Interaction ("mind body") problem

[variant]

I would respond but you just seem to argue via assertion, so theres no real point.

 

[Gracchus]

I would respond but you just seem to argue via assertion, so theres no real point.

Apparently, the assertions are such that you can't refute them. Walk off with you nose in the air, if you will. No one is fooled but you.

 

[variant]

Apparently, the assertions are such that you can't refute them. Walk off with you nose in the air, if you will. No one is fooled but you.

Oh I could argue untill I am blue in the face, It's just not worth the effort.

Your arguments are only valid because your definitions make them so and I hate argueing semantics.

Example:

No. The software becomes part of the system. The computer is the computer, on or off, barebones or OS installed.

If a "computer" for instance defined by what it "does" or is capable of doing, then the software that changes that basic capability is a part of it.

A broken "computer" is a paperweight, ie not capable of computeing.

 

[sandwiches]

I think you, Gracchus and variant, are splitting hairs over nothing. It's irrelevant if a driver is part of a car or software part of a computer. The fact remains that a program can exist without a computer and a car without a driver but the program won't execute without a computer and a car won't move around without a driver, respectively. (And don't wanna hear about how programs can be executed by something other than a computer and how a car could drive itself with a computer. That's also beside the point)

Now, whether the mind, as a collection of electrical signals can exist without a brain can exist is irrelevant and untestable, as for the moment, consciousness can only exist as a process of the brain.

 

[Gracchus]

Now, whether the mind, as a collection of electrical signals can exist without a brain can exist is irrelevant and untestable, as for the moment, consciousness can only exist as a process of the brain.

Ahh! But we are discussing the "mind body problem". The body can exist without a mind, but the mind, it would seem, cannot exist without a body. And that point addresses the "theological" implications that are historically linked to that topic. Some of those electrochemical signals, even, can exist in a comatose person, so conciousness is obviously something else. So what is relevant about the "problem" to you?

 

[Davian]

I can't believe anyhting so nihilisic (reducing to nothing) about conscious life and the existential condition. Neitszche attacked religion for being nihilistic about life in favour of a future heavenly state. I think that "science" is belig nihilistic in favour of so many so called experimental findings. Of course science may be right, and has better standards of evidence than religion, but whilst is is so incomplete I am not going to become a nihilist, and deny 'common sense' phenomenological reality, just because of some 20/1 century (after a mere 100 years of psychology) experiments say such and such.

So "science" may be right, but you can't go there because you think it is incomplete?

In what way? What do you think they have missed?

 

[quatona]

A professor (IIRC) wrote that the problem is so deep we do not even know what kind of answer we might expect.

So that there is a meaningful "why"-question (and an answer to it) is merely a baseless premise that creates a problem it can´t solve.
You admit you don´t know what you are talking about.
Asking why-questions without even knowing what you are asking for is easy. I could create five of them in say two minutes. Also, small children are very good at it.

Whereas I don´t even see or sense a problem, in the first place.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Quatone why is a question meaningful only if we can begin to answer it? Who dictated that standard?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So "science" may be right, but you can't go there because you think it is incomplete?

In what way? What do you think they have missed?

Well the science was presented as if is backed the opinion that experience is just some kind of unimportant added accidental extra. I don't think the science actually implies that, but that was what it was "made to say". And it was that which I was arguing against.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well if you are looking for the answer to, "why are you, you?" I think we can answer it by explaining all the physical processes that go on, how your DNA came to be what it is, and the environment you grew up in. If you think a deeper answer exists, but it is impossible for us to get to the answer, I can (kind of) see where you are coming from, I think, but I think the question needs to be defined better.

IIRC the "master" does it better here.David Chalmers on the "hard problem" of consciousness - The Consciousness Chronicles Vol. 1 - YouTube

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Now, let me clarify something: Are you asking why we developed consciousness as humans or why consciousness arises from the processes in the brain?

#2. Why does consciousness arise in the brain.

How would you go about determining if the computer is conscious and self-aware?

Well we would have to know sufficient the condition(s) for consciousness and check whether any are there in a computer. AFAIK we do not have that capability as of yet. So whats left? We cuold argue by analogy (as computers are similar in some ways to humans and other things we believe are aware), but that would be a less failsafe method as the analogy is not that strong.

 

[quatona]

Quatone why is a question meaningful only if we can begin to answer it?

That´s not exactly what I said, but anyway:
Because that´s the meaning of the word "meaning": The question must have an intelligible meaning to us in order for it to be meaningful.

I can ask questions like "What´s the square root of blue?" by the dozens, merely demonstrating that I´m just assembling words without even knowing what I am saying. Referring to the fact that there might possibly an answer that I/ don´t/can´t know of doesn´t change anything about it.

 

[quatona]

#2. Why does consciousness arise in the brain.

Where else would you expect it to arise?
What else would you expect to arise in the brain?

 

[Davian]

So "science" may be right, but you can't go there because you think it is incomplete?

In what way? What do you think they have missed?

Well the science was presented as if is backed the opinion that experience is just some kind of unimportant added accidental extra. I don't think the science actually implies that, but that was what it was "made to say". And it was that which I was arguing against.

They way I understand it, the brain creates a 'model of self' (the 'experience' you refer to) as needed. It emerged out of complexity, and was selected for as a survival trait. I do not think of it as an 'accidental extra' any more than other evolved traits.

"Arguably, until now, the conscious self-model of human beings is the best invention Mother Nature has made. It is a wonderfully efficient two-way window that allows an organism to conceive of itself as a whole, and thereby to causally interact with its inner and outer environment in an entirely new, integrated, and intelligent manner." - Thomas Metzinger, in Being No One

I do get your 'nihilistic' concerns, and I wrote about that in my comments on Metzinger's work on this thread.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That´s not exactly what I said, but anyway:
Because that´s the meaning of the word "meaning": The question must have an intelligible meaning to us in order for it to be meaningful.

I can ask questions like "What´s the square root of blue?" by the dozens, merely demonstrating that I´m just assembling words without even knowing what I am saying. Referring to the fact that there might possibly an answer that I/ don´t/can´t know of doesn´t change anything about it.

And you think that "why does consciousness arise in the brain?" is a nonsensical question?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Where else would you expect it to arise?
What else would you expect to arise in the brain?

All well and good they are questions but they do not answer the original quesiton.
I do notknow where else it might arise, and in the brain ythere might arise the complement i.e. non-consciousness. Are you saying there is a rational a priori expactancy that the brain ought to be consicous?

 

[quatona]

And you think that "why does consciousness arise in the brain?" is a nonsensical question?

Yes (actually "meaningless" was the term of my choice), unless you tell me what you mean.
E.g.
"Why?" can ask for an explanation of the process.
Or it can ask about an intention.
Or for a cause.
Or an author.
Of a function.
Or...

What is it you are looking for?

 

[quatona]

All well and good they are questions but they do not answer the original quesiton.

Certainly not, and they aren´t meant to. They are meant to help understanding what you are asking.

Are you saying there is a rational a priori expactancy that the brain ought to be consicous?

No, at this point I am not saying anything. I just asked questions.
Your "Why?" question (particularly with the disclaimer that the answer may be very deep, hidden, unconceivable, etc.) seems to imply that you find something unexpected about the consciousness arising in the brain. In order to understand better what your problem is, I tried to ask to the effect of "So what would you expect?" or "Which is the particular part that you find so surprising?".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why does the beain become conscious... Means, for what reason. I am looking for an understanding of the reasons why certain complex interactions produce consciousness. Not reason in the purposive sense, but in an explanatory, causal sense.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would think that it is sufficient that we've only ever seen consciousness when matter takes the form of what we call a brain.

In some sense then, it seems a more appropriate question to ask how it arises. The why question seems answered by saying that evolving this trait gave survival advantages.

Answering the question of how the brain does what it does seems the first step to understanding what that which we perceive as consciousness actually is. I suspect, as I've mused before, that consciousness is simply the feedback of the brain contemplating itself (or itself and the things attached to it).

The ability of the person to say, "I don't like pain, therefore I won't put my hand in the fire" is simply a survival trait. This seems a sufficient answer to the question "why".

Of course, YMMV.