Can Subjective Experience Truly Address the Other Minds Problem?

[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.

 

[octelcogopod]

That would be nihilsm.

In reply to this.. That isn't niihilism.. Though it's a very common misconception of what nihilism is, and very often misunderstood for fatalism - the idea that everything is already determined and without value so one might as well give up.

 

[JoeDawg]

In reply to this.. That isn't niihilism.. Though it's a very common misconception of what nihilism is, and very often misunderstood for fatalism - the idea that everything is already determined and without value so one might as well give up.

Since fatalism is about the nature of an action, and nihilism is about the meaning of an action, they are not mutually exclusive... but thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you... :PPPPP

 

[octelcogopod]

Since fatalism is about the nature of an action, and nihilism is about the meaning of an action, they are not mutually exclusive... but thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you... :PPPPP

Cmon Joe.. I would say it's vice versa.. I guess these things are a bit up for discussion, but nihilism in a nutshell is that all these value systems and systems we apply to the world are nor universal nor objective, like morals, religion and even politics.
The nihlist as opposed to the fatalist doesn't see this as an opportunity to give up and just suicide, but rather as an opportunity for personal and individual growth of value systems, with a more pragmatic direct approach to reality..

A nihilist would be able to adapt to many different societies and cultures, where other people may be offended or have issues.. A nihilist is more open to solving problems in a logical pragmatic way without all the value clout and moral issues.

 

[magpies]

Nihilists have value systems? When did that happen?

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm a nihilist. I agree with Octelcogopod. All that nihilism really is (despite it's dreary reputation) is that you don't believe in an objective meaning of life. Just because the meaning of life is subjective doesn't devalue it any. Meaning is still important, it's just not universal.

And yes, we have value systems. We just acknowledge that our values are subjective; that's the only difference really.

 

[magpies]

Oh in that case I guess I am a nihilist also at least for today...

 

[Galteeth]

I'm a nihilist. I agree with Octelcogopod. All that nihilism really is (despite it's dreary reputation) is that you don't believe in an objective meaning of life. Just because the meaning of life is subjective doesn't devalue it any. Meaning is still important, it's just not universal.

And yes, we have value systems. We just acknowledge that our values are subjective; that's the only difference really.

Although this is the literal definition, in modern common parlance, nihilism often refers to the notion that life is subjectively meaningless because it is objectively meaningless. Or that consistent moral systems are absurd due to life's lack of objective meaning.

 

[JoeDawg]

Although this is the literal definition, in modern common parlance, nihilism often refers to the notion that life is subjectively meaningless because it is objectively meaningless. Or that consistent moral systems are absurd due to life's lack of objective meaning.

Correct.

Also note, nihilism was originally a perjorative term, so its definition comes from those who are not actually nihilists, and believed in objective or absolute truth. Subjective truth was a contradiction in terms, for them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Cmon Joe.. I would say it's vice versa.. I guess these things are a bit up for discussion, but nihilism in a nutshell is that all these value systems and systems we apply to the world are nor universal nor objective, like morals, religion and even politics.

Ok... let me break this down.

The part I responded to, was the last part of a paragraph:
(Post: 27)

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

So as to fatalism:

Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism

So really, from the fatalist perspective we don't have any 'choice' in whether to close down the forums. The forums are here because they are here. We couldn't choose to close them down. They might close in the future, but not as a result of action on our part, if they close, its because that is the fate of the forums to close. If its not the fate of the forums to close, nothing you try and do... will close them. That is fatalism.

The story of Oedipus is a good example of classical fatalism. He was doomed, no matter what he chose to do. Oedipus is not about cause and effect. Its about a complete lack of cause and effect. The ancients viewed the world as chaotic, and fate as the whim of the gods. There is no logic to fate.

The nihlist as opposed to the fatalist doesn't see this as an opportunity to give up and just suicide, but rather as an opportunity for personal and individual growth of value systems, with a more pragmatic direct approach to reality..

Moral Nihilism = Nothing is morally wrong.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral

There are all sorts of ways of dealing with moral nihilism, but its basis is that nothing has any intrinsic moral value. What a person does about that is another question. Nihilism generally then, is the idea that nothing has any intrinsic value. That would be a hard position to maintain, unless we only place subjective value on things, all the time.

One could be a fatalist and a nihilist. Nothing I do has any effect on the world so I see no value in anything. Fatalists could however, say value exists in the will of the gods, so a fatalist doesn't have to be a nihilist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Although this is the literal definition, in modern common parlance, nihilism often refers to the notion that life is subjectively meaningless because it is objectively meaningless. Or that consistent moral systems are absurd due to life's lack of objective meaning.

I liken this to an outsider or laymen view of nihilism, exactly as JoeDawg said: a perjorative.

In the modern day, it's hard to believe people who call themselves nihilist don't believe in subjective meaning. It would be kind of difficult to remove subjective meaning from your life. Wouldn't you then be a fatalist?

Then there's always Nietzsche:

a condition of tension, as a disproportion between what we want to value (or need) and how the world appears to operate.

The Wiki also doesn't say anything about subjective meaninglessness either, though it does seem to agree with what I'm saying about the confused outsider's view:

The term nihilism is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realizing there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2] Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction,[3] among others, have been identified by commentators as "nihilistic" at various times in various contexts.

So this is actually separate from nihilism. This is an emotional reaction to nihilism (probably generally suffered by the outsiders more than the nihilists themselves).

 

[Evolver]

Well I would believe that they too have conscious mind states because I believe that my being in pain is a mind state of my own, so therefore if my wincing and pain is a mind state, wouldn't it be logical for me to believe that another person who is wincing and in pain would share a similar mind state?

Believe being the operative word here. If you take a look at the plethora of human beliefs you will instantly realize the belief and truth aren't necessarily linked.

The only thing that can be known to exist on an empirical level are your very own thoughts (though that could even be debated.) Take for instance this bit of logic: Your brain is packed away tight inside your skull. No photons of light ever reach this brain (which is thought to be the origin of consciousness). Now, how then does the brain even know what light looks like? Well... it doesn't. It creates what it thinks it should look like. It's simply a way of interpreting information. The optic nerve interprets some information and translates it into an electrical signal... the brain then takes that electrical signal and further interprets it. We "see" a multi-processed representation of the original information.

Now, should we go down the rabbit hole even further... you could argue that the physical brain itself doesn't even exist, as it too is simply a perceived set of information. This is all getting a bit ahead of things here, but the real point is that nothing outside of your own conscious spectrum can be known to actually exist. And that is from a very logical perspective if you think about it. When we say someone else exists, and feels, and thinks just as we do, we are only assuming this. We actually have no verifiable proof other than we believe they do because our senses tell us so.

This idea in philosophy is known as Solipsism. It's well documented and very old in origin. There is also a project known as 'Blue Brain' where scientists have replicated the neurons of a neocortical column on an IBM supercomputer. They are attempting to study if the brain does, in fact, project it's own reality. These ideas are hard to grasp or even come to terms with initially, but then again so was the idea that the world wasn't flat.

 

[JoeDawg]

I liken this to an outsider or laymen view of nihilism, exactly as JoeDawg said: a perjorative.

In the modern day, it's hard to believe people who call themselves nihilist don't believe in subjective meaning. It would be kind of difficult to remove subjective meaning from your life. Wouldn't you then be a fatalist?

Then there's always Nietzsche:

Fatalism is not about meaning, its about whether your actions have consequence.
And, in case there is some confusion, Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Fair enough on fatalism, I was referring to your "give up and suicide" quote.

The Nietzche quote is about nihilism.

 

[JoeDawg]

The Nietzche quote is about nihilism.

Fair enough, sometimes Nietzsche gets called a nihilist, when in fact he considered nihilism a result of christian hypocrisy, and something to be overcome.

 

[Pythagorean]

Fair enough, sometimes Nietzsche gets called a nihilist, when in fact he considered nihilism a result of christian hypocrisy, and something to be overcome.

But Nietzsche's thoughts on nihilism can't really be summed up in a sentence like that. He spoke positively of nihilism, as well. Particularly what he called "active" nihilism. (I.e. embracing nihilism and responding productively to it).

 

[JoeDawg]

But Nietzsche's thoughts on nihilism can't really be summed up in a sentence like that. He spoke positively of nihilism, as well. Particularly what he called "active" nihilism. (I.e. embracing nihilism and responding productively to it).

Nietzsche's relationship with nihilism is complex, I agree. But I don't think he would have said to 'embrace' nihilism. Nihilism for Nietzsche was more 'a stage', or what results from the 'death of god'. Its the unavoidable result. Its a place, one had to pass through, after one breaks the chains of christian morality. It wasn't the goal.

From: On a Geneology of Morals

"This man of the future, who will release us from that earlier ideal just as much as from what had to grow from it, from the great loathing, from the will to nothingness, from nihilism—that stroke of noon and of the great decision which makes the will free once again, who gives back to the Earth its purpose and to the human being his hope, this anti-Christ and anti-nihilist, this conqueror of God and of nothingness—at some point he must come . . ."

 

[Pythagorean]

Nietzsche's relationship with nihilism is complex, I agree. But I don't think he would have said to 'embrace' nihilism. Nihilism for Nietzsche was more 'a stage', or what results from the 'death of god'. Its the unavoidable result. Its a place, one had to pass through, after one breaks the chains of christian morality. It wasn't the goal.

From: On a Geneology of Morals

No, he didn't instruct his readers to embrace it. He showed admiration for a type of nihilist (or type of nihilism, I suppose) that embraces the "destruction" of empty value systems.

 

[magpies]

Give some more nietzsche quotes please I think it will make this thread better :)

 

[Galteeth]

Give some more nietzsche quotes please I think it will make this thread better :)

"In the eyes of all true women science is hostile to the sense of shame. They feel as if one wished to peep under their skin with it—or worse still! under their dress and finery."

 

[delivered1]

Hey guys,
So for my philosophy class we have a writing that is related to the quote --
"The only accounts of the mind that have any chance of solving the other minds problem don't take the subjective, 'first person' nature of the mind seriously, and the accounts that do take it seriously can't solve the other minds problem"
I have to argue for or against this argument with examples. At the moment I am having a bit of trouble actually explaining this concept. I understand the idea that it logical to think that for example, if i hit my thumb with a hammer, I wince in pain, if someone else hits there thumb with a hammer they also wince in pain, so it is logical to believe that they too are conscious (have mental states etc...)
I feel like I know what this is saying but I just don't understand completely what it means by take the first person nature of the mind seriously. Can anyone shed a little light on this?

* My answer is if there are a group of doomed people gathered, that represent "Accounts of the mind". They must not all feel doomed and destined to die. Someone in the group must not see things the way the group sees it, representing: "does not see in the "first person"."Not in first person" has to think about the situation in a different light than "Accounts of the mind". If everyone was in "Accounts " they are all seeing the same ending.

 

[Pythagorean]

Nietzsche quotes:

The most extreme form of nihilism would be the view that every belief, every
considering-something-true, is necessarily false cause there simply is no true
world Thus. a perspectival appearance whose origin lies in us (in so far as we
continually need a narrower, abbreviated, simplified world).

That it is the measure of strength to what extent we can admit to ourselves,
without perishing, the merely apparent character, the necessity of lies.
To this extent, nihilism, as the denial of a truthful world, of being, might be a
divine way of thinking.

Nihilism. It is ambiguous:
A. Nihilism as a sign of increased power of the spirit: as active nihilism.
B. Nihilism as decline and recession of the power of the spirit: as passive
nihilism.

Nihilism as a normal condition.
It can be a sign of strength: the spirit may have grown so strong that previous
goals ("convictions," articles of faith) have become incommensurate (for a faith
generally expresses the constraint of conditions of existence, submission to the
authority of circumstances under which one flourishes, grows, gains power). Or
a sign of the lack of strength to posit for oneself, productively, a goal, a why, a
faith.
It reaches its maximum of relative strength as a violent force of destruction-as
active nihilism.
Its opposite: the weary nihilism that no longer attacks; its most famous form,
Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness. The strength of the spirit
may be worn out, exhausted, so that previous goals and values have become
incommensurate and no longer are believed; so that the synthesis of values
and goals (on which every strong culture rests) dissolves and the individual
values war against each other: disintegration-and whatever refreshes, heals,
calms, numbs emerges into the foreground in various disguises, religious or
moral, or political, or aesthetic, etc.

from The Will to Power