Seeing red

[emjay]

@Benny

To be clear, I first learned of the term 'Idealism' (in the sense of consciousness) in that Rational AKD thread, where he was talking about Monistic Idealism. I got the idea from there that you were an Idealist but not a Monistic Idealist, from how you argued in that thread. But you've said that you're not one (or sort of not one), so since it was me that referred to you as one in this thread, I apologise for that mistake.

If I identify as a monist, rather than as an agnostic, then I'd probably identify as an Idealist rather than as a Materialist.

Now it's clear that you're arguing for a soul, or a homunculous,

That shouldn't be clear, since that's not my position.  A homunculus implies a substance dualism, which I discard on the basis of the "bridge" requirement: you'd need some substance or property which can serve as a bridge between the spiritual homunculus and the body.  Let's call this "spiritbody."  Now, this "spiritbody" is not spirit, so I'd need a bridge between the spirit and the "spiritbody," let's call it "spiritspiritbody," and so on.  So a dualism necessarily implies an infinite regress, which turns out to be a shell game.

Phew   Because that would've been another question from me - how would the soul interface with the brain? - but you've put the question and its implications better than I ever could, so I'm happy that we're both happy to leave souls and all-powerful/all-knowing homunculi out of this discussion  

I'm not a neuroscientist but nonetheless I have spent years thinking and theorising about psychology in terms of neural networks. I pay no attention to any psychological theory that I can't relate into neural network terms, so you could say I'm a self-made 'neuropsychologist', using and developing neuropsychological theories to understand myself and the mind, basically because I have a reductionistic/mechanistic need to understand everything. So for instance, the human tendencies of bias and stereotyping can be completely understood in neural network terms... indeed that almost sums up the essence of how a neural network functions. So I did a lot of writing and theorising about that, and addressed many other aspects of personality in the same way. So from my perspective it's not just wishful thinking that leads me to believe that if there were a soul it wouldn't have much to do, but rather that I actually have solid (to me at least) theoretical models of how the brain the could achieve certain aspects of personality. So that's why it makes it all-but-impossible for me to envision a soul with any more responsibility than a simple observer, and why the soul question is essentially closed for me, from a religious standpoint at least of a soul that is held accountable for choices.

I'm fine with all this, and share a similar interest.  Selective brain damage, brain chemisty, etc. would have to be completely disregarded not to.  My interest isn't so much in the content of consciousness, which we can easily relate to brain structure and function, than to psychogony-- the existence of mind in those structures rather than the lack of them.  It is my position that the material world view has no really good take on mind, whereas an Idealistic position can see our entire body of physical observation as a collection of ideas, and easily move on without missing a beat.

Cool on the first part But it's starting to get confusing on the second... from psychogony onwards. Why certain things are assumed to produce consciousness and not other things? eg, a brain as compared to a rock? Is that what you mean? While it's true that the material world doesn't have a really good take on the mind, personally I see comp mind, along with the abstracting 'computation' involved in neural networks (i.e. how I believe a perception is built up from progressive transformations of say pixels>lines>shapes etc into a model of the world to be experienced) as a very convincing explanation as far as it goes. But yeah, they don't deal with the hard question of how the qualia actually is produced/emerges from the system/network, which is presumably the question you're talking about? I don't know how to answer the question definitively - nobody does, and I know that's your point - but nonetheless it's good enough for me (at the moment at least) to see the qualia as somehow mirroring what's going on in the system, and as of this thread, in the only way it can to meet the constraints of the system/network. I know that's just a theory and one of millions but it is good enough for me because it ties conscious experience, albeit in a different form, to the underlying activities of the system/network. But that's not the point is it? My theory is just as good/bad as any other because it can't be definitive, nor could it ever be proved one way or the other. I sort of understand where you're coming from here with Idealism - as starting from experience as the only thing you know rather than the material world - but I'm still having trouble with understanding some aspects of it, hence why I asked for book recommendations along the lines of 'Idealism for dummies' Mainly the question of how you would account for the consistent 'ideas' that present themselves in the world to not just you but also other people, and other people that you rely on for information, but without resorting to Monistic Idealism in the sense of a world a shared world of ideas created by whatever. But perhaps I should refrain from comment on it until I've read a few books about it, because as it stands it's from a position of ignorance

I know you're not arguing for a soul in a religious sense, but the same sorts of questions apply as I would ask of any theist (or myself). First of all, do you disagree with my allocation of responsibility for the soul/homunculous that you envision? I.e. do you believe it is more than an observer?

You, like Rhythm (presumably in response to his most recent post) are responding to my support of Idealism with a "thing" that implies substance dualism.  That's not my position, and I don't really care to argue about homunculi.

I'm not an expert on formal logic or debate but I believe you two are - even though there may be misunderstandings between you. So when it gets into heavy duty logic I'll admit, it does often go over my head, and I can't wait for the next summary post But I trust in both of your abilities to call out logical errors, even if I wouldn't have noticed them myself. I'll just say I am getting there, slowly, in that regard since joining this site... like ad hominems etc ...learning things little by little but I don't think I will ever be a walking catalogue of logical fallacies Anyway the point is Rhythm noticed something that I otherwise wouldn't have and since I trust his intellectual honesty and judgement (and yours), when he mentioned a soul and a vehicle, and I read the posts in that light, I panicked that you were talking about a soul and that I had misunderstood you big time all this time, and thus felt the need to clarify my position and hopefully yours. So sorry about that, and again, I agree, I don't care to argue about homunculi either  

And second of all, why have a brain in the first place, that clearly handles at least some (and in my view, all) processing in the mind? If the 'soul' can handle some of it, why not all (this one is more aimed at theists)? In other words, what is your role for the brain, which you say is co-opted or subsumed in your view of reality?

Again, I'm not interested in the idea of soul, and won't take a position on it.

Here's where you are getting lost, as well as Rhythm.  I see the brain as an organ which takes in data, processes it, and outputs behavior.  That is its role, and we can easily enough see this by removing parts of an animal's or human's brain, temporarily freezing or numbing parts, using chemicals to affects its function etc.

Sound familiar?  Yes, because it is my position that Idealism SUBSUMES THE MATERIAL VIEW.  Rhythm keeps ignoring this statement as semantics, and I don't want you to make that same mistake.  I see the universe as you do.  The difference is that I never lose view of the fact that our experience of everything, including the process of observing the brain, of listening to professors talk about it, of reading about it in books, of watching doctors do surgery on it, is, to us, an experience of ideas.  Whether all those experiences are taking place in a physical universe, in a brain in a jar, in the Matrix or in the Mind of God, or a software simulation is unknowable by us.  Therefore, we should either see the experiences themselves as being at the root of our reality (which I would call Idealism but isn't really textbook Idealism), or take an agnostic position (which, as you can see from my sig, I identify as).

So in other words, while accepting whatever science may learn about the content and processing that goes on in the brain (the physical in my case, the 'out there' in yours - physical/Matrix/BIJ etc), you choose to give up on the qualia question because there's no way of knowing whether it comes from a physical universe or the Matrix etc? And you're saying that by choosing a particular 'out there' it adds complications that wouldn't be present were no choice made? I think I understand but as I said in PM, I don't think I personally can accept a position of wilful uncertainty (or agnosticism or 'ambiguist') just because of my own make-up. I don't have the strength or 'faith' for that. Admittedly I think I understand you better for this post, and see where that ambiguity lies... not in choosing to learn about the mind and consciousness - which you still do - but rather in the question of how the qualia is produced; I could take your stance and happily continue to study the brain and the mind, but just stop asking about how the qualia is produced? Is that what you mean?

[bennyboy]

So in other words, while accepting whatever science may learn about the content and processing that goes on in the brain (the physical in my case, the 'out there' in yours - physical/Matrix/BIJ etc), you choose to give up on the qualia question because there's no way of knowing whether it comes from a physical universe or the Matrix etc?

No matter what position you take, you have to take something as a brute fact. Rhythm takes as his brute fact the existence of a coherent physical reality, with mind as a byproduct of particular phenomena within it. I take as brute fact only the existence of my mind (I think therefore I am), and the content of my experience (things I can touch and see), but hold in high suspicion any interpretation that goes beyond experience. Rhythm will point to brains, and bullets to brains, to prove that mind is a byproduct of brain function. I'll point to the fact that 0% of what we know is known except as an experience, even watching someone get their head blown off halfway through singing Happy Birthday.

That's why in my PM I talk about ambiguism. People will argue until their blue in the face about yin or yang, but may never be comfortable enough with paradox or ambiguity to accept the mindfuck that would be yinyang. (I use these terms not representing any religious or spiritual idea, but just the idea that opposites are interconnected and possibly indistinguishable)

Admittedly I think I understand you better for this post, and see where that ambiguity lies... not in choosing to learn about the mind and consciousness - which you still do - but rather in the question of how the qualia is produced; I could take your stance and happily continue to study the brain and the mind, but just stop asking about how the qualia is produced? Is that what you mean?

It's important to differentiate between content and existence. In the context of human life, and with science and knowledge of brains, throwing all that out would be counterproductive. Obviously, drugs or brain damage will affect the way one experiences. In looking at why there IS a mind, whatever its form or content, rather than a lack of mind, then one must ask-- why would things, which are objects, develop a subjective perspective? What is it about the universe that allows this even to be possible?

My position is that mind is essential, rather than incidental, to the universe. And because of the "bridge" problem, dualism is out, and there are three possible positions only:
1) Physical monism
2) Idealistic monism
3) Something that is paradoxically neither but both of those things

If I have to choose a monism, I'd choose the 2nd, since Physical monism does such a piss-poor job of explaining the existence of mind, but Idealism has no problem accepting that some ideas are form, change over time, have properties, etc.

QM is interesting, because it hints (at least to me) that paradox itself may be part of the fabric of the universe: that things which cannot possibly be mind are mind and vice versa: a kind of universal mind-stuff. And why not? We've gotten over light being a wave, a particle, a thing, and an unresolved wave function; it is all of those, and somehow none of them, at the same time. We've accepted the idea that the solid-seeming desk in front of me is 99.9999999999% empty space, and that even the .0000000001% is made of "stuff" that cannot really be said to have a well-defined volume or shape, even hypothetically, but is really more of a mathematical function.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that bullets hitting brains is a little more convincing than your position, Benny.  Can't help it.  

[bennyboy]

I have an addendum, "but I know not -what- I am".

Yes.

 But that's an aside.   Do you understand why your claim that idealism subsumes materialism is problematic now?  You managed to quote me, respond to me, and not comment at all.  I'll repeat;

"This stuff is insufficient to explain "x", and idealism works just like it."

If you take the universe as brute fact, you have to explain mind, but cannot. If you take idealism as brute fact, you do not really need to make a special explanation for the physical universe: it is a collection of ideas. So no, the advantage of Idealism isn't so much that you can explain, but that there is no logical conflict which NEEDS to be explianed.

Then how have you determined -me- to be conscious?  

Only a conscious entity could argue in such annoying ways!

Why is "physical" even in this response?  Their mannerisms.  Full stop.  That seems to be how you've determined that I am conscious.

Not really. I extend the concept of self to those who seem similar to me. If I know someone has a CPU in their head, then that sense of similarity will be out the window. It could be possible that I could meet an android, and believe it to be human, and accept that it has a mind, and then have a philosophical crisis when it skins its face and I'm staring at Valentine.

Wanna know my position, on that?  I think that regardless of whether or not a machine could have a mind, a consciousness... it would have a human mind or consciousness.  I think that it may be convincing, but not convincingly human.  I;m able to pick up tiny little differences in other humans that let me know they may be a little "less than human" as it were......pretty sure a machine couldn't pull off an act any more convincingly.  Basically, I'm guessing that a native speaker of an awfully specific and quirky local dialect as "human" is going to be able to recognize an out of towner...even if they have plenty of occasion to comment upon how great his accent and inflection have become since learning our language.  Perhaps we agree here, if nowhere else?

That's one of the beauties of the blind in the test...for ai... we can't know those details that might give it away obviously.  Removes our bias.

The problem with that is obvious-- that not having a sufficient understanding of what mind is, where it is, or why it exists, you might be convincing yourself that a machine is conscious (by which I mean it subjectively experiences qualia) when in fact it does not.

(also, get rekt noob i'm in all the bushes, you can't know that I'm not!  You gonna lol after work?)

shrooms everywhere, huh? Yeah, I will, but remember my time zone.

[bennyboy]

I think that bullets hitting brains is a little more convincing than your position, Benny.  Can't help it.  

Nope.  Still just experiences.  Nobody says you can't die in the Matrix or the Mind of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

You and I find different things convincing.  We may never agree on that.  Your claim, however, that materialism can't account for x...... and idealism works just like it...is irrational.

[Losty]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Sorry... I wanted to contribute.

[Edwardo Piet]

#adorablebestestkitten

[bennyboy]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Sorry... I wanted to contribute.

The good news is that you've made as much forward progress as we have.

[bennyboy]

You and I find different things convincing.  We may never agree on that.  Your claim, however, that materialism can't account for x...... and idealism works just like it...is irrational.

Idealism doesn't work just like it.  It sub-suuuuuuumes it.  Sub-suuuuuummmes, mind you.