Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:14 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
#1
The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
A philosophical zombie is not necessarily a person without consciousness that is physically indistinguishable from a non-zombie as that assumes dualism is true right from the beginning. A philosophical zombie can also be a person without consciousness, who regardless of physical brain differences, is behaviorally indistinguishable from a human being. The point being that regardless of brain differences, the actual consciousness that resides in the brain doesn't appear to be doing anything.

True, full-blown epiphenomenalism must be false simply because having a conversation about consciousness can only happen if consciousness exists, so that means consciousness has the effect at least of leading people to talk about it... so full-blown epiphenomenalism is false.

However, a moth's navigating system has the effect of having moths suicide themselves on lamps because they gets confused and behave as if it's the moon. But this does not imply that suiciding yourself on lamps as a moth is at all useful to the moth. It's an effect, sure, but a useless byproduct that doesn't cause any useful behavior. That's my view on consciousness. And that's what the science seems to show. The scientific experiments on free will for instance: That show that in the case of all decision making the unconscious aspects of the brain appear to be doing 100% of the work, and your brain has already decided unconsciously before 'you' your conscious self, has even become aware.

This is why the philosophical zombie argument is important. It's to show that consciousness doesn't seem to be actually doing anything useful or having any effect on our decision making. It seems to be a completely useless byproduct of evolution.... people could be behaviorally indistinguishable without consciousness it seems. So the hard problem is, why does it exist at all? Is it just a byproduct? It clearly has something to do with the brain and neuronal function.

That said, I am really starting to critique this so-called "radical emergence" idea. And that is on one instance where I think I actually agree with Dennett. I think. More problems on that later. Where I agree is who says that neuronal activity can't actually just be identical to consciousness? Sure we experience those neurons as, shapes and colors and whatever. As phenomenology. But I don't understand this "radical emergence" idea, that consciousness has to be produced from brain activity. Why can't it just be brain activity? Why does there have to be a finish line? And then this gets me thinking because what Dennett means by "user illusion" is of course that our subjective experience is just a convenient way of experiencing those neurons. That is the "user illusion". It's a useful function like the screen on your laptop.

But is it really... useful? What function?

As well as the fact I disagree with Dennett that philosophical zombies are impossible in all senses: Where I depart from Dennett is when he says there is no such thing as "real seeming", as if just because a subjective experience is subjective then it isn't really real. At which point I would ask him does he really have an imagination at all, because seen as his imagination is imaginary doesn't that mean he can't imagine anything? Of course not. He has an imagination. There's two senses of real: Real as opposed to absent and real as opposed to imaginary. And I think he is conflating the two. Of course seeming is real.

More than that... seeming is the ONLY thing that we know to be real. The whole universe could be an illusion, but subjective experience can't be. We could be mistaken about everything, but not our own consciousness itself.

This is where I think Dennett goes wrong. He can say what he likes about how conscious experience isn't something that is produced from the brain, because it's the fame in the brain tiself, and the idea that it emerges that's a user illusion . . . but it doesn't make conscious experience itself illusory. Seeming not only has to be real, it's the one thing we know to be real. He wrote a paper called "The absence of phenomenology", his view got less and less extreme but he used to outright deny consciousness by saying things like "It's just not there." He's spoke of how "there seems to be phenonmenology but it does not follow that there really is phenomenology". But of course it follows. As Searle said "If it consciously seems to you that you are conscious... you are conscious." And as Searle says, to paraphrase him... we make distinctions about illusions and reality by talking about the difference between how something actually is and how it seems to be. But with seeming itself you can't make that distinction.

More than seeming just being real.... is there any evidence at all of anything non-experiential at all? Where? When? What would it look like? (oh shit it can't look like anything) Even all the readings in science using whatever tools, using whatever equations, they're all indirect ways of experiencing things through our senses. There's evidence of less and less consciousness, but when has anyone ever experienced non-experience? (obviously never as that's logically impossible). And empirical evidence is experience-based, and reasoning goes on in the mind which is experiential.... so, my final point is where is the evidence of the non-experiential? When people dream, they're conscious on some level. Even people in a coma seem to have consciousness going on at some low level .And to quote Bertrand Russell on that matter, from his paper Mind and Matter:

Bertrand Russell Wrote:We know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience.

So my opinions are:

Physicalism is true.
Philosophical zombies that are physically identical to human beings but without consciousness are impossible.
Philosophical zombies that are behaviorally identical to human beings but without consciousness are possible.
Epiphenomenalism in its strongest form can't be true because consciousness at least has the effect of having us talk about it.
However, consciousness doesn't have any effects that are actually useful or actually cause our behavior.
Our behavior is ultimately determined by 'unconscious' features of the brain (or considerably less conscious features of the brain).
"Radical emergence" doesn't seem to make any sense but it doesn't seem to be required either.
Saying that subjectivity isn't real or that there is no "real seeming" is the silliest thing to be said by anyone ever.
There doesn't seem to ever be any evidence of the non-experiential, or anything other than seeming.
Reply
#2
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
Seems like this has been consuming alot of your time, recently.  

Personally, I would caution against any notion that consciousness does nothing and provides no benefit.  There are many evolutionary pathways to flight, or any other number of functional spaces for adaptation, as well.  It might be that behavior x is possible some other way (even many other ways), as it is with different types and paths to wings or flight, for example...but it would be a reach to then say that the specific manner in which a creature achieves behavior x is therefore useless.

Moths navigation is a prime example of this, despite being pointed to as a counterfactual. The phenomenon is know as transverse orientation. Though it could be that the chemical composition of some light sources release compound analogs to moth pheromone..as it does for some species and some light sources. Or maybe it's both of these things and some other thing, or, in specific species neither of these things and some other thing (caveat emptor). It's not the only behavior that seems counterproductive in a changing environment.
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!
Reply
#3
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
wut ?
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply
#4
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
On the contrary, the scientific evidence actually supports the idea that consciousness doesn't do anything useful. For starters there's the scientific experiments I mentioned. And that's just the start.

Take a look at this for example:

Galen Strawson on his review of the Dennett book Consciousness Explained Wrote:Moving from the how to the why, Dennett suggests that we can give an evolutionary explanation of why conscious experience exists: it exists because it has survival value. It is, however, a notorious fact that it is not yet possible to give a direct evolutionary explanation of the existence of conscious experience. This may seem very implausible. It may seem obvious that vision, say, has survival value. But a creature could enjoy all the benefits of vision without having any actual, conscious visual experience. It could have light-sensitive organs that enabled it to register information about its environment without having any visual experience (machines that do this can be easily constructed). The same can be said about pain. Experience of pain seems obviously useful because it motivates one to avoid sources of damage. But the tendency to avoid sources of damage could evolve without involving pain. Damage-recognition mechanisms could trigger damage-source-avoidance behaviour without there having to be any actual feeling of  pain, or any other sort of experience. Perhaps some actual organisms on earth are like this.
Reply
#5
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
(April 21, 2018 at 10:37 am)Hammy Wrote: On the contrary, the scientific evidence actually supports the idea that consciousness doesn't do anything useful. For starters there's the scientific experiments I mentioned. And that's just the start.

Take a look at this for example:

Galen Strawson on his review of the Dennett book Consciousness Explained Wrote:Moving from the how to the why, Dennett suggests that we can give an evolutionary explanation of why conscious experience exists: it exists because it has survival value. It is, however, a notorious fact that it is not yet possible to give a direct evolutionary explanation of the existence of conscious experience. This may seem very implausible. It may seem obvious that vision, say, has survival value. But a creature could enjoy all the benefits of vision without having any actual, conscious visual experience. It could have light-sensitive organs that enabled it to register information about its environment without having any visual experience (machines that do this can be easily constructed). The same can be said about pain. Experience of pain seems obviously useful because it motivates one to avoid sources of damage. But the tendency to avoid sources of damage could evolve without involving pain. Damage-recognition mechanisms could trigger damage-source-avoidance behaviour without there having to be any actual feeling of  pain, or any other sort of experience. Perhaps some actual organisms on earth are like this.
-again, while it may be possible that a creature could have all the benefits of what we describe as vision without conscious experience of vision..this is a moot point..because that's not how we do vision.
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!
Reply
#6
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
(April 21, 2018 at 10:28 am)Khemikal Wrote: Moths navigation is a prime example of this, despite being pointed to as a counterfactual.  The phenomenon is know as transverse orientation.  Though it could be that the chemical composition of some light sources release compound analogs to moth pheromone..as it does for some species and some light sources.  Or maybe it's both of these things and some other thing, or, in specific species neither of these things and some other thing (caveat emptor).  It's not the only behavior that seems counterproductive in a changing environment.

Thanks for strawmanning but proving my actual point (as always). The navigation is useful but the byproduct of suiciding yourself is useless. In the same way, the brain is useful but consciousness is a useless byproduct.
Reply
#7
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
If you say so.
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!
Reply
#8
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
(April 21, 2018 at 10:38 am)Khemikal Wrote: -again, while it may be possible that a creature could have all the benefits of what we describe as vision without conscious experience of vision..this is a moot point..because that's not how we do vision.

And that's the user illusion that Dennett speaks of that I already spoke about. It doesn't make philosophical zombies incoherent or the hard problem not a problem... but at the same time radical emergence seems silly and there doesn't seem to be any of evidence of anything but seeming. And the idea that there is no "real seeming" is the silliest claim of all time.

The point is that this "user illusion" appears to be a completely useless user illusion... unlike our computer desktop. And his analogy fails because he claims that there is no real seeming, but he doesn't claim that the computer screen isn't really there.

(April 21, 2018 at 10:41 am)Khemikal Wrote: If you say so.

Well, the scientific evidence is on my side..... as is the logic. All that's on your side is strawmanning my points. You're the least useful person to participate on my thread and the last person I wanted here (MK would be incoherent and nonsensical as fuck but even he wouldn't strawnman all my points to the level you do), but hey, I can't stop you participating... there's a rule against that, so go for it. You still suck though.
Reply
#9
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
Your issues with dennet are your issues with dennet.  I've given up on trying to crack that nut.  I'm simply pointing out that you interpretation of science being "on your side" begins with a fundamental, but subtle mistake.  That if there were some other way to achieve x, or that if x had bundled risks or functional defects..x would be useless.

There's no need for me to strawman you, because I agree with you...there are many ways life has found to achieve behavior x.

Let me ask you this, would you consider a brainless consciousness ( or intelligence, for that matter) useful..if it produced the behaviors, or at least some behavior, we take to be useful in ourselves? In a previous context, are wings the benefit, or is flight the benefit?
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!
Reply
#10
RE: The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential
(April 21, 2018 at 10:54 am)Khemikal Wrote: Your issues with dennet are your issues with dennet.  I've given up on trying to crack that nut.  I'm simply pointing out that you interpretation of science being "on your side" begins with a fundamental, but subtle mistake.  That if there were some other way to achieve x, or that if x had bundled risks or functional defects..x would be useless.

It's useless as the scientific experiments show... that people make all their decisions before they are conscious of them.

My issue with Dennett is that he at best defines his ontology in a ridiculous overly pramgatic way that only deals with reality when he thinks it is useful (putting him in the yucky Jordan Peterson camp) and at worst he makes a categorical logical error by equivocating on two different definitions of "real". And he makes the total non-sequitur that because conscious experience is a "user illusion" that subjectivitiy itself isn't really there. Which is just a total non-sequtiur and subjective experience is the one thing that MUST be real. He says there is no real seeming, but that is more absurd than saying there is no real objective universe.

Quote:There's no need for me to strawman you, because I agree with you...there are many ways life has found to achieve behavior x.

Oh right now it's back to your annoying tactic of saying you agree even when we plainly disagree. Literally, I don't care if you say you agree, you're saying things I disagree with, so we don't agree whether you like it or not. We may agree on one point, but we fundamentally disagree on many. And once again, you're being misleading. I am thoroughly convinced that you won the best debater category by fooling, misleading and stawmanning people because in a debate it's all your ever seem to fucking do. I'm not dense enough to miss it.

Quote:Let me ask you this, would you consider a brainless consciousness ( or intelligence, for that matter) useful.if it produced the behaviors, or at least some behavior, we take to be useful in ourselves?

No I wouldn't consider it useless if it actually did... but it doesn't. Once again, you're being irrelevant and misleading. My point is that the scientific evidence supports consciousness not actually influencing behavior.

Quote:  In a previous context, are wings the benefit, or is flight the benefit?

Crap analogy. Scientific experiments don't show that flight or wings have no benefit.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How worthless is Philosophy? vulcanlogician 125 4881 February 27, 2024 at 7:57 pm
Last Post: Belacqua
  Philosophy Recommendations Harry Haller 21 1292 January 5, 2024 at 10:58 am
Last Post: HappySkeptic
  The Philosophy Of Stupidity. disobey 51 3346 July 27, 2023 at 3:02 am
Last Post: Carl Hickey
  Does the fact that many non-human animals have pituitary disprove Cartesian Dualism? FlatAssembler 36 1988 June 23, 2023 at 9:36 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Hippie philosophy Fake Messiah 19 1531 January 21, 2023 at 1:56 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Understanding the rudiment has much to give helps free that mind for further work. highdimensionman 16 1033 May 24, 2022 at 6:31 am
Last Post: highdimensionman
  [Serious] Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study? Disagreeable 238 11815 May 21, 2022 at 10:38 am
Last Post: highdimensionman
  Metaethics Part 1: Cognitivism/Non-cognitivism Disagreeable 24 1461 February 11, 2022 at 6:46 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  My philosophy about Religion SuicideCommando01 18 2514 April 5, 2020 at 9:52 pm
Last Post: SuicideCommando01
  In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order Acrobat 84 6907 August 30, 2019 at 3:02 pm
Last Post: LastPoet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)