Private Language and Zombies: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Guest Speakers » David Chalmers » Private Language and Zombies » Private Language and Zombies

Private Language and Zombies

Page: 1 2 3 4

Private Language and Zombies

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1389

Last Blog: testing...

Posted 04/27/09 - 12:56 PM: Subject: Private Language and Zombies	#1
Much has been written about the so called Hard problem of consciousness. The problem is fascinating; as we can see no way that a "completed neuroscience" might one day dispel it. This problem, if insurmountable, prevents the reduction of first hand personal experiences to the low level of biology, chemistry, or particle physics. Upon reading accounts by Wittgenstein, it occurs to me that the debate surrounding consciousness may be a problem we have with the language involved. The various thought experiments used to illustrate the impossibility of consciousness (the Chinese room, China Mind), seem to rely upon our ability to imagine inert parts becoming a conscious "whole". It seems that our ability to visualise things does not prove anything, but it can certialy be used as a rhetorical device. Given a materialist, monist universe, we might either say that consciousness is impossible (because we cannot see how it could arise), or that it is irreducible, because we cannot see how it could arise from the brains constituent parts. It seems strange, perhaps suspicious, that this very thought can be used either way around. To change the conclusion we change the assumed premise (i.e. that we experience consciousness, therefore it must exist", or "We live in a materialist universe, therefore consciousness cannot exist"). If we agree with the private language argument, and therefore accept that language can exist only so long as it is a socially accepted phenomenon, then doesn't this deny the existence of “zombies”? (i.e. If a “zombie” can speak, can feel pain, cry, laugh etc. Then we would normally conclude that it is experiencing the world as we do. How could we tell that it was not?)

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 04/27/09 - 01:40 PM:	#2
Makarismos wrote: If we agree with the private language argument, and therefore accept that language can exist only so long as it is a socially accepted phenomenon, then doesn't this deny the existence of "zombies"? What is a 'zombie'? Edited by ~vince~ on 04/28/09 - 02:10 PM
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1389

Last Blog: testing...

Posted 04/27/09 - 02:02 PM:	#3
~vince~ wrote: what is a 'zombie'? A being, identical to a human, except they do not possess conciousness. They function in the same way, they react in the same way, they just do not have the same experiences as I do. Philosophical 'zombies' are usually raised in a kind of skeptical argument, and used to display various "obvious" notions. I personally don't think any of this area of thought is obvious, hence the scare quotes.

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 04/27/09 - 02:06 PM:	#4
Makarismos wrote: A being, identical to a human, except they do not possess conciousness. They function in the same way, they react in the same way, they just do not have the same experiences as I do. Philosophical 'zombies' are usually raised in a kind of skeptical argument, and used to display various "obvious" notions. I personally don't think any of this area of thought is obvious, hence the scare quotes. I don't think that anyone is completely devoid of consciousness. There are degrees of consciousness. Edited by ~vince~ on 04/28/09 - 02:09 PM
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 323

Posted 04/29/09 - 07:31 AM:	#5
Makarismos wrote: Upon reading accounts by Wittgenstein, it occurs to me that the debate surrounding consciousness may be a problem we have with the language involved. The various thought experiments used to illustrate the impossibility of consciousness (the Chinese room, China Mind), seem to rely upon our ability to imagine inert parts becoming a conscious "whole". It seems that our ability to visualise things does not prove anything, but it can certialy be used as a rhetorical device. I think the private language argument implies that unless the whole being described is truly a part of his world and culture, actively engaged in it, that it is easy to show that simply simulating one aspect of that (such as language in the Chinese Room), is not sufficient to demonstrate consciousness. In a way, the program used in that thought experiment is a kind of private language. But, I think the implication of the private language argument with philosophical zombies implies that philosophical zombies could not really exist. I feel like in a similar vein as Wittgenstein, Heidegger had it right when saying that a self cannot exist as its own self contained object, but depends upon the rest of the world for its existence. It seems to me like a philosophical zombie couldn't get off the ground to do anything.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

nomadx
Undergraduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/30/09 - 03:41 AM:	#6
StaticAge wrote: I think the private language argument implies that unless the whole being described is truly a part of his world and culture, actively engaged in it, that it is easy to show that simply simulating one aspect of that (such as language in the Chinese Room), is not sufficient to demonstrate consciousness. In a way, the program used in that thought experiment is a kind of private language. But, I think the implication of the private language argument with philosophical zombies implies that philosophical zombies could not really exist. I feel like in a similar vein as Wittgenstein, Heidegger had it right when saying that a self cannot exist as its own self contained object, but depends upon the rest of the world for its existence. It seems to me like a philosophical zombie couldn\'t get off the ground to do anything. Overgaard, S 2006, \'The problem of other minds: Wittgenstein\'s Phenomenological perspective\', Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol 5, no. 1, pp. 53-73. A fantastic article well worth reading. I\'m pretty sure Static is right on this one. Wittgenstein is merely saying that language is necessarily public, therefore the notion of a private language (one that enables such formulations as cogito ergo sum) is bunk. In other words he is saying essentially what Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger had said about inter-subjectivity. In more precise terms.. Zombies could not exist, because being in-the-world, with a language, interacting with others and so on... is consciousness. Dreyfus has written something about this as well - check it out..
What is a box? Is the text in the box separate from the text outside the box? How is it linked? What is the border, the margin or frame? Is it inside or outside the box? And why do we talk of a box, say, rather than a square or oblong, a coffin or crypt? What are we trying to hide? Or what is hereby hiding? 'What is a box?' (The Truth in Painting: 229)

et cetera
thinks too much at work

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2008

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 322

Posted 05/08/09 - 05:56 PM:	#7
I'm pretty sure Static is right on this one. Wittgenstein is merely saying that language is necessarily public, therefore the notion of a private language (one that enables such formulations as cogito ergo sum) is bunk. Naw. Witt recognizes that there is private language. It just that if it is a truly private language then it is meaningless dribble to the rest of us. And as a consequent of Witt's beliefs on community it would be of the greatest caliber of meaninglessness. In more precise terms. Zombies could not exist, because being in-the-world, with a language, interacting with others and so on... is consciousness. That's a pretty broad stroke despite the "precise" disclaimer. There is something that it is like to be a bat. That's consciousness. Edited by unenlightened on 05/08/09 - 07:29 PM
Any necessary truth, whether a priori or a posteriori, could not have turned out otherwise. -- Saul Kripke Meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the object of reference and wedded to the word. -- Quine A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it - Kripke

et cetera
thinks too much at work

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2008

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 322

Posted 05/08/09 - 06:08 PM:	#8
I think were getting off on the wrong foot everyone. Lets start over ... what is consciousness?
Any necessary truth, whether a priori or a posteriori, could not have turned out otherwise. -- Saul Kripke Meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the object of reference and wedded to the word. -- Quine A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it - Kripke

davidchalmers
Aspirant

Usergroup: Guest Speakers
Joined: May 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/09/09 - 09:12 PM:	#9
There are a few different issues here. First, you're right that even once one decided that consciousness and materialism are incompatible, this still leaves open the question of which one should reject. In my judgment, it is undeniable that we are conscious (at least, it is undeniable for me that I am), whereas materialism is a speculative though attractive philosophical view that is far from undeniable. So given the choice, I think one should certainly reject materialism. Re Wittgenstein's private language argument, I have never found the argument very compelling. Certainly, I think language use (of a term R, say) requires potential application to more than one case, but I don't think it requires that that one have criteria one can use to reidentify the referent of R whenever one sees it with 100% certainty. So I don't see any problem in principle with the idea of a private language, one that I might use to refer to certain sorts of experiences solely on the grounds of my acquaintance with them in my own case. Even if there were problems with such a language, though, I don't see that this would undermine the notion of consciousness, or the idea that there is a hard problem of consciousness. Certainly, if we encountered a creature that behaved just like us, we would conclude that it is conscious, and tha it is not a zombie. But this doesn't show that zombies are logically impossible. Compare: if I read in the newspaper that something happened, I will conclude that it happened. But this doesn't mean that it is logically impossible that a newspaper might report something without its having happened. Edited by davidchalmers on 05/09/09 - 09:20 PM

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 134
Total Posts: 7364

Posted 05/10/09 - 02:09 PM:	#10
davidchalmers wrote: ...I don't think it requires that that one have criteria one can use to reidentify the referent of R whenever one sees it with 100% certainty. It is a great pleasure to have you here, Dr Chalmers. May I take issue with your point on private language. I entirely agree that one does not need 100% certainty, but I had taken the point of Wittgenstein's argument to be that one has no grounds at all for reidentifying the referent of R. A side-point, perhaps, but I value your opinion.
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

Page: 1 2 3 4

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