Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Consciousness


LNC

Recommended Posts

Happy New Year! Sorry for my absence lately, I had a very busy Fall and some things had to be put on hold, including my participation on this site. One of the reasons for my absence was some research that I was doing on the topics of consciousness, knowledge in intentionality. I was researching some of the top philosophers both from the perspective of naturalism/physicalism and those who are open to a non-natural or supernatural explanation for these phenomena.

 

I thought that it would be interesting to discuss this topic here and address the questions of:

1. How do you account for the existence of consciousness (if you accept the existence of such)?

2. How do you explain knowledge from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (knowledge being commonly described as justified true belief)?

3. How do you account for intentionality from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (intentionality being commonly described as the
of
ness or
about
ness by which we interact with things in our world)?

4. Finally, do you believe that we direct apprehend or perceive objects in our world or do you believe that perception is mediated to us?

Here are some hints in our discussion. Some, like philosopher David Chalmers believe they have given good arguments to show that there is an unbridgeable gap which physicalists cannot overcome in explaining consciousness. For example, he says that there are facts about consciousness that cannot be explained by physical reductionism or eliminativism, nor does he explain can one simply chalk it up to an epistemic gap.

 

Regarding the existence of knowledge, it obviously hinges on the existence and explanation of consciousness; however, it also hinges on the existence of truth, logical relations and noetic unity, according to philosopher Dallas Willard (USC). Willard argues that truth requires apprehending or perceiving an object as it is, a concept which naturalists have jettisoned. Even those who claim that we can directly perceive objects (Tye, Dretske, Lycan and others) still believe that there is some conceptual mediation to this perception, therefore, it is not as direct as they would claim. They also do not explain from where these concepts originate, leaving us with an infinite regress of concept formation, none of it grounded in perceiving an object as it actually is. Given that we do not perceive directly, given naturalism, then logical relations fall apart as well as they are grounded in concepts like the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, and the law of identity. If our perception is mediated, then our ability to relate objects and concepts logically is also mediated and therefore, not reliable. Thereby, noetic unity falls as well as it is dependent on logical relations.

 

Obviously, if we have no direct perception (a concept which Hume, Kant and others argued in favor of) then we have no intrinsic intentionality either (we don't think of or about a thing itself, but our intentionality is derived from other concepts that we hold, which themselves are derived, ad infinitum.) Which leads to the last question of whether you believe that we perceive objects directly, contra Hume, Kant and others, and if so, how do you account for this?

 

I will be interested in interacting with you on this topic. If you would like to revive any of the previous discussions, we can to that as well, within limits. I can't do more than two to three conversations at a time as I get too far behind in responding.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC,

 

What is your definition of consciousness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy New Year! Sorry for my absence lately, I had a very busy Fall and some things had to be put on hold, including my participation on this site. One of the reasons for my absence was some research that I was doing on the topics of consciousness, knowledge in intentionality. I was researching some of the top philosophers both from the perspective of naturalism/physicalism and those who are open to a non-natural or supernatural explanation for these phenomena.

 

I thought that it would be interesting to discuss this topic here and address the questions of:

1. How do you account for the existence of consciousness (if you accept the existence of such)?

2. How do you explain knowledge from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (knowledge being commonly described as justified true belief)?

3. How do you account for intentionality from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (intentionality being commonly described as the
of
ness or
about
ness by which we interact with things in our world)?

4. Finally, do you believe that we direct apprehend or perceive objects in our world or do you believe that perception is mediated to us?

Here are some hints in our discussion. Some, like philosopher David Chalmers believe they have given good arguments to show that there is an unbridgeable gap which physicalists cannot overcome in explaining consciousness. For example, he says that there are facts about consciousness that cannot be explained by physical reductionism or eliminativism, nor does he explain can one simply chalk it up to an epistemic gap.

 

<snip>

 

LNC

For an excellent overview, I suggest you read The New Atheism by Victor Stengel with attention to his chapter "The Nature of Mind."

 

But if you were just offering these as "something we don't know" so that "God did it", then you can consider my reply as insincere as your questioning.

 

If you have doubts about the physical nature of consciousness, then perhaps you should visit an Intensive Care Unit in a large city and find out what happens when Metaphysics meets a Bullet.

 

The mind is incredibly complex (unnecessarily so actually) because of the evolutionary adaptations needed for survival of each of the species before us and subsequent adaptations for us hominids. Consciousness is present even in our "reptilian" brain (the Mid Brain), but when that is affected by trauma, disease or drugs, then consciousness is lost. It is fairly basic since nothing else can happen without being alert. Alligators don't stalk their prey or mate, birds don't build nests or fly, and Christians don't preach or pray.

 

Philosophy is like Neuroscience without facts. Learn about the brain and maybe you will find something useful to do with yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC,

 

What is your definition of consciousness?

 

Good question! Let's define our terms, in this case, consciousness. Consciousness would encompass mental activities including self-reflection, introspection, sentience (sensing), wakefulness, and understanding what it is like (i.e., to be you, etc.). Let's start with this definition and if others have other ideas, feel free to put them forward.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For an excellent overview, I suggest you read The New Atheism by Victor Stengel with attention to his chapter "The Nature of Mind."

 

Maybe you could summarize Stengel's ideas.

 

But if you were just offering these as "something we don't know" so that "God did it", then you can consider my reply as insincere as your questioning.

 

I haven't offered that as an option, but if you think it doesn't qualify as an option, maybe you could explain why. I am simply looking for an explanation from a naturalist/physicalist perspective.

 

If you have doubts about the physical nature of consciousness, then perhaps you should visit an Intensive Care Unit in a large city and find out what happens when Metaphysics meets a Bullet.

 

What I don't have is a completely physical explanation for consciousness, which is the nature of the thread and questions, if you have them, I would like to hear them, which is why I asked the questions. I don't doubt that there is some physical aspect to consciousness, just that that is the totality of the explanation, so I will look forward to hearing if you have them.

 

The mind is incredibly complex (unnecessarily so actually) because of the evolutionary adaptations needed for survival of each of the species before us and subsequent adaptations for us hominids. Consciousness is present even in our "reptilian" brain (the Mid Brain), but when that is affected by trauma, disease or drugs, then consciousness is lost. It is fairly basic since nothing else can happen without being alert. Alligators don't stalk their prey or mate, birds don't build nests or fly, and Christians don't preach or pray.

 

Philosophy is like Neuroscience without facts. Learn about the brain and maybe you will find something useful to do with yours.

 

No doubt that consciousness is incredibly complex and if survival is its only requirement, then I agree that it is overly complex; however, that is a problem for evolution as its explanation. I don't agree with you that nothing can happen without being alert. If that was the case then we couldn't sleep or survive traumatic brain injury, both of which put us into a state of not being alert. I also don't agree with your assessment of philosophy, nor do I think that you do since you use it all the time, even in this post. Unfortunately, the brain cannot completely explain consciousness as Chalmers and others have given sound evidence of. We can know everything physically about a concept (say the color red) but until we experience it, we haven't learned everything about it (qualia), which is one bit of evidence that consciousness does not equal brain states. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, then I will look forward to reading it.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC,

 

What is your definition of consciousness?

 

Good question! Let's define our terms, in this case, consciousness. Consciousness would encompass mental activities including self-reflection, introspection, sentience (sensing), wakefulness, and understanding what it is like (i.e., to be you, etc.). Let's start with this definition and if others have other ideas, feel free to put them forward.

 

LNC

 

Awareness?

 

Phanta

 

That's good. It technically probably fits under sentience, but is a good distinction of that aspect. Thanks.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem to be a consensus for the definition of "consciousness" among philosophers and scientists. But without taking their cue from the sciences, philosophers wouldn't have much to base it on. The starting point is the scientific method and cognitive neuroscience. they can uncover the existence and origin of consciousness, for example, by understanding what happens to the brain when something goes wrong: Hemilateral bisection, agnosia, schizophrenia, etc.

 

To define it is difficult. However, one neuroscientist describes it like this:

For anything mammal and possibly below, consciousness is the ability to persist references as if they were additional senses and bring these referents to the table for intelligent analysis.

 

The problem is, I don't quite understand it! I do understand that consciousness refers to our awareness of thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment. But that isn't very specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem to be a consensus for the definition of "consciousness" among philosophers and scientists. But without taking their cue from the sciences, philosophers wouldn't have much to base it on. The starting point is the scientific method and cognitive neuroscience. they can uncover the existence and origin of consciousness, for example, by understanding what happens to the brain when something goes wrong: Hemilateral bisection, agnosia, schizophrenia, etc.

 

To define it is difficult. However, one neuroscientist describes it like this:

For anything mammal and possibly below, consciousness is the ability to persist references as if they were additional senses and bring these referents to the table for intelligent analysis.

 

The problem is, I don't quite understand it! I do understand that consciousness refers to our awareness of thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment. But that isn't very specific.

 

 

Shyone and Agnosticator,

 

Please provide links to internet articles and any book suggestions you may have that you consider the most well written for laypersons.

 

I'm new to this specific subject and would like some good references for my edification.

 

Thanks,

OB '63

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Shyone and Agnosticator,

 

Please provide links to internet articles and any book suggestions you may have that you consider the most well written for laypersons.

 

I'm new to this specific subject and would like some good references for my edification.

 

Thanks,

OB '63

As I indicated above, The New Atheism by Victor Stengel has a chapter that is concise, accurate and yet has enough detail to provide a basis for the strict material physicality of the mind, thought, emotion and everything else the soul is supposed to do.

 

From that chapter, there are numerous references to other books, scientific treatises, periodicals and scientists.

 

Like with religion, start from scratch, study neuroanatomy and neurophysiology and you'll see that there is no extraphysical property to the "firing" of neurons.

 

There are some pretty good Youtube videos about neuroanatomy and neurophysiology including pathways, reticular activating system, and specific roles of various parts of the brain that collectively give the brain abilities beyond any single cell, module, or lobe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shyone and Agnosticator,

 

Please provide links to internet articles and any book suggestions you may have that you consider the most well written for laypersons.

 

I'm new to this specific subject and would like some good references for my edification.

 

Thanks,

OB '63

 

 

I haven't read alot on the subject, but here is a good article. Books I have read only parts of that are relevant:

 

Susan Blackmore's book is the one to start with.

 

Max Velman , this, and Dannett's would be worth getting into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem to be a consensus for the definition of "consciousness" among philosophers and scientists. But without taking their cue from the sciences, philosophers wouldn't have much to base it on. The starting point is the scientific method and cognitive neuroscience. they can uncover the existence and origin of consciousness, for example, by understanding what happens to the brain when something goes wrong: Hemilateral bisection, agnosia, schizophrenia, etc.

 

To define it is difficult. However, one neuroscientist describes it like this:

For anything mammal and possibly below, consciousness is the ability to persist references as if they were additional senses and bring these referents to the table for intelligent analysis.

 

The problem is, I don't quite understand it! I do understand that consciousness refers to our awareness of thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment. But that isn't very specific.

 

To say that we see an effect in the brain under certain circumstances is not to say that we understand the cause. Nor does it tell us about how consciousness comes to be. References involves concepts, concepts involve intentionality, intentionality involves perception. Intentionality is either intrinsic or derived. I don't see how we arrive at intrinsic intentionality given naturalism, which means that we end up with an infinite regress of derived intentionality which means that we have no basis to trust our concepts and therefore, no basis for knowledge (justified true belief). Therefore, the understanding of naturalism is simply derived and therefore not trustworthy. This would be a reason that I would have a hard time accepting "the ability to persist reference as if they were additional senses" as a reasonable explanation. It sounds like you may have some problems with the definition as well though.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As I indicated above, The New Atheism by Victor Stengel has a chapter that is concise, accurate and yet has enough detail to provide a basis for the strict material physicality of the mind, thought, emotion and everything else the soul is supposed to do.

 

From that chapter, there are numerous references to other books, scientific treatises, periodicals and scientists.

 

Like with religion, start from scratch, study neuroanatomy and neurophysiology and you'll see that there is no extraphysical property to the "firing" of neurons.

 

There are some pretty good Youtube videos about neuroanatomy and neurophysiology including pathways, reticular activating system, and specific roles of various parts of the brain that collectively give the brain abilities beyond any single cell, module, or lobe.

 

I think you mean Victor Stenger rather than Stengel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tackle this one from the back door, because I think that's where LNC is headed.

 

I'm going to guess his premise is that human beings are unique among animals because they are self-aware and can reason, and that uniqueness is evidence of God.

 

But is it? How do we know other animals aren't self-aware, or don't reason? We keep finding evidence that animals are a lot smarter and unpredictable than we give them credit for (e.g. the coconut-wielding octopus).

 

I know that's not really a counter-argument. But I suggest that evolutionary theory will soon become better at explaining how human consciousness as we know it evolved, for practical and accidental reasons. It's a growing field of study, and fascinating.

 

For a unique perspective on human consciousness and its evolution, and where it's going, I suggest the works of Teilhard de Chardin, who I guess is a religious naturalist or something like that. Honestly, I think the labelling tendency in philosophical debates is little more than an exercise in wankery. Either the guy's ideas make sense, or they don't. I find a number of de Chardin's ideas attractive, and although I don't totally follow all of them, his idea that humanity's consciousness is evolving towards an "Omega point" has some backing in the evolution of the Internet and the technological interconnectivity of human beings, something he would have never predicted in his lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that we see an effect in the brain under certain circumstances is not to say that we understand the cause. Nor does it tell us about how consciousness comes to be. References involves concepts, concepts involve intentionality, intentionality involves perception. Intentionality is either intrinsic or derived. I don't see how we arrive at intrinsic intentionality given naturalism, which means that we end up with an infinite regress of derived intentionality which means that we have no basis to trust our concepts and therefore, no basis for knowledge (justified true belief). Therefore, the understanding of naturalism is simply derived and therefore not trustworthy. This would be a reason that I would have a hard time accepting "the ability to persist reference as if they were additional senses" as a reasonable explanation. It sounds like you may have some problems with the definition as well though.

 

LNC

 

I see you have it all figured out and have drawn your own conclusion. I am not a student of philosophy, nor am I a neuroscientist. But, I don't see how consciousness or intrinsic intentionality exists outside the universe (I assume you are getting at?) when (for one example):

 

Here is the reference.

 

A patient had visual associative agnosia. They concluded that the left hemisphere plays a crucial role in recognizing the meaning of common objects.

 

Consciousness and thoughts without a brain are like music without a musical instrument. The sounds are caused by the instrument and performer. Just because all the hows are not completely understood now, doesn't mean they won't ever be. Philosophers will have to change their tune after science uncovers more mysteries of the mind-brain connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that we see an effect in the brain under certain circumstances is not to say that we understand the cause. Nor does it tell us about how consciousness comes to be. References involves concepts, concepts involve intentionality, intentionality involves perception. Intentionality is either intrinsic or derived. I don't see how we arrive at intrinsic intentionality given naturalism, which means that we end up with an infinite regress of derived intentionality which means that we have no basis to trust our concepts and therefore, no basis for knowledge (justified true belief). Therefore, the understanding of naturalism is simply derived and therefore not trustworthy. This would be a reason that I would have a hard time accepting "the ability to persist reference as if they were additional senses" as a reasonable explanation. It sounds like you may have some problems with the definition as well though.

 

LNC

 

I see you have it all figured out and have drawn your own conclusion. I am not a student of philosophy, nor am I a neuroscientist. But, I don't see how consciousness or intrinsic intentionality exists outside the universe (I assume you are getting at?) when (for one example):

 

Here is the reference.

 

A patient had visual associative agnosia. They concluded that the left hemisphere plays a crucial role in recognizing the meaning of common objects.

 

Consciousness and thoughts without a brain are like music without a musical instrument. The sounds are caused by the instrument and performer. Just because all the hows are not completely understood now, doesn't mean they won't ever be. Philosophers will have to change their tune after science uncovers more mysteries of the mind-brain connection.

The mapping that has been done wrt brain function is extensive. Although most of the information has to do with "destruction" of certain parts of the brain and/or pathways, The information can be reconstructed like a series of reservoirs, channels and valves.

 

Starting with the brainstem, imagine closing off all connections to the rest of the brain. Then open them one by one. Brain functions are both general and local, so there is considerable redundancy, but you can still see which pathways are necessary to conciousness, function, coordination, perception, memory, intention and emotions.

 

I'm not saying that it is "simple". Far from it. It is, however, understandable, repeatable and clearly all physical.

 

As an aside, I have spent considerable time with my 96 year old step-mother. She has always been quite social, and still is. She walks with a walker, and although she has significant disability, she is still very functional. I have noticed, however, that she has entire conversations stored in her brain. They are memories, but she can't remember that she already told us the stories, so they come out. They are repeated in incredible detail, word for word, and each thought is clearly linked to the next thought and the next.

 

This is quite different from confabulation where a person can't remember something, but either doesn't realize it or won't admit it and begins to create details of a story that never happened. It is remarkable to see this, but at the same time, sad.

 

I read "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" about 25 years ago, and the explanations for personality changes, perception changes, memory, and some really weird body image problems still stick with me.

 

Philosophy seems to only consider "whole" people, but I have seen too many broken minds to give any serious consideration to any "theory" that doesn't address illness, cancer, trauma, stroke, metabolic and even genetic flaws that "change" what philosophers try to describe as the soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you mean Victor Stenger rather than Stengel

I'm on vacation, and a bit of alcohol destroyed the neuron that contained the last letter to the name.

 

I will try to reformat and rewrite the spelling correctly, but if it comes up again before I have the book in front of me and I mispell it, please reinforce the spelling until I can consistently repeat it.

 

That's how memory, spelling and writing happen. All physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a car is running, we can say it is "conscious." There is a property that is self-sustaining and continues even when people are not near the car. Sure, it can be turned off, but the property of consciousness can be restored just like when humans are given drugs that alter their consciousness or wake them up, but clearly this property of car consciousness does not belong with the gas, or the oil, or the metalic thingamajobs. Depriving the car of oil or gas will lead to loss of consciousness just as depriving a human of food and water can lead to loss of consciousness, but with continuation of these supplies consciousness continues until the car dies a permanent death, and then the consciousness goes where? To car heaven, of course.

 

Some, like philosopher David Chalmers believe they have given good arguments to show that there is an unbridgeable gap which physicalists cannot overcome in explaining consciousness. For example, he says that there are facts about consciousness that cannot be explained by physical reductionism or eliminativism, nor does he explain can one simply chalk it up to an epistemic gap.

 

And there you have it. Just because I know shit about cars doesn't mean I can't be philosophical.

 

Brains, however, are entirely physical and work in circuits that, when functioning, allow for human consciousness.

 

Cars? I don't know why they are conscious, so it must be a miracle.

 

As for knowledge, we must consider computers to be quite knowledgeable, and it is beyond my understanding how they retain that knowledge. We must turn to philosophy to understand how computers retain their knowledge - and how they acquire knowledge.

 

We can be sure, however, that it can't be physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tackle this one from the back door, because I think that's where LNC is headed.

 

I'm going to guess his premise is that human beings are unique among animals because they are self-aware and can reason, and that uniqueness is evidence of God.

 

But is it? How do we know other animals aren't self-aware, or don't reason? We keep finding evidence that animals are a lot smarter and unpredictable than we give them credit for (e.g. the coconut-wielding octopus).

 

I know that's not really a counter-argument. But I suggest that evolutionary theory will soon become better at explaining how human consciousness as we know it evolved, for practical and accidental reasons. It's a growing field of study, and fascinating.

 

For a unique perspective on human consciousness and its evolution, and where it's going, I suggest the works of Teilhard de Chardin, who I guess is a religious naturalist or something like that. Honestly, I think the labelling tendency in philosophical debates is little more than an exercise in wankery. Either the guy's ideas make sense, or they don't. I find a number of de Chardin's ideas attractive, and although I don't totally follow all of them, his idea that humanity's consciousness is evolving towards an "Omega point" has some backing in the evolution of the Internet and the technological interconnectivity of human beings, something he would have never predicted in his lifetime.

 

I have simply asked some questions and am looking for some ideas from a naturalist/physicalist perspective. So, if you could revisit those questions and let me know your thoughts, I would appreciate it.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you have it all figured out and have drawn your own conclusion. I am not a student of philosophy, nor am I a neuroscientist. But, I don't see how consciousness or intrinsic intentionality exists outside the universe (I assume you are getting at?) when (for one example):

 

Here is the reference.

 

A patient had visual associative agnosia. They concluded that the left hemisphere plays a crucial role in recognizing the meaning of common objects.

 

Consciousness and thoughts without a brain are like music without a musical instrument. The sounds are caused by the instrument and performer. Just because all the hows are not completely understood now, doesn't mean they won't ever be. Philosophers will have to change their tune after science uncovers more mysteries of the mind-brain connection.

 

I don't know that I have it all figured out as there are many questions to be answered which I have not even brought into this discussion. However, there are certain things that seem to be apparent and offer only few alternative explanations. We need to consider these and determine which makes the most sense and is the best explanation of the phenomena that we observe. I am not considering consciousness or intrinsic intentionality outside of this universe, I am merely asked about that which appears to exist within our universe. So I will be content to limit our conversation there if you agree.

 

Again, I will not argue that the brain plays no role in consciousness, simply that I don't think it is the complete explanation of consciousness. If it cannot fully explain consciousness, what is the explanation for that which the physical cannot explain from a naturalist/physicalist vantage point? Your final statement is nothing more than wishful thinking at this point, it is not based upon science as science does not have these answers and there is no guarantee that it will ever uncover them. I think it would be better to stick to what we know in this discussion rather than to make assertions of what is yet to be possibly discovered.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mapping that has been done wrt brain function is extensive. Although most of the information has to do with "destruction" of certain parts of the brain and/or pathways, The information can be reconstructed like a series of reservoirs, channels and valves.

 

Starting with the brainstem, imagine closing off all connections to the rest of the brain. Then open them one by one. Brain functions are both general and local, so there is considerable redundancy, but you can still see which pathways are necessary to conciousness, function, coordination, perception, memory, intention and emotions.

 

I'm not saying that it is "simple". Far from it. It is, however, understandable, repeatable and clearly all physical.

 

As an aside, I have spent considerable time with my 96 year old step-mother. She has always been quite social, and still is. She walks with a walker, and although she has significant disability, she is still very functional. I have noticed, however, that she has entire conversations stored in her brain. They are memories, but she can't remember that she already told us the stories, so they come out. They are repeated in incredible detail, word for word, and each thought is clearly linked to the next thought and the next.

 

This is quite different from confabulation where a person can't remember something, but either doesn't realize it or won't admit it and begins to create details of a story that never happened. It is remarkable to see this, but at the same time, sad.

 

I read "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" about 25 years ago, and the explanations for personality changes, perception changes, memory, and some really weird body image problems still stick with me.

 

Philosophy seems to only consider "whole" people, but I have seen too many broken minds to give any serious consideration to any "theory" that doesn't address illness, cancer, trauma, stroke, metabolic and even genetic flaws that "change" what philosophers try to describe as the soul.

 

The brain mapping discussion is an interesting one on its own, however, it doesn't really answer the questions that I asked, so I would appreciate if we could address those more directly. Also, I think that it is overly simplistic to say that philosophy only considers the whole person, although that is also an important and separate discussion that we could have; still, philosophy is not that narrow of a field of study. Science itself is an offshoot of philosophy. Again, I am not discounting the connection to consciousness to the physical body, but only am questioning whether that is the totality of consciousness.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you mean Victor Stenger rather than Stengel

I'm on vacation, and a bit of alcohol destroyed the neuron that contained the last letter to the name.

 

I will try to reformat and rewrite the spelling correctly, but if it comes up again before I have the book in front of me and I mispell it, please reinforce the spelling until I can consistently repeat it.

 

That's how memory, spelling and writing happen. All physical.

 

OK, that brings up a good point. When you see the book, will you see it as it is or will it be mediated to your consciousness? In other words, do you agree with Hume, Kant and others that we cannot see a thing as it is, or do you hold that we can see a thing as it is?

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a car is running, we can say it is "conscious." There is a property that is self-sustaining and continues even when people are not near the car. Sure, it can be turned off, but the property of consciousness can be restored just like when humans are given drugs that alter their consciousness or wake them up, but clearly this property of car consciousness does not belong with the gas, or the oil, or the metalic thingamajobs. Depriving the car of oil or gas will lead to loss of consciousness just as depriving a human of food and water can lead to loss of consciousness, but with continuation of these supplies consciousness continues until the car dies a permanent death, and then the consciousness goes where? To car heaven, of course.

 

Wow! Even one of the most hardcore physicalists on this subject, Daniel Dennett, wouldn't go that far in saying that a car is conscious. How do you come to that conclusion? What is conscious about the car and in what way? When the car is turned off and then turned back on, is it in the same conscious state (i.e., does it remember its previous conscious state) or is it a brand new conscious state? Is that consciousness supervenient on the car or is it intrinsic? (I'm guessing that you will say supervenient as the car has no capacity for intrinsic consciousness). That's an interesting theory, although, I don't think you will find many philosophers who will join you on that limb.

 

And there you have it. Just because I know shit about cars doesn't mean I can't be philosophical.

 

Brains, however, are entirely physical and work in circuits that, when functioning, allow for human consciousness.

 

Cars? I don't know why they are conscious, so it must be a miracle.

 

As for knowledge, we must consider computers to be quite knowledgeable, and it is beyond my understanding how they retain that knowledge. We must turn to philosophy to understand how computers retain their knowledge - and how they acquire knowledge.

 

We can be sure, however, that it can't be physical.

 

OK, that's your theory, now please give me some rationale to accept it. How does a brain have intentionality? From where do the concepts originate that allow for truth and logical relations? How do we overcome the problem of naturalized epistemology? The Churchlands (naturalist philosophers) would say that our cognitive faculties are not reliable as they are simply "designed" for survival (getting our body parts in the right place at the right time) and not for truth. How do you overcome that issue?

 

I don't know of anyone who considers a computer to be knowledgeable as computers do not have intrinsic intentionality and therefore cannot have justified true beliefs, the definition of knowledge. Computers have information, not knowledge. Computers retain information but have no beliefs about whether that information is true or not, unless we program them to analyze that information for accuracy, but that would be derived intentionality and that would not lead to knowledge. I don't think you have adequately explained these ideas from a physicalists perspective. However, let's keep interacting on these ideas. I appreciate your trying to do so.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT

 

 

Sorry, I deleted my remarks because they are too much of a tangent from the primary discussion.

 

My consciousness tells me I should read this thread from the beginning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have simply asked some questions and am looking for some ideas from a naturalist/physicalist perspective. So, if you could revisit those questions and let me know your thoughts, I would appreciate it.

LNC

 

OK, fair enough. But I think I know where you're going with this.

 

1. How do you account for the existence of consciousness (if you accept the existence of such)?

A by-product of the evolution of the human brain into a pattern-recognition machine as a survival skill. Consciousness as we call it may be simply an advanced state of pattern recognition, or a happy side-effect of evolution.

 

2. How do you explain knowledge from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (knowledge being commonly described as justified true belief)?

I don't understand this question. Please put it in layman's terms.

 

3. How do you account for intentionality from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (intentionality being commonly described as the ofness or aboutness by which we interact with things in our world)?

I don't understand this question either.

 

4. Finally, do you believe that we direct apprehend or perceive objects in our world or do you believe that perception is mediated to us?

I believe that our eyes detect differences in light, our ears detect differences in sound, our noses detect differences in smell, our fingers detect differences in feel and our tongues detect differences in taste. Our brains put all this information together through a meat-based computer processor and give us a framework in which to move through this world. I suppose this could be considered mediation through our brain's perceptive framework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC,

 

I appreciate the fact that you provided your working definition of consciousness.

 

Can you also please provide quotes (just a few lines each) and summaries from David Chambers, Hume, Kant, etc. that demonstrate that these writers hold the position you claim.

 

You, for instance, say "Some, like philosopher David Chalmers believe they have given good arguments to show that there is an unbridgeable gap which physicalists cannot overcome in explaining consciousness. " Fine and dandy. But why does he believe this? I know you want to raise questions and have us answer them. But since I don't have a huge library of tomes to pour through finding these arguments, it might be nice to know the gyst of the actual arguments you want us to counter.

 

I've spent all my book money for a while on other works also.

 

Sincerely,

 

OB '63

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.