Mind/matter duality

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, Bazzel, is saying that subjective experience gives a species an evolutionary advantage. But the fact of subjective experience is independent of the fact of evolution. He has not presented a reason why the two must be linked. Further, I cannot imagine a means for falsifying his assertion.

[Cato]

...it is the result (or by product, if you will) of our evolutionarily developed brain. It serves a biological purpose. It helps us survive and thrive.

This idea has no scientific merit. You're telling a just-so story.

No scientific merit? As juxtaposed to the volumes of scientific merit supporting the dualist position?

You have obviously never been concussed.

[bennyboy]

This idea has no scientific merit. You're telling a just-so story.

No scientific merit? As juxtaposed to the volumes of scientific merit supporting the dualist position?

You have obviously never been concussed.

Okay. Assertion: consciousness evolved because it provides an advantage to fitness that a non-conscious mechanism could not. Evidence: ???

[Cato]

Okay. Assertion: consciousness evolved because it provides an advantage to fitness that a non-conscious mechanism could not. Evidence: ???

What the fuck? You make an assertion and beg of me evidence? How the fuck does that work?

You're a hopeless idiot or this is some kind of mental masturbation foreplay.

[whatever76]

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?

My answer would be because it is to our advantage to have subjective awareness in a world composed of physical interactions. The advantage that it gives us is the ability to adapt the environment to meet our biological imperatives.

[bennyboy]

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?

My answer would be because it is to our advantage to have subjective awareness in a world composed of physical interactions. The advantage that it gives us is the ability to adapt the environment to meet our biological imperatives.

Having data collected together, storing patterns in the brain to assist with later processing, having parallel modules working together, and having parts of that system mediated by some behaviors that are hard-coded in the DNA, are all useful. These are the things the brain can be observed to be doing in response to the environment.

Nobody yet has explained why there has to be a sentient entity who is experiencing all these processes in the way that I do, and that presumably all animals do to varying degrees.

In short, I totally agree with you. But as nice a story as it is, it's missing two important parts: the ability to prove it objectively, and a good explanation why experience > pure mechanical function. (by which I only mean brain function that doesn't involve conscious awareness)

---

Okay. Assertion: consciousness evolved because it provides an advantage to fitness that a non-conscious mechanism could not. Evidence: ???

What the fuck? You make an assertion and beg of me evidence? How the fuck does that work?

You're a hopeless idiot or this is some kind of mental masturbation foreplay.

I should probably be looking for the "block" button, because in my experience a little swearing is likely to lead to a whole lot of swearing and flaming, but since I'm the new guy I'll try my best to play nice.

You say I'm making assertions, but when the assertion is that an existing model is inadequate, then it comes down to the BOP hot-potato game: "No, you take it. No YOU!" When I say in a purely physical model, no subjective awareness should be required to take in data, process, and output a behavior, it's because I'm addressing the idea of physical monism-- a purely determinist model in which mind and free will have no actual effect on outcomes, because they are at best illusory byproducts supervenient on brain chemistry or information processing.

No other machine that we know of requires subjective awareness in able to perform its job. We don't believe that computers are aware of data being transmitted along circuits. We don't believe that galaxies are aware of the interactions of the various solar systems and other entities exchanging energy within them.

IF the brain is just an organization of matter exchanging electrons, transmitting and receiving photons, etc. then you'll have to explain what's so special about humanity that it spawns completely new properties in a universe infinitely more complex than we can know.

This smacks of anthropocentrism, and also of religion: we are special because some magical property has been breathed into us and only us.

I'm not religious enough to believe that.

[little_monkey]

re: medical experiment
That's all perfectly true. In reality, we make the necessary pragmatic assumption that when a person-looking object says "I smell smoke," there's an actual mind having the experience of smelling smoke. And yet, you cannot interact directly with someone else's mind-- you are forced to go through intermediary steps-- either communicating with them verbally to get a report of what they're experiencing, or messing with their brain to change what that mind is experiencing. At no point in this process is it ever provable that there even IS a mind there.

It's a strange situation. Everyone (I'm willing to believe) knows about mind, and knows that mind exists. And yet while you can locate brain functions, you cannot locate (for example) a dream unicorn and give him an apple. In a sense, it's like each mind IS a Matrix environment of its own.

re: minds in vats
This is a good point. I'd argue that shared experience is (by definition more than proof) our reality as human beings. But that doesn't prove it's THE reality-- i.e. that we're not BIJ, or in the Matrix, or the mind of God, or whatever.

The fact that if someone puts an axe through your brain, and that your mind won't be functioning very well after proves in every way that there is a deep connection between the two. We're just beginning to explore scientifically that deep connection. The MRI was only invented 20 years ago, and was used primarily for medical purposes. Actual research has been scant. But the remarkable thing is that this used to be the domain of philosophy, the mind/matter thing. It isn't anymore.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...if someone puts an axe through your brain, and that your mind won't be functioning very well after proves in every way that there is a deep connection between the two.

The dumbest arguments are oft repeated. And I can prove life after death,...but you have to die first.

---

...I'm addressing the idea of physical monism-- a purely determinist model in which mind and free will have no actual effect on outcomes, because they are at best illusory byproducts supervenient on brain chemistry or information processing.

Bingo! The inability to account for qualia is only one problem among many. Physical monism stacks philosophical argument against the direct evidence of everything that gives life value.

[little_monkey]

And I can prove life after death,...but you have to die first.

Godd luck with that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And I can prove life after death,...but you have to die first.

Godd luck with that.

I take it you now realize how dumb it sounds to support your belief with a test like putting an ax to your head.