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

[Atla]

We may still ask how it comes to be that some physical events can be mental ones. It is a fair question. I think a reasonable inference is that this is linked to the nature and complexity of the events in question. It seems not unreasonable to argue that organisms have evolved to have a perspective and this is tied to what they do in living their lives. Subjective experience is an evolved feature that can be explained by the biological history of the organism.

But that's when the fun really begins. Yes, identity certainly seems to be the case. But identity also means that not just some, but all physical events must be mental ones (unless proven otherwise).

So that means that while there is indeed a model of the outside world inside the head, subjective experience itself is not a feature of the model, instead it's fundamental, universal.

Western philosophers are simply intellectual cowards, they don't dare to take things to their logical conclusion, instead we have talk of emergence, complexity, evolved features etc. The model in the head is indeed an evolved feature, but subjective experience itself has nothing to do with it.

[Sculptor1]

Of course I can compare them. I can perceive the qualia directly, and brain activity via instruments; a microscope, or EKG record. I can even compare them in real time. And when doing so easily distinguish between them. Hence they are not identical in Lebniz's sense. Nor are they identical in the composition sense, since I can't derive from any observations of brain activity what distinctive olfactory sensation I will experience when exposed to, say, some unfamiliar chemical. I will only know that once I get a sniff.

Well not exactly true. You can learn that the specific details of the appearances of certain brains states noted scientifically are consistent with particular types of qualiative experience, and then know what "blue" looks like from another POV such as a scan.
One has to accept that when monochrome Mary finally enters the multicoloured world she learns to nominate the colours.

[Steve3007]

Well, I gave two definitions of "physical," a philosophical one ("whatever is described or postulated by the science of physics") and everyday, common-sense one ("anything detectable by the senses and having a specific spatio-temporal location"). With which do you quarrel? I gave no definition of "field;" I only said they are "ethereal."

THE philosophical sense? There is only one?

I haven't read through the whole conversation, but I sympathize with your position when talking about the subjects of fields and what it means to be physical. I understand why you would feel that fields are "ethereal" in a way that chairs are not. I can see why you would imply that there is philosophical disagreement as to the meaning of the word "physical" and that therefore simply saying "physical in the philosophical sense" doesn't necessarily clear things up.

I would say that the only genuinely usable definition of "physical" is via empirical observation - tying "the physical" to "that which could be the common cause of various different observation events" or something similar. If we were to leave out observation, and potential observations, altogether, and simply say "that which is physical is that which exists extra-mentally" or some such thing, then when it comes to defining physicalism we hit a circular definition. Physicalism is defined as the belief that physical things are the only things that exist, but it therefore becomes the belief that the only things that exist are things that exist.

I therefore essentially agree with you that "physical" can be defined as "whatever is described or postulated by the science of physics". It follows that the entities we think of as physically existing change as the evidence changes. For example, it used to be thought that there was a physical existent called caloric - a fluid which was thought to be responsible for the conductive flow of heat through matter. It isn't now. Similarly with the luminiferous aether.

[Wossname]

y Atla » Today, 4:39 pm
Yes, identity certainly seems to be the case. But identity also means that not just some, but all physical events must be mental ones (unless proven otherwise).

That is not obvious to me, though I am certain of nothing and do not say you must be wrong. How do you reach this conclusion?

[Atla]

y Atla » Today, 4:39 pm
Yes, identity certainly seems to be the case. But identity also means that not just some, but all physical events must be mental ones (unless proven otherwise).

That is not obvious to me, though I am certain of nothing and do not say you must be wrong. How do you reach this conclusion?

How do you not reach this conclusion? Why would physical stuff be something more than physical stuff, when arranged in certain ways?

[Wossname]

That is not obvious to me, though I am certain of nothing and do not say you must be wrong. How do you reach this conclusion?

How do you not reach this conclusion? Why would physical stuff be something more than physical stuff, when arranged in certain ways?

I think I am guided by the evidence. We know brains are conscious, even if we don’t know why. That they are conscious is not an assumption, in the sense we can correlate the two things, awareness and brain activity and reach a conclusion. But why say a rock is conscious? Is a dead brain conscious? Do you appeal to any evidence here?

[Atla]

I think I am guided by the evidence. We know brains are conscious, even if we don’t know why. That they are conscious is not an assumption, in the sense we can correlate the two things, awareness and brain activity and reach a conclusion. But why say a rock is conscious? Is a dead brain conscious? Do you appeal to any evidence here?

Western philosophers are pseudo-intellectual idiots, so they somehow never realized that this 'consciousness' they always talk about, is a mixture of at least two things that have nothing to do with each other.

Consciousness as in: self-awareness, the human self, psychological phenomena etc. does indeed only happen in highly advanced brains as far as we know. That's why science can correlate these things with brain scans for example. Obviously, rocks don't have this one.

Consciousness as in: qualia + the constant first-person-POV, is universal. That's why science has never found any sign of them.

Now if you mix these two together, you can get something as stupid as 'I think therefore I am', which implies that the constant first-person-POV is somehow dependent on someone's individual brain/mind.

[Faustus5]

Consciousness as in: qualia + the constant first-person-POV, is universal. That's why science has never found any sign of them.

Or, science hasn't found them because they are the artificial creation of confused Western philosophers and don't actually exist.

Now if you mix these two together, you can get something as stupid as 'I think therefore I am', which implies that the constant first-person-POV is somehow dependent on someone's individual brain/mind.

Can you supply so much as one uncontroversial example of a conscious entity with no nervous system, or am I wildly misreading what you are actually saying here, which seems absurd on the only reading I can struggle to give it?

[Sculptor1]

Consciousness as in: qualia + the constant first-person-POV, is universal. That's why science has never found any sign of them.

Or, science hasn't found them because they are the artificial creation of confused Western philosophers and don't actually exist.

It usually makes for more sense to watch out for unfounded assumptions in statements than attack the statement itslef.
The unfounded assumption is the idea that science has never found any sign of them which is clealy bunkum. Had it not been for science we'd not even be talking about them.
The term universal is dubious too.

Now if you mix these two together, you can get something as stupid as 'I think therefore I am', which implies that the constant first-person-POV is somehow dependent on someone's individual brain/mind.

Can you supply so much as one uncontroversial example of a conscious entity with no nervous system, or am I wildly misreading what you are actually saying here, which seems absurd on the only reading I can struggle to give it?

[Faustus5]

The unfounded assumption is the idea that science has never found any sign of them which is clealy bunkum. Had it not been for science we'd not even be talking about them.

Oh, so the first mention of qualia occurred in a scientific paper? Which one was it? Who made the discovery and let the rest of the world know these wonderful properties existed, since no one knew before?

[Atla]

Consciousness as in: qualia + the constant first-person-POV, is universal. That's why science has never found any sign of them.

Or, science hasn't found them because they are the artificial creation of confused Western philosophers and don't actually exist.

Now if you mix these two together, you can get something as stupid as 'I think therefore I am', which implies that the constant first-person-POV is somehow dependent on someone's individual brain/mind.

Can you supply so much as one uncontroversial example of a conscious entity with no nervous system, or am I wildly misreading what you are actually saying here, which seems absurd on the only reading I can struggle to give it?

You are reading it exactly the way I explained how not to read it.

As for qualia + the first-person-POV being made-up, in other words: 'this happening isn't happening', some view that as the single most self-refuting view in the history of mankind.

[Wossname]

Atla » 53 minutes ago

Consciousness as in: qualia + the constant first-person-POV, is universal. That's why science has never found any sign of them.

Will you explain this to me Atla, i.e. what you mean and why you think it true? I'm stretching a bit here.

[Steve3007]

I think I am guided by the evidence. We know brains are conscious, even if we don’t know why. That they are conscious is not an assumption, in the sense we can correlate the two things, awareness and brain activity and reach a conclusion. But why say a rock is conscious? Is a dead brain conscious? Do you appeal to any evidence here?

....

Will you explain this to me Atla, i.e. what you mean and why you think it true? I'm stretching a bit here.

I feel your pain Wossname. I don't know what Atla's on about either.

[Wossname]

Steve3007 » 11 minutes ago

I feel your pain Wossname. I don't know what Atla's on about either.

Thanks for that. I was worried it might just be me.

Atla is clearly committed to this view. He has brought it up a number of times. But I feel I have often been struggling to properly understand his reasoning.

Atla - help!

[Steve3007]

Atla is clearly committed to this view. He has brought it up a number of times. But I feel I have often been struggling to properly understand his reasoning.

He seems to think that there are two types of consciousness:

Consciousness as in: self-awareness, the human self, psychological phenomena etc. does indeed only happen in highly advanced brains as far as we know. That's why science can correlate these things with brain scans for example. Obviously, rocks don't have this one.

Consciousness as in: qualia + the constant first-person-POV, is universal. That's why science has never found any sign of them.

When he says the second type is universal I can only assume that means rocks (among other things) have it. And the fact that science has never found any sign of it is due to it being universal. I presume the idea would be that if something exists universally then there's no way to distinguish its presence from its absence so no way to detect it. Or something like that.

But I suspect that this comment to Faustus5:

You are reading it exactly the way I explained how not to read it.

applies to me here too.