[Wittrs] Dualism Cooties: Ontologically Basic Ambiguity: Causality

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:47:45 -0400

SWM wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>SWM wrote:

>If the question is how do we get subjectness in an apparently objective
>universe and the answer is the brain does it by doing such and such,
>which can then be replicated by doing the same on this other platform,
>etc., then that is an explanation.

we don't need to have to have replication on some other platform to
explain how subjectivity occurs in/on the human platform.

>>your argument, such as it is, presumes that there is a reduction and
>>then tries to justify classifying that reduction as causal and/or

>My argument, such as it is, recognizes that it is a reduction that's
>needed and proceeds to look at the possibility of reducing what we call
>mind to what we call brain via an explanatory process.

I'm challenging your claim that "the very issue at hand, causal
reduction, IS one of ontological reduction".

>I know what you're "challenging". But your challenge hinges on a
>presumption of dualism,

>If you think Dennett (or any thesis like his) is wrong you have to
>show that it fails because:

>1) It is logically incoherent (unintelligible); or

>2) It is logically invalid (leads to a false conclusion because of
>flaws in the premises); or

>3) It is incomplete in that it leaves out some key feature of
>consciousness which must be included to give a full and adequate

I thought it was already clear that I chose option 3.

remember, I pointed out that Dennett's critique of the CRA changes the
definition of the key term, 'understanding', so that he may attribute it
to a higher tech, up-specked Chinese Room that is functionally
equivalent to a human but lacks qualia.

you even agreed that Dennett changed the meaning of the term

it follows that he explains consciousness by leaving out the difference
between humans and zombies: qualia, subjectivity and experience;
meaning, of course, that the higher tech CR is nothing more than an
electronic version of a Chalmersian zombie.

>You can't simply deny Dennett's thesis on the grounds that it doesn't
>account for the presumed duality of the universe ...

the 'presumed' duality of the universe is the brute fact of philosophy
of consciousness: consciousness has emerged. and, so far, no one has
accounted for that fact.

>So far you haven't shown any of the three possibilities above to be
>the case while you have certainly continued to exhaust a lot of
>rhetorical energy in trying to challenge the possibility that what we
>mean by consciousness or mind can be reductively accounted for in terms
>of the physicality of brains and such.

given the notion that a causal explanation explains your/my choice of
[emergence | reduction], I have no objection to waiting for researchers
to produce an account of the emergence of consciousness "in terms of the
physicality of brains and such".



Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: