FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-31-2002, 05:09 PM   #121
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 181
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Farren:
Filip,

You sound like a reasonably smart cookie and while I think you make some pompous statements (I do that too all the time), I agree with some of your posts to the effect that your antagonists are needlessly insulting and equally pompous at times.
Thanks for the complimment and at the risk of sounding overly pompous, I do agree that I am a reasonably 'smart cookie' and I think that you are a pretty 'smart cookie' yourself!

I think it's my my poor vocabulary that unduly mis-represents my ability to reason, but sometimes I wonder; is using sophisticated terms really necessary to communicate sophisticated ideas?

Anyhow, enough about me, I want to respond to your post in full when my room-mate is not here (making noise in the background and watching TV). I have a lot to say and I want to make sure I can focus and respond in full, without any distractions.

So I will respond later when I have some time; it be Monday, but I will try to respond before that, if I can.
Filip Sandor is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 06:59 PM   #122
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,886
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Filip Sandor:
<strong>I think it's my my poor vocabulary that unduly mis-represents my ability to reason, but sometimes I wonder; is using sophisticated terms really necessary to communicate sophisticated ideas? </strong>
Well I try to make my language as simple and possible. The main thing is to make sure you understand what other people are trying to say and to say what you want to say very clearly. Often it is possible to communicate very complex concepts without using sophisticated jargon.
excreationist is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 02:45 AM   #123
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Darwin
Posts: 1,466
Post

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby

The computer analogy you outline for functionalism is too simplistic for me, and too dualistic to boot. If the brain changes its structure dynamically in accordance with experience, then the 'hardware' isn't the means by which a mental life exists, the changes in the mental life are just the brain's conceptualising of the experience of neural pathways altering in itself. The brain is the software as well, I don't see what the problem is to say that an emotion just is a bunch of neurons firing, but when one is the brain which is having the firing in that pattern, one is having the emotion.
Well if you call it dualism then so be it. But it is poles apart from the Cartesian version of body spirit dualism and it is born more out of mathematical necessity than mysticism.
Yes I agree with you, the brain too is software, it is a genetic software which is why our brain is so much larger than that of a chimpanzee's. It is probably one of the few 1.4% of our genes in which we a different. The human mind is an emergent property of the brain and the human brain is an emergent our human our human genes, which all boils down to "information".

Quote:

Because language distinguishes neuroscience talk and common language talk does not mean any real distinction exists. WHich isn't a direct criticism or anything, but one illuminating post earlier alluded to the problems in being clear on the terms we're using. I think language and its different 'vocabularies' adapted to different purposes can cause conflicts and problematic conceptualising. The idea of finite infinities on the infinity thread fry my brain, but they show that I've been talking about infinity up to now in a very limited way, and I wonder whether I could make more sense of some questions about what it means to have infinite properties if I knew more about different conceptions of infinity.
I feel what differentiates you from other people (in view of the fact we all share the same chemical processes like seratonin for pleasure) is your history of neural connections and your physical bodily presence in the events that you experience then remember That is the only thing that separates you from the rest of us, that uninterrupted pattern of neural pathways, casting a trajectory through space and time from the time you were a baby till your death. You can conceptualize all these experiences by symbolically representing them with a learnt language.You are so well immersed in your memories, your language and acquired skills, so much so that you cannot possibly imagine existing as the person you are without them. With everyone's memory obliterated then all the boundaries are then blurred and it will be just as though the whole "human brain phenomena" is all rolled into just one cosmic entity like a galaxy or a quasar. It would in fact be a phenomena that will occupy less space than these in the cosmos for sure

crocodile deathroll
crocodile deathroll is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 12:28 PM   #124
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fidel
Posts: 3,383
Post

Theophage,

I guess its just a fundamental difference in the way we view consciousness. I think my view is more correct (of course ) because it makes less assumptions about internal behavior based upon (visable/apparent) external behavior. I really don't believe that there are certain "conscious behaviors" that all conscious beings must display. I responded to a few parts of your post.

Quote:
Originally posted by Theophage:
<strong>
By what means do you determine/decide/believe that other people are conscious?
</strong>
I don't know if anything is conscious or not. I believe that everything is (more or less).

Quote:
<strong>
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.
</strong>

The display of certain behaviors might lead us to believe that other humans possess a similar type of consciousness, but it does not indicate that objects that do not display the same behaviors lack consciousness. Which you said:

Quote:
<strong>
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".
</strong>

Exactly what I was saying (except for your reasoning part).

You cannot determine anything "internally" about an object/being by its external behavior. So you have nothing with which to judge whether or not an object has consciousness.

This goes back to my previous statement:

In no way does (empirical) evidence indicate whether or not something (besides the observer) possesses consciousness.

Which is a true statement (I think ).
Kharakov is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 01:25 PM   #125
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 181
Post

Dear Farren,

I'm going to take a shot at answering your questions now cause I have some time before I leave for the weekend...

You wrote:

Quote:
Are you arguing:
1) TRUE DUALISM: That there are two types of 'matter', namely 'mind matter' and 'material matter', and that human behaviour is a confluence of these although they are somehow independent systems which have seperate behaviours exclusively determined by their own history aside from the behaviours that stem from interaction.
This view is paradoxical and it doesn't make sense, in my opinion. 'Mind matter' or what I prefer to call a 'mental form' as opposed to a 'physical form' is clearly influenced via it's causal connection, if not two way interaction, with physical forms. This as we both know, has been scientifically validated beyond much doubt.

By the way, I must tell you, it feels real nice to know that you're not going to ask me for 'evidence' to support what I just said.

*sighs in relief....*

Quote:
2) That the one may be a result of the other but is not, by extension, the other, like the speed you travel at and the fine you get as a result.
This view is particularly confusing and not very practical in my opinion because it attempts to unify two separate entities and label them as not separate, based on nothing more than a causal connection they may have. In this view, everything could be viewed, by extension, to be everything else.

I am sure you agree.

Quote:
3) UTILITY: That the mind is in fact the matter, inasmuch as there is a one-to-one correlation, but it is _useful_ to abstract a 'mind' from the behaviour of the matter for the same reason that it is useful to abstract '2' from the twinkies in your hand so that you can use a system (in this case maths) to determine whether you are being correctly charged.
This view seems to be, to me, the most accurate view, except for one slight difference in our opinions... I believe that there is way too much empirical evidence of [my own] minds concrete existence [for me], to vaguely label it an abstraction. I believe it would be more accurate to label a concept or more specifically, an idea (that is not manifested into an actual thought (a.k.a. mind) form at any one time) an abstraction. I believe this simply because it lacks the empirical evidence that the mind produces to verify it's own existence.

Do you know what I am talking about?

Of course, 'abstract' is a very vague term, which basically refers to something that exists, but not really, and it is kind of a self-defeating term in istelf, wouldn't you say?? It may be useful, but not very practical when trying to determine a certain fact with much more concreteness than that. I haven't investigated the Platonic view of reality (as described by Plato) as much as I would like to, so I can't say this with utmost certainty, but I think that my view of reality closely, if not exactly, parallels the Platonic view of reality where all things including time, space, mind, matter and even concept are embodied in one 'static' existence; each one in their own 'realm' or to put it in modern physics terms, their own 'dimension'.

I'm not up to speed on modern multi-dimensional (theoretical) physics, but I am quite curious as to what possible phenomenon could exist in the other 8, theorized dimensions which apparently exclude the four that the materialists are so eager to accept as the only ones that exis.

Have you ever wondered yourself?

Quote:
4) Note: Points (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive
Noted.

Quote:
5) Any other -ISM that I haven't considered

You SEEM to be arguing (2) and (3), in which case I can't see the conflict with materialism.
(See above)

Quote:
BTW I would like to re-iterate the point that I agree that there is an experience/description gap but that is simply because description is not experience, not a major failing in assuming all things being made of common stuff with common behaviour.
I experience &lt;&gt; I describe my experience
I experience &lt;&gt; You describe my behaviour
You experience &lt;&gt; I describe your behaviour
I experience &lt;&gt; You experience my behaviour
The state I'm in is not the state the observaiton of me puts you in.

My little book of logics (I'm not tertiary educated so this is the closest I get to a sound reference ) says that a set of statements is logical if it is consistent with itself. The following are (I hold) consistent statements:
1) The universe is composed of matter/energy (no dualism implied, just state, see next)
2) Matter/energy can have different states
3) The state of any Matter/energy can be transformed by interaction with other matter/energy.
4) All matter/energy will transform in the same way as other matter/energy if it interacts with other matter/energy in the same way (consistency).
5) One material/energetic construct may experience the result of another material/energetic constuct's state as a state.
6) Since experiencing another construct's state in any way does (by experience) not annihilate one's own state, the observation and the experience are different.
No contradiction exists in this set of beliefs. However, a problem exists with the assertion that I can know your state AS YOU KNOW YOUR STATE. I can only know your state AS I KNOW YOUR STATE.
Being ain't seeing. Put another way:
If you are F{Stimuli},
and I am F'(Stimuli)
then my obs of you is F'(F{Stimuli)
and you obs of you is F{F{Stimuli})
unless I am you, F{F{S}} is self evidently not F'{F{S}}
Respect
Farren
Your quick 'sketch' of reality outlines my beliefs very closely Farren; I think I would enjoy discussing with you some more in private, about some more in depth theories and ideas I have regarding #5, based on a Platonic type of reality view.

Just send me a private message if you would like to get deeper into this discussion.


P.S. It's nice to know there are other smart people out there who I can share my ideas with!!

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Filip Sandor ]</p>
Filip Sandor is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 02:28 PM   #126
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Darwin
Posts: 1,466
Wink

Quote:
I don't know if anything is conscious or not. I believe that everything is (more or less).
Nothing is conscious because no "thing" is conscious
I do not believe any "thing" is conscious it just the pattern in which the right thing ingredients arranged into. Like for example if you had fallen into a mincing machine then although that matter will all be the same it before that unfortunate accident, but would no longer exhibit the behaviors that constitute consciousness, so the "matter" is not conscious it is the configuration of it . All the material parts will still be there but there will not be the slightest trace of consciousness. Just like if I arranged a deck of cards in numerical order then shuffled them thoroughly.

Imagine a chess player #1 losing his temper and throwing the board and pieces across the room because player #2 is pinching the bottom of player #1s wife an kissing her on the cheek and run off with her. Would deep blue need exhibit such behaviors to prove that is is conscious? It would have digress outside the rules of chess to provide any further evidence that is conscious.
If you empathize with that impatient person because he/she is behaving in a similar manner to how you would under those circumstances then that person too is just as conscious as you.

Quote:
You cannot determine anything "internally" about an object/being by its external behavior. So you have nothing with which to judge whether or not an object has consciousness.
This goes back to my previous statement:
In no way does (empirical) evidence indicate whether or not something (besides the observer) possesses consciousness.
Which is a true statement (I think )
You are the only person that I/it can give you any real example of what it means to be conscious. Only You the observer know that you are conscious, but you can never be sure that this post was posted by a conscious being, can you? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

crocodile deathroll
crocodile deathroll is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 03:55 PM   #127
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fidel
Posts: 3,383
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by crocodile deathroll:
<strong>

You are the only person that I/it can give you any real example of what it means to be conscious. Only You the observer know that you are conscious, but you can never be sure that this post was posted by a conscious being, can you? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

crocodile deathroll</strong>
Of course you can't be 100% sure. That's why its fun!

Quote:
<strong>Like for example if you had fallen into a mincing machine then although that matter will all be the same it before that unfortunate accident, but would no longer exhibit the behaviors that constitute consciousness, so the "matter" is not conscious it is the configuration of it .
</strong>

Consciousness: 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought

(from The Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary, <a href="http://www.m-w.com)" target="_blank">www.m-w.com)</a>

The actions and behaviors of an object do not show if that object experiences emotions, sensations, volition, thought, awareness of self or external objects, etc.

The "behaviors that constitute consciousness" are all internal to the conscious being unless that being both decides and has the ability to make its consciousness apparent.

You have fallen into the "if it ain't actin' like me, it ain't got none of that there consciousness" trap.

[sarcasm]
If I did think that behaviors of things external to me constituted consciousness I would have to say that matter is conscious :

Matter appears to be aware of other matter, and in fact, interacts with other matter in highly complicated ways (look at us). Matter is attracted to other matter over great distances, but is also repulsed whenever it gets 'close' to other matter. Matter combines with other matter, changes form, splits apart, forms many different configurations. I would have to say that matter displays behaviors that indicate it is conscious . I doubt matter considers the things it forms (such as humans) conscious because they (we) only display subordinate behavior to the behaviors of matter. Matter chooses not to recognize the consciousness of humans because humans act in such a mechanical way- only doing what the matter decides it wants to do. How could humans possibly be conscious?
[/sarcasm]
Kharakov is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 03:59 PM   #128
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 859
Post

"'Mind matter' or what I prefer to call a 'mental form' as opposed to a 'physical form' is clearly influenced via it's causal connection, if not two way interaction, with physical forms. This as we both know, has been scientifically validated beyond much doubt."

What's been validated exactly, that there is a metaphysically distinct substance from matter that science has validated as affecting matter?

"I believe that there is too much empirical evidence of [my own] minds concrete existence [for me], to vaguely label it [my own mind] an abstraction."

Where's the empirical evidence? I can give you empirical evidence for a brain with a knife. But a mind?

Where's your empirical evidence that I have a mind, for example, or anyone in your vicinity?

Adrian
Adrian Selby is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 04:11 PM   #129
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 859
Post

"The actions and behaviors of an object do not show if that object experiences emotions, sensations, volition, thought, awareness of self or external objects, etc.

The "behaviors that constitute consciousness" are all internal to the conscious being unless that being both decides and has the ability to make its consciousness apparent.

You have fallen into the "if it ain't actin' like me, it ain't got none of that there consciousness" trap. "

This isn't the full picture. It is not enough simply to point out that behaviour alone is no guarantee of consciousness. I don't see why I can't add the proviso that in the case of a living human being with an intact brain, one can argue that while consciousness is not always displayed, the human being with a brain is the kind of being that can be conscious. You wouldn't want to fall into the trap of thinking that just because one isn't exhibiting consciousness that means anything could be conscious, that's at the very least counter intuitive, and at the worst, misunderstanding what kinds of thing can and can't be conscious.

No, I couldn't guarantee consciousness in any-one, but I am confident that consciousness doesn't exist in any-thing that hasn't got the right arrangement of matter as part of its construct. Certain arrangements of matter are conscious. certain arrangements aren't. It's not a hard idea to conceive of.

Adrian
Adrian Selby is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 04:26 PM   #130
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,886
Post

Kharakov:
Quote:
I guess its just a fundamental difference in the way we view consciousness. I think my view is more correct (of course ) because it makes less assumptions about internal behavior based upon (visable/apparent) external behavior. I really don't believe that there are certain "conscious behaviors" that all conscious beings must display.
.....
You cannot determine anything "internally" about an object/being by its external behavior. So you have nothing with which to judge whether or not an object has consciousness....
I'd like to talk to about this....
As I said earlier - I see consciousness as second-order awareness - being aware that you have thoughts in a second-order way. (Rather than just the ordinary direct way, like animals and babies)
I said this near the top of page 5 in this thread. In fact, I was addressing YOU specificially.
Basically it is easier to break this down into parts - the first part is to see what awareness means. I talked about that earlier.
By my definition rocks aren't aware, but I guess they could be, if dualism is true.
This definition of awareness is:
"a process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works."

Now about whether things that behave like they are aware (according to my definition) are actually aware or not....

Let's say that a remote-controlled robot behaved like it was aware - well the entire system includes the human that is controlling it - otherwise it wouldn't display that aware behaviour. As a whole, that system is aware and this can be verified because it contains an intelligent human, which is obviously aware.

Another example might be a robot that doesn't really learn, but is preprogrammed to anticipate what it is going to "learn" to cheat in the experiments (aware systems need to learn things, according to my definition). Well it would have been programmed by a human who was very aware of what the robot would go through and what the robot had to pretend it would "learn". The human is required in that system because if that human was never involved, the robot wouldn't appear to be aware.

I can't think of any exceptions at the moment, but if there are, I think the behaviour they display would be due to chance and not intelligence and after a while it would be likely that they are actually are incapable of learning new things and its behaviour was just an accident.
excreationist is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.