Rex Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Brent Meeker<meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> Where are you trying to get? to an immortal soul?
>> a ghost-in-the-machine? What's wrong with my
>> mind is what my brain does?
>
> Where I'm trying to get is that there is no explanation for our
> conscious experience. It just is.
Depends on what you want an explanation in terms of.
>
> So all that we have to work with are our observations, plus our innate
> reasoning processes.
>
> Unfortunately, these two things are not enough to determine what, if
> anything, really exists outside of our experience.
>
> At best, we can take our observations and apply our innate reasoning
> processes to produce theoretical models that are consistent with what
> we have observed.
Right. Forget the really real and I'll settle for a good model.
>
> Kant covered all this I think.
>
> So first, the theories on offer, carried to their logical conclusions,
> don't take you anywhere. They all hit explanatory dead ends:
Unless (my favorite) they're circular.
>The
> universe came into being uncaused, for no reason, and everything else
> follows. Or the universe exists eternally, but with no explanation
> for why this should be or why it takes the form that it does. Or the
> platonically existing infinities of computational relations between
> all the numbers do not just represent but inexplicably "cause" our
> conscious experience of a material universe. Why? Because that's the
> way it is.
>
> Second, even if any of these things are true, there's no way that
> *from inside that system* we can justify our belief that the theory is
> true (as opposed to just consistent with conscious observation).
>
> And third, even if true, the bottom line for all of them is,
> "conscious experience just is what it is".
The problem with that is that is applies equally to everything. So it's completely devoid
of meaning.
>
> For instance: Bits of matter in particular configurations "cause"
> conscious experience. Fine. So what deeper meaning can we draw from
> this? None.
Maybe not meaning, but engineering. That's why I think the "hard problem" will eventually
be considered a philosophical curiosity like how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin. If we learn to build machines, robots, artificial brains, that behave as if they
were conscious we'll stop worrying about perceptual qualia and phenomenal self-reference
and instead we'll talk about visual processing and memory access and other new concepts
that'll be invented.
>In this case the bits of matter being in the particular
> configurations that they are in is just a bare fact. The universe,
> considered in its entirety, just is that way. So the conscious
> experience that goes with that particle configuration just is a bare
> fact.
>
> But, by all means, continue with your theoretical system building. We
> have to do something to pass the time, after all.
>
> But, to revisit your original question:
>
>> Where are you trying to get?
>
> Okay, I gave you my answer. So, where are YOU trying to get?
>
>
>>>> "If you make yourself small enough you can avoid responsibility for everything."
>>>> --- Daniel Dennett, in Elbow Room
>>> Every word in your quote, except "for", has to be considered in the
>>> context of Dennett's special terminology.
>> Seems prefectly straightforward to me. If you define yourself as something apart from the
>> physical processes that move your arms and legs then you avoid responsibility for what
>> your arms and legs do.
>
> Right. "If you define yourself as...". Well sure. That makes it
> easy, and that's what Dennett does. Just makes up arbitrary
> definitions that suit his ends.
On the contrary he was criticizing that way of defining yourself. And of course
definitions of words are arbitrary - we just chose the words.
>
> If things were that way, that's the way they'd be alright.
>
> But, the question is, are things that way? And if you say so, what's
> your full reasoning?
You're the one who keeps saying it is what it is.
Brent
>I mean your reasoning that takes into account
> the entire ontological stack of what exists, of course -- since I
> don't see any discussing an arbitrary subset of what exists that
> you've conveniently carved out to make some rhetorical point about
> what seems perfectly straightforward to you given some particular
> context.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Aug 31 2009 - 19:52:41 PDT