Powerful Concepts for Understanding the World
threadreaderapp.com
threadreaderapp.com
I found this really interesting because I have never thought of a Condorcet Loop, or a Smith Set, in the context of Simpson's Paradox before.
I've also enjoyed Judea Pearl's points about how Simpsons Paradox scenarios sometimes don't even have a correct interpretation until you are clear about what your assumptions are and what you are trying to measure.
I've always suspected that the Smith Set might just mean that the electorate isn't ready to decide yet, and that another round of elections might be warranted, but it's interesting to consider that a Smith Set might also give clues on what questions to ask to better determine the winner.
But how would the electorate come to a conclusion about which issue is most important? The Condorcet loop could be fundamental to the voters' opinions.
For instance, the Belief Bias can easily apply to any one of us. How can we use the awareness that we are subject to such bias to break out of it?
I mean in retrospect, when for instance I read old comments of mine I get really this odd feeling that someone else completely wrote that. How could I force break out of this?
I'll add one in the spirit of "none of us are perfect"...
>..neurons creating consciousness...
Is an example of something I see frequently - otherwise very smart people who assume that consciousness is just an emergent property of physical matter and who ignore the hard problem of consciousness.
I am a mystic, however, in the sense that while I have enormous respect for logic and scientific method, and I am usually one of the most scientific-minded and skeptical people in whatever environment I am in, I do not assume that science is capable of solving all mysteries of reality.
I see no contradiction between physics, on the one hand, and thinking that consciousness may be irreducible to physics, on the other hand.
There is no reason to assume that the nature of consciousness is in principle accessible to scientific investigation.
It may be that there is some fundamental limit that prevents us conscious beings from grasping the nature of consciousness - and that's if there is anything to grasp in the first place. Maybe consciousness is essentially axiomatic and irreducible.
I have loved science since I was young, but to assume that everything about reality is accessible to scientific inquiry and/or physical explanation is dogmatic, unscientific.
You said that emergence of consciousness ignores the hard problem of consciousness, which isn't necessarily true at all. Consciousness could be an emergent property of physical matter and there could still be a hard problem of consciousness. Some believe there is no real hard problem of consciousness, but that's another matter.
You said that "otherwise very smart people who assume that consciousness is just an emergent property of physical matter", as if this is something they haven't thought about very carefully for decades, and as if this is at all a settled problem. No one on Earth knows exactly how consciousness comes about; not you or them. Acting with certainty that it must be immaterial is just as bad as the inverse.
In science, the burden of proof is on the claim-maker. The logic that "it's dumb to assume that what we currently know about the universe can be responsible for anything we see in the universe" is backwards. The onus is on you or others to suggest what else there may be beyond the physical universe. Otherwise, yes, we should assume that consciousness is an emergent property as a default position, until we learn about some other mechanism which it could possibly result from.
>It may be that there is some fundamental limit that prevents us conscious beings from grasping the nature of consciousness - and that's if there is anything to grasp in the first place. Maybe consciousness is essentially axiomatic and irreducible.
It may be. Or it may not be. What is your evidence for, or theory of, how it may not be? Also, even if it were essentially axiomatic and irreducible, how would that necessarily make it incompatible with physics and a material, physical universe? Both could be true.
>to assume that everything about reality is accessible to scientific inquiry and/or physical explanation is dogmatic, unscientific
I think this is using the wrong language. It's not a matter of "assume", but a matter of abiding by the scientific method. No, I don't assume that science can explain absolutely everything in the universe, but if you think it can't, there needs to be a theory or evidence of why. If there is no reason to think you can't, then the onus is on you to come up with reasons. Instead of saying "assume", you should say the null hypothesis. At this time, the null hypothesis is that everything in the universe, including animal consciousness, is entirely physical in nature. The null hypothesis may be beaten by an alternative hypothesis at some point, but so far, there are no testable alternative hypotheses that I know of.
You could say "to assume that scientific inquiry can accurately say anything about the existence of ghosts is dogmatic and unscientific". You could say it about God or ESP as well. But, again, it's reverse logic. What's scientific is following the scientific method: coming up with testable hypotheses, and testing them. If you aren't doing that, or can't, then you're the one acting unscientifically. You shouldn't assume that science can say anything about these things, but until you provide theories or evidence that 1) these things may exist, and 2) science can't say anything about them, then you shouldn't assume the opposite, either. You should remain completely agnostic, but default to the null hypothesis. Defaulting to the null hypothesis isn't the same thing as assuming the null hypothesis is true. Maybe for some philosophical definition of the word "assume", but not the way we use it in typical day-to-day activity.
As for the actual claim itself: at this time, there is much evidence pointing in the direction that it's likely emergent, and zero evidence pointing in the direction of any sort of non-material explanation for consciousness or anything else in the universe. There is currently zero evidence of any sort of non-materialness to any aspect of the universe, and no testable theory for finding any. Believing with certainty or near-certainty that materialism must be false, or that belief in materialism is ridiculous, with no alternative theory proposed or evidence presented, is unscientific.
If your posts on the matter were simply pointing out that the true cause of consciousness is not known and that there are other possible options, that's perfectly fine, but you appear to be treating this as an issue of dogma which only idiots wouldn't accept. I agree that the article should not have listed consciousness as an emergent property as if it were an established matter of fact, but you're basically doing the same thing.
But more interestingly, I wonder if this has a connection to the recent "internal monologue" meme? Perhaps those of us who don't have much inner speech tend to discount the importance of the consciousness question, and those of us with strong inner speech tend to amplify the importance of consciousness?
There are no evidence that neurons create consciousness. For all we know neurons are receivers of consciousness.
You shouldn't pick out these examples, they are supposed to broadly exemplify the concept.
eg: Nirvana fallacy assumes socialism is unattainable when many of the best parts of existing society are socialist (public health/education/legal aid, many small businesses, self employed people, large co-ops, credit unions, etc).
edit: Mostly The Nirvana Fallacy is itself a meta-fallacy, as most of the time it's used to justify things being shit by accusing the proposed alternative of being utopian (the sub-fallacy). I seem to remember George Orwell wrote a large part of an essay dedicated to how totalitarianism relies upon such fallacies ('pragmatism', 'realist', etc)