Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

Mental states are identical to a subset of brain states. They're not something different than brain states.

Oh, my. Apparently you don't know the meanings of "mental state" or "brain state" or perhaps either. We determine the state of someone's brain by doing a EKG or CAT scan, perhaps a biopsy, and if we want all the gory details, by measuring nerve cell membrane permeability, ion exchange rates and electrical pulses between cells, noting cell pathologies, etc. On the other hand, we infer someone else's mental state from his observable behavior, and our own by introspection and reflection on our own behavior. Those two methodologies could hardly be more different. There is certainly a correlation between brain states and mental states, but they are hardly identical. Nor is one reducible to the other.

Yes, they are different. Consciousness is a product of brains, an ongoing activity of brains, just as a motion picture is an ongoing activity of a movie projector.

Wrong.

My, how illuminating. Such insight!

[Terrapin Station]

Those two methodologies could hardly be more different.

Apparently you're unable to understand that this in no way implies that the two are not identical.

[Terrapin Station]

I bet these people don't even know that if we "average" the wavelengths of red and blue light, we get green wavelength light.

And that's just one of the two issues. No matter. You can't argue with stupid.

Which would explain why you're incapable of effectively arguing with anyone.

Why are you averaging wavelengths, by the way? Is this like one of those "1 = 2" arguments?

[Sculptor1]

Oh, my. Apparently you don't know the meanings of "mental state" or "brain state" or perhaps either. We determine the state of someone's brain by doing a EKG or CAT scan, perhaps a biopsy, and if we want all the gory details, by measuring nerve cell membrane permeability, ion exchange rates and electrical pulses between cells, noting cell pathologies, etc.

This is a poor analogy.
A photo or video is not the same thing as the subject they depict, and a lump of brain tissue from a biopsy or a scan image is not the same as a brain state or mental state.
They are simple representations.

On the other hand, we infer someone else's mental state from his observable behavior, and our own by introspection and reflection on our own behavior. Those two methodologies could hardly be more different. There is certainly a correlation between brain states and mental states, but they are hardly identical. Nor is one reducible to the other.

It seems you want to mystify the facts, that there is ultimately some other state beyond the physical. Why?
Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If you want to know what a mental state looks like then use a scanner. You are going to see a partial representation, but you have no warrant to suggest there is something mystical behind the curtain.

[Atla]

I bet these people don't even know that if we "average" the wavelengths of red and blue light, we get green wavelength light.

And that's just one of the two issues. No matter. You can't argue with stupid.

Which would explain why you're incapable of effectively arguing with anyone.

Why are you averaging wavelengths, by the way? Is this like one of those "1 = 2" arguments?

And now you don't even understand why it was your last 'argument'.

It's crystal clear by now, your mental faculties don't reach that of the average teenager. That's why you can never understand anything, never argue anything.

[GE Morton]

Those two methodologies could hardly be more different.

Apparently you're unable to understand that this in no way implies that the two are not identical.

Er, yes, it does. Two things are identical IFF there are no discernible features, properties, by which they can be distinguished. Even then, since by hypothesis there are two things, they cannot be numerically identical.

[Gertie]

GE

Thank you. I have issues! (I'm told this a lot).

Dennett sometimes says things which don't seem to tally with what I think you're saying. But maybe I'm not putting it together right. See what you think.

Could you clarify how the difference works here?

I'd think that difference was pretty obvious. The product of a process is not a property of the processor. E.g., "Guernica" is a product of Picasso, but not a property of him. Cotton (the fabric) is a product of a textile mill, but not a property of the mill. Honey is a product of bees, but not a property of them. Though, we could say the ability to make honey is a property of bees --- and the ability of some brains to produce consciousness is a property of those brains.

Just to agree some terms - would you go with qualia are akin to units of certain types phenomenal experience like sensory perceptions, emotions and sensations? Or all 'what it's like' experience?

Yes. Qualia are the brain's mode of representing all the various internal and external states it can detect to itself.

And what do you mean by 'consciousness' here, which the brain ''presents phenomenal experience'' to? Other types of experiential states, a self which is something different to experiential states, or something else?

That is a tough one, because the term "conscious" has two different senses in ordinary speech --- it is contrasted with "unconscious," e.g., asleep or in a coma, etc., and "non-conscious," assumed of plants, rocks, etc. So (living) humans are conscious in the second sense even when asleep. We can then define "consciousness" as the state of being conscious in the first sense. But that still doesn't tell us what consciousness is. My own (currently) preferred analysis, gaining favor among some neurophysiolgists and AI researchers, is, a system is conscious when it has the means to gather a wide variety of information about its own internal states and external environment, an ability to store information about past states of itself and the environment, can use that data to generate a dynamic, virtual model of itself and its surroundings, run "what-if" scenarios in the model, drawing upon memories of past actions and the results thereof, and direct its actions based on the ouput of that processing. I think we'd be willing to call any system that could do those things "conscious." It would pass the Turing test. Our subjective "conscious experience" is the ongoing operation of that virtual model.

Again, what is the ''us'' or Me here doing the distinguishing?

The "me" is the system as a whole, as represented in the virtual model --- the virtual "me." The brain generates that model, not unlike the way a computer and its program generates virtual world for a video game, except that the raw data for the brain's model is drawn from environment in real time.

To briefly summarise how I'm interpreting you -


Brain processes create a product, in the way a steam train creates steam.

This product consists of experiential ''what it's like'' states.

The content of these experiential states comprise a dynamic 'virtual model' of a material world and myself as an embodied agent within it.

The function of this experiential model of the world is to direct actions.

The brain then 'presents the experiential model to itself' - by which you mean presents the experiential model to the ''consciousness system/body as a whole''.




I can make sense of that up to the last sentence. And I don't think it's saying anything radical or challenging about the notion of qualia up to that point. So I'm thinking I'm missing something? But I don't understand what the last sentence would actually mean - can you unpack that?

[Atla]

Dennett sometimes says

I believe, you might want to also consider that with Dennett, everything is a bit murky. He himself couldn't tell you for sure what his views are, and whether they are even internally consistent, and he may not have explored all of their implications either. Also, he may not fully believe everything he says, sometimes he just wants to shock people or gain a bit more attention.

[GE Morton]

Oh, my. Apparently you don't know the meanings of "mental state" or "brain state" or perhaps either. We determine the state of someone's brain by doing a EKG or CAT scan, perhaps a biopsy, and if we want all the gory details, by measuring nerve cell membrane permeability, ion exchange rates and electrical pulses between cells, noting cell pathologies, etc.

This is a poor analogy.
A photo or video is not the same thing as the subject they depict, and a lump of brain tissue from a biopsy or a scan image is not the same as a brain state or mental state.
They are simple representations.

Well, you left out all those gory details. The point is that whatever we know or think we know, or can conceivably know, about brain states will be learned from physical examination of brains. But all of those investigations and measurements will tell us nothing about someone's mental state --- about how he feels about things, what things interest him, what things "look like" to him. But we can answer the latter questions by observing his behavior and talking to him.

It seems you want to mystify the facts, that there is ultimately some other state beyond the physical.

Oh, there are many states of many things beyond the physical, because there are entire realms of existents beyond the physical. We speak of such things as "the state of the art" in AI technology, or the current state of the economy, or the state of the contemporary music scene, or the state of international trade, or the state of someone's marriage, or someone's state of mind, etc., etc. There is nothing mystical about any of those things.

Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If you want to know what a mental state looks like then use a scanner.

No, Sculptor. The scanner will tell you something about the state of the patient's brain, but nothing about his mental state, e.g., what he is currently thinking about.

[Gertie]

Those two methodologies could hardly be more different.

Apparently you're unable to understand that this in no way implies that the two are not identical.

Perhaps you can make an argument to explain how physical brains with a set of physical properties identified by a CAT scan for example, are identical to experiential mental states which don't possess those physical properties, but possess different experiential properties...?

[Gertie]

Dennett sometimes says

I believe, you might want to also consider that with Dennett, everything is a bit murky. He himself couldn't tell you for sure what his views are, and whether they are even internally consistent, and he may not have explored all of their implications either. Also, he may not fully believe everything he says, sometimes he just wants to shock people or gain a bit more attention.

Yeah that's pretty much my impression too. It's just not my cuppa.

And if that's right, he should be upfront rather than making these flashy claims and not backing them up.

I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise, but not optimistic.

[Atla]

Yeah that's pretty much my impression too. It's just not my cuppa.

And if that's right, he should be upfront rather than making these flashy claims and not backing them up.

I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise, but not optimistic.

I also remember someone claiming that he worked with Dennett, and in private he admitted that he says things like his denial of qualia, in order to gain publicity. He doesn't really believe it. Though I can't verify this story.

Seems to me that his current scheme is the reification of information (as distinct from matter/energy), another nasty trick that can cause some unnecessary confusion. Well he sure knows how to work the crowd I guess.

[Sculptor1]

Oh, there are many states of many things beyond the physical, because there are entire realms of existents beyond the physical. We speak of such things as "the state of the art" in AI technology, or the current state of the economy, or the state of the contemporary music scene, or the state of international trade, or the state of someone's marriage, or someone's state of mind, etc., etc. There is nothing mystical about any of those things.

No, these are all physical.

No, Sculptor. The scanner will tell you something about the state of the patient's brain, but nothing about his mental state, e.g., what he is currently thinking about.

There is no distinction. The state of the art is cashed out in physicality, exactly like mental states.
These are not "realms", they are content. Like the content of computer code.

[Steve3007]

Hehe well I'm just here for fun, I'm not taking it seriously,...

You've mentioned this more than once before. I guess you consider it important to remind people?

[GE Morton]

Oh, there are many states of many things beyond the physical, because there are entire realms of existents beyond the physical. We speak of such things as "the state of the art" in AI technology, or the current state of the economy, or the state of the contemporary music scene, or the state of international trade, or the state of someone's marriage, or someone's state of mind, etc., etc. There is nothing mystical about any of those things.

No, these are all physical.

Really? The "state of the art" in AI technology refers to the extent of knowledge in that field. Knowledge is physical? And what do the laws of physics tell us about the contemporary music scene?

You're ignoring the obvious in order to defend a naive ontology.

No, Sculptor. The scanner will tell you something about the state of the patient's brain, but nothing about his mental state, e.g., what he is currently thinking about.

There is no distinction. The state of the art is cashed out in physicality, exactly like mental states.

Again . . . really? Please explain just how the mental state of, say, thinking about where to go for dinner "cashes out" physically --- what tests or examinations of brain tissue or activity will reveal that.