Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

september · 11-26-2006, 01:30 PM

Scipio (1st post): Right, anyone can know for certain that they are conscious... Descartes points this out. Simply doubting that one may exist enunciates that a thought exists and that there must be a thinker for the thought. The title of the thread might have been slightly misleading because that was only the first question, and I suppose I was looking more for a constructive dialogue on the other question(s). I know that I exist, in the first-person sense, although I can't rule out the possibility of everyone else being philosophical zombies. And certainly, consciousness itself doesn't imply dualism. It's the other question where dualism tends to get into some trouble ("If so, how does it (or does it?) interact meaningfully with the body?"). That's the hard question - literally.

This stuff most often comes up with AI - what necessitates consciousness? Is it a strictly human phenomenon? What is it contributing to our existence that an extremely complicated algorithm couldn't? Turing, one of the founders of our modern digital computers, has much to say about how we can't be sure computers couldn't be conscious someday, simply because in a sense, we are computers - just human ones. John Searle practically decimated research funding into AI with his Chinese Room Argument, basically saying that one can process information and still not understand it - however, this argument is filled with holes...

Anyway, that's more what I wanted to get at, I guess.

Scipio (2nd post): I lean soft determinist (compatibilism) for the time being, but I could be pushed either way. I actually try to stay agnostic on issues for as long as I can and just rely on intuition, because generally, I'm already doing what's best for me right now, and I won't replace components of my systems of belief until I think they're generally better than what I've got.

But yes, definitely determinist. I think that it manifests itself both on the macro and micro levels - if a person drinks some water, there's a reason for it - they were thirsty, or they like the taste of water, or something else, or a combination of reasons, which leads to overdetermination, but that's a different story... and of course, before you perform any action, the chemicals in your brain have to have the right reactions, and the neurons in your brain have to fire the right way. So definitely - things that happen have causes.

What you seem to be doing is confusing the physical body (of which my brain is a part) and the immaterial mind, which I clarified earlier was referring to consciousness - also referred to as the soul, spirit, etc. It's the first-person subjective experience.

Therefore, of course the brain has causal power. But the mind is a different story in the context in which I'm using the word. I apologize for possibly being confusing, philosophy of the mind generally refers to it as the "mind-body problem" and I followed suit.

11-26-2006, 01:30 PM	#6 (permalink)
september Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: IL Posts: 83	Scipio (1st post): Right, anyone can know for certain that they are conscious... Descartes points this out. Simply doubting that one may exist enunciates that a thought exists and that there must be a thinker for the thought. The title of the thread might have been slightly misleading because that was only the first question, and I suppose I was looking more for a constructive dialogue on the other question(s). I know that I exist, in the first-person sense, although I can't rule out the possibility of everyone else being philosophical zombies. And certainly, consciousness itself doesn't imply dualism. It's the other question where dualism tends to get into some trouble ("If so, how does it (or does it?) interact meaningfully with the body?"). That's the hard question - literally. This stuff most often comes up with AI - what necessitates consciousness? Is it a strictly human phenomenon? What is it contributing to our existence that an extremely complicated algorithm couldn't? Turing, one of the founders of our modern digital computers, has much to say about how we can't be sure computers couldn't be conscious someday, simply because in a sense, we are computers - just human ones. John Searle practically decimated research funding into AI with his Chinese Room Argument, basically saying that one can process information and still not understand it - however, this argument is filled with holes... Anyway, that's more what I wanted to get at, I guess. Scipio (2nd post): I lean soft determinist (compatibilism) for the time being, but I could be pushed either way. I actually try to stay agnostic on issues for as long as I can and just rely on intuition, because generally, I'm already doing what's best for me right now, and I won't replace components of my systems of belief until I think they're generally better than what I've got. But yes, definitely determinist. I think that it manifests itself both on the macro and micro levels - if a person drinks some water, there's a reason for it - they were thirsty, or they like the taste of water, or something else, or a combination of reasons, which leads to overdetermination, but that's a different story... and of course, before you perform any action, the chemicals in your brain have to have the right reactions, and the neurons in your brain have to fire the right way. So definitely - things that happen have causes. What you seem to be doing is confusing the physical body (of which my brain is a part) and the immaterial mind, which I clarified earlier was referring to consciousness - also referred to as the soul, spirit, etc. It's the first-person subjective experience. Therefore, of course the brain has causal power. But the mind is a different story in the context in which I'm using the word. I apologize for possibly being confusing, philosophy of the mind generally refers to it as the "mind-body problem" and I followed suit. __________________ dishing out tough love. Last edited by september; 11-26-2006 at 01:45 PM.