Why Are We Here? : George Ellis

Why Are We Here? : George Ellis

GE: Yes, I take the completely unpopular position: I’m a dualist. There’s the mind and the brain, and the mind inhabits the brain… or thoughts, thoughts inhabit the brain and thoughts are not physical things. Thoughts are abstract things which get represented in a physical way.

And again we do not understand how this happened, but the brain has a hierarchical structure. Thoughts have a hierarchical structure, and in the computer you can see these different levels. You can understand them, and you have got these interpreters or compilers which do it. I think eventually when we understand the brain enough, we will see exactly the same kind of structure happening in the brain.

The logic is going top-down from the top level down to the bottom and it is the logic which is controlling what happens at the bottom level. Abstract entities are driving the physics at the bottom level. The physics is not controlling what happens.

David: So that is exactly the opposite of when people say the reductionistic picture is always once you’ve understood these things at the bottom, they are what cause things to happen?

GE: Yep.

GE: Do you want me to open this up to an even more mind-boggling place?

David: Go on then.

GE: Okay. Where does the logic of mathematics come from?

David: Oh dear.

GE: This is the old question: do we invent mathematics or do we find mathematics? And I’m an unashamed mathematical Platonist: we discover mathematics. Two plus two is four is too simple. Let’s take something more interesting like the fact that the square root of two is irrational. Now the square root of two is irrational no matter whether you’re an Ancient Greek or someone here or someone on Mars. The square root of two is irrational. It’s a timeless, eternal, unchanging mathematical truth. In other words it’s a Platonic kind of statement.
The ontology is the mathematics exists and is there and is unchanging. The fact that the square root of two is irrational is an eternal unchanging truth. What we understand about it is a historically contingent thing, and we didn’t know that 10,000 years ago and we do know it now.

Just remember that believe in dualism does not imply belief in survival. David Chalmers is a good example of this position.

Just remember that believe in dualism does not imply belief in survival. David Chalmers is a good example of this position.

That is right, but if Dualism is real, then it makes no sense to claim that evidence for survival is so incredible that it needs a higher degree of proof. Nor does it make sense for he science establishment to shun all research into such topics.

Think of it in terms of Beysian probability. If you are used to basing calculations on the assumption that P is false (or false to probability 1-10^(-10) say), then those calculations are going to shift massively if Dualism is real.

David

That is right, but if Dualism is real, then it makes no sense to claim that evidence for survival is so incredible that it needs a higher degree of proof. Nor does it make sense for he science establishment to shun all research into such topics.

Think of it in terms of Beysian probability. If you are used to basing calculations on the assumption that P is false (or false to probability 1-10^(-10) say), then those calculations are going to shift massively if Dualism is real.

David

I completely agree. I only meant that when discussing 'dualism' I would appreciate it if the interviewer could delve a bit more into the details of the philosophical belief. Dualism is somewhat of an umbrella term.

I completely agree. I only meant that when discussing 'dualism' I would appreciate it if the interviewer could delve a bit more into the details of the philosophical belief. Dualism is somewhat of an umbrella term.

In my experience, philosophy as it relates to science to science likes to take concepts it doesn't like and subdivide them into umpteen variants as a way of trying to confuse people! Think of what they do to "free will".

How many types of Dualism would you like to discuss?

David

In my experience, philosophy as it relates to science to science likes to take concepts it doesn't like and subdivide them into umpteen variants as a way of trying to confuse people! Think of what they do to "free will".

How many types of Dualism would you like to discuss?

David

If we stick with the philosophy of David Chalmers. He is a proponent of property dualism. In property dualism, mental properties are seen as dependent on the physical brain and cannot exist without it. So when the brain ceases to function at death, the mental properties that constitute consciousness and personality would also cease. This perspective implies that personal survival after death, in the sense of a conscious mind continuing without a body, is not possible. Personal identity, memories, and consciousness are tied to the physical state and cannot survive its demise in property dualism.

I’m under the impression that most of us are mainly interested in the possibility of a spritual dimension to reality and not panphysicism.

Not sure if Ellis believes in an afterlife or not...my guess is he would be open to the idea at least based on this:

If we stick with the philosophy of David Chalmers. He is a proponent of property dualism. In property dualism, mental properties are seen as dependent on the physical brain and cannot exist without it. So when the brain ceases to function at death, the mental properties that constitute consciousness and personality would also cease. This perspective implies that personal survival after death, in the sense of a conscious mind continuing without a body, is not possible. Personal identity, memories, and consciousness are tied to the physical state and cannot survive its demise in property dualism.

I’m under the impression that most of us are mainly interested in the possibility of a spritual dimension to reality and not panphysicism.

This is exactly what I meant above - as far as I can see, property dualism is basically a re-statement of the materialist concept that the mind is generated by the brain. I don't think that is what Descartes meant by Dualism. I find the process of inventing variants of basic philosophical concepts - like free will - to be no more than a cheap trick to frustrate discussion.

Dualism means there is a realm of mental stuff which is distinct from the physical world, though there has to be some form of weak coupling between the two - which Stapp has already demonstrated if the coupling happens by quantum measurement.

Also as I have pointed out before, physics seems totally happy to work with QM and GR, even though the two theories are ultimately incompatible. Thus the fact that Dualism can't be ultimately the last word in our understanding of reality (because of the need for a coupling between the two realms), need not prevent its being adopted as a useful practical concept.

David

I liked this discussion a lot, although perhaps it got a bit confused near the end. GE did seem willing to acknowledge Dualism (and I don't think he meant property dualism) but clearly he didn't want to create a rift with his fellow academics.

David

This is exactly what I meant above - as far as I can see, property dualism is basically a re-statement of the materialist concept that the mind is generated by the brain. I don't think that is what Descartes meant by Dualism. I find the process of inventing variants of basic philosophical concepts - like free will - to be no more than a cheap trick to frustrate discussion.

I tend to agree with you and property dualism is definitely not what Descartes meant by dualism. But for the reason I have outlined I would have liked the interviewer to dig a bit deeper in this interview.