The Extent of Cartesian Dualism

[Shane Roach]

And yet the self at some point loses the ability to distinguish qualia from the perception of qualia. The self cannot differentiate two different adaptive modalities.

I imagine if the experiment were altered somewhat to go back and forth between the two, the self could indeed differentiate. The process of going back and forth would itself become easier in time I suppose. But the fact that practice makes thing second nature does not to me imply much of anything one way or the other about the nature of "self".

Perhaps now you know how I feel when I see explanations that appeal to the non-physical.

I wish I could say I had phrased it like that on purpse. After I posted it though I had a twinge of a smile because this is exactly what a lot of atheists seem to say regarding the spiritual, yes.

Forgive me for revisiting motives, but it is perhaps your theistic bias that leads you to find epistemological comfort in a position that I find to be more of an explanatory black hole.

Well we've posted back and forth in a thoughtful way together at this point to have built a little good faith, and truthfully, motive, slippery as it is, is an important subject of its own in these matters. Still, I have to remind you (or tell you for the first time?) that I was not born a Christian, nor was I raised one. For me, the process was the exact opposite. I came to my understanding of self first, then from there went to spirituality and from there to the specific reigion of Christianity. This process was largely guided by my father in my late grade school years, who at the time and really, still to this day operates mostly as a sceptic, although he likes to confess Christ almost it seems as a hedge. Later, around 14, I came to a sort of crisis of conscience. I simply could not keep from thinking about spiritual matters, and found myself at a Methodist church. I joined it more or less out of a sort of combined sense of patriotism and civic duty. A few weeks later, I went to a Baptist church and for the first time really grasped the "good news", or gospel, however one might want to put it. I can say that as an experience, it is a lot like discovering the answer to a question you have been studying long and hard over. I think that's why it is often considered "revelation". But my conversion was long, long after I had decided that my personal self was at least in some way separate from the physical body.

In fairness, it is possible that I have a bias in the other direction. Of course, if I had a more concrete notion of the non-physical (pun sort of intended) I might be able to better bridge the gap in my understanding.

... but the fact that I do not share your phenomena does not entail something non-physical.

You can never have a concrete notion of the non-physical, and I think that is what trips you up. You're trying to shoe horn something that does not fit into your frame of reference into your frame of reference rather than simply changing your frame of reference to include the thing in question. Even your use of language seems to betray a conscious effort to avoid even the appearance of implying the immaterial. Anyone else might have said, "but the fact that I do not share your perceptions does not entail something non-physical." But I think at some level you are aware that the word "perception", being more aligned with the subjective, is much closer to what I mean by the non-physical, whereas "phenomena" is a word that can bridge that gap. If you had no notion of the thing, you would not know to avoid words like "perceptions". So I think you have about as good an idea as is necessary. You just are uncomfortable with it for reasons I have yet to really understand.

 

[Shane Roach]

You detect yourself, which is the definition of awareness. Once a detector gets complex enough, this is what can happen.

I don't see the difference between detecting myself and detecting other things. Naturally if I am a mechanism that detects things, and I myself am among the things that I can detect, I am likely to detect myself as well. A detector need not be terribly complex at all to do this. A moving inertia detector will detect its own acceleration and decelleration. This is not related to awareness. You've more or less come out and said that you think complexity is the key, whereas I do not think complexity has a thing to do with it. This is the point where someone usually brings up the problem of not really knowing how far down the ladder of living things we can go before being able to safely assume that something that reacts to its surroundings is not aware of them.

Ah, the Zombie Argument.

The thing is, you may well be able to imagine such a machine. But does that mean that such a machine is possible?

By using the Zombie argument, basically you are arguing that awareness does nothing at all. This to me seems like a weird argument to be making. If self-awareness does absolutely nothing to influence behaviour then I can see why you might think it illogical for it to have arisen.

However, it appears to me that humans, who are aware, do things that are completely different to things which are not aware. Might it be that awareness does something after all?

If awareness does something, then machines which duplicated our behaviour without actually being aware themselves would not be possible. In other words, we behave the way we do because we are aware. If we were not aware, we would behave differently.

So ask yourself this question: do you think awareness adds nothing to our actions or do you think it adds something?

Of course I believe awareness changes behavior. I thought we were discussing some sort of explanation for how awareness arises, not whether or not we have free will. What I said is as a thought experiment I can imagine such things. I am not asserting they are possible or impossible, I am merely stating that I do not see complexity as the origen of awareness.

 

[David Gould]

I don't see the difference between detecting myself and detecting other things. Naturally if I am a mechanism that detects things, and I myself am among the things that I can detect, I am likely to detect myself as well. A detector need not be terribly complex at all to do this. A moving inertia detector will detect its own acceleration and decelleration. This is not related to awareness. You've more or less come out and said that you think complexity is the key, whereas I do not think complexity has a thing to do with it. This is the point where someone usually brings up the problem of not really knowing how far down the ladder of living things we can go before being able to safely assume that something that reacts to its surroundings is not aware of them.

If there is no relationship between complexity and awareness, why do non-complex things not have awareness but complex things do? What is your explanation for the correlation.

Of course I believe awareness changes behavior. I thought we were discussing some sort of explanation for how awareness arises, not whether or not we have free will.

I do not think it has anything to do with free will. Of course I believe awareness changes behaviour. How could I not?

What I said is as a thought experiment I can imagine such things. I am not asserting they are possible or impossible, I am merely stating that I do not see complexity as the origen of awareness.

But if they are impossible, then they are not an argument. Or maybe I have completely missed your point.

 

[Shane Roach]

4.) These processes of the brain are detected as thoughts - much like electromagnetic waves of a certain frequency are detected as 'blue'.

The chemical processes involved here are not all that mysterious. Potasium and sodium are the triggers of the chemical-electric functioning of brain cells. Let's be clear then about what you are saying. A sufficiently recursive chain of potasium-sodium reactions will eventually give rise to awareness as opposed to simple mechanical reactivity? And this awareness is going to change behavior?

 

[Shane Roach]

If there is no relationship between complexity and awareness, why do non-complex things not have awareness but complex things do? What is your explanation for the correlation.

As I said, how far down the chain of living things do you assert awareness diminishes and ceases to exist, and why?

I do not think it has anything to do with free will. Of course I believe awareness changes behaviour. How could I not?

I can't imagine, in all honesty, what you mean by this. You think awareness changes your behavior, but not in the sense that it would make a change from a mechanistic behavior pattern? How then would awareness change behavior?

But if they are impossible, then they are not an argument. Or maybe I have completely missed your point.

I wasn't presenting an argument. I was reacting to the question you put to me about machines detecting thoughts.

 

[David Gould]

As I said, how far down the chain of living things do you assert awareness diminishes and ceases to exist, and why?

It diminishes according to brain/nervous system complexity. When there is zero brain/nervous system complexity, it ceases completely. I make this assertion by observing behaviours of creatures.

I can't imagine, in all honesty, what you mean by this. You think awareness changes your behavior, but not in the sense that it would make a change from a mechanistic behavior pattern? How then would awareness change behavior?

Because awareness adds to the information that a decision is made upon. It is still a deterministic decision, but extra information alters the outcome.

In other words, someone who is aware of a lion will deterministically run. Someone who is aware of a lion and the bars between him and that lion will deterministically not run. Someone who is aware of a lion and the bars between him and that lion and aware of himself, too, will deterministically talk to the lion.

In other words, if we have an if/then set up, the thens depend on the if. Alter the ifs, and you alter the thens. That doesn't alter the determinism of the system.

I wasn't presenting an argument. I was reacting to the question you put to me about machines detecting thoughts.

Then I obviously completely missed the point of what you were saying. I still miss it.

 

[David Gould]

The chemical processes involved here are not all that mysterious. Potasium and sodium are the triggers of the chemical-electric functioning of brain cells. Let's be clear then about what you are saying. A sufficiently recursive chain of potasium-sodium reactions will eventually give rise to awareness as opposed to simple mechanical reactivity?

Given that I think that awareness is mechanical reactivity (in a sense) we probably have a problem here. However, no, that is not what I am saying. These potasium-sodium triggered reactions take place in specific and highly complex environments.

And this awareness is going to change behavior?

A non-aware creature will behave differently than an aware creature.

 

[Shane Roach]

It diminishes according to brain/nervous system complexity. When there is zero brain/nervous system complexity, it ceases completely. I make this assertion by observing behaviours of creatures.

Purposefully vague, or just in a hurry? I used to believe worms probably were unaware. I am not so sure now. The complexity of worm behavior does not seem to me much more though than that of a plant, so I wonder why you place the limit of nervous system complexity? Is there something specific about nerves that causes awareness, or is any recursive system theoretically capable of attaining consciousness?

Because awareness adds to the information that a decision is made upon. It is still a deterministic decision, but extra information alters the outcome.

In other words, someone who is aware of a lion will deterministically run. Someone who is aware of a lion and the bars between him and that lion will deterministically not run. Someone who is aware of a lion and the bars between him and that lion and aware of himself, too, will deterministically talk to the lion.

In other words, if we have an if/then set up, the thens depend on the if. Alter the ifs, and you alter the thens. That doesn't alter the determinism of the system.

I have so many problems with this I hardly know where to start. I think to keep on topic I will just say that none of the examples you are showing here really would change whether or not someone was aware, or whether they were simply possessed of some sort of risk assessment mechanism.

Then I obviously completely missed the point of what you were saying. I still miss it.

I think we can safely drop it, sice we are essentially talking about what I was trying to get at right now.

 

[Shane Roach]

Given that I think that awareness is mechanical reactivity (in a sense) we probably have a problem here. However, no, that is not what I am saying. These potasium-sodium triggered reactions take place in specific and highly complex environments.

I take issue with the use of the word environment here. I hate to be the one finally, at long last, who is nagging about word specificity, but I simply have no idea what you mean here except to try to imply that there is something about the environment in the brain that is special. I do not know what that would be.

A non-aware creature will behave differently than an aware creature.

Meh, well, but I believe that is because it has a spirit that drives its rational soul to make decisions based on other-than-physical motives. If such things do not exist, I have yet to see an example of how "awareness" as you tend to use it is any different from "causality". The man who is aware of a lion will react in a predetermined way. Once he is aware of this, he does that, and once aware of this, he does the other, and so forth. It is just a string of cause and effect, with no perceptible difference between that behavior and one that is merely driven by complex algorithms evolved to preserve and pass on mechanisms for acquiring and utilizing amino acids, carbohydrates, water, and so forth.

I'm basically just a hypersensitive, hyper-reactive plant at this point.

 

[David Gould]

I take issue with the use of the word environment here. I hate to be the one finally, at long last, who is nagging about word specificity, but I simply have no idea what you mean here except to try to imply that there is something about the environment in the brain that is special. I do not know what that would be.

The brain is the most complex system humans have ever encountered. When considered as part of the entirety of systems that make up a human being, this complexity extends even further. I am just as unclear about what is not special about this environment as you are as unclear as to what is special.

Can you give me a hint by comparing it with something?

Meh, well, but I believe that is because it has a spirit that drives its rational soul to make decisions based on other-than-physical motives. If such things do not exist, I have yet to see an example of how "awareness" as you tend to use it is any different from "causality".

Awareness is a subset of the information. It is not equal to causality, but part of a causal system.

The man who is aware of a lion will react in a predetermined way. Once he is aware of this, he does that, and once aware of this, he does the other, and so forth. It is just a string of cause and effect, with no perceptible difference between that behavior and one that is merely driven by complex algorithms evolved to preserve and pass on mechanisms for acquiring and utilizing amino acids, carbohydrates, water, and so forth.

'Merely'?

I'm basically just a hypersensitive, hyper-reactive plant at this point.

Considering that this is basically what I believe, I guess we are on the right track.

In other words, I believe awareness is complex algorithms evolved to preserve and pass on mechanisms for acquiring and utilizing amino acids, carbohydrates, water, and so forth.

In other words, these algorithms have much complexity because they include the additional set of variables awareness provides.


You are helping me clarify my position in my own mind, at least, if not in yours. Thanks.

 

[David Gould]

Purposefully vague, or just in a hurry? I used to believe worms probably were unaware. I am not so sure now. The complexity of worm behavior does not seem to me much more though than that of a plant, so I wonder why you place the limit of nervous system complexity? Is there something specific about nerves that causes awareness, or is any recursive system theoretically capable of attaining consciousness?

I would imagine that any recursive system would be capable of attaining consciousness - it could be one made out of vast clouds of interstellar gas, for example. However, nervous systems and brains are the only things of this type that we have yet detected.

Worm behaviour seems to me significantly more complex than plant behaviour. That may be an illusion, for motility seems to be a factor there.

I guess I have a sliding scale for awareness - I suspect that some recursiveness is probably sufficient. This is why it is highly possible that things like thermostats and mobile inertia detectors have some level of awareness - and some computer systems, too.

I guess it depends on definition again.

I have so many problems with this I hardly know where to start. I think to keep on topic I will just say that none of the examples you are showing here really would change whether or not someone was aware, or whether they were simply possessed of some sort of risk assessment mechanism.

But I think there is no difference between an extremely complicated risk assessment mechanism and awareness. In other words, if a robot could be built that would mimic human behaviour to such an extent as to be indistinguishable from us, there is no reason to suppose that it is unaware.

I think we can safely drop it, sice we are essentially talking about what I was trying to get at right now.

Cool.

 

[David Gould]

I am not going to be online for a couple of days (weekend. Yay!) But I will return to this discussion - I am really enjoying it.

 

[Shane Roach]

Hope you enjoyed your weekend.

Unfortunately, I think we've reached the bottom here. Since awareness itself is not something I believe you can detect, I do not know how you would ever determine whether or if plants, worms, thermostats and so forth have any level of awareness. If they do, as I think I mentioned in an earlier post, though perhaps not addressed to you, David, then you have succeded in making the supernatural into the natural. You have not to my mind however done anything to do away with spiritualism or religion. The "spirit" of the woods now is the sum total of all the complex reactions in the forest, and who knows but that the forest is "aware" on some level.

Certainly such a model does nothing to upset the concept of God in the Christian religion. There are Christians who believe there is no free will. I happen to not be one of them, but I have been accused of sounding like them from time to time, which might come as a surprise to you since out introduction to each other has been largely in relation to free will arguments.

I just can't concieve of a consciousness test, so I do not know how to move forward beyond mere opinion as to the matter of whether things are conscious or not, and so have no way of knowing if your linking complexity to consciousness has any validity or not. I tend to think not.

 

[FreezBee]

There are Christians who believe there is no free will. I happen to not be one of them, but I have been accused of sounding like them from time to time

Sorry about interfering with your discussion again, but if you don't mind, I'll go back to the Cartesian dualism (you can of course just ignore me, if you've done with that). Is there both a consciousness and cerebral processes? Let's try to look at an analogy. I a person speaks, the speak will generate compression and decompressions of air - within the air there is nothing else physically. Still, the air carries a message, the meaning of the speak - you cannot detect it by analyzing the air alone, you simply need to be either the speaker or a listener to know that there is a message. Does the lack of objective existence of the message make the message non-existent? I would say no!

This has nothing to do with free will, I know, so I'll address that now. Another 17th century philosopher is Thomas Hobbes, a materialist denying the existence of free will. Hobbes considered humans to be mechanical beings completely describable in terms of cause and effect, hence no free will. For that reason Hobbes was accused of being an atheist, by the way.

For Luther there was no free will: you either have God or Satan within you - you do not choose between them. It's a bit like saying, that you cannot be 50% Christian, you are either 0% Christan or 100% Christian. This does not imply that everything you do will be considered a good deed by outside human observers. But between you and God there is the awareness that you meant it in a good will, no matter how the result came out.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Shane Roach]

Sorry about interfering with your discussion again, but if you don't mind, I'll go back to the Cartesian dualism (you can of course just ignore me, if you've done with that). Is there both a consciousness and cerebral processes? Let's try to look at an analogy. I a person speaks, the speak will generate compression and decompressions of air - within the air there is nothing else physically. Still, the air carries a message, the meaning of the speak - you cannot detect it by analyzing the air alone, you simply need to be either the speaker or a listener to know that there is a message. Does the lack of objective existence of the message make the message non-existent? I would say no!

This has nothing to do with free will, I know, so I'll address that now. Another 17th century philosopher is Thomas Hobbes, a materialist denying the existence of free will. Hobbes considered humans to be mechanical beings completely describable in terms of cause and effect, hence no free will. For that reason Hobbes was accused of being an atheist, by the way.

For Luther there was no free will: you either have God or Satan within you - you do not choose between them. It's a bit like saying, that you cannot be 50% Christian, you are either 0% Christan or 100% Christian. This does not imply that everything you do will be considered a good deed by outside human observers. But between you and God there is the awareness that you meant it in a good will, no matter how the result came out.


cheers

- FreezBee

I guess what keeps me from believing that is Paul's writing about the war within his members, and my own experience of the same. There are also verses that have to dow with falling away.

When I probe people about such things who believe them, it begins usually to boil down to a different way of saying similar things. Still, I find this way of looking at salvation less accurate, at least in my opinion, than one that includes consciouse decision making. How can the Bible tell us that we become co-laborer's with God if we are indeed nothing but extensions of Himself when we are saved, filled with His Spirit and unable to do anything but His will?

It sounds a bit too much like the pervasive philisophy of becoming one with something large than ones self, which is the exact opposite of what I see the message of the Bible being, which is basically to extend ones own self out in fellowship with other, distinct beings.

 

[Shane Roach]

I am not going to be online for a couple of days (weekend. Yay!) But I will return to this discussion - I am really enjoying it.

Don't read my last post as some sort of cutoff. I just am lost as to where things might possibly go, but I too enjoy this sort of conversation, as you can probably tell. Heh.

 

[FreezBee]

I guess what keeps me from believing that is Paul's writing about the war within his members, and my own experience of the same. There are also verses that have to dow with falling away.

I suppose this is on the free will issue? The way I read Paul the will isn't free, not in the sense of almighty - he writes that he doesn't do the good things he wants to do, and that he does the bad things he doesn't want to do. You can only strive to free yourself from the flesh. Remenber (interesting word, while we're talking about "war within his members") that Paul is a dualist, though hardly a Cartesian one; he makes a distinction between the spirit and the flesh.

Luther's starting point is Pauls dictum about being justified through faith (I don't know how it's translated in English, but I suppose you know what I'm referring to), which means that if you have faith i Jesus, your deeds will be justified, that is accepted. Its does not mean that you suddenly do only good deeds, so there can be as much war within your members as there's space for, it's not what matters - it's the spirit, you know.

The Greek word for "happiness" is "eudaimonia", where "eu daimon" can be translated to "good spirit" - a spirit that tells you what is right and what is wrong, but that doesn't force you to listen to it, only faith does that.

When I probe people about such things who believe them, it begins usually to boil down to a different way of saying similar things. Still, I find this way of looking at salvation less accurate, at least in my opinion, than one that includes consciouse decision making. How can the Bible tell us that we become co-laborer's with God if we are indeed nothing but extensions of Himself when we are saved, filled with His Spirit and unable to do anything but His will?

Interesting question! For a couple of years ago I wrote a poem (for the first time in 22 years), and I showed it to a priest. After he had read it, I asked him about the religious symbolism used in the poem, and in a somewhat harsh voice he answered that he rather call it anti-religious symbolism, which confused med: I was using religious symbols, although in a non-standard way. At a certain place in the poem the "I" has been invited to visit a church, where he is asked, if he knows how he will be saved. He then looks past the questioner at the crucifix on the altar and answers, that there are many kinds of hunger within a human.

So, it's not as simple as to be filled with the spirit of God and unable to do anything but the will of God.

The incidense is based on a real event except that in real life I answered, that it is written that we we will be saved by the faith in Jesus Christ. The questioner smiled happily and said that it was the right answer - apparently not realising that I had only said, what is written, not what I believed. Anyway, as mentioned, faith is not the same as perfection. If I have faith in my ability to write a post in this poem, I might manage to do so, but it might not be perfect though Do you see the distinction?

It sounds a bit too much like the pervasive philisophy of becoming one with something large than ones self, which is the exact opposite of what I see the message of the Bible being, which is basically to extend ones own self out in fellowship with other, distinct beings.

Yes, "the existence lies within the transcendence" (or something similar; Jean-Paul Sartre, I believe), but to do that you need faith in those other, distinct beings, don't you think?


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Shane Roach]

If Paul had no will he would not strive.

I do not follow your post, sorry. I probably need to read it again later, as right this minute I am suffering from been-up-all-night-trying-to-work-a-citus.

 

[FreezBee]

If Paul had no will he would not strive.

Hmm, I may be mistaken, but does "will" necessarily imply "free will"?

I do not follow your post, sorry. I probably need to read it again later, as right this minute I am suffering from been-up-all-night-trying-to-work-a-citus.

Ok, have a good and refreshing sleep


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[David Gould]

I will add one more thing, because I think that I did not make this very clear previously.

The key thing in the detection and recognition system is that the system must have categories in which to place the things that it detects. If it cannot do this, then there is no recognition at all. Once it has this recognition, it can use its prepogrammed responses to react.

For example, if we imagine a creature that has motility and a very limited nervous sytem, what we might get is a creature that when it detects something places it in one of three categories: threat, food, neither. Its preprogammed respones might be 'run, eat, do nothing'.

The complexity of the system that I am talking about, therefore, increases as the categories and preprogammed responses expand.

One of the categories is 'self'. Without this category, even if it detects itself - as a damage control system does - it would not have the same level of awareness that we do. A damage control system might detect injury and dispatch antibodies and blood supply to deal with it. But there would be no categorising of 'self'. Rather, the category would be 'damage' and the preprogammed response would be 'repair'.

The next major question, I suppose, is how do categories arise? I would suggest evolution - in other words, creatures that are better able to distinguish types of threats and types of food are more likely to survive to breed. In crude form, to climb a tree in response to a leopard threat is a bad move survival wise. But it will work against a lion.

The monitoring and categorising of one's own thoughts is very useful, too - particularly from the perspective of a social species.

I hope this explains a bit better what I mean by 'complexity' and what I mean by 'pattern recognition'.