In other words, your experiences and perspectives are part of "objective" reality. If not, then how can you talk about your experiences and perspectives like you can talk about faces and apples? — Harry Hindu
So continuing the analogy, you cannot have a change in an electric field without a corresponding and completely determined change in a magnetic field: this is evidence that they are "two sides of the same coin".
Same goes for the neurological correlates of consciousness: you cannot (refering back to prior discussions on this thread) have the "I see Halle Berry's face" experience without the Halle-Berry's-face-detector neuron firing and, conversely, you can't have the neuron fire without seeing Halle Berry's face. (There's citations on the older thread, can dig them out with some patience.)
This as far as I'm concerned makes the claim that they are distinct things, not the same thing from two perspectives, in need of justification, in the same way that if you turned an apple 180 degrees and expected me to believe it was a distinct apple, I'd expect a good justification. The model that fits the evidence is the one in which they're the same thing. — Kenosha Kid
— bert1
(the mental just is a physical function)
This is one of those cases where materialism goes down a rabbit hole into absurdity. — RogueAI
But there are still people who believe mental states are identical to brain states. For them, a mental state isn't emergent, it just is a physical brain state. — RogueAI
I'm asking a question, using your examples. You can clear up the confusion if you weren't trying so hard to be obtuse. Again, I'm asking what you mean by "objective" and "subjective". You're using the terms, not me. We don't have to use faces and apples as examples. We could also use racism and democracy as examples, which aren't objects but we can talk about them like we talk about experiences and perspectives. So, I'm waiting for you to clear up the confusion by simply answering my questions.I think you're confused. Your argument here is that subjective experience is proof that subjective experiences are objects. — Kenosha Kid
That experiences supervene on the physical is compatible with any theory of mind, including substance dualism (I'm not a substance dualist). To spell it out in terms of substance dualism, just to make the point, there might be a lawlike relationship between physical stuff and mental stuff, such that any change in the mental stuff corresponds to a change in the physical stuff, in a consistent, lawlike way. Substance dualism is wrong for other reasons, but it's consistent with the evidence that physical neural events correspond in a very regular manner with that subject's experiences. — bert1
No neurons, no wetware, no behaviour similar to human behaviour that would allow us to infer consciousness, no? So how may perspectives on the rock are there? Just one, presumably. It has no first person perspective, the only perspective that exists is the perspective of the conscious creature looking at it — bert1
The question now is, why does a neural function have two perspectives, and a rock only one? — bert1
In other words, in claiming an identity in order solve the hard problem (the mental just is a physical function) it becomes necessary to re-introduce a dualism in order to be able to talk about subjective experiences as distinct from neurons firing, namely, the distinction between two perspectives. — bert1
How can functional interactions of things with only one perspective result in something with two perspectives? — bert1
I'm asking a question, using your examples. You can clear up the confusion if you weren't trying so hard to be obtuse. — Harry Hindu
Asking to define the terms you are using is a very common question to ask on a philosophy forum. — Harry Hindu
All you are doing is moving the goal posts. Now we need to define pain. What if I defined pain as being informed that you are damaged. — Harry Hindu
Also, I don't think there's any goalpost moving going on. I might grant you that "is x conscious?" might get bogged down in definitions, but "is x in pain?", won't. Everyone knows what that means. — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.