Interaction ("mind body") problem

[sandwiches]

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?

But I don't see a problem.

Comatose people still have a mind or the processes similar to those that give rise to the mind? So? How's that a problem?

The mind cannot exist, at the moment, without a body and the body can exist without the mind. So? How's that a problem?

A car factory can exist without the process of building cars, the process of building cars cannot exist without the car factory. I'm really failing to see any problem here.

 

[sandwiches]

#2. Why does consciousness arise in the brain.

Because of the interactions between neurons through electrochemical signals. The specifics of which you'd have to ask a neuroscientist.

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.

So, we have no way of empirically testing for consciousness. That means that, at the moment, there is no empirically observable difference between a p-zombie and a person who's self-aware?

 

[quatona]

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.

So a detailed explanation of the processes and causal chains would be a satisfactory answer?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

MAybe not quatona. I was in a rush posting yesterday. What is needed is an account of the reasons why when certain causal processes are present consciousness arises.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Because of the interactions between neurons through electrochemical signals. The specifics of which you'd have to ask a neuroscientist.

But why do they specifically lead to consciousness, rather than unconscious processes. I think that is still unknown.

So, we have no way of empirically testing for consciousness. That means that, at the moment, there is no empirically observable difference between a p-zombie and a person who's self-aware?

I am not sure what you mean by an empirical test. Do you think there are any?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

No natural selection of consciousness cannot cause the initial consciousness to arise. It must arise, then be selected.

 

[quatona]

MAybe not quatona. I was in a rush posting yesterday. What is needed is an account of the reasons why when certain causal processes are present consciousness arises.

Analogous to the reasons why when certain causal processes are present radioactivity arises?
Or are you pre-assuming there has to to be some kind of more/deeper reasons? What would make you assume that, in the first place?

 

[KCfromNC]

It is a logical possibility that they may not be

It's logically possible if you assume the conclusion you're looking to prove. If you don't, it's not logically possible. So which assumption is correct? I guess we'll never know - at least from all of this philosophy based navel-gazing.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

No, it's just an observation. Kind of like there's no rational a priori expectancy that apples out to be red, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.

You seem to be stuck on or missing the idea that we can't or don't observe consciousness in living things. Your answer to the question of determining consciousness in computers was based on it, as was your response about consciousness in office furniture along with many others. Do you really not know if consciousness exists? Seems like a strange position for someone who's demand science explain it in detail.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No natural selection of consciousness cannot cause the initial consciousness to arise. It must arise, then be selected.

I would think the development of consciousness such as we have would be analogous to the development of the eye from a light sensitive spot.

I wouldn't say consciousness is black or white, on or off. I think comparison of animals shows a not-well-understood continuum of consciousness.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would think the development of consciousness such as we have would be analogous to the development of the eye from a light sensitive spot.

I wouldn't say consciousness is black or white, on or off. I think comparison of animals shows a not-well-understood continuum of consciousness.

Thats an interesting thought I had never had that one. Ty.

Are youimplying the consciousness is a "fuzzy" phernomenon describably by fuzzy locic or something?

I would habe thought "Either C or not-C". 1 or 0

 

[sandwiches]

But why do they specifically lead to consciousness, rather than unconscious processes. I think that is still unknown.

I'm not understanding the question, I guess. Are you asking HOW the brain creates consciousness? It seems a little meaningless to ask "why" in the same way that asking why wood burns instead of not burn is a bit absurd. It burns instead of NOT burn because the specific arrangement of matter and energy is such that it is inevitable that the property of combustibility will arise. Why is it inevitable? Because that's what matter and energy does. At some point there is no deeper answer than that's simply the way matter and energy is/does.

I am not sure what you mean by an empirical test. Do you think there are any?

Is there any way with our senses to distinguish a p-zombie from a conscious being?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Will get back to you all but just discovered this Dawkins video on Youtube:

Richard Dawkins - Subjective Consciousness - YouTube

 

[KCfromNC]

Thats an interesting thought I had never had that one. Ty.

Are youimplying the consciousness is a "fuzzy" phernomenon describably by fuzzy locic or something?

I would habe thought "Either C or not-C". 1 or 0

Why? That's not what we observe in the real world. Your level of consciousness changes throughout the day based on a number of factors - how sleepy you are, are you threatened or afraid, have you had coffee and so on. Modern medicine has a number of ways to change how conscious you are - thank goodness, otherwise surgery wouldn't be very fun. And changes to the physical structure of the brain can cause permanent changes to how conscious people are - otherwise it would be fun to get hit in the head.

If our level of consciousness can be so easily changed by changing the physics and chemistry of the brain using those methods, it's not a big stretch to think that similar changes driven by evolution could lead to big changes as well.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is there any way with our senses to distinguish a p-zombie from a conscious being?

Or more interestingly, prove that there is consciousness at all instead of everyone, including ourselves, being p-zombies? After all, if no one can prove we're "really" conscious (as opposed to just seeming to be conscious through every possible test we could devise) then there's no hard problem to solve in the first place.

Or you can admit that "just seeming to be conscious through every possible test we could devise" is being conscious and the whole problem allegedly caused by p-zombies goes away since they're just as conscious as we are.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, it's just an observation. Kind of like there's no rational a priori expectancy that apples out to be red, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.

Yes its just an observation, thats agreed. Remember my comment was in response to quatona's questions about consciousness:

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

...which seemed to imply some form of logical connection between brain and mind. But the connection is synthetic and we know of it by observation (a posteriori). Maybe the hard problem of consciousness (why does consciousness arise with such ancd such brain states?) is asking for a logical connection?

You seem to be stuck on or missing the idea that we can't or don't observe consciousness in living things.

I never said that. I accept that reduction to brain states is a valid option. What I am saying is that talk about mental phenomena like desire and pain etc does not seem to be fully explained by intertheroetic reduction. It might translate folk psychology into the language of science, but the language of science IMO does not properly account for the emergence of mental life from it's own side.

Your answer to the question of determining consciousness in computers was based on it, as was your response about consciousness in office furniture along with many others. Do you really not know if consciousness exists? Seems like a strange position for someone who's demand science explain it in detail.

You ought to look at your last post (#155) if you want to find anyone denying consciousness in this thread.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why?

Law of the excluded middle. Either C or not-C. I just never thought it might be on a continuum, thats all. Lack of imagination, boss.

That's not what we observe in the real world. Your level of consciousness changes throughout the day based on a number of factors - how sleepy you are, are you threatened or afraid, have you had coffee and so on. Modern medicine has a number of ways to change how conscious you are - thank goodness, otherwise surgery wouldn't be very fun. And changes to the physical structure of the brain can cause permanent changes to how conscious people are - otherwise it would be fun to get hit in the head.

So maybe what we take to be fully conscious is not half of what the brain (or a differently evolved brain) might be capable of?

If our level of consciousness can be so easily changed by changing the physics and chemistry of the brain using those methods, it's not a big stretch to think that similar changes driven by evolution could lead to big changes as well.

So thats a "yes" then?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there any way with our senses to distinguish a p-zombie from a conscious being?

As far as I know there is not. As far as the definitions go, the p-zombies and the non zombies appear identical in all relevant respects (brain, behavior, speech, self-descriptions etc).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@Sandwiches

IIRC thoeies of emergence posit "top down" causation. i.e. novel features/ properties that emerge at higher levels of complexity or organisation can cause changes in the lower levels from whence they emerged. I think this "top down" idea is similar to what I call the body-body problem. If emergence is true, then how does emergent mental life cause changes from the "top down"?

 

[sandwiches]

@Sandwiches

IIRC thoeies of emergence posit "top down" causation. i.e. novel features/ properties that emerge at higher levels of complexity or organisation can cause changes in the lower levels from whence they emerged. I think this "top down" idea is similar to what I call the body-body problem. If emergence is true, then how does emergent mental life cause changes from the "top down"?

Are you asking "If top-down emergence is true, then how does emergent mental life cause changes from the 'top down'?"