Occam’s razor states- the explaination of any phenomenon should make use of as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explainatory hypothesis.
That does not say the universe is simple or explainable by material means or any such thing.
In fact those assumptions violate Occam’s razor! Saying the universe is simple or explainable by material means are unneeded assumptions.
In order to explain the phenomena of physics we need material, material forces, chance, and freedom. The chance comes from the inherent unpredictablity of certain phenomena (where will the particle land?) and the freedom comes from the experimenters ability to choose what aspect (particle or wave) of the phenomena to view. Currently there is no known material mechanical explaination for chance or freedom. The claim there will someday be one is an unneeded assumption based on faith.
If philosophy is going to be of value, it should agree with the basic facts of science. The mechanistic, material universe was tossed out almost 100 years ago.
Read Max Born’s Nobel prize acceptance speech and update your thinking.
douglas
Nick, the explaination of cached thoughts assumes the mind and the brain are the same thing. I’m suggesting that thought comes from an earlier misunderstanding of what science says about the nature of reality. I read someone unhesitatingly repeating a meme and thought. Sorry for not being clearer.
tggp The breakthrough I’m refering to started in 1900 with Max Planck. This ended in around 1930 with what is now called quantum physics. If you go to the Nobel prize web site and read Max Born’s acceptance sppech you’ll get a good flavor of this. Also Henry Stapp has written numerous papers along these lines.
g- I’m saying that the need to explain your thinking by means of brain processes assumes something about the situation that may not be true. I’m not saying that such a research project is doomed to failure, or violates the laws of physics, just that it is not the only explaination that would agree with what has been discovered in physics. I would further say that when the physicists overcame the idea that there must be a material,mechanical explaination for all the phenomena they were studying we got the most validated scientific theory in history. Sometimes when I see all the difficulties that occur in both neuroscience and philosophy around this issue I think that another approach might be more appropriate. Otherwise I think the post by Eliezer makes some good points—which is why I tried applying it to the post itself.
g- quantum physics came about because of the recognition that classical physics is wrong. The problem that Max Planck solved by introducing the quantum was “How could any object in this universe exist without that object emitting so much energy that everything would be instantly vaporized?” Not a small problem. The recognition that there is no material, mechanical explaination of all phenomena was important to the development of the new science and the new scientific view of the universe. The revolution was completed (in terms of the experimental evidence) with the Aspect experiments and Bell’s theorem. The revolution in terms of cached thought is continuing. There is nothing wrong with Eliezer’s commitment, a commitment I respect. The idea that science demands material, mechanical explainations is the cached thought that I was pointing out as not true. I believe that would be a valid example of what the post is about. Specific difficulties in neuroscience and philosophy include: The one mentioned by Eliezer in his post, the binding problem( there is no place in your brain where what you experience comes together the way you experience it), the self (there is no “I” in the brain), the experience of conscious will as being causully efficacious, the observed instances of fully functional human beings who have little or no brain, memory (no memory banks in the brain)...
g- when I use the word material I mean composed of matter. When I say matter I mean something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, or gas. When I say mechanical I mean explainable by causally determined material forces. As Feynman pointed out,” No one has found any machinery behind the law,” refering to modern physics. I’m sorry, the true believer comment was in response to the comment made by Eliezer about religion. I don’t know that it applies to Elizner himself—I don’t know him at all. The grounds I have for saying that science does not demand “material explainations” is the fact that the most experimentally tested, validated scientific theory we have does not posit them. I didn’t mean to attack Eliezer, but just the idea that there must be that type of explaination in order to be scientific. I think I was applying the post with the earlier comments, and I would do so from respect of the basic material covered. I would agree with you whole-heartedly that abandoning the search for explainations would be a huge mistake. I’m suggesting that by removing the unneeded assumption that all explainations are of a certain form science can advance in new ways. As David Bohm once said, “Progress in science is usually made by dropping assumptions.”
g- The cache thought I’m recognzing as false is that science demands material explainations. When I hear the mind described as the brain, that thought is activated in my thinking. Material, mechanistic = scientific. I don’t know what is in your mind or Elizer’s. I’m trying to deactivate the thought in my mind. Isn’t that the point of the post?
If we equate the decision to undergo cryonics with the decision to live forever, then I think calling it a small decision is problematic. Suppose I were to say, “You will live forever. That is your nature.” It seems most people have one of two ways of dealing with this possibility-- 1) create an endlessly beautiful future (heaven) or, 2) deny the possibility (death is an ultimate end). These actions do not seem to me to be based on the notion that living forever is a small decision.
Eliezer, I’d like to take a stab at the internal criterion question. One differerence between me and the program you describe is that I have a hoped for future. Say “I’d like to play golf on Wednesday.” Now, I could calculate the odds of Wednesday not actually arriving (nuclear war,asteroid impact...), or me not being alive to see it (sudden heartattack...), and I would get an answer greater than zero. Why don’t I operate on those non-zero probabilities? (The other difference between me and the program you describe) I think it has to do with faith. That is I have faith that my hoped for future will occur, or at least some semblance of it. I seem to have this faith despite previous losses. Take the field of AI. There is a hoped for future, a computer will demonstrate intelligence, some hope the machine will become conscious. There is a faith that “we can solve these problems” I’m not sure the machine you describe would have either characteristic. I don’t know how to formalize this, but it seems an important aspect of the situation.
Humor seems the most difficult. Once I taught a guy from Sweden English. One day he read an article in the newspaper to me and could tell me what it meant—no problem. When we got to the comics page… the humor didn’t translate at all. I still don’t know why the difference was so marked.
“How would you recognize a natural ethical process if you saw one?”
How would you recognize an ethical process if you saw one? If you saw an ethical process would you think it unnatural, or supernatural, or what exactly? (Sorry if that’s a silly question)
“I find myself in a simple world rather than a noisy one.”
Care to expand on that?
Constant- You make an excellent point. One question that often needs to be asked when reading experiments is- “Does the conclusion follow from the evidence presented?” (I often find the answer to be ‘maybe not’ Is the ability to vizualize a learned skill? Can you train someone to be better at it? I grew up with three brothers all about my age and my mother would often ask, “How would you like it if your brother did that to you?” This had an effect on me (or am I just imagining it?) Anyone know of such a study?
Oops! (that last post was not intended to test anyone’s psychic ability) The problem of Bayesian reasoning is in the setting of prior probability. There is some self correction built in, so it is a better system than most (or any other if you prefer), but a particular problem raises its ugly that is relevant to overcoming bias. Suppose I want to discuss a particular phenomena or idea with a Bayesian. Suppose this Bayesian has set the prior probability of this phenomena or idea at zero. What would be the proper gradient to approach the subject in such a case?
Constant- thank-you. Micheal- I was indocrinated into Bayes many years ago. I agree that the probability 0 is not a rational one. (Who would have guessed in 1900 that the things that seemed most certain were wrong?) Or perhaps I should say that the probability 0 (or 1) is not a scientific attitude- science is based on looking to know- the assumption on probability 0 is the excuse to not look. I’m thinking that is a difference between religion and science- science has to be wrong (so that it can advance) whereas religion has to be right (to be worthy of total faith). Hmmm, I like that.
Eliezer, you are right. One word for probability one is “certainty” and a word for probability zero is “impossible”. Could we say then that with the exception of a situation of perfect, complete knowledge of conditions (a situation that may or may not actually exist in reality) that the Bayesian worldveiw would not include those words?
We must not overlook the number one reason something is difficult to explain- that is that what one is trying to explain is nonsense. (this is not specifically directed at anyone posting here)
Silas- yes, good point, but an important subset in that the person attempting to do the explaining often overlooks it. When was the last time you were having trouble explaining or understanding something and you asked, “Is this just nonsense?”
Another example of a false idea that seems to apply to the cache idea is that there is a material, mechanical explaination for everything. By the evidence from physics we can state with assuredness that there is no material, mechanical explaination for all phenomena, yet few seem to be able to accept the results of the most proven scientific theory in the history of mankind. When it comes to religion I’m not sure that any amount of evidence will convince a true believer.