Can Subjective Experience Truly Address the Other Minds Problem?

[apeiron]

Since you don't seem to understand the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, this is obviously going to be problematic for you.

But do you in turn not see how it is classic abductive reasoning to begin with an evolutionary "best guess" at the answer?

Before you can arrive at the crisply dichotomised interplay of deduction and induction (from global to local, and local to global), you must start with an abductive jump out of vagueness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

 

[JoeDawg]

But isn't this essentially just a narrow scope of solipsism?

I am not making an argument 'for solipsism', solipsism is just the place, with the fewest assumptions, where we start from.

As such, solipsism is very basic to any discussion of epistemology. The 'other minds problem' revolves around 'what we can know', so it is primarily an epistemological problem.

Solipsism is rather trivial to refute, in terms of any sort of ontological discussion.
Ontological assumptions can lead us to error, so there is some value in questioning ontological assumptions, but using an ontological assumption to 'refute' an epistemological problem, is an error, since what we know depends on our ablility to know. It is the cart before the horse.

If that were the case, we might as well close down philosophy forums and physics forums in general, because none of these discussion would be serving any purpose.

That would be nihilsm.

My personal favorite justification for the assumption of mindfulness in others is empirical evidence.

But you've already stacked the deck. You're not really questioning if you can know that other minds exist, you're just saying you observe 'people exist, and they appear similar to me, so if I have a mind, then they probably do too'. This question is:

Does entity x, have attribute y?
I have attribute y, entity x is like me, therefore entity x has attribute y.
Induction.

When you move from the 'known' to the 'unknown', you are using induction. So moving from my mind to 'other minds' is reasoning inductively. (You run into the problem of induction... but that's a different problem.) This is one way to argue that other minds exist.

The question about other minds can be as simple as that, but there is also MORE to it than that. The deeper question is: Can we know other minds exist? And how can we know?

If you look at it from a scientific point of view, you assume inductive reasoning is valid, and that the world indicated by your mind is at least roughly similar to what 'exists', then it is a trival ontological question. And if that was all Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume...etc.. were talking and writing about... then they were morons, not worth anyones time.

The scientific point of view, assumes induction is valid, and that external objects exist. These assumptions may help scientists get their work done, but its essentially ignoring the problem, not addressing it.

This scientific point of view, however, was the minority view, for most of history. When the ancient greeks talked about knowing, they didn't mean observation, they meant deductive logic. So do we know other minds exist because of observation? Or because we can deduce it? These are two opposing views on knowledge, and both have their problems.

Deductive logic gives you a valid conclusion, if the premises are valid.
Inductive logic has observed (valid) premises, but the conclusion may not be valid.

Can we know other minds exist? And how can we know?

Success in a broad spectrum of social engagements requires a "theory of mind".

Maybe, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism" .

Constructivism requires that other people have minds (well, at the least scientists) in order to construct their theories in the first place.

Unless everyone but you, is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_zombie"

 

[JoeDawg]

Pain gives you a different perspective - it clears irrelevant issues.

How is pain different from 'red'?

 

[JoeDawg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

From the article:

"Unlike deduction and in some sense induction, abduction can produce results that are incorrect within its formal system. Hence the conclusions of abduction can only be made valid by separately checking them with a different method, either by deduction or exhaustive induction."

Abduction can be useful, but I don't think I'm overstating it when I say it is generally considered inferior, and in some cases its even considered a fallacy.

Inference to the best explanation, depends to a very large extent on the person making the inference.

 

[apeiron]

Abduction can be useful, but I don't think I'm overstating it when I say it is generally considered inferior, and in some cases its even a considered a fallacy.

No, Peirce's point was that it is the essential starting point. It is how you get started in the game.

You seem to be taking the position that deduction is superior because it is a top-down method that produces necessary truth. And yet the premises have to come from somewhere. They begin as guesses and are build up via induction normally. So they are just as much "the unknowable", just as much a belief, in the end.

Deduction is where you start with global general beliefs and then derive local particular instances. Induction is where you start with local particular instances and derive global general beliefs. It is a mutal process where each refines the other, if done properly.

In the context of this discussion, it is clear that this is a naturally inductive issue as we start at the local particular instance end of things - a confidence that we are at least one example of a conscious mind. We then generalise this instance to a global rule - things that behave and respond to us in the way we would to them are also likely conscious.

That is the easy way to solve the OP - as much as it can be definitely solved.

If we were coming the other direction, we would have to be able to frame some crisp general theory of consciousness which says, for example, any system arranged with these essential set of functions will be conscious. From such a theory, we could derive conclusions about whether rocks are conscious, or Planckton.

This would be an even better way of solving the OP - it would mean we had a working theory of consciousness.

So sure, deduction of particulars from generals is great. But what do you think it would actually look like in this case? Apart from a general theory of mind? Developed via abduction and inference.

The essence of the OP is about the impossibility of hopping across from my own particular local instance (my mind, of which I can be as certain about as anything) to check the existence of someone else's mind - a second local instance. Whatever, you would call that process, it really has nothing to do with deductive reasoning.

It is to do with abduction though. We start out (on partial information) with the reasonable seeming belief we exist in a world of minds. If challenged by a philosopher how we can know this, well, induction can strengthen our belief. And if we have studied enough neurology and systems science to talk about theories of mind, then we could also make deductive arguments from general principles.

A philosopher - of the kind that makes a living from creating doubt as a refuge from pragmatics - can always say "you never really know anything - except that you yourself exist". And so zombies start get thrown around as ways to keep the doubt going.

A little bit of this is a good antidote against scientific over-confidence. But in the end, zombie arguments get you nowhere interesting. Even their proponents don't live their lives as if they were dealing with a world of zombies. And they don't come up with useful theories of consciousness.

 

[JoeDawg]

No, Peirce's point was that it is the essential starting point. It is how you get started in the game.

We all know anything Peirce wrote on a napkin, is gospel to you, some of us are more critical.

Abductive reasoning is 'guessing', so yeah, its a starting point, that doesn't mean guessing is the place you want to start... when you have a choice.

 

[apeiron]

We all know anything Peirce wrote on a napkin, is gospel to you, some of us are more critical.

Abductive reasoning is 'guessing', so yeah, its a starting point, that doesn't mean guessing is the place you want to start... when you have a choice.

Ducking the argument with ad hominens as usual? After your attempt at selective quoting from wiki failed?

Peirce certainly happens to be a landmark figure in recent philosophy and logic. But his influence has only started to be really felt over the past 20 years as his voluminous writings have come to light and his ideas digested.

One could only wish it was all written on a napkin! However I certainly am not an uncritical believer in Peirce. That is a ridiculous statement.

I know that you will not focus on any real aspect of the argument, but the point here is that abduction is the only place thought can start. There is no choice. Peirce is a cite for the reasons why. If you want to disagree, you would have to show your workings out. Or provide some respectable counter-cite that at least explains your reasons for you.

I get the feeling the concept of abduction is new to you. So it may take some time before you reply with something else than rhetorical flourishes.

 

[JoeDawg]

Ducking the argument with ad hominens as usual?

That was an insult, not an ad hominem.

After your attempt at selective quoting from wiki failed?

Since all you bothered to do was reference an entire wiki page... without much context... I feel its entirely appropriate to read the page and quote the parts which contradict your claims. It shows you probably didn't read it yourself.

 

[apeiron]

That was an insult, not an ad hominem.

Anything is better than a reasoned, referenced, reply I suppose.

Since all you bothered to do was reference an entire wiki page... without much context... I feel its entirely appropriate to read the page and quote the parts which contradict your claims. It shows you probably didn't read it yourself.

I thought the wiki page was pretty good as an introduction for a neophyte to the concept. I certainly don't take it as "gospel" though. It is just a decent independent starting point.

You failed to respond to the central idea, so I don't see why you expect me to respond to a peripheral point.

But it seems that you at least now agree that abduction is a philosophical concept to add to induction and deduction. And if this was the nature of Conrad's approach, than you were rather hasty with your earlier comments.

 

[JoeDawg]

You failed to respond to the central idea

Because I don't feel its relevant to the discussion... you know, the one about 'other minds'... remember?

 

[Pythagorean]

But you've already stacked the deck. You're not really questioning if you can know that other minds exist, you're just saying you observe 'people exist, and they appear similar to me, so if I have a mind, then they probably do too'. This question is:

Does entity x, have attribute y?
I have attribute y, entity x is like me, therefore entity x has attribute y.
Induction.

It's more than just that they're similar, we can also test how much they're like us dynamically and we can have discussions about our feelings and state of mind with them. We can also make predictions about how it should behave if it has a mind, and test them.

The question about other minds can be as simple as that, but there is also MORE to it than that. The deeper question is: Can we know other minds exist? And how can we know?

Which is the question I was answering:

An empiricist philosophy would inevitably says we can approximately know (how? through empirical research), while constructivism requires minds as it's basis.

As a physicalist, I find zombies particularly silly. Of course the arguments are empirical.

The scientific point of view, assumes induction is valid, and that external objects exist. These assumptions may help scientists get their work done, but its essentially ignoring the problem, not addressing it.

That's what you believe, you've made that point repeatedly. You don't seem to offer a productive alternative to science. I believe science helps humanity perpetually approach a better picture of reality (albeit a skewed one), and doing it through the only route available.

Anything that doesn't have a physical interaction isn't observable by us. The solutions to such a scheme would be infinite and ultimately functionally meaningless.

This scientific point of view, however, was the minority view, for most of history. When the ancient greeks talked about knowing, they didn't mean observation, they meant deductive logic. So do we know other minds exist because of observation? Or because we can deduce it? These are two opposing views on knowledge, and both have their problems.

The obvious answer is that a complete picture requires both. Observations are meaningless without deduction, and deduction would not occur without observation.

I suppose I'm a constructivist as much as an empiricist. Science studies small truths (observations). Scientists (and politicians, and philosophers) puts them together to make big conclusions. Not always correct. The correctedness can be measured though, by how many new observations can be predicted with the big conclusion (holistic theories).

Can we know other minds exist? And how can we know?

Yes, in a limited way. I'm personally satisfied with how empiricism and constructivism combine to give us a mostly accurate world picture. At the onset, the world picture was accurate enough for survival, but our curiosity has pushed us beyond this sufficiency: we are geniunely interested in approaching the truth.

But the universe is dynamic. The world is not steady state: we have bifurcations, qualitative changes in the nature of a system. There are stable states that the system is more likely to be in, limit cycles systems get trapped in, but the possibilities are inevitably endless. Knowing anything with complete certainty is impossible.

 

[apeiron]

Because I don't feel its relevant to the discussion... you know, the one about 'other minds'... remember?

I certainly remember you claiming that the central problem was that science takes the inductive route and philosophy the deductive. And never the twain could meet. So it seemed relevant that abduction is prior to either, and also provides the frame in which the two interact.

You have yet to respond to my concrete question of what a deductive story on other minds would look like. I sketched mine. I can only conclude you have no quarrel with it.

As usual, you are responding with insults and diversions rather than content.

 

[JoeDawg]

It's more than just that they're similar, we can also test how much they're like us dynamically and we can have discussions about our feelings and state of mind with them. We can also make predictions about how it should behave if it has a mind, and test them.

Inductive reasoning is powerful, I agree, but understanding it, means understanding both its strengths and weaknesses.

An empiricist philosophy would inevitably says we can approximately know (how? through empirical research), while constructivism requires minds as it's basis.

Exactly, there are different ways of knowing. When it comes to 'other minds' however, our empirical knowledge is very limited... and limiting. That doesn't mean we throw science out...

As a physicalist, I find zombies particularly silly. Of course the arguments are empirical.

Zombies are a thought experiment, similar to how solipsism is used within epistemology. Its designed to weed out assumptions, not predict a zombie apocalypse.

You don't seem to offer a productive alternative to science.

That is because I'm not advocating a philosophy. I'm simply trying to explain where some serious philosophical problems exist...
But since you mentioned it... the obvious alternative to 'empirical science' is 'pure math'. Yes, science uses math, so people tend to conflate them, but they are very different ways of thinking. And pulling them apart is part of what philosophy does.

I believe science helps humanity perpetually approach a better picture of reality

... yes.

Anything that doesn't have a physical interaction isn't observable by us.

Tautology

The obvious answer is that a complete picture requires both. Observations are meaningless without deduction, and deduction would not occur without observation.

Sometimes I wish the word 'obvious' was banned from this forum.

Gaining meaning from observation, requires induction, not deduction.
Deduction creates meaning from examining the implications of defined premises. Those premises *might* correspond to observables... or they could be entirely abstract and/or counterfactual.

I suppose I'm a constructivist as much as an empiricist. Science studies small truths (observations). Scientists (and politicians, and philosophers) puts them together to make big conclusions. Not always correct. The correctedness can be measured though, by how many new observations can be predicted with the big conclusion (holistic theories).

I think science is mostly useless when it comes to something like 'ethics'. But that doesn't mean I'd trust an ethicist to fix my car... or most mechanics to do it for a fair price, either.

Yes, in a limited way.

This is key.

Knowing anything with complete certainty is impossible.

Which goes to the heart of the question... what it means to know something. When people say they know something, they often mean very different things.

 

[Pythagorean]

Zombies are a thought experiment, similar to how solipsism is used within epistemology. Its designed to weed out assumptions, not predict a zombie apocalypse.

I realize this. I don't think they're silly because of the latest hollywood zombie fad. I think they're silly because they're a contradiction. If you're built exactly like a human physically, you can't really escape having a mind and consciousness. They are rooted in material (brain matter, at least, but possibly the whole ensemble of cells in a life form).

But since you mentioned it... the obvious alternative to 'empirical science' is 'pure math'. Yes, science uses math, so people tend to conflate them, but they are very different ways of thinking. And pulling them apart is part of what philosophy does.

You can't describe anything with pure math though. This is where constructivism is required to understand something. We have to have a qualitative understanding of reality for us to have knowledge of it, and this requires some imagination. We have to give meaning to the math with our imagination.

Gaining meaning from observation, requires induction, not deduction.
Deduction creates meaning from examining the implications of defined premises. Those premises *might* correspond to observables... or they could be entirely abstract and/or counterfactual.

Yes, but my point is that induction and deduction are coupled. You can't do very much (if anything at all) with one or the other. I think anytime we are inducing logic from an observation, we're automatically deducing from prior knowledge. Anytime we're deducing, we had to have induced a general truth to make those deductions.

I think science is mostly useless when it comes to something like 'ethics'. But that doesn't mean I'd trust an ethicist to fix my car... or most mechanics to do it for a fair price, either.

I don't. It's not academic science we use for ethics, but it's still deduction based. If somebody punches us in the face, we feel uncomfortable/bad/pain (how ever you want to characterize the negative feeling). If we get a massage, we feel comfortable/good/pleasure (a positive feeling).

This is the basis for ethics: The golden rule being a canonical example.

If a person is raised being punished for negative behavior and rewarded for good behavior, it will reflect in his ethical standards.

Children who are raised with little social guidance tend to have less ethical basis as adults. Children raised by satanists are really quite interesting examples of this.

There's no community scientific standard here. We have a social network of individuals who all have an ethical basis in their emotional history. But they're still relying on deduction: observations, which lead to "general truths", which leads to induction. Then the two are coupled for every observation following.

Which goes to the heart of the question... what it means to know something. When people say they know something, they often mean very different things.

Just about anything we talk about that isn't tangible (and even many things that are) has ambiguities surrounding it. There are a large class of information handling traits that we consider knowledge. Some of them aren't really concerned with the core of what's "really going on", just the effectiveness of the inputs and outputs (an engineering point of view).

Personally, I think scientists are more interested in what's actually going on. It's the nature of curiosity. It was never meant to be useful to society. It started with a bunch of rich people that were bored and genuinely curious about the nature of things.

But there's also the point of view that nothing stable is "really going on". I will employ constructivism here again: A large portion of our knowledge (especially the qualitative aspects of it) is constructed. This is because the solutions to what's "really going on" are infinite. We can come up with any number of ways to represent our observations.

 

[JoeDawg]

I realize this. I don't think they're silly because of the latest hollywood zombie fad. I think they're silly because they're a contradiction. If you're built exactly like a human physically, you can't really escape having a mind and consciousness. They are rooted in material (brain matter, at least, but possibly the whole ensemble of cells in a life form).

But the zombie idea forces you to think about what it means to be conscious. The big argument in AI research(theory of mind) is about whether consciousness can be created by simple computation. You seem to have come to a conclusion about it, one I don't necessarily disagree with, but the zombie example is not a claim about consciousness, its a thought experiment designed to make you think about what consciousness is and isn't. Most people think there is more to the mind than just brain-meat.

You can't describe anything with pure math though.

A triangle? You may not agree, but there are people, and many in the history of philosophy who believe math is the most basic form of reality.

We have to give meaning to the math with our imagination.

I'm not sure what this means, mostly because I don't see how you can reconcile some sort of magical 'imagination', with a computational brain. If one is strictly reductionist about what the mind is, then all its operations should be reducible to equations and data...

Yes, but my point is that induction and deduction are coupled.

Modern science uses both... but that doesn't mean they are inseparable. My own opinion is that induction is more primary, since it allows one to make connections between things, and that deduction builds on this. But opinions vary... quite a bit.

You can't do very much (if anything at all) with one or the other. I think anytime we are inducing logic from an observation, we're automatically deducing from prior knowledge. Anytime we're deducing, we had to have induced a general truth to make those deductions.

In the history of philosophy there have been two basic mind-sets. For most of history, up until the enlightenment, rationalism, the idea that knowledge about the world could be achieved entirely through deductive reasoning was dominant. Empiricism, has gained dominance more recently, and people, most notably the logical positivists, have tried and failed to reconcile the two, and justify their use.

This is the basis for ethics: The golden rule being a canonical example.

What you described seems vaguely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian" , but that is actually quite different from an ethical system based on 'the golden rule'.

I have yet to see any ethical system that doesn't lead to serious contradictions.

If a person is raised being punished for negative behavior and rewarded for good behavior, it will reflect in his ethical standards.

First you need a standard of behavior. And many psychologists have observed that the effects of 'punishment' are only short term. In my own experience I've found that people tend to adapt any standard to suit their personality. Upbringing has an influence, but its more complicated than reward and punishment.

Children who are raised with little social guidance tend to have less ethical basis as adults. Children raised by satanists are really quite interesting examples of this.

Satanists?

But they're still relying on deduction: observations, which lead to "general truths", which leads to induction.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, I think scientists are more interested in what's actually going on. It's the nature of curiosity. It was never meant to be useful to society. It started with a bunch of rich people that were bored and genuinely curious about the nature of things.

This may be true in part, but a lot of scientific discoveries were made because someone had a problem they wanted to solve. Astronomy was useful for predicting the seasons... which was important for crops. Math was created for inventory and trade, geometry for land allocation and construction.

We can come up with any number of ways to represent our observations.

This I agree with.

 

[JoeDawg]

I certainly remember you claiming that the central problem was that science takes the inductive route and philosophy the deductive.

Well then you are either a liar or senile.

Modern science is based primarily on empirical philosophy

 

[apeiron]

Well then you are either a liar or senile.

Modern science is based primarily on empirical philosophy

I think you'll find you said...

The scientific point of view, assumes induction is valid, and that external objects exist. These assumptions may help scientists get their work done, but its essentially ignoring the problem, not addressing it.

This scientific point of view, however, was the minority view, for most of history. When the ancient greeks talked about knowing, they didn't mean observation, they meant deductive logic. So do we know other minds exist because of observation? Or because we can deduce it? These are two opposing views on knowledge, and both have their problems.

 

[JoeDawg]

I think you'll find you said...

Oh well, I guess you're not senile or a liar, you just have poor reading comprehension skills. Empirical philosophy has been central to western philosophy since the enlightenment... which happened well after the ancient greeks and represents only a small portion of the history of philosophy. That doesn't mean its not philosophy.

Maybe instead of just trying to make troll points, you might want to focus on bettering your reading skills.

 

[apeiron]

Oh well, I guess you're not senile or a liar...Maybe instead of just trying to make troll points, you might want to focus on bettering your reading skills.

Well is "empirical philosophy" then now the one that is guilty of "essentially ignoring the problem, not addressing it" because of a reliance on induction?

How is this different from the scientists you were talking about earlier?

 

[JoeDawg]

Well is "empirical philosophy" then now the one that is guilty of "essentially ignoring the problem, not addressing it" because of a reliance on induction?

My responses in this thread(the exchange with Pythagorean has been a bit of detour) have been centered around the claim made earlier about what was the obvious solution to the other minds problem.

Your big problem is, you always try and fit what I say, into your little model of the way the world is, instead of trying to understand what I'm saying.

The way I know my mind exists is through self-reflection... I can reason inductively or deductively about my thoughts and feelings, within the scope of my own mind.

However, I do not experience other minds, AT ALL. Without experience, without observation, you cannot reason inductively.

As far as I know, the 'world' is full of p-zombies.

This is the same problem we have with 'where the universe came from', and 'what is the likelihood of life on other planets'. When you only have one sample of a thing, induction is pretty useless. The bigger the sample, the more confidently we use induction.

So, when you are talking about 'knowledge of other minds', science doesn't really help.

That doesn't mean other minds don't exist. Once we make a few ontological assumptions, we can reason about the existense of other minds (as opposed to knowledge of other minds) as attributes of the people we experience existing. In this case we are reasoning about the 'people objects' we experience, and their attributes.

Rationalist philosophy is centered on the idea that knowledge is derived through deductive reasoning, ONLY.
Empirical philosophy is centered on the idea that knowledge is derived through experience, ONLY.

The history of (western)philosophy is divided pretty sharply, between pre-enlightenment rationalism, and post-enlightenment empircism. Both still exist as part of philosophy, and empirical ideas existed before the enlightenment, but we are talking here about dominant paradigms. (Logical positivism was an attempt to reconcile these two different ways of gaining knowledge, it failed)

Modern science uses both types of philosophy.
Math and its applications in theoretical physics is a good example of rationalist philosophizing. 'String theory' doesn't have to describe this universe, AT ALL, to be deductively sound.

The vast majority of modern science, the day to day stuff, works within the scope of empirical philosophy. Knowledge derived from experience.

Also, since deductive reasoning relies on premises, which may or may not be true, using it to gain knowledge of other minds is just as problematic. All deduction really accomplishes is fleshing out the details and limits of your assumptions(premises)

So... whether its inductive, deductive... or even abductive reasoning, we still face a problem with 'knowledge' of other minds.

Again, there is a huge difference between an epistemological argument, and an ontological one. There is no shame in being confused by this, since many people are... but when someone dismisses the 'other minds problem' saying it is solved by science, it just means they didn't understand the problem in the first place.

And none of this is because science sucks. The scientific toolbox is one of the greatest things humankind has ever invented in its pursuit of knowledge.

 

[magpies]

Hey we really haven't in this thread even proven that there is one mind yet imo. So how are we suppost to figure out if or not other minds exist?

 

[apeiron]

The way I know my mind exists is through self-reflection... I can reason inductively or deductively about my thoughts and feelings, within the scope of my own mind.

This kind of shows you never understood the subtle point Conrad was making. Awareness of others arguably comes before awareness of self.

So between the first person and the third person approaches (which map quite nicely to inductive and deductive modes of reasoning) there is the further possibility of a second person logic.

Conrad mentioned Buber. And some consciousness theorists like Max Velmans have also picked up on second person approaches. Maybe Dennett's intentional stance fits too.

And Peirce's abduction would map to the second person approach nicely. Out of the vague understanding that begins in the inter-personal realm would emerge crisply dichotomised the two polarised points of view which are the first and third person - the most local and the most global scales of description.

 

[JoeDawg]

Awareness of others arguably comes before awareness of self.

Or you could argue that 'raw awareness' comes before any distinction between self and other is made. I'm not trying to settle an argument here, only describe one that is very much ongoing.

And Peirce's abduction would map to the second person approach nicely.

Oh, I'm sure it does... I'm sure its a very nice theory, but that doesn't really change anything.

 

[Galteeth]

Addressing the OP, while this is a very difficult assignment you've been given, I have a line of thought that might make you able to come up with some counter examples.

Receiving the profound communications of others that allow for insight into one's own subjective processes that otherwise would not have been there could might best be explained by such communications originating from a similar experience of subjectivity.

In other words, thoughts about subjectivity that match up with one's own experience of it, but in a way one hasn't conceived before. These may arguably be difficult to produce without coming from a similar, but different, first person subjective sense. This surely isn't philosophically tight, but given the difficulty of the question, it might be a direction to go in. I would look into theories of art as metaphysics, specifically some of Nietzsche;s thoughts on the matter.

 

[Pythagorean]

But the zombie idea forces you to think about what it means to be conscious. The big argument in AI research(theory of mind) is about whether consciousness can be created by simple computation. You seem to have come to a conclusion about it, one I don't necessarily disagree with, but the zombie example is not a claim about consciousness, its a thought experiment designed to make you think about what consciousness is and isn't. Most people think there is more to the mind than just brain-meat.

Well, you've made an incorrect assumption. I've made no such conclusion. The brain is capable of computation but I don't think it's limited to it. This still doesn't invalidate the role that neurons play in consciousness and mind. As long as we're guessing each other's conclusions, I'm going to guess that you have a bias against material/physical things; that is, you underestimate their dynamic abilities.

This is clear to me when you us the word "brain meat", as if each cell that makes up a life form isn't full of mystery and majesty on its own (without introducing dualism). Brain isn't just a chunk of matter; there's an intricate system of dynamic interaction and order involved, from the network level down to the level of a single cell. This system's dynamics also happens to correlate well with behavior.

I've always been curious where this assumption comes from that materials and physical processes are some kind of limit on reality or that they're not capable of extraordinary things.

A triangle? You may not agree, but there are people, and many in the history of philosophy who believe math is the most basic form of reality.

But we don't observe triangles in reality. It is purely constructed. We observe triangle-like things, which probably has a lot to do with the construction of the triangle. This follows from my original post.

I'm not sure what this means, mostly because I don't see how you can reconcile some sort of magical 'imagination', with a computational brain. If one is strictly reductionist about what the mind is, then all its operations should be reducible to equations and data...

Well, first off, "computational brain" is misunderstood, and I'm not a computationalist. But if I were, your argument is still inert. Neurons, once again, are nonlinear systems. Scaling of parameters in nonlinear systems doesn't work like advanced algebra. Whole qualitative changes in the topology of functionality can emerge with changing of parameters ( see bifurcation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_theory ).

Imagination isn't magical, it's just misunderstood. There's plenty of information processing involved. Our somatic system merges different senses together and compares them in a way that allows metaphorical thinking, and we randomly compare seemingly separated events (likely in our hippocampus, which is well known for generalization different episodic memories into more generalized semantic memories.) This is a lot of the basis for imagination. A blues player hears a train and uses it for the rhythm in his music. Imagination requires prior observation.

First you need a standard of behavior. And many psychologists have observed that the effects of 'punishment' are only short term. In my own experience I've found that people tend to adapt any standard to suit their personality. Upbringing has an influence, but its more complicated than reward and punishment.

The effects of punishment are not short term in the frame I'm talking about (the first three years of a human life, when they're neurons are doing the most pruning). Many mental disorders actually come from associating shame and pain with behavior at this age.

Attempts to modify behavior become increasingly difficult after the pruning period, and are nearly impossible after the early 20's, when the human has reached adulthood, and their frontal lobes have fully myelinated,

Satanists?

Children of practicing satanists (which often involve sexual abuse, i.e. "sex magick") often have a distorted set of ethics (compared to mainstream society). But more than that, they're often not concerned with or conscious of ethics at all.

This may be true in part, but a lot of scientific discoveries were made because someone had a problem they wanted to solve. Astronomy was useful for predicting the seasons... which was important for crops. Math was created for inventory and trade, geometry for land allocation and construction.

Yes, once people realized how useful it was, it did become more exploited for it's usefulness. Initially, though, it was pure curiosity of the nature of the universe (back when it was called "Natural Philosophy". Scientists today still exhibit this. The usefulness aspect is logistics: scientists aren't rich nowadays, so they need funding from someone who can make use of their discoveries. So they're discoveries need to be useful.

 

[zomgwtf]

Children of practicing satanists (which often involve sexual abuse, i.e. "sex magick") often have a distorted set of ethics (compared to mainstream society). But more than that, they're often not concerned with or conscious of ethics at all.

Surely not people from the Church of Satan who read the Satanic Bible and other philosophies? I'm pretty sure they do follow ethics and that is a huge part of their belief system.

I'd have to see a source for this claim of "sex magick' being preformed on children and proof of distorted ethics. A really big part of the Church of Satan is self-indulgence in a RESPONSIBLE way.

 

[magpies]

Well, you've made an incorrect assumption. I've made no such conclusion. The brain is capable of computation but I don't think it's limited to it. This still doesn't invalidate the role that neurons play in consciousness and mind. As long as we're guessing each other's conclusions, I'm going to guess that you have a bias against material/physical things; that is, you underestimate their dynamic abilities.

Ahhh but you have made an incorrect assumption. The brain is just the brain it is the mind that is capable of computations it can not be any other way. I suppose you will not agree with this but that just makes me wonder... What is it about having the body control the mind instead of having the mind control the body that you find correct?

 

[Pythagorean]

Surely not people from the Church of Satan who read the Satanic Bible and other philosophies? I'm pretty sure they do follow ethics and that is a huge part of their belief system.

I'd have to see a source for this claim of "sex magick' being preformed on children and proof of distorted ethics. A really big part of the Church of Satan is self-indulgence in a RESPONSIBLE way.

See the wiki on satanic ritual abuse. If you don't like the wiki itself, see the references at the bottom.

Notice also, that I'm talking about the children of Satanists, not the Satanists themselves.

Also, it's not necessary that all Satanists behave this way, but Satanist cases are pretty memorable to social workers who deal with them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Well, you've made an incorrect assumption. I've made no such conclusion.
(..)
Brain isn't just a chunk of matter; there's an intricate system of dynamic interaction and order involved, from the network level down to the level of a single cell. This system's dynamics also happens to correlate well with behavior.

Yes, you have.

And I said 'most people', I was not stating my opinion on the subject.

I've always been curious where this assumption comes from that materials and physical processes are some kind of limit on reality or that they're not capable of extraordinary things.

It comes from observing the fact that thoughts and physical things have different qualities.

But we don't observe triangles in reality. It is purely constructed.

Again, that's your conclusion. The ancient greeks believed that geometry was the most basic reality there was. Essentially, they saw a perfection in geometry that was in stark contrast to the chaos of observable reality.

and we randomly compare seemingly separated events

I'd say this is your theory... rather that agreed upon scientific fact.

But that is not really the point. The zombie argument is not a conclusion, its a thought experiment, designed to make people think about what consciousness is. You seem determined to convince me of your position on this, as if I've taken some opposing position. The funny part is how you keep saying, this and that 'is misunderstood', when in fact that is exactly why people do thought experiments... like the p-zombie one... to help them understand, both what works and what doesn't.

Many mental disorders actually come from associating shame and pain with behavior at this age.

The fact that punishment has an effect, doesn't mean it works as a deterrent.

Children of practicing satanists (which often involve sexual abuse, i.e. "sex magick") often have a distorted set of ethics (compared to mainstream society). But more than that, they're often not concerned with or conscious of ethics at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism_hysteria#Evidence"

Given the small number of actual practicing 'satanists', I'd say sexual abuse by mainstream clergy is a much bigger problem.

Yes, once people realized how useful it was, it did become more exploited for it's usefulness.

I think you probably have a much narrower definition in mind than I do.

 

[Pythagorean]

I spent about a half an hour on a reply to you JoeDawg, but it got ate up when I tried to log in after typing it (happens occasionally to me). So now I'm discouraged, but hopefully I'll get the ambition to reply again later this week.