6 ms·
>The 'hard problem' here is to explain how a set of physical processes give rise to consciousness or sensory experience at all. In other words, why the lights a
by omginternets 8y ago
>The 'hard problem' here is to explain how a set of physical processes give rise to consciousness or sensory experience at all. In other words, why the lights are on.
Dennett would reply: once I've explained every detail of the physiological system, and in so doing perfectly mapped inputs to outputs, what is there left to explain?
- AstralStorm 8y agoObviously, internal states and the actual system. A memoryless and stateful system may produce similar or even same output given identical input. Since you cannot quantity infinite span of inputs, you cannot quite be sure which one you're dealing with. This is even harder if both systems are noisy. The mechanistic corollary is that you have to mess with whatever causes consciousness to actually understand it. Inject states, damage components and more. Even then you might make a mistake.
- incadenza 8y agoI'd argue that any such mapping of inputs and outputs, (fully mapping our mind) would equally describe to a system that is not conscious. In other words, the whole analysis could as well be describing a zombie that behaves like us but does not have experiences. Put another way, it would fail to capture why that system (our brains) produce any experiences at all. I know this is disputed, of course. But I basically think the hard problem is a real thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
- cscurmudgeon 8y agoDennet's reasoning is essentially: "I can't see or don't know anything beyond this line, so therefore nothing can exist beyond this line." While attractive, it is not logically valid
- naasking 8y agoI think it's more like, "there is no reason to suppose there is anything beyond this line because everything can be explained without crossing it", which is logically valid.
- danharaj 8y agoThere are for sure things of this world that are not explicable, even in principle.
- naasking 8y agoSuch as?
- sgt101 8y agoIf I were to adopt this approach I would be dishonest - because every second of which I am aware shows me that there is something beyond the line. DD may be different...
- cscurmudgeon 8y agoThat is not what DD is claiming though. It is more along the lines of: "If X exists it is beyond this line. I can't explain anything beyond the line, so X is an illusion." That is what DD claims. Maybe DD is a true zombie.
- naasking 8y agoI disagree with your paraphrase. Why not cite a specific quote or passage from Dennett where he makes such a ridiculous claim.
- taurine 8y ago"The line we placed there was arbitrary. The division it creates is the very cause of the problems of consciousness. Science experiments show that it is likely at the wrong location, no matter how confident we were when we drew it. I will attempt to solve these artificial problems of consciousness by showing that it is a miscategorization and not-well-justified to draw the line in the first place."