[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
>>ontological.

>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
>account.

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
'understanding'.

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".

Joe


--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


==========================================

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

Other related posts: