[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's paradigm shift.
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:13:13 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> What is it to be "physically detected"?
Directly with the senses. At times with instruments. At times
indirectly. Scat. Cloud chamber of a cyclotron.
>Why should not being able to "see" into another's mind be thought of as
any different?
Because, as you say, the mind is no entity. It exist no where. There is
no literal sense of "into." You can just as easily say "I understand
you." It is an entirely different language game from physics.
> If subjectivity exists it's a phenomenon in the universe
Again, you are confusing the use of "exist" as in "my wife exists" with
the use of exist in "I exist to please my wife."
> If it's a phenomenon in the universe then why should we presume that
it can only be encountered in the way
> we encounter sticks and stones and bones?
Because consciousness isn't a phenomena in the universe but the medium
in which we can conceive of a universe, at least from a 1st person point
of view. But when you look at me, you are inclined to make my
consciousness a feature or part of me, the way my brain is part of me,
and then place them in a causal relation. However, your use of
consciousness as attributed to me isn't my consciousness. The causal
relationship has to do with your theory about me but is, at best, an
aspect of me. So, if you wish, you can say...
> ...under certain circumstances it would make perfect sense to speak of
a brain as conscious,
as when you look at my fMRI but, again, that is just a co-relational
fact. And everything conscious you attribute to "the brain" is totally
parasitic upon what I tell you is going on with me. Basically, this is
no different from "reading my mind" from the clothing I wear or the car
I drive.
> The way is how Dennett does it, by explaining the features of
consciousness as so many processes operating in concert
tells me nothing about the transition from matter to mind. If he and you
want to talk about certain brain areas as mental, fine. But everything
"mental" you say about this computer is borrowed from mind. I see this
as a verbal game. Not a new conception of mind.
> Another is the evidence of modern science itself where people like
Dehaene and others are looking at brains to find consciousness.
Is a neurological co-relation that doesn't address the philosophical
puzzle of matter to mind. Of course, you deny mind is real...
> If brains aren't causal of the conscious behaviors and self-reports of
the people with them, then why bother to look there?
Because we use our brains to think the way gymnasts use their toes to
balance.
> How do you kill the mind other than by impairing the brain?
Yes, you are reflecting upon the internal relation of mind and brain.
Notice. You don't kill the brain first and later have the mind die. When
I put you in a trance, you brain changes. They are two sides of a coin.
A conceptual coin.
> This is about whether consciousness can be explained in a way that is
consistent with physicalism
Depends upon what you mean by "physicalism." If you mean that we can
give a red blooded account of C with only the accounts found in physics,
then any fool can see it doesn't have chance. If only mean that
psychological (non-physical) accounts can't be inconsistent with
physics, then have no fear. Psychological accounts are irrelevant to
physics.
And the now the wheel
> "The analogy to mind is" that the brain's operations result in certain
kinds of behaviors of the entity with the brain
A wheel turns. A brain fires. OK. Each is an event.
> the brain in operation gives us the occurrence of subjectivity.
Subjectivity isn't an event or an occurrence. My subjectivity is my
everything. Not just one event. Either I'm conscious or not. But, as I
said above, you can look upon my subjectivity as an "event". "Look he is
conscious." It is an event for you. But that event, the fMRI scan, the
way I move and speak, are criteria for you to attribute subjectivity to
me. But that attribution isn't what I am experiencing or who I am.
This is a serious confusion.
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
