Interaction ("mind body") problem

[GrowingSmaller]

The conversation went like this:

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.

That seems to put limits on the scope of medical dictionaries insofar as they are presented as providing universal definition apt to philosophy debates.

Is there anything wrong with that logic (I have to ask AGAIN) or do people want to skip this as it it "too logical"?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

Well what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for calling something "conscious". It seems like there must be an experience or an awareness. So even if quark awareness were very different from ours, for instance it may not be a sensory awareness, it would still qualify as "conscious" if these conditions were met. If not why not?

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

Well we can replace words all we like. Howzabout I replace the words "flu" or "consciousness (or whatever he replaced my wording with) with the term "physical situations"? Suddenly the argument seems ok. So what are you meant to be proving here? That is we replace terms in arguments then they can do strange things?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

I anm not sure is pasic instrospection of our own awareness is "philosophical", just as looking as an apple on a tree is not "philosophical. It is basic awareness and actually grounds science itself, for example Newton's ideas about gravity. If you're going to deride this basic awareness, then it sems you undermine the whole scientific project, including any science of consciousness.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

View of what, specifically?

What are your views on what can and what cannot be consicous. I am not sure what they are.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

Well it seems to me that rether than confront any logic I use head on you want to burlesque it and attack that instead. Thats not how things are done, logically speaking. If you want to critique an argument the best way is to look at the (actual) premises one by one and start from there.[/quote]

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

eisn't one. Its not the job of a dictionary to define the possibility of a quark being conscious or otherwise.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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?

Please I am lost as to what your arguiment actually is. I dont want to trawkl the whole thread, so please provide a link to a previous post or a basic logical formula outlining your views.

If it is the idea that the term "conscious" would be meaningless is applied to strange situations ("quark consciousness") lets see that in logical form so I can look at individual premises, please.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Please answer the following questions:

Ok I will try.

What´s your position concerning apples being conscious - do believe they are, do you believe they are not, or are you "agnostic"?

Good question. My forst response is "don't be absurd. Everyone knows that apples are not consicous". But what I actually subject that opinion to logical analysis I find that theres not much rigor to it. For instance I have no actual argument showing the concept to be "absurd" and also, as we all ought to know, "everyone knows this" is an appeal to the people ("argumentum ad populum") which can be a logical fallacy. So really all I have is a weak opinion.



[/quote]What´s your position concerning the question whether apples are capable of love,[/quote]I think love involves awareness of another, so I have no reason to believe they are loving.

[/quote]of emotions[/quote]I think it is possible that there may be "emotion" in an apple somewhere, for instance in apple quarks.

of empathy, of misanthropy, of musicality, of choice - do believe they are, do you believe they are not, or are you "agnostic"?

All of these seem to be anthropic, so I would say that even if an apple might have awareness, it would be anthropomorphising to say that it has musical taste etc. Than again there is serious investigation into the idea of "plant consciousness", evidenced by this webpage from the university of Glasgow. Quote:

On the basis of this interaction we are even willing to grant consciousness to lower order animals and find many examples of evidence to back up such claims. However, when the same evidence is produced to verify the existence of plant consciousness it is not taken seriously. It is a common misconception to believe that no such evidence exists, it does.

I think this illustrates the initial response "Its absurd, everyone knows its not the case" etc its not to be trusted as it stands just because I thought it with confidence, and suggests things ought to be scrutinised from a more rigorous perspective. So as I am not an expert in the field of plant consciousness studies, i think its best to say I have inferentuaial guesses about what is possible or likely, but they may turn out to be wrong.

 

[CTD]

People dismiss dualism because they do not see how a non-physical mind can interact with matter.

But how does matter interact with matter. Sure we have some theories, but if I ask "why is that the case?" when you answer, and repeat the process, I think we are ultimately going to end up with mysterious interaction. Does that mean that there is a body-body problem? Or is analogous to saying we cant explain why it rains because we can't explain where the Big Bang came from?

Also, as far as current science goes I think that it has a mind body problem too i.e. how does mental causation effect the physical? For example how does the sensation/qualia of disgust cause me to physically spit out rotten fruit from my mouth?

Excellent thinking. That polywrong excuse fails outright and obviously on this count.

One might think someone'd catch on the the frailty of arguments from ignorance, but they're a mainstay in scofferdom.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"scofferdom"

 

[CTD]

I am saying that if emergent phenomena are reducible then why call them emergent? I thought that part of the idea behind emergentism was that emergent features (of the whole) were not reducible (to the parts) in the normal sense.

The idea is to get people to accept another more vague and nebulous term in place of "magic" so mumbo-jumbo can be sold as something substantial.

Here, with no evidence or logic whatsoever to even suggest such a conclusion, we're being told the mind is an "emergent property" - magic ...instead of something non-physical. Wow!

I haven't read the whole thread through, but I'm most unimpressed with the lack of discussion on the actual topic - totally predictable. "Well let's just ignore your point and try to come up with other means of supporting 'the cause'".

 

[CTD]

"scofferdom"

Standard English suffixes can be understood!

(Scoffers have been denying that point for ages.)

 

[CTD]

Is it an "emergent property" of a chain that it can only be as strong as its weakest link?

See? If there were a proper, coherent concept behind the term, that question would practically answer itself.

 

[IndieVisible]

It's difficult to relate to dualism because we are pretty much physical, or should I say chemical? Every thing we see, hear, taste, touch, feel, think is produced by chemical reactions. How can we being physical comprehend that which is not?

 

[CTD]

Needs work

It's difficult to relate to dualism because we are pretty much physical, or should I say chemical? Every thing we see, hear, taste, touch, feel, think is produced by chemical reactions. How can we being physical comprehend that which is not?

You presuppose your conclusion. ...Twice!

 

[quatona]

Please I am lost as to what your arguiment actually is. I dont want to trawkl the whole thread, so please provide a link to a previous post or a basic logical formula outlining your views.

If you want to distinguish "A" from "not A" you need a definition of A that provides criteria for discerning "A".
If your definition doesn´t provide such criteria, it is obvious (it follows logically) that you can´t (and will never be able to) clearly identify "A".

Example 1:
"blue"
Definition a.:
"a colour"
Definition b:
"The hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between green and indigo, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 420 to 490 nanometers"

Definition a doesn´t allow for distinguishing blue from not blue, while definition b does.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the first definition (i.e. it is not entirely meaningless, and in certain contexts it will suffice), yet when your purpose is to distinguish blue from non blue it is insufficient.

Your definition of "conscious" doesn´t provide the criteria to distinguish between "conscious'" and "non conscious", therefore your definition forces "agnosticism" concerning your own question.
You reject definitions that provide such criteria as too scientifc or narrow, consequently you will have to live with the obscurity that your definition leaves you with.

 

[KCfromNC]

I anm not sure is pasic instrospection of our own awareness is "philosophical", just as looking as an apple on a tree is not "philosophical. It is basic awareness and actually grounds science itself, for example Newton's ideas about gravity. If you're going to deride this basic awareness, then it sems you undermine the whole scientific project, including any science of consciousness.

I don't see how, since science relies on external evidence rather than passive introspection for results. I never got credit for chem labs by writing "well, I thought about it so it should work fine" as my results.

Anyway, my point was that research shows that introspection doesn't always provide reliable evidence wrt how our consciousness works. It takes credit for things it doesn't do. It's not always aware of what the rest of the brain is doing. It thinks it makes "decisions" after decisions have been made by other parts of the brains. Since we know it isn't giving us accurate information about itself, why should it be trusted?

 

[KCfromNC]

What are your views on what can and what cannot be consicous. I am not sure what they are.

I'm not sure what can and can not be conscious, at least in the sense you're asking it. I've been spending most of this thread talking about what is, not what might possibly hypothetically could be, if you use your imagination a bit.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well it seems to me that rether than confront any logic I use head on you want to burlesque it and attack that instead. Thats not how things are done, logically speaking. If you want to critique an argument the best way is to look at the (actual) premises one by one and start from there.

OK, please list your premises and the syllogism leading to the conclusion that quarks and office furniture might be conscious.

eisn't one. Its not the job of a dictionary to define the possibility of a quark being conscious or otherwise.

So says the guy who is so worked up that there's no definition showing that brains produce consciousness. It looks like you're admitting your whole tangent about a lack of a dictionary definition for various ideas of consciouness is really meaningless, since it's not the job of dictionaries to define consciousness. Why have you been wasting our time asking for one?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you want to distinguish "A" from "not A" you need a definition of A that provides criteria for discerning "A".
If your definition doesn´t provide such criteria, it is obvious (it follows logically) that you can´t (and will never be able to) clearly identify "A".

Thats a situation close to where we are. The point I would make is we can have a definition of consciousness (awareness, experience") etc, but we do not know whether something has that property even if we know for ourselves what the term means.

Example 1:
"blue"
Definition a.:
"a colour"
Definition b:
"The hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between green and indigo, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 420 to 490 nanometers"

Definition a doesn´t allow for distinguishing blue from not blue, while definition b does.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the first definition (i.e. it is not entirely meaningless, and in certain contexts it will suffice), yet when your purpose is to distinguish blue from non blue it is insufficient.

Ok.

Your definition of "conscious" doesn´t provide the criteria to distinguish between "conscious'" and "non conscious", therefore your definition forces "agnosticism" concerning your own question.

Agreed.

You reject definitions that provide such criteria as too scientifc or narrow, consequently you will have to live with the obscurity that your definition leaves you with.

I would not say they are too scientific. Whatever definition of oconsciousnes we use it would have to guarantee the presence of subjective like (awareness, experience etc). Now you might define consciousness as brain activity, and therefore conclude that all non brains are non conscious. But to me that's word games. You have given a theoretical definition of consciousness (awareness etc) in material terms, but there is apparently no way to test the theory and xperimentally validate it's claims.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't see how, since science relies on external evidence rather than passive introspection for results. I never got credit for chem labs by writing "well, I thought about it so it should work fine" as my results.

Anyway, my point was that research shows that introspection doesn't always provide reliable evidence wrt how our consciousness works. It takes credit for things it doesn't do. It's not always aware of what the rest of the brain is doing. It thinks it makes "decisions" after decisions have been made by other parts of the brains. Since we know it isn't giving us accurate information about itself, why should it be trusted?

Well are you going to doubt thare is awareness, because as far as I know our primary access to it is though first person mental life, if not instrospection itself.