Interaction ("mind body") problem

[KCfromNC]

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if we would expect evidence to be there. But as I said I don't think (if a quark were conscious) we would actually expect it to pass a neurological examination.

Why not?

 

[KCfromNC]

But you have raised the bar. You initially implied claimed that there might be a non-neural consciousness (i.e.a quark consicousness) were illogical, and therefore I assume nonsensical. Remember this:

All I did was to point out that they are in fact regarded as coherent viewpoints by the likes of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and co.​

That is a problem if you want to claim it is actuallny true. It is not a problem if you either claim it is possibly true, or that more simply the theory is logically coherent (both of which you apparently deny).

Considering you can't even tell us what difference it would make if office furniture were conscious or not, I'm not sure my "nonsense" claim is that far off the mark.

 

[KCfromNC]

But quarks cannot be made of chocolate because chocolate is more complex that a quark, having a larger scale chemical make up.

Using your words :

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if we would expect evidence to be there. But as I said I don't think (if a quark were chocolate) we would actually expect it to pass a chemical examination.

If you get to reject all the science we know to make your point, so should the rest of us.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why not?

Because nobody has shown me that passing a neurological test is a necessary condition for there being consciousness there. It may work well enough for humans, but I don't think it was ever intended to be a universal test in the first place.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Considering you can't even tell us what difference it would make if office furniture were conscious or not, I'm not sure my "nonsense" claim is that far off the mark.

Why should there be an observable difference to us in order for the concept of it to make semantic sense? That is what you are implying, right?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Using your words :

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if we would expect evidence to be there. But as I said I don't think (if a quark were chocolate) we would actually expect it to pass a chemical examination.

If you get to reject all the science we know to make your point, so should the rest of us.

But the science we know, afaik (ie neuro tests) were never designed or intended to be universal tests for consciousness, rather medical tests for humans and perhaps animals.

If you are going to argue otherwise then produce your backup please.

 

[quatona]

Because nobody has shown me that passing a neurological test is a necessary condition for there being consciousness there. It may work well enough for humans, but I don't think it was ever intended to be a universal test in the first place.

...quarks could be made of chocolate because nobody has shown me that passing a chemical test is a necessary condition for there being chocolate there. It may work well for what is known among humans as chocolate but it was never intended to be a universal test in the first place.

Earlier in this thread you ridiculed me because I was asking what it means for a quark to be conscious. Now you admit that for purposes of defending your position you would abandon every intelligible definition.

Sure, if "conscious" can mean anything anything can be called conscious.
Same with chocolate.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I believe that mind, matter, and energy are modulations of a single "thing". In the tradition of Samkhya (an Indian system that underlies much of the teachings of Yoga) it's called Prakriti. In certain Gnostic Christian traditions it would be called Sophia. Hyle or matter being the "fallen" aspect of Sophia in most systems. If this is the case the lack of detection of energy or communication transfer from some transcendent and separate spirit to the brain would make sense. The transcendent element or Purusha is completely unattached and passive. It's the Divine Witness. All else is Prakriti in various modulations.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why should there be an observable difference to us in order for the concept of it to make semantic sense? That is what you are implying, right?

Yes, something that's described as different should be different. Otherwise it would be "semantically" different and the same simultaneously. As I said, instead of substance there's nothing but word games here.

 

[KCfromNC]

But the science we know, afaik (ie neuro tests) were never designed or intended to be universal tests for consciousness, rather medical tests for humans and perhaps animals.

Kind of like the tests we have were never designed or intended to be universal tests for chocolateness, rather culinary tests for food. So I guess not only is office furniture possibly conscious, but it might also be chocolate. Imagine the ethical dilemma that creates - it might be self-aware, but at the same time I might enjoy eating it. What to do?

 

[KCfromNC]

Because nobody has shown me that passing a neurological test is a necessary condition for there being consciousness there. It may work well enough for humans, but I don't think it was ever intended to be a universal test in the first place.

So your objection is that the tests work well enough for all the consciousness we're actually aware of, but reality might not back up your feeling that office furniture is conscious? To me, that would be a hint that I should reconsider my assumptions. I guess putting faith in deductive logic rather than reality leads to different priorities.

 

[sandwiches]

Kind of like the tests we have were never designed or intended to be universal tests for chocolateness, rather culinary tests for food. So I guess not only is office furniture possibly conscious, but it might also be chocolate. Imagine the ethical dilemma that creates - it might be self-aware, but at the same time I might enjoy eating it. What to do?

I guess all houses could be made of chocolate then, like I said previously.

 

[quatona]

I guess all houses could be made of chocolate then, like I said previously.

Conscious chocolate, that is.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sure, if "conscious" can mean anything anything can be called conscious.
Same with chocolate.

Chocolate has a chemical definition such that veering too far does not make something "chocolate" anymore. Consciousness on the other hand has an observed correlation to certain chemical states, but is not necessarily defined by them. See the dictionary for details.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes, something that's described as different should be different.

So there are no such things as unobservable properties?

Otherwise it would be "semantically" different and the same simultaneously.

Sorry dont understand that one....

As I said, instead of substance there's nothing but word games here.

It is very popular for anti-philosophy intellectuals define philosophy as meaningless word games. Yet ironically that seems to be the only game they really have much acumen in. I am not even sure what a "word game" is meant to be, so perhaps it's all just an attempt to muddy the waters?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Kind of like the tests we have were never designed or intended to be universal tests for chocolateness, rather culinary tests for food. So I guess not only is office furniture possibly conscious, but it might also be chocolate. Imagine the ethical dilemma that creates - it might be self-aware, but at the same time I might enjoy eating it. What to do?

Chocolate comes from a fairly well definmed set of chemical compounds containing cacao etc. Without them the term "chocolate" becomes inappropriate. My chair is not made of chocolate but metal, and the two are logically incompatible (it would be nonsense to say that chocolate is metallic in that sense because of the set of compunds that are regarded as chocolate is not metallic and metal bars are not regarded as a foodstuff).

On the other hand consciousness is observed to be correlated to brain states, but it is not defined as brain states. So the case differs from chocolate because chocolate has a conventional chemical definition (involving cacao etc) where as I said the brain is observed to be correlated to consciousness, but consciousness is not actually defined as "the brain."

Therefore saying "quarks are chocolate" or "the brain is made of chocolate" is a logical error once we know the constituents of the brain etc, but saying "quarks are conscious" is not a logical error because consciousness does not have a physical definition in ordinary English.


Perhaps this is going to provoke an accusation of me playing "word games" but are you aware of the dictionary definitions of consciousness and chocolate?

Chocolate has a chemical definition in ordinary language, like I said:

Fermented, roasted, shelled, and ground cacao seeds, often combined with a sweetener or flavoring agent.

On the other hand consciousness does not have an chemical definition in ordinary language:

The state or condition of being conscious.

Definitions from Thefreedictionary.com

So the meaning of the word chocolate implies certain chemical properties, but that is not the case for consciousness. If you want to try and redefine words feel free but I am not playing those "word games" as I want to keep the thread to the English language and not something you just invented to back your opiniions. Or, if you can find a standard dictionary (i.e. ordinary language definition) which defines consciousness as "the brain" then go ahead it's your birthday.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So your objection is that the tests work well enough for all the consciousness we're actually aware of, but reality might not back up your feeling that office furniture is conscious?

True I could be wrong but like I said I am skeptical of your standard of proof.

To me, that would be a hint that I should reconsider my assumptions.

Yours of mine?

I guess putting faith in deductive logic rather than reality leads to different priorities.

Sorry I don't get that one.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I guess all houses could be made of chocolate then, like I said previously.

No because if you look at the definition of "chocolate" you will find that it has certain chemical properties like containing cacao.

I repeat firmly:

"Chocolate is a raw or processed food produced from the seed of the tropical Theobroma cacao tree."

source, wikipedia this time

 

[quatona]

It is very popular for anti-philosophy intellectuals define philosophy as meaningless word games.

This may or may not be an accurate observation of yours, but it wouldn´t mean that every meaningless word game is therefore philosophy.

 

[KCfromNC]

So there are no such things as unobservable properties?

If you really mean unobservable, I'd say yes. And no. It really makes no difference, either answer gives the exact same results. If they're unobservable in any conceivable way, them existing or not is a semantic quibble. There's literally no difference between them existing or not, by definition.

It is very popular for anti-philosophy intellectuals define philosophy as meaningless word games.

So says the guy who's trying to discredit naturalism by appealing to office furniture with possibly unobservable consciousness.