RE: why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?
January 13, 2019 at 11:13 pm
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2019 at 11:21 pm by Alan V.)
(January 13, 2019 at 8:59 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(January 13, 2019 at 12:47 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: Biosemiotics is the semiotics of living systems. Semiotic systems pair signs and meanings with a code which is included within the system itself, and not imposed externally. Such assignments are arbitrary, like sounds for meanings in language, and came into existence through random molecular resorting. In other words, matter can self-organize in another way besides the laws of physics or evolution. “In its informational (subjective) mode, DNA follows rules, not the laws of physics.”
Here we get back to the type of thing addressed by the p-zombie problem. A computer also uses semiotics, or code, to store and process information. Yet they don't have consciousness, by definition.
No, a computer is not a semiotic system, because it has its code imposed from without.
Some life can undoubtedly work entirely chemically and reflexively, but I would guess only at a rather primitive level. The reason for this seems rather obvious to me, though it was not covered in the book because it was addressing human consciousness. More complex lifeforms have to adapt to more complex environmental conditions. They can't blunder about blindly, at least not for long if they are competing with conscious creatures. If you think evolution could program p-zombies from scratch, I would have to ask why they should prefer living over dying. If you say dying is painful or against such creatures' self-interest, you have already conceded the necessity for internal states. And an indifferent or hostile environment will not do the programming for them. They must be self-organized, which mean they must have instincts and ultimately internal states to guide them.
You can read the book and see if you can understand and express the details more clearly on these and a range of other points. Your emphasis might be entirely different than mine, given what I could understand.
(January 13, 2019 at 5:26 pm)bennyboy Wrote: With all due respect, it seems to me that almost every single point you've quoted suffers from the kinds of philosophical question-begging I was talking about. I can make a specific list if you like, but if I'm thorough it will be quite the mighty wall of text.
Sorry Bennyboy, but you are now on ignore since I don't care for your superior attitude toward cutting edge scientific research. This isn't really about philosophy at all, you see. Unless they are really contributing in some way, philosophers are not required.
Perhaps Belaqua will continue to field your confusions.
