Dennett's predecessor brings it all together

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
It'd be nice if you could back that up. I could just as well say that it does follow, except that you don't want it to follow in order to hold onto your worldview.

Read my edit.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
It doesn't follow, except that you WANT it to follow.#1 in both cases assumes your conclusion.

My conclusion does follow from #1 in each case, yes. However, this is not something I have assumed. This is something I have observed to be the case in nature.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
My conclusion does follow from #1 in each case, yes. However, this is not something I have assumed. This is something I have observed to be the case in nature.

No, it is absolutely an assumption. Have you every seen a functioning "mind" outside of a brain?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Not ad hominem at all...as far as I know, being emotional isn't an insult, and to my way of thinking I can discern no other reason to embrace mysticism over materialism.

I said Ad hominem because you focused on the individual rather than the argument. Focusing on a feature of the individual meant to discredit the argument without evidence is a fallacy for sure. Just deal with the issue.

Next, I'll tell you that "non-physical" is nonsense, because if it is non-physical, it doesn't interact with the physical world, and therefore cannot be defined. The basic argument for non-physical seems to be "because it has to be there, it just has to!" That sounds more emotional than logical to me. On the other hand, I say that while the non-physical might "exist"(whatever that means for something with no existence), there is no evidence or logical need to assume it.

I don't disagree with any of this. When you define these words the way you do then what you are saying must be true. But these silly words/definitions don't have anything to do with the hard problem of consciousness being discussed here.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
No, it is absolutely an assumption. Have you every seen a functioning "mind" outside of a brain?

If we take it for granted that a brain's physical properties are necessary for consciousness, we still have not shown them to be sufficient.

 

[Zero]

There IS no hard problem. That's the point, the "hard problem" is an illogical pseudo-question based on unfounded assumption.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
If we take it for granted that a brain's physical properties are necessary for consciousness, we still have not shown them to be sufficient.

You haven't shown them to be insufficient, and that is the claim and assumption you are making, based on circular logic.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
There IS no hard problem. That's the point, the "hard problem" is an illogical pseudo-question based on unfounded assumption.

Which is? Are you denying that you subjectively experience the world?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
There IS no hard problem. That's the point, the "hard problem" is an illogical pseudo-question based on unfounded assumption.

Yes there is, unless you can explain to me how the brain is responsible for consciousness as well as you can explain to me how the properties of H2O molecules are responsible for macroscopic fluidity. That is, unless you can show consciousness to be a logically necessary result of brain processes, you have failed. Just saying "whenever we have brain activity X we have subjective experience Y" is not enough. That is an a postiori account, but to vanquish the hard problem we need an a priori account.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Yes there is, unless you can explain to me how the brain is responsible for consciousness as well as you can explain to me how the properties of H2O molecules are responsible for macroscopic fluidity. That is, unless you can show consciousness to be a logically necessary result of brain processes, you have failed. Just saying "whenever we have brain activity X we have subjective experience Y" is not enough. That is an a postiori account, but to vanquish the hard problem we need an a priori account.

Do you accept that the functioning of the brain is tied to the nebulous concept "consciousness? Do you accept that we have solid substantial evidence that the activities of the nervous system is tied in some way to that other pseudo-term "subjective experience".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Which is? Are you denying that you subjectively experience the world?

My brain engages in certain processes that we define as "experience" yes. Since those "experiences" are a function of my individual brain activity, they can be defined as "subjective". What is your point?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
You haven't shown them to be insufficient, and that is the claim and assumption you are making, based on circular logic.

P: Brain activity X occurs.
Q: Subjective experience Y occurs.

Perhaps we can establish P->Q empirically, that is, a postiori, but the hard problem is not about establishing such a connection. The hard problem is about establishing an a priori connection.

The only way I can logically imagine P ^ ~Q is if I have not been shown a priori that P is sufficient for Q. Given a physical explanation of subjective experience, I can still logically imagine P ^ ~Q-- there is nothing in the logic of the explanation that prevents me from doing so. (Contrast with the logic of the explanation of macroscopic fluidity in terms of H2O molecule properties, which logically forces me to conclude that the macroscopic properties must include fluidity.) This is the same thing as saying that it has not yet been shown that P is a priori sufficient for Q.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
My brain engages in certain processes that we define as "experience" yes. Since those "experiences" are a function of my individual brain activity, they can be defined as "subjective". What is your point?

Just trying to figure out which assumption you think is wrong. I just went to Hypnagogue's number 1 "I have subjective experience". Thought you claimed it was not a good assumption.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
Do you accept that the functioning of the brain is tied to the nebulous concept "consciousness? Do you accept that we have solid substantial evidence that the activities of the nervous system is tied in some way to that other pseudo-term "subjective experience".

I do accept this, although I do not accept your disparaging use of the "pseudo" prefix. In any case, you are describing an a postiori account, when the hard problem is about an a priori account.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I do accept this, although I do not accept your disparaging use of the "pseudo" prefix. In any case, you are describing an a postiori account, when the hard problem is about an a priori account.

Where's the evidence, equivalent to the evidence for the mind-brain link, that supports something beyond the physical? Come on, show me, I want to see it!

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
Where's the evidence, equivalent to the evidence for the mind-brain link, that supports something beyond the physical? Come on, show me, I want to see it!

I already stated this, several posts back.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I already stated this, several posts back.

You showed physical evidence, quoted a study published in a scientific journal? Is there a link that I missed?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
You showed physical evidence, quoted a study published in a scientific journal? Is there a link that I missed?

What hypnagogue is telling you Zero is that there is no reductive explanation for consciousness. Have you "quoted a study published in a scientific journal that accomplishes this?" Is there a link that I missed?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
You showed physical evidence, quoted a study published in a scientific journal? Is there a link that I missed?

You want physical evidence for a non-physical phenomenon?

The evidence for its being non-physical is precisely that it cannot be detected objectively. And yet, we know it exists.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You want physical evidence for a non-physical phenomenon?

The evidence for its being non-physical is precisely that it cannot be detected objectively. And yet, we know it exists.

Darn it, you had me all excited...

BTW, I don't want to be rude, gosh no I don't, trust me if I did you would know it...anyhoo! The evidence for something non-physical existing is that it doesn't exist, but it does? Sorry, I just can't contain that level of illogic in my head, not the same week I watched 'Being John Malkovich'. As Mentat has stated repeatedly, if you accept the perfectly logical idea that "subjective experience" is a linguistic shorthand for the incredibly complex interactions between the nervous system, sensory organs, and the world at large, there is no need to add an unproven and unprovable entity.

In other words, experience is a function of brain function, nothing more or less, and there is no reason to assume otherwise.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, experience is a function of brain function, nothing more or less, and there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Where are the scientific journals and links that reductively explain how this is the case? I can't wait until they figure out how to explain colors to a blind man.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
It doesn't follow, except that you WANT it to follow.#1 in both cases assumes your conclusion. . . .

Next, I'll tell you that "non-physical" is nonsense, because if it is non-physical, it doesn't interact with the physical world, and therefore cannot be defined.

Your statement "non-physical is nonsense, because if it is non-physical, it doesn't interact with the physical world" assumes your conclusion. You do not know if that is true or not.

Originally posted by Zero
My brain engages in certain processes that we define as "experience" yes. Since those "experiences" are a function of my individual brain activity, they can be defined as "subjective". What is your point?

Again your conclusion is assumed. You do not know if experiences are solely a function of brain activity. How can you know, using purely physical-detecting research techniques, if brain function might be limited to contributing to some non-physical experiential property of consciousness?

Further, the common argument taht there is "no evidence" is to ignore those who claim they do experience something non-physical. That may not be proof, but it is evidence. In light of such experiential reports, it could be that you and other physicalists lack the consciousness skills needed to experience the non-physical (personally I suspect that is exactly what the problem is; that is, it is physicalists fetish with physical reality that blinds them to the more subtle experience of the non-physical).

In any case, because you do not experience anything non-physical (or recognize the experience) doesn't mean you can assume there is no non-physical. Your statements should accordingly be, "I am not aware of anything non-physical." One cannot extend one's personal lack of experience to be proof of a lack in objective reality.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Where are the scientific journals and links that reductively explain how this is the case? I can't wait until they figure out how to explain colors to a blind man.

The heck are you talking about? Explaining colors to a blind man is a purely mechanistic problem, again not requiring some magical, mysictal, or emotional explanation to cheapen reality. The reason you can't explain color to the blindman is because of hardware and programming differences. Its the same reason why I can't get a camera to play music, or hook a Mac up to a PC without serious hassles.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Your statement "non-physical is nonsense, because if it is non-physical, it doesn't interact with the physical world" assumes your conclusion. You do not know if that is true or not.



Again your conclusion is assumed. You do not know if experiences are solely a function of brain activity. How can you know, using purely physical-detecting research techniques, if brain function is limited to contributing to some non-physical experiential property of consciousness?

Further, to say there is "no evidence" is to ignore those who claim they do experience something non-physical. That may not be proof, but it is evidence. In light of such experiential reports, it could be that you and other physicalists lack the consciousness skills needed to experience the non-physical. In fact, I suspect that is exactly what the problem is; that is, it is physicalists fetish with physical reality that blinds them to the more subtle experience of the non-physical.

In any case, because you do not experience anything non-physical (or recognize the experience) doesn't mean you can assume there is no non-physical. Your statements would have to be, "I am not aware of anything non-physical." You cannot extend your personal lack of experience to be proof of a lack in objective reality.

Getting deep into the pseudomystical gunk now, aren't we? Anecdote isn't evidence, "special abilities and knowledge' is code word for "you got to get brainwashed to believe it", and you cannot extend your lack of satisfaction with materialism so far as to make unfounded assumptions.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
The heck are you talking about? Explaining colors to a blind man is a purely mechanistic problem, again not requiring some magical, mysictal, or emotional explanation to cheapen reality. The reason you can't explain color to the blindman is because of hardware and programming differences. Its the same reason why I can't get a camera to play music, or hook a Mac up to a PC without serious hassles.

I'm asking you to show where science has explained consciousness reductively. This was your claim of certainty and I'm asking you to show me where. Where are my articles? I'm so excited!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Getting deep into the pseudomystical gunk now, aren't we? Anecdote isn't evidence, "special abilities and knowledge' is code word for "you got to get brainwashed to believe it", and you cannot extend your lack of satisfaction with materialism so far as to make unfounded assumptions.

Zero, I see some poor behavior going on in the General Discussion forum. You might want to go on back over there and straighten it out. I'm glad they got you in charge of such an important discussion area. Hope you get that worked out.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I'm asking you to show where science has explained consciousness reductively. This was your claim of certainty and I'm asking you to show me where. Where are my articles? I'm so excited!

Frankly, I don't see the need to. I count it as a flaw, but not a fatal one.

 

[Zero]

Mostly, it seems to be a flaw in my credit...

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Frankly, I don't see the need to. I count it as a flaw, but not a fatal one.

But this has been Hypnagogue's main point in all these threads. There is no reductive explanation of consciousness because it isn't possible. So if you don't feel the need to show that there is then why are you posting in this thread?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Mostly, it seems to be a flaw in my credit...

It's spelled "Credibility"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
But this has been Hypnagogue's main point in all these threads. There is no reductive explanation of consciousness because it isn't possible. So if you don't feel the need to show that there is then why are you posting in this thread?

Ha! Who says it isn't possible? I just said I didn't come up with it, and that's all I'm saying.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
It's spelled "Credibility"

Ad hominem, I presume? Pleased to meet you.


Actually, the links I've found have been "pay per view"...you have to buy the research notes, and I'm sorely lacking in plastic fundage.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Ha! Who says it isn't possible? I just said I[/] didn't come up with it, and that's all I'm saying.

Yes, I know this. But this thread is about why it isn't possible to be reductively explained. If you don't have any philsophically worthy comments to add to this discussion then why are you posting here? No one cares what you believe. The point of the thread is to discuss "why".

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Ad hominem, I presume? Pleased to meet you.

I haven't used any comments about you as a reason to make a conclusion about the issue we're discussing. I'm still looking for articles before I draw conclusions. So no Ad hominem here. I'll provide a link to definitions of these if you want to brush up on what they mean.

Actually, the links I've found have been "pay per view"...you have to buy the research notes, and I'm sorely lacking in plastic fundage.

Don't waste your money because if they actually claim a reductive explanation, they are false advertising. It doesn't exists.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Getting deep into the pseudomystical gunk now, aren't we? Anecdote isn't evidence, "special abilities and knowledge' is code word for "you got to get brainwashed to believe it", and you cannot extend your lack of satisfaction with materialism so far as to make unfounded assumptions.

Not me!

"Anecdote" = strawman argument.

"Brainwashed" = your paranoia.

Besides, you didn't answer my complaint properly. You are the one making concrete statements about obective reality (that the non-physical doesn't exist). If you ever can demonstrate the physical is responsible for all, then you might be justified in your claim. That is not yet proven, so it is not illogical to hypothesize that those aspects unexplained by physical principles might have a non-physical source.

I and others are mostly saying that physical principles do not yet explain everything. It is the physicalists who have lost their objectivity because they assume a priori their lack of experience means there is no non-physical. Further, they fail to properly acknowledge the very real problem of trying to observe the non-physical using physical detection techniques.

So I still say, one's fetish shouldn't influence objective statements about reality.