Physicalism vs. the inaccessibility of 1st person subjectivity: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Physicalism vs. the inaccessibility of 1st person subjectivity » Physicalism vs. the inaccessibility of 1st person subjectivity

Physicalism vs. the inaccessibility of 1st person subjectivity

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Physicalism vs. the inaccessibility of 1st person subjectivity

astaire1
Dancing WuLi Master

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Location: France

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 890

Posted 01/31/09 - 06:19 AM: Subject: Physicalism vs. the inaccessibility of 1st person subjectivity	#1
I had a very long discussion with an avowed physicalist who claimed it was impossible in principle to gain access to her ineffable concious experiences via 3rd person measurements and analysis. This strikes me as a contradiction to physicalism (but I suppose it depends on how you define physicalism). I am operating on the following premises: 1) Physicalism is true: Meaning that all ~~observable~~ phenomena (and properties) of the world are the result of physical ~~(measurable)~~ processes. 2) Although external reality exists, it can never be described with perfect accuracy. Thus all scientific facts and concepts remain open to future revision (that includes gravity and distance etc). 3) Objective truth can nonetheless be tentatively established by community agreement. Many scientific facts can thus be considered to be reliable. (Moreover the process of evolution would not be possible if it were impossible to gain semi reliable access to true facts about the world). 4) In contradiction to Penrose, the functioning of the brain (and thus conscious experience) does not depend in a critical way on bizarre quantum effects. Based on the above premises, I conclude that all observations that I make from my unique perspective could, in principle, also be made by elaborate equipment that could measure (and interpret and predict) my brain processes to arbitrary accuracy. There are physical limits (heisenberg's uncertainty principle) on the accuracy that could be achieved by such equipment, but this does not have a significant effect on the resulting observations (by premise 4). Thus it would be possible to have one or more machines(androids) that would be functioning in parallel with me. Those machines would hold the same beliefs that I hold regarding what they are experiencing. The machines would have the same feelings as I am having. The accuracy of the reproduction could be adjusted along a scale so as to answer various questions such as what I would feel like if I were 2 inches taller or if I were blind, or if I had the body of a bat etc. So I'm saying that conscious experiences are only ineffable in the sense that they are difficult to describe in words. They ARE NOT ineffable or private in the sense that there are aspects that I myself can detect or feel which could not in principle be detected or felt by any other apparutus (no matter how elaborate). Can anyone spot a flaw in my reasoning? cheers Astaire Edited by astaire1 on 02/05/09 - 01:53 PM
Heaven, I'm in heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak. And I seem to find the happiness I seek. When we're out together dancing cheek to cheek.

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 01/31/09 - 07:34 AM:	#2
Why wouldn't asking someone, after experiencing The Big Lebowski together, if they remembered the scene where the Maude went flying in on the harnesses, splattering paint on the canvas and then said, "Do you enjoy coitus, Mr. Lebowski?", affirm that conscious experience is shared? Then, your friend says, "ha. Yeah. That was funny. Then the dude was like, "coitus?" LOL Then you say, "LOL "You know, the physical act of love... sex..." And you and your friend proceed to laugh back and forth remembering the movie. Wouldn't this make you believe that you share conscious experience? Or has humanity been mistaken this whole time when they assume thier particular conscious experience is not shared?
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

radiohead269
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 423

Posted 01/31/09 - 08:45 AM:	#3
I suppose you are correct based on your reasoning that if you had an identical brain with identical brain states at all times it is possible that you could essentially live her experiences. But I think science is a long long long way off from this and we'll probably die out before we get there.

astaire1
Dancing WuLi Master

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Location: France

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 890

Posted 01/31/09 - 09:42 AM:	#4
Hi radiohead269, radiohead269 wrote: science is a long long long way off from this and we'll probably die out before we get there I would tend to agree with that speculation as a genuine possibility. Hi CypressMoon, CypressMoon wrote: Wouldn't this[discussing shared film experience] make you believe that you share conscious experience? Or has humanity been mistaken this whole time when they assume thier particular conscious experience is not shared? I would answer along the lines of Davidson's argumentation in "Three Varieties of Knowledge.": You cannot be certain whether any one sharing of experience is genuine but overall there must be a significant portion of genuine sharing occuring otherwise communicating emotions could not succeed, the film industry would not be possible etc. cheers Astaire
Heaven, I'm in heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak. And I seem to find the happiness I seek. When we're out together dancing cheek to cheek.

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 01/31/09 - 10:03 AM:	#5
Astaire wrote: You cannot be certain whether any one sharing of experience is genuine but overall there must be a significant portion of genuine sharing occuring otherwise communicating emotions could not succeed, the film industry would not be possible etc. I would agree, particularly about the certainty part. I think, because of mutually justified determinations (like Maud is a feminist, for instance), it immediately becomes uncertain, insofar as the determinations are precise, and narrow. Maud, or a book in a room rather, is a categorical determination at different scales (like an atomic scale, a quantum scale etc.). The scope of which, when one looks at the words in the book under a powerful microscope, no longer have any meaning, but are merely bounded atoms forming a molecular structure. This, I think, creates the ability to determine, say the molecular composition of ink. But while determining this, one loses the ability to be certain about the book in the room in the universe (the object under analysis) but only about a particular categorical containment within the book (namely the ink's molecular structure.) Wouldn't you say so? Hope this doesn't set anyone too far astray.
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2139

Posted 01/31/09 - 10:39 PM:	#6
astaire1 wrote: Physicalism is true: meaning that all observable phenomena are the result of physical (measurable) processes. When you say “measurable”, what do you mean exactly? astaire1 wrote: Objective truth can nonetheless be tentatively established by community agreement. Many scientific facts can thus be considered to be reliable. (Moreover the process of evolution would not be possible if it were impossible to gain semi reliable access to true facts about the world). What do you mean by “tentatively established” in the case of truth? What is “semi reliable access” to truth? astaire1 wrote: Based on the above premises, I conclude that all observations that I make from my unique perspective could, in principle, also be made by elaborate equipment that could measure (and interpret and predict) my brain processes to arbitrary accuracy. What do you mean by an “observation” in this context? Which “brain processes” are you thinking of measuring? astaire1 wrote: So I'm saying that conscious experiences are only ineffable in the sense that they are difficult to describe in words. They ARE NOT ineffable or private in the sense that there are aspects that I myself can detect or feel which could not in principle be detected or felt by any other apparutus (no matter how elaborate). Can anyone spot a flaw in my reasoning? Yes. Replicating your conscious experience in another agent is not “measuring” it from the 3^rd person objective perspective. astaire1 wrote: You cannot be certain whether any one sharing of experience is genuine but overall there must be a significant portion of genuine sharing occuring otherwise communicating emotions could not succeed, the film industry would not be possible etc. This is an obvious non-sequitur. You and I can communicate about red objects simply because we have a common anchor in the external world – we each define what we are talking about by reference to an object – but it does NOT follow from this that you and I have the same phenomenal experience when looking at the same object. You and I can communicate about the taste of a lemon, or the feeling of pain, but it does not follow that we share the same phenomenal experiences when we taste a lemon or when we feel in pain.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 2760

Posted 01/31/09 - 11:51 PM:	#7
Astaire, I would tell you that your physicalist friend didn't even have "access to her ineffable concious experiences," that is their status as accessed things is forever up to debate. Joe thought he was happy in his last marriage, but then went to therapy and realized that he really was quite sad (or was he?). Sue thought she was tasting blackberry, heather and patroleum in the wine, but then upon discussion realized that it was cherry, dandelion and tar (or was it?) The differences of which the said "conscious experiences" which supposedly make a difference, are not really apprehendable in themselves, but can only be traced out through their consequences, forever under revision.
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 02/01/09 - 01:06 AM:	#8
So, from this premise, you ought to be able to build a "mind reading machine" at some time in the future.. I agree that it is definitely possible to measure perception and even how people respond to perception. Let me take a much simpler example: color blindness. We can easily show you what a color blind, (actually "deficient", not "blind"), person sees. Try out this application for example. But are you really seeing what a color blind person sees? A color blind person using that application and selecting their particular kind of blindness ought to see no difference when the colors are filtered. That is a different experience from what someone with "normal" color vision experiences. How could you demonstrate to a "normal" human what something with the ability to see 4 primary colors or ultraviolet sees? Can you understand colors you have never experienced? In an analogous way, I think it is true that you can measure every physical input, and even make pretty educated guesses about how the inputs and mental transformations will occur in a person's brain, but it is still a lot different from being able to experience something the way someone else experiences. When someone experiences something in the 1st-person, their experience is weighed down by their relationship to the experience. Experience generates emotions and are influenced by memories and values. Someone would need to have their brain re-programmed so they feel the same emotions, think they are actually having the experience, that they are the person and that it isn't a simulation at all. It may not even be possible to have the same experience twice, since the memory of the first time might influence the second. None of it relies on a non-physical explanation, but is denied because the importance of physical relativity to conscious experience.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

astaire1
Dancing WuLi Master

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Location: France

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 890

Posted 02/01/09 - 01:56 AM:	#9
Hi swstephe, I'm glad you stopped by as I nearly always enjoy your well considered contributions. swstephe wrote: So, from this premise, you ought to be able to build a "mind reading machine" at some time in the future Yes of course. But then, that shouldn't be surprising since there are already primitive mind reading machines that exist even today. Although lie detectors aren't very reliable if they could be made a bit more reliable (slightly better then chance would be sufficient) they would be an example of a mind reading machine. Libet's apparatus is an example of a mind reading machine. He detected what the person was going to do before the person actually had the time to do it. How could you demonstrate to a "normal" human what something with the ability to see 4 primary colors or ultraviolet sees? By surgically adding additional ultraviolet light sensors in the retina. Now we can have a long discussion of what "normal" human means and whether the person would still be considered "normal". A persons sight is transformed whenever she wears sunglasses. Does that mean she is no longer "normal"? Can you understand colors you have never experienced? Of course I can to some degree. I don't need to experience ultraviolet light to understand it. Then again, working with electronic image sensors that are highly sensitive to ultraviolet light (and experiencing various transforms of the images) has helped me understand quite a lot about what ultraviolet light is like (though not all). Can anything be understood in full? My point is that you could, in principle, get arbitrarily close to understand everything that a bee understands about ultraviolet light. However, in doing so you'd probably become less like a "normal" human and more like a "normal" bee. In an analogous way, I think it is true that you can measure every physical input, and even make pretty educated guesses about how the inputs and mental transformations will occur in a person's brain, but it is still a lot different from being able to experience something the way someone else experiences. I agree. Its a lot different but also a lot the same. How do we know its a lot the same? See Davidson's argument. To get to the point where there is very little relevant difference would require downloading all of the information from your brain(and body) into suitable hardware. When someone experiences something in the 1st-person, their experience is weighed down by their relationship to the experience. Experience generates emotions and are influenced by memories and values. Someone would need to have their brain re-programmed so they feel the same emotions, think they are actually having the experience, that they are the person and that it isn't a simulation at all. Agreed. It may not even be possible to have the same experience twice, since the memory of the first time might influence the second. Right. That depends on your criteria for classifying 2 experiences as "the same". None of it relies on a non-physical explanation, but is denied because the importance of physical relativity to conscious experience. I agree regarding the "importance" but, my point is that the "physical relativity" could, in principle, be reproduced to arbitrary accuracy. cheers Astaire P.S. I'll reply to Dunamis and Reincarnated later on. Edited by astaire1 on 02/01/09 - 02:46 AM
Heaven, I'm in heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak. And I seem to find the happiness I seek. When we're out together dancing cheek to cheek.

astaire1
Dancing WuLi Master

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Location: France

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 890

Posted 02/01/09 - 03:12 AM:	#10
Hi Dunamis, Good to hear from you again. Dunamis wrote: I would tell you that your physicalist friend didn't even have "access to her ineffable concious experiences," that is their status as accessed things is forever up to debate. Indeed, this is an important point. Reincarnated and I have already agreed(if we have correctly understoof eachother) that a person does not have perfect access to his/her own conscious experiences. Faulty memory and mistaken judgements can intervene. I think I know vaguely what you mean by "their status as accessed things is forever up to debate". Perhaps we have addressed this notion by agreeing that there can be a requirement of holism when discussing a conscious experience. The slicing up into parts is an arbitrary process which depends on various concepts and defintions which must be agreed upon. Joe thought he was happy in his last marriage, but then went to therapy and realized that he really was quite sad (or was he?). Right. My point is that the problem is a definitional one. The attempt to establish which statements are true is frought with difficulties. As I see it, the problem is fundamentally the same whether the analysis is done by the person herself or whether it is done by a third party. In both cases it is the imperfectness of concepts that limits the validity of the claims. Dunamis wrote: The differences of which the said "conscious experiences" which supposedly make a difference, are not really apprehendable in themselves, but can only be traced out through their consequences, forever under revision. Very well said! I agree. My claim is that this process of tracing consequences can be done from the inside (by the person herself) or also, in principle, by a 3rd party armed with all the data available to the person herself and even armed with additional data that is not directly available to the person herself. cheers Astaire
Heaven, I'm in heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak. And I seem to find the happiness I seek. When we're out together dancing cheek to cheek.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.