- #36
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,285
- 2
Searle is the man. No question.
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
you spoke of qualitative. here, searle opened a can of worms. how do you define the word quality (or beauty)?
No, consciousness is non-physical, whereas the sciences are physical.do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and
neurochemistry and electrical impulses
Originally posted by Mentat
S/he's got a point. What does it mean to be "qualitative"?
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Searle is the man. No question.
you can go 2 ways with the Chinese room argument. you can say that a human is only a bunch of Syntactical symbol relations, and therefore no mind, or you can say that that is what a computer is, but it seems that we have semantics, it seems as though we can attribute meaning, so there is something about our brains that makes this possible, not found in a computer.Originally posted by phoenixthoth
I’m fascinated by his Chinese room argument. hasn't got me convinced that there's an inner being within me that doesn't UNDERSTAND what's happening at all kinda like a computer (or maybe that's what he's getting at!). but if it looks like, tastes like, feels like i really do understand, then who cares?
do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and neurochemistry and electrical impulses? to me, that is conceivable but a long way away. i highly suspect that the soul has something to do with consciousness but science isn't even trying to examine the soul as far as i can tell except perhaps superficially through psychology.
Originally posted by Turtle
No, consciousness is non-physical, whereas the sciences are physical.
Originally posted by Mentat
That first statement (that consciousness is non-physical) is not only unproven, but logically impossible, AFAIC. You explain to me, Turtle, how a non-physical mind could communicate with a physical brain. They would (logically) need an intermediary, and the intermediary would have to neither be physical nor non-physical (logically impossible for the obvious reason that something is either physical or it is not).
Originally posted by Royce
A possible anology would be the brain is the hardware, the ciruits of the computer and the mind is the software, programing of the computer. One without the other is useless and nonfunctional. Together they are capable of more than the sum of there parts.
Our mind/brain communicates with our body constantly and visa versa.
Our subjective thoughts, intents and purpose cause our phsical bodies to act all of the time. This is so obvious and so commonplace that it is overlooked and ignored, even denied much of the time. Such denial proves its contradiction to be true. This is a pardox that most can't eccept.
"As a pure materialist I deny that anything immaterial exists." Just look at all of the contradiction contained in that simple statement;
"pure materialist" is a subjective concept...
..."I" is a subjective concept of personal existence and self awareness
"deny" is a statement of belief which is subjective,
"anything is a collective concept of all things that exist
"immaterial" if we have a word to discribe something then that something is a least a subjective thought, idea, or belief, i.e. and thus exists if only in the brain/mind, exists probably the most subjective concept of all.
Words are symbols of persons, places, things, actions etc. Symbols to not have physical existence yet are universally accepted as having meaning and conveying thought.
If there is a word for it then it exists in our minds which is our reality. If there is no word for it then it does not exist in our minds or our reality. How could it?
Originally posted by Royce
As I was writing my post I could hear in my mind everyone of you objections and counter arguments. Within your paradigm they are all valid; however, you continue to use subjective terms like concept, words, meaning, theory etc. All of these terms are subjective and not physical, not material. All words are symbols used to conveys thoughts. All symbols are subjective and reach their symbolic meaning only within our minds.
We are simply arguing the merits of objectivity vs subjectivity again in this thread instead of the others. I repectfully refuse to beat this dead horse any more, any where.
Originally posted by jammieg
I choose to think of it as whatever one is focused on at the moment.
Originally posted by Nereid
How can you recognise consciousness in something?
How can Royce tell that Mentat has consciousness (is conscious)?
How can pelatration tell that the Sun doesn't have consciousness?
Originally posted by Nereid
N (new question): Are there other resolutions (than Dennett, followers, and extenders)? For example, pelastration seems to have a firm view which is quite different (see: http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages18/205.html )
Similarly, Osher Doktorow, on a different superstringtheory.com board which is no longer accessible, also appeared to have very clear, firm views.
There is a thread with >40 pages!
N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?
You can't.N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?
Originally posted by Nereid
Question for Mentat:
In your (Dennett-based) view of consciousness, is it:
- binary (or nearly so)? Crudely, a brain either has it or it doesn't?
- one-dimensional? I have more consciousness than my cat, and much more than a bacterium
- multi-dimensional? [/B]
Originally posted by Nereid
Examples:
taste: five dimensions - sweet, sour, salty, umami, bitter
sight: four (or five) dimensions - 3 colours (cones; four types in some women) + intensity (rods)
That's what I'm wondering? In your (Dennett's) view of consciousness, do you either have it or you don't? If so, then consciousness is binary.I still don't see how this applies to consciousness.
In this respect, how are you different from an aeroplane on autopilot? Or a telecom network with SONET technology deployed?sage: i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away.
So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?Rader: Consciousness is the perception that an entity has of its position in spacetime.
Originally posted by Nereid
So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?