consciousness is not servicable : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Guest Speakers » David Chalmers » consciousness is not servicable » consciousness is not servicable

Page: 1 2

consciousness is not servicable

RosenP
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 115

Posted 05/09/09 - 01:13 PM: Subject: consciousness is not servicable	#1
The claim by Chalmers is that consciousness is fundamental,non-physical( not mass, or energy), non-reducible, explanatory ultimate. Suppose we accept this, the difficulity I see is how to incorporate, and connect to things we know about physics. It is a law of nature that all F s is followed by all G s. where F and G is a referents to something that is either observable, or non-observable. Eg: E=M,in relativity where we scale c=1. This equation connects the unobservable E to the observable M. Even though nobody knows what energy is, there is still a measureable effect from E. We can determine E by looking for M in say pair-creating from proton. There is a causal (a posteriori necessary?) relation between E and M. What would be the causal relation of consciousness to observables? How can consciousness, being non-physical, have any causal relation to the physical? The unobservables posited by science can be used to explain experimental result, but I see no way for consciousness to explain any physical experiments. I can only conclude that the thesis is non-servicable. One possible objection might be that the thesis accounts for the subjective experience of 'I'. It is kind of useless if there is only one application for the thesis. Edited by unenlightened on 05/09/09 - 03:10 PM. Reason: spelling, punctuation.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 05/09/09 - 01:41 PM:	#2
Energy is the ability to do work, and is observable. We observe how nuclear fission is used to move the turbines to create electricity.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

RosenP
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 115

Posted 05/09/09 - 01:49 PM:	#3
keda wrote: Energy is the ability to do work, and is observable. We observe how nuclear fission is used to move the turbines to create electricity. no, it is not. This is a technical word with a special meaning in philosophy of scienece.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301

Posted 05/09/09 - 02:35 PM:	#4
RosenP wrote: no, it is not. This is a technical word with a special meaning in philosophy of scienece. No wonder he chose not to turn up.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 05/09/09 - 03:01 PM:	#5
Perhaps it is physics that is not serviceable if it cannot account for the observer. I cannot see how one can explain an experiment without consciousness?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

RosenP
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 115

Posted 05/09/09 - 04:40 PM:	#6
unenlightened wrote: Perhaps it is physics that is not serviceable if it cannot account for the observer. I cannot see how one can explain an experiment without consciousness? What about the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics? The wave funtion never collapsed.

davidchalmers
Aspirant

Usergroup: Guest Speakers
Joined: May 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 05/09/09 - 09:41 PM:	#7
There are various possibilities here: basically types D, E, and F from "Consciousness and its Place in Nature". Type-E is epiphenomenalism with no causal role for consciousness -- maybe "kind of useless" as you say but at least not ruled out, and consciousness still plays the very useful role of making the world meaningful. But if you don't like this, there's also type-D, interactionism, with consciousness playing a causal role with respect to physics. here the most obvious causal role to exploit is the collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics, which after all is usually said to occur on "measurement". No-one really knows what counts as a measurement, but if one antecedently takes consciousness to be fundamental, then the natural suggestion is that measurement is interaction with a conscious system. If so, consciousness plays the role of putting the physical world in a definite state. Of course that is speculative as physics, but certainly not ruled out. Finally, there is the type-F idea that consciousness or protoconsciousness is present at the fundamental level of physics, as the categorical basis of microphysical dispositions. Roughly, corresponding to the unknown intrinsic nature of mass, charge, etc. If so, consciousness will play a causal role without needing to interfere in any way with physics -- it will in effect be built into physics from the start.

RosenP
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 115

Posted 05/09/09 - 10:07 PM:	#8
davidchalmers Finally, there is the type-F idea that consciousness or protoconsciousness is present at the fundamental level of physics, as the categorical basis of microphysical dispositions. Roughly, corresponding to the unknown intrinsic nature of mass, charge, etc. If so, consciousness will play a causal role without needing to interfere in any way with physics -- it will in effect be built into physics from the start. Hawking asked what is it that breaths fire into the equations to make a universe. If type F is true, then the fire is consciousness! Derek parfit ` s paper on why anything. He posit the notion of a efficient selector E, such that any universes with property E, necessary exist! If type F is true, then consciousness is an efficient selector, or one of the efficient selector. Edited by RosenP on 05/09/09 - 10:34 PM

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 05/10/09 - 11:21 PM:	#9
Can't this issue be rephrased as what is the relationship between the experience and contents of an observation? It seems that the content necessarily comes from the experience, thus is it even plausible to treat them as two distinct "realms"? There are studies done on our perception that imply a great deal of categorical interpretation of what is seen, going further down this road would lead to the idea that our conception of the material world and its causal relationships are based on the "interpretation bias" of our observations. http://cbc.ucsd.edu/illu_ambig_apprnt_mot.html http://cbc.ucsd.edu/illu_ambig_apprnt_mot_mult_stim.html This would at the same time imply explanation D, and also eliminate any need for a relationship beyond just correlations for the hard problem of consciousness. I don't think it implies a causal relationship such as collapsing of a wave function through observation, but that the apparent "collapse" is a reflection of our interpretation bias. The closer we look at something, the more definite it will appear. This is possibly akin to turning the knob on a microscope to increase image focus, which of course does not result in a causal relationship with what is being observed. I guess when we find out how much of our conception of the physical world is based on interpretation bias we'll have a better idea of what's going on. Then again, how could we possibly know what's going on if we're investigating with interpretation bias? Wouldn't this make the hard problem of consciousness unsolvable? How can we even assume that we're interpreting something at all, that there's anything "static" being actively interpreted? Edited by kkiiji on 05/10/09 - 11:38 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

Posted 05/11/09 - 10:41 AM:	#10
kkiiji brings up a a good point. The observer dictates what is observed. In this case, the consciousness is our active awareness as well as the subconscious and/or unconsciousness. kkiiji wrote: This would at the same time imply explanation D, and also eliminate any need for a relationship beyond just correlations for the hard problem of consciousness. Are we talking Neural Correlates here? Chalmers appears to be a supporter of this notion, and we wait for the scientists to come back with their finds... but they have an interpretation bias! So, in assuming no one finds the correlates in this lifetime, is it probably that they are not there, or is it probable that the scientists did not look hard enough? Then again, how could we possibly know what's going on if we're investigating with interpretation bias? Wouldn't this make the hard problem of consciousness unsolvable? How can we even assume that we're interpreting something at all, that there's anything "static" being actively interpreted? Well, we just need to define 'exist' and have every possible view represented, imo. Or maybe those worldview axioms Chalmers deliberated. It could be possible we would miss something, but then that is why we need science in this endeavor. Of course, we may have disregard Descartes axiom and ask another how he thinks. Blessings, Dude.
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

Page: 1 2

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