[_ Old Earth _] What are the Limits on What We Can Know?

[Drew]

The purpose of this post is to put forward the idea that we humans may have limits on the kind / complexity of concepts that we can internally represent. Furthermore, I speculate that this limitation is the reason we struggle so much when trying to make sense of certain issues dealing with Christian faith and life in general. I am not certain this belongs in the "science" category, but it seemed the closest fit.

I suspect all would readily agree that we have "finite" minds. Yet, I think the implications of this are often ignored when we discuss / debate certain issues - free will, the notion of the "soul", uncaused causes as they relate to the origin of the universe, etc. etc. My underlying premiss is that the brain is the seat of all concept generation and use - we do not think / reason using any kind of "immaterial soul". I realize that not all will agree, I just want to be clear on where I am coming from. I further assert that the key aspects of our brain that determine the concept limitations that I have referred to are its size (i.e. the number of neurons) and the way these neurons are organized (I have zero training in brain physiology so I am speculating here).

I propose that we may be bumping up against the boundaries of our inherent capabilities to represent concepts when we try to make sense of ideas like free will. I think it is fair to say that free will (if it exists in the sense we normally ascribe to the term) does not fit easily into the way we see the world. For a strict physicalist, it seems like there is no "place" for free will in a deterministic / quantum universe - after all for such people, human actions are fully explained by the laws of physics acting in the machine we call the brain. For a Christian, or anyone who claims that things exist which transcend the physical, there are still problems. If the free will resides in an immaterial soul, how does that free will "press the physical buttons" that need to be pressed in order for free will to have any impact on the physical world? No neat and tidy explanation that seems acceptable is out there - any solutions we come up with generate a stirring of discomfort in our intuition.

Let me illustrate what I am generally talking about. We have scientific models of our world, models that deploy such concepts as "particle", "string" (as in string theory), "wave" (as in electromagnetic theory) etc. I think there is a kind of curious circularity to all this. After all, particles, waves, and strings are all abstractions of objects of sense experience. Maybe we simply cannot conceive of the world except in terms of concepts that can be directly relate to the natural world around us, which is full of phenomena which "express themselves" as particles, strings, waves, etc. The one loophole I see here is mathematics. My sense is that mathematics may have an attribute that is unique among human intellectual creations - the capability to leap beyond the world of sense experience and actually reason using tools that do not have correlates in our experience of the world (e.g. mathematics allows us to reason about and manipulate ideas about 4 or 5 or 11 dimensional space, even though there is no associated elements in the world of sense experience).

I do not want to make this post too long, so I plan to add a second part, where I speculate about why such considerations are not without useful consequence.

 

[Quath]

Very good post. I have a few things to add.

1. Our senses and common sense is baed on the macroscopic world at slow speeds. We discovered quamtum and relativity through mathematics and logic and observation. But is was very counterintuitative. For example, if we sit on the road and a car flies past us at 50 mph. The person in the car throws a ball going 100 mph faster than them, we would see the ball going 150 mph. But in relativity if the speed of light was 100 mph, we would measure the ball going 100 mph while the people in the car would say it is going 100 mph relative to them also. Very counter intuitative.

I saw a talk from Wolfram (who makes Mathematica). He had a theory that the universe is just a collection of nodes and that here is no physical space. It is just nodes talking to each other in pulses based on the planck timescale. In that scheme there is no 3-D, but it looks 3-D in the macroscopic world.

2. Our brains show emergent intelligence. We do no tthink by pushing signals down specific neurons. We have no idea how to make our neurons fire. But the lower level logic adds up to give us the ability to perform higher calculations. This is similar to an application on a CPU. It does not work by describing the electrical signal to send through transformers. Instead it signals the OS, which signals the chip, which controls the electrical signal. We have a similar level of abstraction.

3. I use to be ambivalent about whether there is a soul or not. I imagined there could be a way we evolved something. However, the more I saw how the brain worked, the less I saw what a soul could do. The most I could come up with is that the soul is just a tape recorder.

Anyway, good post.

Quath

 

[Drew]

One of the valuable things about coming to terms with our conceptual limitations is that it might prevent us from discarding an idea that seems unworkable in the context of the concept-set that we do have. Take "free will". Many of us have the intuition that it is real even though we cannot seem to make it work for reasons I alluded to in my first post. If we were confident that all possible conceptualizations of the world (all possible ways to construct a representational model of the world) were indeed available to us, and we still could not make free will "work", we might indeed be justified in deciding that it simply does not exist. However, a more "humble" and, in my view, believable perspective is that there may exist concepts that make free will work - they are just beyond our grasp and may ever so be.

Another interesting possibility is what I will loosely call the "extended" or "networked" mind. It seems intuitive that the power of our brains to conceptualize the world is related to the number of neurons that comprise it as well as how those neurons are organized. Whether you believe the brain evolved naturalistically or was designed, I think we will all agree that mankind has yet to deliberately engineer improvements in its capability (or has only just begun). Maybe we could increase the number of neurons, or change the way it is organized, or "network" human brains together possibly with computers. The result might be the ability of the human race to generate new fundamental concepts, concepts that could never be represented in a single human brain because of that brain's physical / organization limitations. The network would understand but the nodes (individual brains) would not.

Of course, even if this were possible, it becomes unclear "who" holds the concepts. Would there be a "collective" mind, conscious only "unto itself" and not it anyway manifesting its existence in the experience of people whose brains "make up the network" (i.e. in the same way that a single neuron will not understand quantum physics, even though it is part of a network of neurons that collectively can understand the relevant concepts). A related question: Even if a collection of networked brains (human and / or artificial) could "hold" a concept that no one "node" (e.g. one person) could even grasp, of what use is this? After all the network cannot explain the concept to me (say I am one of the "nodes") precisely because I lack resources to understand it.

 

[lovely]

I believe that we have limits on the complexity of concepts that we can internally represent, but not to a specific kind, but rather to all.

There is a generational building of knowledge. Our reach truly exceeds our grasp because with each generation we can build up our intellect. Through the fundamental knowledge that lays the foundation of what we know, and the imagination of artists and inventors, and the needs (money, dangers, luxury, etc.) of the generations to come...we will go farther in our ability to conceive the complex concepts of our universe in the physical, emotional, philosophical, and spiritual realm of things. Even when we make mistakes...there is so much to know that our mistakes can lead us to other concepts, or may eventually be corrected over time due to negative consequences, or how they relate to newer concepts. But the concepts to be grasped are infinite.

I do not believe, nor do I see evidence of, the concept of free will as it’s commonly defined. I believe that Providence is what guides man, but I can not prove this to others in a physical world, based on the interpretation of the evidence that exists, even though I see proof. The truth that any man, or woman possess, is held in their mind as a concept. (Not just mathematical or intellectual truths generally accepted, but truths that we all hold that exceed our evidence). For example, you may say that Ozzie Smith was the best shortstop to ever play ball. Well, there may be evidence to that truth, even mathematical evidence (stats), but the absoluteness with which one may believe it, outweighs the actual evidence. It is based on the premise that “the best shortstop†is determined by stats, while others may base it on something else that is supported with evidence, and hold to that truth just as firmly. Thought, imagination, and language are the catalysts of such concepts. For example, if you say, “St. Louis,†I immediately have a collection of mental images that represent my home town. You may think of the Arch...or some other tourist attraction...a sports fan may think of the Blues or the Cardinals. A music lover, the blues. A historian, Lewis and Clark, and the gateway to the west. Obviously, the entirety of St. Louis is not encapsulated in just one thought. And if I think on it longer, more pictures develop, however, I will never be able to think of the whole in detailed form, nor can I define it in it’s entirety, even if I had, in theory, seen the whole of it. My mind must narrow it down, but I still seem to face the same problem. If you say, “Dog Town,†a part of St. Louis city, I think of My Aunt Gail’s house, the smell of Pine soap, and Vanilla Wafers. None of them have a connection, except in my mind. None of them really have anything to do with Dog Town, except in my mind. But they are factual, they are true, and they are known to me in realistic way. If we study a specific concept we can take it further, and if we study only a part of that specific concept, we can take that aspect of it further, and so on, and so on... The things we have to learn exist in an infinite way, and can only be conceived in a finite way. I think everything falls into this category.

I do not agree that the brain is the seat of all concept generation and use, and that we do not think/reason using any kind of “immaterial soulâ€Â. I think that this is based on the premise that the brain only thinks. It doesn’t only think. It feels. Not sensory things, but emotions. How does that fit in? My underlying premise is that concepts are there to be grasped by the brain, but the brain is not the source of birth for them. The physics of the universe are, man didn’t create them in concept. He can grasp the concept of them though. How can concepts, that we can’t conceive in our finite minds, be born out of the brain that can’t conceive them? They exist, we grasp them.
The brain is limited, and it’s limitations are physical, possibly related to size and organization, as you suggested. Also to things like disease, laziness, personality, genetic disposition, subjective perceptions, intuition, sensory interpretations, dreams, ambition, preference, etc. that exist within it as well. It incorporates more than just function, reason, calculation, etc. It feels, wants, prefers, experiences, lusts, and so on. This affects our concepts...even those of science. If you suggest a hypothesis, and you go on to formulate experiments, and you test your hypothesis, and you draw the conclusion that such and such is true because of them. You will believe it until I disprove it, provided that my hypothesis is semantically worded just right to you, that my tests were performed in a professional and scientific manner, that I have been peer reviewed by a source that you trust, etc. So, until I meet many different, subjective, as well as reasoned criteria, you will hold to that truth. Certainly there are mathematical concepts that we feel as if we know, but we do not know all of them, and we do not understand how all the concepts may apply, and to what they may apply. We know very little.

I think, with any concept, we are bumping up against the boundaries...always. I have my opinions about free will, as others do. I imagine it’s not a popular opinion in the Christian realm, but I see proof of what I believe, and support it through the physical, emotional, logical, philosophical, and religious realms. You may not agree...because I haven’t, or can’t in the way you prefer, define my terms exactly as you like them, interpret the evidence the way you think I should, withhold my affection as you may think I should, and that the majority of other intellectuals don’t hold to it. Maybe you just think I am not credible period. It doesn’t make me wrong. It means that I will never convince you of a truth of which I have evidence. I feel I have an overwhelming amount of evidence that God exists, that free will doesn’t, and that Providence is what dictates the universe. You may see it differently, and feel you have the same overwhelming evidence to support that belief as true. The point is that the belief surpasses the actual evidence in every case because all the evidence is not in.

The laws of physics is exactly why I do believe in God, something that transcends the universe. The same evidence that causes someone else to believe that nothing transcends the universe. You asked how does free will push the physical buttons, well, it doesn’t. The matter is one that transcends the universe, and can not be understood, believed, experienced, or practiced by the dead in soul. The very supernatural that some deny, is what others have been privy to. Those who are enlightened to it, can not deny it, and can not cause someone who is not pre-destined to be raised from the dead to believe it. It is solely up to the providence of the God of the living to determine. A freed will, to not do things against God, is what the believer has. His will has been freed from death, and now it is free to live according to God’s will. But it is still not something that is choice. Only a man who was once dead, and is now alive, can understand this, and it is explained only by a supernatural cause that manifests itself tangibly. Regeneration happens, but with all the physical proof that exists to the one who is the object of this mercy, It can not be proved to those who can see it. So, am I less intelligent because I have faith? Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. Am I delusional? Are millions of other intelligent and bright people all having the same dream? Or is it the other way around? I do not feel a bit of discomfort in my intuition. I think it is neat and tidy, but I know that some will never agree, and it is not meant for them to agree.
Your premise is that mathematics is a human intellectual creation. I believe that mathematics is a creation of God. An infinite God. An God with no beginning and no end...the God who enables us to conceive of concepts that are not seen in the physical realm, but that reveals the evidence to us, and has manifested it in material form. The idea of things being known in the soul is very real. It is my soul that knows and understands the truth of concepts intuitively, like right and wrong, even without being able to expound on the concept? God’s law is written on the hearts of men. It is my soul that has the light of God in it, and understands the concept of God without fully understanding Him. That’s why all men are without excuse. A soul is a reflection of God...his image. All souls begin as dead...in the order of a soul’s death as Adam represented due to sin. Adam didn’t physically die, his soul died, a distinction was made. Now, if someone is not a Christian, it means nothing, just a bunch of religious bunk. They might even ask me to give them proof. But it would never hold up to the dead because only one thing can make them see, and that thing is not someone giving a convincing argument. It is regeneration, having a living soul. So, the very state an unbeliever is in, it what is hindering him from understanding that a living soul is a conductor for a source of life that exists beyond the nuts and bolts of a body and brain. I have proof, but all will not believe or understand it. A dead soul can not know how to interpret evidence beyond the material realm. A freed will does exist in an immaterial soul, and the life and light of God is what pushes the buttons. The conscience, that has been pricked and awakened is God’s tool of navigation for a believer. There is also, known by the living soul, the truth by which all things are measured. The true north. This internal truth is just known, and the evidence is there, but will never be interpreted in the same way by a dead soul. It is impossible because they can not see beyond the physical, and are not meant to. Their purpose is served as what they are until God raises them from their dead, depraved state.

 

[Featherbop]

Here are my stances:

1. We can only know, understand, comprehend....that in which we exist in. Basically, anything within our dimension(s), our 'world' of senses, and our universe. That is not to say that the higher cannot interact with the lower. God, for instance, can interact with humans and understand them, but humans cannot interact with God(by their own ability) or comprehend God. Thinking of it as "levels", Anyone can understand(know) anything on a lower level than it.

2. The human brain and soul are "two" things, but are together. Difficult to word...fused, maybe. Both are dependant on the other for existence or operation. I.e, the soul needs a brain to exist, and the brain needs a soul to "work" aka, be a living soul. I really cannot offer substanciation, because it is difficult to "show" the existence of non-material intangible things.