Interaction ("mind body") problem

[GrowingSmaller]

ETA I have now seen and tried to address your "synonym" argument in a later post.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, that's because no one claims it is.

Ok so the analogy with chocolate is weak then as I pointed out.

This makes no sense - an action isn't the same as the object which performs the action. Please provide a definition from a reputable source which indicates that playing is defined as a child, that lawmaking is defined as a politician or that acceleration is defined as a car motor or admit your assertion isn't true (by definition or otherwise).

Running is juts a body doing things over time. Human consciousness is just a brain doing things over time. Just as there is body running identity, there can be mind brain identity.

No, it used a synonym.

What synonym for "brain"? I have to admit I missed that one.

Are you going to argue that since the word choice didn't match exactly what you expected that the whole idea of brains being the source of consciousness is wrong?

No I am just trying to point out the dysanalogy between your chocolate argument and my brain argument.

A classic formulation of (your understanding of) an argument from ignorance.

NO, beacuse we know by an analytic looka at the meaning of the word chocolate that chocolate has a chemical component, cacao. Claiming all chocolate has that component is not an argument from ignorance, it is (I believe) an "immediate inference" or in other words an inference that can be made just by looking at the terms we are using.

And yet I provided a definition which shows that it's true, by definition, that consciousness is a product of the brain.

Well demonstrating that relies on your claim that the definition, although it did not mention "brain" explicitly, used a synonym. However, I never saw that one myself so I need to be shown.

But you keep trying to find ways to ignore that - first pretending that the definition doesn't mean anything,

What?

then that I didn't give it,

I don't believe you did, but I am willing to listen tothis "synonym" argument of yours.

and now that they used a slightly different phrasing than you'd hoped so it's invalid.

Look, I asked for a definition with the word brain in the definiendum, thats all. You didn't provide one, thats all.

If you're going to play the game that definitions create reality, don't start changing the rules when they create a reality that you disagree with.

Erm?

Definitions don't create reality.

They describe the meanings of words. And you seem to be claiming an analogy of "mind" with "chocolate" and I am merely pointing out the dysanalogy.

What does "true by definition" mean, specifically when contrasted with "true".

It is true by definition that "all batchelors are male" because "batchelor" is defined as "a man who is not and has never been married".

It is true by definition that "all chocolate contains cacao" because cohcolate is defined as being a derivitive of the cacao plant. It is not true by definition that "all awareness depends on a brain" because "awareness" is not defined as the brain.

But this doesn't apply to chocolate, simply because some english major wrote something down in a dictionary? Words aren't magic.

See my last comment. Also see this link: analytic vs. synthetic statements

 

[quatona]

It is not true that "all awareness depends on a brain" because "awareness" is not defined as the brain.

Since "depends on" is not defined as "is" this is an entirely fallacious line of reasoning.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you're looking for authoritative sources on a question of biology or medicine, do you really think that a dictionary is the place to find the most accurate answer? I guess it's basically an admission that you can't argue against reality so it's time to play semantic games to try and make some sort of rhetorical point.

I am merely pointing out a dysanalogy between the term "chocolate" and the terms "consciousness" and "awareness" etc.

You keep pointing this out as if I haven't addressed it. It's not a problem because no one (except maybe you) thinks this. You'd be more convincing if you addressed the actual topic rather than asking people to prove stuff that they don't believe in the first place.

The definition does what you were asking - it defines consciousness as a product of the brain (it uses the synonym "mind' - defined as such in the omnipotent all-knowing truth-producing dictionary so you can't possibly question it). So now it's true by definition so we can stop worrying, right?

I do not agree that you can just replace "mind" (if it was there)in the original definition with the term "brain" just because that term is found in a list of synonyms. AFAIK thats not the way a rigorous definition works. After all the term "soul" is also synonymous with mind, so is that meant to prove psychology believes that consciousness is of the soul? I think the Greeks used to call arguments like yours "sophistry". Anyway the brain and the soul have mutually exclusive properties, so the method of synonym replacement leads to a contradiction and therefore cannot be valid as it stands. And if you want to, to claim that "brain" is a scientific synonym for "mind" needs to be shown by referencing a reputable scientific dictionary of synonyms (if such a thing actually exists) if you are claiming to represent the scientific community's speech.

Sure, but that doesn't make it any closer to being real than before. It's still just as much of a flight of fancy as it ever was - and still has no meaning in the context of this discussion.

I complement you on the rhetoric. Thats about it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Of course not. No one's doing it. They're just saying that they have no reason to join you on flights of fancy about office furniture maybe being conscious as an objection to modern scientific theories about how the brain works.

I think you said earlier that the science is incomplete.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And why do you feel that the fact that this your definition is nowhere in the dictionary is a problem for us?
Weren´t you the guy demanding dictionary support for the definitions used?

I was pointing out that the liken between consciousness and the brain is one made by observation. On the other hand the link between chocolate and cacao is one made by the definition. So saying quarks are chocolate is false by definition, but saying quarks may have a mental life is not false by definitio0n.

So the representation of my argument as being analogous to saying "well a house may be made of chocolate, how do I know?" is not justified by the facts. So really its an unwitting strawman the unfortunate basis of which I hope to have cleared up.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You know, I still don't have a good understanding of why you seem to view dictionaries as some sort of holy writ which define things into reality. If I can find a reputable definition which lacks a definition of tweet as it relates to Twitter, will you conclude that the web site doesn't exist? There's no reason some non-expert's summary of common word usage should trump what we can learn about the world around us. You have it almost totally backwards - before we can define a word for something, we have to learn about it. But you'd limit what we can know to what's already written down in the dictionary. That's simply not how the world works.

All I am saying is that the link between mind and brain is one made by observation, not definition. Not all truths are analytic truths (true by definition) I accept that. But with chocolate there are certain chemical features we expect to be there a priori, because they are named in the definition (namely containing cacao)..

All I am trying to say is that posters have been misrepresenting my stance as analogous to saying "well this house could be made of chocolate, I can't tell". There is an amportant dysanalogy I have repeatedly pointed out. And I do not accept your synonym argumet at present, which is the current challenge to my defense.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Since "depends on" is not defined as "is" this is an entirely fallacious line of reasoning.

Accepted, technically. But that seems to be a minor detail and largely irrelevant to the overall debate.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If there is a definitional link between mind and brain then why does the scientific community seriously discuss artificial consciousness? If there were a logical (definitional) link between mind and brain one could rule out artificial consciousness a priori. If, by definition, only brains can be conscious then the problem is solved. Voila, we have the answer...case closed. But the professionals in the field do not seem to be using that particular argument do they? So I claim its valid argument from authority (by studying the arguments experts actually use) that the "mind-brain-definition" argument fails to convince.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It is also claimed that testing for artificial consciousness may be impossible. Current methodology does not seem to involve a medical doctor giving a computer a neurological examination in any case.

Nice pic but unfortunately not science:

See: Artificial consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is if testing for consciousness in unusual scenarios may be impossible, a rational path seems to be assuming the stance of the agnostioc.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am merely pointing out a dysanalogy between the term "chocolate" and the terms "consciousness" and "awareness" etc.

All you've pointed out is that they are not identical. But (by definition!!!) an analogy requires two similar but not identical things to compare. So thanks for confirming that is is indeed an analogy (by definition!!!).

I do not agree that you can just replace "mind" (if it was there)in the original definition with the term "brain" just because that term is found in a list of synonyms.

So in other words, you don't really believe this whole line of "true by definition" you've been feeding us. Or at least the rules are different when you don't like the results.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was pointing out that the liken between consciousness and the brain is one made by observation.

As is the definition of chocolate. It's not like someone made up the word chocolate before ever having a need for it to describe something they'd observed or experienced.

 

[KCfromNC]

All I am trying to say is that posters have been misrepresenting my stance as analogous to saying "well this house could be made of chocolate, I can't tell". There is an amportant dysanalogy I have repeatedly pointed out. And I do not accept your synonym argumet at present, which is the current challenge to my defense.

The only difference is that we have a better understanding of chocolateness since it's a simpler thing than consciousness. That better understanding makes your argument from ignorance appear pretty dumb in the case of chocolate. That's the point, though, the argument is still pretty dumb even though we're not quite as sure about all of the details of consciousness.

 

[KCfromNC]

If there is a definitional link between mind and brain then why does the scientific community seriously discuss artificial consciousness?

Why the need for "artificial" if there isn't a definitional link between consciousness and natural biological systems? If that definitional link wasn't there, computer learning types would just be saying "consciousness".

 

[sandwiches]

How did I know that elephants were going to crop up somewhere? Ok, agreed.

Consciousness, as far as we've observed, cannot exist without brain in a living body. Agreed?

 

[sandwiches]

But with elephant we have a physical definition, as with chocolate, and we know that such animals as elephants cannot survive in certain conditions because we can study the limits of that isolated physical system. And yes we can likewise study the limits of brains, but unlike elephant and elephant properties like trunks or mamary glands, there is no definitional link to certain physical properties (i.e. brains) and mind. So wheras it would not make much sense to hypothesise a quark is an elephant, the same does not hold for mental features and quarks because there are no defined physical properties that must accrue with minds whereas there are with elephants. So the elephant analogy has the same weakness as the chocolate one.

There are physical links to consciousness. We can disrupt or alter consciousness through drugs, electromagnetic fields, kinetic force, extreme temperatures, dehydration, etc. That anything that affects the brain affects consciousness is the best evidence that the brain and consciousness are linked and more importantly, that the consciousness is dependent on the brain.

 

[KCfromNC]

And if you want to, to claim that "brain" is a scientific synonym for "mind" needs to be shown by referencing a reputable scientific dictionary of synonyms (if such a thing actually exists)

http://www.babylon.com/define/85/science-dictionary.html, enter mind.

mind
n. brain

Mind
Mind 1. the organ or seat of consciousness; the faculty, or brain function, by which one is aware of surroundings, and by which one experiences

Noun
(synonym) head, brain, psyche, nous

Continue backpedaling at your leisure.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

All you've pointed out is that they are not identical. But (by definition!!!) an analogy requires two similar but not identical things to compare. So thanks for confirming that is is indeed an analogy (by definition!!!).

The point of the chocolate analogy was to say my position was as odd as saying that for all we know a concrete slab (etc) may be made of chocolate. I have pointed out good reasons for rejecting that analogy.

So in other words, you don't really believe this whole line of "true by definition" you've been feeding us. Or at least the rules are different when you don't like the results.

Like I said if you want to rephrase a dictionary definition using synonyms from a thesarous you end up with results that contradict one another, like the definition that the mind is both a brain (and therefore material) and a soul (and therefore immaterial). So as far as I am concerned best stick to the original definition and not play around. The problem is that synonyms need not in fact mean exactly the same thing as the original word.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As is the definition of chocolate. It's not like someone made up the word chocolate before ever having a need for it to describe something they'd observed or experienced.

I agree that definitoins of words come from observation of usage, and that usage can be determined by observation. So what? It still does not follow that all and every instance of mind/awareness/consciousness/experience per se is defined as the brain, or as something that the brain does.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The only difference is that we have a better understanding of chocolateness since it's a simpler thing than consciousness. That better understanding makes your argument from ignorance appear pretty dumb in the case of chocolate. That's the point, though, the argument is still pretty dumb even though we're not quite as sure about all of the details of consciousness.

Well thanks for the input from the emotional centres.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why the need for "artificial" if there isn't a definitional link between consciousness and natural biological systems? If that definitional link wasn't there, computer learning types would just be saying "consciousness".

I think the term artificial refers to man made.