RE: Mindfulness or Mindlessness?
September 5, 2021 at 9:30 am
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2021 at 9:53 am by The Grand Nudger.)
To add more to the above, because I'd love to be able to put a pin in at least one thing...and using our body model example from earlier....
Why does it have to look red? Why does the body model have to look like the body?
It often doesn't and doesn't have to- in either case. There are people who don't see or experience red as red, and your roombas body model doesn't actually look like it's body. The first roombas didn't use one at all. They had direct collision sensors, which is why they sucked so bad - now, you only find direct control systems on budget models...and there are model based control systems that are all different from each other on competing mid and high end brands. Human beings have about 2.5million (or 4 billion..depending on how you look at it) years of r/d advantage over a roomba. Does that help?
If it does, to push further still..to a functionalist, a body model may be a phenomenal concept incorporating data about the physical dimensions of a thing and the relationship of those dimensions to it's environment. A mind may be a model which attends to whatever collection of phenomenal concepts a system possesses. The applications for machines, as I mentioned before, write themselves..and the exploration of human consciousness to see if this is the case is known as the phenomenal concept strategy. This, I think..ties into why I don't think mystery is an accurate description, I suppose. I think it's just as much an unknown as you, Vulcan, but the very last bit of this excerpt will speak directly to that.
Why does it have to look red? Why does the body model have to look like the body?
It often doesn't and doesn't have to- in either case. There are people who don't see or experience red as red, and your roombas body model doesn't actually look like it's body. The first roombas didn't use one at all. They had direct collision sensors, which is why they sucked so bad - now, you only find direct control systems on budget models...and there are model based control systems that are all different from each other on competing mid and high end brands. Human beings have about 2.5million (or 4 billion..depending on how you look at it) years of r/d advantage over a roomba. Does that help?
If it does, to push further still..to a functionalist, a body model may be a phenomenal concept incorporating data about the physical dimensions of a thing and the relationship of those dimensions to it's environment. A mind may be a model which attends to whatever collection of phenomenal concepts a system possesses. The applications for machines, as I mentioned before, write themselves..and the exploration of human consciousness to see if this is the case is known as the phenomenal concept strategy. This, I think..ties into why I don't think mystery is an accurate description, I suppose. I think it's just as much an unknown as you, Vulcan, but the very last bit of this excerpt will speak directly to that.
Quote:PCS advocates typically subscribe to[2] what Chalmers has called "type-B materialism",[3] which holds that there is an epistemic but not ontological gap between physics and subjective experience. PCS maintains that our concepts are dualistic, but reality is monistic, in a similar way as "heat" and "molecular motion" are two different concepts that refer to the same property.[2] However, phenomenal concepts are different from other concepts in that they incline us to see an epistemic gap.[2] PCS suggests that physicalist explanations "cannot feel satisfactory [...] since the concepts used in the physical explanation don't entail any applications of the phenomenal concepts in terms of which the explanandum is characterized."[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenal...t_strategy
PCS would help physicalists answer the knowledge argument because upon seeing red, Mary would have new thoughts about phenomenal concepts, even though those thoughts would only re-express physical facts she already knew. Likewise, we can conceive of zombies even if they aren't possible because when we think about their functional/physical characteristics, we don't also conjure thoughts about phenomenal concepts.[4]
David Papineau coined the term antipathetic fallacy to refer to the way in which we fail to see phenomenal experience in brain processing. It is the opposite of the pathetic fallacy of seeing consciousness in non-minds.[5]
[/i]
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
