Philosophy Discussion Forums

Atla wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 12:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 15th, 2020, 5:01 pm
Okay, thanks--I'll check Russell out.

Well there's also this www.scienceandnonduality.com
They are now holding yearly conferences where scientists and nondual philosophers etc. can meet. I watched a few speeches and found them a bit shallow, but that's rather unavoidable I guess, at least it's a start.

And looks like they couldn't get rid of Deepak Chopra, which makes them look pretty bad. They can't just ban him I suppose.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 11:56 am

evolution wrote: ↑September 15th, 2020, 6:12 pm Therefore, whatever is in agreement and accepted as being propositional knowledge, then that is what is propositional knowledge, to those people.

And do you have any idea what is in agreement and accepted as being propositional knowledge?

In relation to who, exactly?

You surely are not still under some sort of assumption or illusion that there is only one answer regarding things of this nature, are you?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 11:56 am(By the way, you know that I'm asking you re a characterization of what propositional knowledge is, somewhat a la a definition, I'm not asking you to "list some propositional knowledge," right?)

Yes.

Do you know that you have not answered my clarifying question regarding propositional knowledge yet? Or, have you forgotten this?

evolution wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 4:12 pm In relation to who, exactly?

Just answer in relation to whatever analysis of propositional knowledge you personally use--whoever you agree with, let's say.

But if you can NOT or will NOT clarify in relation to who or what EXACTLY you pose your questions in relation to, then you will NOT be able to FULLY comprehend and understand my responses.

Your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS will NOT allow 'you' to SEE the full and whole picture here.

See, the more specific your questions are, then the more specific my answers can and will be.

By the way, you have yet to even begin answering the clarifying question I posed to you.

Wossname wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 7:03 am
We agree subjective experience is a private POV and, in Mary’s case it seems to me that when Mary first learns what red is (to her, as experienced by her), then that learning will also be a change in her brain and would not happen without it. It remains a private experience of Mary’s. She might then map that experience to language in the same way that people would map Wittgenstein’s beetle.

Yes, she will form a memory of that quale, and thus be able recognize the next red thing she sees as being the same color as the rose.The connection between "mind states" and brain states is 2-way.

I think you have the nub of the problem. My concern is that the criteria for identity you prefer just will not do here. They work well, perhaps, where we compare two objective viewpoints. I don’t think it can work for the subjective / objective identity of the kind I’m suggesting. If we hold to those criteria, (and you do and welcome), I think the answer always comes out that mind and brain are separate things. If we declare those criteria inadequate or inappropriate then a resolution of the kind I suggest may be possible.

If we wish to insist on identity even though those criteria --- which define that term --- are inadequate, then we must have some alternative criterion in mind, which we would be obliged to articulate. Surely we can't apply that term ad hoc in a situation where it clearly doesn't apply when understood with its common meaning, merely because we see no acceptable alternatives.

In one of her recent posts on this subject Gertie wrote, "To me the two most obvious ways of accounting for phenomenal experience is that it's somehow reducible to fundamental material stuff, or it's fundamental itself."

That leads her to consider panpsychism. I think the insistence on mind/brain identity is motivated by the same dilemma --- either mental phenomena are reducible to physical phenomena, or we're forced to dualism (of which panpsychism is one offshoot). Identity seems a way to escape that dilemma.

We need to get "outside that box" and rethink the issue afresh, beginning with 4 postulates:

1. Mental phenomena are not reducible to physical phenomena, though there is a causal relation between them.

2. Mental phenomena are not identical with physical phenomena.

3. Dualism is false, i.e., there is no "mental" (or "spiritual," "non-physical,") substance, or "stuff," of which qualia and other mental phenomena are constituted.

4. Though mental phenomena are not reducible to or derivable from the laws of physics, those laws are adequate to explain them to the extent they are explicable.

Begin with those posits and see where we can get from there.

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 10:19 pm GE Morton » Today, 3:19 am


Yes, she will form a memory of that quale, and thus be able recognize the next red thing she sees as being the same color as the rose.The connection between "mind states" and brain states is 2-way.

If we wish to insist on identity even though those criteria --- which define that term --- are inadequate, then we must have some alternative criterion in mind, which we would be obliged to articulate. Surely we can't apply that term ad hoc in a situation where it clearly doesn't apply when understood with its common meaning, merely because we see no acceptable alternatives.

In one of her recent posts on this subject Gertie wrote, "To me the two most obvious ways of accounting for phenomenal experience is that it's somehow reducible to fundamental material stuff, or it's fundamental itself."

That leads her to consider panpsychism. I think the insistence on mind/brain identity is motivated by the same dilemma --- either mental phenomena are reducible to physical phenomena, or we're forced to dualism (of which panpsychism is one offshoot). Identity seems a way to escape that dilemma.

We need to get "outside that box" and rethink the issue afresh, beginning with 4 postulates:

1. Mental phenomena are not reducible to physical phenomena, though there is a causal relation between them.

2. Mental phenomena are not identical with physical phenomena.

3. Dualism is false, i.e., there is no "mental" (or "spiritual," "non-physical,") substance, or "stuff," of which qualia and other mental phenomena are constituted.

4. Though mental phenomena are not reducible to or derivable from the laws of physics, those laws are adequate to explain them to the extent they are explicable.

Begin with those posits and see where we can get from there.

My concern is that the 4 are not obviously compatible. If we accept 1 and 2, the physical causes the mental but is not identical to it then what is it you have caused? Are we not forced into dualism? The mental seems defined as something different to the physical, so if this is not dualism, which I like you resist, where are we? If we allow some physical processes can also be mental ones (even if we don’t understand how) then we get around this problem though some mystery remains. It does not follow as a matter of logic that all physical processes must be mental ones. We are not forced to accept Panpsychism though I am not here to deride it.

I think the evidence is consistent with identity, (depending on your criteria for identity as per), and this is simpler, one mystery, rather than two (i.e. what is this separate mentality as well as how is it caused). I think we agree that perception and thinking are not things that passively happen to an organism, they are things an organism does. What it does is physical, and some of that physical is also mental. Point 4., that mentality is not derivable from the laws of physics though these laws are adequate to explain it is interesting but needs unpacking. Could we argue that a frog is not directly derivable from the laws of physics but physics can explain a frog in the context of evolution? If so, that is not too different from embodied identity theory applied to mentality. But I may be misinterpreting your meaning. If I am then I wonder if this is not dualist epiphenomenalism of some stripe after all? And if you agree that the connection between mind states and brain states is two way, we seem to be considering interactionist dualism and pondering how non-physical mental states can influence a physical system. One mystery seems better I think. But I accept I do not have the answer to it.

evolution wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 6:57 pm But if you can NOT or will NOT clarify in relation to who or what EXACTLY you pose your questions in relation to,

But I just did: Just answer in relation to whatever analysis of propositional knowledge you personally use--whoever you agree with, let's say.

Mary's room, by the way, however we started talking about that, is a rather stupid thought experiment. On the view that qualia are physical phenomena (which is the view I and many others share) it's not possible for Mary to gain all physical knowledge of color without experiencing color. "All physical knowledge of x" wouldn't at all be limited to some set of propositions, and as if it would make any sense in the first place to somehow speak of "all possible propositions about x." (The idea of that is absurd.)

Knowledge consists of experiential knowledge-by-acquaintance and performative how-to-knowledge, too, and knowledge-by-acquaintance is particularly pertinent here.

At any rate, the notion that any set of propositions captures everything about any particular other phenomena, no matter how simple, is absurd as well, and shows a lack of analyzing what propositions are, what their relationship to other things is, and how that relationship works.

Mary's room gives the impression of a ridiculous straw man where the creator of the thought experiment hasn't the slightest understanding of what the other side is actually claiming.

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 10:19 pm
2. Mental phenomena are not identical with physical phenomena.

3. Dualism is false, i.e., there is no "mental" (or "spiritual," "non-physical,") substance, or "stuff," of which qualia and other mental phenomena are constituted.

Those two are conjointly incoherent, hence why epiphenomenalism is incoherent. You can't both say that x is not identical to y, yet x is not somehow something different than y. If x is not identical to y, x is something else, something at least partially its own thing ("x stuff.")

Atla wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 12:35 pm Well there's also this www∙scienceandnonduality∙com

I just followed that link, and Malwarebytes said "Website blocked due to reputation". I decided not to proceed, but posted this because I thought we should be aware of a possible problem?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 10:00 am Pattern-chaser » 19 minutes ago

Atla wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:35 pm
Well there's also this www∙scienceandnonduality∙com
I just followed that link, and Malwarebytes said "Website blocked due to reputation". I decided not to proceed, but posted this because I thought we should be aware of a possible problem?

Thanks for the heads-up.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 6:49 am Mary's room, by the way, however we started talking about that, is a rather stupid thought experiment. On the view that qualia are physical phenomena (which is the view I and many others share) it's not possible for Mary to gain all physical knowledge of color without experiencing color.

The theory stipulates that she "knows all there is to know about neurology and the physics of light" EXCEPT what what a perception of color "looks like." That exception is built into the scenario, the point of which is to ask whether she can derive that information from the other knowledge she has.

At any rate, the notion that any set of propositions captures everything about any particular other phenomena, no matter how simple, is absurd as well, and shows a lack of analyzing what propositions are, what their relationship to other things is, and how that relationship works.

There is no claim that she "knows everything about" the subject matter. The claim is that she knows "all there is to know," i.e., what is generally known by experts in those fields (except what a color percept "looks like"); that she is herself an expert in those fields.

BTW, being an expert doesn't require knowledge by acquaintance of the subject matter. E.g., a physician doesn't have to be a cancer victim to be an expert oncologist.

Your complaint is pettifoggery.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 10:00 am

Atla wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 12:35 pm Well there's also this www∙scienceandnonduality∙com

I just followed that link, and Malwarebytes said "Website blocked due to reputation". I decided not to proceed, but posted this because I thought we should be aware of a possible problem?

Don't know what you did, here it says the site is clean according to 66 out of 66 engines.

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/d6fc ... /detection

Gertie wrote: ↑September 15th, 2020, 1:15 pm GE

I think we getting to repeating ourselves/agree to differ time?

Not yet!

So the fact that we humans create a model of the world which includes a model of our self within it, has no apparent bearing on how experience arises. Far less complex experiencing animals probably don't create such a model. It doesn't look like a necessary condition for mental experience. And if it's not, copying the creation of that 'model maker within the model' function won't make any difference to whether an AI can experience.

Well, sure it has a bearing. I think there is pretty widespread agreement among modern philosophers (hardcore naive realists excepted) that the phenomenal world, the world we experience, is a conceptual model of a hypothetical external, "noumenal" world which we can never experience directly. That experienced world is constructed of impressions --- sensations, concepts, feelings, etc. --- that are intangible, subjective, and intrinsically private, but which somehow represent, and are elicited by, states of affairs in that presumed external world ( which includes one's --- presumed --- physical body). Hence a creature which can create such a model will be conscious, by definition.

And I disagree that "less complex animals don't create such a model." I think we should assume that any animal with a nervous system complex enough to support one does create such a model. Amoebae? No. Vertebrates and even some insects? Yes --- probably. Honeybees' brains consist of about 1 million neurons --- more than enough to construct at least a rough conceptual model of their environment. And they exhibit behaviors and capabilities that not long ago were thought to be restricted to primates.

https://phys.org/news/2013-10-bee-brain ... erior.html
https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/the-remarkable-bee-brain-2

Yeah could be. It leaves you with the problem of not knowing if AI is the right type of wire.

Well, that is the central issue here --- how will we ever know, other than by observing the system's behavior? Do you really want a theory that leaves that question permanently open --- that is empirically unconfirmable and unfalsifiable?

Maybe. But to assume the observable behaviour resulting from biological stuff and processes is less likely to be coincidental/superficial than the biological stuff and processes itself would be ****-backwards imo.

Well, that is not what I'm suggesting. I think that biological stuff, of a certain kind and arranged in certain ways, will produce consciousness. But also that non-biological stuff, or non-natural biological stuff will also produce consciousness, when arranged in analogous ways. And again, the only means we have, or will ever have (given what we do know about the problem) for deciding whether the biology is critical is by observing the system's behavior. You seem to be holding out for some future "transcendental" insight into this issue. But for now, and for the foreseeable future, behavior is all we have.

Pragmatically perhaps, but that doesn't make it reliable.

What would?

Look at this way - why do we assume other humans have experiences like us?
- They are physically almost identical, and brain scans show similar responses to similar stimuli, which match similar verbal reports to ours.
- Their observable behaviour is experientally understandable to us, in that we can imagine behaving similarly in similar circs.
It's all about similarity. That's why the hope is that if we create an AI sufficiently similar to a human, it will somehow capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for experience.

As pointed out before, your first similarity there is insufficient, and may be irrelevant. The brain-dead person is also physically similar to us, but not conscious --- a judgment we make based on the lack of conscious behavior. And we can correlate brain scan information with perceptual phenomena only if it results in observable behavior. That is the only means we have of knowing --- inferring --- what perceptual phenomena is occurring (in anyone other than ourselves).

Not stubbornness. Just because it's the best we can do doesn't mean it's reliable. We might be forced to act as if it's reliable, but we should realise that's what we're doing.

Still holding out for that transcendental insight, eh?

Should we install such switches on humans too, at birth?

Only some. I have a list...

I think there is pretty widespread agreement among modern philosophers (hardcore naive realists excepted) that the phenomenal world, the world we experience, is a conceptual model of a hypothetical external, "noumenal" world which we can never experience directly.

Luckily, free thinkers don't have to be as inept as Kant and his followers.

There is no fundamental divide between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world. Meaning that the phenomenal world is a model of the external noumenal world, and also one with it (continuous with it), at the same time. The phenomenal world is already direct experience, it's a bit of the 'absolute reality'.

(unless we take the even more inept solipsism route, leading nowhere)