[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's paradigm shiftiness--Reply to Stuart
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:35:42 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "BruceD" <blroadies@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
> > The point is what is consciousness, i.e., is it a feature (or
> features) of a certain kind of system or
> > is it something that cannot be reduced to that?
>
> Your questions are confusing. Easily I can say "consciousness is a
> feature of organismic systems, simply meaning, some organisms are
> conscious. Where is the puzzle here?
>
What does the organismic system we call "conscious" (as opposed to other kinds
of systems) have that qualifies it to be called "conscious" and which those
other systems lack and, therefore, are not justifaibly labeled as "conscious"?
> Reduction? If X is a feature of a system it is part of the system and
> not reduced to it.
>
If X is a feature of a system then it is something we can say that that system
has or does and is thus the result of something that the consitutents (or some
of the constituents) of that system are doing at a lower level of operation.
Think of the molecules of H2O moving about and interacting in a way that we
recognize as wetness (one of the features of the substance we call "water").
Still round and round the old carousel, eh?
> > If it can be reduced to that in brains
>
> No "if" about it, in one sense.
That's the sense I'm talking about. Nothing else. It's the issue of the
relation of the brain to the mind.
> I can refer to the parts of the brain
> that are correlated with various conscious states. But there is no
> reduction here. I'm simply attributing to the brain "mental" features
> which, of course, the brain doesn't have, the person has.
>
It is arbitrary to say the brain lacks some of the features we also ascribe to
persons and minds. We can speak of a person thinking, the thought being part of
the person's mind and also the brain being the source of the thinking and thus
the thought, for instance. It all depends on what aspect of the matter we mean
to address.
Where is the "reduction" you are so keen to contest?
What do YOU mean by "reduction"?
I mean a causal explanation, i.e., an explanation for how the phenomena we call
thought and minds occur in the world, and that is manifestly because brains do
it. Nor do you seem to be contesting that, much of the time. Yet you persist in
objecting to the notion of a "reduction".
So the issue is what do you have in mind by that term? Note that no one, least
of all me, is saying here that minds or consciousness don't exist, aren't real,
can be reduced away, etc. Nor am I making a claim for a metaphysical monism,
contra your frequent concerns.
My use of "reduction" refers ONLY to the question of how consciousness happens
in the world, what produces it, what is responsible for it?
Nor am I calling for a linguistic reduction that replaces talk about minds and
thoughts with talk about brains and brainwaves either, which seems to be
another of you concerns with regard to my position.
So, given this, what is it in my claim for the reducibility of minds to brain
processes, that continues to trouble you?
> > The question is what is consciousness, what is it that we are saying
> is caused?
>
> Which begs the question of whether consciousness is the sort of concept
> that can be accounted for in causal terms.
See my hundreds of prior posts.
> I have a beer. My demeanor
> changes. Exactly what did the beer cause? It reduced the availability of
> oxygen to the brain cells. The brain fired differently.
>
> In order to relate this change in brain, to change in MY demeanor, I, as
> a person, has to be introduced into the account. "I" don't fit anywhere
> in the causal change.
>
> bruce
>
No one is taking the person out of the account. The question is what is it that
produces the mind that constitutes a person in certain physical entities? What
makes consciousness happen in the world? We can ask that question without
supposing that persons don't really exist, aren't really persons, etc. This is
just your ongoing misunderstanding of the position I am presenting here, that's
all.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
