User In a universe of waves (and a wave particle duality), is there any hard evidence against a model of human (and other) brains as a receiver of external signals?
To be more explicit, what is to say that some computations aren't happening outside our brains, and we are receiving pre processed signals from an external source?
Are there hypothesis out there, with attempted peer reviewed esearch and experiments in this area? ChatGPT The idea that the brain acts as a receiver for external signals, rather than generating consciousness internally, has been a topic of philosophical discussion and even speculation within some scientific circles. However, as of my knowledge cut-off date in September 2021, there is no robust scientific evidence to support this idea.
The mainstream scientific view is that consciousness and cognitive processes are generated within the brain itself, based on the interactions of neurons and the processing of information within neural networks. These processes can be studied and manipulated through various experimental methods, such as brain imaging and stimulation techniques.
While some researchers and thinkers have proposed alternative models that involve external influences (e.g., theories involving quantum consciousness or panpsychism), these ideas have not generally been embraced by the scientific community. The reasons for this include a lack of empirical evidence and the fact that these models often fail to provide testable predictions that would distinguish them from the conventional understanding of brain function.
In terms of research, it's a field that requires a careful delineation between scientific inquiry and speculative or metaphysical ideas. Any scientific hypothesis must provide a way to test its predictions empirically, and as of now, models that suggest the brain acts solely as a receiver for consciousness have not met this criterion.
In essence, while these ideas may be intriguing and worthy of philosophical discussion, they have not found a strong foothold in empirical, peer-reviewed scientific research. The conventional neurobiological model of brain function continues to be the most widely supported explanation for human cognition and consciousness. User Rewrite the above, but with two limitations. Don't entertain models that suggest the brain acts solely as a receiver for consciousness, only entertain a hybrid model where consciousness can be received and generated. Also, focus on existing evidence that disproves this model rather than existing evidence that proves it.
If there is no evidence against, it can be labeled as something unknown, and something that deserves further investigation. ChatGPT Certainly! Focusing on the hybrid model where consciousness can be both received and generated, and considering evidence that may disprove this model:
As of my knowledge cut-off date in September 2021, the hybrid model of consciousness, where consciousness can be both received from external sources and generated within the brain, is an idea that has not been widely explored or accepted in mainstream neuroscience. The scientific community predominantly supports a model where consciousness and cognitive processes are generated internally within the brain.
-
Lack of Empirical Evidence: One major challenge for the hybrid model is the lack of empirical evidence to either support or disprove it. Consciousness is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon, and isolating external signals that contribute to consciousness is an intricate task. No concrete experiments or studies have been designed to specifically test this hybrid model, making it difficult to prove or disprove.
-
Neurobiological Understanding: Current neurobiological understanding emphasizes the role of internal neural networks, neurotransmitters, and brain structures in generating consciousness. Though this doesn't necessarily disprove the hybrid model, it presents a robust framework that doesn't necessitate external reception for consciousness.
-
Challenges in Definition and Measurement: Defining what it means to "receive" consciousness externally, and devising a method to measure and observe this process, presents significant challenges. Without clear definitions and measurable criteria, it becomes challenging to design experiments to test the model.
-
Something Unknown and Deserving Further Investigation: Since the evidence against the hybrid model is not substantial, it could be considered something unknown. It's a concept that might deserve further investigation within the realms of interdisciplinary research, possibly involving neuroscience, physics, philosophy, and other related fields.
In summary, the lack of evidence against the hybrid model is largely due to the complexity of the concept and the current focus of scientific research on well-established neurobiological models. It doesn't categorically disprove the idea, but it underscores the challenges and current limitations in exploring this particular understanding of consciousness. User As a scientifically minded person, I am recently more open putting faith in the unknown, but ready to iterate in response to new evidence, where I accept things as they become known.
I am more open to ideas that probably can't be proved or disproved but remain consistent with latest scientific evidence.
After all, even if they are experienced fictions, all of human's conscious experience is in some way or another constructed (with narratives that reconcile percieved realities).
Can you critique that style of thinking? ChatGPT Certainly! Your approach to thinking emphasizes openness to unknown concepts while remaining grounded in empirical evidence. It's an intellectually flexible stance that allows for curiosity and exploration beyond established knowledge. Here's a critique that considers both the strengths and potential weaknesses of this style of thinking:
-
Adaptability: Being open to new ideas and willing to change your beliefs in response to new evidence is a hallmark of the scientific method. It promotes continuous learning and adaptation to a rapidly evolving body of knowledge.
-
Encouraging Exploration: By not dismissing ideas that can't be easily proved or disproved, you encourage exploration into unconventional or novel areas, which may lead to breakthroughs or new ways of understanding complex phenomena.
-
Holistic Understanding: Recognizing the constructed nature of human consciousness and narratives can foster a more nuanced and holistic understanding of human experience, integrating aspects of psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience.
-
Risk of Unfounded Beliefs: Being open to ideas that can't be empirically tested might lead to the acceptance of beliefs without solid grounding in evidence. This can sometimes result in embracing ideas that are inconsistent with scientific principles.
-
Difficulty in Discrimination: Striking the right balance between openness to the unknown and adherence to evidence-based reasoning can be challenging. There's a risk of sliding into relativism, where all ideas are given equal weight regardless of their empirical support, making it hard to discern between well-supported theories and mere speculation.
-
Potential Incompatibility with Certain Scientific Endeavors: In some scientific disciplines, strict adherence to empirical evidence and falsifiability is essential. Your approach might be less compatible with certain fields that require rigorous testing and validation of hypotheses.
Your thinking style reflects a mature and nuanced approach that aligns with many principles of scientific inquiry, while also allowing for a broader exploration of human experience. The challenge lies in maintaining a careful balance, ensuring that openness to new ideas doesn't lead to the uncritical acceptance of unsupported theories. Regularly reflecting on your beliefs and seeking diverse perspectives can help in maintaining this balance and fostering a rich and critical understanding of the world. User Can you contrast our conversation with some of the content produced by Carl Sagan? ChatGPT Certainly! Carl Sagan, the renowned astrophysicist and science communicator, often spoke about complex scientific ideas in a manner that was accessible to the general public. Let's contrast the ideas from our conversation with some of Sagan's common themes and styles:
-
Approach to the Unknown:
- Our Conversation: You expressed a willingness to put faith in the unknown but remain ready to iterate in response to new evidence, accepting things as they become known.
- Sagan: Sagan often emphasized the wonder and mystery of the universe, encouraging curiosity and exploration. However, he was also a strong advocate for skepticism and the scientific method. His famous saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," reflects this approach.
-
Interdisciplinary Thinking:
- Our Conversation: We discussed a hybrid model of consciousness, integrating aspects of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and psychology.
- Sagan: Sagan's work often transcended disciplinary boundaries, weaving together astronomy, biology, history, and more. He believed in the interconnectedness of different fields of knowledge.
-
Balance Between Science and Speculation:
- Our Conversation: We explored an openness to ideas that may not be readily proved or disproved while emphasizing the importance of consistency with the latest scientific evidence.
- Sagan: Sagan balanced scientific rigor with imaginative speculation about the universe. However, he typically held a line between empirical evidence and unsupported beliefs, promoting critical thinking and skepticism.
-
Communication Style:
- Our Conversation: Our discussion has been more technical and focused on specific scientific and philosophical concepts.
- Sagan: Sagan was known for his ability to translate complex scientific ideas into language that was engaging and relatable to non-scientists. His works like "Cosmos" were infused with poetic language and a sense of wonder.
-
Human Experience and Consciousness:
- Our Conversation: We delved into the nature of consciousness, including ideas about human perception and reality.
- Sagan: Sagan often touched on themes related to human consciousness, existence, and our place in the cosmos. He also explored the potential for extraterrestrial intelligence.
While there are similarities in the sense of curiosity, exploration, and interdisciplinary thinking between our conversation and Sagan's works, differences arise in the balance between openness to unknown or unprovable ideas and the strong emphasis on empirical evidence and skepticism that characterized Sagan's approach. Sagan's communication style also stands out for its accessibility and poetic eloquence, aimed at inspiring a wide audience. User One thing that I might not have highlighted is that things of unknown nature that I believed until evidence becomes strong enough to change/update my beliefs, would not be made as claims to influence others beliefs, or put across as truth. It would be a personal modelling of the universe, which could be conversed about but wouldn't need to be adopted by others in order to be valid. ChatGPT That's an important clarification! Your approach to maintaining personal beliefs about unknown aspects of the universe, without insisting on their acceptance by others or presenting them as truth, differentiates your thinking even further from some public figures in science, like Carl Sagan.
Here's how that aspect contrasts:
-
Personal Exploration vs. Public Advocacy:
- Your Approach: You maintain a personal and flexible modeling of the universe, allowing for ideas that may be unprovable but are consistent with your understanding and evidence. These beliefs are personal, and you don't insist that others adopt them.
- Sagan's Approach: Carl Sagan's role as a public communicator of science meant that he was often in the position of explaining and advocating for a scientific understanding based on the best available evidence and the consensus of the scientific community. His approach was rooted in educating and influencing public opinion, making sure that ideas were backed by solid evidence.
-
Openness to Conversation:
- Your Approach: You express an openness to converse about these personal models without a need for others to validate or adopt them.
- Sagan's Approach: Sagan also valued dialogue and education, but his role often placed him in a position to argue for or against specific ideas based on scientific reasoning and evidence.
-
Responsibility and Influence:
- Your Approach: Since you're not making claims to influence others' beliefs, there's a different level of responsibility tied to the ideas you entertain.
- Sagan's Approach: As a prominent figure in science, Sagan's statements carried significant weight. He had a responsibility to align his public statements closely with well-supported scientific theories.
Your personal, flexible, and non-imposing approach to understanding the unknown aspects of the universe adds a unique dimension to our discussion. It allows for individual exploration and adaptation without the pressures and responsibilities that come with public advocacy or education. This approach can foster a rich personal understanding of the world while respecting the diversity of beliefs and ideas in others. It's a thoughtful and respectful stance that recognizes the complex and ever-evolving nature of human understanding of the universe. User Taking the above discussion into account. Write an essay on the following topic:
"Fictions are also reality"
Reference prominet scientists, philosophers, and other proponents of the scientific method who push boundaries on conventional wisdom. ChatGPT Certainly! Here's an essay on the subject "Fictions are also reality."
"Fictions are also reality" is a statement that challenges conventional wisdom, transcending the boundaries between what is empirically verifiable and what is considered imaginary or speculative. This paradoxical idea finds resonance in various scientific, philosophical, and literary realms. Leading figures like Carl Sagan, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Thomas Kuhn have explored concepts that blur the lines between fiction and reality.
The pursuit of understanding the universe often involves creating models or 'fictions' that may not be literally true but serve to represent complex phenomena. For instance, Carl Sagan often spoke of the cosmos in poetic and imaginative terms. He embraced the unknown, presenting ideas that, while grounded in scientific understanding, evoked a sense of wonder and transcendence.
Quantum mechanics, with its wave-particle duality, presents a reality that defies classical, intuitive understanding. Figures like Werner Heisenberg and Richard Feynman have contributed to a scientific worldview that accepts uncertainty and ambiguity as inherent aspects of physical reality.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, a prominent philosopher, argued that the limits of our language mean the limits of our world. His work suggests that our understanding of reality is confined and shaped by the language and narratives we use, including fictions.
Jean Baudrillard, a postmodern philosopher, explored the concept of hyperreality, where the distinction between reality and simulation becomes indistinguishable. In this view, fictions and constructed narratives can become as 'real' as physical phenomena.
Authors like Jorge Luis Borges and Philip K. Dick have played with the boundaries between fiction and reality in their works, offering literary explorations that challenge our understanding of what is real.
In visual arts, M.C. Escher's intricate drawings challenge conventional spatial logic, creating fictional realities that captivate the viewer's imagination.
Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," argued that scientific progress occurs through paradigm shifts. These shifts can be seen as a replacement of one 'fiction' or model of reality with another, more useful one. Kuhn's work illustrates how even scientific truths are provisional and subject to change.
The concept that "Fictions are also reality" represents a profound and multifaceted exploration of human understanding. By recognizing that our grasp of reality is mediated through language, models, narratives, and even fictions, we acknowledge the complexity and nuance of human experience.
The works of scientists, philosophers, and artists who push boundaries on conventional wisdom serve as a testament to the human capacity for imagination, creativity, and insight. They remind us that the line between fiction and reality is not always clear-cut, and that both domains contribute to our rich and ever-evolving understanding of the universe. User Please complete from where you left off: Ludwig Wittgenstein, a prominent philosopher, argued that... ChatGPT Certainly! Continuing from that point:
Ludwig Wittgenstein, a prominent philosopher, argued that the limits of our language mean the limits of our world. In his seminal works, such as "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and "Philosophical Investigations," he explored the intricate relationship between language, thought, and reality.
Wittgenstein's early work emphasized a picture theory of language, where statements were seen as pictures of the world. He believed that language's function was to describe factual states of affairs, and anything that could not be stated clearly in language was considered nonsensical.
In his later philosophy, Wittgenstein moved away from this rigid view, acknowledging that language is a multifaceted tool used in various "language games." He recognized that meaning is derived from how words are used within specific social contexts. Language is not merely a reflection of an objective reality but actively shapes our understanding of the world.
This perspective challenges conventional views of fiction and reality, suggesting that our comprehension of the world is deeply intertwined with the words, symbols, and narratives we employ. Fictions, in this sense, are not merely imaginary constructs but integral parts of how we navigate and interpret our experiences.
Wittgenstein's thoughts have profound implications for areas like epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. By emphasizing the contextual nature of language, he opened up new ways to consider the relationship between human consciousness, societal constructs, and the underlying nature of existence. His ideas continue to resonate with those who seek to understand the intricate dance between language, thought, fiction, and reality. User I am going to ask you to continue the essay.
Mention and expand on the point that two people can live in different fictional existences (in actual fact, all existences are based on fictions, money is fiction, companies as entities are fictional, etc) but can be describing the same objective truth, without either being more or less correct than the other, even if one subscribes to a limited scientific accredited model and the other being more inconsistent. The real thing lies outside the realms of pure knowledge.
Although the person who contradicts scientific understanding, even delusions occupy a valid place in society. People should have a right to model reality how they see fit, as long as law can protect freedom of thought and upholding of the scientific method and protection from corruption or influence by money. Why? Because for example things like the placebo effect are not understood but are demonstratably real. Hopes provided by fantasy can have real positive objective effects on health and other areas. Even a fiction could put us on a path to discovering more about objective reality. ChatGPT Certainly! Continuing the essay:
In the intricate weave of human understanding, the line between fiction and reality is often blurred. This becomes especially evident when considering that two people can live in different fictional existences, yet describe the same objective truth. Even constructs we take for granted, such as money, companies, and legal entities, are based on shared fictions, social agreements that give them meaning and power.
A scientist adhering to a rigorously accredited model may describe the world in terms that are consistent with empirical evidence and peer-reviewed research. Meanwhile, an artist or a spiritual thinker might employ metaphors, myths, or inconsistent narratives to capture a sense of the same underlying reality. Neither perspective is necessarily more or less correct; both are attempts to engage with a world that lies outside the realms of pure knowledge.
This concept has been explored by philosophers like Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who argued that our perception of the world is always mediated through our bodily experience and cultural context. Our understanding of reality is inevitably filtered through our subjective lens.
Even those perspectives that contradict conventional scientific understanding or border on delusions occupy a valid place in society. The right to model reality as one sees fit is an essential aspect of human freedom and creativity.
People should have the right to explore and articulate their unique understanding of the world, as long as this freedom is balanced with the upholding of the scientific method and protections against corruption or undue influence by money. The reasoning behind this lies in the tangible effects that fictions, fantasies, and even inconsistencies can have on our lives.
For example, the placebo effect, while not fully understood, has been demonstrably proven to have real positive effects on health. A patient's belief in a treatment, even if that belief is based on a fiction, can lead to actual improvements in their condition.
Similarly, hopes and dreams inspired by fantasy or personal mythology can motivate individuals, spark creativity, and lead to discoveries that enrich our collective understanding of objective reality. The story of Kekulé's dream leading to the understanding of the structure of the benzene ring is a testament to how fictional or intuitive leaps can contribute to scientific advancement.
Embracing the interplay between fictional existences and objective truth broadens our perspective on the human experience. It recognizes the diverse ways in which individuals engage with the world, without elevating one approach over the other. Upholding the rights of individuals to explore their unique understanding, while maintaining the integrity of the scientific method, fosters a society that values both imagination and rigor.
The recognition that fictions can have real effects underscores the complex and multifaceted nature of human understanding. It invites us to consider how our beliefs, narratives, and even inconsistencies can shape our lives and contribute to our collective pursuit of knowledge. In this rich and diverse tapestry, even the fictions we live by can become pathways to deeper insights into the nature of reality.