Register to reply

Dennett's predecessor brings it all together...

by Mentat
Tags: brings, dennett, predecessor
Share this thread:
hypnagogue
#37
Mar11-04, 11:45 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
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
#38
Mar11-04, 11:47 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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
#39
Mar11-04, 11:48 AM
P: 1,032
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 existance), 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
#40
Mar11-04, 11:49 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
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
#41
Mar11-04, 11:50 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
There IS no hard problem. That's the point, the "hard problem" is an illogical pseudo-question based on unfounded assumption.
Zero
#42
Mar11-04, 11:51 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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
#43
Mar11-04, 11:52 AM
P: 1,032
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
#44
Mar11-04, 11:54 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
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
#45
Mar11-04, 11:57 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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
#46
Mar11-04, 12:00 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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
#47
Mar11-04, 12:02 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
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
#48
Mar11-04, 12:02 PM
P: 1,032
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
#49
Mar11-04, 12:04 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
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
#50
Mar11-04, 12:06 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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 wanna see it!!
hypnagogue
#51
Mar11-04, 12:09 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
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 wanna see it!!
I already stated this, several posts back.
Zero
#52
Mar11-04, 12:14 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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
#53
Mar11-04, 12:17 PM
P: 1,032
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
#54
Mar11-04, 12:19 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
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.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Brings tears to my eyes - in the good way General Discussion 50
Death brings out the irrational in us... General Discussion 3