Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (self-awareness) Message-ID: <1680@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 21:41:04 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1680 Posted: Thu Sep 12 21:41:04 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 05:16:48 EDT References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <1605@pyuxd.UUCP> <491@spar.UUCP> <1635@pyuxd.UUCP> <1128@ames.UUCP> <514@spar.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 77 > Imagine futuristic experimenters somehow temporarily disabling various > brain functions and using some standard criterion to test for awareness. > But what objective criterion is there? Do we ask the subject if they are > aware? Or do we ask afterwards whether they recall events that > transpired during the experiment? [ELLIS] If (and only if) consciousness involves some non-physical component, then this would be the only way. But this is like saying the only way we can find out what is wrong with a buggy program is to get it to "tell" us what is wrong with it. Ever read a dump, Mike? It's not my idea of fun, but it can be done, and is, more often than I might like. For your claim to have any veracity, you must assume the point that a "dump" of the brain, coupled with proper knowledge of how to "read" it, would not generate the same type of information that reading an operating system dump might give us. And I still contend that you make this assumption to reach the conclusion you want regarding brains and minds. Which is an ass backwards way to think. > Regardless, let us suppose that our futuristic experimenters discover a > definite mental structure that is responsible for the human subjective > experience of awareness. Maybe it would even be implementable on digital > computers, maybe not. (BTW, Searle has strong arguments to the contrary..) Care to elaborate on them rather than just mentioning them in passing as if that alone lends some sort of legitimacy to it? It would be appreciated. > There is still no way whatsoever to demonstrate that some other > radically different kind of structure might not also work as well -- > after all, the only aware entities we are certain of are humans -- > although I believe animals and maybe plants share this trait with us, to > varying degrees. There is also no reason to assume that the reason my parakeet is missing and there are feathers in my cat's mouth is that nanoscopic aliens from the 23rd dimension entered my house, neutralized my cat with a time displacement transfuser and digital synthesizer, disintegrated the bird with a Radio Shack combination nuclear tambourine/microwave transmiitter/CD player, and stuffed real bird feathers in my cat's mouth. If I have a vested interest in "proving" that aliens from the 23rd dimension shop at Radio Shack, I might choose to make this assumption. > How can we say for certain that an arbitrarily complex heap of chemicals > is not subjectively experiencing conscious awareness (perhaps even > qualitatively similar to our own) even though the result of structures > profoundly different from anything found in ourselves? We can't. Perhaps the rock you tripped over last week was hurt as much as you were. Can you describe the mechanism by which it senses and feels all this? > This issue of kinds of knowledge -- objective vs subjective -- is where > science SETS ITS OWN LIMITS of observation, and it is where I find > strictly materialistic philosophical schemes inadequate for > understanding my own human existence. Is the limit "objective vs. subjective", or is it "documentable and verifiable vs. non- ..."? If your hypothetical experimenters had enough knowledge to go into your brain and determine the ACCURACY of your subjective ideas, and found them based not on facts but on preconceptions, what would you say then? > Please note -- that I am not claiming that materialistic thinking > is invalid; on the contrary, science would probably never have made any > advances whatsoever unless subjectivism were discarded in the laboratory. > Clearly research into the functioning of the brain will never go anywhere > without the assumption that all explanations must be objective -- as > rational relationships among physical entities. BRA-VO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Philosophy, the love of wisdom, must never acquiesce to the axioms and > definitions of any single viewpoint -- materialistic or otherwise. > Instead, philosophy should be a tool for mutual comprehension of all > modes of thought. Does this mean philosophy should ignore the truth, the realities of the world, in favor of propositions about how some might prefer to see the world? -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr