Epiphenomenalism — petrichor
Experience is undeniable, yes. But unconscious billiard balls can experience impacts, and unconscious computers can experience changes in state or configuration, analogous to our messier brain shivers. — bongo fury
Second, and I suspect this is the real issue, are emergent properties (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/) and your use of `cause'. You can say that fluid dynamics caused a tornado, and that a tornado caused some damage. Or you could say the fluid dynamics caused the damage. People won't mind if you're talking about tornados. I think that many of the scientists you're criticising would say that consciousness is emergent like a tornado. — GrahamJ
Right. Brain tissue is metabolically expensive and it doesn't make sense in evolutionary terms that neurology supporting non-causal consciousness would evolve. — wonderer1
I voted for '1' as the closest fit. I'm not too sure about the "epiphenomenal" part, though. I think all causes are physical and I think consciousness both evolved and is causal (or at least the neuronal processes associated with consciousness are). — Janus
Epiphenomenalism
— petrichor
Oh come now that can't be a word. — Outlander
On a broader point, your current premises of "feeling pain" being different than "responding to stimuli" is lacking in merit. And that's a charitable view at best. — Outlander
One is a case of weak emergence, or simply different levels of description, and the other is a case, if of emergence, of strong emergence, which is much harder to justify. — petrichor
Do you believe that billiard balls experience impacts in the same sense that football players experience impacts? — petrichor
I can't imagine how, if there is actually no experience, there could be a situation where it nevertheless seems that there is an experience. — petrichor
I can't imagine how, if there is actually no [theatre in the head], there could be a situation where it nevertheless seems that there is [a theatre in the head]. — petrichor
I voted for '1' as the closest fit. I'm not too sure about the "epiphenomenal" part, though. I think all causes are physical and I think consciousness both evolved and is causal (or at least the neuronal processes associated with consciousness are). — Janus
The difference here would be that the neuronal processes associated with consciousness are causal, but the actual feeliness of the world is not. — Moliere
If you think consciousness (I read subjectivity) is real and is causal, and also that all causes are physical (I read objective), what does this mean? Isn't all the behavior fully accounted for by the low-level, non-conscious physical causes? Doesn't any appeal to any conscious causes amount to overdetermination? — petrichor
It's so much simpler than that. How can anything that doesn't make any difference make a difference to survival? — petrichor
Given the complexity of the human brain, comprehending it theoretically and thereby eliminating dysfunctions produced by the brain's organic defects probably requires more-than-human-intelligence (via cognitive augmentation and/or AGI). Technical capabilities of indefinitely postponing human senescence (i.e. disease & aging) is worth the price / risk of "them understanding us better than we understand ourselves" (or them), no? I think so. — 180 Proof
Isn't thinking, reasoning and other purely mental faculties, which are non-physical in nature, also causes? Don't they also affect behavior?All causes are physical. A full explanation of behavior can be given by a purely physical, third-person description of the objective situation without any appeal to subjective experience. — petrichor
No. Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. For example : a motivated physical sperm is obviously alive, but typically shows minimal signs of consciousness : its movement seems to be directed mostly by external forces in the womb, which guide its thrashing toward the uterus, where it accidentally bumps into the oosphere. And its penetration into the egg is controlled primarily by the cell-wall of the ovum. But once the twain have become one, a transformation occurs : motion & control (energy & organization) are combined into a cybernetic organism : input > output > feedback > modified output. Internal & external energy/information are integrated into a teleological system, with a mind/purpose of its own, so to speak.Epiphenomenalism: Consciousness, though real, and though its form is determined by physical events, has no causal power. It doesn't influence behavior. All causes are physical. A full explanation of behavior can be given by a purely physical, third-person description of the objective situation without any appeal to subjective experience. — petrichor
The two most popular options in this poll accept that Consciousness (C) is an immaterial causal phenomenon, but differ on how it came to be whatever it is : natural selection or other (divine ensoulment?). One option A> views Sentience as an emergent feature of the gradually developing world, while the other B> seems to assume that it is an otherworldly (unnatural) introduction into an otherwise natural process. So, A> is fairly conventional secular philosophy, while B> is closer to religious theology. Is that a fair assessment?We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness evolved by natural selection.
30%
We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness did not evolve by natural selection
35% — petrichor
Clarification: so you are a substance dualist?Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. — Gnomon
# Substance Dualist? :Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. — Gnomon
Clarification: so you are a substance dualist?
If not, what non-trivially distinguishes "physical events" from "metaphysical interactions"?
If so, how do you solve 'the interaction problem' and account for the apparent violation of the physical substance's Conservation Laws (i.e. causal closure)? — 180 Proof
Okay, again I askI'm a Substance Monist. — Gnomon
So you are a (non-Cartesian :roll:) substance dualist after all, Gnomon, as you distinguish between "act of creation" and "creation" (or "design" and "designed" ... "immaterial" and "material")... what non-trivially distinguishes "physical events" from "metaphysical interactions"? — 180 Proof
... in effect, invoking Aristotle's (down-to-earth version of Platonic duality) 'teleological hylomorphism'. How latter-day Scholastic (i.e. :sparkle:-of-the-gaps) of you ...Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed. — Gnomon
Of course. Why wouldn't it?Does Immanentism allow for an eternal "Multiverse", or "Big Bounce" scenarios, [ ... ]?
This is why I can't have a philosophical dialog with you. I take your questions seriously, and provide long detailed answers. But you respond only with scorn, casting disrespectful aspersions on the intelligence & integrity of the questioner. That's an evasive Trump-like political counter-attack, not a Socratic dialogue. :cool:latter-day Scholastic (i.e. :sparkle:-of-the-gaps) of you ...
Of course. Why wouldn't it? — 180 Proof
If that were so, then you would have given "detailed answers" instead of just more of your usual run-on gibberish. The fact is, Gnomon, you're intellectually allergic to direct questions put to your idiosyncratic confusions and never give "detailed answers" to them, such asI take your questions seriously, and provide long detailed answers. — Gnomon
C'mon, Gnomon, rectify this failing on your part by giving succinct, direct answers to my questions either in my previous post and/or in these old posts linked above (or show that the questions are invalid in someway/s).
It doesn't influence behavior. — petrichor
OK. As usual, my unconventional & idiosyncratic answers are "invalid" from your authoritarian perspective. So, tell me what answers --- to your three questions --- you want to hear, and I'll feed them back to you, to see If I understand them. Parrots are succinct, because they simply repeat what they hear from others. Novel ideas require more verbiage to demonstrate the "difference that makes a difference".C'mon, Gnomon, rectify this failing on your part by giving succinct, direct answers to my questions either in my previous post ↪180 Proof
and/or in these old posts linked above (or show that the questions are invalid in someway/s). — 180 Proof
saying consciousness evolved by natural selection says almost nothing about it - everything else evolved by natural selection, ok, now what? We should attempt to give some account as to why it exists, what does it do and so on. — Manuel
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.