[Wittrs] Variations in the Idea of Consciousness
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:18:06 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
> The particles that today are part of my body will, in 6 months time,
> have been dispersed around the world. Yet I expect that I will still
> exist. So clearly, I am not an assembly of particles. Perhaps I am an
> assembly of biochemical processes, though I think the term "assembly" is
> misplaced there. Maybe "an organized system of processes" would be a
> better description.
>
>
> Regards,
> Neil
I don't think the transience of the particular constituents particles is the
key but I can see the point of your restatement as "an organized system of
processes". That would also be consistent with my view which is that of
multiple realizability. On that view the issue is not even so much the
processes as the functions that are performed by them. In that case even the
processes aren't the essential element (though it may just be an empirical fact
that only certain kinds of processes can do the job).
Still, I think that Justintruth's formulation as an assembly of particles is a
useful shorthand for what is intended. If "assembly" is taken as the key
feature then it wouldn't matter what the particles are as long as they can be
assembled in the right way where the right way will depend on their ability to
accomplish the requisite functions.
Now all of this is useful for getting a handle on what we have in mind by a
term like "consciousness" or "mind" but in the end none of it can be decided by
discussions, either here or elsewhere. What remains is for particular models to
be conceived and implemented in sufficient detail and then tested, refined,
etc. So perhaps, once we have wrung out the fine points of difference in our
ways of speaking about this, we have brought the discussion to an end, except
with those who continue to be dissatisfied with an approach to consciousness
that conceives it as being physically derived. That is, the only debate we can
usefully pursue on a list like this would inevitably be with those who wish to
support a different conception of consciousness entirely -- or who consider
this conception of consciousness to be fatally flawed.
One further possible area of discussion might be determining the fine points of
our positions, e.g., I know that you do not put much stock in the AI project
whereas I do and that you favor a view of consciousness that ties it rather
tightly to organic forms of life while I, of course, do not.
SWM
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
