You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mitchell_Porter comments on Smart non-reductionists, philosophical vs. engineering mindsets, and religion - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 04 August 2012 10:48AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (47)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 08 August 2012 01:27:54AM 0 points [-]

Is love captured by physics? It is captured by physical laws (i.e. a logically omniscient being could derive a description of love from them)

This is still the same "statement of faith" that I criticized at greater length, later in the thread. Love is an experience, and you will not even find a description (to say nothing of an explanation) of an experience, in any sort of physics that we know about, nor in any other discourse that can be reduced to that sort of physics. Our mathematical physics describes what the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave are doing, but it says nothing about what anything is. The nature of experience is a problem of the latter kind, which is one reason why explanations of it in terms of matter, number, and computation are hollow. Then there is the more specific problem that the atomized ontology of physics is an ill-suited place in which to find complex unities like conscious states, which is why I say there will need to be new formal developments in physics, and new physical discoveries in neurobiology, before even a revised physicalism has any chance of explaining us.

Comment author: The_Duck 08 August 2012 06:00:54PM 1 point [-]

Love is an experience, and you will not even find a description (to say nothing of an explanation) of an experience, in any sort of physics that we know about, nor in any other discourse that can be reduced to that sort of physics.

If you simulate the standard model of particle physics with appropriate initial conditions, your simulation will include four-limbed beings who will be happy to describe the experience of love to you at great length. (It's true that no one will be able to verify this claim any time soon, but there's every reason to believe it, because the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood). Doesn't this mean that physics contains a description of the experience of love?

Comment author: JQuinton 09 August 2012 04:39:09AM 0 points [-]

Are you singling out "love" for any specific reason or are you using it as a general example of all human emotions (e.g. fear, trust, jealousy, feeling of knowing, hate, happiness, etc.)?

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 09 August 2012 05:30:56AM 1 point [-]

Using it as a general example.