[Wittrs] Re: The Epiphenomenalism of Dennett-Consistent Philosophies of Consciousness
- From: Justintruth <truth.justin@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Thank you very much for the work involved in clarifying this. I
appreciate it sincerely.
You say that “Dennett isn't asserting that the mind is a physical
thing.”
You say that “Dennett is asserting minds are part of the physical
universe”
Ok I understand the terms this far. I conclude:
Part of the physical universe, or a physical aspect of the universe
perhaps, is not a physical thing.
I understand this far.
I assert that none of the physical models included in the physical
sciences include this physical non-thing, or aspect, called mind.
Current physical models do not include predictions about mind.
You further assert “No new principles or types of energy or
suppositions about extra-physical phenomena need apply”.
Ok since you have defined “physical” to include that which is “not a
physical thing” then the new principle that is needed is not - by
agreement - as you say “extra-physical”. However, since minds are to
be included in the physical universe and since physics does not
currently describe their existence in any of their current models a
modification of the current physics is in fact required. Why?
I assert that an “arrangement” of physical things is a physical thing
and since minds are not physical things and since the physics predicts
only a new arrangement of physical things based on an old one, then we
need this new physical principle to establish the relation between an
arrangement of physical things and the production of physical non-
things that are minds – or if you prefer – between an arrangement of
physical things and a newly defined physical aspect of those things,
different from the current aspects described.
We need this to complete the physics if minds are to be considered
part of the physical universe that it is the function of physics to
describe since it currently does not describe it.
The following is I think a very bad (false, and misleading in fact)
analogy: “Mind, while it may be localized in any given brain, is a
different category of thing, more akin to the turning of a wheel than
to the wheel itself.” This is a very bad analogy because the turning
of a wheel is very amply defined in terms of the current physics. The
turning of a wheel in classic physics is defined in terms of the
angular velocity of an assembly of particles about an axis referenced
to some coordinate system. It is an arrangement of matter. Angular
velocity is the vector cross product of the moment radial vector and
the velocity vector. The velocity vector is the rate of change of the
position. There is however, nothing in the physics like this about
mind or awareness etc. This is the first that is not about predicting
the arrangement of physical things.
Nor can this be excused by the fact that the brain is more complicated
than a wheel. Clearly the brain is more complicated but it is believed
that it is operating under the same laws and hence no matter how
complicated will never achieve awareness as a result of the physical
description. In other words it is not the complexity of the motion
that is the problem. It is because any motion does not imply awareness
no matter how complex even if it causes the device to pass the Turing
test.
Nor is there in the physical description a description of water, but
the chemical one has it and can be considered a working out of the
physical prediction. Water acts as the current physics predicts. For
all practical purposes for this discussion chemistry can be considered
an extension of physics that requires no further laws (or few but
explicit ones) and also the biological one and finally the
neurological one. All of these descriptions are consistent with
(reducible to) the outcome of current physical prediction and they do
not require any (or very little) maturation of the physics. The brain,
no matter how complex its motion can be described as an assembly of
physical things in motion by the current physics. (Ok, I understand
quantum mechanics and I understand the relativity of time but without
an elaborate discussion we can’t clarify why they are irrelevant or
second order discussions at best)
It is just that the predicted outcome of physical science, classical
or modern, does not predict awareness. More precisely they predict the
object model to the point that its extension into experience on the
objective side (its description of a measurement device and its
correlation to the experience of that measurement device in the
experience of an experimental physicist, and even its extension into
things like the visibility of a certain portion of the spectrum) is
obvious. Moreover these correlations are documented in physics texts
with illustrations. And yet we have the fact that mind (on the
subjective side) occurs.
Therefore a new physical principle(s) is (are) in fact needed. If
nothing else the extension of the predictive model into experience
needs to be extended to the subjective side of experience in the same
way that physical models currently are extended into an experience in
the lab. Toward that end using an analogy to the way that physical
models of say lab equipment are correlated to what the actual lab
equipment looks like to an experimenter seems a better – but still
perhaps ultimately false - fit. In this case we need to emphasize that
the brain device does not just have an objective appearance but causes
experience to occur and may in fact be an experimenter. The problem is
at the root of science itself.
I am never sure what Dennett is saying and I suspect that might be a
didactic device on his part attempting to be provocative perhaps and
obscuring the issue to do so. But it is clear that if he thinks that
any physical motion, however complex, when considered as an object in
motion as understood by the current physics, is awareness, then he has
not understood the meaning of either the terms of the physics or the
term awareness. I take away from your response that he is not saying
that. Thank you for that clarification. However, then some additional
principles are needed for physics. I think it is the task of neurology/
cybernetics to find them and it is doing so.
So either Dennett is not saying that mind is a physical thing but he
is saying that mind is just a kind of motion of a physical thing which
again is plainly false once you see the meaning of the terms, or else
Dennett is saying that the physical universe contains more than what
is currently described in the physical model. You told me which. I
believe you are saying the latter. In that case the mind can be
considered “non-physical” meaning “not in the current physical model”
but can be considered “physical” when the current physics is extended
to include awareness.
When I say I am aware I do not mean that the mechanism of my brain
moves in a certain way although, no doubt, the fact that I am aware is
caused by that motion.
Recently I accompanied a friend of mine to the hospital as she was
suffering temporary amnesia. I could during that evening repeat a
series of questions and she literally would repeat (as the nurses say
she became “loopy”). She became very much (uncanny) like a machine and
I was very concerned for her. Each time she looped I was concerned
precisely because I knew the fear she was experiencing. I was relieved
when she would forget what was happening and start all over with the
question: “Where am I?” as her anxiety was also erased by the fact
that she no longer remembered and she experienced relief. If I were to
have considered her to be solely what the current physics predicts I
would not have cared as she would just have been an assembly of
particles moving.
I have wondered what it would be like to be a brain running backwards
– but I suspect that this missing principle that I suggest exists
would not allow it because I conjecture that the famous “arrow of
time” and the information theory on which it is ultimately based will
one day be associated with mind and with the new principle and the old
principles of entropy would prevent it. I think running a mind
backward would violate entropy (although in the extremely unlikely
case!) I conjecture that for mind to exist the device associated with
it must consume energy (but maybe not!).
I think we need a new physical principle (and investigative
techniques) to state under what conditions an assembly of particles
becomes aware. I am aware that it is not just a simple “becomes aware”
but each of the many components of awareness needs to be associated
with those physical motions that are associated with it. I believe
that that program is being accomplished by neurology and cybernetics.
Its findings need to be scrutinized carefully for the new physical
principles.
Perhaps Searle is wrong and his Chinese room is – literally –
consciousness.
One other thing: You mentioned: “..a lot of people get their backs up,
perhaps because they want to see a distinction between minds and
brains, a distinction that makes the mind different” There is I think
a larger program here. Certain religious experience is founded on a
collapse of the subject object distinction but it is not an
identification of mind and brain in the sense being proposed by
Dennett. In fact the motivation “to get one’s back up” is really to
not allow the sidetrack at this point. Down the road is the discussion
about what “external” and “internal” are and the implications for
ethics and Wittgenstein’s role can be had but the conversation has to
stay on track at this point. If we simply claim that the mind is the
brain in motion and do not modify our understanding of what the brain
then is, we do indeed throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But I thank you for providing me the input that Dennett does not
simply claim that the mind is the motion of the brain. I had actually
been confused by him on that point as I carefully read one of his
papers and saw him clearly say that he was not challenging the
existence of consciousness – only its special character. He then
however seemed to go on latter and imply at least that he was – and
everything I read about what he thinks says (or very strongly implies)
that he thinks it is too. I think he does not emphasize or clarify
this point in his more popular venues as well as you have.
Perhaps in the future as we achieve biological mastery we can
experiment by being various devices and have sufficient memory
connection to remember what we were when we were that. We need
physical principles that determine what the effect of arranging matter
is with respect to the subjective experience it produces.
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
