Why is there subjective awareness, in a universe which is supposedly composed only of physical interactions? Why shouldn't even human beings be able to take in data, process it, and output a behavior, without ever actually experiencing this process?

(May 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why is there subjective awareness, in a universe which is supposedly composed only of physical interactions? Why shouldn't even human beings be able to take in data, process it, and output a behavior, without ever actually experiencing this process?

Whose to say that we don't do exactly that? Perhaps we function in exactly the way you just described and "conciousness" is simply a side effect of that process.

(May 28, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Whose to say that we don't do exactly that? Perhaps we function in exactly the way you just described and "conciousness" is simply a side effect of that process.

An unintended sticky residue is a side affect. The existence of subjective awareness is more important to us than probably anything else-- calling it a side affect is strange. It also amounts to a "just because" answer, a.k.a. Goddidit. But is it ever okay to assume something is a brute fact, just because we can't explain it in any meaningful way?

(May 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why is there subjective awareness, in a universe which is supposedly composed only of physical interactions? Why shouldn't even human beings be able to take in data, process it, and output a behavior, without ever actually experiencing this process?

I'm a physical monist (as such a naturalist and reductionist) and I think what we have here is simply matter projecting & "thinking" it's special. The radicalization of this viewpoint on the other scale is of dualism and is called solipsism. Solipsism, to me, is a rejection of the possible existence of other minds other than your own.

For me to say that (my) consciousness is the only one there is, is to deny that there are other consciousnesses out there besides my own. This poses an obvious problem: If my consciousness is the only one there is, then I'm totally alone in the world vis à vis consciousness. However, as a physical monist I can see that there are other agents in the world, they seem to act on their own in such a way that they can interact with my own consciousness, so I make a small leap of faith and say that I'm not alone in this and conclude as an effect of this, that matter that make up my mind & the particular interactions of the brain, are merely matter interactions.

If (my) consciousness is more besides matter interactions, then why is my consciousness limited to my brain? Dualists have assumed so much on this question (e.g. the "immaterial"), whereas I simply says that it's reducible to what we can find out to be of reality through the sciences. Everything of the mind is reducible to reality.

I think dualists have big problem explaining other consciousnesses apart from their own because of the solipsism viewpoint.

This is in no way exhaustive of my viewpoint, just the enumeration of it.

Why not. But what do you mean by subjective awareness? My guess is due to socailisation.

(May 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm)Sal Wrote:

(May 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why is there subjective awareness, in a universe which is supposedly composed only of physical interactions? Why shouldn't even human beings be able to take in data, process it, and output a behavior, without ever actually experiencing this process?

I'm a physical monist (as such a naturalist and reductionist) and I think what we have here is simply matter projecting & "thinking" it's special. The radicalization of this viewpoint on the other scale is of dualism and is called solipsism. Solipsism, to me, is a rejection of the possible existence of other minds other than your own.

For me to say that (my) consciousness is the only one there is, is to deny that there are other consciousnesses out there besides my own. This poses an obvious problem: If my consciousness is the only one there is, then I'm totally alone in the world vis à vis consciousness. However, as a physical monist I can see that there are other agents in the world, they seem to act on their own in such a way that they can interact with my own consciousness, so I make a small leap of faith and say that I'm not alone in this and conclude as an effect of this, that matter that make up my mind & the particular interactions of the brain, are merely matter interactions.

For me, solipsism fails as soon as someone tries to explain it. If someone thinks he's alone, then who is he explaining to? However, there are other options that still allow the existence of others. An idealistic universe, for example, could include all the laws of physics, could allow for multiple agents, and could explain why some things don't seem to play by the rules.

Quote:If (my) consciousness is more besides matter interactions, then why is my consciousness limited to my brain?

I think saying they are separate would require a total disavowal of any scientific understanding at all. However, it still doesn't explain why a brain doesn't just do its thing, without the existence of an associated mind.

Quote:Dualists have assumed so much on this question (e.g. the "immaterial"), whereas I simply says that it's reducible to what we can find out to be of reality through the sciences. Everything of the mind is reducible to reality.

Actually, I think you could argue the opposite point just as well. Our reality is our experience; anything we say about the source of our experiences (for example, objects reflecting light), requires the assumption of an extra layer of reality: experience + objective reality independent of that experience. We are convinced that this idea represents a degree of reality, and take this as an unassailable fact. However, as good an assumption it is, physicalism still represents the extra idea.

When the idea of physicalism is applied to the mind, we come up against the brute fact of the existence of mind. No matter how much we say mind is just brain chemistry, and that it's all physics, the fact is that you can't poke a dream pony with a real stick.

Quote:I think dualists have big problem explaining other consciousnesses apart from their own because of the solipsism viewpoint.

This is in no way exhaustive of my viewpoint, just the enumeration of it.

I'm not sure why solipsism is important to duality. I cannot verify the sentience of anyone else in either a physical monism OR a dualism, and in both cases, I would have to assume that other minds exist in order to enjoy interpersonal communication without feeling crazy.

The mind is the product if the brain. Without the brain, the mind does not exist. Therefore, consciousness is tied to the brain and is a result of the physical processes thereof.

To apply special meaning or "supernatural" significance to it is akin to a spiritual argument that requires something more than a simple assertion to give it any true weight.

(May 28, 2013 at 11:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: For me, solipsism fails as soon as someone tries to explain it. If someone thinks he's alone, then who is he explaining to?

I don't know this, but couldn't a solipsist (?) just respond he's explaining it to a robot perfectly capable of understanding yet without any conscious awareness? Just like a computer, if programmed well, can take input, process it and form a reaction based on this without there being the necessity for consciousness?

I don't subscribe to that line of thought, just trying to think it through.

(May 28, 2013 at 11:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: For me, solipsism fails as soon as someone tries to explain it. If someone thinks he's alone, then who is he explaining it to?

Himself.

I'm not a solipsist, but the implications are fun to examine. Assuming solipsism is the true state of affairs, does my understanding of the concept represent the only possible circumvention of it, by which I mean, it is the only real insight into reality indepenent of my own thoughts I can ever actually have? And, would not having this insight necessarily invalidate solipsism? I wonder if that technically qualifies as a paradox. I don't know, there are plenty of people here who philosophize better than I do.

(May 29, 2013 at 12:38 am)Baalzebutt Wrote: The mind is the product if the brain. Without the brain, the mind does not exist. Therefore, consciousness is tied to the brain and is a result of the physical processes thereof.

To apply special meaning or "supernatural" significance to it is akin to a spiritual argument that requires something more than a simple assertion to give it any true weight.

This is the "brute force" assertion: without knowing why it is that a particular arrangement of matter causes there to be subjective awareness, it is nevertheless asserted at the "just because" level.

The question isn't the link between the brain and mind-- it's why a purely physical process ends up manifesting as conscious awareness at all-- rather than just grinding through its chemical calculations with no experience of itself. Is this really a property of the brain, or is it a property of complexity of information, or is it that mind is actually ingrained into the fabric of the universe?

I don't think your answer, which today and here will be by far the most popular one, is the airtight slam-dunk that it's taken for.

---

(May 29, 2013 at 4:17 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 28, 2013 at 11:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: For me, solipsism fails as soon as someone tries to explain it. If someone thinks he's alone, then who is he explaining to?

I don't know this, but couldn't a solipsist (?) just respond he's explaining it to a robot perfectly capable of understanding yet without any conscious awareness? Just like a computer, if programmed well, can take input, process it and form a reaction based on this without there being the necessity for consciousness?

I don't subscribe to that line of thought, just trying to think it through.

For all I can know for sure, that IS the state of things. Maybe I'm the only one who is really experiencing, and everyone else's brain is just processing photons etc. and outputting experience with no actual awareness. There's no way to check if someone is ACTUALLY experiencing things subjectively, as opposed to SEEMING to.

But I'm willing to take that leap of faith and take it as given that others exist, for purely pragmatic reasons-- believing others have minds like mine (kind of) makes talking to them more enjoyable. It also prevents me from cyborgicide in heavy traffic.