Kharakov

Theophage,

I am trying really hard to show you what I mean.

I use the word indicate in the same way you do- shows- not proves. I am not talking about proof of consciousness, I am talking about indications of consciousness.

There are not "indications" of consciousness.

This gets down to what consciousness is- you seem to think consciousness is more than awareness, thought, observation, etc. You seem to think that for something to be conscious it must display active interaction with its environment.

Consciousness can be:

a) conscious of and noticably acting upon the environment (displaying intention)
b) conscious of and not noticably acting upon the environment (still acting upon the environment with undetectable intent)
c) conscious of and not acting upon the environment at all (simply observing the environment)
d) conscious of itself
e) ...f)...


Consciousness is not to be confused with the display of intent, which I think you are doing. Empirical evidence indicates that an action has taken place- not that conscious volition has driven the action.

Kharakov

double post

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kharakov ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

Neuron and protein turnover exposes a materialist fallacy. I was once believed that the mind isthe brain, the material of the brain, but how can it be if the material is now proven constantly turned over and over again with continuous protein synthesis. Thus the only thing that really remains is the pattern.
Fifty years ago there was no evidence of this regeneration, thus there was nothing to falsify the materialist position, but now there is very sound evidence of neural regeneration.
<a href="http://www.uic.edu/classes/bioe/bioe550/toby/kirtistuff2/neural1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.uic.edu/classes/bioe/bioe550/toby/kirtistuff2/neural1.htm</a>

excreationist

Actually this neural regeneration involves neurons learning new patterns - not reusing the information from dead neurons. (Though the new patterns would probably be similar)
So it seems that if neurons that hold long-term memories die, memories are lost permanently. (Though they can be relearnt)
I think there is a thing that processes our short-term memory... I think that is what we are aware of - our short term memory, and "we" are the processor. It might be a largish organ made up of many cells. I think the person would become totally unconscious if that got too damaged. (Their heart would probably keep beating though)

Vorkosigan

Croc, how does this falsify materialism?

Michael

Theophage

Kharakov,

I understand what you mean, I simply find it to be false.

What would help tremendously (and would uncover any possible misunderstanding I might have) is if you simply answer this question:

By what means do you determine/decide/believe that other people are conscious?

To me it's simple; other people display conscious behaviors, therefore it is more likely that they are conscious than not.

As for what you wrote here:

This gets down to what consciousness is- you seem to think consciousness is more than awareness, thought, observation, etc. You seem to think that for something to be conscious it must display active interaction with its environment.

No, I don't. This is where you misunderstand me.

I know I am conscious. I know I diplay certain actions and behaviors as a result. I see similar actions and behaviors in others. Using reason, I conclude that this is probably due to their consciousness as well.

It's that simple. Do conscious things have to display such behaviors? Of course not. (nor must a thing which displays these behaviors actually be conscious) But unless they do, I would have no reason to consider them conscious, since I cannot determine anything about them "internally".

Since it is these behaviors alone (and not some amazing knowledge of their internal states) which properly lead me to this conclusion, they are considered "indicative" and "evidence" by defnition.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with this. Does anyone else here?

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Theophage

If I may engage in a bit of speculation, Crocodile Deathroll seems to be saying (and I surmise this from the igloo analogy) that since the pattern stays (the igloo, the mind) even though the matter it consists of comes and goes, the the pattern is the only "real" component, and is thus immaterial. Since the "real" thing under consideration here is immaterial, then materialism is false.

Is that about right Croc?

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

tribalbeeyatch

Does that winking smiley at the top of your post mean that you've said this all in jest? If not, then I really don't understand how this falsifies materialism. The pattern is the neurons and the connections that they make. Apoptosis and neurogenesis demonstrate to us only that the "mind" is not a static entity (or pattern). I wouldn't guess that to be a problem for most materialists.

Adrian Selby

"the pattern is the only "real" component"

the neurons forming the pattern are real. I'm not sure the pattern could be considered immaterial because a pattern isn't a thing, its an expression of relationships between things.

Adrian

Theophage

I agree with what you said, Adrian (in fact, it's been a large part of my argument against Filip). I was just trying to understand Croc's perspective.