Dennett's predecessor brings it all together...

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.

Zero

Read my edit.

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.

Zero

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

Fliption

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.


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

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

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

Fliption

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

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.

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".

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?

hypnagogue

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

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

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

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

hypnagogue

I already stated this, several posts back.