Sic et Non self deconstructs

[_DrW]

The expansion of the universe is the tendency that predominates on the largest scales. It is intergalactic space that expands. Within any galaxy the expansion of space is held in check by local gravitational attraction. So the stars within our own galaxy are not getting any farther away on average. I'm not even sure there's much problem with nearby galaxies. I believe some of them are actually getting closer.

At least one is. Our closest neighbor galaxy, Andromeda, is set to collide with the Milky Way in about 4.5 billion years. I've seen a 3D computer simulations of what that might look like from Earth. Unlikely that Earth will be inhabited by humans in 4.5 billion years, but the simulation makes for a fantastic looking night sky and a star filled daytime sky as well.

You are correct that at 74 km/sec/megaparsec, a receding galaxy would need to be a long way from here before expansion of space would put it out of theoretical range for a near light speed traveler.

If we are down to betting on wormholes, we might as well throw in the towel.

[Guest]

David Chalmers, the scientist who described the hard problem of consciousness, once told the following joke.

René Descartes walks into a restaurant and sits down for dinner.
The waiter comes over and asks if he would like an appetizer.
“No thank you,” says Descartes, “I’d just like to order dinner.”
“Would you like to hear our daily specials?” asks the waiter.
“No,” says Descartes, becoming impatient.
“Would you like a drink before dinner?” the waiter asks.
Descartes, a teetotaler, is insulted. “I think not” he says indignantly - and POOF! he disappears.

Desartes’ statement that could not be doubted finally turned out to be, “I think, therefore I am.” Implicit in this statement is the concept that thinking implies self-awareness and self-recognition. But does it really? Self-awareness and self-recognition imply consciousness, but does thinking require consciousness?

If consciousness is species specific and genetically determined, does this mean that self-awareness is genetic? Apparently not. There is evidence that self-awareness can be learned. Asian elephants, used by humans as highly valued domesticated beasts of burden in India, demonstrate self-awareness. The wild African elephant does not. Gorillas in the wild fail the mirror test. However, gorillas that interact with humans in zoos can often pass the mirror test. Clearly self-awareness requires consciousness, but not the other way around.

The prefrontal cortex, which was once believed to be required for consciousness, evolved in mammals and is not found lower on the phylogenetic scale. Birds don’t have this more recent evolutionary brain structure thought to be the part of the brain needed for reason, complex problem solving and planning. So what about self-aware magpies, counting crows and problem-solving pigeons and parrots? If these self-aware and problem-solving species the avians are conscious, does that mean that all birds are conscious?

If so, does it mean that consciousness can evolve somewhat independent of the neurological substrate, so long as capable neurons are available? Apparently so - necessity is the mother of evolution.

Both mammals and birds can flexibly organize their behavior over time. In mammals, the mental operations generating this ability are called executive functions and are associated with the prefrontal cortex. The corresponding structure in birds is the nidopallium caudolaterale. Anatomical, neurochemical, electrophysiological and behavioral studies show these structures to be highly similar.

Humans display a range of conscious states as determined by looking at brain function. The most convenient means of determining the functional state of the human brain is the electroencephalogram or EEG. EEG measurements, coupled with observation and subject reporting, indicate four basic states of consciousness in humans. The characteristic dominant EEG waveform frequency ranges and their associated states of consciousness are:

- Beta: 13-30 Hz Awake Alert (thinking)
- Alpha: 8-13 Hz Light meditation (physically and mentally relaxed)
- Theta: 4- 8 Hz Deep meditation (reduced consciousness, dreaming)
- Delta: 0.5 – 4 Hz Sleep (deep dreamless sleep, loss of awareness, brain repair).
- Gamma waves, in the 30 – 100 Hz range, indicates heightened perception and awareness when awake and alert. Gamma waves indicate learning or problem solving activity. Theta waves also occur during the N2 and N3 sleep phases.

Transitions among these five wave forms are normally smooth over time. Short, high amplitude spikes, or intermittent spikes followed by a slower wave in the EEG, indicate abnormal brain function such as the onset of seizures or other abnormal brain states. That is, the spikes can indicate abnormal states of consciousness. There are many.

My view of all this is that, as in humans, consciousness is best defined by its function. I believe that there exists a wide range of consciousness, each evolving to confer some survival advantage, and at the same time prone to dysfunction. Depending on the definition of *thinking*, including the one used by Desartes, I would say thinking requires some form of consciousness. It is becoming clear that forms of consciousness are present further down the phylogenetic scale than previously appreciated.

[_Gadianton]

Desartes’ statement that could not be doubted finally turned out to be, “I think, therefore I am.” Implicit in this statement is the concept that thinking implies self-awareness and self-recognition. But does it really? Self-awareness and self-recognition imply consciousness, but does thinking require consciousness?

I'd have to go back to see what Chalmers says specifically about Descartes but his "hard problem" of consciousness is not "thinking" it's "experiencing". Closer would be, "I feel pain" therefore I am. Maybe there is an experiential side to thinking as well, but pain would be the more obvious case to solve first. Descartes needed a much stronger case in order to make God self evident -- without God an evil demon could trick him into thinking 2+2=5. But the better case for indubitable perception would be something like smashing your fingers with a hammer.

Richard Rorty, MFB's guy is pretty close to behaviorism and the most atheistic of all of them, and doesn't grant a separation between thinking and experience and says thinking will change what pain supposedly is; animals don't feel pain the same way humans do is one fallout I don't like. Dennett would point out that experiences like pain are not stable ideas -- is pain really pain when you're on morphine? And so "bundle theory" guys like Dennett (and Hume) don't think there' is an 'x' such that x can proclaim consciousness.

The prefrontal cortex, which was once believed to be required for consciousness, evolved in mammals and is not found lower on the phylogenetic scale. Birds don’t have this more recent evolutionary brain structure thought until recently to be required for consciousness and the center of reason, complex problem solving and planning...Apparently so - necessity is the mother of evolution.

That's the multiple realizable argument. Apparently, Chalmers is on board up to this point, as he makes his case against functional role. So take 'x' the functional role of physical system p; there is no experience 'e' that supervenes logically upon 'x', therefore physicalism is false. His zombie argument then, is that it's logically possible for there to be a physically identical David Chalmers in a point-for-point identical physical world that has no experience. He does not believe it's physically possible, however, and so consciousness supervenes nomologically. (I think I have that right but it's been a while)

My view of all this is that, as in humans, consciousness is best defined by its function. I believe that there exists a wide range of consciousness, each evolving to confer some survival advantage, and at the same time prone to dysfunction. Depending on the definition of *thinking*, including the one used by Desartes, I would say thinking requires some form of consciousness. It is becoming clear that forms of consciousness are present further down the phylogenetic scale than previously appreciated.

Ultimately theorists like Dennett and the Churchlands are more interesting than Chalmers, because as you suggest, understanding the science should be the priority. Dennett said it takes 6 months to master the philosophy side to talk about philsophy of mind but 4 years of cognitive science. I admit I'm kind of a 6-month hack, but it is what it is.

Chalmers seems to think that there are no possible scientific breakthroughs that could change the crux of the thought experience "I experience therefore I am". Therefore, we can settle this long before the science of consciousness is settled. His ground of possibility -- logical possibility -- is imagining without contradiction, which seems like a pretty low bar.

Well, clearly, the core idea of physicalism is not a stable one throughout time, as what constitutes physical today may be very different than the pre-Socratic atomists, but apparently Chalmers thinks it's stable enough to pronounce victory. One way to argue against Chalmers, which I haven't looked into, would be to find a clear notion of something that an ancient philosopher said was not logically possible (non-contradiction) but today we'd disagree. However, a thorough search and coming up empty would nearly seal off the "future science" argument against him. What would be left is showing a mistake in logic he made somewhere, notably right at the beginning with his clear perception of having a perception; but it could be in a later step also.

[Guest]

One way to argue against Chalmers, which I haven't looked into, would be to find a clear notion of something that an ancient philosopher said was not logically possible (non-contradiction) but today we'd disagree.

This has always seemed to me like a weak point in arguments which purport to prove something impossible, that they may really be no more than arguments from poverty of imagination.

I hesitate to pronounce upon Immanuel Kant, about whom a man not only smarter than me but also more fluent in German said that every philosopher seemed to have his own Kant. As I recall, though, one of Kant's antinomies was about whether space was finite or unbounded. He vowed that he could rigorously prove either side, and his real point as I understand it was that space obviously had to be one or the other but it was logically impossible to decide between the two alternatives. Kant was writing before non-Euclidean geometry was developed, which allows finite and unbounded spaces—and reveals the holes in Kant's arguments.

I learn from the history of physics that we cannot assume that we know what things are. We see light, but what actually is light? Little hard specks of brightness that bounce off things and fly in straight lines? That model can explain enough features of light that for some time it was taken as a definition of light. Then we found it was wrong and light was waves in the ether. That was the new definition of light, until the ether went away and we had waves in the electromagnetic field itself without anything else for the electromagnetic field to be something "in", and in a way that still seems to be true but the meanings of electric and magnetic fields have since changed and what it means to be a wave in the electromagnetc field has changed with that. The particle theory of light is kind of back, in a way—we have photons. And who knows what we'll think about light in the future.

If we're so easily wrong so many times over about something as basic as light, then I have no great faith that any of our arguments about what might be impossible by definition are going to say anything reliable about the real world. Our definitions aren't facts. They're just guesses.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I just want to express my gratitude for this thread. You guys are really great. Arc, that was an excellent post that had my wife and I talking about various existential theories within our dim grasps. Anyway, I just wanted the participants to know your efforts are being read, thought about, and appreciated.

- Doc

[_Arc]

I just want to express my gratitude for this thread. You guys are really great. Arc, that was an excellent post that had my wife and I talking about various existential theories within our dim grasps. Anyway, I just wanted the participants to know your efforts are being read, thought about, and appreciated.

- Doc

Doc, coming from an experienced board member with close to 20,000 posts to someone with 64, your comment means a lot. Thank you for the acknowledgement of the posters so far on Gadianton's thread, and you are definitely welcome.

[_DrW]

Among the constellation of consciousness states found in humans, none are better evidence against the existence of a material soul than those reported by people suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder or DID. Previously known as multiple personality disorder, DID is caused by "overwhelming experiences, traumatic events, and/or abuse occurring in childhood”.

Early childhood trauma causes Dissociative Identity Disorder to develop by preventing the child from forming a cohesive or unified sense of self, known as a core personality during their earliest years. Instead the prolonged trauma causes the different "behavioral states" present from birth to become increasingly dissociated (disconnected) from each other; over time these develop into alternate identities. It is believed that developing multiple identities protects the child by keeping trauma memories and emotions contained with specific identities, rather than overwhelming the child completely.

Since the disorder was first described in the literature, there have been professionals who believed that the patients reporting these symptoms were acting out or faking. There have been cases in which accused criminals have claimed DID and that an alternate personality committed the crime. Modern diagnostic tools allow clinicians to determine if someone is faking DID symptoms. In the 21st century, few professional clinicians doubt the existence and reality of this disorder.

In this discussion, the apparently normal, or original, personality will be referred to here as the “host” and alternate personalities referred to as “alters”. In most cases the host is also dominant. When alters are in control they may be described as “out” or referred to as “dominant”. Modern diagnostics tools such as EEG, and more importantly, functional MRI (fMRI) have shown that the brain functions differently during identity transition and when an alter identity is in control as compared to the host. These differences are profound and in predictable areas of the brain.

Alters may include children and adults of the opposite sex. Here are some documented examples of significant psychological and physiological differences in brain and body function between a host and his or her alters.

1. Host is a legally blind female in her forties with an alter who identifies as a sighted female child. Both voluntary and involuntary behaviors of the adult host, as well as her medical history and clinical diagnosis, show that her vision is in the range of 20 / 2400. The child alter can see well enough to read.

2. Host with no allergies has an alter who is allergic to peanuts. The host has been advised to avoid peanut products because of potential harm to the alter. Allergies among alters of a host who does not have any allergies is not uncommon. Alters who smoke or engage in risky behaviors that the host does not, and is not aware of, are also common.

3. Host has a normal ECG while one of the alters has an abnormal ECG showing clear signs of atrial fibrillation. Multiple ECG measurements over time confirm the difference between the host and alter.

4. (This one is for huckelberry.) Pet dog recognizes which personality is present in the DID patient and only enters the room when the dog-friendly alter is out. When a different alter appears, the dog will immediately leave the room without any indication from the new alter that the dog should do so.

Some form of DID is believed to be present in about 1.3% of the population. Less than 10% of these seek clinical help. DSM5 differential diagnostic symptoms include distinct personality states with a sense of self and agency and recurring amnesia. Co-morbidity includes headaches, depression, bi-polar disorder, and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures accompanied by amnesia.

Treatment or management of the disorder is mainly talk therapy, usually with the goal of gaining accommodation with the alters so that a “healthy multiplicity” can be achieved. In the past, so-called re-integration of the alter personalities has been a goal of therapy. Complete re-integration is referred to as fusion, and is relatively rare.

Healthy multiplicity, where alters have a chance to come out and express themselves under appropriate circumstances, is now seen as the best approach to management of the disorder. Medication can be used to manage symptoms of depression and headache.

If there were ever decisively strong physical evidence that mind is brain, the growing EEG and fMRI diagnostic data set from DID hosts and their alters is it.

[_Dr Moore]

DrW, what you’ve shared about DID is pretty spooky stuff. In the old days, I suspect DID may have been the root cause of what was labeled demonic possessions. Once again, modern science is slowly forcing a shift in the shadows where God and angels reside.

[_Gadianton]

Great post, Dr. W.

We have yet to see how Sic et Non handles MPD.

[Guest]

DrW's 1.3% figure for the incidence of DID is actually on the low end of what I've found from the first few online sources I checked. But doesn't it seem awfully high?

It's only smaller than the proportion of gay people by a factor of three or so, and there are quite a few gay people in my own circles of family, friends, and acquaintances. I'm not aware of ever having actually met someone with DID.

Okay, if someone had DID they might not be shouting about it to me. Still, though. The figure seems high for such a drastic condition. Something that affects 1.3% of the population is something which touches everyone: everyone will know someone who has it. Is that really the case for DID?