Who are you? What makes you "you"?

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If I were a mindless zombie and thirsty (assuming zombies need to drink) then I would still go the fridge. And it would be nonsense to deny purpose in that case. And there would be no thought or consciousness involved whatsoever.

Well, certain people of a scientism bent might cry foul at seeing a purpose there because it must be reasonably inferred and not measured, but I won’t. But you describe precisely the problem. Physicalism only allows for philosophical zombies (p-zombies: it’s an actual term). It lacks any explanation for knowing or the intentionality of thought. Which leads, as I said before, to materialists either denying that we Know or have minds at all or offer it up as a great mystery which we’ll eventually solve (by somehow finding the qualitative when when the qualitative is strictly forbidden from the method?).

The way I see it, if there’s a problem and somebody/something acts in a manner to solve that problem then they move with a purpose. That’s me going to the fridge to solve my thirst problem or a flower turning towards the sun. Both are actions with a purpose. And as I said, obviously with the flower and zombie examples, there need be no conscious thought.

I’m certain that you find this impersonal to say the least. ‘How can we be ourselves if we are just along for the ride obeying the dictates of the universe?’.

The way I see it is that it doesn’t matter. If we aren’t in control and we have no free will then it certainly feels like we are in control and that we do make our own choices. So what difference does it make. If it walks like a duck…

It’s akin to us being inside some alien computer game. Maybe we’re not real. But even if we aren’t we may as well act as if we are. It’s what all nihilists do anyway.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But I have absolutely nothing that tells me that this doesn’t work all the way up to the most complex interactions we have with the world.

Are we having a discussion or is this all just blind physical reactions resulting in ons and offs in a server, lights on a screen, and mechanical pressing of compressable parts?

Why so much with the either/or? It’s both. The blind physical reactions resulting in etc etc are what we describe as being a discussion. What else are we going to call it.

That’s like saying ‘You’re not writing a story, you’re just scribbling words down on a piece of paper’.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Let me know if I’m too far off topic or too dominating the discussion direction for this thread. Philosophy of the Mind does seem immediately related to the question of what “you” are, but I’ve taken half the topic up with this particular argument.

You are doing just fine. We all present our side in a civilized, respectful manner, and nothing can be more important than that.

Do you think? I’m not asking if there are electro-chemical impulses only. I’m asking if you have an experience of knowing, thinking, intending, understanding concepts.

What is the difference?

Let’s play a simple thought experiment. You walk around in a new town. You meet other people, and conduct conversations with them. Both of you use the same language. How do you know if you both understand the other? How do you know if the other party actually understands you, or only gives “pre-programmed” responses? Just think about it. This is a serious question.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Wozza:

But I have absolutely nothing that tells me that this doesn’t work all the way up to the most complex interactions we have with the world.

Are we having a discussion or is this all just blind physical reactions resulting in ons and offs in a server, lights on a screen, and mechanical pressing of compressable parts?

Why so much with the either/or? It’s both. The blind physical reactions resulting in etc etc are what we describe as being a discussion. What else are we going to call it.

That’s like saying ‘You’re not writing a story, you’re just scribbling words down on a piece of paper’.

Because physicalism has no bridge between the intention and concepts behind discussion on the one hand and processes as blind and conceptless as a rock rolling down a hill and hitting other rocks on the other, nor can it. There can be no objects of thoughts. We cannot have a thinking or knowing experience in physicalism, or at most materialists say it is a mystery.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Ever heard of the Ship of Theseus?

This is an ancient question in philosophy.

 

[Wesrock]

Let’s play a simple thought experiment. You walk around in a new town. You meet other people, and conduct conversations with them. Both of you use the same language. How do you know if you both understand the other? How do you know if the other party actually understands you, or only gives “pre-programmed” responses? Just think about it. This is a serious question.

Because I infer that they are like me through my act of knowing them and having them as the object of my thoughts. Whether or not everyone else is a p-zombies or knowing things like me doesn’t really matter for this discussion, though, as I have at least one example of someone who knows and thinks and experiences.

 

[IWantGod]

Why so much with the either/or? It’s both. The blind physical reactions resulting in etc etc are what we describe as being a discussion. What else are we going to call it.

To me this comes across as just a blanket refusal to see that there is a problem. You are just begging the question rather than accepting the self evident reality of your experience because you know it contradicts materialism. Your idea of a solution is “insert emergent property here”, but emergent properties are also comprised of blind natural activity, and as such makes no intelligible sense of the self evident intention and goal direction in our thoughts and activities because they are the very antithesis of material causes.

 

[Wozza]

Ever heard of the Ship of Theseus?

This is an ancient question in philosophy.

We know it as ‘Captain Cook’s axe’ down here. Same principle. Less pieces.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

Ever heard of the Ship of Theseus?

This is an ancient question in philosophy.

We know it as ‘Captain Cook’s axe’ down here. Same principle. Less pieces.

Never heard that term. Sounds less pretentious. Gonna stick with Ship of Theseus; I have a brand to maintain.

 

[Wesrock]

Wozza:

Why so much with the either/or? It’s both. The blind physical reactions resulting in etc etc are what we describe as being a discussion. What else are we going to call it.

To me this comes across as just a blanket refusal to see that there is a problem.

It baffles me that in other discussions people can’t see the distinction between an electro-chemical reactions and their qualitative experience of thought. It’s not even that they say one causes the other and thought is an illusion and entirely dependent on the chemical reaction, it’s that, in their discussions with me (not necessarily with the people in this topic) they claim there is no distinction and they’re absolutely, logically identical.

 

[Wozza]

IWantGod:

Wozza:

Why so much with the either/or? It’s both. The blind physical reactions resulting in etc etc are what we describe as being a discussion. What else are we going to call it.

To me this comes across as just a blanket refusal to see that there is a problem.

It baffles me that in other discussions people can’t see the distinction between an electro-chemical impulse and their qualitative experience of thought. It’s not even that they say one causes the other and thought is an illusion, it’s that, in their discussions with me (not necessarily in this topic) they claim there is no distinction and they’re absolutely, logically identical.

Let’s say you eat a strawberry. Hey, that tastes nice! Is that a qualitive experience?

Because all that has happened is that your body recognises it as sweet, meaning sugar, meaning an easily digestible form of energy. And it gives you a little jolt of pleasure (maybe dopamine?) which makes you feel good - another physical sensation.

Everything that has happened from the moment you put the strawberry in your mouth was a series of physical events. And those events will occur whether conscious or not. People in comas, in vegative states will still respond to pleasure and pain: Coma patients might feel pleasure and pain like the rest of us

And I would suggest that they are definitely not having a qualitive experience. If you are conscious you might report that you’re having a qualitive experience. But if the process is exactly the same in both states then you may need to consider whether you are correct.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Why so much with the either/or? It’s both. The blind physical reactions resulting in etc etc are what we describe as being a discussion. What else are we going to call it.

To me this comes across as just a blanket refusal to see that there is a problem. You are just begging the question rather than accepting the self evident reality of your experience because you know it contradicts materialism. Your idea of a solution is “insert emergent property here”, but emergent properties are also comprised of blind natural activity, and as such makes no intelligible sense of the self evident intention and goal direction in our thoughts and activities because they are the very antithesis of material causes.

Nobody has mentioned emergent properties. And it’s the so-called ‘self evident reality of your experience’ is what I’m questioning. Reality isn’t neccesarily what you experience and the term ‘self evident’ is just another way of saying ‘well, it’s obvious isn’t it?’

There are too many things that were ‘all too obvious’ and self evident that have turned out not to be the case.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Because I infer that they are like me through my act of knowing them and having them as the object of my thoughts. Whether or not everyone else is a p-zombies or knowing things like me doesn’t really matter for this discussion, though, as I have at least one example of someone who knows and thinks and experiences.

Excellent! If one acts as if one understands, then the only rational conclusion is that one understands. The good old duck principle wins the day again.

Of course the same question arises with other functions, not just understanding and intentionality. The feeling of pleasure and pain come from exciting a certain, well defined areas of the brain. Understanding is a much more distributed process, involving a more widespread areas of the brain. But the principle is the same.

If you wish to deny the physicality of thinking and understanding, you MUST also deny the physicality of experiencing pleasure and pain. And I don’t think that would be a good idea, since they can be measured directly, by physical means. Thinking and intentionality happen in the subconscious, which cannot be easily measured.

I am glad that you brought up the question of p-zombies. They are very important to this discussion. They are the specific example of a wider question: “Is there are a substantial difference between the real McCoy and a good simulation of him?” Does it matter if that other person actually understands you, or only acts if she understood? (Which also brings us to the Turing test. )

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

IWantGod:

Wozza:

Why so much with the either/or? It’s both. The blind physical reactions resulting in etc etc are what we describe as being a discussion. What else are we going to call it.

To me this comes across as just a blanket refusal to see that there is a problem.

It baffles me that in other discussions people can’t see the distinction between an electro-chemical impulse and their qualitative experience of thought. It’s not even that they say one causes the other and thought is an illusion, it’s that, in their discussions with me (not necessarily in this topic) they claim there is no distinction and they’re absolutely, logically identical.

Let’s say you eat a strawberry. Hey, that tastes nice! Is that a qualitive experience?

Because all that has happened is that your body recognises it as sweet, meaning sugar, meaning an easily digestible form of energy. And it gives you a little jolt of pleasure (maybe dopamine?) which makes you feel good - another physical sensation.

Everything that has happened from the moment you put the strawberry in your mouth was a series of physical events. And those events will occur whether conscious or not. People in comas, in vegative states will still respond to pleasure and pain: Coma patients might feel pleasure and pain like the rest of us

And I would suggest that they are definitely not having a qualitive experience. If you are conscious you might report that you’re having a qualitive experience. But if the process is exactly the same in both states then you may need to consider whether you are correct.

Exactly what I was saying, @IWantGod. It’s (seems the appropriate pronoun for what it’s saying) denying it’s anything more than an empty shell of a p-zombie. There is no experience, no thought, no reasoning, illusory and deterministic or not. Nothing at home. It understands no distinction nor understands at all. It’s as mindless and devoid of thought content as one billiard ball hitting another. Reminds me of the “NPC” meme from a few months ago.

 

[Wesrock]

Of course the same question arises with other functions, not just understanding and intentionality. The feeling of pleasure and pain come from exciting a certain, well defined areas of the brain. Understanding is a much more distributed process, involving a more widespread areas of the brain. But the principle is the same.

If you wish to deny the physicality of thinking and understanding, you MUST also deny the physicality of experiencing pleasure and pain. And I don’t think that would be a good idea, since they can be measured directly, by physical means.

And there you go, converting my beliefs into a Cartesian-like philosophy of the mind, thinking I’m denying the brain’s role in sensing and perception and feelings and emotions, and yet also still unable to see a distinction between nerve firings and an actual experience, even if they are intimately related.

 

[Wesrock]

You being unable to pick up the difference between a p-zombie and a person, being blocked off from the measurement, does not mean there is no distinction and that you have to deny this distinction in your self. This is exactly the issue with materialism. They can no explanation for the mind since it cannot be measured, so deny they altogether, without even considering that there primary experience is the mind and all their measurements are secondary to it. Well, then we of course stumble into the idealists on the flip side who deny there’s anything but the mind.

So tiring.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

And there you go, converting my beliefs into a Cartesian-like philosophy of the mind, thinking I’m denying the brain’s role in sensing and perception and feelings and emotions, and yet also still unable to see a distinction between nerve firings and an actual experience, even if they are intimately related.

If I misunderstood you, please enlighten me. And the question: “How do you know if there is a difference? Can you measure the difference?”

It’s (seems the appropriate pronoun for what it’s saying) denying it’s anything more than an empty shell of a p-zombie. There is no experience, no thought, no reasoning, illusory and deterministic or not. Nothing at home. It understands no distinction nor understands at all. It’s as mindless and devoid of thought content as one billiard ball hitting another.

And this goes back to my usual question: “What is the difference? Can you measure the difference?” How do you know if the other party is a p-zombie or not?

It looks like that we are down to the fundamental question: “How do you know?” What is your epistemological foundation for your beliefs?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

And there you go, converting my beliefs into a Cartesian-like philosophy of the mind, thinking I’m denying the brain’s role in sensing and perception and feelings and emotions, and yet also still unable to see a distinction between nerve firings and an actual experience, even if they are intimately related.

If I misunderstood you, please enlighten me. And the question: “How do you know if there is a difference? Can you measure the difference?”

It’s (seems the appropriate pronoun for what it’s saying) denying it’s anything more than an empty shell of a p-zombie. There is no experience, no thought, no reasoning, illusory and deterministic or not. Nothing at home. It understands no distinction nor understands at all. It’s as mindless and devoid of thought content as one billiard ball hitting another.

And this goes back to my usual question: “What is the difference? Can you measure the difference?” How do you know if the other party is a p-zombie or not?

I know absolutely whether I’m a p-zombie or not, which is the starting point.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I know absolutely whether I’m a p-zombie or not, which is the starting point.

No, you don’t. You cannot know if you are a physical being, or a member of the Matrix (or another brain in a vat ).

 

[Wesrock]

It looks like that we are down to the fundamental question: “How do you know?” What is your epistemological foundation for your beliefs?

Now that is an interesting discussion, and my issue is that the materialist has no proper answer to this at all, as knowing is impossible in such a system. You want to take skepticism to the absolute extreme and I tell you you won’t even know if your capacity to reason is reliable (and everything that comes with that, sensism, science, etc…)