Interaction ("mind body") problem

[GrowingSmaller]

Side of what? Of the "problem" you posted in your OP? If, as you said, we do not have a good enough definition of "consciousness," then how can you say there is a problem.

I suppose a definition in science would be a theoretical definition. That may hold for human consciousness (i.e. it is the brain) but a definition of human consicouness is not meant to be a definition of all possible consciousness as far as I can tell. Thats my issue with the medial dictionary definition argument that was posted earlier.

You seem to keep pushing the fact that we can't discount quarks and chairs as being conscious because we lack the proper understanding of consciousness,

Yes.

but yet you claim there is some sort of disconnect between the brain and consciousness.

Where? I am not denyling that brains can be consicous, only that for there to be consciousness there must be a brain*.



*I am not sure if this is anyones view though. KC seemed to hold it until I mentioned the possibility artificial consciousness in compouters, but then IIRC he said he was not arguing that pov in the first place.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You needn´t accept it.
Point being: I do have a working definition and you don´t.
Your definition lacks any intelligible criteria for what "consciousness" is. It remains completely vague.

What isd your working definition "If there is a brain there is consicousnes"? That is I suppose a working model, but most likelt according to your understanding false, because there can be brains of dead people, or sleeping people, that do not exhibit consciousness. So "consciousness is the brain" is not a good enough understanding, is it?

I don´t care what it´s meant to be. It´s a workable definition (it provides clear criteria).

Which I suppose you will accept are not adequate.

If you have a different workable definition, you are welcome to provide it. That would be the requirement for even starting to engage in contemplating whether X is conscious.

Why is that so? Why must I have a workable definition,and what exactly is a "workable definition" anyway? I never came across that concept before.

Ah, you are simply denying it. Now, that makes a great argument.

Well there is nothing in the concept of "responding to seasonal changes" that logically entails "there is consciousnss".

However, it demonstrates your problem: Your definition doesn´t allow for a meaningful discussion whether apples are conscious or not.

So we are not talking in English then, or what? You seem to have an idea about meaning, but I am not sure it is standard at all.

It´s too vague, and basically defines vague undefined terms by other vague and equally undefined terms.

Which uundefined terms please?

Thus, if your definition doesn´t even allow you to refute the claim that apples are conscious, why am I not surprised that it leads to agnosticism concerning the question whether at some point quarks may exhibit characteristics that are reconcilable with your definition of consciousness?

Why must a definition enable us to "refute a claim" or otherwise? I am not getting your theory of semantics or philosophy of science. I think that there can be definitions (for example of "aware") found in mainstream dictionaries that do no allow us to "refute claims" but they are still meaningful definitions in the English language.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And here : Ok thats your "working definition" now why ought I accept it?

You may be right to reject it, go ahead. I am not a linguist after all. But my reasoning is that "qualia" and "phenomenal awareness" are interchangable, and phenomenal awareness is really just another name for consciousness. So we can possibly substitute the terminology without affecting the essential meaning.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Please be specific, if you can.

I want clarification:

You seem to thing that consciousness (or the mind or something similar) is defined as "the brain".

I asked if you therefore thought that artificial consciousness, or the idea that computers might possess consciousness, could be refuted a priori on purely logical grounds. I.e. do you think that the idea of machine consciousness (in computers) is false by definition because such a machine by definition is not a brain?

If that is the case, and as you seem to argue "the mind is the brain by definition" represents scientific consensus, then why are there scientists or philosophers of mind arguing about the possibility machine consciousness when all they apparently need to do is to look in a medical dictionary? Are you saying these people are, despite some of them being trained in the best universities in the world, ignorant of a basic logical argument that would categorically resolve the dispute?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Like I said I don't believe that a quote from a medical dictionary is meant top be a comment on the philosophy of consciousness
​

Why? Lets see that argued in logical form please.
​

Your own question works well here.

A human medical dictionary is meant to (briefly) cover consciousness but only as it applies to human subjects.
Not all consciousness is of the human subject.
Therefore, medical dictionaries do not cover all instances of consciousness.


Compare:

A human medical dictionary is meant to cover flu viruses as they apply to human beings.
Not all flu viruses are human flu viruses.
Therefore a human medical dictionary does not cover all instances of flu.


​

 

[KCfromNC]

I suppose a definition in science would be a theoretical definition. That may hold for human consciousness (i.e. it is the brain) but a definition of human consicouness is not meant to be a definition of all possible consciousness as far as I can tell.

It defines all the consciousness which we know exists and excludes things we have absolutely no reason to think exist. For some reason, you view this as a weakness, but I'm at a loss as to why that might be.

 

[KCfromNC]

I want clarification:

You seem to thing that consciousness (or the mind or something similar) is defined as "the brain".

Nope, I've never said this. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. Consciousness is a process, the brain is a physical object so obviously they can't be the same thing.

I've also specifically rejected the nonsense you're pushing about dictionaries poofing reality into existence, so any confusion you have in that area is a problem of your own creation. I can't help you if you're going to read where I've written "X is false" and then ask "since you believe X is true here's a bunch of stuff you also believe". If you're going to argue with yourself like that I'll step out of the way.

 

[KCfromNC]

A human medical dictionary is meant to (briefly) cover consciousness but only as it applies to human subjects.Not all consciousness is of the human subject.Therefore, medical dictionaries do not cover all instances of consciousness.

So which dictionaries do cover every possible potential usage of a word? And do those dictionary define office furniture as conscious? If so, why do they?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Nope, I've never said this. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. Consciousness is a process, the brain is a physical object so obviously they can't be the same thing.

The brain can be seen as a procedess if viewed as an object enduring in time. For instance if you take a "brain scan" what you have is a representation of series of physical events that make up the brain's 4d being.

I've also specifically rejected the nonsense you're pushing about dictionaries poofing reality into existence, so any confusion you have in that area is a problem of your own creation.

Well if the dictionary argument is not your view, then what is please? See below:

So which dictionaries do cover every possible potential usage of a word? And do those dictionary define office furniture as conscious? If so, why do they?

This seems to me to be an argument from dictionary definition...

 

[quatona]

What isd your working definition "If there is a brain there is consicousnes"?

I have already given you the relevant part of my definition. Please read it carefully, please don´t change it, please don´t add anything, please don´t reword it.

That is I suppose a working model, but most likelt according to your understanding false, because there can be brains of dead people, or sleeping people, that do not exhibit consciousness. So "consciousness is the brain" is not a good enough understanding, is it?

Yes, that´s why I didn´t say it, that´s why nobody here said it, that´s why you have been corrected on that strawman countless times by numerous posters.

Which I suppose you will accept are not adequate.

That´s a lame excuse for not even trying.
If the definition comes with criteria that allow us to distinguish conscious entities from non-conscious, it is good enough for the purpose at hand.

Why is that so? Why must I have a workable definition,and what exactly is a "workable definition" anyway? I never came across that concept before.

That´s somewhat funny, because you were the one introducing the term into the discussion.

What I am talking about is a definition that comes with criteria that allow us to clearly distinguish conscious entities from non-conscious entities.

I am requesting such because this would be the prerequisite for deciding whether an entity is conscious or not.

You don´t "have to" have such a workable definition, but if you don´t have such, it´s no surprise that you are agnostic about the question whether a given entity matches the definition.

Well there is nothing in the concept of "responding to seasonal changes" that logically entails "there is consciousnss".

Yes, that´s the very problem with your definition. Nothing follows logically from it, because it doesn´t provide criteria for the distinction "conscious vs. non-conscious".

Whilst e.g. a definition that includes the statement "consciousness is a process that requires there to be a brain" would exclude apples from conscious beings.
Whereas e.g. the definition "an entity is conscious if it responds to the environment" would include apples.

So we are not talking in English then, or what? You seem to have an idea about meaning, but I am not sure it is standard at all.

Whether a given definition is meaningful depends on the given purpose.

The definition "consciousness = awareness = qualia" may be meaningful for several purposes, but it doesn´t allow us to check whether a certain entity is conscious or not.

Thus, when you ask the question whether quarks, chairs or whatever is conscious or not, the question is and will always be unanswerable due to a definition that doesn´t provide criteria for the given and postulated purpose. If you insist on definitions to remain vague and tautological (or "philosophical", as you preder to call it), just don´t be surprised that those definitions don´t allow you to make distinctions that would require them to have some meat on them.

Which uundefined terms please?

Those terms in your definition that define each other mutually: "consciousness - awareness -qualia", but don´t provide any criteria for telling conscious from not conscious, aware from not aware and qualia from non-qualia.

Why must a definition enable us to "refute a claim" or otherwise?

I´m sure you are familiar with the concept of falsifiability.
If you don´t have criteria to distinguish "conscious" from "non-conscious" a statement like "an apple is conscious" is neither falsifiable nor verifiable.
If you want to make such a distinction, you must have a definition of the kind I am requesting.

I think that there can be definitions (for example of "aware") found in mainstream dictionaries that do no allow us to "refute claims" but they are still meaningful definitions in the English language.

Sure, but if you want to discuss whether an entity is aware or not these definitions are not suitable. They don´t match the given purpose (and the purpose of telling aware from not aware was the very point of your entire chair/quark topic).

Of course, "blue is a colour" is a meaningful definition, but it doesn´t allow us to tell blue from not blue.
Whilst "blue is the colour that sends wavelengths from X to Y" does give us criteria for this distinction.

 

[quatona]

A human medical dictionary is meant to (briefly) cover consciousness but only as it applies to human subjects.
Not all consciousness is of the human subject.
Therefore, medical dictionaries do not cover all instances of consciousness.


Compare:

A human medical dictionary is meant to cover flu viruses as they apply to human beings.
Not all flu viruses are human flu viruses.
Therefore a human medical dictionary does not cover all instances of flu.


​

Yes, and therefore we should be agnostic as to whether chairs or quarks can catch the flu (a flu that is completely different from human flu, of course).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What I am talking about is a definition that comes with criteria that allow us to clearly distinguish conscious entities from non-conscious entities.

I am requesting such because this would be the prerequisite for deciding whether an entity is conscious or not.

You don´t "have to" have such a workable definition, but if you don´t have such, it´s no surprise that you are agnostic about the question whether a given entity matches the definition

But you seemed to be adding "unless there is a scientific workable definition then the term "consciousness" is meaningless. That would be funny, because I think the term has a history longer than the history of brain science that talks of it in terms of brain processes or states. People has introspective access to their own mental life, and that long preceded science.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes, and therefore we should be agnostic as to whether chairs or quarks can catch the flu (a flu that is completely different from human flu, of course).

Ok you are arguing that, not me. It is ironic that none of you seem to want to address my arguments directly, but "rephrase" then in a way that suits you and attack that instead. At least you might have commented on the logic I used to illustrate my opinion about the "definition of consciousness in a medical dictionary" scenario, and keep on topic in that regard. It was explicitally requested, but no one seems willing to comment on what seems to be a decent logical argument. Or maybe thats why there is silence, or an attempt to subvert the conversation. I have met the demands for logic, unlike the other side, but it does not appeal to the egos.

 

[KCfromNC]

The brain can be seen as a procedess if viewed as an object enduring in time.

If you redefine everything to be a process then yes, a brain is a process. So is a rock, a paper clip and anything else you can think of. It makes the word meaninglessly vague and useless. You can do it if you like, but I'm not going down that rabbit hole - I prefer to not destroy the meaning of language in an attempt to prove a point.

Well if the dictionary argument is not your view, then what is please?

View of what, specifically?

See below:This seems to me to be an argument from dictionary definition...

It's not an argument, it's a question. It's designed to get you to see that what you're asking RE dictionary definitions is absurd by applying them consistently to other situations.

 

[KCfromNC]

But you seemed to be adding "unless there is a scientific workable definition then the term "consciousness" is meaningless. That would be funny, because I think the term has a history longer than the history of brain science that talks of it in terms of brain processes or states. People has introspective access to their own mental life, and that long preceded science.

Do you really want to get into a discussion of the concrete results of scientific studies of the brain compared to philosophical introspection about metal life? That's a losing battle for those on the side of the philosophical approach - especially those who don't even have a working definition of what "mental life" or how to study it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok you are arguing that, not me.

He's applying your "logic" consistently to a variety of subjects aside from the one you're using it on. If you don't like the results, it's pretty obvious where the problem lies.

I have met the demands for logic, unlike the other side, but it does not appeal to the egos.

You still haven't posted a universal definition from an authoritative source showing that quarks can be conscious.

 

[sandwiches]

Ok you are arguing that, not me. It is ironic that none of you seem to want to address my arguments directly, but "rephrase" then in a way that suits you and attack that instead. At least you might have commented on the logic I used to illustrate my opinion about the "definition of consciousness in a medical dictionary" scenario, and keep on topic in that regard. It was explicitally requested, but no one seems willing to comment on what seems to be a decent logical argument. Or maybe thats why there is silence, or an attempt to subvert the conversation. I have met the demands for logic, unlike the other side, but it does not appeal to the egos.

You seem to have missed his point and the one we've been making over and over in this thread. If at some point in the future, the definition of consciousness CHANGES due to more knowledge on the subject to include quarks and chairs, it will, without a doubt, have to be a definition completely different from what we understand consciousness to be now. In other words, the current CONCEPT that we have for the word "consciousness" will NOT match the new concept for the same word, if we include quarks and chairs at some point. So, while the words might match, we'll still be talking about two entirely different things when we compare humans to chairs, as chairs exhibit none of the qualities we find in conscious beings today.

So, using your line of thinking Quatona showed how absurd this logic is. He merely replaced "consciousness" with the word "flu."

 

[quatona]

But you seemed to be adding "unless there is a scientific workable definition then the term "consciousness" is meaningless.

And now that you´ve learned that what seemed to you to be my argument wasn´t my argument - what keeps you from addressing my actual argument?

 

[quatona]

Ok you are arguing that, not me. It is ironic that none of you seem to want to address my arguments directly, but "rephrase" then in a way that suits you and attack that instead. At least you might have commented on the logic I used to illustrate my opinion about the "definition of consciousness in a medical dictionary" scenario, and keep on topic in that regard.

That´s exactly what I did. I acknowledged that you didn´t want to accept this definition for purposes of this discussion and that you prefer to work from a vague "philosophical" definition (i.e. a definition that doesn´t allow for the distinction that was the topic you introduced).
I just informed you that the vagueness of your definition is the reason for your agnosticism.

It was explicitally requested, but no one seems willing to comment on what seems to be a decent logical argument. Or maybe thats why there is silence, or an attempt to subvert the conversation. I have met the demands for logic, unlike the other side, but it does not appeal to the egos.

So where have I been illogical? Where exactly have I distorted your argument? Where exactly did I attack you?

I have told you multiple times that you are entitled to use vague definitions - but I have also told you that definitions that don´t allow for the distinction you want to make are the very reason that you can´t make the distinction.
You can define "blue" as "a colour" (and you can reject the concrete definition by wavelengths because it isn´t philosophically enough for you, and there´s nothing wrong with doing so - but you shouldn´t be surprised that consequently you are and will always remain "agnostic" concerning the question whether there might be some "blue" that we don´t know of yet.

Please answer the following questions:
What´s your position concerning apples being conscious - do believe they are, do you believe they are not, or are you "agnostic"?
What´s your position concerning the question whether apples are capable of love, of emotions, of empathy, of misanthropy, of musicality, of choice - do believe they are, do you believe they are not, or are you "agnostic"?

 

[quatona]

I think the term has a history longer than the history of brain science that talks of it in terms of brain processes or states.

Exactly: the meaning in which the term has been used has changed, and maybe it will change again. That´s a mere semantics issue.

People has introspective access to their own mental life, and that long preceded science.

Exactly, and it´s safe to say that quarks don´t have anything that faintly resembles what the introspective access to our mental lives tells us about.
Thus, if you appeal to the concepts of "consciousness" that preceed current scientific use of this term, you are shooting your own foot. Unless you can point to an ancient use of "consciousness" that inclues inanimate objects.