4 ms·

Mind-body dualism is the bane of my existence. My thoughts on this article: 1. The fact that we cannot scientifically determine how something functions does n

Mind-body dualism is the bane of my existence. My thoughts on this article: 1. The fact that we cannot scientifically determine how something functions does not necessary imply a non-physical cause. 2. Thought experiments are inherently limited to human conceptualizations which--while based in reality--have no authority over reality. Here's a famous thought experiment: Descartes believed that clear and distinct perceptions can be certain. I can think about a horse and a dog separately, so they most be different things, right? Well, I can also think about time and space as distinct entities but guess what they're not. Thought experiments are entirely limited by human intuition and human intuition is not guaranteed to properly reflect reality. The fact that you can imagine a zombie of yourself has no bearing on reality. I can imagine traveling faster than the speed of light but that doesn't make it possible. 3. When systems reach sufficient enough complexity it is impossible to understand them by merely analyzing the individual components and understanding the rules that govern them. Even if I had full knowledge of the human brain and how it worked, there would be no way for me to understand another person's first person perspective because there would be no way for me to simulate his brain. Mary's Room, qualia, and Mooreland's argument from first person perspective are all dependent upon the assumption that if you can understand the components of such a system, you ought be able to understand the whole. This premise is false. 4. There are plenty of "nonphysical" entities that we presume to have an entirely physical basis. Take the operating system on your computer. Is your OS a physical object? A physical property? It's real. You can interact with it. But if you pry about your hard drive you will not find a little desktop with folders and icons. Even if you could read the one's and zero's off the magnetic disk that wouldn't be considered your operating system. It only exists when all the pieces are connected and running and has no value (or existence) without such animation. Nonphysical entity. Physical cause. Some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

rosser 12y ago
Why do you equate the Hard Problem with dualism? I've met Chalmers, and read much of his oeuvre, and he's most emphatically not a dualist. No-one in the field takes "strong" (or even most varieties of "weak") dualism remotely seriously any more. Frankly, I feel like you're straw-manning a bit here, by attacking a position that's not even under discussion.
- kendallpark 12y ago
  Where did I equate the Hard Problem with dualism? I'm contending with a view that this article surveyed. Namely, "Nonetheless, just occasionally, science has dropped tantalising hints that this spooky extra ingredient might be real." Furthermore, Point #2 attacks the use of thought experiments as a means of understand the Hard Problem. Point #3 relates to why the Hard Problem is so hard. Point #4 gives an analogy supporting Dennett's position.
  - rosser 12y ago
    As far as I understand it, one of the main things that makes the Hard Problem so hard is "epistemic asymmetry": the only consciousness you can even know exists is your own. That's the point of p-zombies, not to be a clever thought experiment (about which you're mostly right, btw), but to very pointedly illustrate the very real, and very frustrating fact that (thus far) there is no proof whatsoever that the notional "lights are on" anywhere else in the universe but in one's own skull. As for point #4, and Dennett, I'm going to have to beg off discussing, because I don't want to have to resort to that kind of language before lunch. (Read: really, really not a fan.)
    - Marazan 12y ago
      You don't know your own consciousness exists. You can just be experiencing something that is not consciousness but that you think is. That's the ludicrous banality of the Hard Problem.
      - rosser 12y ago
        You can just be experiencing something that is not consciousness... That's what consciousness is: to borrow Thomas Nagel's phrase (which Chalmers also uses frequently), "the thing that it feels like" to be something. By every reasonable definition I've ever heard — and I've studied and read about this stuff for decades — that's pretty much a constant: consciousness is the experiential part of ... you know, experience. Yes, it's entirely possible — even common — to be mistaken or misled about the content of your experience, but not the fact that you are experiencing. In a discussion already absurdly full of sophistry, your comment should win a very large, gaudy prize.
ArekDymalski 12y ago
> When systems reach sufficient enough complexity it is impossible to understand them by merely analyzing the individual components and understanding the rules that govern them. Instead of "impossible" I'd rather use "unhelpful" or "pointless". In case of OS (or wind for a simpler example) we are focusing on the observable results of many small interactions. Most of the time looking at these "phenomena" from the higher level is sufficient for us - there's no point in analysing single atoms or 0's and 1's. To some extent it maight be similar in case of consciousness. One day we will be able to precisely monitor all chemical and electrical activity in neural network but it won't be necessary to make suffciently accurate predictions etc.
- kendallpark 12y ago
  Sorry, I meant to say, "impossible to completely understand them."

rosser 12y ago

Why do you equate the Hard Problem with dualism? I've met Chalmers, and read much of his oeuvre, and he's most emphatically not a dualist. No-one in the field takes "strong" (or even most varieties of "weak") dualism remotely seriously any more. Frankly, I feel like you're straw-manning a bit here, by attacking a position that's not even under discussion.

kendallpark 12y ago
Where did I equate the Hard Problem with dualism? I'm contending with a view that this article surveyed. Namely, "Nonetheless, just occasionally, science has dropped tantalising hints that this spooky extra ingredient might be real." Furthermore, Point #2 attacks the use of thought experiments as a means of understand the Hard Problem. Point #3 relates to why the Hard Problem is so hard. Point #4 gives an analogy supporting Dennett's position.
- rosser 12y ago
  As far as I understand it, one of the main things that makes the Hard Problem so hard is "epistemic asymmetry": the only consciousness you can even know exists is your own. That's the point of p-zombies, not to be a clever thought experiment (about which you're mostly right, btw), but to very pointedly illustrate the very real, and very frustrating fact that (thus far) there is no proof whatsoever that the notional "lights are on" anywhere else in the universe but in one's own skull. As for point #4, and Dennett, I'm going to have to beg off discussing, because I don't want to have to resort to that kind of language before lunch. (Read: really, really not a fan.)
  - Marazan 12y ago
    You don't know your own consciousness exists. You can just be experiencing something that is not consciousness but that you think is. That's the ludicrous banality of the Hard Problem.
    - rosser 12y ago
      You can just be experiencing something that is not consciousness... That's what consciousness is: to borrow Thomas Nagel's phrase (which Chalmers also uses frequently), "the thing that it feels like" to be something. By every reasonable definition I've ever heard — and I've studied and read about this stuff for decades — that's pretty much a constant: consciousness is the experiential part of ... you know, experience. Yes, it's entirely possible — even common — to be mistaken or misled about the content of your experience, but not the fact that you are experiencing. In a discussion already absurdly full of sophistry, your comment should win a very large, gaudy prize.

ArekDymalski 12y ago

> When systems reach sufficient enough complexity it is impossible to understand them by merely analyzing the individual components and understanding the rules that govern them. Instead of "impossible" I'd rather use "unhelpful" or "pointless". In case of OS (or wind for a simpler example) we are focusing on the observable results of many small interactions. Most of the time looking at these "phenomena" from the higher level is sufficient for us - there's no point in analysing single atoms or 0's and 1's. To some extent it maight be similar in case of consciousness. One day we will be able to precisely monitor all chemical and electrical activity in neural network but it won't be necessary to make suffciently accurate predictions etc.

kendallpark 12y ago
Sorry, I meant to say, "impossible to completely understand them."