How is consciousness even possible? : Philosophy Forums

An error occoured at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?rewritten=1&id=29829&page=3 on 2008-08-21 06:22:57. Please relay this data to support. Error #2: 'mysqli_num_rows() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, boolean given' in /home/pgk/public_html/forums/databases/mysqli.php on line 42. Debug info:
LECT `id`,`name`,`parent`,`validated`,`description`,`time`,`parentnames`,`parentids`,`numlinks`,`hide`,`lastlinktime`,`custom`,`lastedit`,`moderators`,`headerinfo`,`related`,`numsub`,`type`,`permissions`,`subscribers`,`subscriber`,`mixtypes`,`isalbum`,`orderlinks`,`totalcomments`,`ulsearchmax`,`ulsearchquery`,`ulsearchadult`,`alias`,`catcols`,`linkcols`,`sponsorlinks`,`views`,`customwrap`,`deleted`,`reqlinks`,`reqcoms`,`reqlinksdelay`,`priority`,`levelsdeep`,`lastposterid`,`lastpostername`,`lastcommenttime`,`lastthreadid`,`lastthreadtitle`,`linkshere`,`unvalidatedlinks`,`unvalidatedcomments`,`actaslink`,`countposts`,`subcatshtml`,`opwords`,`dmozpath`,`linksperpage`,`wysihtml`,`numonline`,`sponsorship`,`lastprofileurl`,`lastthreadurl`,`lastposturl`,`defaultnoaccess`,`specialurl` FROM wsnforum_categories WHERE id=17

Query 7: SELECT `id`,`name`,`parent`,`validated`,`description`,`time`,`parentnames`,`parentids`,`numlinks`,`hide`,`lastlinktime`,`custom`,`lastedit`,`moderators`,`headerinfo`,`related`,`numsub`,`type`,`permissions`,`subscribers`,`subscriber`,`mixtypes`,`isalbum`,`orderlinks`,`totalcomments`,`ulsearchmax`,`ulsearchquery`,`ulsearchadult`,`alias`,`catcols`,`linkcols`,`sponsorlinks`,`views`,`customwrap`,`deleted`,`reqlinks`,`reqcoms`,`reqlinksdelay`,`priority`,`levelsdeep`,`lastposterid`,`lastpostername`,`lastcommenttime`,`lastthreadid`,`lastthreadtitle`,`linkshere`,`unvalidatedlinks`,`unvalidatedcomments`,`actaslink`,`countposts`,`subcatshtml`,`opwords`,`dmozpath`,`linksperpage`,`wysihtml`,`numonline`,`sponsorship`,`lastprofileurl`,`lastthreadurl`,`lastposturl`,`defaultnoaccess`,`specialurl` FROM wsnforum_categories WHERE validated=1 AND deleted=0 AND hide=0 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Number of rows is You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Query 8: SELECT `id`,`title`,`description`,`rating`,`votes`,`validated`,`catid`,`sumofvotes`,`email`,`time`,`hits`,`numcomments`,`hide`,`ownerid`,`voterips`,`voterids`,`lastedit`,`type`,`notify`,`pendingedit`,`suspended`,`alias`,`expire`,`ip`,`inalbum`,`typeorder`,`hitsoutips`,`lastcomment`,`related`,`inhidden`,`viewers`,`threadviewers`,`hitsouttemp`,`origtype`,`importance`,`parentids`,`timesemailed`,`message`,`lastposterid`,`lastpostername`,`sticky`,`threadclosed`,`ownername`,`threadposters`,`deleted`,`downloads`,`funds`,`deletionreason`,`movedto`,`pollid`,`deletedby`,`suspect`,`timesdead`,`posticon`,`timevalidated`,`savedby`,`hitsin`,`hitsinips`,`hitsintemp`,`filefield`,`validatedemail`,`unpaid`,`effectivetime`,`wysihtml`,`movedid`,`unrevised`,`feedurl`,`feedcache`,`feedcachetime`,`sugcatid`,`tags`,`xmlsource`,`ordercomments`,`lastpadupdate`,`invisibleto`,`profileurl`,`lastprofileurl`,`timesrenewed`,`timedeleted`,`sponsorend`,`url`,`recipurl`,`recipwith`,`recipverified`,`pagerank`,`padfile`,`lastmonthlycheck`,`address`,`city`,`state`,`country`,`latitude`,`longtude`,`zip`,`longitude` FROM wsnforum_links WHERE validated=1 AND deleted=0 AND inhidden=0 AND hide=0 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » How is consciousness even possible? » How is consciousness even possible?

How is consciousness even possible?
materialism implies it cannot exist

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

How is consciousness even possible?

aylon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:55 AM:	#51
"Yes, you can update your beliefs on the possibility of things based on new information, but ultimately, probabilities are subjective. What is the actual probability that we are in the matrix right now? Any idea? We tend to assume it is not likely, but how could we rationally come to that conclusion? Certainly not on the evidence - the hypothesis that we are in the matrix and the hypothesis that we are not have the same empirical implications. In other words, we cannot find any empirical evidence to suggest that one hypothesis is correct but not the other. Rather, like all our other beliefs about what is likely, it is based on a "gut feeling" that we're not in the matrix. The hypothesis just runs contrary to our worldview, and we're not willing to change that worldview unless we see some evidence. But if we formed our beliefs by logic alone, we'd have to remain completely agnostic about whether we're in the matrix or not." The main reason why we don't "believe" we're in the matrix is due to the fact that it's fairly meaningless, as people have stated before using Occam's razor we can easily understand the true reason why we don't believe we're in the matrix, which is not as you say a preference due to gut feeling, but rather a logical scientific belief.

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 04:18 AM:	#52
Reincarnated, You said: “…must have particular properties … must have particular properties … of a particular dynamic arrangement of atoms … of a particular dynamic arrangement of atoms” “Particular properties” or “atoms” I can only understand them only as something stable. How can they create something new? When we say “new” we mean something with new and different content. How can “new” emerge from “old”? If I get you, you don’t support an ex nihilo creation. Then, how, i.e., particle 1 + p2 + p3 +… create something new? I think your thesis is a metaphysical evolutionism, because you give to particles or atoms an a priori teleological, deterministic content. And something else: You said: “…as “something new” since the Big Bang. Daffodils have emerged as “something new” since the Big Bang. Consciousness has also emerged as “something new” since the Big Bang.” To explain emergence you use a simile. I don’t think similes have any exegetical value concerning emergence of consciousness, unless you believe that the notion of consciousness is nominalism. If it is “as new” then it is not new, then nothing changes. If it is in a literally sense “new”, then you have to explain how “new” happened from something already existent. Thank you

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:02 AM:	#53
aylon wrote: "Yes, you can update your beliefs on the possibility of things based on new information, but ultimately, probabilities are subjective. What is the actual probability that we are in the matrix right now? Any idea? We tend to assume it is not likely, but how could we rationally come to that conclusion? Certainly not on the evidence - the hypothesis that we are in the matrix and the hypothesis that we are not have the same empirical implications. In other words, we cannot find any empirical evidence to suggest that one hypothesis is correct but not the other. Rather, like all our other beliefs about what is likely, it is based on a "gut feeling" that we're not in the matrix. The hypothesis just runs contrary to our worldview, and we're not willing to change that worldview unless we see some evidence. But if we formed our beliefs by logic alone, we'd have to remain completely agnostic about whether we're in the matrix or not." The main reason why we don't "believe" we're in the matrix is due to the fact that it's fairly meaningless, as people have stated before using Occam's razor we can easily understand the true reason why we don't believe we're in the matrix, which is not as you say a preference due to gut feeling, but rather a logical scientific belief. There are no "actual probabilities". Probability is essentially subjective, based on the information available to the evaluator. The closest thing to a probability that is common to everyone is an average over all observers (similar to Feynman's path integrals over an entire universe of possibilities). The standard of rationality is what you do with the information you have, not the information itself. If you place a bet on being in the matrix which will allow you to lose money for any result, that is irrational.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2528

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:11 AM:	#54
Reincarnated isn't using simile. We have good reason to believe that atoms did not exist at some time in the past, even though we know that they exist now. We know that these atoms have their own properties that are different from simply the action of what we might properly say are the components of the atoms. Similarly, we know that daffodils did not exist in the past. We also know that daffodils are a particular arrangement of atoms in particular states. But we also know that there are descriptions of the activity of daffodils that are not adequately explained by merely describing the atoms of the daffodils, even though all activities of the daffodil involve changing the position and states of atoms. It seems logically possible that consciousness can be yet another level operation of atomic arrangement and states.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2528

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:13 AM:	#55
reincarnated wrote: We can be responsible for our state of being at time T if and only if we are also responsible for the previosu state of being at time T-1 which led to the state of being at time T. This is another way of saying our intentional state at time T must be the result of a prior intentional state at time T-1 if we are to be held responsible for the state at time T. But this leads to an infinite regress of intentional states (or states of being), ergo there is NO such thing as ultimate responsibility. You shouldn't equivocate on 'responsibility" and "ultimate responsibility". If you used "ultimate responsibility" in your first sentence above, I would be able to accept it. However, I can accept that we can be responsible for our state of being at time T even though we were not ultimately responsible (and perhaps even responsible) for our previous state.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:19 AM:	#56
rakis wrote: When we say “new” we mean something with new and different content. What do you mean exactly by "new and different content"? What qualifies as "new content"? rakis wrote: I think your thesis is a metaphysical evolutionism, because you give to particles or atoms an a priori teleological, deterministic content. Not at all. I simply view the property of "being conscious" as an emergent property of a particular dynamical arrangement of atoms. Just as the property of "being a daffodil" is an emergent property of a particular dynamical arrangement of atoms. Nothing teleological, and not necessarily 100% deterministic. rakis wrote: If it is “as new” then it is not new, then nothing changes. If it is in a literally sense “new”, then you have to explain how “new” happened from something already existent. "new" in what sense? Can someone please define exactly what is meant by "new" in this context? If I see a cloud formation which has never existed before in the history of the universe, is that cloud formation something "new"?
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:20 AM:	#57
Kwalish Kid wrote: Reincarnated isn't using simile. We have good reason to believe that atoms did not exist at some time in the past, even though we know that they exist now. We know that these atoms have their own properties that are different from simply the action of what we might properly say are the components of the atoms. Similarly, we know that daffodils did not exist in the past. We also know that daffodils are a particular arrangement of atoms in particular states. But we also know that there are descriptions of the activity of daffodils that are not adequately explained by merely describing the atoms of the daffodils, even though all activities of the daffodil involve changing the position and states of atoms. It seems logically possible that consciousness can be yet another level operation of atomic arrangement and states. Thank you - my thoughts exactly
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:24 AM:	#58
Kwalish Kid wrote: You shouldn't equivocate on 'responsibility" and "ultimate responsibility". If you used "ultimate responsibility" in your first sentence above, I would be able to accept it. However, I can accept that we can be responsible for our state of being at time T even though we were not ultimately responsible (and perhaps even responsible) for our previous state. We need to distinguish between "responsibility simpliciter" (as in "radon is responsible for 100,000 cancer deaths per year") and "ultimate responsibility" (which metaphysical libertarians believe is possessed by free agents). My argument is that only "responsibility simpliciter" is coherent; "ultimate responsibility" entails infinite regress and is thus incoherent and logically impossible.
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

aylon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:54 AM:	#59
It seems that our senses teach us that everything should be determined by a prior cause...but our a priori knowledge seems somehow to lead us to the conclusion that that is not in fact the case, how else can you explain the act of deliberation? how could it possibly make any sense that our experiences teach us that everything is determined and yet we continue to deliberate about doing one thing or another? this seems to me to be the core of this issue and this is what should be addressed rather than the logical conclusions which are derived at by some logical predispositions.

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:07 AM:	#60
Reincarnated, You said: “If I see a cloud formation which has never existed before in the history of the universe, is that cloud formation something "new"?” The crucial point remains that, assuming causal closure of a particle world, higher level organization is causally superfluous relative to the working out of the causal powers of the most basic constituent particles – unless organization, configurations, or relations can themselves be legitimate loci of genuine causal power. If they can, then new organization can yield emergent causal power, but, in that case, not all causal power is resident in particles, or in whatever micro-particulars a physicalist(I think you ‘re a physicalist and you define emergence as an epiphenomenon) prefers. You give no reason why organization can be a locus of causal power, given the particle metaphysics that you assume.

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:12 AM:	#61
Kwalish Kid wrote: It seems logically possible that consciousness can be yet another level operation of atomic arrangement and states. Yes but such kind of particles' organization is metaphysical physicalism, which sees emergence of consciousness a superfluous epiphenomenon.

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:15 AM:	#62
rakis wrote: Reincarnated, You said: “If I see a cloud formation which has never existed before in the history of the universe, is that cloud formation something "new"?” The crucial point remains that, assuming causal closure of a particle world, higher level organization is causally superfluous relative to the working out of the causal powers of the most basic constituent particles �" unless organization, configurations, or relations can themselves be legitimate loci of genuine causal power. If they can, then new organization can yield emergent causal power, but, in that case, not all causal power is resident in particles, or in whatever micro-particulars a physicalist(I think you ‘re a physicalist and you define emergence as an epiphenomenon) prefers. You give no reason why organization can be a locus of causal power, given the particle metaphysics that you assume. was that a "yes" or a "no"?
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:29 AM:	#63
No , with respect to the irreducible character of consciousness.

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:05 AM:	#64
rakis wrote: No , with respect to the irreducible character of consciousness. OK, if I see a cloud formation that has never existed before in the history of the universe, that cloud formation is not (according to you) something "new". In that case, consciousness is also (in this context) not something "new" (imho)
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2528

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:48 AM:	#65
rakis wrote: Yes but such kind of particles' organization is metaphysical physicalism, which sees emergence of consciousness a superfluous epiphenomenon. Epiphenomenalism is not a part of physicalism. For the physicalist, the is a real phenomenon, consciousness, that has actual effects in the physical world. It just happens that there is an in principle description of all the events that underlie the processes of the consciousness. Simply describing these physical events would miss important content, but these events happen nonetheless.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:50 AM:	#66
Reincarnated, Yes, But you introduce relations by example not by argument, and those examples do nothing to block the drain of causal power down to the lowest levels. You give no reason why any causal regularities at a higher level (if you accept a higher-level) of organization are not merely ‘causally epiphenomenal’.

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:00 AM:	#67
Kwalish Kid wrote: Epiphenomenalism is not a part of physicalism. For the physicalist, the is a real phenomenon, consciousness, that has actual effects in the physical world. It just happens that there is an in principle description of all the events that underlie the processes of the consciousness. Simply describing these physical events would miss important content, but these events happen nonetheless. Physicalism accepts consciousnees as reducible to whatever micro-particulars a physicalist prefers. So, either rejects consciousness as a mental event or it diminishes it as an epiphenomenon.

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:07 AM:	#68
rakis wrote: But you introduce relations by example not by argument, and those examples do nothing to block the drain of causal power down to the lowest levels. You give no reason why any causal regularities at a higher level (if you accept a higher-level) of organization are not merely ‘causally epiphenomenal’. I have no idea what you mean by "drain of causal power" I do not consider "mental events" to be in a different class to "physical events" - they are simply particular physical events with very unique properties - why should this make them epiphenomenal? Edited by reincarnated on 04/23/08 - 08:18 AM
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2528

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:26 AM:	#69
rakis wrote: Physicalism accepts consciousnees as reducible to whatever micro-particulars a physicalist prefers. So, either rejects consciousness as a mental event or it diminishes it as an epiphenomenon. An epiphenomenon has no effects. Consciousness has effects, so a physicalist cannot be an epiphenomenalist. A physicalist denies that mental events are not physical events. Just like different collections of molecules can be daffodils, so too can different collections of physical events be conscious events.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:40 AM:	#70
Kwalish Kid wrote: An epiphenomenon has no effects. Consciousness has effects, so a physicalist cannot be an epiphenomenalist. A physicalist denies that mental events are not physical events. Just like different collections of molecules can be daffodils, so too can different collections of physical events be conscious events. I think there are some who might argue that consciousness has no effects on the physical (ie those who believe consciousness is epiphenomenonal). I am not one of them. I agree 100% with the final sentence above. To me, a conscious event is simply a physical event with very particular properties (ie the properties of being a conscious event) - just as a daffodil is a physical entity with very particular properties (ie the properties of being a daffodil).
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2528

Posted 04/23/08 - 09:35 AM:	#71
OK, I agree that David Chalmers does exist and he is an example of someone who believe that consciousness is epiphenomenal. However, he also agrees that all our talk of the effects of conscious decision is handled by the details of our physical system. Frankly, I can't accept that one can accept that consciousness is still yet something else when everything that it does is handled by the physical body.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 439

Posted 04/23/08 - 09:55 AM:	#72
Kwalish Kid wrote: OK, I agree that David Chalmers does exist and he is an example of someone who believe that consciousness is epiphenomenal. However, he also agrees that all our talk of the effects of conscious decision is handled by the details of our physical system. Frankly, I can't accept that one can accept that consciousness is still yet something else when everything that it does is handled by the physical body. watch out - here come the Zombies!!!!!
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/23/08 - 11:40 AM:	#73
Kwalish Kid,reincarnated, Can you define "handled" ? Do you mean supervenience ? (in a non-reductive physicalism, physicalism is compatible with our ordinary way of explaining bodily movements by citing wants and wishes, beliefs and fears, hopes and dreams. It is just that these psychological states can be re-described in physical terms. The tricky part was to explain how it is that mental properties and events are not reducible to physical properties and events, but are nevertheless dependent upon them. Here the idea of supervenience suddenly seemed attractive. Mental concepts may not be able to be defined in terms of physical concepts, but what might look like an emergent, causally efficacious property at the mental level actually ‘supervenes’ on a person’s physical properties and powers. The central idea of supervenience seems disarmingly simple: “no mental change without accompanying physical changes”.) If yes, then I assume you accept something like this: "mental properties supervene on physical properties in the sense that if something instantiates any mental property M at time t, there is a physical base property P such that the thing has P at t, and anything with P at some time necessarily has M at that time." Then, if we understand mental properties and powers to be functional properties, you can maintain that the only potential occupants, or ‘realizers’, of these causal roles are physical properties. is that right for you? Edited by rakis on 04/23/08 - 12:03 PM

Simple Occam
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/23/08 - 01:26 PM:	#74
From the OP MikeH wrote: So lets assume our universe contains only material objects - no spirits or anything like that. Just atoms and energy. Then it seems to me that we have ruled out the existence of minds - things that are self-aware or conscious - altogether. Think of the world as a collection of trillions upon trillions (probably more) of tiny points of mass - billiard balls, you could say. Is there any arrangement of these billiard balls such that consciousness could arise? How could anyone possibly think that if they just moved these billiard balls around in the correct way, they would suddenly become self-aware? Doesn't that just seem like nonsense? Now it is true that there is not just matter in the world, but also energy. But I don't think that affects the conclusion. If we suppose these billiard balls come in different shapes and sizes, and energy allows them to bond together and interact in various ways, how could that then make consciousness possible? Is there some special way that they interact, exchanging smaller parts of themselves and so on, that could result in the billiard balls being self aware? I think not. Some people just say consciousness is an "emergent" phenomenon - but they fail to say how such a mysterious thing could possibly emerge from mere bits of matter. Its acceptable to say that we don't know exactly how it emerges - science just hasn't advanced that far yet - but shouldn't we be able to say that its at least possible for such a thing to occur? Consciousness refers to the fact that it is like something to perceive the world. In Consciousness and Qualia Leopold Stubenberg states it rather nicely. He talks about how to understand "state connsciousness" by saying that "the crucial feature of a conscious state is that it is like something for the subject who has the state..... Not the state itself but being the creature that has the state (in the relevant way) is like something." Negel's introduction of this notion in "What is it like to be a bat?" makes the point that it must be like something to be an echo-locating bat that "sees" by sound; but something different from what it is like to be a human. Accordingly, it is probably NOT like anything to be a rock or a cloud of gas. Since they are complex structures, even rocks and gas clouds have an intrinsic nature... what the are in themselves. But the ways in which mass and energy (meaning, simply, energy with and without 'rest mass') interact in the vastly complex and evolved neuro-physiological structures of animal brains and nervous systems are SO much different than the atomic structures of rocks and gases, that is DOES make sense to think that what it is like to be an animal with a brain is to be conscious, whereas, to be a rock is really not like anything at all, since it has no neurophysiology at all. The reductio argument that it is absurd to think bouncing billiard balls could just happen accidentally to bounce into a state of consciousness, is much like the teleological or argument from design for God. And just as fallacious. Evolution goes a long way toward explaining how complex neurophysiology can evolve without divine intervention or emergent causes. But even if we can explain the complexity and intelligence of brains, we still haven't found the consciousness as something distinguishable from the brain. Consciousness is not another thing that evolves alongside the brian. It is simply the condition of BEING the animal with a brain that defines its unique embodiment of consciousness. Science will never "discover" consciousness through more advancements in understanding efficient causation. To explain consciousness we must make the ontological claim that the phenomenal properties of consciousness (ie, qualia) are identical to the intrinsic propreties of animal neurophysiology.

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 178

Posted 04/23/08 - 03:29 PM:	#75
Simple Occam wrote: Science will never "discover" consciousness through more advancements in understanding efficient causation. Hi Occam, Might it not be that if we understood the physical state of the whole brain (and body) well enough, we might identify the factor that makes it be like something to be us? Knowing about the separate components isn't good enough, but perhaps knowing what the "state" of a whole nervous system is like might provide us with an unexpected insight into the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. I speculate that it might be something to do with the way the nervous system delivers the experience we call time. In some special way a connection is made between the succeeding states of the nervous system. I think that might be the crucial difference between ourselves and machines and the simpler animals. I speculate that information from the environment is recorded by the nervous system in such a way as to generate that experience. So I would challenge the idea that science can't possibly discover such a mechanism. Maybe it could happen through looking at the successive states of a minimally conscious animal, or noticing a crucial distinction between the physiologies of conscious and non-conscious animals.
Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.