Applying Illusionism to Physical Reality

Many of you would be aware already of illusionism, if in fact there were many readers of this blog. But in case it's needed, illusionism, exemplified by Keith Frankish and Daniel Dennett, is an approach to the philosophy of consciousness which claims that qualia (the ineffable irreducible feelings associated with conscious experience, e.g. the redness of red), are entirely illusory and do not actually exist. As such, on this view the Hard Problem of Consciousness as defined by David Chalmers simply dissolves -- we need only explain why we believe we experience qualia, we do not need to explain how it is that qualia can be produced by physical stuff. As a bonus, illusionism may claim that even the idea of qualia are incoherent.

Illusionism is, I would say, a species of functionalism, and so is compatible with and largely overlaps with other glosses on functionalism such as computationalism. There may be corner cases where some illusionists may disagree with some computationalists, especially on how best to describe things, but the stories they tell about human consciousness are mostly compatible. As such, I count myself as an illusionist, a functionalist and a computationalist.

What I wanted to write about today is a strong rhyming I've noticed between the illusionist view of consciousness and how I think of the stuff of physical reality.

In Defence of Strong AI: Semantics from Syntax

Is it possible to get semantics from syntax?

If it were impossible to get semantics (meaning) from syntax (symbols and formal rules for manipulating them) then we probably wouldn't have bothered broadcasting the Arecibo image to the universe in the hope of communicating with aliens.

Without any way to explain the meaning of this image, it seems to consist of syntax alone. Whether it could be deciphered by aliens in practice or not, it at least seems possible in principle, which seems to suggest that it may be possible in some cases to derive semantics from syntax.

The assertion that you can't, that there is no way to get from syntax to semantics, is perhaps the strongest response from John Searle to the systems/virtual mind refutation of his Chinese Room thought experiment (as outlined in my post on the topic).

Searle illustrates his point by saying that if he is in The Chinese Room and has a formal system of rules (syntax) for manipulating Chinese words, he has no way to get from this syntax to the semantics of what is being said. If he has no way to do this, then how can the system do it?

In Searle's view, the systems/virtual mind reply to the Chinese Room is just hand-waving until this is explained.

Let's see if I can attempt to do just that.

In Defence of Strong AI: Qualia and Mary's Room

Photo: brokenview

The Mary's Room thought experiment considers a brilliant neuroscientist who has been raised and educated in an entirely colourless environment. It was originally proposed by Frank Jackson as follows:

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

On the day she is allowed to emerge from her confinement, she sees the colourful world for the first time. "Wow!" she says, as she takes it all in. Though she knew everything there was to know about the human brain and everything there was to know about the physics of colour, she had never before known what it was like to experience it first-hand.

But if she now knows something she didn't know before, then evidently she could not have known everything there was to know about colour before her escape. This surely proves that conscious experience transcends physics and neuroscience. Physicalism (the belief that everything is the result of physical interactions) must simply be wrong. Right?

Well, not really...

Winning the impossible lottery

Photo: Nick See

I wanted to call this post 'The Lottery Paradox', but it turns out that title is already taken by a very similar idea. The version I'm going to discuss is a bit more extreme and has a different focus.

It is inspired by some thoughts I've been having related to the validity of the Anthropic Principle (the subject of my last post), inspired by the comments left by Callum J Hackett on that post.

Suppose the nation of Foobar has a national lottery, but the way it works is that every single day, one of the citizens is chosen at random to win a big prize.

Now suppose that the nation of Foobar has an arbitarily huge number of citizens (say a Googolplex).

I'm going to try to persuade you to believe two completely opposing conclusions about the possibility of believing that you have won this lottery. One of these conclusions is true, and one of them is false. See if you can tell which is which.