Mindfulness or Mindlessness?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Within the framework of functionalism it is coherent to say that a thermostat desires to reach its set point. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the value of functionalism IMO.

[Angrboda]

Wow. Look at all that sauce!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, the thread just seemed to be getting a little too tepid. :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

It may be more accurate (of functionalism) to say that a system desires to reach a set point determined by a thermostat to get the gist of what the statement communicates. Multiple realizability.

If to have a desire is to possess some particular state - say..mine..then nothing else can desire anything. Not you, not any other person, not a thermostat. Just me, as I'm the only possessor of that particular state. Functionalists don't see it that way...and it doesn't seem to be the case. It allows for desire in more than just me. It allows you to have desire, it allows other animals to have desire, and..yeah, it would allow machines to have desire as well...though, that's a bit redundant in context. Even though my state and your state (and everyone elses state) aren't identical...we tend to allow for them all being "desire". To a functionalist, "desire" is whatever it is that does that, in you me or a toaster.

As a consequence of this...explaining consciousness may not explain human consciousness.and explaining human consciousness may not explain consciousness. Knowing the nuts and bolts of an individual brain may provide relatively little insight into the next, and brains aren't required for consciousness. Just something that does the things our brains do.

[HappySkeptic]

Information processers can consider all manner of things without possessing anything we'd call consciousness.  A pzombie can be subbed for any machine that mimics aspects of human behavior.  

You consciously experience making toast..or so we all say...but the toaster makes toast without that.  The question immediately arises.  If you can make toast without being conscious....why are you conscious?

I assume the answer is that we need to do more than make toast.  It isn't the number of things we can do that makes us conscious.  It is our consciousness that allows us to do many things.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can dial the number up and down, it'd just be a different toaster. The question goes directly to the evolutionary advantage of consciousness over mere processing. Sure, being able to do stuff, and alot of stuff..is great. However, what is great or meaningfully different about being able to do stuff, alot of stuff - and being conscious.

[Neo-Scholastic]

We can dial the number up and down, it'd just be a different toaster.  The question goes directly to the evolutionary advantage of consciousness over mere processing.  Sure, being able to do stuff, and alot of stuff..is great.  However, what is great or meaningfully different about being able to do stuff, alot of stuff - and being conscious.

Maybe you could clarify. Are you asking what the difference is between something that acts intentionally and something at acts as if it was intentional? Is your position with respect to consciousness is that if something quacks and walks like a duck then it must be a duck, i.e. if something acts sentient that indicates that it is?

Also, just an FYI, in his book, Mind & Cosmos, Thomas Nagel contends that there is a second problem: if consciousness is, at best epiphenomenal, then how could natural selection somehow favor it...at least in the case of humans.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can dial the number up and down, it'd just be a different toaster.  The question goes directly to the evolutionary advantage of consciousness over mere processing.  Sure, being able to do stuff, and alot of stuff..is great.  However, what is great or meaningfully different about being able to do stuff, alot of stuff - and being conscious.

Maybe you could clarify. Are you asking what the difference is between something that acts intentionally and something at acts as if it was intentional? Is your position with respect to consciousness is that if something quacks and walks like a duck then it must be a duck, i.e. if something acts sentient that indicates that it is?

Also, just an FYI, in his book, Mind & Cosmos, Thomas Nagel contends that there is a second problem: if consciousness is, at best epiphenomenal, then how could natural selection somehow favor it...at least in the case of humans.

That's more the question of functionalism than my own, really.   But only because I have an axiomatic answer and functionalism doesn't.  

But, sure, I can clarify.  You probably don't think that whatever particular brain state amounts to desire..in me...is identical (or even could be identical) to the one in you for the same.  You might think that consciousness is more than just brain states, too...but..certainly, even if it were just brain states, you're unlikely to believe that either of us have identical brain states.  Still...you think that you desire, and you think that I desire.  

The semantics of state and specificity do not allow for this...not just with brain states...but soul states too - if there were such a thing.  Functionalism does.  In fact, functionalism is the only productive and contemporary theory of consciousness of any kind which allows for exactly the kinds of consciousness which you might, specifically as a theist, prefer. Dis-emobodied, non human, or omnipotent agents...? Why not, under functionalism. Impossible by definition under state theory. The states being referred to must be specifically our own and those states don't allow for non human conscuiousness, let alone a disembodied and/or omnipotent ones.

Which is why it's so amusing to see objections. But, yeah, it's a good question. What does being conscious of processing which accomplishes some task provide that wasn't already supplied in the doing of the thing - which is the fundamental contention of functionalism to begin with. That a description of such a thing is a description of a function.

[HappySkeptic]

An interesting article on the evolution of consciousness.  It doesn't answer how consciousness works, but does try to explain how consciousness evolved and what it does for us.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a-new...ket-newtab

[Neo-Scholastic]

Read the whole thing. To me it seemed like another evolution just-so story and side-stepped the mind-body problem.