Re: We Robot

On Sep 24, 4:28 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:35 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 23 Sep, 23:23, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 23, 2:47 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

You may have noticed that this was highlighted in
the paragraph that preceded them:

--------------
To help us investigate we shall construct potential stories which fall
with a general category that assumes that something that does
consciously experience could have its behaviour described in terms of
the same laws of physics that would describe the behaviour of
something that doesn't.

Good grief.

Damn few people think that consciousness doesn't affect behavior.
That's the *purpose* of consciousness; to move an organism about in
the environment and otherwise behave in ways that enhance it's
reproductive success. This is a strawman.

Nor are there many people who think that behavior of intelligent
creatures is explicable in terms of physics. My wife's degree is in
psychobiology; behavior is partially explainable by chemistry. Much is
not. Being *subject to physics (as everything is) doesn't mean that
physics should be used to try to explain it. This si as least one
fallacy, but I'm not sure which.

As you did months ago, you construct an imaginary world with your
conditions true by definition, then "conclude" that your conditions
are necessary and true. Begging the question.

Is your turgid prose a device to hide your weak arguments from us, or
from yourself?

If you point out which bits you are having trouble understanding I
will try to help you out.

The paper shows that that the suggestion that something that does
consciously experience could have its behaviour described in terms of
the same laws of physics that would describe the behaviour of
something that doesn't, is implausible.

I agree that it is implausible that:
Physics can be used to explain behavior.

It's not clear what you are trying to say.

If you are claiming that physicalists would typically insist that a
conscious entity and a non-conscious entity can be identical, no they
would not. I don't know of any who would say so, altho there may be
some. It is the dualist who would say this. You are using your
intended conclusion as a premiss.

If the mind is one characteristic of physical events (e.g. if the mind
and brain activity are one and the same),
then a conscious entity cannot be physically identical to a non-
conscious entity.

If you think that mind can be independent of physical activities, then
please present  evidence for it.

Thought experiments which assume your conclusion do not establish
anything.

If you agree then fine, if you
disagree then feel free to point out where the conclusions drawn in
the paper were wrong. Feel free to point out where the strawman
argument is in the paper, or where it begs the question, or where
there is any other fallacy.

Try shorter, simpler, sentences. The one I responded to above has
several implicit assumptions interwoven in a confusing manner. To wit:
Few people suggest that the science of physics can explain the mind.
Meteorology does not explain snake venom, nor does archaeology explain
the cold snap last spring that killed several plants in my garden.

Physics certainly underlies the brain functioning that secretes the
mind. Physics to the mind is not the same as meteorology is to snake
venom or archaeology is to a cold snap. It just not feasible to
analyze much of mental function at the much lower levels of physics
except to the degree that one can address biochemistry as a science
thats a little higher level explanation heavily dependent upon
physics. Physics likewise undergirds meteorology, archaeology and the
action of various types of snake venom. It's not always necessary to
take explanations down to that low a level though, when higher level
explanations suffice.

Physicalists do not typically suggest that people and mindless zombies
would be physically identical. If they did suggest this, they would be
dualists of some sort.

I would say people and zombies differ physically in some way. In the
zombie movies there is something required to cause a transformation to
the zombie state.

Any science (e.g. psychobiology) which would be sufficient to explain
a person's behavior would not say that consciousness played no role in
his behavior. Nor would it claim that a conscious person and a
mindless zombie were physically identical. Nor that a mindless person
(e.g. comatose) would *have any significant behavior. You cannot claim
they would say otherwise and then "proceed" to prove they are wrong.

It's tragic, but brain deteriorating conditions like senile dementia
or the effects of malignant metastasis to the brain pretty much
support that what makes us ourselves stems from brain function. If
anyone has had a relative forget who they are because of an advanced
deteriorating brain condition, they know first hand what I'm saying.

If you think that psychobiology cannot explain the mind in principle,
then it is up to you to provide evidence for that claim. As it is, the
brain sciences are learning more and more about how this all works,
and there is no reason to think that there is any ultimate limit to
its explanatory power.

Yes, a full understanding of human behavior requires some knowledge of
neurobiology. But I would not discount social psychologists or
historians. Historians often make little mention of the neural or
psychophysical components of what they study. It would almost be
absurd to get to that sort of obsessive level of analysis. But
historians can write stuff that helps us learn more about what it has
been like to be human. The same goes for biographers.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... There is no coincidence involved. ... signal that the brain interprets as a color. ... process in the brain that produces consciousness. ... If physics and chemistry are correct, then there can be no evolutionary ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The definition of consciousness
    ... >> Perhaps consciousness is a real phenomenon? ... > underlying degree of this uncertainty is, in the mind of the proposer. ... Event-related skin conductance responses to musical emotions in humans. ... There are other aspects of physics that should be further investigated for a ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... Below you say that material brain activity is associated ... The experience of consciousness? ... and it would require its own Physics to work. ... they have faith in philosophical materialism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... If it's 'secret' or driven by God it's not free will is it? ... developments in physics and neuroscience. ... Eccles's philosophy of mind: ... has shown that the mind is created by the brain... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Magnetic Monopoles Found? Dual-Slit Expe Explained?
    ... energy coming from the "soul" to the physical organism. ... the heart and another part of the brain. ... to the relationship of the mind and the world. ... the way to their lawyers too and I need the physics of qi to ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading