4 ms·

The simple answer is that we don't know yet. We don't know at what level of complexity a nervous system starts to have subjective experience (qualia), or even h

The simple answer is that we don't know yet. We don't know at what level of complexity a nervous system starts to have subjective experience (qualia), or even how to detect the condition. However, constructing a computer program that's aware of its own programmedness, or a robot that can tell itself apart in (for example) a reflection from other robots is not terribly difficult. Do such machines have qualia? How could we know? How can I know you have qualia? What we do know is that doing purely physical things to the brain has very apparent effects on the person. People with brain damage have suffered effects as varied as changes in personality, to defects in information processing, to loss of abilities and memories. Less extremely, psychoactive drugs operate physically on the brain and cause changes in behavior, mood, and perception. If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, these effects remain to be accounted for. And that aside, I've never heard any reason to accept dualism, besides an appeal to incredulity that the mind could be caused purely by physical processes.

broscillator 3y ago
> If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  >It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself. >Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face. Okay, now undo the analogy.
  - broscillator 3y ago
    Cars exist because the need for faster and better movement exists. The process of movement created the need for the invention of the car. > Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If we follow this logic then "movement is a process that's running on the car." Cars are a result of multiple conditions, including movement and the necessary material conditions to employ movement in a specific way. Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind and the necessary biological conditions to employ mental factors in a specific way.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      Sorry, but I'm unclear on what your point is. >Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind What do you mean by consciousness that's different from the mind? I see the two as synonymous.
      - broscillator 3y ago
        You're fine to view it that way, it's a reasonable view. My point is to highlight that there's other views. What I mean is that mind is to consciousness what matter is to the brain. It is a property of the universe, that manifests itself in ways that can form memories, identities, self awareness. But underlying these systems there is pure awareness, in the same way that all matter can be reduced to the same fundamental particles. In the same way that something like a car or a brain can be made from these same fundamental building blocks, an identity and a self can be made from fundamental mind-properties that are just inherent parts of the universe. They become identifiable as "a person" at a certain scale in the same way that a group of particles becomes "a car" at a certain scale and distance.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        fluoridation 3y ago

broscillator 3y ago

> If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.

fluoridation 3y ago
>It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself. >Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face. Okay, now undo the analogy.
- broscillator 3y ago
  Cars exist because the need for faster and better movement exists. The process of movement created the need for the invention of the car. > Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If we follow this logic then "movement is a process that's running on the car." Cars are a result of multiple conditions, including movement and the necessary material conditions to employ movement in a specific way. Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind and the necessary biological conditions to employ mental factors in a specific way.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    Sorry, but I'm unclear on what your point is. >Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind What do you mean by consciousness that's different from the mind? I see the two as synonymous.
    - broscillator 3y ago
      You're fine to view it that way, it's a reasonable view. My point is to highlight that there's other views. What I mean is that mind is to consciousness what matter is to the brain. It is a property of the universe, that manifests itself in ways that can form memories, identities, self awareness. But underlying these systems there is pure awareness, in the same way that all matter can be reduced to the same fundamental particles. In the same way that something like a car or a brain can be made from these same fundamental building blocks, an identity and a self can be made from fundamental mind-properties that are just inherent parts of the universe. They become identifiable as "a person" at a certain scale in the same way that a group of particles becomes "a car" at a certain scale and distance.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - fluoridation 3y ago