[QUOTE=Jookia;44647618]You're assuming this.[/QUOTE]
The definition of a p-zombie is that he doesn't experience anything so..... what exactly are you arguing.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;44647698]The definition of a p-zombie is that he doesn't experience anything so..... what exactly are you arguing.[/QUOTE]
You're using circular logic here: You're asserting he doesn't experience anything, therefore it's a 'p-zombie', and as it's a 'p-zombie', it doesn't experience anything.
[QUOTE=Jookia;44647743]You're using circular logic here: You're asserting he doesn't experience anything, therefore it's a 'p-zombie', and as it's a 'p-zombie', it doesn't experience anything.[/QUOTE]
I defined it to be a p-zombie, so Zenreon was in the right to assume it was lying. I should have been more explicit in which type of p-zombie I was using; one that is a purely natural implementation of a system that behaves identically to a human, but without the "secret sauce" we (supposedly) possess. This assumes that we have secret sauce of course.
My argument is that you can construct an automaton using a sufficiently large neural network that would, without the dishonesty of being hard-coded to respond in a way that explicitly imitates us, respond to questions about its experience in an identical way to a human due to the way its internal concept generation and relation inference mechanisms work. This would not be "lying".
[editline]26th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44645624]My own first person experience and intentionality discount the idea that I may be a philosophical zombie.[/QUOTE]
Would a proof that relied on the way you subjectively feel be accepted by peer review?
I believe we are all consciousness and therefore our skin is simply a vehicle that allows us to interact with the perceptible universal at a merely physical level.
The detachment from our physical body could merely just adjoin us further to a collective consciousness (superconsciousness).
[QUOTE=Ziks;44648767]I defined it to be a p-zombie, so Zenreon was in the right to assume it was lying. I should have been more explicit in which type of p-zombie I was using; one that is a purely natural implementation of a system that behaves identically to a human, but without the "secret sauce" we (supposedly) possess. This assumes that we have secret sauce of course.[/QUOTE]
I didn't see the term 'p-zombie', just entity or automata.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44648767]My argument is that you can construct an automaton using a sufficiently large neural network that would, without the dishonesty of being hard-coded to respond in a way that explicitly imitates us, respond to questions about its experience in an identical way to a human due to the way its internal concept generation and relation inference mechanisms work. This would not be "lying".[/QUOTE]
But this is basically what humans are.
[QUOTE=Jookia;44653435]I didn't see the term 'p-zombie', just entity or automata.[/quote]
I set up the scenario in [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1310776&p=44640424&viewfull=1#post44640424]this post[/url].
[quote]But this is basically what humans are.[/QUOTE]
Shhh, let them work that out for themselves!
[QUOTE=Ziks;44645814]Sorry, I forgot to clarify that higher level cognition involves thoughts encoded in natural language, whole images and so on, and the lower level stuff is in whatever raw form of storage is used to encode atomic concepts and relations. The higher level stuff would generally have relations defined only to other higher level entities, such that new high level concept strings can only be generated from other high level concept strings. This neatly separates the low level bare metal relations attached to individual percepts from being expressible in natural language. I obviously don't know exactly how the brain works, but you would expect this to be because the higher level language processing and generation is localised to a different part of the brain than the raw percept processing stuff, so information from the lower layer stuff has to pass through a bunch of abstraction layers before reaching the stuff you can generate thoughts from.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, you are proposing that language somehow makes our thoughts conscious, which brings us back to the question of whether language can actually have such an effect (to remain on subject I'll hold this issue for later inquiry though).
This does not change the fact that a natural mind's thoughts would still be crafted by these abstract processes though, why should we craft language to describe our minds if it bears no resemblance to our thoughts? What influence is causing us to apply such wildly different language to our thoughts?
[QUOTE]Anyway, the thing I'm trying to suggest is that I don't believe there is a "real" first person experience, we just have the illusion of it. We're soulless automatons that use language as a scaffolding to construct more involved chains of reasoning or to model our environment, and as an unfortunate side effect we have the tendency to produce effectively meaningless statements like "Why am I inside my mind?" which reduces our efficiency somewhat. Maybe you are right though, and you have some special type of first person experience that I do not possess. Is there anything you could ever say to prove that to me though? You can't relate to my experiences, for I believe I am a philosophical zombie.[/QUOTE]
I understand that, although I reject it. Also what do you mean when you say certain questions about the self "reduce our effeciency"?
I don't expect you to accept the idea of a mind if you are already a naturalist at heart. The source of your opinion on this matter draws from that philosophy, I doubt that your opinion on the mind is free of influence from external opinions.
[QUOTE]Could you describe the intentionality problem a bit more thoroughly?[/QUOTE]
Intentionality is our ability to reference external things as opposed to exclusively information that we know. I do not interact with a stimulus that fits into a list of attributes labelled as "chair", I interact with a real chair.
[QUOTE]look at the aspects of consciousness that are affected by all the different neurological diseases. As far as I know there's nothing left uncorruptable by physical deformity.[/QUOTE]
I have already said that as the body affects the mind as the mind affects the body, so I never believed the mind to merely be a pilot of the body in the first place. I know fully well that our bodies affect our minds and it fits perfectly into what I have been describing.
[QUOTE]As I see it, the killer is that if a human brain without a soul exhibits identical behaviour to a human brain with a soul, what effect does the soul have? What observable predications can you make from its existence? Is there any way to prove it exists? Is there any point in assuming it exists if it only adds literally useless complexity to your ontology?[/QUOTE]
Human behavior is meaningless without the mind, just because an entity can mimic a human does not mean that it has any sort of conscious experience like a human. Of course I cannot test if every single person is in fact an automaton that merely exhibits behavior that would be the result of a conscious experience similar to my own, but if it is reasonable to assume that other people are of similar nature to me, then it is reasonable to assume that they have are persons as I am a person.
[QUOTE]Is it [i]rational[/i] to believe in a metaphysical soul?[/QUOTE]
Certainly, I see no compelling evidence to accept the contrary and the soul explains personal experience quite well.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44659120]
Certainly, I see no compelling evidence to accept the contrary and the soul explains personal experience quite well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I guess, if you ignore everything I said about memory, sure, perhaps.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44659120]Fair enough, you are proposing that language somehow makes our thoughts conscious, which brings us back to the question of whether language can actually have such an effect (to remain on subject I'll hold this issue for later inquiry though).[/QUOTE]
What I'm claiming is a little more loose than that. I don't really believe consciousness exists as some special metaphysical phenomenon that emerges from physical processes, but that it's just a word we attach to our ability to construct sophisticated chains of reasoning using natural language to extrapolate from internal models of our environment and ourselves.
[QUOTE]This does not change the fact that a natural mind's thoughts would still be crafted by these abstract processes though, why should we craft language to describe our minds if it bears no resemblance to our thoughts? What influence is causing us to apply such wildly different language to our thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Our thoughts [i]are[/i] the sequences of language we craft and internally store. The "influence" I would assume is a kind of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_algorithm]Monte Carlo[/url] algorithm to generate a large number of potential thoughts in parallel, with a neural network based selection system to filter out the ones deemed to be coherent or useful (with the network gradually learning how to do so based on emotional feedback) which are then stored. The ones that are stored can have new thoughts generated from them, which allows for long sequential chains of reasoning. Lower level thoughts are just raw relations between percepts and previously stored concepts, which are gradually abstracted into larger concepts by higher and higher level cognition. The highest levels involve verbal concepts, which can be translated into an external expression of thought or used for purely internal reasoning.
[QUOTE]I understand that, although I reject it. Also what do you mean when you say certain questions about the self "reduce our effeciency"?[/QUOTE]
Well it naturally reduces our efficiency as agents if we waste energy producing nonsense questions and attempting to deliberate on their answers.
[QUOTE]I don't expect you to accept the idea of a mind if you are already a naturalist at heart. The source of your opinion on this matter draws from that philosophy, I doubt that your opinion on the mind is free of influence from external opinions.[/QUOTE]
Cold. I'd never suggest that my reasoning is absolutely free from emotional bias, but I wish to make it clear that one of the core aspects of my philosophy is to identify when I am guilty of holding an opinion purely because of emotional preference and attempt to purge such irrationality. This is difficult because the human brain is driven almost purely by emotion, to the point where it can subtly warp its perception of reality to align with what it wishes reality to be. This can manifest itself by warping its perception of the beliefs it holds to make them seem rational when they are not. I think we can assume that either my brain or your brain is doing that regarding this discussion, or perhaps both of us are falling prey to an emotionally driven illusion. I expend quite a lot of time and effort analysing my position and those of opposing parties, playing internal devils advocate to see if I can argue the opponents case while maintaining intellectual honesty, and attempting to detect whether my arguments are actually coherent or if they are only sufficient in convincing me, further entrenching myself in my beliefs. It's frustrating to know that just because I believe my position is correct and my arguments are rational doesn't mean that is actually the case. Hopefully you are wary of the same issue.
Anyway I can attack your intellectual integrity too: I currently believe it is likely you hold your position because of a subconscious requirement for humanity to be special, and because it is a necessity of your religion. I'm sorry, that was pretty cheap but I feel I should be honest.
[QUOTE]Intentionality is our ability to reference external things as opposed to exclusively information that we know. I do not interact with a stimulus that fits into a list of attributes labelled as "chair", I interact with a real chair.[/QUOTE]
That's interesting, because I and the rest of humanity operate quite differently. What you consciously perceive is your own internal reality, which corresponds to an abstracted representation of the external reality that surrounds you. This can be demonstrated through the use of sensory illusions, which allow you to manipulate your internal reality so that it diverges with external reality.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model[/url]
The illusion we are all subjected to is that our personal internal realities are the true reality.
[QUOTE]I have already said that as the body affects the mind as the mind affects the body, so I never believed the mind to merely be a pilot of the body in the first place. I know fully well that our bodies affect our minds and it fits perfectly into what I have been describing.[/QUOTE]
Do you see the brain as being like an antenna that interfaces with the ethereal realm or something to that effect? Can you describe your imagined mechanism for consciousness a bit?
[QUOTE]Human behavior is meaningless without the mind, just because an entity can mimic a human does not mean that it has any sort of conscious experience like a human. Of course I cannot test if every single person is in fact an automaton that merely exhibits behavior that would be the result of a conscious experience similar to my own, but if it is reasonable to assume that other people are of similar nature to me, then it is reasonable to assume that they have are persons as I am a person.[/QUOTE]
What I have been trying to show to you is that the automaton doesn't just mimic a human's external behaviour. It also generates and stores a stream of purely internal sequences of natural language that it uses as a scaffold for deliberation, a stream of language that is indistinguishable from the language you subjectively perceive while consciously thinking. The last hurdle you need to overcome is the realisation that conscious thought is [i]nothing more[/i] than internally stored strings of natural language or abstracted sensory data, causal chains of which form the internal monologue you perceive while thinking. There exist no objective observations about consciousness that violate such a definition (that I am aware of), your only perceived distinction is an intuitive feeling of consciousness being somehow special as a cultural or congenital illusion.
[QUOTE]Certainly, I see no compelling evidence to accept the contrary and the soul explains personal experience quite well.[/QUOTE]
I seem to have misjudged your progress on the matter. This is rather disappointing.
[editline]27th April 2014[/editline]
I hope you can forgive me for a slightly soured disposition, I blame the PTSD flash-backs of debating with flat Earth theorists and that evolution denier.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44659873]What I'm claiming is a little more loose than that. I don't really believe consciousness exists as some special metaphysical phenomenon that emerges from physical processes, but that it's just a word we attach to our ability to construct sophisticated chains of reasoning using natural language to extrapolate from internal models of our environment and ourselves.[/QUOTE]
What I meant was conscious from our experience.
[QUOTE]Our thoughts [i]are[/i] the sequences of language we craft and internally store. The "influence" I would assume is a kind of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_algorithm]Monte Carlo[/url] algorithm to generate a large number of potential thoughts in parallel, with a neural network based selection system to filter out the ones deemed to be coherent or useful (with the network gradually learning how to do so based on emotional feedback) which are then stored. The ones that are stored can have new thoughts generated from them, which allows for long sequential chains of reasoning. Lower level thoughts are just raw relations between percepts and previously stored concepts, which are gradually abstracted into larger concepts by higher and higher level cognition. The highest levels involve verbal concepts, which can be translated into an external expression of thought or used for purely internal reasoning.[/QUOTE]
But that language is a result of our own minds, so if the natural mind is synonymous with the inner workings of the brain, why does the language that we have created describe the inner workings that allowed its conception so inaccurately?
[QUOTE]Well it naturally reduces our efficiency as agents if we waste energy producing nonsense questions and attempting to deliberate on their answers.[/QUOTE]
Well if naturalism is true than any thought that is not based in naturalism would be nonsense to some degree I suppose and thus reduce our efficiency I suppose. I'll grant you that.
[QUOTE]Cold. I'd never suggest that my reasoning is absolutely free from emotional bias, but I wish to make it clear that one of the core aspects of my philosophy is to identify when I am guilty of holding an opinion purely because of emotional preference and attempt to purge such irrationality. This is difficult because the human brain is driven almost purely by emotion, to the point where it can subtly warp its perception of reality to align with what it wishes reality to be. This can manifest itself by warping its perception of the beliefs it holds to make them seem rational when they are not. I think we can assume that either my brain or your brain is doing that regarding this discussion, or perhaps both of us are falling prey to an emotionally driven illusion. I expend quite a lot of time and effort analysing my position and those of opposing parties, playing internal devils advocate to see if I can argue the opponents case while maintaining intellectual honesty, and attempting to detect whether my arguments are actually coherent or if they are only sufficient in convincing me, further entrenching myself in my beliefs. It's frustrating to know that just because I believe my position is correct and my arguments are rational doesn't mean that is actually the case. Hopefully you are wary of the same issue.
Anyway I can attack your intellectual integrity too: I currently believe it is likely you hold your position because of a subconscious requirement for humanity to be special, and because it is a necessity of your religion. I'm sorry, that was pretty cheap but I feel I should be honest.[/QUOTE]
My apologies if I seemed to be attacking you on some level, all I intended to do was point out that whatever opinion we hold on this matter is strongly influenced by our broader world views given how little there is to go on with it. I did not mean to accuse you of anything, merely to point out that I did not expect to change your view on this.
[QUOTE]That's interesting, because I and the rest of humanity operate quite differently. What you consciously perceive is your own internal reality, which corresponds to an abstracted representation of the external reality that surrounds you. This can be demonstrated through the use of sensory illusions, which allow you to manipulate your internal reality so that it diverges with external reality.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model[/url]
The illusion we are all subjected to is that our personal internal realities are the true reality.[/QUOTE]
This is circular reasoning though as you're assuming that your position is right in order for your argument to be valid. The fact of the matter is that the subjective experience does not resemble this process at all and that is what I am speaking from.
[QUOTE]Do you see the brain as being like an antenna that interfaces with the ethereal realm or something to that effect? Can you describe your imagined mechanism for consciousness a bit?[/QUOTE]
An antenna would suggest some degree of disconnect in terms of how the body affect the mind, I would propose that the two are connected as a unified entity and thus mutually affect each other. I cannot describe the interaction any further due to physical limitations though, the same goes for anyone.
[QUOTE]What I have been trying to show to you is that the automaton doesn't just mimic a human's external behaviour. It also generates and stores a stream of purely internal sequences of natural language that it uses as a scaffold for deliberation, a stream of language that is indistinguishable from the language you subjectively perceive while consciously thinking. The last hurdle you need to overcome is the realisation that conscious thought is [i]nothing more[/i] than internally stored strings of natural language or abstracted sensory data, causal chains of which form the internal monologue you perceive while thinking. There exist no objective observations about consciousness that violate such a definition (that I am aware of), your only perceived distinction is an intuitive feeling of consciousness being somehow special as a cultural or congenital illusion.[/QUOTE]
Well my thoughts are not just a stream of language though, I experience my thoughts as a person. This is completely excluded, simply pushed aside as an illusion with very little further consideration when to this day the nature of the mind remains a very complex question in philosophical circles.
[QUOTE]I seem to have misjudged your progress on the matter. This is rather disappointing.
I hope you can forgive me for a slightly soured disposition, I blame the PTSD flash-backs of debating with flat Earth theorists and that evolution denier.[/QUOTE]
That kind of attitude can very well be unproductive when unjustified, which it certainly is with the subject at hand. Of course I forgive you, but my position on the mind is hardly on par with flat earth theorists or people who deny the evolutionary process. I regret if I made it seem that I was gradually accepting a naturalistic view of the mind, but I was doing no such thing.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44660353]What I meant was conscious from our experience.[/QUOTE]
Likewise, I am describing the origin of our perceived internal thoughts. What else is consciousness?
[QUOTE]But that language is a result of our own minds, so if the natural mind is synonymous with the inner workings of the brain, why does the language that we have created describe the inner workings that allowed its conception so inaccurately?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I explained this poorly last time. Language is (one of) the highest levels of abstraction, and the relations we use when decoding lingual input and constructing phrases are defined in terms of other lingual concepts and a subset of the concepts defined on lower layers. This means that not every concept can be expressed through language, so the things you can express as internal natural language strings are limited to what is available through those relations. This is because the brain isn't fully connected, with distinct levels of abstraction with constrained interactions between them.
[QUOTE]My apologies if I seemed to be attacking you on some level, all I intended to do was point out that whatever opinion we hold on this matter is strongly influenced by our broader world views given how little there is to go on with it. I did not mean to accuse you of anything, merely to point out that I did not expect to change your view on this.[/QUOTE]
It would have been courteous to admit that the same could apply to you, even if you weren't consciously aware of a possible breach of rationality. I am not aware of a breach of my own rational integrity on this matter, but I would never claim that I must be absolutely free of any subconscious bias just because I am not aware of it. That's kind of what subconscious biases are about.
[QUOTE]This is circular reasoning though as you're assuming that your position is right in order for your argument to be valid. The fact of the matter is that the subjective experience does not resemble this process at all and that is what I am speaking from.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you have misinterpreted what an internal reality is. Do you believe that your conscious self is seeing the raw data that floods into your eyes? Even without assuming physicalism, it goes through many layers of abstraction before reaching your awareness; to identify objects, filter out useless noise, extrapolate to fill in your blind spots, and synchronise the data to match the respectively abstracted inputs from other senses. This process can be analysed and deconstructed using optical illusions to show that the reality you are aware of is rather different to the actual reality that surrounds you. If your consciousness was given raw sensory input you would be completely overwhelmed, having to manually piece together an understanding of your environment from every spot of light that enters your eyes. The pattern matching systems in your subconscious fortunately do all this for you, and present an internal reality for you to live in.
Here's an example of the kind of illusion that demonstrates that your consciousness perceives an internal reality, not the real external one. I occasionally suffer from sleep paralysis, where I wake up to find myself completely paralysed from the neck downwards. I try to lift my arm, and am surprised to see it actually move upwards. I even feel it leave the bed. Soon after, however, my internal reality realises it differs from external reality and updates the position of its internal representation of my arm back to the bed. From my perspective, my arm instantly appears back on the sheets. I can repeat this several times, but each time my arm appears in the air for slightly less time until my internal reality realises my arm can't actually move. Essentially, hallucinations are instances where your internal reality diverges from external reality, and can affect all senses.
[QUOTE]An antenna would suggest some degree of disconnect in terms of how the body affect the mind, I would propose that the two are connected as a unified entity and thus mutually affect each other. I cannot describe the interaction any further due to physical limitations though, the same goes for anyone.[/QUOTE]
So I take it that information is travelling from the physical aspect of the mind to the ethereal one, but is any information travelling from the ethereal mind to your brain?
[QUOTE]Well my thoughts are not just a stream of language though, I experience my thoughts as a person. This is completely excluded, simply pushed aside as an illusion with very little further consideration when to this day the nature of the mind remains a very complex question in philosophical circles.[/QUOTE]
I really don't know what you mean by "experienced as a person". How is this different to an automaton that generates new thoughts from the detection and analysis of existing thoughts?
[QUOTE]That kind of attitude can very well be unproductive when unjustified, which it certainly is with the subject at hand. Of course I forgive you, but my position on the mind is hardly on par with flat earth theorists or people who deny the evolutionary process. I regret if I made it seem that I was gradually accepting a naturalistic view of the mind, but I was doing no such thing.[/QUOTE]
I'll admit I am becoming frustrated because my input in this discussion comes from my understanding of neural networks, language processing and various models of consciousness, whereas all I can see from your own is an argument from what you subjectively feel is intuitive. Perhaps I am mistaken, and I'm misreading the parts of your argument that come from objective reasoning and non-trivial awareness of the subject matter. Otherwise, the parallels to debating an individual in denial are rather strong, or at least strong enough to legitimately remind me of previous discussions with such persons.
Stepping back for a second, I'm getting obscenely petty here. It probably stems from my guilt of spending my time writing more words here than I am for my report that's due in a week, and maybe I'm trying to embarrass myself out of wanting to write more. Let's make a pact here to force me to do my work: if I post at all in this thread over the next week you can automatically count that as me conceding that you are right and there is undeniably a supernatural element involved in consciousness.
Sorry to but in, but I'd like some help here. Can someone tell me what colors these are:
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Color_icon_blue.svg[/img]
[t]http://fjwestcott.com/wp-content/uploads/5986-Green1.jpg[/t]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Color_icon_green.svg[/img]
[QUOTE=Ziks;44660823]Likewise, I am describing the origin of our perceived internal thoughts. What else is consciousness?[/QUOTE]
The experience of those thoughts, states of mind, intentionality and above all, personality (that is the existence of a self, not character traits).
[QUOTE]Perhaps I explained this poorly last time. Language is (one of) the highest levels of abstraction, and the relations we use when decoding lingual input and constructing phrases are defined in terms of other lingual concepts and a subset of the concepts defined on lower layers. This means that not every concept can be expressed through language, so the things you can express as internal natural language strings are limited to what is available through those relations. This is because the brain isn't fully connected, with distinct levels of abstraction with constrained interactions between them.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, maybe I didn't quite make my contention clear...
If there is no actual self that that has conceived language and it is only the processes of the brain that can be expressed in language that created it, why is the language used to relate these processes so different from the reality?
[QUOTE]It would have been courteous to admit that the same could apply to you, even if you weren't consciously aware of a possible breach of rationality. I am not aware of a breach of my own rational integrity on this matter, but I would never claim that I must be absolutely free of any subconscious bias just because I am not aware of it. That's kind of what subconscious biases are about.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I should have noted that I wasn't speaking in an accusatory way.
No need to call it a breach of rationality though, we're simply going off of what either of us know. You can be rational and still start with certain basic beliefs.
[QUOTE]Perhaps you have misinterpreted what an internal reality is. Do you believe that your conscious self is seeing the raw data that floods into your eyes? Even without assuming physicalism, it goes through many layers of abstraction before reaching your awareness; to identify objects, filter out useless noise, extrapolate to fill in your blind spots, and synchronise the data to match the respectively abstracted inputs from other senses. This process can be analysed and deconstructed using optical illusions to show that the reality you are aware of is rather different to the actual reality that surrounds you. If your consciousness was given raw sensory input you would be completely overwhelmed, having to manually piece together an understanding of your environment from every spot of light that enters your eyes. The pattern matching systems in your subconscious fortunately do all this for you, and present an internal reality for you to live in.[/QUOTE]
I understand that the raw information that we absorb is heavily processed, but that does not change the fact that when I am interacting with something, I am not interacting with the concept in my mind but with the actual thing. That is what intentionality is, the ability to reference external objects.
Now the information in our brains is just that, information, but we do not experience it like that. We experience our environment as an externally existing thing.
[QUOTE]Here's an example of the kind of illusion that demonstrates that your consciousness perceives an internal reality, not the real external one. I occasionally suffer from sleep paralysis, where I wake up to find myself completely paralysed from the neck downwards. I try to lift my arm, and am surprised to see it actually move upwards. I even feel it leave the bed. Soon after, however, my internal reality realises it differs from external reality and updates the position of its internal representation of my arm back to the bed. From my perspective, my arm instantly appears back on the sheets. I can repeat this several times, but each time my arm appears in the air for slightly less time until my internal reality realises my arm can't actually move. Essentially, hallucinations are instances where your internal reality diverges from external reality, and can affect all senses.[/QUOTE]
Intentionality applies to hallucinations as well, what matters is that we can reference external objects. Even if those objects are an illusion you are referencing them as external things and not concepts in your brain nonetheless. Of course I am speaking from our conscious experience, not from a scientific perspective pertaining to perceptual psychology.
[QUOTE]So I take it that information is travelling from the physical aspect of the mind to the ethereal one, but is any information travelling from the ethereal mind to your brain?[/QUOTE]
Information and travel suggest physical attributes, attributes which only the body has. I can't provide any details as to how the interaction works as it is not physical. Though there are a few theories as to how the two might interact, they are purely metaphysical and do not involve a technical overview.
[QUOTE]I really don't know what you mean by "experienced as a person". How is this different to an automaton that generates new thoughts from the detection and analysis of existing thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Well, I suppose the statement "experienced as a person" is a bit redundant as in order to experience something you have to [i]be[/i] someone. It is because of this in part that our thoughts are different from an automaton as there is no person connected to the automaton and thus no first person perspective.
It seems that we're going around in circles with this matter though, perhaps we should address the first person experience directly as opposed to other issues related to it. I don;t think we will be able to come to any understanding on these other issue unless we solve this one first.
[QUOTE]I'll admit I am becoming frustrated because my input in this discussion comes from my understanding of neural networks, language processing and various models of consciousness, whereas all I can see from your own is an argument from what you subjectively feel is intuitive. Perhaps I am mistaken, and I'm misreading the parts of your argument that come from objective reasoning and non-trivial awareness of the subject matter. Otherwise, the parallels to debating an individual in denial are rather strong, or at least strong enough to legitimately remind me of previous discussions with such persons.[/QUOTE]
I am arguing from a philosophical basis in substance dualism, much of what I have been talking about is derived from the formal arguments developed in its favor. I can assure you that this is not just me talking, all that I am doing is gleaning information off of much more learned minds than my own.
Also these arguments are not just based off of what I think is intuitive. They simply revolve around the subjective experience, which is very relevant to the discussion as we are both trying to express explanations for it. If a naturalistic view is going to be taken, then sufficient explanations for our subjective experiences must be supplied.
[QUOTE]Stepping back for a second, I'm getting obscenely petty here. It probably stems from my guilt of spending my time writing more words here than I am for my report that's due in a week, and maybe I'm trying to embarrass myself out of wanting to write more. Let's make a pact here to force me to do my work: if I post at all in this thread over the next week you can automatically count that as me conceding that you are right and there is undeniably a supernatural element involved in consciousness.[/QUOTE]
By all means put school first, I don't take failure to respond as an admission that I am right. We all have lives beyond debating here.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44662850]
Intentionality applies to hallucinations as well, what matters is that we can reference external objects. Even if those objects are an illusion you are referencing them as external things and not concepts in your brain nonetheless. Of course I am speaking from our conscious experience, not from a scientific perspective pertaining to perceptual psychology.[/QUOTE]
How do you know those illusions are not an element of your consciousness? Which one is which?
[QUOTE]Information and travel suggest physical attributes, attributes which only the body has. I can't provide any details as to how the interaction works as it is not physical. Though there are a few theories as to how the two might interact, they are purely metaphysical though and do not involve a technical overview.[/QUOTE]
If it is not physical, then how does it affect a physical process? If it is not physical, than what process does it have in a physical brain? how would you rationalize brain damage in your view?
[QUOTE]Well, I suppose the statement "experienced as a person" is a bit redundant as in order to experience something you have to [i]be[/i] someone. It is because of this in part that our thoughts are different from an automaton as there is no person connected to the automaton and thus no first person perspective.[/QUOTE]
That's the argument though. You're literally stating that you're right. As the argument is about whether not an automaton has those first person initiatives and views you're just declaring it does not. This is not a strong argument. This is a strong statement.
We're arguing that there is nothing visible that causes first person intention to really differ from a more mechanical method of generating conciousness. Simply saying it isn't so does not make it so.
[QUOTE]It seems that we're going around in circles with this matter though, perhaps we should address the first person experience directly as opposed to other issues related to it. I don;t think we will be able to come to any understanding on these other issue unless we solve this one first.[/QUOTE]
You're going around in circles because rather than argue how or why an automoton and we differ you're saying we do by an invisible, non physical, undetectable mechanism. You should realize by now this isn't the best tool to win an argument with.
[QUOTE]I am arguing from a philosophical basis in substance dualism, much of what I have been talking about is derived from the formal arguments developed in its favor. I can assure you that this is not just me talking, all that I am doing is gleaning information off of much more learned minds than my own.
[/QUOTE]
Yes and by most modern argument dualism denies a lot of scientific fact.
[QUOTE]Also these arguments are not just based off of what I think is intuitive. They simply revolve around the subjective experience, which is very relevant to the discussion as we are both trying to express explanations for it. If a naturalistic view is going to be taken, then sufficient explanations for our subjective experiences must be supplied.[/QUOTE]
1) They have been. You ignored an entire post about memory, not conjecture about memory, but facts about memory which define us as we are in a subjective sense.
2) If a naturalistic view is to be taken, you're right, it does need to explain things. It has not been able to explain the exact nature of the mind as of yet. Because of this, you have placed a mechanism much like Russels teapot that makes us special cognitive non machines. This is bad because;
- It's untestable and therefore, you win the argument
- It's filling in our knowledge with more mythic gaps that most likely will have a mechanism of naturalistic explanation
3) For anyone here to believe that a non physical force of some kind is behind our physical, chemically driven brains, you will HAVE to supply some sort of evidence. As of now, your evidence is evidence of absence.
Please, for my own benefit, answer me some questions from a dualist perspective on the conundrum of memory and it's own faults, on cognition's fault, on how much interference there is between the light hitting our eyes and our brains developing an image
I see all these physical, real, understood and testable things about the mind, that we see coming from physical processes. Memory being a very obvious one. Following the idea of subjectivity, we are what we have gone through, suffered through, or enjoyed, we are created by our memories essentially. The memories clearly display a physical element. How does the soul, the innate "youness", the subjective element of you sitting behind your eyes really affect this very real and very physical process?
I don't discount the possibility the brain could be a non physically driven mechanism. I don't discount it, seriously, I don't. But I will require evidence that shows this in some manner. Not just the absence of a complete description from a naturalistic perspective. I'm not hoping on an unproven boat that discount much of what we know about the modern brain without a good reason.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44662999]How do you know those illusions are not an element of your consciousness? Which one is which? [/QUOTE]
Well, I cannot say that I have ever had a hallucination so really all that I can go off of is dreams, I still relate to them as I would an external environment, regardless of whether they are a product of my own brain. Any stimulus at its core is essentially just information pieced together in your brain anyway, so I don't see why hallucinations would be any different though.
[QUOTE]If it is not physical, then how does it affect a physical process? If it is not physical, than what process does it have in a physical brain? how would you rationalize brain damage in your view?[/QUOTE]
I have already stated that we have no way of knowing how the link between mind and body works. Brain damage is expected to have an effect on the mind as it is linked to the body, they mutually influence each other.
[QUOTE]That's the argument though. You're literally stating that you're right. As the argument is about whether not an automaton has those first person initiatives and views you're just declaring it does not. This is not a strong argument. This is a strong statement.[/QUOTE]
Well if the automaton relies purely on natural information, how could it have a first person perspective on anything. Is there a single natural property that has perspective? Why should I believe that the natural properties in the automaton are different?
[QUOTE]We're arguing that there is nothing visible that causes first person intention to really differ from a more mechanical method of generating conciousness. Simply saying it isn't so does not make it so.[/QUOTE]
All while ignoring the fact that your very self and intentionality are what allow you to say this. Sure people cannot empirically measure them in any way, but they are present none-the-less. An artifact or organism that can perfectly mimic a human means nothing without an explanation for our minds and why those entities mimicking us should have them too.
[QUOTE]You're going around in circles because rather than argue how or why an automoton and we differ you're saying we do by an invisible, non physical, undetectable mechanism. You should realize by now this isn't the best tool to win an argument with.[/QUOTE]
That is why I am not invoking the concept of a soul as support for my argument, instead I am referencing our minds and the properties that seem incongruous to natural states.
[QUOTE]Yes and by most modern argument dualism denies a lot of scientific fact.[/QUOTE]
Such as?
[QUOTE]1) They have been. You ignored an entire post about memory, not conjecture about memory, but facts about memory which define us as we are in a subjective sense.[/QUOTE]
I assume you are referencing your post here [URL=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1310776&p=44643639&viewfull=1#post44643639]post #535[/URL]
In which case you are simply asserting that memories are natural, which is not something that I have contested. Memories like any other natural state of the body have an effect on the immaterial mind as the mind affects the body.
[QUOTE]2) If a naturalistic view is to be taken, you're right, it does need to explain things. It has not been able to explain the exact nature of the mind as of yet. Because of this, you have placed a mechanism much like Russels teapot that makes us special cognitive non machines. This is bad because;
- It's untestable and therefore, you win the argument
- It's filling in our knowledge with more mythic gaps that most likely will have a mechanism of naturalistic explanation[/QUOTE]
I am not proposing that the mind is immaterial because we have not found a natural explanation for it yet, I propose that its material as I see no way that natural states of matter could result in its existence. I suppose it does remain untestable, but no more than the claim that the mind is an illusion.
[QUOTE]3) For anyone here to believe that a non physical force of some kind is behind our physical, chemically driven brains, you will HAVE to supply some sort of evidence. As of now, your evidence is evidence of absence. [/QUOTE]
Well if you choose to believe that the mind is nothing more than illusion I guess my arguments will hold little weight, but for anyone who is not satisfied with this explanation, the dualist perspective offer a more reasonable one.
[QUOTE]I see all these physical, real, understood and testable things about the mind, that we see coming from physical processes. Memory being a very obvious one. Following the idea of subjectivity, we are what we have gone through, suffered through, or enjoyed, we are created by our memories essentially. The memories clearly display a physical element. How does the soul, the innate "youness", the subjective element of you sitting behind your eyes really affect this very real and very physical process?[/QUOTE]
I have stated time and time again that there is no way there could be a natural explanation for this, I have not even used it in any of my arguments. Instead my position on dualism is what I am arguing for, not what I am arguing with. If you are talking about the relation of memories to the self, when I say the self I do not mean the personality which is in part a result of memories. Instead I speak about the entity that allows us this first person perspective to experience things, we experience natural things, memories are natural things, that is the closest we can get to the relationship between the two.
I don't get how you guys ignored my post, but whatever. bIgFaTwOrM12, it doesn't seem like you're debating, rather than assuming you're right and saying that because you're right other arguments are invalid.
[QUOTE=Jookia;44663726]I don't get how you guys ignored my post[/QUOTE]
I'm no Yale professor but the colors of your previous post look to be - top to bottom - some shades of blue, then one shade of green, then many shades of green. Where was that heading?
[QUOTE=xZippy;44663795]I'm no Yale professor but the colors of your previous post look to be - top to bottom - some shades of blue, then one shade of green, then many shades of green. Where was that heading?[/QUOTE]
to a discussion about qualia
it has to do with the idea that you see that green as green, but for all you know the colour red is the colour green for someone else but you both see the same colour and agree, this is green.
[QUOTE=xZippy;44663795]I'm no Yale professor but the colors of your previous post look to be - top to bottom - some shades of blue, then one shade of green, then many shades of green. Where was that heading?[/QUOTE]
It leads to how language influences your thoughts. Because in some cultures, they're mostly all different shades of one colour (blue green).
I'd say blue, purple, and green and variations in between, but I'm an art student.
I didn't realize you had replied to me, sorry for the late reply on this.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44663339]Well, I cannot say that I have ever had a hallucination so really all that I can go off of is dreams, I still relate to them as I would an external environment, regardless of whether they are a product of my own brain. Any stimulus at its core is essentially just information pieced together in your brain anyway, so I don't see why hallucinations would be any different though.[/QUOTE]
There's the rub, eh? What's an illusion and what reality are are entirely indistinguishable.
[QUOTE]I have already stated that we have no way of knowing how the link between mind and body works. Brain damage is expected to have an effect on the mind as it is linked to the body, they mutually influence each other.
[/QUOTE]
If you have no way of knowing it now, or in the future, I don't see why it should be a respected theory until you do.
[QUOTE]Well if the automaton relies purely on natural information, how could it have a first person perspective on anything. Is there a single natural property that has perspective? Why should I believe that the natural properties in the automaton are different?[/QUOTE]
You rely purely on natural information yet you have a first person perspective. I do not think an automaton would be different. You need to clarify why it would be. A combination of simplistic mechanisms in our brains give rise to our first person perspective or the illusion there of it.
[QUOTE]All while ignoring the fact that your very self and intentionality are what allow you to say this. Sure people cannot empirically measure them in any way, but they are present none-the-less. An artifact or organism that can perfectly mimic a human means nothing without an explanation for our minds and why those entities mimicking us should have them too.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what your argument is here. If there is no difference in the illusion of first person and an actual first person perspective than the intentionality that we're drawing is the same in either case.
[QUOTE]That is why I am not invoking the concept of a soul as support for my argument, instead I am referencing our minds and the properties that seem incongruous to natural states.[/QUOTE]
But simply not understanding it yet does not put it in a field where it cannot be understood. You understand this is the ever shrinking world of the god of the gaps?
[QUOTE]Such as?[/QUOTE]
Such as there being no visible external mechanism. Such as brain damage being a real and true personality changer. Duality has no explanations for these things, just an instance that it is so.
[QUOTE]I assume you are referencing your post here [URL=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1310776&p=44643639&viewfull=1#post44643639]post #535[/URL]
In which case you are simply asserting that memories are natural, which is not something that I have contested. Memories like any other natural state of the body have an effect on the immaterial mind as the mind affects the body.[/QUOTE]
Memories are who you are. You are little more than a stream of conciousness based on what just happened and what is happening now tempered by the experiences that form the key components of your personality. If memories are natural, and are a key part in forming who we are as a person, as an entity, what is it that is left for the dualist perspective here to do?
[QUOTE]I am not proposing that the mind is immaterial because we have not found a natural explanation for it yet, I propose that its material as I see no way that natural states of matter could result in its existence. I suppose it does remain untestable, but no more than the claim that the mind is an illusion.[/QUOTE]
Which is why I choose to believe that there is a complex process going on that results in sentience. Until we find another answer, that's what I'll believe, I won't take a dualist perspective due to the absence of evidence.
[QUOTE]Well if you choose to believe that the mind is nothing more than illusion I guess my arguments will hold little weight, but for anyone who is not satisfied with this explanation, the dualist perspective offer a more reasonable one.[/QUOTE]
I don't see the mind as an illusion. I see it as a mechanical and biological process. I don't see how you can say a dualist perspective is more realistic when it intrinsically relies on something that is supposedly not able to be understood. If there is something going on there that is happening in the physical world, which as far as we know is all there is as of yet, then surely, a seperate entity from the mind that is attached in some ethreal manner must have some testable or verifiable effects to be considered "more reasonable" than the mind simply being a biological and mechanical process resulting in sentience.
[QUOTE]I have stated time and time again that there is no way there could be a natural explanation for this, I have not even used it in any of my arguments. Instead my position on dualism is what I am arguing for, not what I am arguing with. If you are talking about the relation of memories to the self, when I say the self I do not mean the personality which is in part a result of memories. Instead I speak about the entity that allows us this first person perspective to experience things, we experience natural things, memories are natural things, that is the closest we can get to the relationship between the two.[/QUOTE]
So you're sure there's no way a natural explanation could ever come up? So you're just basically self assured that you can't be wrong? Why?
What exactly does a the entity that you draw your current existence from have to do with who you are if it's memories that are the creator of your personality and personhood? is this entity where choice comes from?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44791554]here's the rub, eh? What's an illusion and what reality are are entirely indistinguishable.[/QUOTE]
I am open to accepting that the two are indistinguishable, though I don't believe that the reality I experience is an illusion.
[QUOTE]If you have no way of knowing it now, or in the future, I don't see why it should be a respected theory until you do.[/QUOTE]
I am not proposing it as a scientific theory.
[QUOTE]You rely purely on natural information yet you have a first person perspective. I do not think an automaton would be different. You need to clarify why it would be. A combination of simplistic mechanisms in our brains give rise to our first person perspective or the illusion there of it.[/QUOTE]
How can a state of matter have a perspective though? How could a combination of simple physical properties with no perspectives suddenly turn into a perspective?
[QUOTE]I'm not sure what your argument is here. If there is no difference in the illusion of first person and an actual first person perspective than the intentionality that we're drawing is the same in either case.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that the ability to conceive of an entity that acts like us does not mean that it has a perspective like us. The ability to construct something that mimics our behavior does not prove that the mind is purely naturalistic.
[QUOTE]But simply not understanding it yet does not put it in a field where it cannot be understood. You understand this is the ever shrinking world of the god of the gaps?[/QUOTE]
I am not proposing that the mind must be spiritual in origin because we do not understand how it works. I am proposing that the body is not a sufficient explanation for our minds. If you wish to hold faith that naturalism will ultimately be the answer then so be it, but that does not make your position more reasonable.
[QUOTE]Such as there being no visible external mechanism. Such as brain damage being a real and true personality changer. Duality has no explanations for these things, just an instance that it is so.[/QUOTE]
I propose a immaterial mind, not an invisible physical substance. I have already stated that my position is that the mind and body mutually affect each other, so brain damage and its effects make sense from the dualist perspective that I assert. I have provided explanations to these issues already. So I do not see how what I've been saying denies scientific fact.
[QUOTE]Memories are who you are. You are little more than a stream of conciousness based on what just happened and what is happening now tempered by the experiences that form the key components of your personality. If memories are natural, and are a key part in forming who we are as a person, as an entity, what is it that is left for the dualist perspective here to do?[/QUOTE]
The personality is of course not merely stored records of stimulus, I don't think even a monist perspective would assert that. Memories do have effects on our personalities, but it is the experience of those memories that are key to the personality, not the memories themselves (memories are necessary in order for the experience to occur though). Just because the body is important to the development of the mind does not that the mind is purely natural though, that just means mind and body are associated with each other.
[QUOTE]Which is why I choose to believe that there is a complex process going on that results in sentience. Until we find another answer, that's what I'll believe, I won't take a dualist perspective due to the absence of evidence.[/QUOTE]
This is why I stated at the beginning of the conversation that one's perspective on this matter can only be a result of their greater world views as there is no evidence to reach a specific conclusion about the nature of the mind. Ultimately nobody can have a scientific positione on this.
[QUOTE]I don't see the mind as an illusion. I see it as a mechanical and biological process. I don't see how you can say a dualist perspective is more realistic when it intrinsically relies on something that is supposedly not able to be understood. If there is something going on there that is happening in the physical world, which as far as we know is all there is as of yet, then surely, a seperate entity from the mind that is attached in some ethreal manner must have some testable or verifiable effects to be considered "more reasonable" than the mind simply being a biological and mechanical process resulting in sentience.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean when you say that the physical world "is all there is as of yet"? Can you prove for a fact that nature actually exists? I see no way you could actually prove that it exists as your only way of understanding it is through it. All you can do is assume that it exists for whatever reasons you have and go forward from there. Why would a non-physical entity surely have some kind of physical property?
[QUOTE]So you're sure there's no way a natural explanation could ever come up? So you're just basically self assured that you can't be wrong? Why?[/QUOTE]
Of course not, but going off of what we know I see no good explanation for how it could come about.
[QUOTE]What exactly does a the entity that you draw your current existence from have to do with who you are if it's memories that are the creator of your personality and personhood? is this entity where choice comes from?[/QUOTE]
The mind is what allows for our perspective and intentionality.
Does it matter to you if consciousness is purely natural or not?
It's a personal question, so it's only fair if I give my response too. I would find the notion of consciousness requiring some supernatural element to be hugely comforting, as it would suggest that we are objectively special. It would give credibility to the existence of an afterlife, eliminating my primary fear of absolute death. There being a special form of existence apparently solely for the implementation of consciousness would suggest design, so I could find the idea of a caring creator rational. Emotionally, dualism is extremely preferable to naturalism from my perspective.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44792844]Does it matter to you if consciousness is purely natural or not?
It's a personal question, so it's only fair if I give my response too. I would find the notion of consciousness requiring some supernatural element to be hugely comforting, as it would suggest that we are objectively special. It would give credibility to the existence of an afterlife, eliminating my primary fear of absolute death. There being a special form of existence apparently solely for the implementation of consciousness would suggest design, so I could find the idea of a caring creator rational. Emotionally, dualism is extremely preferable to naturalism from my perspective.[/QUOTE]
I suppose it does, I prefer the idea over the monist perspective, I also feel that dualism is the more correct perspective within my world-view. However, dualism is not an integral part of my world view, I do not believe it out of necessity due to my religion.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44792962]I suppose it does, I prefer the idea over the monist perspective, I also feel that dualism is the more correct perspective within my world-view. However, dualism is not an integral part of my world view, I do not believe it out of necessity due to my religion.[/QUOTE]
If we hypothetically were somehow able to prove that monism was correct, would your religion not be affected? I would think the implications may perhaps tarnish some of the teachings of Christianity (although your word on this is better than mine), what with it being possible to in principle construct a mind that improves on our own (improving on the creation of God), or that consciousness could arise simply by being evolutionarily favourable rather than directed by divine intervention.
Anyway, I think it is rational for you as an agent to believe in consciousness being supernatural. The idea is comforting and allows you to focus on more practical issues, so is expected to maximise utility compared to the alternative. If anything I'm a little jealous that I can't also believe in dualism.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44793105]If we hypothetically were somehow able to prove that monism was correct, would your religion not be affected? I would think the implications may perhaps tarnish some of the teachings of Christianity (although your word on this is better than mine), what with it being possible to in principle construct a mind that improves on our own (improving on the creation of God), or that consciousness could arise simply by being evolutionarily favourable rather than directed by divine intervention.[/QUOTE]
Not really, it would just lead to a concordist interpretation of the concept of a soul, concordist meaning that one interprets scripture in the context of scientific discovery. While not a good method of interpretation it is not necessarily wrong.
If we were able to improve on our minds in some way it would be akin to how we improve the shelter of a tree by cutting it down and making it into a house. Simply re configuring God's creation is a part of what we naturally do, even in the dualist perspective one is still able to improve upon their mind as we can change how we think and gain new perspectives.
I think one would have a hard time interpreting that the image of God (the mind) naturally evolved without God's direct intervention in some way though.
It goes against a formal interpretation of scripture, but monism is not necessarily incompatible with a Christian world view.
Is it possible that you would resolve any conflict between observed reality and your religion in a way that preserves your faith?
[QUOTE=Ziks;44796153]Is it possible that you would resolve any conflict between observed reality and your religion in a way that preserves your faith?[/QUOTE]
Not any, some beliefs are more central to Christianity than others, some so central that you cease to be Christian if you do not believe in them. If, hypothetically, my world view was not true and I was presented exhaustive evidence that proved that the Christ never existed/did not ressurect, that would essentially dismantle the religion. Exhaustive evidence that proved the universe is past eternal would be quite a blow to my faith but not dismantling. While the age of the universe is not really an important matter theologically speaking.
Science doesn't prove there's anything after life and I consider myself unreligious but I hope there is something after life.
I don't want to end it there and then.
Maybe in the far future science will find a way to hold your conscience in computers, I guess that could be life after death, being a robot.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44802048]Not any, some beliefs are more central to Christianity than others, some so central that you cease to be Christian if you do not believe in them. If, hypothetically, my world view was not true and I was presented exhaustive evidence that proved that the Christ never existed/did not ressurect, that would essentially dismantle the religion. Exhaustive evidence that proved the universe is past eternal would be quite a blow to my faith but not dismantling. While the age of the universe is not really an important matter theologically speaking.[/QUOTE]
I'm taking us a little out of the topic of this thread here, but am I right in recalling that the primary evidence you believe demonstrates the truth of the resurrection of Jesus is the writing of a set of scholars within the century after the event? I assume Josephus would be one of the more critical ones in your eyes judging by your avatar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
