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

[Terrapin Station]

If a brain causally produces something which isn't reducible to the brain, then we'd think it is acting causally on something else which is not part of the brain. But I don't think you're claiming that?

I think GE is adhering to a very strict definition of what "reductionism" requires, given his favorable response to the definition I supplied a week or two ago in this thread. I too deny that mental states can be reduced to physical states for the same reason, but do not think of mental states as something different than brain states.

What post was that (the definition of reductionism)? I usually don't read every post in long threads like this, especially not when the posts are long. (Contrary to appearances, I actually don't spend that much time on the board normally--I'm usually not here much longer than it takes to read replies to me, and occasionally bits of other responses, and then the couple minutes it takes me to quickly respond, complete with lots of typos .)

[GE Morton]

So your 'ephemeral qualia' can't be detected so far . . .

Huh? Of course they can be detected. Do you not experience them? YOU can detect your qualia, but your qualia can't be detected by third parties.

. . .and its causal relation to physical stuff can't be explained either.

Yes, it can be explained functionally --- we can (probably, eventually) set forth the physical conditions which produce consciousness (and therefore qualia). But the contents of consciousness can't be explained reductively (Mary can't deduce from her vast and thorough understanding of physics what sensation she will experience when first seeing something red).

Its identity with physical stuff is rejected, because of semantics about 'identity', even though all the known correlations point towards their identity.

Correlations between two things or phenomena don't establish identity between them. Hearts and lungs are strongly correlated --- all mammals have both --- but hearts are not identical with lungs.

Yet somehow, none of this is supposed to be a 'physical stuff - qualia' dualism either, because of substance theory, which isn't even the issue here.

Well, yes, it is the issue. Dualism doesn't merely postulate the existence of non-physical things --- there are millions of those --- but of two distinct substances. But qualia are not substances; neither are they properties of substances. The ontology of substances and universals is inapplicable to mental phenomena and thus unable to explain them.

And, yes, qualia are "physical" if we understand that term to include effects produced by physical systems (which is embraced by one of the dictionary definitions of "physical" I gave earlier). Physical systems can produce non-physical effects, in the narrow sense of "physical." Those effects can then be called "physical" in the broader sense.

[GE Morton]

If a brain causally produces something which isn't reducible to the brain, then we'd think it is acting causally on something else which is not part of the brain. But I don't think you're claiming that?

Why do you assume it is "acting on something else"? Cause-and-effect doesn't entail, or presume, that an effect be an action on something else. Effects are not actions; they are results of actions. Qualia are an effect produced in the brain when it receives certain sensory signals.

[Atla]

Huh? Of course they can be detected. Do you not experience them? YOU can detect your qualia, but your qualia can't be detected by third parties.

That's not detection. Maybe there's something extra happening here, maybe not.

Yes, it can be explained functionally --- we can (probably, eventually) set forth the physical conditions which produce consciousness (and therefore qualia). But the contents of consciousness can't be explained reductively (Mary can't deduce from her vast and thorough understanding of physics what sensation she will experience when first seeing something red).

So its casual relation to physical stuff can't be explained either. Maybe it will be explained one day, maybe not.

Correlations between two things or phenomena don't establish identity between them. Hearts and lungs are strongly correlated --- all mammals have both --- but hearts are not identical with lungs.

Correlation dosn't imply identity. But hearts are lungs are two different detectable things, and they don't occur at the same spacetime location either, so there's no parallel.

Well, yes, it is the issue. Dualism doesn't merely postulate the existence of non-physical things --- there are millions of those --- but of two distinct substances. But qualia are not substances; neither are they properties of substances. The ontology of substances and universals is inapplicable to mental phenomena and thus unable to explain them.

Substance dualism postulates two substances. Dualism without substances is still dualism.

And, yes, qualia are "physical" if we understand that term to include effects produced by physical systems (which is embraced by one of the dictionary definitions of "physical" I gave earlier). Physical systems can produce non-physical effects, in the narrow sense of "physical." Those effects can then be called "physical" in the broader sense.

Physical systems can't produce non-physical effects. If you think you found a definition of 'physical' which permits this, then either you misunderstood, or that definition is wrong, unusable in any serious discussion.

What do you hope to get out of this desperate epicycling, I wonder?

[Faustus5]

What post was that (the definition of reductionism)? I usually don't read every post in long threads like this, especially not when the posts are long. (Contrary to appearances, I actually don't spend that much time on the board normally--I'm usually not here much longer than it takes to read replies to me, and occasionally bits of other responses, and then the couple minutes it takes me to quickly respond, complete with lots of typos .)

It was back on the 8th, meaning it is ancient history by this point. What I wrote was:

Reductionism is the attempt to reconcile and link two separate vocabularies or language-games which address some phenomenon in the natural world. In sound-bite form, reduction requires that you be able to transform one vocabulary into the other either through some sort of logical deduction or through systematic application of scientific “bridge” laws.

If you cannot do this, then while you can certainly claim (if the evidence supports it) that one vocabulary is talking about the same thing as the other but at a different level of analysis, you cannot claim that one reduces to the other. The two vocabularies have a sort of autonomy from one another.

[Terrapin Station]

What post was that (the definition of reductionism)? I usually don't read every post in long threads like this, especially not when the posts are long. (Contrary to appearances, I actually don't spend that much time on the board normally--I'm usually not here much longer than it takes to read replies to me, and occasionally bits of other responses, and then the couple minutes it takes me to quickly respond, complete with lots of typos .)

It was back on the 8th, meaning it is ancient history by this point. What I wrote was:

Reductionism is the attempt to reconcile and link two separate vocabularies or language-games which address some phenomenon in the natural world. In sound-bite form, reduction requires that you be able to transform one vocabulary into the other either through some sort of logical deduction or through systematic application of scientific “bridge” laws.

If you cannot do this, then while you can certainly claim (if the evidence supports it) that one vocabulary is talking about the same thing as the other but at a different level of analysis, you cannot claim that one reduces to the other. The two vocabularies have a sort of autonomy from one another.

Ah, thanks. You might know that it's a pet peeve of mine to parse anything as being about or hinging on linguistic conventions aside from literally doing linguistics, philology, etc.

And it seems to me as if it should be obvious that no one is saying that present, conventional talk about brains is in any way "transformable" to present, conventional talk about mental phenomena--so if we parse "reductionism" that way, then no one is actually suggesting mind/brain reductionism. (Just like if we parse "physicalism" as being about physics per se, it should be obvious that no one is saying that physics textbooks, research programs, etc. address mental phenomena--just like they don't address anatomy, or oil painting conventions, or baseball field maintenance, etc. I mean, all we need to do in that case is crack any arbitrary physics textbook and check if there are chapters on anatomy, oil painting, baseball field maintenance, etc.)

[Terrapin Station]

Thinking that linguistic conventions are going to tell us anything important about the mind/body relationship is like thinking that clothing/fashion conventions will tell you something important about the geology/flora relationship.

[Faustus5]

Thinking that linguistic conventions are going to tell us anything important about the mind/body relationship is like thinking that clothing/fashion conventions will tell you something important about the geology/flora relationship.

"Heat is molecular motion" = one of the classic (and rare) examples of actual, workable reductionism.

[GE Morton]

If we have physical and non-physical events we seem to have two sorts of events and that is dualism as I understand it. And the problem has always been to marry these two things back together once you have separated them.

Well, if the mere existence of non-physical phenomena implies dualism, then we are all, unavoidably, dualists. The world is rife with such phenomena. I think "dualism" is generally taken to mean that there are two "basic substances" from which all things are composed and to which they can be reduced.

We have to give up the idea that mental phenomena are, or require, some sort of alternative substance and just understand them as effects generated by certain physical systems. Indeed, it wouldn't hurt to give up the concept of "substances," as conceived in ontological theories, entirely. There is no need to try to reduce all existents to some sort of "basic stuff;" all such attempts lead to puzzles, dead-ends, or absurdities. ("Substance" has perfectly good uses in common speech).

The cognitive model you suggest seems to avoid the problem of how they interact by suggesting that they are somehow both the same thing and a different thing, and I am struggling to understand you.

Oh, I'm sure I never said they were the same thing, and hope I didn't suggest it. They are as different as any two things could be.

I am in a muddle with the view that there is this second thing, mentality, separate from the physical yet able to interact with it, something new and different (since it is not physical but caused by physical processes, and if I have you, can also cause them), but still it should not be considered new and different?

Mental phenomena are (obviously) different from physical phenomena, such as brain processes, since they are easily distinguishable from them. But they are not separate from them; they are effects of those processes, and would not exist but for those processes (which is the rationale for considering them physical processes in that broader sense). And yes, they can cause physical effects as well as be caused by them --- a neural signal can generate the quale denoting the presence of ammonia in the air; an intention or desire to type this response can cause my fingers to move. That quale is what informs me of the presence of ammonia, not any knowledge of brain processes. Is some brain process involved in generating that quale? Of course, as there is with the formation of that desire to type. But I'm not aware of those processes when I start typing; I'm only aware of the desire to do so.

I don't think there is anything controversial about any of the above. The controversies begin when we begin thinking that mental phenomena must either be reducible to physical processes, or constitute some alternative, non-physical "substance." But they are effects of a physical process, not any sort of "substance." They are neither identical with the mechanisms or processes that produce them, or reducible to them.

The effects of a process are rarely identical with the mechanism or process that produced it. An example I've mentioned before --- the EM field surrounding an operating electric motor is not identical with the motor --- but it is reducible to the operation of that motor. The mind/brain identity theory is a desperation ploy, a straw to grasp to escape the irreducibility problem. What we should be investigating instead are the reasons why mental phenomena are not reducible to physical phenomena, even though they are clearly effects of those phenomena.

I think of the perception of qualia as a physical event. We can identify physical events and brain processing associated with seeing red say. You seem to be suggesting that the perception of qualia is not a physical event and not a non-physical event either?

Yes. Because there is a narrow sense of "physical," and a broader sense. Mental phenomena are not physical in the narrow sense, but can be considered physical in the broader sense (whatever is produced by a physical system is itself "physical").

And you say I would understand this if I just re-examined my ontological assumptions? Identity theory, the notion that physical things can be mental things is hard enough. It is the Hard Problem that Gertie rightly to points to and a mystery. And it is what I think your ontological reframing is seeking to crack. But I am not clear how you have cracked it.

We will never crack it, if cracking it implies Mary will be able to predict the sensation she will experience when first seeing something red. What we can predict is that she will have one. We can't tell her just what the sensation will "look like" to her, and she can't deduce that from what she knows of physics. We can't characterize it because it will be private to her, just as ours are private to us. There is no way to compare notes. There is no way for science to predict or explain the details of phenomena not open to public inspection and analysis.

[Steve3007]

(To GE Morton, but I'll chip in)

Can you give me an example of a definition that's not circular?

Anything that involves pointing at instances of a type of object, or doing something equivalent, and saying "That's what I'm talking about.". That's the way that words are defined in terms of something other than other words. They're defined in terms of the common features among sets of different sensations.

(These parts were to me)

First, I didn't say that physical = material (period), did I? I mean, you're quoting what I said right there. It doesn't stop with the word "material(s)."

. No. You said:

"Physical ... refers to materials, relations of materials and processes (dynamic relations) of materials."

I thought it reasonable, for the sake of brevity, to summarize that as:

"Physical = material",

especially as I'd quoted the original for reference and especially as we've already discussed this in other topics. I know you tend not to read the end of long posts so it's best to keep it short. Now I'm having to make it long to explain why I kept it short. Also for the sake of brevity I cut out "...on my account, as I've probably written at least 20 times or so here over the years...". I hope you don't think that misrepresents what you've said too.

Aside from that, is the idea here that we're dealing with someone who has no grasp at all re what "physical" might refer to, so we need to find a synonymous phrase that they might have a grasp of, where we are dealing with someone who also has no grasp of what "material," "relations" etc. refers to?

OK. So our assumption is that the person we're talking to already knows what "material" and "relations of materials" refers to but doesn't yet know what we mean by "physical", so we're telling them. How do they know? By having lived in the world and gathered, and processed, lots of sensual experiences, yes? So in defining "physical" as:

"Materials, relations of materials and processes (dynamic relations) of materials."

We're essentially doing what I described at the top of this post. We're defining it in terms of things that have been sensed. Agree so far?

[Gertie]

If a brain causally produces something which isn't reducible to the brain, then we'd think it is acting causally on something else which is not part of the brain. But I don't think you're claiming that?

Why do you assume it is "acting on something else"? Cause-and-effect doesn't entail, or presume, that an effect be an action on something else. Effects are not actions; they are results of actions. Qualia are an effect produced in the brain when it receives certain sensory signals.

So you claim physical brain cells causally interacting create a separate thing called experience, which is not reducible to brain activity.

Why isn't it reducible?

How do you explain how that can be?

How do you know?

[Gertie]

If a brain causally produces something which isn't reducible to the brain, then we'd think it is acting causally on something else which is not part of the brain. But I don't think you're claiming that?

I think GE is adhering to a very strict definition of what "reductionism" requires, given his favorable response to the definition I supplied a week or two ago in this thread. I too deny that mental states can be reduced to physical states for the same reason, but do not think of mental states as something different than brain states.

You're a functionalist tho right?

To me that doesn't get to grips with the problem.

[Wossname]

GE Morton » Today, 3:19 am

The effects of a process are rarely identical with the mechanism or process that produced it. An example I've mentioned before --- the EM field surrounding an operating electric motor is not identical with the motor --- but it is reducible to the operation of that motor.

I think I am getting a better handle on your argument, but I am not sure.

Is this right? We are agreed that explanations are physical. We are agreed that consciousness is associated with brain processes. We are agreed you do not need to be directly aware of your own brain activity to be conscious, (we are conscious of other things, not our brain activity). We agree the Hard Problem remains unsolved.

As to differences: I am suggesting those processes (or some of them) are mentality. So the brain activity associated with seeing red is, in fact, seeing red. You are suggesting, if I have you, that the brain process generates a further physical thing, analogous to an EM field and this is what is seeing red or where we should look to explain seeing red. I am not sure if I have that quite right, and if not let me know how you would describe it.

If mentality is another physical thing, generated by but separate from brain processing, are you hopeful that in time we will be able to detect this physical thing (in the way we can, for example, detect an EM field)? If I have it, I am saying there is no further physical thing to look for, but you are saying there is, we just do not currently know, perhaps, how to look for it? Of course brains do generate EM fields, and are you saying this is where the awareness is perhaps? Consciousness has been moved from the neurons to the EM field generated by the neurons? There are EM field theories of consciousness. I think they are controversial still, but I do not discount them since I lack the understanding to properly evaluate them. The problem of different perspectives remains a problem for establishing identity as discussed. But I am wondering if you think EM field theories may provide us with a potential avenue for agreement, a way perhaps to eventually resolve our debate depending on the findings of future research?

[Faustus5]

You're a functionalist tho right?

Of sorts, yes.

Reductionism from mental states to nervous system states fails because there are no scientific bridge laws that can take us from "Mary believes it is raining outside" to a specific description of "the" brain state that would physically instantiate this state. There never could be, either. The number of physical states that could successfully instantiate this mental state are virtually infinite, in part because whether she is in that state depends on social norms.

[Terrapin Station]

(To GE Morton, but I'll chip in)

Can you give me an example of a definition that's not circular?

Anything that involves pointing at instances of a type of object, or doing something equivalent, and saying "That's what I'm talking about.". That's the way that words are defined in terms of something other than other words. They're defined in terms of the common features among sets of different sensations.

??? Are you talking about ostensive definitions?