A bit of fun

[andros]

Many years ago I was given an argument about reality which seems to fit in this Philosophy section of the board.

 

I don't know where I got it from, and I can't remember the wording, although I remember the essence of it. I tried to search for similar on the web but to no avail, so I thought I'd try to reconstruct it from memory.  At the time I couldn't see anything wrong with any step so I found it to be an interesting paradox.  My reconstruction may be a little logically leaky, but for what it's worth here it is:

 

For something to be considered real, it must exist in physical reality

For something to exist in physical reality it must be measurable 

In order to measure a thing we must use our instruments and our senses

In order to use our senses we must be having an experience

So we only know a thing exists by virtue of our experience

An experience can't be measured so it must be unreal (not exist in physical reality)

[Ergo: everthing that we know is real is based on something that is unreal.]

EDIT: Ergo: Everything that is considered real is based on something unreal.

 

Has anyone heard this or similar before, or can improve it?

[ribuck]

Line three ("we must use our instruments and our senses") assumes that our senses are real. So the argument fails in line six when it contradicts its earlier assumption.

[Pepin]

Experiences can be measured. At a common sense level, if you are with a group of people and a flock of seagulls fall dead from the sky, everyone will report the same event in isolation. Upon hearing the report, you are able to go to the spot where the event was said to have happened and see if there are a number of dead seagulls. If you were to find a dead dove in the mix, this wouldn't invalidate the experience of the people.

 

On a neurological level, experience and memory becomes quite confusing because of the brain's ability to falsely store memories, to color data based on bias and so on. Fundamentally: particles are being used to interpret and store experience. It it quite difficult to conceive on some level how particles that are not fundamentally representative of anything become capable of understanding its own existence when in a particular configuration. But despite there being some downfalls, the findings of the scientific method show that the brain is really quite accurate in its modeling of reality, so much so that delusion is seen as being the result of a brain that is not operating properly.

 

Based on the above, it would be concluded that the subjective experience of a human does not exist in reality, but that the subjective experience is an affect of reality that is dependent upon 3.6 billion years of evolution and interaction with objective reality, the laws of physics, and the ability for subjective experience to be an accurate reflection of reality.

 

I write all of this because the statement that "subjective experience does not exist in reality" is true as the matter does not take on any additionally properties, but is very misleading. It is similar to claiming that the data stored on your hard drive does not exist in reality. This is true, but it would not be true to say that there is no data on the hard drive, as the term data would refer to the interpretation configuration of the direction of the magnetic fields encoded onto the disk in a particular order.

 

I'm not sure if this post was needed, but I do find that it is something that is difficult for many people to really understand especially since the wording sounds contradictory. I hope it is useful for anyone who is a little confused about topic.

[andros]

Experiences can be measured. At a common sense level, if you are with a group of people and a flock of seagulls fall dead from the sky, everyone will report the same event in isolation. Upon hearing the report, you are able to go to the spot where the event was said to have happened and see if there are a number of dead seagulls. If you were to find a dead dove in the mix, this wouldn't invalidate the experience of the people.

 

On a neurological level, experience and memory becomes quite confusing because of the brain's ability to falsely store memories, to color data based on bias and so on. Fundamentally: particles are being used to interpret and store experience. It it quite difficult to conceive on some level how particles that are not fundamentally representative of anything become capable of understanding its own existence when in a particular configuration. But despite there being some downfalls, the findings of the scientific method show that the brain is really quite accurate in its modeling of reality, so much so that delusion is seen as being the result of a brain that is not operating properly.

 

Based on the above, it would be concluded that the subjective experience of a human does not exist in reality, but that the subjective experience is an affect of reality that is dependent upon 3.6 billion years of evolution and interaction with objective reality, the laws of physics, and the ability for subjective experience to be an accurate reflection of reality.

 

I write all of this because the statement that "subjective experience does not exist in reality" is true as the matter does not take on any additionally properties, but is very misleading. It is similar to claiming that the data stored on your hard drive does not exist in reality. This is true, but it would not be true to say that there is no data on the hard drive, as the term data would refer to the interpretation configuration of the direction of the magnetic fields encoded onto the disk in a particular order.

 

I'm not sure if this post was needed, but I do find that it is something that is difficult for many people to really understand especially since the wording sounds contradictory. I hope it is useful for anyone who is a little confused about topic.

 

 

That's got me thinking. I realize how little I know about epistemology.  I do know that I'm having an experience - well perhaps someone could offer me a proof that I'm not, but I doubt I'd find it acceptable.  I'd need to be awake to hear the proof.

 

I don't believe in some kind of disembodied consciousness or soul or spirit so I'm quite happy that my experience is the result of evolution just as cognition in other animals is, and the assertion that it's an emergent property of cells seems reasonable. 

 

I don't understand the point about the can't-be-measured assertion being misleading, perhaps because I wouldn't claim that data on a disk doesn't exist, although I appreciate that one may not call it data until it's been processed in some way to make sense of it to a human or for data processing.

 

Re: "Experiences can be measured."  The physical correlates of consciousness or awareness can be measured but that doesn't address how or why processes such as brainwaves or neurons firing give rise to a subjective experience - why couldn't such processes happen without a subjective experience(?)  

 

I can imagine using a futuristic recording helmet that measured every brain cell and all the activity.  I could put the hat on someone else and "measure their experience" or put it on me and measure mine (in either case I'd be using the instrument and my senses) - and it wouldn't explain my subjective experience.

 

It seems to me that there is a hard problem of consciousness ie how to properly explain it.

For anyone interested it's been much better stated by Chalmers here than I could.   

 

The assertion that an experience can't be measured seems to be the crux of the little chain of reasoning I attempted to quote. I don't recall any assertion about whether senses are real or not, but I do recall the use of the word "experience" and I recall that the general idea was that since it's subjective it can't be measured.  If it can, then the conclusion is false. 

 

The chain of reasoning doesn't get into whether a thing is objectively real in the sense of being verifyable by others as in the seagulls, which perhaps weakens it, but to chip in on the side of the unknown creator I suspect the idea was supposed to be thought-provoking rather than a proof that we don't exist.

 

The other thing I now notice is that the conclusion says "everything that we know.." which doesn't tie up with the first line.  Perhaps it should be:

Ergo: Everything that is considered real is based on something unreal.  <--I've changed it to this

[Pepin]

Re: "Experiences can be measured."  The physical correlates of consciousness or awareness can be measured but that doesn't address how or why processes such as brainwaves or neurons firing give rise to a subjective experience - why couldn't such processes happen without a subjective experience(?)  

 

Because the arrangement of molecules evolved to deal with particular cases in its evolution. Though a complex arrangement of molecules has some ability to predict the future, it abilities are still quite limited and are often wrong as demonstrated by all the creatures that have gone extinct. There are vast limitations and numerous amounts of errors in the arrangement's knowledge of the current environment, and even more knowledge of a future environment. This can easily be demonstrated with any sort of basic physics test: the vast majority of humans that should know better predict wrongly. Animals certainly have very limited understanding as shown by the number of dogs that jump out of moving cars.

 

As far as scientists are aware, organisms are classical mechanical system. Knowledge of the world is learned through the senses, which requires some sort of interaction whether it be the detection of emitted light, touch, or standing waves through air. Life is simply a complex arrangement of molecules that takes in sense data and reacts to it maximize its chance of replication. The vast majority of organisms can be easily said to be deterministic in their functioning and only process a very small amount of data.

 

Another way to think about the question is to ask what would it mean if all experience was objective. If seven people claim to see a fox jump on professors desk during a lecture, but all differ on the color of the fox, the conclusion must be that everyone is right since experience is objective. If someone was taping the lecture, and it was found that there was no fox that jumped on the desk, this would not invalidate the others experiences and the camera's description of reality would also be correct.

 

I recall that the general idea was that since it's subjective it can't be measured.  If it can, then the conclusion is false. 

 

According to economic theory, all value is subjective, but results in objective prices. Subjective experience can be measured to objective experience through scientific means.

 

Ask twenty people what color a ball is and if they all respond with the actual color of the ball, we would be measuring the subjective concept of color and comparing it to the objective concept of wavelength and concluding that they are in phase in so far as the visible spectrum of light. 

 

Ask twenty people to pick up two weights of similar appearance, one being 10lbs the other 20lbs, and ask them which is heavier. Though the sense of weight is subjective, it can be measured to a scale and found to be rather accurate.

 

A common example of a subjective experience that can't be measured are dreams, yet scientists are even finding ways to measure this. Using the scientific method, they will be able to confirm the validity of their machine by comparing the dreamer's reported experience to what the machine deciphered.

 

On another level, if I say that I like eating carrots, but every time put a carrot into my mouth my expression becomes one of utter disgust and spit it out and begin stomping on it while cursing at it ancient Aramaic... Well, you would be right in saying that my subjective experience of liking carrots is wrong.

[jpahmad]

The line of reasoning rests on the idea whether experience can be measured or not. You also have to define what a "measurement" entails. I don't see why it can't be measured.

[andros]

The line of reasoning rests on the idea whether experience can be measured or not. You also have to define what a "measurement" entails. I don't see why it can't be measured.

I suppose an ordinary definition would do: ie to be measured it would have to have some physical properties like length, mass, volume, electrical charge etc. that could be quantified by a process of comparison with a standard measure Eg meter, kilogram, newton-meter-per-second, lux - etc according to some system of measurement.  Some things can't be measured although they can be inferred to exist Eg empathy.  There are no units of measurement for empathy, although I'd put costumed thug near the low end of any scale. 

 

Maybe an experience can be measured, but it begs the question what units of measurement would you use.

 

Perhaps, for example, it might be possible to measure the (relevant) brain activity of a person who is experiencing pain. That would presumably mean measuring neural networks and their electrical activity.  Definitely physical and measurable.  That person could report their subjective experience, using words or a 'scale of one to ten' to report what that experience is like and it's intensity.  That wouldn't tell me what the experience is like, other than via my imagination of what it might feel like to me - pretty much like knowing the pain of a sting from the Schmidt pain index.  So it's not the brain activity that can't be measured but the quality of what it's like to have the experience - which is subjective.