff on anything beyond a cursory level. Again, no mass conspiracy needed - just a reinforced stereotype against outside the mainstream thought/research. There sure as heck isn't anything hush hush about that, since plenty of resources exist reflecting the existence of that bias in teaching. One of the reasons we know about it is because some scientists talk about it... so what exactly are you talking about?

I'm not sure if you actually think that that's what people are suggesting when they complain about bias in science? There doesn't need to be some mass conspiracy for that to exist, crazy as it sounds. Scientists are regular people too, harboring biases in the same exact way as anyone else. In fact, many of them have enormous, larger-than-your-average-person egos that contribute to overall stubbornness. Is that pervasive? Like all things, no; but there are plenty out there like that. It's not some sinister conspiracy - it's a culture. It's really quite revealing that that's your approach to what I said.

It could be any number of things. I'm not suggesting anything other than: to argue that consciousness doesn't play a fundamental role in the Universe just because we haven't found a detectable particle for it is... an incredibly weak argument.

We haven't detected anything at all. It is, of course, possible that we are using the wrong tools.

Hilarious. Do you think, Paul, that I'm suggesting that there's a massive organized conspiracy for not allowing any sort of outside thought beyond methodological naturalism or materialism in the sciences, such that there's a literal hushed agreement to prevent such a thing from happening? What a blatant strawman. It's well documented that higher education in the natural sciences indoctrinates its students, in a way, into believing that anything outside materialism is unfounded nonsense. See Alex's interview on Skeptiko with Dr. Julia Mossbridge from Northwestern, or any other number of sources regarding that topic.

So it's not organized, just an accident? Anyhoo, I don't think that every student is going to come out of the education system being perfectly indoctrinated. And those who believe the supposed indoctrination has harmed their field are likely to repeat the story. I'm sure it's true to some degree, and certainly there are biases.

Surely some clever Young Turks will come along and overcome all the biases, if there is anything to be found.

No "Sooper Sekrit Physics Society" needed (honestly cannot get over how utterly dense that was to say).

I guess the funky misspelling wasn't enough.

~~ Paul

You appear to know for a fact that mind is not brain function.

~~ Paul

What presents as evidence-based theory is that mind can recognize logical circumstances and respond in such a way as to create lower entropy states, with future specified results.  ( Dissipative Structures -- Ilya Prigogine) 

There is no science measuring the physical "traces" as real tokens in the brain.  The idea of one-to-one correspondence of material configuration, with thoughts, is fully disproved.  The language of organic life is an informational code, which is not substantiated as symbolic organic materials, but as abstract and arbitrary structures.  It is substantiated by the processes and communication systems researched by bioinformatics.  The action is not in the micro-ohms of synaptic firing - the action is in informational environments where feelings, emotions, insight, calculation and understanding - are the things to measure. 

Physics as a science, has tools to measure these changes in thermodynamic states in the physical world.  Brains exhibit an amazingly stable thermal output as an organ, with strict temperate controls.  On closer examination, it is observed that there is thermal activity on a micro-scale that flows in interconnected circuits.  The sum of these micro-energy flows is called the neural net.

None of this measure of thermal activity appears to be physical causes for changes in logical structures and in real-world consequences from them.  Hence, a separate set of rule-based transformations take place in scientific research.  Supported by available physical channels, living things (and maybe robotic things) output behavior adapted to the informational options in its environment (affordances).  This is observed behavior - just like we can observe the behavior of physics things.

The answer to your question - on a semantic level - is yes for me, but not in any absolute way of Truth.  Mind is not brain function, as to the category of science rules that predict its outcomes.  There measurements are on different scales and address different levels of reality.  The brain is physical systems.  The mind is informational systems.

Any bodily function, including brain function, can change the circumstances in the here and now, only.  Minds can change the amount of information from the past that comes to the present; and change real-world probabilities in the future, using decisions that are logical to circumstances.  This range of actions on real-world probabilities - in the past and future - is very different than forces in physics.  Crafting meaningful ideas and using them in decision-making are causal activities.

Paul, don't you value your mental work output?

To quickly return to the discussion involving panpsychism, here's a recent article on the subject.

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-eve...edibility/

I'm guessing that @stephenw will appreciate this bit:

One of the most popular and credible contemporary neuroscience theories on consciousness, Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory, further lends credence to panpsychism. Tononi argues that something will have a form of “consciousness” if the information contained within the structure is sufficiently “integrated,” or unified, and so the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Because it applies to all structures—not just the human brain—Integrated Information Theory shares the panpsychist view that physical matter has innate conscious experience.

Also there's mention of the question about particles of consciousness:

The biggest problem caused by panpsychism is known as the “combination problem”: Precisely how do small particles of consciousness collectively form more complex consciousness? Consciousness may exist in all particles, but that doesn’t answer the question of how these tiny fragments of physical consciousness come together to create the more complex experience of human consciousness.

Any theory that attempts to answer that question, would effectively determine which complex systems—from inanimate objects to plants to ants—count as conscious.

An alternative panpsychist perspective holds that, rather than individual particles holding consciousness and coming together, the universe as a whole is conscious.

But I particularly like this quote from Chalmers near the end of the article:

Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness. “The more I think about [any theory], the less plausible it becomes,” says Chalmers. “One starts as a materialist, then turns into a dualist, then a panpsychist, then an idealist,” he adds, echoing his paper on the subject.