Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Les Sleeth]

i don't think I've ever agreed with you so much... ever
The sky is falling? :D
what i do believe though, for a philosophy to have any meaning what so ever, reduction has to be done... it is inevitable, otherwise it is just a mind game (which isn't bad at all in itself, but some philosophers tend to consider these mind and word games as "truth", something i highly oppose of)...

Right, that is what I was referring to as "rationalistic," and I too see it, except for tautologies, as word (or concept) games. The great thing about science is the addition of experience to the truth-seeking formula. But reduction isn't the only source of knowledge. For example, someone might open the drapes in room where you are sleeping, and it wakes you up. That experience is quickly recognized for what it is . . . say, the brightening of the room. You don't need to do any research to know that. So I think one can "know" directly from experience.

. . . also, i am open to any suggestions about the other evidense, i really am . . .

Most people of the physicalist persuasion think there's been no experience of the "something more" we've been discussing. But that may not be true. There is a history of people who've reported that "something more" can be known experientially (and I am not talking religion); it has often been described as being immune to accurate conceptualization, but quite friendly to direct experience.

Now, if we assume people have experienced it, the next issue for a philosophical discussion becomes -- what does the experience tell us about the nature of reality? That's where all the trouble comes. Using the analogy above, one person might say the light filling the room when the drapes are opened is God flowing through the window, while another interprets it as EM. So the experience is one thing, and the interpretations of the experience are another.

In my opinion, one of the smartest guys ever to talk about something more was the Buddha because he refused to speculate about "what it meant." His advice was (more or less), "experience it and decide for yourself what it 'means'."

 

[Les Sleeth]

In both cases, it was induced from a holistic analysis that something (whether it be discrete heredity or evolution) was going on. It took a reductionist approach to prove that this was indeed the case and to explain how this was the case. This is really all I'm trying to do here. Sleeth has holistically evaluated the situation he sees and induced certain conclusions. I want him to now take a more reductionist approach and move beyond this to get to the all important "how" that can lead to genuine confirmation of his hypothesis.

As I said to Nereid, that's not my thing. There are plenty of reductionists in this world a lot more qualified than me to check out the "how." I prefer to specialize in induction, and to search for insight into "why."

 

[Royce]

In both cases, it was induced from a holistic analysis that something (whether it be discrete heredity or evolution) was going on. It took a reductionist approach to prove that this was indeed the case and to explain how this was the case. This is really all I'm trying to do here. Sleeth has holistically evaluated the situation he sees and induced certain conclusions. I want him to now take a more reductionist approach and move beyond this to get to the all important "how" that can lead to genuine confirmation of his hypothesis.

It was not and is not my intention to criticize you, deductive reasoning nor reductionism or reductionist thinking. I was making an observation. I also apologize for both my spelling (I was in a hurry and didn't have spell check of that computer) and for going off half cocked about evolution. While I have been following this discussion with interest, I misunderstood the direction and purpose of your argument. Again my only defense is that I was in a hurry and didn't consider my post well enough.

Part of the problem as I see it is that what both Les, I and others have experienced and that leads us to what and how we think and believe, by its very nature, absolutely defies reductive analysis. It is not just holistic but conceptually holistic. What I, at least, experience is an entire complete concept that often takes months to realize, understand and integrate into our thinking. As soon as we (I) try to analyze it by taking it apart and examining it piece by piece we lose the concept. Only by holistic or Big Picture
thinking can we attempt to get a hold of it or better get our minds wrapped around it. This is one of the main reasons I am of the Platonic school rather than the Aristotelean school.

It is never a matter of how something happens but that it is, it happens and why. While I agree that we must find a common ground on which to discuss, argue and learn, I cannot see such a ground between holistic and reductionistic thinking, they're opposites and mutually exclusive in my mind. As far as inductive and deductive thinking is concerned I don't see any problem at all. Both are extremely valuable and useful tools so long as they are properly applied, a hammer for a nail and a screwdriver for a screw.
Both are needed and can both be used at the same time and are often most productive when used together. Maybe that can be the common ground for this discussion so long as we make it clear which mode we are using at the moment.

In any event, I also am enjoying this discussion and wish it to continue so long as I can reserve the right to interject my thoughts occasionally.

 

[Philocrat]

I wouldn't want you to steer clear of any meaningful question -- that's what philosophy is all about -- so good questions are never irritating. I was only suggesting you pose one such brain-breaker per thread.




This question would make an excellent thread subject, for example.

You have a point...but I am also thinking of how these questions can be adapted and answered (or attempted to be answered) under this thread. Admittedly, they decisively appear unrelated to the battles under this thread. Let me scratch my head and maybe something will turn up sooner or later.

 

[Philocrat]

Reductionism can certainly be met by more holistic evaluations. I would argue the best example out there is evolution, in particular heredity. Take the example of Gregor Mendel that I used earlier. Using a holistic approach, he formulated a general theory of discrete heredity. When the reductionist approach of molecular genetics finally came around, we came upon a reason why Mendel's theory was correct. Similarly, the idea of evolution was nothing new when Darwin published. It was thought by many people, based on the obvious implications of the fossil record, that species had evolved. But it took Darwin and his reductionist theory of natural selection to explain how this could have happened.

Reductionism is already writtten into holistic or general principles. Subsequently, when consciousness has elevated itself to a superior height, the former would become an indistinguishable component of the latter. The only question is how consciousness could be rendered fully purposive and so elevated.

 

[Philocrat]

The claim that consciousness may have no purpose on the evolutionary pathways of life

Well, this seems decisively so, but then why was consciousness devised in the first place? Well, if we accept that some forms of life are more advanced than others, then consciousness ought to be a very usefull device for an advanced form of life. The three-dimensional character of consciousness makes it even more so. When people ask me about the purpose of conscousness I always answer:

We INQUIRE and ACQUIRE to AVOID!

That is, conscousness has three distinctivly useful aspects or modes: (1) the Inquaisitive mode, (2) The Acquisitive Mode and (3) the Precautionary Mode, and together they define the fundamental purpose of consciousness.

On the issue of random possibilities or designs umdermining or defeating the purpose of consciousness, I say that this view is irrelevant because the puropose of anything, including consciousness, could be either way, premeditated or unexpected. If we took the route of there being an intelligent designer, he or she may have thought of the purpose of the design before hand. Equally, if we took the route of random design, its purpose may have been realized afterwards. In this case, we perceive the usefulness of randomly derived entity from its function or outward behaviour.

However, this does not solve problem of the possibility of progress from any purposive inteligent or random design. That is, how do things progress from the purpose we know of them?

 

[loseyourname]

Traits are selected for that provide the organism with an increased chance to reproduce. Length of survival is irrelevant as long as it reaches breeding age. Do you honestly not see how being conscious of a potential mate's preferences and tastes and being conscious of your own looks and behavior would be helpful here?

Did anybody actually read this the first time around?

 

[Fliption]

i understand perfectly, and don't patronize me. you didn't adress one single point, you just fired another mind game question back at me.

This is just not true. And I'm going to do my damnest to try to show you.

yes, babys have experiences. thay also have a brain. what does this has
to do with anything?

It seems to have everything to do with it. You said the experience of redness was learned. So either you believe that all experiences are learned (which would mean that babies have no experiences) or you believe that some experiences are learned and some are not. In the second option, you would claim the experience of redness is learned but you have some other experience in mind that isn't learned. Now that you have said that babies have experiences above, it must be this second option that you believe. So which experience is it that babies can have without having to learn it?

and you don't get to decide what i believe or not... i

No, but I do get to decide what I believe about what you believe

furthermore, i'd like to add, that if there was "something else" i doubt it would reside within the human brain... it would probably be somewhere else... that idea is so arrogant... why the hell should the human mind be anymore special than a dolphins (other than the size)...

You're preaching to the choir. If I've said anything to insinuate I'm defending this position then I take it back now! I don't believe that "something more", if it exists, resides in humans any more than it does in dolphins or even rocks.

the mary example is false and totally disregards everything we know about the brain.. it tries to twist words into something relevant...
the reason why we can't explain the experience of the color red to mary is, that the vision center in the brain is totally different from the hearing center, learning centers and verbal center... it is a distinct neural center, that needs to learn colors through vision, just like the ear has to learn sound through the ears and not the eyes... so it is a mind game, or a trick of words if you like.

There's just something about your point that is not clicking with me. Let me try something. I suspect that you and I have a different perspective on the concept of qualia and that's what is driving this difference in interpretation.

It seems like you have an issue with the fact that Mary can't possibly have "redness" communicated to her because the brain has to learn to do vision. So what if we tweak this example a bit and say that Mary has not always been blind. She had sight for most of her life and understands the experience of color. She has only recently become blind. Now let's say that a brand new color is sweeping the fashion industry and everyone is talking about this new color. Some people are even painting their houses this color. Mary is very curious. So she reads(the way blind people read) all the scientific facts about this new color. Dispite learning every physical fact about this light frequency, she is still missing a piece of information about this color. The only way she can receive this information is to experience it. So this piece of information is clearly out of the hands of physics to provide.

Is this example any better against your objections? I'm not sure because I haven't quite grasped why you're struggling with this so much.

Again, I'm suspecting that the key is our understanding of qualia so I'll just emphasize that while the brain may have to learn to do the processes required for what we call vision, there is no process that has been identified as responsible for producing the "qualia" associated with the visual data. We don't know how this happens. So while the brain may Learn to see, we can't say it learns qualia. We have no idea where qualia fits into this picture. If you disagree with this then this is our problem.

First of all: The statement that the case of two identical (atom by atom) beings existing while one has got qualia and the other hasn't, is claimed to be both logical and plausible by the author... yes of course it is, cause the author believes in the "something else" theory, so it's quite logic to him, but to someone who thinks consciousness is a neurological phenomenon, this makes absolutely no sense! This is a highly subjective argument that only has validity because the author is biased towards the "something else" theory.
Secondly: for the two characters to have identical atomic configurations, doesn't mean that their chemical and electromagnetic signals are the same, due to quantum mechanical probabilities...

Grrrrr... Sounds like you're speaking about the zombie illustration. And just like so many before you, you have gotten distracted with it's irrelevant points and taken it too literally. I just hate this illustration. It is probably the single biggest mistake Chalmers made in designing his argument. This is just my opinion from what I've observed in this forum and read in opposing works. Hypnagogue may come in and hit me with a stick lol but this just seems like such a sloppy illustration. There are too many unnecessary pieces of information that people get hung up on. I'll see if I can help you understand the point as I understand it.

Do you believe that, in principle, a robot can be built so that it can sense the world as a human does? We know that robots do exist today. So it makes sense that, in principle, technology can improve to the point that we can replicate every known physical process in the eyes, ears, toungue, nose, and skin to allow the robot to sense it's suroundings just as we do. The robot can then be given a computer brain to process that incoming data and execute instructions. We can program this brain to process this information using every physical process that the human brain performs. It will even seem human as it goes about its day. If you do not think that this can be done in principal, then this illustration stops here and you will need to explain why this cannot be done, in principle. But if you think that this can be done, in principle, then there is one question to ask. Is this robot conscious?

It's eyes are basically cameras feeding pixel data to a computer which computes movement instructions. Is this robot experiencing vision? Is it processing color as XX wavelength or is it experiencing the qualia of color? If you say I don't know(which is what everyone I know would say) then why don't you know? IF it does every physical process that a human does and humans are conscious why can't you be sure? This means that none of the physical processes that you programmed into this robot necessarily entail consciousness. There is no consciousness subroutine that you can point to and say "yeah there's where I programmed it in". It is perfectly conceivable that a robot could do everything that you and I do and we would have no idea that it was even a robot. It could move, eat, behave just like a human. This can all be programmed in.(I often wonder why life is conscious at all. It doesn't seem that we need it.) This robot can be programmed to survive and thrive. Why should it be "aware" of anything? And how can you prove that anything or anyone is aware and experiencing qualia, anyway? What physical process will you point to to prove it? Your scientific machinery can monitor my eyes and see all the physical processes and prove that I am taking in visual data. But your machinery tells you nothing(and never willl) about what I'm actually experiencing. Why is this if it's just another physical process?

To say the answer lies in the future research of science is to say that one day we will be able to communicate to blind Mary the qualia of this new color simply by allowing her to read the scientific facts. This will never happen. Mary can learn everything there is to know about math from math books but she can learn nothing about qualia from qualia books. It is a feature of our universe that must be experienced to be understood.

Anyway, to me, this is the main point of the zombie illustration. It doesn't matter whether the two beings are identical. That's just a necessary assumption that has to be made so that someone can't claim that the slight difference between the two is what is causing the consciousness. The whole point is that I very well may not be conscious. I don't need to be conscious to do anything that you witness me doing. Therefore, all the physical processes that you can observe in me do not necessarily entail consciousness.

I'll also add that this view doesn't necessarily mean there is "something more". Many argue that consciousness, qualia etc is just a fundamental property of reality. It is not the emerging product of a physical process. It's just a fundamental element of nature much like matter and energy etc. Given the inability to reductively understand and communciate qualia, it's easy to see why many people favor this view.

So it is a rediculous argument that only makes sense if you're biased towards "something else"... if you had been objective, you would have noticed the highly subjective initial argument.

This just isn't true. At the very least you have to allow for the fact that maybe someone just doesn't understand it as well as they should. It doesn't always have to mean they are biased.

 

[Fliption]

Did anybody actually read this the first time around?

This seems like a misuse of the word conscious. I don't see how "consciousness" as we speak of it here in the philosophy forum has any benefit to survival. If you can actually prove such a thing then you can prove that a being is conscious and eliminate the philosphical debate that's been going around on this for centuries.

To say that an animal has to be conscious to notice a particular aspect of its surroundings is somewhat like saying that a security camera is conscious of its surroundings because it turns a light on by detecting movement. So either this camera is actually conscious or animals don't need to have "awareness" to sense their surroundings and compute the appropriate response.

 

[balkan]

1) It seems to have everything to do with it. You said the experience of redness was learned. So either you believe that all experiences are learned (which would mean that babies have no experiences) or you believe that some experiences are learned and some are not. So which experience is it that babies can have without having to learn it?

2) No, but I do get to decide what I believe about what you believe

3) It seems like you have an issue with the fact that Mary can't possibly have "redness" communicated to her because the brain has to learn to do vision.
Mary has not always been blind. She had sight for most of her life and understands the experience of color. Now let's say that everyone is talking about this new color. Mary reads all the scientific facts about this new color. Dispite learning every physical fact about this light frequency, she is still missing a piece of information about this color. The only way she can receive this information is to experience it. So this piece of information is clearly out of the hands of physics to provide.

4) Is this example any better against your objections? I'm not sure because I haven't quite grasped why you're struggling with this so much.

5) there is no process that has been identified as responsible for producing the "qualia" associated with the visual data. We don't know how this happens. So while the brain may Learn to see, we can't say it learns qualia. We have no idea where qualia fits into this picture. If you disagree with this then this is our problem.

6) Do you believe that, in principle, a robot can be built so that it can sense the world as a human does? So it makes sense that, in principle, technology can improve to the point that we can replicate every known physical process in the eyes, ears, toungue, nose, and skin to allow the robot to sense it's suroundings just as we do. The robot can then be given a computer brain to process that incoming data and execute instructions. We can program this brain to process this information using every physical process that the human brain performs. It will even seem human as it goes about its day. But if you think that this can be done, in principle, then there is one question to ask. Is this robot conscious?
It's eyes are basically cameras feeding pixel data to a computer which computes movement instructions. Is this robot experiencing vision? Is it processing color as XX wavelength or is it experiencing the qualia of color? If you say I don't know(which is what everyone I know would say) then why don't you know? IF it does every physical process that a human does and humans are conscious why can't you be sure?
This can all be programmed in.(I often wonder why life is conscious at all. It doesn't seem that we need it.) This robot can be programmed to survive and thrive. Why should it be "aware" of anything? And how can you prove that anything or anyone is aware and experiencing qualia, anyway? What physical process will you point to to prove it? Your scientific machinery can monitor my eyes and see all the physical processes and prove that I am taking in visual data.

7) To say the answer lies in the future research of science is to say that one day we will be able to communicate to blind Mary the qualia of this new color simply by allowing her to read the scientific facts. This will never happen.
It is a feature of our universe that must be experienced to be understood.

8) It doesn't matter whether the two beings are identical. The whole point is that I very well may not be conscious. I don't need to be conscious to do anything that you witness me doing. Therefore, all the physical processes that you can observe in me do not necessarily entail consciousness.
I'll also add that this view doesn't necessarily mean there is "something more". Many argue that consciousness, qualia etc is just a fundamental property of reality. It is not the emerging product of a physical process. It's just a fundamental element of nature much like matter and energy etc.

1) that's utter bull****... like i said, the baby has experiences... you can't grasp the meaning of the word "learn" in terms of the brain or what? (<- this is what happens when you patronize people) the baby is exposed to a great deal of input when being in the mothers womb... feeling pressure and pain doesn't have to be learned, genetically inflicted achetypes that we are afraid of (certain color patterns and shapes) doesn't have to be learned... your claim is almost offensive in it's attempt to twist something quite simple and straightforward into something that has to be either "this" or "that"...
babys are exposed to light as well in the womb, not much but a little... it is exposed to touch and chemicals from the mother that induced different moods... so what the bleeding hell are you on about?

2) fair enough... now i believe you believe in "something else" and that something else has to do with consciousness... take it or leave it...

3) you cannot communicate it verbally or in writing! this isn't hard to understand... it's quite simple. no matter how hard you try, you cannot verbally induce an electromagnetic wave to strike the retina. no one is claiming they can. you and whoever thought of that example, claim we can...
i have learned a lot of colours by being told their color compunds... like lavender, and i could probably pick something that was quite close to lavender out if i saw it, because i have learned the basic colors...
The piece of information isn't out of physical hands to explain, but it is out of the physical hands to communicate to someone else... just like you once again can't verbally communicate something to substitute an electromagnet wave striking the retina.
this doesn't mean that physics cannot describe the event itself in full details, but the event cannot be induced verbally into the brain due to the fact that it resides in a different neural center, and that to "feel" this event, it has to happen directly... is this hard to understand?
if you can't see, that this is a word game, then you are either daft, or simply unable to look at it objectively.

4) look above what happens when you patronize people...

5) what you call qualia, is what every phychologist would call "association". these "qualia" are attributed to colors, shapes and things through experience... the baby doesn't have a qualia associated with the color "lavender" until it sees it... or do you object to this?
sometimes associations are attributed to things due to flaws in the neurological curcuit... chocks and traumas can often wrongfully induce association with fear or disgust or even pleasure to something that is has nothing to do with the traumatizing event... this is called phobias...
now, these "qualia" as you call them, can be found through hypnosis... a skilled hypnotist can draw out what association you have with a e.g. color and why you have it, and sometimes even when it happened.
association and recognition of characteristics is exactly what makes the human brain so effective...

6) if it had all the abilities of the brain (every single one! including chemical reactions that make us feel comfortable, frigthened or sexually aroused... which would be equal to it having a human brain) and was exactly as sensitive in physical regards, and it had gone through series of impressions similar to that of a human, then yes, it would be conscious... why wouldn't it? just because it's eye is a camera? note however, that the camera must be sensitive to touch and be in contact with the brain curcuit presicely like a human brain...
the fact that you make a program that "acts" like a human, doesn't make it human... that makes it a program... the robot would have to have access to the same chemical influences like us and similar... which would be impossible with a conventional computer... that analogy is proof of nothing else than the fact that computers cannot replicate a human brain... impressive
"your machinery tells you nothing(and never willl) about what I'm actually experiencing. Why is this if it's just another physical process?"
if the above is not a totally subjective claim, then i don't know what is!
by monitoring your brain, scientists can tell you whether or not you experience fear, desire, sorrow or joy when seing something... that's how far brain research has come. they can even tell if you associate something with a direction... why do you claim they'll never be able to monitor what you are feeling? i thought you were objective.

7) total bull****! it cannot verbally or otherwise[/i] be communicated! that doesn't mean it cannot be explained physically! i'd really like to see you back up your statement with other than word games.

8) what are you talking about? subconsciousness? that can be monitored aswell, and the list of things that are triggered in the subconsciouss grows bigger every week, as scientists discover new things.
the human brain was a tool for survival... just like wings on a bird... it wasn't neccessary... everything could just be bacteria and you would be happy or what?
it happened and it worked... for a large number of tribes of humanoids that lived at the same time as our tribe, it didn't work, but for our specific one it did... it was a succesfull survival tool... it made us more clever than the animals that we hunted and the predators that hunted us... that doesn't go on your positive list or what?
evolution doesn't care about necessity, it just randomly evolves the species, and maybe some of them survives...

and why wouldn't you be consciouss? what are you on about?

now, patronize me again, and my next reply will be just as inpleasant in tone... you choose how we speak to each other...

 

[Les Sleeth]

1) that's utter bull****... now, patronize me again, and my next reply will be just as inpleasant in tone... you choose how we speak to each other...

Fliption isn't being patronizing. His is probably the most patient mind around here, and regularly sticks with rude and obtuse people long after the rest of us have given up on them.

He has humbly been trying to explain to you something which you clearly don't understand. Before going any further, let me add that I am not equating "agreeing" with "understanding" (i.e., I mean you don't have to agree with the concept of qualia before I acknowledge you understand).

How do I know you don't understand the concept? It would be like you trying to explain to someone that the rate of time is altered in a frame of reference when that frame accelerates. After explaining it to them they say, "oh, all that happens is the g-forces from acceleration inhibits the clocks' movement." In other words, the way he answers proves he doesn't understand relativity. Likewise, the way you answer about qualia proves you don't understand the significance of it.

Your complaint that the qualia argument is a nothing but a "word game" isn't quite fair. Actually it is a thought problem, and as you know scientists use them all the time. Einstein's twin paradox is one, as is Schrodinger's cat. If you'd tone down the outrage a bit and give this thought problem a fair look, you might see there is a genuine point in there.

However, I'll admit that personally I don't like the way the zombie argument is set up, and I don't like using qualia as the defining characteristic of consciousness. But let me defend it a little anyway by simplifying the argument.

Is it possible for someone without taste buds to act like they can taste? Or, can someone act loving without actually feeling love? If so, then taste and love involve something more than behavior -- there is an internal subjective aspect. The idea of using either a zombie or a robot in the thought experiment was to point out that consciousness isn't just functions or behaviors, but the heart of it is that experience of what a particular taste "is like" or what the experience of love "is like." You can get a robot to put food in its mouth, to chew, to go "ahhhhhhhh, so delicious," but the robot isn't really having subjective experience of taste, it is just imitating the external behaviors of taste.

My personal preference for describing what a robot/zombie is missing is to say they can detect taste or light or sound, but they don't "know" they are detecting anything. So like with Fliption's example of the security camera, it detects movement, but it is clueless that it does.

THAT subjective self-knowledge is what thinkers, physicalists and non-physicalists alike, are in a quandry to explain in the way of consciousness. Functionalist thinkers like Daniel Dennett wave off the problem saying he's confident "one day" we'll find a physicalistic answer, but no one in either camp believes we have it yet.

One quick comment on babies and experience. I think Fliption's point was that a baby is born with the potential to experience red is "like this." He doesn't need to learn how to have a subjective aspect of consciousness. Also, if you maintain that we don't need to experience a color to know the color, then you are disputing empiricism itself, which demands that researchers experience what they hypothesize to be true. If, as an empiricist, you were blind and hypothesized the new color Fliption talked about was a certain way, that is a theory, and will remain a theory to you until you can actually see the color. Even if your imagination can approximate the color, it still isn't the same information as sense experience.

Unless you want to agree with the rationalists that truth can be known by reason alone, then you have to admit that experience is a unique dimension of living awareness without which we cannot really know if what we imagine to be true is actually true.

Anyway, as of now physical processes can't account for the subjective aspect of consciousness, and that is why it, along with progressive organization, was on the list of what cannot currently be explained by physicalness.

 

[balkan]

like I've said, les: it is you and also fliption, that subjectively attribute something special to these qualia when there's nothing special about it...
i am quite aware of the camera/robot analogy and i understand perfectly what you mean... but the fact that these extremely simple machines register inputs, but aren't aware of it only proves something in your mind... not in mine... to me, it proves that we are unable to create a sufficiently sophisticated "brain" yet.
alot of those "qualities" when you look at things and feelings you get comes from chemicals in your brain... this includes fear, lust and love...
about "self awareness" - even in a simple machine... what if that was just part of the "program"? it didn't need much other than a few questions: "why am i here?" "where am i?" "what am i?" and the brain to try and calculate the possibilities. i mean, isn't that all we really have to go on?
you aren't "aware" that you exist... you "think" you exist.

the fact that you attribute something more to association, is proof to me, that you don't know dick about how the human brain works, you just really like to think you do.

edit: oh, and the fact that you once again attribute so much to our selfawareness also shows that you don't know how extremely dependant human behaviour is on our past experiences and learned "programs" (although it is not exactly a comforting thought for metaphysicists)... the self awareness is also something that evolves in the human mind through learning and thinking... it's not "just there", like you seem to think. imo (and many others, as there are great indications that it is in this agerange that selfawareness becomes prominent) it's caused by our increasing searching for questions in our first 4-10 years.

 

[Fliption]

1)
now, patronize me again, and my next reply will be just as inpleasant in tone... you choose how we speak to each other...

Holy crap! What did I do? Seriously, I wasn't intending on patronizing you. I think you've got me in the wrong bucket. It was late and I was very tired when I finished that post last night and I left out a few things but I've re-read it and I don't remember attempting to be patronizing anywhere. The last post was only step one of my goal to tweak the examples a bit and measure your objections so that, hopefully, I can begin to understand what your overall point of view is. I suspect that we have a different understanding of what some key terms mean and I was probing to verify that. After your last post I think I am correct. My apologies if you thought I was being patronizing. I appreciate the detail of your response despite the fact that you felt patronized. So many people would just huff and puff and leave. But this detail is the only way I can begin to understand your view.

that's utter bull****... like i said, the baby has experiences... feeling pressure and pain doesn't have to be learned, so what the bleeding hell are you on about?

This is where I probably left out some explanation. Let me see if I can explain my logic on all this. Your main objection to the Mary illustration was that the experience of color had to be learned as opposed to just being an innate ability. I was merely trying to probe a bit to see if there were other types of experiences that you felt were innate and didn't need to be learned. If so, then this particular experience can be inserted into the Mary illustration and it still works and your objection no longer does. You said above that "pain" doesn't have to be learned. So how could you ever explain what pain is to someone who has never experienced it?

Anyway, that was what I was attempting to do but let's not dwell on this because I see now that this won't convince you of anything. I now understand your response will be because a non-verbal part of the brain has to process it. So I'll just move on and try to deal with those things there.

2) fair enough... now i believe you believe in "something else" and that something else has to do with consciousness... take it or leave it...

Actually I don't. This would make you wrong on two topics now (This was a joke, ok?)

3) you cannot communicate it verbally or in writing! this isn't hard to understand... it's quite simple. this doesn't mean that physics cannot describe the event itself in full details, but the event cannot be induced verbally into the brain due to the fact that it resides in a different neural center, and that to "feel" this event, it has to happen directly... is this hard to understand?

Actually, it does appear to be a word game. I don't think you realize just how close we are to being in complete agreement. One question: What is it about some things that allow us to communicate them verbally and other things we cannot? Why does a brain use two methods to gain knowledge? A blind person can read all about the color red and understand every scientific fact. Another person with sight can understand what it "feels like" to see red but may have never read any of the scientific facts. Both of these people have a piece of information that the other doesn't have. Only a person that does both has all the knowledge. So in your opinion, why does it require two different processing methods to obtain all knowledge?

5) what you call qualia, is what every phychologist would call "association". these "qualia" are attributed to colors, shapes and things through experience... the baby doesn't have a qualia associated with the color "lavender" until it sees it... or do you object to this?

I agree with the last sentence but not the first one.

sometimes associations are attributed to things due to flaws in the neurological curcuit...

While I understand this piece, it doesn't seem relevant to me. I think it's because this is where our understanding of what qualia is is just different. Above I could agree that qualia is "associated" with the visual process of seeing a specific color. But the way association is being used here is more of what I think happens "after" qualia. I can associate all sorts of unrelated things to my qualia resulting in phobias. What else would I be associating these things to? Qualia is the only thing I can directly relate to and associate anything with. So in this sense, qualia is not the association. It is was I associate the unrelated events to. I think there's more clarification and work to do here on this word.

6) if it had all the abilities of the brain (every single one! including chemical reactions that make us feel comfortable, frigthened or sexually aroused... which would be equal to it having a human brain) and was exactly as sensitive in physical regards, and it had gone through series of impressions similar to that of a human, then yes, it would be conscious... why wouldn't it?

This very well may be but how will you be certain? How do you know that I am conscious? What brain process are you directing your proof to? Chemicals may arouse certain nerve endings but which chemical gives me the subjective qualia associated with that? Why does it "feel like" something just because a certain chemical has been produced?

the fact that you make a program that "acts" like a human, doesn't make it human... that makes it a program... the robot would have to have access to the same chemical influences like us and similar... which would be impossible with a conventional computer... that analogy is proof of nothing else than the fact that computers cannot replicate a human brain... impressive

LOL. Hypnagogue is probably laughing at me now. And casually tapping his stick against his hand preparing for its use on me. Balkan do you not see that this objection above is the very same one that I claimed is the reason Chalmers was forced to use the zombie illustration with beings who are identical in every single way? If you go back and look, I said the main reason he did this was because someone would claim that it is the difference between the two beings that is causing the consciouness. That is exactly what you just did above. So I've learned my lesson.

Don't you see that the reason you can make this claim is because you are assuming the brain is what produces consciousness? There is no brain process that has been identified as the one that produces the "feeling of being". This just isn't known. So the point of the exercise above was to show that if you gave a robot every single physical process and then you still aren't sure, then consciousness is not necessarily entailed by those processes.

"your machinery tells you nothing(and never willl) about what I'm actually experiencing. Why is this if it's just another physical process?"
if the above is not a totally subjective claim, then i don't know what is!
by monitoring your brain, scientists can tell you whether or not you experience fear, desire, sorrow or joy when seing something... that's how far brain research has come. they can even tell if you associate something with a direction... why do you claim they'll never be able to monitor what you are feeling? i thought you were objective.

You haven't said anything above that contradicts what I said. I agree that science can monitor the physical processes of my eyes and brain. So yes, it will be able to see that some activity is taking place. But it will NEVER know what the contents of my subjective world are. My qualia. It will never be able to know just what it feels like when I'm stuck with a needle or what I'm tasting when I taste brussel sprouts. It cannot even be sure that I have a subjective world to begin with. Brussel sprouts may taste to me like Pizza taste to you. Slapping me in the face may feel to me like a back rub does to you. Science can never ever know what the contents of my qualia are. If this is nothing but a physical process then why is this so? Why is this information off limits?

7) total bull****! it cannot verbally or otherwise[/i] be communicated! that doesn't mean it cannot be explained physically! i'd really like to see you back up your statement with other than word games.

For clarification, when I say something is "explained" that means that knowledge has been communicated. So what doesn't equate for me is how something can be "physically explained", yet it cannot be communicated the same way. This isn't really relelvant to this discussion but I think we just use these words a bit differently. In the end I suspect there would be agreement on much of this.

8) what are you talking about? subconsciousness? that can be monitored aswell, and the list of things that are triggered in the subconsciouss grows bigger every week, as scientists discover new things.
the human brain was a tool for survival...
and why wouldn't you be consciouss? what are you on about?

I'm really wondering if we even mean the same thing when we say consciousness. Throughout this whole post you speak of consciousness as if it's a well known documented concept in science; And even the professed physicalists here don't do this. Everyone concedes that consciousness is a knowledge gap. I'll just throw that semantic issue out as a possible reason for our difficulties.

So I'm not talking about the brain, bird wings or anything else like that. I understand evolution pretty well. What I'm talking about is consciousness. I can't think of one reason why anything needs to be conscious. If you can, then go ahead and take a stab at presenting one.

 

[Les Sleeth]

the fact that these extremely simple machines register inputs, but aren't aware of it only proves something in your mind... not in mine... to me, it proves that we are unable to create a sufficiently sophisticated "brain" yet.

LOL. Isn't that what we've been saying . . . it can't be explained with physical processes? Hey, I didn't say it "proved" anything positive, stop putting words in my mouth please. The closest I've come to a positive statement about what is, is to say the failure to explain progressive organization or the subjective aspect of consciousness leaves the door open for "something more."

about "self awareness" - even in a simple machine... what if that was just part of the "program"? it didn't need much other than a few questions: "why am i here?" "where am i?" "what am i?" and the brain to try and calculate the possibilities. i mean, isn't that all we really have to go on

Right, "what if." That's all you or anyone has, so the question is still open isn't it. But you act like you "know" that is all it is, while I say it may be that or it may be something more. Now who is most open to having the truth be whatever why it turns out to be?

And if subjectivity is the result of complex programming, then we should be able to recreate that don't you think? So, I will wait for that event before making up my mind programming can create consciousness.

you aren't "aware" that you exist... you "think" you exist.

Do you believe because you can't stop your mind from thinking none of us can? According to your theory, if I stop thinking then I will lose awareness that I exist. But just an hour ago I sat with my mind perfectly still, absent of a single thought, and I was very aware of my existence. How do you explain that?

the fact that you attribute something more to association, is proof to me, that you don't know dick about how the human brain works, you just really like to think you do.

Why, that's brilliant! What a piece of logic that is. You conclude my openness to something more means I don't understand "dick" about how the brain works? I am up on my brain studies, if only you had one I could converse with we might have an intelligent exchange of ideas. Your vocabulary certainly suggests the class of education you've acquired, and your logic suggests you forgot to take your medication this morning.

edit: oh, and the fact that you once again attribute so much to our selfawareness also shows that you don't know how extremely dependant human behaviour is on our past experiences and learned "programs" (although it is not exactly a comforting thought for metaphysicists)...

The way you draw conclusions is giving me nightmares. By the way, being "physicalist" is a metaphysical position, so you are a metaphysicist yourself. Are you in discomfort?

 

[Fliption]

After posting that last post I've since read the post from Les and Balkans response. I'm saying this to save some space and time but Les' post summed this up pretty well. He said it better than I could. His even references the physicalists like Dennett who all recognize that this area requires attention.

So if the post from Les did nothing but solicit the response above from you Balkan, then don't bother responding to mine because I can't do any better than that. It'll save us some time and frustration.

 

[balkan]

Originally Posted by balkan
the fact that these extremely simple machines register inputs, but aren't aware of it only proves something in your mind... not in mine... to me, it proves that we are unable to create a sufficiently sophisticated "brain" yet.

response: "LOL. Isn't that what we've been saying . . . it can't be explained with physical processes? "

i like your logic aswell.. just how the hell did you derive that from the above sentence? you must be a magician.

i've stated it time and time again... I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm attacking the ridiculous "evidence" that you present...
and of course it's only bad when i generalize or put words in someones mouth... not when you do it... no...

i've said it before, les: I'm quite fond that you haven't definitively decided (although you've mentioned several times that you do have some beliefs, and even a theory, but who's counting?)... that's fine, but your socalled evidence still reaks of ignorance, subjectivity and flaws...

as for fliption:
why can't we "make" a brain some day? because you say so?

why can't we measure everything that's going on in peoples minds some day? because you say so?

and furthermore: if "something else" deals with consciousness and selfawareness, then why doesn't it activate until a certain age? and why isn't the human brain just a sensing device like your computer in the analogy is? why is it more than that, when your "something else" could be taking care of all the rest? why is it so big? and why can a lot of our emotions directly be monitored to stem from different neural centers and chemicals? is "something else" selective, and needs a lot of physical space to exist?

 

[Fliption]

as for fliption:
why can't we "make" a brain some day? because you say so?

I think it's pretty clear that I believe a computer/robot can, in principle, be given every single process that the brain has. My only claim is that once we do this, we will not know if it is conscious. If you claim that it has to be consicous then you are assuming that the physical process of brains produce consciousness and I have pointed out to you that no one can point to that process. Even physicalists admit this is not known. Only you seem to know this with such certainty. Which brings us to the next question.

why can't we measure everything that's going on in peoples minds some day? because you say so?

So it's conceivable to you that one day science will be able to know exactly what it is that I am tasting when I eat pizza? Since what pizza taste like is one of those things that cannot be verbally communicated, as you say, and can only be "felt", I'm not sure how this can ever happen. How exactly does the scientist taste what I taste? Can you explain?

and furthermore: if "something else" deals with consciousness and selfawareness, then why doesn't it activate until a certain age?

You aren't hearing me when I say that you cannot possibly know when consciousness begins. You cannot know whether I am even conscious at this moment. Besides, I thought you said that babies experienced pain without learning it and this is a conscious action so how is it that they aren't conscious until a later age?

and why isn't the human brain just a sensing device like your computer in the analogy is? why is it more than that, when your "something else" could be taking care of all the rest? why is it so big? and why can a lot of our emotions directly be monitored to stem from different neural centers and chemicals? is "something else" selective, and needs a lot of physical space to exist?

"Why is the brain so big?" I'm not sure I understand these questions. They seem to be a bit subjective and relative. When is a brain considered to be "big"?

 

[loseyourname]

This seems like a misuse of the word conscious. I don't see how "consciousness" as we speak of it here in the philosophy forum has any benefit to survival. If you can actually prove such a thing then you can prove that a being is conscious and eliminate the philosphical debate that's been going around on this for centuries.

To say that an animal has to be conscious to notice a particular aspect of its surroundings is somewhat like saying that a security camera is conscious of its surroundings because it turns a light on by detecting movement. So either this camera is actually conscious or animals don't need to have "awareness" to sense their surroundings and compute the appropriate response.

Name me a camera that can comprehend a potential suitor's personal tastes and tailor its personality to this suitor. I have no doubt that I am conscious. I also have no doubt that by being conscious of the way my behavior and personality affects another human being emotionally, I increase my chances of mating with this other human being. Quite often I am preoccupied with other things and become temporarily unaware of actions of mine that are detrimental to a human relationship. When this happens, the sex life often suffers.

I would imagine consciousness is helpful in making creative leaps of abstract thought as well. As proficiently as computers can solve math problems, have you ever heard of one developing a new theorem? You can't honestly tell me that you experience no advantage in performance (of any kind) when you are more fully aware of yourself and your surroundings.

I'm guessing you'll probably come back and say that it might very well be possible to design a computer program that could do anything just as proficiently as a human without the need for consciousness. Well, that is beside the point. I'm sure there is more than one way to solve a great deal of the problems that evolution has solved. That doesn't take away from the fact that being conscious helps us.

 

[balkan]

1) I think it's pretty clear that I believe a computer/robot can, in principle, be given every single process that the brain has. My only claim is that once we do this, we will not know if it is conscious. If you claim that it has to be consicous then you are assuming that the physical process of brains produce consciousness and I have pointed out to you that no one can point to that process. Even physicalists admit this is not known. Only you seem to know this with such certainty. Which brings us to the next question.

2) So it's conceivable to you that one day science will be able to know exactly what it is that I am tasting when I eat pizza? Since what pizza taste like is one of those things that cannot be verbally communicated, as you say, and can only be "felt", I'm not sure how this can ever happen. How exactly does the scientist taste what I taste? Can you explain?

3) You aren't hearing me when I say that you cannot possibly know when consciousness begins. You cannot know whether I am even conscious at this moment. Besides, I thought you said that babies experienced pain without learning it and this is a conscious action so how is it that they aren't conscious until a later age?

1) I've said many times I'm not certain... there might be something else, but there's just no indication of it whatsoever... I'm attacking the arguments against physicalism in order to get the objectivity and not subjectivity in first priority, I'm not defending it...

2) no, the experience cannot be induced into other people by communication alone. only experience.
you are trying to stack "explain" and "communicate" into one barrel. By monitoring your brain while you were eating, scientists could probably some day see what physical processes were activated. Then they could, by activating the same physical impulses in another humans brain, induce the impression of eating a pizza, even though the person isn't eating it.
that would be a way of "communicating" the experience. verbally doing it is impossible, but that doesn't mean we can't explain the process and everything that creates the impression.

3) being capable of responding to input isn't the same as being "aware". babys are only consciouss of their imidiate desires, and this is all they have in their minds. pain = unpleasent. hunger = unpleasent. and in this case, "unpleasent" is followed by an instinctive response, since they do not yet have the capability of rationally responding to it.
the selfawareness doesn't come into play until later, when they begin to need it.
are you saying that a cockroach is self aware? no. it is a "machine" that responds to impressions primarily by instinctive reactions and very few random reactions that are caused by quantum probability.

you can go on an on about how "if you were to build a machine that was only a sensory device, would it be consciouss?"...
no. it would be a sensory device. but the above analogy only proves something in your mind, because you are biased towards the mind not consisting of physical processes. in my mind it's just an argument that the brain is something more than a sensory device, which in no way indicates that it shouldn't be physical...
now, the fact that this makes sense to me, is that I'm biased towards a physical explanation. I'm thinking:
"the brain is more than a sensory device, it might be due to "something else" but there's absolutely no indication of it in the evidence, so i'll stick to physics for now"
but at least I'm no hipocrite, cause i admit to it. you call yourself "objective" even though your arguments only makes perfect sense if you are of the same conviction as you are.

i'll gladly say it again for the 100th time: I'm not attacking "something else" in any way. I'm attacking the people that call themself "objective" while stating one subjective argument after another, and I'm attacking the "arguments".

 

[Fliption]

Name me a camera that can comprehend a potential suitor's personal tastes and tailor its personality to this suitor.

I would imagine consciousness is helpful in making creative leaps of abstract thought as well.

Are you suggesting that consciousness allows you to gather information that your 5 senses cannot gather on their own? I still say that the way you are using consciousness you simply mean to be aware. A video camera is aware of the type of input it is designed to receive. The only reason it can't "comprehend a protential suitors taste" is because it has no brain to do such a thing. I see no reason, in pinciple, why all of the functions you speak of cannot happen in the dark. I suspect you are opening up a philosophical can of worms here.

 

[Fliption]

2) By monitoring your brain while you were eating, scientists could probably some day see what physical processes were activated. Then they could, by activating the same physical impulses in another humans brain, induce the impression of eating a pizza, even though the person isn't eating it.
that would be a way of "communicating" the experience.

But this gets you no where. This only launchs the physical processes of the "other" persons brain and makes them taste pizza the way they would normally taste it. This tells us nothing about what it feels like for the first person's brain to run through these physical processes.

We have no direct casual connection between the physical process and the resulting qualia. My blue may be your green. I don't see how we can ever resolve that fact. And no physicalist ever argues that we can.

3) being capable of responding to input isn't the same as being "aware". babys are only consciouss of their imidiate desires, and this is all they have in their minds.

are you saying that a cockroach is self aware? no. it is a "machine" that responds to impressions primarily by instinctive reactions and very few random reactions that are caused by quantum probability.

Who said anything about self awareness? This is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about qualia. We have agreed that babies have qualia. I can agree that self awareness may come later but that is not the phenomenon I'm talking about.

no. it would be a sensory device. but the above analogy only proves something in your mind, because you are biased towards the mind not consisting of physical processes. in my mind it's just an argument that the brain is something more than a sensory device, which in no way indicates that it shouldn't be physical...
now, the fact that this makes sense to me, is that I'm biased towards a physical explanation. I'm thinking:
"the brain is more than a sensory device, it might be due to "something else" but there's absolutely no indication of it in the evidence, so i'll stick to physics for now"
but at least I'm no hipocrite, cause i admit to it. you call yourself "objective" even though your arguments only makes perfect sense if you are of the same conviction as you are.

I think you need to learn the definition of 'objective'. Objective simply means to lack emotion and to make decisions based on objective facts. The first thing you have to realize is that I haven't stated that I believe in "something more". So what is it that I'm being subjective about? The only thing I have tried to do is to make you appreciate the topic a bit more than your very first response on this topic indicated. That response insults hundreds of prefessional, credible people who have particpated in this discussion for many years, on BOTH sides of the issue. You've been told on several occasions that you do not understand the terminology being used. I have pointed out several semantic issues(self awareness from a qualia discussion?). This alone could be the reason the things people say appear to be subjective and make no sense to you. But it seems you would rather just wing it based on 1 day's study and just assume everyone else is a hypocrite. If I ever saw you move a little and begin to see the issue, you might be surprised what I might actually argue in the end :surprise: .

So you admit that you are biased to the physical when I know there are very good arguments to the contrary. You may actually be correct in the end. Or you may not be. I am open to both possibilities.

 

[Fliption]

Here is a link to an article in Scientific American. It's a good summary of the topic and it doesn't get too technical. This article is written by David Chalmers but he references and includes an article from neurobiologists. Both parties even speak about a derivation of the "Mary" illustration. I think you'll find that one interesting and you may even enjoy the responses.

This isn't meant to convince anyone of any particular view, as there are many views on this. But it should show that a gap has been acknowledged, the topic is credible and alive & well and that a respectful dialogue among the various views is taking place.


http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/puzzle.pdf

 

[balkan]

But this gets you no where. This only launchs the physical processes of the "other" persons brain and makes them taste pizza the way they would normally taste it. This tells us nothing about what it feels like for the first person's brain to run through these physical processes.

We have no direct casual connection between the physical process and the resulting qualia. My blue may be your green. I don't see how we can ever resolve that fact. And no physicalist ever argues that we can.

Who said anything about self awareness? This is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about qualia. We have agreed that babies have qualia. I can agree that self awareness may come later but that is not the phenomenon I'm talking about.

now we're getting somewhere...
if every process going on at the time of eating was copied, the other guy would feel the same when eating the pizza, rigth? that means, that the experience is either:
1) totally physical, which would make it explainable and calculable.
2) physical, but "something else" is what's "feeling" the impression...

in case of 2, this "something else" would either be:
1) capable of being directly influenced by physical processes, and directly influence the physical processes back (otherwise, why can we measure the feeling of fear, love, pleasure, anger in the brain?). If this is true, then it would have to be something you could measure and explain.
2) totally disconnected from the physical world. it only experiences and cannot influence the physical world, which would make it unmeasurable. Unfortunately, this would make it totally unneccessary for the human system, which would go through those reactions on its own anyway.

so it's either 1) something that can be physically measured and influenced or 2) something that cannot do anything at all, which would rule out the ability to will even simple things such as movement.
what's it going to be?

and exactly what qualia does a baby have?

 

[Fliption]

now we're getting somewhere...
if every process going on at the time of eating was copied, the other guy would feel the same when eating the pizza, rigth?

Not necessarily. This is correct only if you assume consicousness is physical to begin with, which sort of defeats the purpose of even discussing this. We cannot know whether the other person will experience the same qualia. As I said above, you cannot ever know what "it feels like" to have the physical processes running through the first persons brain. You only experience what it feels like when those processes run through your brain.

1) (otherwise, why can we measure the feeling of fear, love, pleasure, anger in the brain?).

We cannot do this. We cannot measure the qualia associated with these things. We can only measure the chemical processes that we associate with that qualia. These are key distinctions to understanding the issue with consciousness.

and exactly what qualia does a baby have?

You said earlier that babies do have experiences. Pain was mentioned as one. In my mind, an experience without qualia is not possible by definition. Qualia is the way we experience.

 

[loseyourname]

Are you suggesting that consciousness allows you to gather information that your 5 senses cannot gather on their own? I still say that the way you are using consciousness you simply mean to be aware. A video camera is aware of the type of input it is designed to receive. The only reason it can't "comprehend a protential suitors taste" is because it has no brain to do such a thing. I see no reason, in pinciple, why all of the functions you speak of cannot happen in the dark. I suspect you are opening up a philosophical can of worms here.

All right. You're missing the point here. I see no reason, in principle, why you can't design a zombie with an extremely advanced computer for a brain that could perform every function a human performs. So what? I'm sure we could also, in principle, design an organism that is identical to a human in every respect except that it uses echolocation instead of sight. This doesn't take away from the survival value of human sight.

Think about what we use our own consciousness to do, for the most part. It gives us a mechanism by which we can scan and focus on certain thoughts, emotions, memories, sensory inputs, and utilize them as they are needed. Now in principle, all of these functions could be performed just as well, perhaps better, without us being conscious of it. That doesn't matter. This is the mechanism we were given, and it does work. You cannot second-guess evolution.

 

[Fliption]

Now in principle, all of these functions could be performed just as well, perhaps better, without us being conscious of it.

Thank you.

I think I should point out that I realize some definitions of consciousness may include some useful functions. This complex definition is why Chalmers felt it useful to split things into easy and hard problems. So to be clear, the feature I'm referring to is illustrated by claiming it is the dfference between a conscious human and a non-conscious robot that is programmed to do the exact same physical processes. That difference is that the human "knows" he is doing it. The robot is performing every function just as the human does but "knows" nothing. Why is "knowing" of any value? So when you keep saying that this is the way that evolution chose to do it, you're assuming that it is doing something useful.

You may claim that this knowing process is what influences some behavior therefore it influences some of the physical processes themselves but I can see this same "reasoning" process going on in the robot. The only difference is that it doesn't know it's doing it.

 

[Philocrat]

Some Useful Source Materials for the understanding of Consciousness

Functionalist Account of Consciousness

1) [PLAIN[/URL] ][URL]http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Functionalism%2(philosophy%20of%20mind)[/URL] [/URL] (The Dictionary Introduction to Functionalism and the immediately related issues…..probably the best point or place to start.)

2) http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_functionalism_introduction.htm (A brief Introduction and the Main Thesis on).

3) http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/function.htm (The Main definition and the consequence of it ……..that is, what functionalism means and what it is attempting to achieve and the developmental consequence of it. One of such consequences is that, functionalism renders consciousness independent of its means of production. It is not only the human brains alone that may be capable of producing consciousness, computers and other intelligent devices are now believed to be potential candidates. And if you took upon route of the improving the functionality of the productive mechanism, you may end up with multiple levels of consciousness that get more and more sophisticate or smarter and smarter. But is such improvement possible even at the physical underlying level?)

4) [URL]http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/functionalism.php[/URL] (A more detailed assessment of Functionalism, looking more closely at the relation between Input, function and output as a gap-bridging for the problematic behaviourist thesis)

5) http://ww2.coastal.edu/rsmith/Phil309/309-10%20Functionalism%20I.doc (A schematic account aided by illustrative diagram, and followed by several classifications and counter-arguments.)

6) [url]http://www.def-logic.com/articles/silby014.html[/url] (The problem with Qualia - a schematic assessment of the problems faced by the functionalist / Physiclist theory of consciousness with regards to qualia. A closer look at the arguments for and against Functionalism and Phsyicalism.)


[U][B]The Identity Theory Account of Consciousness[/B][/U]

(1) http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_identity_what.htm (Introduction and the main thesis)

(2) [url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity[/url] (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy gives a more formal and detailed definitions and classification of the key arguments and counter-arguments for and against Identity Theorist account of consciousness.)

(3) [url]http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/guttnpln.htm[/url] (A formal approach and classification of the main arguments and counter-arguments).

(4) http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_identity_dualism.htm (Identity Theory and Dualism……Identity theory taken not only as simpler and less-complicated than dualism but, by all means, also as a solution to dualism)

(5) http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_identity_technology.htm (Modern Technology and Identity Theory…….many years of researches in neuroscience and cognitive science has lead to clear identification many areas of the brains being linked to different brain states and different types of the human behaviour.)


[U][B]Representationalist Account of Consciousness[/B][/U]

1) http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/Qualia_globus5.html (Argument for and Against the claim that both the functional brain states and qualia are representational).

2) http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/Data/Objects/jram_cogdev_1/node24.html (The classification of mental states and the distinction between ‘Propositional Attitudes and ‘Qualia’)

3) [url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-intentionality[/url] (Detailed definition and classification by Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy…..putting all the arguments and counter-arguments in proper contexts.)

4) [URL]http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v4/psyche-4-03-carruthers.html[/URL] (Detailed assessment and Classification of Representationalist accounts of consciousness)

5) http://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/what_phen_conc_is_like.pdf (Distinction between Intentionalism and Phnenomenism and some arguments for and against representationalism.)


[U][B]The Dualist Account of Consciousness[/B][/U]

1) http://www.str.org/free/studies/natural.htm (Argument for and against the existence of the immaterial substance or non-physical aspect of consciousness. The document also looks at the materialists’ denials of the existence of the ‘universals’, and the fight to restore the Christian belief and acceptance of ‘immaterialism’)

2) http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/searle-final.pdf (Biological Naturalism - John Seale thinks that his notion of this term is confused with Property Daulism. In this paper, he not only makes a clear distinction between the two, but also he distances himself from property dualism.)

3) [URL][/URL] (The claim that certain aspect of the human consciousness extend beyond explainable physical realms is not limited to philosophical refutation alone. In fact, eminent mathematicians and physicists also provide a more sophisticated refutation using a combination of mathematical logic and scientific arguments. Roger Penrose is one such candidate. In his book ‘The Emperor’s New Mind’, he launched a relentless attack on the claim that AI can replicate consciousness in purely functionalist terms thereby undermining the dualist account of consciousness. This links provides readers’ reviews of the book and gives an introductory but clear insight into the content of the book. WARNING: the opening top page of this links contains invitation to buy the book. Don’t blame me if you do. The readers’ reviews are on the bottom part of the page – just scroll down the page.)


[U][B]Online Papers and Interviews On Consciousness[/B][/U]

1) [URL]http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online2.html[/URL] (A comprehensive compilation of Online Papers on Consciousness by David Palmer……a one-man crusade to keep philosophy alive!)

2) [url]http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html[/url] (A list of online papers on consciousness in the Journal of Consciousness Studies)

3) http://www.stanford.edu/group/dualist/vol4/pdfs/searle.pdf (Interviews of some philosophers and their opinionated responses to major questions about consciousness….a dualist perspective)

4) http://www.stanford.edu/group/dualist/vol9/pdfs/tamir.pdf (The problem of Freewill and Consciousness is looked at in this paper)

5) [URL]http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/biological-naturalism.php[/URL] (Biological Naturalisation of Consciousness distinguished from the computationalist account such as functionalism above.)

[U][B]The Multi-dsiciplinary Projects on Consciousness?[/B][/U]

1) http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Holland_Introduction.pdf (Will machines possesses or have consciousness? This link reports a multi-disciplinary conference that lead to a unanimous answering of yes to this question)

2) [url]http://noosphere.princeton.edu[/url] (Global Consciousness – a project investigating the ‘Extended nature of Consciousness’, that is, the claim that we may have direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. This project tends to suggest that there may be a tension between our individual conscious attention to our private daily concerns and another aspect of our consciousness, which outwardly extends to be connected to a ‘global consciousness’. The website also contains projects data globally collected in over 52 data collection centres and processed and derived results to date

 

[loseyourname]

You still seem to be missing the point, Fliption. Even if the advantages of being conscious could be attained through some other means, there is still an advantage in being conscious. Show me an unconscious human that has as good a chance of surviving and reproducing as a conscious human.

 

[loseyourname]

Philocrat - You should probably move those links to the philosophy napster thread in General Philosophy.

 

[Philocrat]

Philocrat - You should probably move those links to the philosophy napster thread in General Philosophy.

Are the links too elementry? I just thought they might be useful for the faint-hearted like myself who knows very little about philosophy? Should I really move them?

 

[Philocrat]

By the way, I am following the debate very religiously and I think I like what u guys are doing so far. But don't blame me if I only occasionally merely watch.

 

[balkan]

Thank you.

I think I should point out that I realize some definitions of consciousness may include some useful functions. This complex definition is why Chalmers felt it useful to split things into easy and hard problems. So to be clear, the feature I'm referring to is illustrated by claiming it is the dfference between a conscious human and a non-conscious robot that is programmed to do the exact same physical processes. That difference is that the human "knows" he is doing it. The robot is performing every function just as the human does but "knows" nothing. Why is "knowing" of any value? So when you keep saying that this is the way that evolution chose to do it, you're assuming that it is doing something useful.

You may claim that this knowing process is what influences some behavior therefore it influences some of the physical processes themselves but I can see this same "reasoning" process going on in the robot. The only difference is that it doesn't know it's doing it.

it is valuable because it enable us to step out of the box and adapt to our environment... humans are the most ingenious of all creatures, since they no longer require evolution in order to do that...
how can that not be usefull? of course it isn't neccessary just like a dog could just as well be a bacteria and survive, but the "dog concept" works, and so does the "human concept".
noone is assuming that "evolution is doing something usefull" it's doing just as much damage as good. look around you and observe how many geniouses and really gifted people there are, and how many there are below the average...
if evolution had its way, those below the average would have a small chance of surviving, but once again, we don't really need evolution anymore in order to survive... that's what our consciousness is good for...
and pay notice, that we invented the ideas of taking care of the lesser privilidged, so you really can't make the robot analogy there once again without looking desperate or foolish...

 

[Fliption]

You still seem to be missing the point, Fliption. Even if the advantages of being conscious could be attained through some other means, there is still an advantage in being conscious. Show me an unconscious human that has as good a chance of surviving and reproducing as a conscious human.

But what I have been saying is that there are no advantages of being conscious so this point doesn't mean much to me.

 

[Fliption]

it is valuable because it enable us to step out of the box and adapt to our environment... humans are the most ingenious of all creatures, since they no longer require evolution in order to do that...

I can't really effectively discuss these points with you because it has become obvious that you don't have the same understanding of the concepts that I am referring to. The statement above is another indicator that we aren't talking about the same things.

Everything that you consider to be useful behaviour of humans is derived from physical processes in the brain. None of those physical processes can be attributed to "consciousness" or the part that allows a conscious being to "know" that they are performing physical processes.

if evolution had its way, those below the average would have a small chance of surviving, but once again, we don't really need evolution anymore in order to survive... that's what our consciousness is good for...
and pay notice, that we invented the ideas of taking care of the lesser privilidged, so you really can't make the robot analogy there once again without looking desperate or foolish...

This assumes that evolution values only those that can meet their "physical" needs. This is largely a semantic issue but I think that people assisting those less fortunate is evolution at work as well. Perhaps we could argue that the value has shifted to put more weight on preservation of the "variety of life" as opposed to just the ones that can hunt the best.

But consciousness has nothing to do with these changes. It is largely the development of a brain that can reason. A robot can do this too.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But what I have been saying is that there are no advantages of being conscious so this point doesn't mean much to me.

Not everyone grasps that there is something which most defines consciousness (self-awareness), and which is more fundamental than mentality (or emotions).

You are correct in saying we don't need the self-aware aspect of consciousness to survive. We could be smart zombies whose programming just gets smarter (say, the way a computer does) as we adapt to the environment. So there really is no explanation for why it exists. If we didn't have the self-aware aspect of consciousnes, we wouldn't have have free will; and if we didn't have free will, we wouldn't be destroying the environment and each other. So I'd say we might be more likely to survive as zombies.

One of my pet theories is that certain people don't recognize the significance of the self-aware aspect of consciousness because they aren't that self-aware. If someone spends most of their time involved in cogitating, then they might come to see themselves as the computing aspect of consciousness and never really get to know that part of themselves that is aware of all it does. That's why Dennett, IMO, thinks consciousness is "busy-ness" of the mind -- because that's all he pays attention to.

 

[loseyourname]

But what I have been saying is that there are no advantages of being conscious so this point doesn't mean much to me.

There are no advantages over this hypothetical zombie robot human, but there are huge advantages over an actual unconscious human. This is what you seem to be ignoring.

 

[yesicanread]

Say these zombies were colinear in perimeter perception. This was the key to their harmony, and them being zombies.

They couldn't conspire. Could they ?

 

[balkan]

1) Everything that you consider to be useful behaviour of humans is derived from physical processes in the brain. None of those physical processes can be attributed to "consciousness" or the part that allows a conscious being to "know" that they are performing physical processes.

2) This assumes that evolution values only those that can meet their "physical" needs. This is largely a semantic issue but I think that people assisting those less fortunate is evolution at work as well. Perhaps we could argue that the value has shifted to put more weight on preservation of the "variety of life" as opposed to just the ones that can hunt the best.

3) But consciousness has nothing to do with these changes. It is largely the development of a brain that can reason. A robot can do this too.

1) i highly disagree. the ability to be conscious of what you are doing is quite essential to making innovations that would enable you to adabt to present and future environment... a brain that only responded and reasoned couldn't do that... you don't "react" a bow or clothes due to impulses... an idea like that comes from being aware of what you need and how you feel, and how you would feel if you took clothes on.

2) you don't seem to understand what evolution does... evolution is random, taking care of "the variety of life" is a choise.. so it can't be evolution, it's human.

3) according to whom? you? a merely reasoning brain would surely let the weak ones die. they're an expense and quite unneccessary for the human race to survive... on the other hand, if you have empathy and understand that they have feelings and lives too, then you wouldn't... but that has got nothing to do with reason.

 

[Rader]

2) you don't seem to understand what evolution does... evolution is random, taking care of "the variety of life" is a choise.. so it can't be evolution, it's human.

While Balkans defending, is now swaying to ontological terms, of the way the world out to be, self interest, ethics and religion.

But what I have been saying is that there are no advantages of being conscious so this point doesn't mean much to me..

It seems that Fliption is defending, this position of why we should even be conscious, on a epistemological terms of the what is of the world, properties relations and change.

Please go on.

 

[Fliption]

There are no advantages over this hypothetical zombie robot human, but there are huge advantages over an actual unconscious human. This is what you seem to be ignoring.

Please tell me what these advantages over the hypothetical robot are and I won't ignore them. I honestly don't know of any.

 

[balkan]

Please tell me what these advantages over the hypothetical robot are and I won't ignore them. I honestly don't know of any.

well... like I've personally said many times:
consciousness isn't a necessity... like wings aren't necessary for a bird either, it didn't have to take that evolutionary step (it didn't, evolution did), it could have survived in other shapes...
but it's working... the bird survived, and so did we... it doesn't matter whether or not it is necessary. our appendix isn't necessary either. that doesn't mean (or even indicate) that it wasn't at some point an advantage or that "something else" deals with our our appendix, now does it?

 

[Fliption]

1) i highly disagree. the ability to be conscious of what you are doing is quite essential to making innovations that would enable you to adabt to present and future environment... a brain that only responded and reasoned couldn't do that... you don't "react" a bow or clothes due to impulses... an idea like that comes from being aware of what you need and how you feel, and how you would feel if you took clothes on.

Again, everything you speak of can be attributed to a physical process in the brain. You are aware of your emotional and reasoning processes. That doesn't mean they would function differently if you were not aware of them.

2) you don't seem to understand what evolution does... evolution is random, taking care of "the variety of life" is a choise.. so it can't be evolution, it's human.

This is just a minor semantic point but humans are part of evolution to. I don't understand it when people suddenly think that humans can somehow override the evolutive process. Because as soon as we override it, then overriding it becomes simply a part of evolution.

3) according to whom? you? a merely reasoning brain would surely let the weak ones die. they're an expense and quite unneccessary for the human race to survive... on the other hand, if you have empathy and understand that they have feelings and lives too, then you wouldn't... but that has got nothing to do with reason.

The post from Les above said that people are confusing feelings/emotions with consciousness. Every single emotion that you have is the result of a physical process in the brain. The only difference between a conscious person and a non-conscious one is that the conscious person "knows" that they are feeling it and acting on it. None of the actions would be impacted by this fact.

I'm really surprised that there are people arguing this point when a major view of philosophy called Idealism/Solipsism is dependent on the fact that we cannot ever know whether anyone is conscious other than ourselves. That's why I keep asking for examples because I think I can make a lot of money ending Solipsism once and for all.

 

[Fliption]

well... like I've personally said many times:
consciousness isn't a necessity... like wings aren't necessary for a bird either, it didn't have to take that evolutionary step (it didn't, evolution did), it could have survived in other shapes...
but it's working... the bird survived, and so did we... it doesn't matter whether or not it is necessary. our appendix isn't necessary either. that doesn't mean (or even indicate) that it wasn't at some point an advantage or that "something else" deals with our our appendix, now does it?

Fine. Tell me what it "could" have been useful for. It's still the same exercise. Let's end solipsism once and for all.

 

[balkan]

usefull for:

innovation, building a more advanced social structure than any other animal on the planet...
the ability to express ourself in more depth than any other animal, and the ability to reason oneself out of an instinctive reaction... not usefull at all
yes, a robot could do that... because we would have programmed it.

you tell me why consciousness is indicative of "something else" because it isn't necessary, if it is not the same case with the appendix...

 

[balkan]

The post from Les above said that people are confusing feelings/emotions with consciousness. Every single emotion that you have is the result of a physical process in the brain. The only difference between a conscious person and a non-conscious one is that the conscious person "knows" that they are feeling it and acting on it. None of the actions would be impacted by this fact.

I'm really surprised that there are people arguing this point when a major view of philosophy called Idealism/Solipsism is dependent on the fact that we cannot ever know whether anyone is conscious other than ourselves. That's why I keep asking for examples because I think I can make a lot of money ending Solipsism once and for all.

i'm not confusing anything... what comes with this knowledge is the ability to know you're having these feelings, and not act on them... the ability to analyze and take advantage of those feelings and thoughts...
that is tremendously helpfull in a society.

 

[Fliption]

innovation, building a more advanced social structure than any other animal on the planet...
the ability to express ourself in more depth than any other animal, and the ability to reason oneself out of an instinctive reaction... not usefull at all
yes, a robot could do that... because we would have programmed it.

All these things are the result of brain processes. None of which are attributed to consciousness.

you tell me why consciousness is indicative of "something else" because it isn't necessary, if it is not the same case with the appendix...

I'm saying it has no evolutive purpose and never has had one. Unlike the appendix.

 

[Fliption]

i'm not confusing anything... what comes with this knowledge is the ability to know you're having these feelings, and not act on them... the ability to analyze and take advantage of those feelings and thoughts...
that is tremendously helpfull in a society.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think you quite see where I'm drawing the semantic lines yet. One more time...everything you have mentioned above, analyzing feelings and acting upon it are all brain processes. None of these processes are attributed to consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm saying it has no evolutive purpose and never has had one. Unlike the appendix.

The thing is, even if the self-aware aspect can be shown to be attractive to natural selection, we are still left with the question of how a nervous system can produce it. What materials did nature have to work with according to physicalist theory? We have nerves for conduction of information and interconnectivity, we have complexity, and we have electro-chemical energy. From those materials we can see how an environmentally sensitive system could have been established in biology, and given what we know today about computers, we also can see how computing ability and memory might develop. So sensitivity, computing ability, and memory are covered.

Those most certain consciousness is purely neurological are encouraged by developments in AI. Some believe when the right algorithms are combined with sensitivity, computing ability and memory, it will eventually result in the self-aware aspect of consciousness. Actually, they think complexity is the key, and guess what? They can’t get a computer to stop acting like a computer. If the proper level of complexity is what’s needed, then shouldn’t the best AI programs already be showing some sort of self awareness? Even snails seem to have the self-aware aspect (as primitive as it is) because one can observe them asserting their will. Surely AI is currently able to produce a program as complex as snail awareness, and therefore demonstrate a computer with will. Put it on wheels, give it a system for initiating self-propulsion, and then show us a willful computer equaling, say, the willfulness of a snail. That is a very simple test of the physicalist theory of consciousness.

So far, it ain’t happening primarily because of one wrench stuck in the works: repetitiveness. It’s not the presence of repetitiveness that’s the problem (yes, living and conscious processes are full of repetitiveness); the problem is the inability of non-living physical operations to escape repetitiveness, which the physical processes associated with life, and functions associated with consciousness both do with ease (e.g., as manifested respectively in evolution and will). That computer on wheels above, for instance, might move around, but it will only “repeat” its programming, and will never escape it (and random variation programmed in isn’t “will”).

Thus physicalist theories for origin of life and consciousness share a common nemesis (mechanistic repetitiveness). So at least one physicalist skeptic asks for a small but very specific bit of evidence before expressing faith in physicalism. When asked for such evidence, all we hear is what physicalness can do, while the evidence being requested is what matter CAN’T be shown to do. The evidence isn’t to show that matter can self-organize itself for a few steps or be coaxed (by conscious chemists) to combine into highly complex molecules. The test isn’t to show that a computer can “think.” The two tests are: 1) demonstrate the potential of chemistry to progressively self-organize on its own (no, not into life, just show the ability to perpetually organize in harmony with the environment), and 2) demonstrate that any sort of physical construction can exhibit will. Very modest requests if you ask me.

 

[Fliption]

After reading the strength of my last post, I should probably clarify a bit. I'm not reallly saying that consciousness has no purpose. I suspect it does play a role in the scheme of things. What I'm saying is that in a strictly physical explanation of things, consciousness would have no known purpose or usefulness. And we can never know whatever usefulness it may truly have under such assumptions because there are so many philosophical issues associated with consicousness in a physical world. This is why I've suggested that anyone who claims that consciousness has definite advantages in evolution are making statements that would solve some of the oldest philosophical issues on this topic.

 

[loseyourname]

But what I have been saying is that there are no advantages of being conscious so this point doesn't mean much to me.

Fliption, you can't be serious. What are you capable of accomplishing, as a human, when you are unconscious? How long do you think you would last as a sleepwalker?