The Russellian Stance & Concluding Thoughts

(This is the final post in a series, for background see the previous posts.) There is a well-known philosophical argument regarding the limits of our knowledge of physical objects and the relevance of this for the problem of consciousness. This argument is most prominently associated with Bertrand Russell, although there are connections with the work of many other philosophers. The argument has two parts. The first part asserts that we only know physical objects by their dispositional, relational, or extrinsic nature. Our knowledge of physical phenomena leaves untouched their categorical, non-relational, or intrinsic nature. In his book, Daniel Stoljar refers to this as the categorical argument. The second part of the argument draws a connection between the (hidden) intrinsic aspect of physical phenomena and the seemingly intrinsic quality of the phenomenal properties of first-person experience. (For other discussions online, see the “Type-F monism” section of this Chalmers paper; an earlier treatment of the view -- “o-physicalism” – in this Stoljar paper; and, for a more extended treatment of related philosophical theories, see this SEP article by Leopold Stubenberg. Also, Chapter 2 of Gregg Rosenberg’s book employs a creative argument in this vein).

Stoljar briefly gives his own account of the categorical argument. He divides physical truths into three exhaustive categories: spatio-temporal truths, truths about secondary qualities, and truths about primary qualities (note that properties from our physical theories like mass and charge would fall into this grouping). He discusses ways these individually or in combination can be seen to fail to tell the whole story about physical objects and specifically only tell a dispositional story about physical things. While some of the details could be contentious, the categorical argument's conclusion appears plausible.

There are two ways to take this argument further. For the first, note how the terrain here overlaps the discussion of the “structure and dynamics” objection which was the topic of my earlier post (although in Stoljar’s book, it comes in a later chapter). One could argue that the categorical argument leads directly to this thesis (Interpretation 1):

1. All non-experiential truths are (and will always be) dispositional.
2. Experience concerns categorical truths.
3. Therefore, non-experiential truths cannot entail experiential truths.

Stoljar’s epistemic thesis would be false – there cannot be non-experiential truths of which we are ignorant which are relevant to experience.

I should note that for a composite system (like a human), it can be said that our experience depends on both dispositional and categorical truths rather than exclusively categorical truths; but the above argument would still hold.

Stoljar argues differently. He wants to extend the categorical argument into a "categorical ignorance hypothesis" akin to, but more specific than, his own view. The key to this is an assertion that non-experiential truths could encompass both dispositional and categorical physical truths. Just because we don’t know of any examples of non-experiential categorical truths doesn’t mean there aren’t any. Note that Stoljar wouldn’t think it relevant even if our ignorance of this latter putative type of truth was chronic. Given this assumption, we have Interpretation 2:

1. Known non-experiential truths are dispositional
2. We are ignorant of categorical truths
3. Categorical truths may be both non-experiential and relevant to experience.

The resulting “Russellian version” of Stoljar’s epistemic view does dissolve CA and KA, and thus solves the logical problem of consciousness. (Note that Stoljar does not positively recommend this version of the Russellian view, rather he is advancing the more general version of the epistemic argument and is using the Russellian version to show an example of how the more general version could be fleshed out).

Analysis

Stoljar’s thesis is difficult to defeat, because it is often easier to sow doubt about the adequacy of our knowledge than it is to defend positive assertions (like the statement above saying “all non-experiential truths are dispositional”).

In responding to Stoljar, I think the best strategy is to look more closely at how the paired terms non-experiential/experiential, dispositional/categorical, and objective/subjective are used and how they relate to each other. To do this, I will employ what I intend to be a minimal description of the world which must obtain to make sense of how these terms apply to it.

I start with the objective/subjective pair, because I think it is easiest to agree upon what these terms mean. In my last post I argued that objective and subjective truths are exhaustive of all truths. In essence, I’m saying that this is a dichotomy which describes our world. This doesn’t mean the world is described by a fundamental dualism like that of Descartes: both kinds of truth could supervene on an underlying common ground (neutral monism). On the other hand, a pluralism is implied, of course: The world contains individuated natural systems, and one type of truth obtains when a system participates in an event (subjective truth), and another type of truth obtains when such event is indirectly encountered (objective truth). There are as many “subjective” points-of-view as there are natural systems.

If you grant me this much, then the most natural interpretation of experiential truths is to identify them with subjective truths, while non-experiential truths are identified with objective truths. As discussed in the last post, such an interpretation defeats Stoljar’s thesis.

With regard to dispositional versus categorical truths, the terms are a bit more obscure, but the analysis leads to a similar result. A system’s indirect non-participatory knowledge of truths about other systems will only be of dispositional truths. We can only know them by how they interact with further entities. Another way to see this is to use the synonyms “relational” or “extrinsic” as alternative pointers to the same concept. The most straightforward interpretation would likewise identify non-dispositional (i.e. categorical) truths with those known through direct participation. The idea of a "non-experiential categorical truth" appealed to by Stoljar above has no room to fit into this picture and is not a well motivated concept.

Concluding Thoughts

Stoljar’s book was valuable to me not only for his interesting thesis, but for how useful it was as a touchstone for reflecting on the debates in (analytic) philosophy of mind which I’ve been reading about for around 15 years now. Within this philosophical domain, I have been most persuaded by the views I’ve discussed in these posts: a version of the Russellian stance, bolstered by arguments primarily associated with Chalmers and Nagel.

But, of course, consensus is far off. I haven’t discussed the parts of Stoljar’s book where he argues against competing physicalist perspectives on the problem of consciousness (arguments one agrees with always generate less scrutiny!). But many philosophers still subscribe to these arguments.

It seems that a significant move toward consensus will probably require input from outside philosophy of mind. Even in my “minimal description of the world” outlined above I was essentially “cheating” by bringing in ontological assertions about the existence of natural systems and how they relate to each other. But I think some sort of “triangulation” is necessary to make progress. Consciousness needs to fit into an improved metaphysical portrait. As an example, this is what appealed to me about Gregg Rosenberg’s thesis (see posts here), which combined insights from an analysis of causation and the composition of natural individuals to find the right “place for consciousness” in the world. It is also the reason I continue to be very interested in the philosophical interpretation of foundations of physics.

It seems right that a deeper understanding of consciousness will go hand in hand with a deeper understanding of nature.

The Objection from Objectivity

(This is the second post in a series; please see the previous post for background). The second objection considered by Daniel Stoljar in Chapter 8 of his book employs the idea of objectivity as the “Factor X” which characterizes non-experiential truths. Stoljar paraphrases this objection, which relates to an argument prominently associated with Thomas Nagel, as saying that non-experiential truths are and will always be objective (third-person) truths, and the problem of consciousness will always re-emerge since experiential truths are subjective (first-person) truths. I should declare my antecedent bias here that I have always found this argument to be extremely persuasive myself. If we invoke Nagel’s example of the bat: once I know all the objective truths about a bat, what it is like to be the bat is a further truth.

Now the way this objection is framed (that is, non-experiential truths are those known via the objective point of view and experiential truths are defined as those known through the subjective point of view) poses a challenge for Stoljar. He cannot argue against the following statement:

1. Even if you were to know all the objective (non-experiential) truths you would still not thereby know the subjective (experiential) truths.

Stoljar notes that this statement is analytic and flows from the terms of the objection. So he will try to form a reply by arguing that the following seemingly natural inference from statement #1 actually does not follow:

2. Even if you were to know all the objective facts, there will still appear to you to be an element of contingency in the relation between the objective and subjective facts.

It is this appearance of contingency or lack of entailment that is the basis for a third statement:

3. CA and KA will continue to be forceful no matter how many objective facts we learn.


Stoljar’s wants reject the inference from #1 to #2. His first strategy for doing this is to set up in parallel a counterexample thus:

4. John is in pain

This, he explains, is clearly a subjective truth. Then, since #4 is subjective then it negation must be as well:

5. John is not in pain

Next we have:

6. If John is a number, then he is not in pain.

Note this is a necessary truth. And since the antecedent of #6:

7. John is a number

is an objective truth, then we have an example where an objective truth entails a subjective truth. Putting this all in a form which mimics (1) and (2) above, we have:

8. Even if I were to know that John is a number, I would not thereby know that he is not in pain.

9. Even if I were to know that John is a number, there would still appear to me to be an element of contingency in the relation between John’s being a number and his not being in pain.

The inference from #8 to #9 is invalid, since #8 is true and #9 is false. Since this parallels #1 and #2, Stoljar says that inference is also false. When I read this the first time, I found the form of the counterexample fine, but its content was so different than #1 and #2 that I didn’t feel its force. I should also note he says we could use the slightly less strange “If John does not exist, then he is not in pain” as a substitute statement #6. But Stoljar senses the reader will need more help to flesh this all out.

So, continuing the discussion, Stoljar says he wants to distinguish the idea that the objective facts entail the subjective facts from the idea that understanding all the objective facts entails an understanding of the subjective ones. He introduces the idea that {if A then B} could be necessary but not synthesizable. Here’s his definition of synthesizable: “{If A then B} is synthesizable if and only if in every possible world in which S understands A, then S understands (or is in a position to understand) B – for short, if and only if understanding A entails understanding B.” Stoljar says the statement #1 above shows that subjective facts are not synthesizable from objective facts, but does not entail statement #2 – the relation could still be necessary and could appear to us as necessary, given future lifting of the veil of ignorance. To show that something could be not synthesizable but still appear necessary, Stoljar offers further examples such as this: if x is colored, then x is extended. Understanding about x being colored doesn’t entail understanding about what it is for it to be extended, but we can see that the conditional statement indeed describes a necessary relation given our possession of all the relevant facts. Again, in reading this, I found the content of Stoljar’s example to be different enough from that of #1 and #2 that I began to contemplate what could be faulty about the parallel.

For me, despite the examples, it was difficult to see that that one could ever concede the non-synthesizability of the subjective facts from the objective facts but come to find them appearing nonetheless entailed by them. But – and here again that is what makes the epistemic view slippery – Stoljar might say my feeling on this is just due to my ignorance! Can I flesh out a specific disanalogy in Stoljar’s examples which makes them lose force? I’ll give it a try.

The difference is that in the original case the two types of truths (objective and subjective) are presumed by definition to be exhaustive of all truths. In the cases of Stoljar’s examples, the additional facts which led us to see that {if A then B} could be necessary even when not synthesizable invoked other types of facts beyond the types represented by A and B. In the original counterexample #8 and #9 I need to know about abstract and concrete objects and what kind of objects can have pain. These facts were the “new” facts beyond just knowing everything there was to know about the antecedent “numberish” facts. But in the original objection, there are no new types of facts beyond the objective facts that could help me erase the appearance of contingency, because objective and subjective facts exhaust all facts.

I would note that I am not criticizing the distinction between a relation of necessity and one of synthesizability per se. Stoljar has used this effectively elsewhere (as in this paper). I just think it doesn’t do the job in this particular case.

Now I’d be grateful if anyone finds fault with my analysis here. For now, though, the reply Stoljar offers in this section was a rare passage in a clearly argued book which I found unconvincing.

Conclusion:

The somewhat complicated reply to the objection from objectivity was unconvincing to me. I think there is still room to believe that the evident dichotomy of all truths into subjective and objective truths remains a key obstacle to dissolving the logical problem of consciousness in favor of a materialist stance.

The Objection from Structure and Dynamics

This is the first in a series of three posts which take a closer look at certain sections of Daniel Stoljar’s book Ignorance and Imagination: The Epistemic Origin of the Problem of Consciousness. In his Chapter 8 he discusses and replies to 2 possible objections to his thesis, and these will be the focus of this post and the next. In another follow-up post I want to discuss his treatment of the Russellian (“neutral monist”) stance.

Backdrop:

To review, Stoljar usefully frames the logical problem of consciousness as follows. We have reason to endorse a triad of inconsistent statements:

1. There are experiential truths.
2. If there are experiential truths, every experiential truth is entailed by some non-experiential truth.
3. If there are experiential truths, NOT every experiential truth is entailed by some non-experiential truth.

Briefly and roughly, experiential truths are events of phenomenal and subjective character for which it is like something to undergo them. Stoljar (rightly in my opinion) takes #1 above to be obvious and does not spend much time on it. We have reason to believe #2 above given the track record of explaining manifest or folk truths in terms of scientific descriptions (which, to-date, all seem to coherently supervene on ground-level truths of physical theory). We might reasonably expect a correct treatment of experience in terms of non-experiential scientific truths to follow in due course. Someone holding to the philosophical position of physicalism (or materialism, to use the older term) accepts #2 and rejects #3. As an aside, I think Stoljar’s choice of using the term “non-experiential” rather than “physical” where possible is helpful, since it is always possible to get distracted in defining “physical” – although there are times where you need to revisit this.

We have reason to believe #3 above due to a number of related arguments, especially those known as the conceivability and knowledge arguments (“CA” and “KA”). For the purposes of my posts, I will presume familiarity with these; for a quick reference on these as well for the objection to Stoljar considered below, see David Chalmer’s paper Consciousness and its Place in Nature (this is also the paper which has his useful taxonomy of positions on the problem – Stoljar’s would be a form of “Type-C” materialism); for a more recent extended treatment of CA from Chalmers, see this paper. Dualists and other critics of physicalism accept #3 and reject #2.

In his book, Stoljar considers and rejects criticisms of CA/KA in the literature with the exception of his own, which he argues is successful. His (disarmingly modest-seeming) stance is an epistemic one, arguing CA/KA fail because we are ignorant of a type of “experience-relevant non-experiential truth”. It is only this ignorance which gives CA and KA their force, and if all the facts were known, we would all reject #3 and accept #2.

In his Chapter 8, Stoljar considers some possible objections and offers replies. He gives a general form of an objection (a master argument) as follows (some paraphrasing): we know we’re ignorant of many things, but we know enough to know that any relevant non-experiential truth is going to be characterized by some Factor X. The problem we have now which leads to the reasonableness of #3 will always re-emerge when we consider these new truths as a result.

Now, let me digress and admit that in similar discussions in the past I might have already given into a temptation to stop and protest: “how can it be that experiential truths can ever be entailed by (or “emerge” from) non-experiential truths? Isn’t the idea of “experience-relevant non-experiential truth incoherent?” Similar sentiments abounded in the Galen Strawson paper I praised and linked to a short while ago (btw, Stoljar has recently posted a response to the Strawson paper). But, in terms of Stoljar’s explicitly epistemic argument, one is not entitled to this response at this point. If the view is correct, then the notion only seems incoherent because of my ignorance. So, we must soldier on and put more flesh on what it is about non-experiential truths (Factor X) which has and will continue to make them incapable of appearing to entail experiential truths.

The Objection from “Structure and Dynamics”

The first candidate for Factor X Stoljar considers, stemming from Chalmers, invokes the idea that physical descriptions invariably characterize phenomena in terms of “structure and dynamics” (sometimes “structure and function” – see the first paper linked to above as well as Chapter 3, section 2 of The Conscious Mind). For any structural or functional explanation of consciousness, we’ll always be able to further ask why such a structure or function is accompanied by experience. Experience will not be entailed by the structural/functional explanation.

Stoljar, reading and interpreting Chalmers, says structure involves either a spatiotemporal relation or the property of playing a certain causal role – in other words what philosophers might also call dispositional or relational properties. Dynamics refers to how the system changes its dispositional or relational properties through time. So, instead of structure and dynamics, one could say “relations and dispositions”. Yet another way to put it is to say that we are referring to extrinsic properties. It is then asserted that these cannot be said to entail intrinsic properties, and experiential truths concern intrinsic properties. In replying to Chalmers, Stoljar refers to structure and dynamics, but says his reply would still hold force if we utilize these other terms.

Stoljar’s first reply to the objection is to say that while we can categorize physical descriptions in term of non-experiential structure and dynamics there also are experiential structure and dynamics. The experiential field has varying degrees of intensity, unity and dispositional qualities (such as a pain getting worse if I move a certain way). So, Stoljar asserts that if one knew everything about structure and dynamics, one would also know about some experiential structure and dynamics. Now, Chalmers might say that knowing about physical structure and dynamics will not help with the distinctively experiential variety of these. But why not? I think Stoljar’s response is effective up to this point.

Chalmers or his stand-in might say next, however, that experiential truths necessarily include another type of truth untouched by structure and dynamics. If so, Stoljar needs to know what this is so as not to beg the original question. A candidate might be intrinsic (non-relational, non-dispositional) properties. Stoljar next replies to this suggestion. He says while it seems that experiences have intrinsic properties (such as the blueness of an expanse of blue sky), it is really the representation of the sky which has the intrinsic property not the experience itself. I thought this was a weak response. It invokes a distinct and controversial argument regarding the representational nature of experience which is orthogonal to the debate at hand.

But Stoljar then offers a second reply to this revised version of the objection (to recapitulate: the idea is that experiential truths sometimes involve intrinsic properties, non-experiential truths never do, and you can’t get derive intrinsic truths from extrinsic ones). He offers examples such as the following: being a husband is an extrinsic (relational) property of Jack Spratt; and being a wife is an extrinsic property of Jack's wife; but being married is an intrinsic property of them as a pair. So the intrinsic fact of the whole did indeed derive from the relational facts of the parts. But, one might respond that this part/whole discussion misses the point when it is argued that it is the extrinsic description of a single thing that will fail to entail the intrinsic nature of that same thing. But, Stoljar seems comfortable to leave things here, thinking one can always assert a relational parts->intrinsic whole for any complex object, and since our starting point is the experience of a complex human individual, this reply has some force. The objector has just one defense left: he could assert that the world has an intrinsic nature at its most basic indivisible level. At this point, the dialectic stops, since the idea that all physical reality has an intrinsic nature relates to the Russellian view that Stoljar treats separately (as will I).

Conclusion

I think Stoljar’s reply to the objection from structure and dynamics is successful up to a point. He pushes the objector toward arguing for an intrinsic nature at the basic level of the world, rather than for a composite individual such as a human per se.

The Facts Are Not All In

I benefited from reading Daniel Stoljar’s book, Ignorance and Imagination: The Epistemic Origin of the Problem of Consciousness. The book defends the thesis that the problem of phenomenal conscious experience in contemporary philosophy of mind is rooted in our ignorance of a type of “experience-relevant non-experiential truth”. (See the brief blurb from David Chalmer’s blog here and also visit Conscious Entities and scroll down to see the recent review there[UPDATE 22 Feb.2007: the permalink is here]).

In defending his thesis, Stoljar does a great job reviewing and summarizing many of the debates of the last couple of decades. He invariably takes complicated arguments and simplifies their language and structure as he moves his discussion along. The book is valuable for this aspect alone.

In terms of his position, it’s a fairly modest idea – we’re ignorant about something relevant but of course he can’t say what it is! It does, however, seem a reasonable position to hold. He argues that this epistemic view of the problem is successful in undermining the conceivability and knowledge arguments which conclude that experiential truths are not all entailed by the non-experiential truths. Importantly, though, he is also arguing that none of the various philosophical/conceptual refutations of these arguments work. According to Stoljar the problem of consciousness is not one where the debate can be won “from the armchair” within the confines of philosophy of mind at the present time.

I’m sympathetic to this since I also think we need to triangulate on the problem using other considerations. At the same time, given the imperfect terms of the debate, I don’t think Stoljar is entitled to the conclusion that our ignorance is specifically of non-experiential truths. It is equally plausible, for instance, that the new truths would not be considered “non-experiential”, but as truths upon which both experiential and non-experiential truths (as we currently conceive of them) supervene. He considers a view very much like this (due to Russell), but concludes (wrongly in my humble opinion) that it is best thought of as an instance of his epistemic view.

I have some more thoughts provoked from my reading which I’ll try to develop into another post, but for now let me reiterate my admiration for the book: it’s very well written and is recommended for those who follow these debates.

Revised Mission for Templeton?

There’s a post by Sean Carroll on Cosmic Variance from the other day noting that the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) had announced the recipients of its first round of grants geared toward research into deep questions of physics and cosmology. It looks like an exciting and worthy list. The sole funding (so far) for the institute has come from the John Templeton Foundation (JTF), which is well known for having as a primary goal the promoting of a reconciliation between science and religion. At the end of his comment to the post, Anthony Aguirre (associate director of FQXi) says: “…it is interesting to note that we recently found out that JTF has a new mission statement. Not sure what this signifies.”

If you go to the foundation’s home page, you now see this mission statement:

The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for scientific discovery on what scientists and philosophers call the 'Big Questions.' Ranging from questions about the laws of nature to the nature of creativity and consciousness, the Foundation’s philanthropic vision is derived from Sir John’s resolute belief that rigorous research and cutting-edge scholarship is at the very heart of new discoveries and human progress.

I don’t know when this appeared (and it wasn’t heralded by a press release), but it is remarkable to note the focus on science and the complete absence of the words “religion” or “spirituality”, etc.

[UPDATE (Nov. 14, 2006): The foundation has revised the site; the mission statement above is reworded slightly but the content is the same; the older mission statement mentioned next appears to have been removed...]

Now it turns out that if you drill down into the "About the Foundation” section you will see a different mission statement, which has the references to moral and spiritual dimensions, etc. and a quote from Sir John referring to God. And if you check out the overview of what is still called the Science & Religion part of the foundation’s work, you still see the emphasis on religion. It may be that mission statement on the home page shouldn't be taken to imply a significant change in emphasis. (Take a look at the Programs and Conferences sections for more information on what the foundation is doing -- there is also a 15 minute video).

Many, including Sean Carroll, have been concerned about accepting grants from the foundation because of suspicions it really simply wants to advance religion, specifically Christianity. I would refer you to this article by science writer John Horgan from a few months back, for background on these sorts of qualms.

The reason this is all intriguing is that the foundation has immense resources (over $1 billion), yet the idea of reconciling religion with science seemed misguided. Science is of course not a worldview but a methodology for investigation of the world. If you try to inject religion into science it wouldn't be science anymore. Perhaps JHF realizes this, and simply thinks funding scientific research into the deepest foundational issues will lead to results friendly to their worldview.

Another way to approach these issues would be more philosophical than scientific -- looking for middle ground between the science-inspired worldview of metaphysical naturalism versus religious worldviews. But I've long thought that if this was the goal, then the foundation should have supported academic philosophy more explicitly alongside physics on the one hand and theology on the other. Disciplines such as philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and metaphysics, for instance, have (in my opinion) a crucial role to play if you want to find such common ground between worldviews. Perhaps I can be encouraged by the reference to “philosophers” in the mission statement above.

Regardless of this, if the foundation intends to continue or further increase its focus on funding of foundational research in physics and cosmology with no explicit religious "strings" attached (as appears to be the case with the FQXi funding), that would be a good thing.

Update: Congratulations to Matt Leifer (of Quantum Quandaries) for being one of the grant recipients (his comment on the grant announcement is here).

Musing on QFT Ontology

Spurred by the SEP entry on Quantum Field Theory by Meinard Kuhlmann, I spent some time attempting to draft a blog post about the philosophically problematic ontology of quantum particles and fields (see especially section 5 of the article). I decided I needed to read more on the topic before going further, however (I'd be grateful for recommendations for further reading). In reflecting on Quantum Mechanics itself, I’ve argued the merits of a dual ontology, where interaction/measurement events comprise the concrete macro-world, and the wave function provides a description of a system's natural propensities -- still “real” in an important sense, but not concrete.

But I don’t know enough at this point to flesh this out to a discussion of QFT yet. So, in addition to recommending the SEP article above, I’ll compensate by linking to this blog post at Sigpfe, which puzzles about the meaning of “particles” primarily in the context of the Unruh effect (HT: Reality Conditions). I agree that the notion of a particle makes no sense in anything like the classical meaning although there are indeed “particle” detection events.

Books Unblogged: Biblical Theme

I’ve read a few good books in recent times and have been meaning to mention them on the blog. Here are 3 of them.

Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, received extra attention due to the inclusion in the book of the story of his personal religious journey. Ehrman was an evangelical Christian as a young person but lost his faith during his progression toward becoming a leading New Testament scholar. But the main part of the book is a very well-written introduction (for laypeople) to NT textual criticism, and it is on this basis that I recommend it for those interested in the topic. His account of the detective work involved in tracking the evolution of various manuscripts and teasing out probable copying errors and deliberate scribal alterations is fascinating stuff.

Recently, the early Christian text The Gospel of Judas received a lot of attention in the media. Some of the excitement about the discovery of this text was probably misplaced since there is nothing at all the (likely) mid-second century text tells us about the historical Jesus or Judas. On the other hand, it is rightly welcomed as another valuable window into the variety of early Christian communities, and it is certainly intriguing that one such community identified with Judas and created a revisionist account wherein he is the one disciple to know Jesus’ true nature. I missed the television special but enjoyed reading the book linked above, which includes a translation and 4 essays. In the first essay, Rodolphe Kasser describes the perilous journey of the manuscript from discovery to publication. In the second essay Bart Ehrman gives a very basic overview of the Gospel in the context of the conventional wisdom regarding the relationship of the Gnostic gospels to the proto-orthodox church. While I like Ehrman (see above), I thought this was a fairly weak essay which ignored other interpretations: for more texture on the implications of Judas and the other Gnostic texts on our view of early Christianity, see this NY Review of Books article. In the third essay, Gregor Wurst briefly relates the gospel to the anti-heretical writings of Irenaeus (who wrote about the existence of a Gospel of Judas), and in the final essay Marvin Meyer helpfully explains the strange and complicated cosmology in the Gospel by relating it to parallels in other texts.

The next book, Harold Bloom’s Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine, I really only recommend for those who have found Bloom’s previous work rewarding. The book is his rumination on the “characters” of Jesus and Yahweh from a literary, cultural and religious perspective. The main reason for my caveat is that this book seemed sloppily tossed off in stream of consciousness mode. This made it a somewhat exasperating read for me even though I find Bloom to be an insightful thinker. For those that don’t know, Bloom is a prominent and prolific literary critic with a fairly unique yet also traditional (aesthetic) perspective. His initial renown was for his book The Anxiety of Influence, which outlined his approach to criticism. I particularly enjoyed his take on The Western Canon in a subsequent book. He has expanded his attention to wider cultural and religious criticism in other books, and indeed it rings true that he would have long been ruminating on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism as the ultimate example of the “Anxiety” (fyi, Bloom is writing from a culturally but not particularly religious Jewish point of view). I was interested to find from this book that Bloom finds the Jesus of the Gospel of Mark in particular to be a compellingly “uncanny” character to rival the Yahweh of the “J” thread of what Christians call the “Old Testament”.

Interpreting Quantum Probability

I have been reading more about the philosophical interpretations of probability and how this topic relates to the interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). If we assume hidden-variable theories don’t work, some notion of probability is at the core of QM.

I had previously read this SEP article on the interpretation of probability. It provides a good overview of the history of the issue among philosophers, and reveals a wide variety of ideas under past and present consideration. Among physicists, however, debate on interpreting probability seems to center broadly on two conceptions: a frequency interpretation and a Bayesian interpretation.

I thought this recent post at physics musings was a good one on this topic, and I also benefited from the links (including the one to this John Baez page). Then, a recent post at Quantum Quandaries provided a link to this paper by Marcus Appleby. In it Appleby argues persuasively for the Bayesian conception and considers the implications for interpreting QM.

The frequentist conception appeals because it is intended to be objective. If we could repeat an experiment an infinite number of times we would empirically fill out the probability distribution of outcomes. The problem is we can’t do this. The Bayesian interpretation is epistemic: it shows how, given one’s prior assumption about a probability distribution, a measurement outcome serves to improve it. Appleby argues that an epistemic conception is unavoidable. He shows the problems with frequentist conceptions which try to provide an interpretation in situations with finite ensembles; here, one attempts to focus only on a pragmatically relevant finite subset of outcomes. However, this choice of subset is influenced by the context of the situation and the biases of the chooser and thus reintroduces the subjective element.

Appleby discusses the propensity interpretation of QM, which places the probability as an objective property of the system being measured. He suspects this idea usually underlies the adoption of a frequentist perspective. Propensity can, however, be made consistent with the Bayesian conception, if one gives up the idea that propensity is a directly observable property.

Appleby next discusses attempts to formulate an objective version of the Bayesian conception. Can the prior probability distribution be objectively grounded? No, because as some point you have an initial assumption which is not empirical. You cannot derive a probability from a non-probabilistic empirical fact.

Now, getting back to what it all means for our worldview: since probabilities are irreducible to objective facts, and quantum mechanics describes reality, does this mean we have to give up the idea that there is an objective real world out there? Is it true, a la most summaries of the Copenhagen interpretation, that QM only describes the content of our knowledge?

In turning to this question in the last section of his paper, Appleby surprised me by bringing up the problem of qualia from the domain of the philosophy of mind. Qualia (arguably) are irreducibility first-person phenomena which do not fit into a mechanistic view of the world. A fully objective realist view of the world has no place for qualia. And yet, Appleby says, you would say the same thing about real probability or propensity, since these are irretrievably “contaminated” by subjectivity. For him, this points to the need to give up the fully objective realism and accept that we need to find a fuller extension or development of a Copenhagen-style interpretation.

Not mentioned in this 2-year old paper is the Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (RQM), which can be thought of as such a generalization and extension of Copenhagen. This interpretation seems to fit best with the Bayesian interpretation of probability. For some more recent discussion of RQM follow some of the links in the physics musings post above and also see the recent posts in this thread at PhysicsForums.

Two Metaphysical Birds with One Stone

This paper “had me” at the title: Composition as Causation. The author is István Aranyosi (thanks due to Online Papers in Philosophy, maintained by Jonathan Ichikawa). A brief summary follows below.

Aranyosi reviews two paradigmatic ways of developing a mereology. One includes an axiom known as the principle of extensionality (or “uniqueness of composition” in David Lewis’ formulation). This says that if x and y share all their proper parts, then they are identical. According to some philosophers it can be further understood to mean that the totality of parts is identical to the composed individual -- composition as identity.

Others have developed an ontological view Aranyosi calls “constitution theory”. By these accounts, constitution is not identity, but an irreflexive and asymmetric relation. However, such theorists need a different composition relation. The problem is that it has been difficult to develop an alternative model to fill out the idea that an individual is “more than the sum of its parts”.

Yet we should develop such a model since composition as identity conflicts with a strong intuition that the relation of x’s comprising y should be asymmetric. In addition to satisfying this intuition, Aranyosi lists the other criteria a constitution theory would need. The relation posed should be able to relate the same parts in the same fashion to distinct individuals at the same spatiotemporal location (e.g. the statue and the lump of clay with which it materially coincides). Also, the relation should be such as to relate the same parts to different individuals at different times (the lump of clay after smashing the statue). Finally and importantly, it should be such as to allow the same individual to be composed of distinct collections of parts at different times, or in different worlds (the cat which loses its tail is still the same individual). Composition as identity satisfies none of these criteria.

In thinking about these criteria, Aranyosi proposes that the notion of causality as composition may be able to satisfy them. First, like composition, causation is intuitively asymmetric. Second, in considering the criterion of the relation of the same parts to different individuals at the same spatiotemporal location: causes can have multiple effects at the same location. Next, for the criterion of relating the same parts in the same fashion to distinct individuals at different times or worlds: the same causes can be causes for distinct things. Finally, the criterion that the relation allow of distinct collections of parts to compose the same individual: the same effect can be brought about by distinct causes at different times.

Aranyosi considers some issues with this proposal. Part/whole relations are considered simultaneous while causality is temporal (but there may not be any problem with the idea of simultaneous causation). He also discusses how this fits with event vs. object ontologies, and discusses possible problems stemming from how causation fits in with laws of nature and counterfactual analysis. He further discusses the conflict between causation as part of contingent laws of nature vs. the traditional view of merelogical relations as metaphysically necessary. Aranyosi doesn’t present this paper as providing a complete and convincing account of composition as causation, but suggests it is a fruitful starting point for further work.

I like this idea of connecting composition with causality, and recall that I had already come across it in Gregg Rosenberg’s metaphysical system (discussed in posts here and here). In Rosenberg’s theory of causality the receptive properties proposed to help explain real causation were also connective properties which bound natural individuals together into causal nexii at various levels in nature.

What Physicalism Can't Allow

A couple of posts ago I said “…an account of genuine ontological emergence…must fail, given an assumption of physicalism.” Fortuitously, this issue was explored in depth in a paper posted by Terry Horgan in the last week of the recent Online Philosophy Conference entitled Materialism: Matters of Definition, Defense, and Deconstruction. There was also an interesting commentary on the paper by Thomas W. Polger. Of the several related topics explored in Horgan’s paper, one crucial issue was whether necessary “inter-level” metaphysical relations which go beyond physics are allowed or not for the materialist. (Please note that “materialism” and “physicalism” refer to the same thing – the older term has been ‘winning out’ in recent times it seems).

In the first part of his paper, Horgan sets out to take the pre-theoretic conception of materialism which he thinks most people share and create a rigorous definition.

I’m going to summarize the first parts of his formulation quickly, so please refer to the paper for the real thing. His effort is in the spirit of ideas from David Lewis and Frank Jackson, among others. Horgan utilizes “physically possible worlds”, which are possible worlds which have the same physical laws and entities as the actual world (“worlds” here mean maximal propositions: the actual world instantiates a possible world). Then to help screen out physically possible worlds that have superfluous non-physical stuff, he utilizes also uses the notion of a “minimal physical duplicate” of a world, which duplicates a world’s physical stuff but contains nothing beyond whatever is needed for it to be a physical duplicate. His definition of materialism then says that the actual world is such a minimal physical duplicate of itself, and for any 2 physically possible worlds, their minimal duplicates are identical. So, the actual world has no extra non-physical stuff; further, all physically possible worlds (which like the actual one lack superfluous non-physical stuff) must be the same in all respects.

[UPDATE/CORRECTION - JAN 26,2007: A helpful e-mail correspondent has pointed out a couple of problems in the the last two sentences of my summary above. First, where I say "for any 2 physically possible worlds, their minimal duplicates are identical" -- this will only be true only if the worlds selected are alike in all physical detail, not just laws and types of entities (Horgan's text doesn't say this, but it is implied) Then my last sentence has two mistakes: I should not have said all physically possible worlds must be the same in all respects; further, while the definition specifies that the actual world doesn't have superflous stuff (since it is a minimal duplicate of itself), there is no attempt here to rule out superfluous stuff at all physically possible worlds. I apologize for the errors.]

Horgan further adds a loophole-closer ruling out worlds having more than one spatio-temporal regions within them which are physically identical but otherwise differ.

So far this is somewhat familiar territory, but Horgan next explores one of the thorniest and most interesting aspects of defining physicalism.

Even the formulation given above isn’t enough to meet our pre-theoretic concept of materialism, says Horgan, and he adds a final part to his formulation. He worries that someone could propose a necessary metaphysical supervenience connection between certain high level non-physical properties and low level physical properties where such connection is brute and could not be derived from other facts. Such a “strong emergentist” proposal is not ruled out by the modal appeal to minimal physical-duplicate worlds in the definition (the necessary connections would exist in all worlds).

So he adds another clause to his formulation of materialism which says: “there are no brute inter-level relations of metaphysical necessitation linking physical particulars or properties to non-physical particulars or properties.”

Polger wonders if this clause amounts to “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” Horgan is led to the clause by considering some examples of strong emergence which seem obviously unacceptable to the physicalist. These include G.E. Moore’s meta-ethical position that “intrinsic goodness” necessarily supervenes on the physical; and, of course the example of immaterial Cartesian minds brutely and necessarily emerging when a human brain is formed. Polger says: “is it generally true that being a relata of a metaphysically fundamental necessitation relation disqualifies a property from being physically acceptable? I don’t think so.” He then lists some examples which he thinks would be OK. These include: causal relata; the whole individual’s relations to its parts; identity relations between higher level and lower level concepts (water and H2O). Polger argues that just because some examples of brute metaphysical relations are not compatible with physicalism doesn’t mean they all are.

Polger concludes that the extra clause goes too far. He concedes it would remain an interesting and important question which metaphysical relations are physically “kosher” and which are not, and how we decide this. Further he says it remains a particularly difficult problem to see how phenomenal consciousness will be made to fit into the picture. “But it should be clear enough that we need not answer that question by consulting physics alone…Why think that physics itself could be the source of not only the basic entities and properties but also the source of all ontological relations?”

Well, I think that most materialists/physicalists do think physics itself is (or will be) adequate and therefore Horgan is right to include his additional clause. I find Polger’s objection to be very interesting because, apart from serious metaphysicians themselves, one never sees advocates of materialism conceding that it is an inadequate metaphysics without explicitly adding relations (or entities) which go beyond current or contemplated physics. While scholars continue to debate competing theories of causality and ontology, most folks appear to assume one can be a materialist without troubling too much about these difficult topics.

There is a good deal more to Horgan’s paper (also Polger’s response) than what I have discussed here; the heart of the paper concerns how one can go about defending materialism as defined, and what are the prospects for success. This focuses on finding “kosher” or materialist-friendly ways to conceptualize the phenomena in the world which we describe using non-physical vocabulary. He notes how difficult this is especially when it comes to phenomenal concepts, and concludes that philosophers have yet to successfully defend materialism by providing adequate accounts of these concepts.