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

[Terrapin Station]

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

You're not arguing that waves at different frequencies always amount to one wave that's an average, are you?

So, for example, if we play an an interval of F3 and C4, you'd argue that rather than two pitches, we get a single pitch, namely the average, a slightly flat A3?

[Terrapin Station]

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.

So the morning star and evening star aren't identical on your view, for example?

[Terrapin Station]

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...?

Since the mental states are identical to the physical brain states, the mental states DO possess those physical properties, of course (and vice versa). The difference, rather, is one of spatiotemporal perspective. We're talking about a third-person observation versus a first-person observation. In other words, the difference of observing something "other" (and from a particular spatiotemporal location) versus being the thing in question.

It's a truism about ALL existents that properties are different from different spatiotemporal reference points or frames.

[GE Morton]

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.

An external world, but not necessarily a "material" one.

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

To consider and weigh possible alternatives, and their possible outcomes, prior to taking some action. Yes.

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''.

Not quite. The brain creates the model, which is the "me" and the world we perceive. We, and the universe we see and conceive, ARE that model. The upshot here, important for AI, is that any system which can create a dynamic, virtual model of itself and its environment, constantly updated in real time, and choose its actions based on scenarios run in the model, will be "conscious."

A note on the "Explanatory Gap": There are two types of explanations, reductive ones and functional ones. The "gap" only acknowledges the former, and because mental phenomena are not reducible to physical phenomena, concludes that mental phenomena are inexplicable.

A reductive explanation proceeds by constructing a causal chain from one event or set of events to another. And of course, no such chain can be constructed between a physical event or process and a non-physical phenomenon.

But a functional explanation does not draw such a chain. Instead, it sets up a mechanism, a process, which is thought to be enabling or causative of a certain result, and seeing if the anticipated result follows. It disregards any intermediate steps which may or may not intervene between cause and effect. So if we can set up a system we believe will produce consciousness, and it indeed produces something we can't distinguish from conscious behavior, then we will have explained consciousness functionally.

BTW, Levine's seminal paper on the "Explanatory Gap" is here:

https://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/maydede/min ... oryGap.pdf

[GE Morton]

It's a truism about ALL existents that properties are different from different spatiotemporal reference points or frames.

Well, you're disregarding another salient fact about perspective differences --- yes, while things will look different from different spatio-temporal vantage points, all vantage points are translatable into any other by well-defined and fairly simple algorithms. (A fairly simple computer program can display any 3-dimensional object from the viewpoint of any point in the frame space). But there is no algorithm for translating a physically determined brain state into a subjectively apprehended mental state, such as a quale. No analysis of Mary's brain will allow her, or us, to anticipate the sensation she will experience upon first seeing the red rose.

[Terrapin Station]

Also we should stress that mental properties ARE physical properties. It's just that that physical properties that we can third-person observe are different than the physical properties (known as "mental properties") that we first-person observe as the brain in question.

[Terrapin Station]

But there is no algorithm for translating a physically determined brain state into a subjectively apprehended mental state, such as a quale.

Aside from whether the hypothesis is right (it's not on my view, but I want to avoid the tangent of that for the moment), it's not the case that we can't "translate" third-person states into first-person states. We do this all the time with fMRI imaging for example. We can say "This third-person mapping is the person's first-person decision state" and so on.

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, this question wasn't rhetorical--I'm expecting you to answer:

So the morning star and evening star aren't identical on your view, for example?

[GE Morton]

Also we should stress that mental properties ARE physical properties. It's just that that physical properties that we can third-person observe are different than the physical properties (known as "mental properties") that we first-person observe as the brain in question.

That is blatantly contradictory. If a set of physical properties is "different" from "mental properties" then they are obviously NOT the same.

The physical properties you mention, BTW, are the same from everyone's perspective --- I can read and interpret the results of a physical examination of my brain as well as any third person. You, on the other hand, having no access to my mental states, are in no position to make any claim regarding their "sameness" to something else. That is nothing more than a spurious conjecture on your part.

The difference between brain states and mental states is NOT a perspective difference.

[GE Morton]

. . . it's not the case that we can't "translate" third-person states into first-person states. We do this all the time with fMRI imaging for example. We can say "This third-person mapping is the person's first-person decision state" and so on.

The "mental state" in question is not the "decision state." It is the content of that state --- the issues and alternatives being weighed and considered. No MRI scan will reveal those.

[GE Morton]

So the morning star and evening star aren't identical on your view, for example?

Yes, they are identical. Observations of the same thing at different times do not make the thing different. If we analyze the reflected spectra, calculate the diameter and mass of the body, and compute its orbital position at the two times and correct for the time difference, we will find no differences.

[Terrapin Station]

Also we should stress that mental properties ARE physical properties. It's just that that physical properties that we can third-person observe are different than the physical properties (known as "mental properties") that we first-person observe as the brain in question.

That is blatantly contradictory. If a set of physical properties is "different" from "mental properties" then they are obviously NOT the same.

Properties are different from different spatiotemporal perspectives. That's not contradictory. For example, at time T1 the volcano is dormant. At time T2, the volcano is erupting.

Another example, at location x, F is circular. At location y, F is oblong.

Those would only be contradictory is we're saying that the properties are different from the same spatiotemporal location.

The physical properties you mention, BTW, are the same from everyone's perspective

No, they're not. Properties are different from different spatiotemporal perspectives.

"Perspective" here doesn't refer to something necessarily conscious, by the way. It refers to spatiotemporal reference points or reference frames.

[Terrapin Station]

The "mental state" in question is not the "decision state." It is the content of that state --- the issues and alternatives being weighed and considered. No MRI scan will reveal those.

The MRI scan reveals it from a third-person perspective. It won't reveal it from a first-person perspective, because the fMRI is not the brain in question.

Likewise, a oscilloscope will show soundwaves from a perspective that is other than the soundwaves in question. It can't show the soundwaves from a perspective of being the soundwaves, because the oscilloscope isn't the soundwaves in question.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, they are identical. Observations of the same thing at different times do not make the thing different. If we analyze the reflected spectra, calculate the diameter and mass of the body, and compute its orbital position at the two times and correct for the time difference, we will find no differences.

There are properties by which the morning star and evening star can be distinguished.

[GE Morton]

Properties are different from different spatiotemporal perspectives.

Er, no. The properties of a thing are the same, at a given time, from all perspectives. They only look different from different perspectives. The properties of an external thing are not dependent upon the observer. That is absurd.

For example, at time T1 the volcano is dormant. At time T2, the volcano is erupting.

Yep. That is not a difference in spatio-temporal perspective; it is a difference at different times. Many things change over time. But at any given time they are the same for all observers (for external, "physical" things with spatio-temporal locations), regardless of the observer's viewpoint. Any viewpoint can be easily translated into any other via a simple algorithm.

Another example, at location x, F is circular. At location y, F is oblong.

Nope. F has some definite shape. If it is circular it may look oblong from some viewpoint, but it is still circular.