Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[GE Morton]

Or, I guess it's "above."

[Atla]

There is no fundamental ontology without qualia playing a central role in it.

Then I guess fundamental ontology must be a bogus as qualia, if that is the case.

But it isn't. Those of us who think qualia are a silly idea only philosophers would invent can do just fine in other areas of philosophy, including ontology.

Well at least that's what you tell yourself.

[Atla]

Electromagnetic fields are physical and analyzable.

Analyzable, yes. Physical? Sort of. "Fields" (gravitational, magnetic, electrical) are all theoretical constructs invented to explain various types of action-at-a-distance (e.g., the ability of a magnet to move a body some distance away from it). We can't see, touch, or measure any of those fields directly; we can only observe and measure the effects they are invoked to explain. They are pretty ephemeral.

So that would mean that the model is in fact physically identical to a part of the brain.

Well, you can call an effect of a process a part of the processing mechanism if you wish, but that would be somewhat unconventional. I don't think the Earth's magnetic or gravitational fields are treated as part of the planet in most geology texts. Those would be covered in astronomy or physics texts.

If you want to start working on the Hard problem, you first have to discard ideas that probably don't work. Strong emergence is a good example of it, here we pretend that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, in short it's a scientifically accepted version of magic. We are still at square one, trying to bridge the explanatory gap, and we are still fully involved in dualism, we simply convince ourselves that we aren't.

I share your sentiments there, and your skepticism of "emergence." It sounds very much like a "just so" story, and like magic.

But we need to grasp what makes the Hard Problem hard. It is hard because the phenomena we are trying to explain is intrinsically subjective and private. That means that scientific method, as usually understood, is inapplicable to it and impotent to solve it. Scientific method presupposes, and depends upon, publicly observable phenomena, things we can describe in publicly verifiable ways using terms with agreed upon meanings, things within our common experience which we can weigh, measure, manipulate, analyze, compare with other things, things for which we can obtain repeatable, consistent answers to the questions we pose about them. In short, science is a public methodology for investigating public phenomena.

So the problem is more severe than mere irreducibility; it defies the fundamental assumptions and prerequisites of science itself. How can we explain a phenomenon we cannot observe or describe objectively, cannot measure or analyze, from known scientific facts or principles, or derive it from them?

Yet "mental" phenomena --- thoughts, impressions, feelings, qualia, ideas, knowledge, etc., etc. --- are undeniable; we all experience them (strictly speaking, we only experience our own mental phenomena, but we assume that other creatures do as well), and we talk about those phenomena, meaningfully, all the time. And being inquisitive creatures we're driven to try to explain them.

So what to do?

The best we can do, I think, is a functional explanation. We can investigate the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness to appear --- we can handle that scientifically; we know quite a bit about that. But just how and why those conditions produce that effect will forever remain an unanswerable question. We can, somewhat wistfully or metaphorically, describe it as a field effect, an emergent effect, or just magic. But we'll have to accept it as "brute fact."

It will not be the only "brute fact" we're forced to accept without explanation. We can't explain why a particular radium atom fissions at a certain time; we can't explain why the speed of light is C; we can't explain why the Big Bang happened (if it did).

There is another interesting reason for supposing that consciousness will never be fully explicable scientifically. Our scientific understanding of ourselves and the universe is a conceptual model we have created. But no system can completely model itself, or anything larger than itself. That would require a system larger than the system to be modeled.

Just some thoughts.

Physical fields aren't ephemeral, they are just as real as say protons (which technically are also theoretical constructs btw). Another way to look at it is that everything is fields, particles are merely excitations of fields. So we run into the physical-mental identity issue.

Functionalism is merely abstraction, it doesn't really address the issue.

The idea that qualia/existence itself only happens when certain conditions are met, is a very intuitive and widespread, but highly irrational, illogical belief without evidence.

[Atla]

I meant to write qualia/experience itself

[Terrapin Station]

Analyzable, yes. Physical? Sort of. "Fields" (gravitational, magnetic, electrical) are all theoretical constructs invented to explain various types of action-at-a-distance (e.g., the ability of a magnet to move a body some distance away from it). We can't see, touch, or measure any of those fields directly; we can only observe and measure the effects they are invoked to explain. They are pretty ephemeral.

Surely you don't think that physics is positing fields as something either nonphysical or epiphenomenal though, do you?

[Gertie]

Yes I understood that part. I'm still confused about the final part of the process, how this model is 'presented' to the brain/consciousness or somesuch.

If the model is a product of the brain, a separate thing like steam from a train, how is the brain 'aware' of its contents? Or how does the model 'present itself' to the brain? The model/product is what's made of the seeing and thinking experiencing stuff, right? So the physical brain isn't 'looking' at the experiential product like a little homunculus in a Cartesian theatre - Dennett rightly dismisses that. So how does the communication from the experiential model back to the model maker brain work, in order to take the appropriate physical action?

More later, but see response to Alta below.

I pretty much agree with this (hadn't read it when I was composing my post), but it's potentially an area philosophy can contribute to, because science doesn't seem to have the appropriate toolkit. And might come up with something potentially testable or an explanation which seems over-whelmingly compelling.

If Dennett said something like the above, acknowledged the Hard Problem and then went on to say 'but we can still come up with a functional account, and here's how it could go....' I'd say fine. But he makes grandiose claims and then obfuscates entertainingly (or frustratingly in my case) till you hopefully forget that he's claimed he's ''explained consciousness'', or ''consciousness is an illusion''.

And I do see probs with AI as a practical way forward in furthering our understanding, as mentioned in my reply above.

(Btw I tried the Levine paper, but I really struggle getting my head round contingency and possible worlds type approaches, just doesn't suit how I conceptualise problems I think. Likewise I don't see the value in Chalmers' Zombie argument, it just escapes me. Your few paras above make the explanatory gap point well imo).

[GE Morton]

There is no fundamental ontology without qualia playing a central role in it.

Then I guess fundamental ontology must be a bogus as qualia, if that is the case.

But it isn't. Those of us who think qualia are a silly idea only philosophers would invent can do just fine in other areas of philosophy, including ontology.

Methinks you are over-complicating qualia, automatically attaching connotations to the term that have accreted to it over the years via various philosophical speculations.

But it is an uncomplicated term that does not require any convoluted analysis or "ontological" explication. The term merely denotes the distinctive sensory impressions you experience when your nervous system delivers various types of signals to your consciousness, the impressions which allow you to differentiate between signals received over that channel and from other channels --- between the color of a rose blossom and the color of the plant's leaves. Qualia are the mode by which the brain presents those differentia to the perceiving mind. So you have a "quale" for red, another for green, another for the smell of cinnamon, for the taste of garlic, and so on. Assuming you can make all those distinctions, then you have "qualia." There is a mystery as to how those impressions, sensations, are produced by brains. But there is no mystery as to what the term denotes.

"Qualia" raise no "ontological" issues. They do not imply the existence of some sort of non-physical substance, and hence don't imply dualism. They are "physical" in the sense that they are generated by physical systems, and only by them (as far as we know). They are not manifestations of "spirits," "souls," or of any other "transcendental" phenomena. They are very much elements of our empirical world, indeed, the foundation of it.

You can't deny that qualia exist without denying that the sensory impressions the term denotes exist --- which would be stubbornly dogmatic and ridiculous.

[GE Morton]

If the model is a product of the brain, a separate thing like steam from a train, how is the brain 'aware' of its contents? Or how does the model 'present itself' to the brain? The model/product is what's made of the seeing and thinking experiencing stuff, right? So the physical brain isn't 'looking' at the experiential product like a little homunculus in a Cartesian theatre - Dennett rightly dismisses that. So how does the communication from the experiential model back to the model maker brain work, in order to take the appropriate physical action?

The model does not present itself to the brain; the brain creates the model, which embraces the brain itself (imperfectly). It is not part of the brain, strictly speaking, any more than electrical field is part of the generator that produces it. But it is not entirely separate from the brain either. There is a continuous feedback circuit between the model and the (non-conscious) portions of the brain. Those portions deliver information to the model in real time, it is processed there, possible responses analyzed and evaluated, and the results delivered back to the appropriate portions of the brain, to undertake a task, control movement of the body, respond to a threat, etc. At times non-conscious portions of the brain can override the model, and force an action not consciously chosen (such as when it forces you to sleep). We can think of that model as Descartes' homunculus --- indeed, the "Cartesian Theater" concept is regaining favor among some psychologists and neurologists. See:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... s-forgiven

I've also read the Crick/Koch paper mentioned in that article, and can probably find the link if you're interested.

Note that the existence of a dynamic, conceptual or "virtual" model of a system generated by that system nicely explains, unpacks, the concept of "self-awareness." So we can say, tentatively, that any system capable of doing that is conscious.

The point re multiple realisability stands tho - if you don't have an explanation which covers basics like necessary and sufficient conditions, how do you know you're not missing something necessary which is a feature of biological brains, their chemistry and so on. Simply including the model maker in the model, and copying functional processes and dynamic complex patterns of interactions might not be enough.

How and when do we know what is enough? If the AI can pass the Turing test, do we need anything more?

You have to keep in mind that those questions you would ask of the "experience machine" apply just as well to humans. I can only know that you are a conscious creature, a "thinking machine," via your behavior. I have no more access to your "inner world" than I would of that machine. That is just the nature of the beast --- the subjective experience of a conscious system, biological or electronic, will be intrinsically, impenetrably private. We can only impute inner phenomena to it by inferences from its behavior.

Not only from behaviour, also self reports, and crucially here, inference from analogy.

I can assume that you're a conscious being not only from your observable behaviour and self-reports - the tests we can also hope to apply to AI. But also from analogy based on our physical similarity. We're made of the same observable stuff and processes, with some minor variations. So it's reasonable to assume that if I'm conscious, you are too.

Think about that. A dead person, or a brain-dead person, is also made of the same stuff, but they are not conscious. I think we'd have to conclude that if a system can pass the Turing test and exhibit behaviors characteristic of known conscious creatures (us), even if through some sort of mechanical apparatus, then they, too, are conscious, and that the physical substrate of the system is irrelevant to that capacity.

[GE Morton]

Think about that. A dead person, or a brain-dead person, is also made of the same stuff, but they are not conscious. I think we'd have to conclude that if a system can pass the Turing test and exhibit behaviors characteristic of known conscious creatures (us), even if through some sort of mechanical apparatus, then they, too, are conscious, and that the physical substrate of the system is irrelevant to that capacity.

Of course, if we are persistently unsuccessful in creating an electro-mechanical AI system that can pass the Turing test THEN we might wonder whether the biological substrate is somehow necessary for that capacity.

[evolution]

If I KNOW some thing, then I KNOW it.

Is that your philosophical analysis of what knowledge is?

No.

[Terrapin Station]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... s-forgiven

That article doesn't forward the epiphenomenal nonsense you're suggesting. It forwards just the opposite. It does, however, suggest a Cartesian theatre/homunculus model as useful for capturing phenomenal experience, particularly for psychotics and autistics, but it doesn't suggest that that model is literally true.

[Terrapin Station]

Is that your philosophical analysis of what knowledge is?

No.

What is your philosophical analysis of propositional knowledge?

[Pattern-chaser]

Does anyone have anything to say "on the absurd hegemony of science", or has that discussion finished now?

If science did achieve hegemony, I wonder who the president/emperor/prime minister/duce should be. I wonder how things would go if an attempt to rule purely according to scientific principles were made. Would it be like when Spock has to take over as captain and things quickly go pear-shaped because he lacks the necessary interpersonal skills?

I think it's like that, but I'm not convinced that a simple lack of "interpersonal skills" gives a full explanation. Although it is certainly the case that we sometimes do not apply science when it is the appropriate tool (as sculptor1 observes), this topic concerns the opposite, when science is inappropriately applied. Aside from interpersonal skills, we might also consider subjects like

• metaphysics,
• art,
• culture,
• politics,
• beauty,
• religion,
• justice,
• good and evil,
• morals and ethics.

None of these subjects can be appropriately or usefully investigated using science and its techniques and methods. I'm sure there are other examples too.

A worldview based solely on science is incomplete, and I think that is, or would be, Captain Spock's problem. Even the great Vulcan himself once said “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.” Not everything can be understood by the application of science and logic alone.

Live long and prosper.

[Sculptor1]

Does anyone have anything to say "on the absurd hegemony of science", or has that discussion finished now?

If science did achieve hegemony, I wonder who the president/emperor/prime minister/duce should be. I wonder how things would go if an attempt to rule purely according to scientific principles were made. Would it be like when Spock has to take over as captain and things quickly go pear-shaped because he lacks the necessary interpersonal skills?

I think it's like that, but I'm not convinced that a simple lack of "interpersonal skills" gives a full explanation. Although it is certainly the case that we sometimes do not apply science when it is the appropriate tool (as @sculptor1 observes), this topic concerns the opposite, when science is inappropriately applied. Aside from interpersonal skills, we might also consider subjects like

• metaphysics,
• art,
• culture,
• politics,
• beauty,
• religion,
• justice,
• good and evil,
• morals and ethics.

None of these subjects can be appropriately or usefully investigated using science and its techniques and methods. I'm sure there are other examples too.

A worldview based solely on science is incomplete, and I think that is, or would be, Captain Spock's problem. Even the great Vulcan himself once said “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.” Not everything can be understood by the application of science and logic alone.

Live long and prosper.
Sculptor1

I would say that even science has a role to play in all of the above. But no way any kind of central role, and certainly cannot be used to offer moral conclusions.

Art can use science, for example. But that would be paint formulae; how to cast sculpture and make large sculptures structural.
Beauty can be measured by geometry, though this tends to offer cliche results.
Science can be used to completely unpack religious superstitions. I recently saw a meme linking forest fires in California with abortion cSculptor1
It's about appropriate usage.Sculptor1

[Sculptor1]

WTF is the "MENTION" function.
BLOODY ANNOYING