Radio Metaphor Argument

[Jack]

RandFan here,

Actually I'm not really here. Shhh.... don't tell anyone.

I was reading the emergence of the mind thread and came across one of my favorite arguments.

Argument: Materialism is demonstrable because damage to the brain directly affects behavior.

Rebuttal: If a radio is damaged it can affect the behavior of the radio. Yet we know that while the sound is modulated through the radio the actual signal is independent of the radio.

Counter Rebuttal: Yes but I can get another radio and play the same music.

While the counter is interesting I don't think it really answers the argument. It is just another argument. Furthermore the physics of radio waves, receivers and amplification are well understood.

The brain is not so well understood. We can't (at this time) replicate the functions of the brain to the point that it is roughly equivalent to that of humans. (If you believe that computers are currently capable of emotion, self awareness and other human abilities then please, never mind).

Let me try another approach with this argument (fools rush in, and by fools I mean me).

Of the flotsam and jetsam that we have ejected into space during our many trips into space is a radio. That radio somehow makes it way to the nearest planet where there is intelligent life. If the radio should make it then we could conclude that radio waves have also arrived.

Somehow the radio still works and the life forms that inhabit this planet find the radio and hear coming out of it sound and they conclude based on the paterns of the sounds, that the melodies and words comming from it represent communication from an intelligent source.

The life forms are uncertain if the sound coming from the radio is the sole product of the radio or if there is another source in conjunction to the radio. They devise a test. They decide that they will alter the radio to see if that alters its behavior. When they carry out the test the radio changes its behavior. Bear in mind that these life forms are unfamiliar with radio waves.

Question: Should the life forms conclude that the change in behavior demonstrates that the radio is producing the music completely on its own?

Now to see if I get my head handed to me. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Thanks everyone. My son talked me into sticking my head in and now I had to go and make a few posts. I really can't come back at this time but would love any responses.

RandFan,

Over and out.

[Iacchus]

Yes, how in fact do we know we don't have a soul, which departs when the body (and brain) is demolished?

[Yahweh]

Howdy RandFan :)

First thing to keep in mind: Literalization of a metaphor = Strange

One problem with the Radio metaphor is the nature of "music" which represents consciousness. The Radio assumes the brain is a just a tool for which tunes external consciousness, therefore its probably not appropriate for arguing Pro-Eating Babies--err Pro-Materialism.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Jack
RandFan here,
Now to see if I get my head handed to me. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time.
WHAT, YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MIND CAN ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BRAIN!!!!!! :jaw: :what: YOUR ****** WOO-WOO!!!!! :hit: :mad: :hb: :bricks:

On a slightly more serious note:
I don't really think that your counter argument works. The thing is that your hypothetical aliens can't really change what's coming out of the radio, they can only change the quality of the reception. This is roughly analogous to the fact that we can change peoples degree of consciousness, by giving them drugs or just by depriving them of sleep.
This is however not the limit of what we can do to the mind by affecting the brain. Brain damages can course profound changes in personality, as can some drugs. We can also make you depressed or happy by giving you the right drugs, which strongly suggests that the chemicals are the direct source of the emotion you experience. Also a blow to the head can course you to fx forget a language you knew. Could we imagine that modifying a radio could render it unable to transmit in French? Sure you can come up with some incredibly convoluted theory that would fit these facts, but Occams razor suggest that the mind is a product of the brain.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Jack
RandFan here,

Actually I'm not really here. Shhh.... don't tell anyone.

I was reading the emergence of the mind thread and came across one of my favorite arguments.

Argument: Materialism is demonstrable because damage to the brain directly affects behavior.

Rebuttal: If a radio is damaged it can affect the behavior of the radio. Yet we know that while the sound is modulated through the radio the actual signal is independent of the radio.

Counter Rebuttal: Yes but I can get another radio and play the same music.

While the counter is interesting I don't think it really answers the argument. It is just another argument. Furthermore the physics of radio waves, receivers and amplification are well understood.

The brain is not so well understood. We can't (at this time) replicate the functions of the brain to the point that it is roughly equivalent to that of humans. (If you believe that computers are currently capable of emotion, self awareness and other human abilities then please, never mind).

Let me try another approach with this argument (fools rush in, and by fools I mean me).

Of the flotsam and jetsam that we have ejected into space during our many trips into space is a radio. That radio somehow makes it way to the nearest planet where there is intelligent life. If the radio should make it then we could conclude that radio waves have also arrived.

Somehow the radio still works and the life forms that inhabit this planet find the radio and hear coming out of it sound and they conclude based on the paterns of the sounds, that the melodies and words comming from it represent communication from an intelligent source.

The life forms are uncertain if the sound coming from the radio is the sole product of the radio or if there is another source in conjunction to the radio. They devise a test. They decide that they will alter the radio to see if that alters its behavior. When they carry out the test the radio changes its behavior. Bear in mind that these life forms are unfamiliar with radio waves.

Question: Should the life forms conclude that the change in behavior demonstrates that the radio is producing the music completely on its own?

Now to see if I get my head handed to me. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Thanks everyone. My son talked me into sticking my head in and now I had to go and make a few posts. I really can't come back at this time but would love any responses.

RandFan,

Over and out.

Hello. The main problem from arguing from analogy, is that nothing new is said. The radio metaphor only acts as a description of the conclusion that it is possible that the mind is not entirely dependent on the brain. It is not offering any evidence how or why the mind and brain necessasily carries this relation. In other words, the radio methapor only acts as bringing forth the possibility, but doesn't say why the possibility is a good probability.

That being said, the radio metaphor is very interesting, and I don't think it can be explained away that easily. However, one of its problems is that it doesn't take into account the source of the signal. If the brain acts as a receiver of thoughts, then where are the thoughts transmitted from? In the radio example, we know that there are radio signal transmitters, but the brain is not a radio...until we know otherwise.

[MRC_Hans]

The radio analogy assumes a radio examined by people who do not know about radiowaves (why do they need to be aliens, btw?). So, what they can deduce by a superficial examinination of the radio is that what sound it emits seems to come from within the radio, to be a product of the radio itself. They wrongly see the radio as a producer of signals not as the mediator it is.

So, you ask, might it not be that our brain is not the producer of "signals" (consciousness), only the mediator?

Yes, it is possible. We cannot rule out such a possibility. However, the weakness of your metaphor is that if those people were to examine the radio in depth, to the point where they gained even a partial understanding of how the it functioned, they would soon realize that it was in fact quite unlikely that the radio was generating the signals.

In contrast, we have been exploring the human brain for quite some time now, and while we certainly do not understand it fully yet, we have gained a pretty good idea of how it works, and we have not yet found anything that indicated that it is not the source of the "signals", quite the contrary.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The radio analogy assumes a radio examined by people who do not know about radiowaves (why do they need to be aliens, btw?). So, what they can deduce by a superficial examinination of the radio is that what sound it emits seems to come from within the radio, to be a product of the radio itself. They wrongly see the radio as a producer of signals not as the mediator it is.

So, you ask, might it not be that our brain is not the producer of "signals" (consciousness), only the mediator?

Yes, it is possible. We cannot rule out such a possibility. However, the weakness of your metaphor is that if those people were to examine the radio in depth, to the point where they gained even a partial understanding of how the it functioned, they would soon realize that it was in fact quite unlikely that the radio was generating the signals.

In contrast, we have been exploring the human brain for quite some time now, and while we certainly do not understand it fully yet, we have gained a pretty good idea of how it works, and we have not yet found anything that indicated that it is not the source of the "signals", quite the contrary.

Hans Yes, but when we die, where does our "life energy" go? Doesn't that sound the least bit similar to the electro-magnetic energy -- i.e., consciousness -- we call a radio signal?

[MRC_Hans]

Who says it goes anywhere? When your car breaks down, where does the engine power go? It just stops functining.

Hans

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but when we die, where does our "life energy" go?

What is the nature of this "life energy," and what makes you think it exists at all?

Jeremy

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but when we die, where does our "life energy" go? Doesn't that sound the least bit similar to the electro-magnetic energy -- i.e., consciousness -- we call a radio signal?


You might call it a radio signal.. No one who understands electromagnetic radiation does...

Yes, when you turn of a radio transmitter, the waves stop being transmitted. The energy is no longer available.. It doesn't ' go ' anywhere..

When a battery goes dead, current stops flowing.. There is nothing left to ' go ' anywhere..

When you die, your brain stops working. The current stops flowing in your brain.. It doesn't ' go ' anywhere ...

P.S. There never were any brain ' waves '.. We covered this in another thread...

[Iacchus]

Yes, I do understand the "need" for science to deny the fact that we have a soul, otherwise we would have to "re-assess" our need for religion all over again. Heaven forbid!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, I do understand the "need" for science to deny the fact that we have a soul, otherwise we would have to "re-assess" our need for religion all over again. Heaven forbid!



Explain why it is a ' fact ' that we have a soul..


Show where science denys this fact.

[Ladewig]

Under this metaphor, these "radio broadcasts" that our sent to each of our brains/receivers include all experiences that fit into our memories. Therefore, everything we see, taste, smell, etc. is picked up by our brain and is transmitted back to the "home base" where our life force is stored (apparently in another dimension or space-time continuum or astral plane). Then these memories are transmitted back to our physical bodies so we can pick them up on our radio receivers (in real time) and make use of them.

I suppose it is possible, but it does seem to multiply entities needlessly.

[Jack]

RandFan here,

Yes I do realize that if I'm going to continue I'm going to have to get a username. My apologies, maybe later.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The radio analogy assumes a radio examined by people who do not know about radiowaves (why do they need to be aliens, btw?). Good question. I often have problems with hypotheticals because people want to attack the premises.

"Assume for the sake of argument I could travel at the speed of light?"

"You can't travel at the speed of light."

"I know but let’s just assume..."

"You can't and since your premise is wrong..."

Since knowledge of radio waves or the absence thereof is key then aliens hopefully remove any objections to the premise.

So, what they can deduce by a superficial examination of the radio is that what sound it emits seems to come from within the radio, to be a product of the radio itself. They wrongly see the radio as a producer of signals not as the mediator it is.

So, you ask, might it not be that our brain is not the producer of "signals" (consciousness), only the mediator?

Yes, it is possible. We cannot rule out such a possibility. However, the weakness of your metaphor is that if those people were to examine the radio in depth, to the point where they gained even a partial understanding of how the it functioned, they would soon realize that it was in fact quite unlikely that the radio was generating the signals.

In contrast, we have been exploring the human brain for quite some time now, and while we certainly do not understand it fully yet, we have gained a pretty good idea of how it works, and we have not yet found anything that indicated that it is not the source of the "signals", quite the contrary.

Hans Thanks Hans,

A great response. So it comes down to knowledge and understanding of the system in question. I don't know if I agree with you that a partial understanding would likely give them the correct answer. Neither am I certain that we understand the brain sufficiently to confidently answer the question. I will grant you however that we do understand the brain far better than my aliens understand the radio and not being a rocket surgeon :) I'm willing to accept your assertion that the metaphor is weak for the reasons stated.

RandFan

[Jack]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I don't really think that your counter argument works. The thing is that your hypothetical aliens can't really change what's coming out of the radio, they can only change the quality of the reception. This is roughly analogous to the fact that we can change peoples degree of consciousness, by giving them drugs or just by depriving them of sleep.
This is however not the limit of what we can do to the mind by affecting the brain. Brain damages can course profound changes in personality, as can some drugs. We can also make you depressed or happy by giving you the right drugs, which strongly suggests that the chemicals are the direct source of the emotion you experience. Also a blow to the head can course you to fx forget a language you knew. Could we imagine that modifying a radio could render it unable to transmit in French? Sure you can come up with some incredibly convoluted theory that would fit these facts, but Occams razor suggest that the mind is a product of the brain.


Originally posted by EternalUniverse
That being said, the radio metaphor is very interesting, and I don't think it can be explained away that easily. However, one of its problems is that it doesn't take into account the source of the signal. If the brain acts as a receiver of thoughts, then where are the thoughts transmitted from? In the radio example, we know that there are radio signal transmitters, but the brain is not a radio...until we know otherwise. Also great responses. Thanks.

[Dancing David]

Great thought experiment! Congratulations RF.

Lets see, I think that first off a superficial examination of the radio will not determine any thing. Unless they are a culture with knowledge of our technology they will have little reason to understand the functioning of the radio at all. It will be pure freakin magic to them. So I think that it is unlikely that they could deduce the nature of the radio from a mere superficial examination. seriously without knowledge of radio and transitors they will merely concluide that the box makes music and voices.

Question one: is the noise meaningful?
That is a harder question for the space aliens than humans. Humans are likely to recognise that there is music and voices. But why would the aliens conclude that the sound from the radio was meaningful, they might assume that it was animal in nature and just like birdsong. Or they might conclude that it was a noise generated by something like the wind. Chanes are that they will recognise that there wre patterns in the moises coming from the radio. But what would they make of that. If they were like humans 'seers' who listen to the radio and make predictions based upon the patterns of the sounds are a likely possibility. If they don't conclude that it is demonic in nature and just destroy it.

Question two: What would a superficial examination show about the radio?
Well, that orientation of the radio is likely to alter the noises that it makes. there would be the patterened sounds of the reception and the static sound that the radio can also make. So they could discover that there are two kinds of noise that the radio makes dependant on the orientation of the radio to the signal.
Second, that the juxtaposition of objects and the radio might alter the noises coming from the radio, or if they can put it under a metal bowl that no nise comes from the radio at all. So a third state for the noise is found.
Third, that there are dials or knobs on the radio that do things to the noises coming from the radio. One makes the noise start and stop, much like the metal bowl. Another makes the noise louder or softer , and another changes the nature of noise coming from the radio. In that there will be static when there is not a signal at the frequency the radio is tuned to, and dependant on wether or not there is more than one signal available they might find that there are different places on the dial/slider where different noises of a patterened nature come from the radio.
Fourth, dependant on the nature of the radio. They might find that there is a part of the radio that can be removed from the radio and that this makes the sounds start and stop, if they find the battery that is , and it is removable.
Fifth, they can find out that the knobs might or might not be removable, that an external antenna will alter the nature of the sounds. And if they have wet mucosal tounges they might find that the battery delivers a shock.

So that is what I think that a superficial examination of the radio will determine, I don't think that they will make any conclusions that there is a signal and a reciever.
Take orientation of the radio, they may conclude that the radio is angry when it makes patterned sounds and that it is happier when it makes static.
Who knows what conclusions they might reach about the tuning dial and the marks upon it.
So what conclusions can we draw in regards to the comparison to a brain?
That orientation doesn't have an effect, nor putting a metal bowl upon our heads.
There are no removable knobs or batteries in a human.
There maybe soime correlary between the tuning dial and consiousness. But I think that would be pushing the metaphor.

But the reason this is a great experiement in thoughts is this, what reason do the aliens have tro conclude that the radio is intelligent of consious in the least?

Does it behave in an intelligent or consious fashion?

Ladewig, you took the words out of my brain, further proof of transmission!

[Marvel Frozen]

While this argument may seem reasonable on its surface, I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. When exactly is this "consciousness" created? Does each sperm and egg have its own consciousness, or is a consciousness only created at conception? Or, perhaps all the consciousnesses already exist. How does the consciousness work with people developing as they grow? Does the consciousness grow, or is the consciousness the same, just limited by the brain? How do consciousnessess work with non-human life? Do only humans have a consciousness or do all animals? What about plants and bacterias? If only humans have a consciousness, what makes us so special? If all life has a consciousness, are there different levels of consciousness? How does this work with evolution? Did the consciousness evolve along with species? This argument leaves way too many unanswered questions.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, I do understand the "need" for science to deny the fact that we have a soul, otherwise we would have to "re-assess" our need for religion all over again. Heaven forbid!

Greetings Iacchus.

May I ask, what is a "soul"?

[Jack]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen
While this argument may seem reasonable on its surface, I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. When exactly is this "consciousness" created? Does each sperm and egg have its own consciousness, or is a consciousness only created at conception? Or, perhaps all the consciousnesses already exist. How does the consciousness work with people developing as they grow? Does the consciousness grow, or is the consciousness the same, just limited by the brain? How do consciousnessess work with non-human life? Do only humans have a consciousness or do all animals? What about plants and bacterias? If only humans have a consciousness, what makes us so special? If all life has a consciousness, are there different levels of consciousness? How does this work with evolution? Did the consciousness evolve along with species? This argument leaves way too many unanswered questions. Forgive me but are you talking about the subject of this thread?

If so, then the argument is not meant to explore consciousness, the creation of consciousness, abiogenesis, natural selection, inheritability or any other scientific question or philosophical conundrum. I have intentionally avoided the use of any such terms. My only interest is with the quality of the original argument “changes to brains structure alter behavior and therefore demonstrate materialism”. The important points are “changes to structure” and “altering of behavior”.

I have presented a hypothetical. Assuming that the premises are true does the argument call into question the conventional wisdom that materialism can be proven (established [as true] with a very high probability) by altering the physical structure of the brain and observing any changes in behavior.

If you are not talking about the subject of the thread then to quote the estimable Miss. Emily Laticia, "never mind".

[Jack]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Great thought experiment! Congratulations RF.
So what conclusions can we draw in regards to the comparison to a brain?

That orientation doesn't have an effect, nor putting a metal bowl upon our heads. Good point, of course the "mind" if separate from the brain might transfer data in a way that orientation or physical barriers would not affect it.

However, if the aliens put a barrier around the radio and that barrier did not physically touch (alter) the radio and it caused interference then they could conclude that something was coming from outside the radio to cause the sound.

But the reason this is a great experiement in thoughts is this, what reason do the aliens have tro conclude that the radio is intelligent of consious in the least? Agreed but the point of my hypothetical is narrow and only addresses the question of whether the sound comes solely from the radio or something else in conjunction with the radio?

RandFan

Sorry Jack

[Jack]

Originally posted by Jack
I have intentionally avoided the use of any such terms. My only interest is with the quality of the original argument “changes to brains structure alter behavior and therefore demonstrate materialism”. The important points are “changes to structure” and “altering of behavior”. Correction:

In the original hypothetical I said: "... they conclude based on the patterns of the sounds, that the melodies and words coming from it represent communication from an intelligent source."

Apparently I wasn't so careful to avoid a discussion of conscience or intelligence. My apologies.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jack
Good point, of course the "mind" if separate from the brain might transfer data in a way that orientation or physical barriers would not affect it.

Agreed, the means of transmission could be very different.


However, if the aliens put a barrier around the radio and that barrier did not physically touch (alter) the radio and it caused interference then they could conclude that something was coming from outside the radio to cause the sound.

What if they conclude that the radio is sulky and doesn't like the barrier. They may conclude that there are emotional prerequisites for the radio to make certain noises


Agreed but the point of my hypothetical is narrow and only addresses the question of whether the sound comes solely from the radio or something else in conjunction with the radio?

RandFan

Sorry Jack

Can they draw that conclusion? I don't know. That is why I find it is great thought experiment.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Can they draw that conclusion? I don't know. That is why I find it is great thought experiment. Oh, I agree with you. I think you made some great points. I hope you didn't miss understand my post. I think your response was great and I really apreciate it.

BTW, "sorry Jack" was meant for my son. I am using his username. This has caused confusion in the past and I'm trying to keep the two clear.

I really shouldn't be posting but I had a little bit of time and really wanted to post this argument.

Again, thank you for your response.

RandFan (aka Mr. Foot-in-mouth)

[Dancing David]

No problem percieved!

I just am really wondering what they would think about the radio!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jack
RandFan here,

..............................

Question: Should the life forms conclude that the change in behavior demonstrates that the radio is producing the music completely on its own?



RandFan,

Over and out.

No, they shouldn't.

The two choices that seem to be given are:

1. The radio is a sound portal of some kind..

2. The radio is a sound generator of some kind..


I suggest that the only conclusion they can come to, is that it might be both..

[Jack]

Originally posted by Diogenes


No, they shouldn't.

The two choices that seem to be given are:

1. The radio is a sound portal of some kind..

2. The radio is a sound generator of some kind..

I suggest that the only conclusion they can come to, is that it might be both.. I can live with that. How does this relate to the original argument that physically altering the brain and a change in behavior is demonstrative of materialism?

May I rephrase your conclusions?

1. The radio produces sound by both external and internal means.

2. The radio produces sound without any external means.

Compare to-

1. The brain produces behavior by external and internal means.

2. The brain produces behavior without any external means.

According to you,

Altering the physical structure of the radio to cause a change in behavior leads us to conclude that both are possible.

If this is true then,

Does altering the physical structure of the brain lead us to the same conclusion?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jack
I can live with that. How does this relate to the original argument that physically altering the brain and a change in behavior is demonstrative of materialism?

May I rephrase your conclusions?

1. The radio produces sound by both external and internal means.

2. The radio produces sound without any external means.

Compare to-

1. The brain produces behavior by external and internal means.

2. The brain produces behavior without any external means.

According to you,

Altering the physical structure of the radio to cause a change in behavior leads us to conclude that both are possible.

If this is true then,

Does altering the physical structure of the brain lead us to the same conclusion?

HMM it bears thought because I am one of the people who uses this argument to draw the coclusions that consiousness is most likely organic in nature.

When the aliens play with the radio, they find that it has a knob and that it has a removable battery. They find that the knob can alter the noises coming from the radio.

So to explore the anology further, they find a human along with the radio, and I am sorry because at first I will explore the weakness of the metaphor and then the inherent strenth of the thought experiment.

The aliens will have a difficult time finding knobs on the human, although they will find that twisting the protrusions on a human can alter the intensity and level of the noises the human produce. They may find there is a difference between the noise produced by tickling and breaking an arm. They will not find however that there is an on/off switch, although they may find that breaking the arm and other twisting of the protrusions does leads to very loud noises followed by a lack of noises if the person goes into shcok. If the human is wearing clothes they will find that they are like knobs and can be removed and replaced.

But to further the thought experiment I would like to posit that they have a very large number of radios and humans. And that while lacking an understanding of eletrical machanics and biology they will preform similar experiments upon the radios and the humans.

They will find that the radio has an external box or covering that they can remove without damaging the working of the radio. If the humans have clothes they may decide that they are similar in nature and that the enclousure is like clothing. Or they may decide to strip the skin off of the humans and find that this increases the volume of the noises and then is followed by a lack of noises.

Say that these aliens have enoungh sophistication to really do some serious study of the radios. They will learn that there is the connection between the dial to control the frequency and some mystery device that changes the noises from the radio. They will learn that they can connect and disconnect this and that the radio still works, they may even find a way to alter the frequency with out the dial.
They will find that the radio has a power source that they can connect and disconnect and the radio will still work.
And in fact given a certain degree of sophistication they will find that they can take the radios apart and reassemble them in working condition.
They will also find that they can take part from one radio and substitute them in another.

They find alot of things out that they can do to the radios that they can't do to the humans and have them return to working order.

But given sufficient time and say a guide to human language and culture they will find out the following things:
-that humans have a power source and that it seems to involve food and water and a need to excrete. For if they deprive the humans of food and water and the ability to excrete they cease to function
-that they can take humans apart and reassemble them with some sucsess, depending on the discovery of anesthesia and the delicacy of the surgical reconstruction.
-that there seem to be some parts which if they remove them from the humans, they will not return to working order.
-the administration of drugs and/or mineral salts to the humans can cause changes in thier behaviors
-depriving humans of food ,water and sleep will change thier behavior
-and depending on the nature of thier understanding of human behavior and thier ability to damage the human brain, they will find the specific areas of the human brain are related to specific behaviors that the humans can no longer preform.


So alot of post and still going nowhere:
The aliens have two camps
one believes that the radios and humans are mindless automatons that recieve a signal from somewhere.
two believes that the radios and humans are endowed with some sort of 'spirit' that causes them to behave as they do.

Are there experiments that they can do, without an understanding of biology and eletrical mechanics to make that determination?

[c4ts]

Uhhhhh... damaging a radio doesn't cause it to play different music. If it were analagous to the brain it would.

[Jack]

Originally posted by c4ts
Uhhhhh... damaging a radio doesn't cause it to play different music. If it were analagous to the brain it would. Interesting, I think I have an idea of what you are alluding to but I am not certain. Could you give us some examples of changed behavior that is analogous to playing different music?

[Jack]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So alot of post and still going nowhere:
The aliens have two camps
one believes that the radios and humans are mindless automatons that recieve a signal from somewhere.
two believes that the radios and humans are endowed with some sort of 'spirit' that causes them to behave as they do.

Are there experiments that they can do, without an understanding of biology and eletrical mechanics to make that determination? Excellent question and a good extension of the orginal thought experiment.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Question: Should the life forms conclude that the change in behavior demonstrates that the radio is producing the music completely on its own?
In a word, yes. In another word, tentatively. Of course, from our perspective as the inventors of radio, we know which answer is right, and can laugh at the silly aliens who conclude otherwise. The aliens themselves, however, lack this luxury.

Let's bring in two alien experts to look at the device. One says it is obvious that the radio is producing the music without outside help, the other holds that there is external signal. The former, if he's rational, may well concede that there could be some transmission from an external source, but will not believe it until the latter has demonstrated it.

Any interested aliens following the debate, assuming again that they are acting rationally, should side with the former, waiting to see if any evidence of the external signal is forthcoming.

We are in the same boat with the brain. The materialist position maintains that if we are to believe in some external signal, someone had better demonstrate it. Until then, we tentatively conclude that there is no signal. Might we be wrong. Of course, but mightn't we always?

Imagine how the thought experiment changes if the aliens discover a functioning portable mp3 player with lots of songs already in it.

[Jack]

Originally posted by c4ts
Uhhhhh... damaging a radio doesn't cause it to play different music. If it were analagous to the brain it would. This is one of those instances where the premise is not sufficient to convey the true essence of the problem. Perhaps "damage" is not a good term. How about "physically changed?"

If the aliens changed the radio in such a way as to alter the frequency then it would in fact change. Let's say the radio played music 100% of the time. Let's also say that the radio has no knobs but was preset to a specific station. Now by "physically changing" the radio the aliens alter the frequency setting so that it no longer receives music but only talk radio.

"What's the frequency Kenneth?"

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jack
I can live with that. How does this relate to the original argument that physically altering the brain and a change in behavior is demonstrative of materialism?

May I rephrase your conclusions?

1. The radio produces sound by both external and internal means.

2. The radio produces sound without any external means.

Compare to-

1. The brain produces behavior by external and internal means.

2. The brain produces behavior without any external means.

According to you,

Altering the physical structure of the radio to cause a change in behavior leads us to conclude that both are possible.

If this is true then,

Does altering the physical structure of the brain lead us to the same conclusion?


As others have said, in the absence of evidence of a transmitter ( for the radio ) or evidence that conciousness exists in the absence of a brain, I would not assume that neither does not exist..

I don't see how the results of altering the radio or the brain will prove the existence of either ( the transmitter or autonomous conciousness) ...

It's kind of like suggesting you can take an engine apart to determine the chemistry of gasoline.

The one variation on this theme that seems conclusive to me, is that if you altered the radio/brain and the ouput didn't change, it would be more likely that the output had an independant source... And one might be justifiably inclined to expend substantial resources to identify it..

[uruk]

It's kind of like suggesting you can take an engine apart to determine the chemistry of gasoline.

well, actually, you can can make some assumptions as to the nature of gasoline by taking apart an engine.

using this analogy, you can make assumptions as to the nature of conciouseness by studying the brain.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

As others have said, in the absence of evidence of a transmitter ( for the radio ) or evidence that conciousness exists in the absence of a brain, I would not assume that neither does not exist..

I don't see how the results of altering the radio or the brain will prove the existence of either ( the transmitter or autonomous conciousness) ...

It's kind of like suggesting you can take an engine apart to determine the chemistry of gasoline.

The one variation on this theme that seems conclusive to me, is that if you altered the radio/brain and the ouput didn't change, it would be more likely that the output had an independant source... And one might be justifiably inclined to expend substantial resources to identify it.. And what about the "spiritual medium," for the origin of consciousness? You see, as much as you would like to entertain to the contrary, we are not alone. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
Uhhhhh... damaging a radio doesn't cause it to play different music. If it were analagous to the brain it would. Albeit it does effect the qualty of the music which is played back, whether the sound gets distorted, the signal is not amplified, etc..

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by uruk


well, actually, you can can make some assumptions as to the nature of gasoline by taking apart an engine.

using this analogy, you can make assumptions as to the nature of conciouseness by studying the brain.


I understand your point, but the exercise involves determining the nature of the radio receiver without any knowledge or assumptions about a transmitter...

We can make all kinds of assumptions ( actually, the exersise that is layed out by Jack seems to ask us to avoid assumptions.. ) , but my post was in response to a question about reaching conclusions..


My point was not about infering that the engine was driven by some sort of explosive fuel, but that assuming you would never have access to gasoline, you could study the engine and come up with a molecular model for gasoline.

Not impossible, but more likely to be a lucky guess, than a reasoned hypothesis...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Dancing David


*sniiip*

So alot of post and still going nowhere:
The aliens have two camps
one believes that the radios and humans are mindless automatons that recieve a signal from somewhere.
two believes that the radios and humans are endowed with some sort of 'spirit' that causes them to behave as they do.

Are there experiments that they can do, without an understanding of biology and eletrical mechanics to make that determination? Frankly, I think you are flogging the metaphor to death here. It is quite possible to theorize on a situation where it is not possible to distinguish between a radio and a human, in the sense that you cannot determine that one is a machine and one is a living being, but it really does not tell us anything.

All it boils down to is the self-evident statement that: If consciousness is something we cannot understand or distinguish from a biological process, then we cannot know if it is a biological process or not.

For the radio metaphor to be useful, IMHO we must use the premise that the aliens are cabable of understanding approximately the same things as humans, but that they for some reason have never discovered radio waves.

- And in that case, it would be possible for them to find out by observation that the radio depends on an outside source for the signals it emits (even without taking it apart). Not only could they interfere with the signals by shielding it, but they would be able to generate signals that were received by the radio.

Take this analogy to study of the brain, we have not, even after quite detailed studies, found any dependence on external signals other than the information reaching us through our senses, nor have we been able to transmit to the mind, except through the same senses. .... I am here excluding various paranormal claims.

Hans

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Frankly, I think you are flogging the metaphor to death here.

Hans

I agree.. I was fun to put it in a new perspective, but changing from humans studying the brain, to aliens studying a radio, does not alter the nature of the problem/question... We have not revealed any new tools/procedures to analyse the problem..

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I agree.. I was fun to put it in a new perspective, but changing from humans studying the brain, to aliens studying a radio, does not alter the nature of the problem/question... We have not revealed any new tools/procedures to analyse the problem..

I think that Jack has entertained a fair amount of my lampooning the original premise.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Frankly, I think you are flogging the metaphor to death here. It is quite possible to theorize on a situation where it is not possible to distinguish between a radio and a human, in the sense that you cannot determine that one is a machine and one is a living being, but it really does not tell us anything.

Merely flogging, more like making a marionette out of the poor thing and dancing it around on a stage.
And it is not just a theorhetical situation, some of us have maintained that a machine which exhibits the behavior of life is alive.

All it boils down to is the self-evident statement that: If consciousness is something we cannot understand or distinguish from a biological process, then we cannot know if it is a biological process or not.

Which is why I abuseed the metaphor, I feel that consiousness is a dependant phenomena of biology.
So how can the aliens decide which is which?


For the radio metaphor to be useful, IMHO we must use the premise that the aliens are cabable of understanding approximately the same things as humans, but that they for some reason have never discovered radio waves.

- And in that case, it would be possible for them to find out by observation that the radio depends on an outside source for the signals it emits (even without taking it apart). Not only could they interfere with the signals by shielding it, but they would be able to generate signals that were received by the radio.

That is assuming that the aliens reason the way humans do, they could assume that they have offended the radio, made it displeased when it stops making the sound. They may conclude that the radio doesn't like metal bowls which is why it stops singing when placed under a metal bowl.
If they have a way to produce a spark and can observe the connection between the spark and the static pop on the radio, then they might realize that the radio is depndant on an outside source of a signal.
Or they may assume that the spark just makes the radio say 'ouch'.


Take this analogy to study of the brain, we have not, even after quite detailed studies, found any dependence on external signals other than the information reaching us through our senses, nor have we been able to transmit to the mind, except through the same senses. .... I am here excluding various paranormal claims.

Hans

I quite agree, no evidence for life after death or any of the cool stuff that goes along with immaterialism.

[Jack]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
For the radio metaphor to be useful, IMHO we must use the premise that the aliens are cabable of understanding approximately the same things as humans, but that they for some reason have never discovered radio waves. Well roughly equivalent to humans pre 1847. For some reason we never discovered them until then.

Oh, and you get bonus points for providing an object lesson that answers your own question.
why do they need to be aliens, btw?(I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but I was sincerely surprised given my earlier response to your query.)

It's a hypothetical. To judge a hypothetical we first need to assume that the premise is true.

For sake of argument let's assume that they haven't discovered radio waves yet. :)

- And in that case, it would be possible for them to find out by observation that the radio depends on an outside source for the signals it emits (even without taking it apart). "Possible", yes but it makes assumptions and doesn't really tell us about the quality of the original argument which is "what can we deduce about changes in structure precipitating changes in behavior".

Is it fair to say that absent additional information the answer to the above is nothing?

Not only could they interfere with the signals by shielding it, but they would be able to generate signals that were received by the radio. I don't understand, how would they generate signals.

Take this analogy to study of the brain, we have not, even after quite detailed studies, found any dependence on external signals other than the information reaching us through our senses, nor have we been able to transmit to the mind, except through the same senses. .... I am here excluding various paranormal claims. I should be clear here.

1. No claim is made by this hypothetical that human behavior is dependant on external signals that are of a sufficient distance from the brain that a barrier could be placed between them. Only that changes in physical structure do not prove (established [as true] with a very high probability) that the structure is the sole creator of behavior.

2. No claim is made by this hypothetical that the brain is a receiver capable of picking up external signals that are of a significant distance from the brain. Hypothetically the source of the signals could reside in the same approximate area as the brain.

3. Finally, while the term "materialism" is used it is only used as it pertains to the physical structure of the multi celled organ known as the brain and the creation of human behavior. The hypothetical does not assume "paranormal" only the possibility of some force separate from the "brain". This heretofore unknown force could very well be just as physical as time or space. In which case the term "materialism" would apply.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that Jack has entertained a fair amount of my lampooning the original premise. Absolutely!

[uruk]

I just think the radio analogy is flawed. Representing consciousness as radio waves tramitted from an external source
makes the assumption that conciousness is generated "somewhere" else, and not inherent to the body (i.e. brain).

Why not a use a synthesizer as an analogy. The sounds are genereated by the device by the various electronic components. An alien race would then be able to study the device and discover the source of the sounds.


To Diogenes: Ya, I know, I was just being a weenie.

[Jack]

Originally posted by uruk
I just think the radio analogy is flawed. Representing consciousness as radio waves tramitted from an external source makes the assumption that conciousness is generated "somewhere" else, and not inherent to the body (i.e. brain).

Why not a use a synthesizer as an analogy. The sounds are genereated by the device by the various electronic components. An alien race would then be able to study the device and discover the source of the sounds. The radio as a metaphor for the brain is flawed if you make the assumption that consciousness is inherent to the body.

Your synthesizer is a much better analogy based upon that assumption. Unfortunately this has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions at hand.

The end purpose of the metaphor has nothing really to do with aliens, consciousness or even materialism. It is only to call into question the validity of the original argument about changes in structure causing changes in behavior.

[list=1]
Does a physical change to a structure that results in changes to the behavior of that structure demonstrate that the only source of the behavior is said physical structure?

Assume that aliens who had no knowledge of radio waves discovered a radio and observed a change in behavior due to a change in the structure of the radio. Should the aliens assume that the physical change to the structure that resulted in change in behavior demonstrate that the radio is the only source of the behavior?
[/list=1]
The synthesizer metaphor does nothing to further our understanding of these questions.

Edited to add, the validity or lack therof of the original argument does not prove or disprove materialism and is not the purpose of my argument.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think the radio analogy is useful mainly as a cautionary tale that rational thought, no matter how well practiced, is vulnerable to incomplete information. The rational conclusion (tentative, as always) is that the radio produces the sound on its own. As we know, the radio does in fact require the external signal, but until that information is available to the aliens, it is not raional to believe so.

Turn the analogy around as the portable mp3 player analogy, and it illustrates another point. If we have the same two factions of aliens (the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them) it is the Innate Soundists who will be correct this time. We know that no matter how long an external signal is looked for, none will be found. If we give the aliens centuries to search for them, the lesson becomes: perhaps if you've searched for something for centuries and never found it, it does not exist.

But perhaps not, of course.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I think the radio analogy is useful mainly as a cautionary tale that rational thought, no matter how well practiced, is vulnerable to incomplete information. The rational conclusion (tentative, as always) is that the radio produces the sound on its own. As we know, the radio does in fact require the external signal, but until that information is available to the aliens, it is not raional to believe so.

Turn the analogy around as the portable mp3 player analogy, and it illustrates another point. If we have the same two factions of aliens (the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them) it is the Innate Soundists who will be correct this time. We know that no matter how long an external signal is looked for, none will be found. If we give the aliens centuries to search for them, the lesson becomes: perhaps if you've searched for something for centuries and never found it, it does not exist.

But perhaps not, of course. Marquis,

Great responses. Sorry I did not respond to your first post.

"...the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them."

I like your labels.

"...it is not rational to believe so."

The metaphor does not provide for something analogous to "the hard problem of consciousness."

Of course materialists dismiss such a notion. But assuming that there was something that was analogous, would it still be irrational?

Edited to add, that after thinking of the MP3 vs Radio I don't think the metaphore can sustain such an analogy. It's a stretch that just wont fly IMO.

Again, never mind.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I think the radio analogy is useful mainly as a cautionary tale that rational thought, no matter how well practiced, is vulnerable to incomplete information. The rational conclusion (tentative, as always) is that the radio produces the sound on its own. As we know, the radio does in fact require the external signal, but until that information is available to the aliens, it is not raional to believe so.

Turn the analogy around as the portable mp3 player analogy, and it illustrates another point. If we have the same two factions of aliens (the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them) it is the Innate Soundists who will be correct this time. We know that no matter how long an external signal is looked for, none will be found. If we give the aliens centuries to search for them, the lesson becomes: perhaps if you've searched for something for centuries and never found it, it does not exist.

But perhaps not, of course. I know that I dismissed the synthizer analogy earlier but I like the idea of interchanging the two.

1. The device produces sound by both external and internal means.

2. The device produces sound without any external means.

Again, the only correct assumption is that both are possible.

The strength of the original argument lies in the depth of our knowledge of the brain. The more we know about the brain and the physical world the more we can say with a certainty that physical changes to the brain that causes changes in behavior demonstrate materialism.

The weakness of my counter argument is that lack of knowledge on the part of the aliens. The greater the understanding on the part of the aliens of the MP3 player or the radio, the more certain they are in their assessment of the device.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Jack
Sorry I did not respond to your first post.
No worries. :)
"...it is not rational to believe so."

The metaphor does not provide for something analogous to "the hard problem of consciousness."

Of course materialists dismiss such a notion. But assuming that there was something that was analogous, would it still be irrational?

Edited to add, that after thinking of the MP3 vs Radio I don't think the metaphore can sustain such an analogy. It's a stretch that just wont fly IMO.

Again, never mind.
Heh, you withdrew that on my way to reply, so I preemptively withdraw my response. :p

I think the metaphor works really well if we forget any analogies it may or may not have to consciousness (yes, I know that's why it was originally formulated; I'm exapting it) and focus on what it can tell us about the powers and limitations of rational thought. It is something we need to be reminded of from time to time, lest we become dogmatic about our opinions.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Jack
1. The device produces sound by both external and internal means.

2. The device produces sound without any external means.

Again, the only correct assumption is that both are possible.
I agree it is rational to admit both possibilities, but I think it is rational to provisionally accept (2), while not denying the possibility of (1), by using Occam.


The greater the understanding on the part of the aliens of the MP3 player or the radio, the more certain they are in their assessment of the device.
Precisely.

To drag back in the consciouness problem I've been trying to disengage from the metaphor, what this means for us in brain/mind studies is that we should provisionally accept the premise that the brain produces the mind and that they are not separate, and continue to study the brain so our knowledge becomes more and more complete (diminishing the chance for error in our rational thought). And, should someone come along and show us the external signal (or the soul, or whatever you want to call it), we should say "Hey, cool, let us rethink."

[Jack]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
To drag back in the consciouness problem I've been trying to disengage from the metaphor, what this means for us in brain/mind studies is that we should provisionally accept the premise that the brain produces the mind and that they are not separate, and continue to study the brain so our knowledge becomes more and more complete (diminishing the chance for error in our rational thought). And, should someone come along and show us the external signal (or the soul, or whatever you want to call it), we should say "Hey, cool, let us rethink." Agreed.

RandFan

This will be my last post using my son's username. In the future if I decide to post I will ask Hal to reinstate my old username "RandFan" or get another name.

My thanks to everyone who gave a response. Special thanks to Marquis and Dancing David for bringing different perspectives.

RandFan

[Dancing David]

Hey there is some life in the old thing yet!

There was a good reason that I wanted to add more humans and more radios. I think that there is almost no other way for the debate to be resolved between the Animists and the Mechanists amongst the aliens. To have the technology that would allow them to undetsand the printed circut board and all the miniature components would seem , hard to follow. Say then that these are people who haven't even discovered agriculture. I think that it is going to be a major strech for them to even consider the radio as a construct and not something alive. But say one of the aliens has got aglimmer of what a machine is and after a huge religous battle, there are mechanists amongst the aliens.
They immedeatly split into the Inate Soundists and the External Signalsist, although some of course revert to External Animists!

How can a technologicaly inelegant society even begin to have a debate that resolves the issues presented, what experiments can they do assuming that they have the scientific method.


More later.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Say then that these are people who haven't even discovered agriculture. I think that it is going to be a major strech for them to even consider the radio as a construct and not something alive.
I'm not as certain that the aliens would find the radio to be a living thing. I seem to recall reading about experiments where babies (in the under 12 months range; the closest thing we really have to primitive people to work on) seem to be rather good at placing things into living or non-living categories based on reactions. They can easily be fooled by things that are self-locomotive, apparently using locomotion as a main criterion for life. Obviously not 100% foolproof, but I think it lends weight to the idea that the aliens won't be duped into thinking they've encountered a new form of life.*

I will grant they may have no concept of how such an item could be constructed. Assuming they could recognize that there was some patterning to the sounds, they may very well take it to be some form of conduit to the gods, which would clear up for them the 'who could possibly make something so weird?' question.

*I'll return to post my source on this for sure when I find it. (have to get home first) Seems to me Pinker mentions the experiments in The Blank Slate

[Loki]

Hi RandFan,

No comment to make (at this time) other than to say "nice to see you again..."

[Dancing David]

By adding extra radios I think that the aliens would have more of a chance to figure out the signal nature of the radio. But maybe not, the Animists will always be able counter the argument.

Mech: The radios produce the same sounds even from different location.
Anin: Proof of the universal nature of soul.

Mech: There appears to be a relationship between the distance bewteen a spark and the distance to the radio and the sound that the radio makes.
Anim: That is just because it hurts them less.

The only resolution I can see is that by learning that the radios are not making the station sound in certain locations, they can then find that the same effect applies to the spark effect. In that they can find that the spark effect is also blocked by the metal bowl.

Previously the Animists had said that the radio stopped singing under the bowl because it was sad. And since they also said that the spark caused the radio pain, this is a contradiction because while the bowl causes the radio to stop singing it also causes the radio to stop saying ouch.

Is there a counter to this for the Animists, they were able to counter the fact that all the radios sang the same song regardless of position.

What about the spark evidence? Can the aliens now deduce that the source of the singing is external to the radio?

[Skeptical Greg]

What about the spark evidence? Can the aliens now deduce that the source of the singing is external to the radio?

Nope..

All they can deduce is that sparks interfere with the radio and that the bowl blocks the sparks..

The only way they can prove that the music comes from an outside source, is to locate the source, eliminate or alter it and observe the effect on the radio..

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Say then that these are people who haven't even discovered agriculture. I think that it is going to be a major strech for them to even consider the radio as a construct and not something alive.
I lent the book I think my source is in to a friend, so my reply may be later than I thought. But it may be unnecessary, as after further reflection, I'm beginning to think you may be right here.

It is hard, when postulating what an alien culture would do with one of our electronic devices, not to bring along our human prejudices. I'm trying not to do so, but the obviousness of its artifact status is one that I managed to bring along for the ride. I'll think some more this weekend before posting anything else, lest it fade into incoherency.