Interaction ("mind body") problem

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes. How do the novel properties or features of the emergent system (pains, desires, expectations etc) fit into the causal equation? I would have thought that if you are giving a reductionist account of them then that undermines the idea that they are emergent and cannot be understood in terms of system parts.


cf downward causation , and again.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would like to mention that only knowing that brains are conscious does not equal knowing that only brains are conscious.

 

[KCfromNC]

...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?

Why would an a posteriori connection not be considered a logical one? Certainly if we see it actually happen it can't be against the laws of logic ... and if so, logic is wrong in this case since reality trumps idle speculation every time.

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

I looked but for some reason there's nothing of the sort in that post. Perhaps you were referring to a different post or misunderstood what you were reading.

 

[KCfromNC]

I would like to mention that only knowing that brains are conscious does not equal knowing that only brains are conscious.

Sure, but there are other reasons to believe that brains are the only conscious things we know of. Mainly everything else we've observed behaves way differently than conscious brains.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes. How do the novel properties or features of the emergent system (pains, desires, expectations etc) fit into the causal equation? I would have thought that if you are giving a reductionist account of them then that undermines the idea that they are emergent and cannot be understood in terms of system parts.


cf downward causation , and again.

This 'downward causation' idea only seems like a problem because the authors seem to have arbitrarily assigned 'levels' or 'strata' to different processes or objects and then indicated that there is some kind of 'downward' flow of causation. There is causation. Period. There is no 'downward' or 'upward' causation. The fuel in my car makes the engine run which in turns makes the fuel flow, which makes my car run, etc. There is no 'upward' flow of causation from fuel to engine and then 'downward' from engine to fuel. This idea of hierarchical assignment of components to composites is imaginary and seems to have been created almost exclusively for the purpose not accepting determinism, that is that every event is preceded and caused by prior events.

What I'm sensing is that you seem to think there's something more in that composites can exhibit properties not present in its components. But I'm not sure ignorance of the result of combinations or amalgams is good enough a reason to think there's something more than what's observable or that there's some kind of impassable chasm between the components and the composite.

That the brain creates the mind which in turn affects the brain is not any more unexplainable than my computer running a program which in turns affects the computer itself.

Do you think there's also a program/computer problem in the same manner there is a mind/brain program?

 

[sandwiches]

GrowingSmaller, please do this as a favor to me and watch this video:
The Feynman Series (part 3) - Curiosity - YouTube

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why would an a posteriori connection not be considered a logical one? Certainly if we see it actually happen it can't be against the laws of logic ... and if so, logic is wrong in this case since reality trumps idle speculation every time.

AFAIK a logically true statement is analytic, it can be verifiesd as true just by understanding the menaings of terms (like "all batchelors are male"). But it is not ligically/analytically true that brains are conscious. So whan I was asked "what would I expect a brain to be?" I made mention that a priori one could not reasonably expect it to be conscious. That only comes after observation.

I looked but for some reason there's nothing of the sort in that post. Perhaps you were referring to a different post or misunderstood what you were reading.

So where did you get the idea that I thought that consciousness does not exist?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What I'm sensing is that you seem to think there's something more in that composites can exhibit properties not present in its components. But I'm not sure ignorance of the result of combinations or amalgams is good enough a reason to think there's something more than what's observable or that there's some kind of impassable chasm between the components and the composite.

I thought that was the spiel of the emergentists, that there are novel properties that could not be understood by looking at the parts. If that were possible that why not reduction rather than emergence?

That the brain creates the mind which in turn affects the brain is not any more unexplainable than my computer running a program which in turns affects the computer itself.

But does a computer have awareness? According to you that ought easily explained (apparently) because we understand computers and minds are adequately similar to them.

Do you think there's also a program/computer problem in the same manner there is a mind/brain program?

Qualia, mental life etc are not known to exist in computers or robots. But if qualia are explained as easily as computers, then that ought not be an actual difficulty, and we ought to know quite easily.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sandwiches, recently read "The Quantum Man" - a biograpy of Feynman. He needs more fame, well done. +1 for the vid.

 

[KCfromNC]

AFAIK a logically true statement is analytic, it can be verifiesd as true just by understanding the menaings of terms (like "all batchelors are male"). But it is not ligically/analytically true that brains are conscious.

Yes, this points out one of many problems with attempting to use philosophy in place of science. We have overwhelming evidence that brains are responsible for consciousness. You can't generate a syllogism which comes to the same conclusion. Is the solution to question the evidence then, or to realize that maybe philosophy is ill-equipped to handle these sorts of investigation?

So whan I was asked "what would I expect a brain to be?" I made mention that a priori one could not reasonably expect it to be conscious. That only comes after observation.

All reasoning should be based on observation lest it go off the rails into fantasy. Philosophy continues to fail in this regard when it tries to discuss the natural world, such as neurobiology.

So where did you get the idea that I thought that consciousness does not exist?

Why do you think I have that idea in the first place?

 

[KCfromNC]

But does a computer have awareness? According to you that ought easily explained (apparently) because we understand computers and minds are adequately similar to them.

Sure, it's easily explained - computers don't have awareness to the best of our knowledge. That's to be expected, because they're different from brains.

Qualia, mental life etc are not known to exist in computers or robots.

Didn't you just get done telling us that "I would like to mention that only knowing that brains are conscious does not equal knowing that only brains are conscious." In other words, lack of evidence of non-brain consciousness is not evidence of lack of the same. And now you're objecting because you're telling us a lack of evidence of computer consciousness is an evidence of a lack of consciousness in computers. Again, you're all over the map here to try and rationalize a feeling that consciousness needs to be special. The fact that you have no consistent objection is telling.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sure, but there are other reasons to believe that brains are the only conscious things we know of. Mainly everything else we've observed behaves way differently than conscious brains.

I tend to agree that brains are the only consiocus things we know of, but you seem to take a gnostic stance about non-brains too, but I am not sure if the justification you use is strong enough. AFAIK you base what you say on dis-analogy of non-brains with brains, but in my estimation I don't think such a potentially weak (for all we know) ought to be used as a base for knowldge claims. After all would you claim all alien lifeis known to be DNA based, on the grounds that life as we know it is?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Qualia, mental life etc are not known to exist in computers

Didn't you just get done telling us that "I would like to mention that only knowing that brains are conscious does not equal knowing that only brains are conscious." In other words, lack of evidence of non-brain consciousness is not evidence of lack of the same.

Thats right.

And now you're objecting because you're telling us a lack of evidence of computer consciousness is an evidence of a lack of consciousness in computers.

No... I am claiming that computer consciousness is unknown, not that it does not exist. It may, but we seem to be be ignorant of that fact if such is the case.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes, this points out one of many problems with attempting to use philosophy in place of science. We have overwhelming evidence that brains are responsible for consciousness. You can't generate a syllogism which comes to the same conclusion.[quote/]It can be done I think fairly easily. For example

what causes consciousness is responsible for consciousness
brains cause consciousness
brains are responsible for vconsciousness
​

Is the solution to question the evidence then, or to realize that maybe philosophy is ill-equipped to handle these sorts of investigation?

Maybe thats true, but a philosopher can still point out that materialism still has problems to be solved, which is all I am trying to do.

Why do you think I have that idea in the first place?

I think it was something sandwiches (or quatona) said but it seemed uncharacteristically ill grounded.

 

[sandwiches]

I thought that was the spiel of the emergentists, that there are novel properties that could not be understood by looking at the parts. If that were possible that why not reduction rather than emergence?

I can't say that I understand what you're saying or asking.

But does a computer have awareness? According to you that ought easily explained (apparently) because we understand computers and minds are adequately similar to them.

Does a brain have spreadsheets? Does a brain have video games? Does a brain have Twitter? No, no, no. Different things are different. Different computing machines do different things. And?

Qualia, mental life etc are not known to exist in computers or robots. But if qualia are explained as easily as computers, then that ought not be an actual difficulty, and we ought to know quite easily.

Computers can see, hear, feel, and detect many different things that we humans can't and they react in ways that humans do not. We merely choose to treat our reactions and responses as special and incomparable to others. Calling our reactions to stimuli "qualia" does not make them incomprehensible nor does it instantly make these responses anything other than that: Mere electrochemical responses in the brain to stimuli.

 

[GrayAngel]

About the "mind-body problem," I've read Christian responses before, but I rarely hear of any that are Biblically accurate.

From what I've been taught, the Bible makes a distinction between the soul and spirit. The soul is the part of us that includes our mind, memories, personality, etc.. But the spirit is what gives us true awareness. Robots can take in information from their environment and interact with the world, just anything with a brain is capable of doing. But they're empty shells; they lack the spirit.

When we die, our spirit lives on, becoming separate from the spirit. And because the soul is dependent on the physical brain, I think it will be left behind as well. However, the Bible also teaches that we will have new bodies in Heaven.

If I would make a model of what this would look like, I'd have "soul" as a circle, with "body" as a circle surrounding it. Then I'd draw a second set of soul and body to the right of that. In between, I'd place the spirit, which connects to them both.

 

[underpressure]

About the "mind-body problem," I've read Christian responses before, but I rarely hear of any that are Biblically accurate.

From what I've been taught, the Bible makes a distinction between the soul and spirit. The soul is the part of us that includes our mind, memories, personality, etc.. But the spirit is what gives us true awareness. Robots can take in information from their environment and interact with the world, just anything with a brain is capable of doing. But they're empty shells; they lack the spirit.

When we die, our spirit lives on, becoming separate from the spirit. And because the soul is dependent on the physical brain, I think it will be left behind as well. However, the Bible also teaches that we will have new bodies in Heaven.

If I would make a model of what this would look like, I'd have "soul" as a circle, with "body" as a circle surrounding it. Then I'd draw a second set of soul and body to the right of that. In between, I'd place the spirit, which connects to them both.

So the spirit gives us true awareness? What does that mean exactly, and what difference would I notice if I didn't have a spirit or true awareness?

 

[GrayAngel]

So the spirit gives us true awareness? What does that mean exactly, and what difference would I notice if I didn't have a spirit or true awareness?

If you didn't have one, you wouldn't notice. That's the point.

It's hard to explain what the spirit does. But you know that robots are not like people. What would it take to make the robots identical to people? Would it be enough to give them the ability to learn on their own, or to make them able to carry on intelligent conversations? If they could cry given the same stimulus that would make a human cry, would they the same as us?

No. Robots cannot ever be like real living people. They will always be empty shells. The difference you can't make up for is the spirit. No matter what you do to it, there's nobody living in that hunk of metal.

 

[underpressure]

If you didn't have one, you wouldn't notice. That's the point.

It's hard to explain what the spirit does. But you know that robots are not like people. What would it take to make the robots identical to people? Would it be enough to give them the ability to learn on their own, or to make them able to carry on intelligent conversations? If they could cry given the same stimulus that would make a human cry, would they the same as us?

No. Robots cannot ever be like real living people. They will always be empty shells. The difference you can't make up for is the spirit. No matter what you do to it, there's nobody living in that hunk of metal.

Well let's say I build my robot, with my technology I'm able to grow cells, tissues, organs (inc. brain) in a laboratory that are indistinguishable from a natural human's parts. I put my robot together and it grows up just like any other human. (It isn't a clone incidentally, it has unique DNA which I chose for it). What would be the difference between this biological robot that is indistinguishable from other humans and a regular human? How would I know whether it has a spirit or not, and if it is impossible to tell then how can we be sure that the spirit has any function at all, or even exists?


And how about if I change the material, so instead of being carbon based, like us, it is something else, but still functions the same, would this make a difference?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Computers can see, hear, feel, and detect many different things that we humans can't and they react in ways that humans do not.

You claim to know that computers have an inner life of phenomenal awareness? ie they have mental awareness in the form of representaitons of reality.