Comments

  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪flannel jesus


    Maybe not but it's helpful that you brought it up explicitly. Reading this thread I really felt like I was missing the point of what people were discussing.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    The experience I call "blue", the qualia if you will, doesn't have to be assigned to the things I assign it to. The qualia you experience as blue, I could experience as green. My whole colour wheel could be rotated with respect to yours, and I would still have a fully in tact, self-consistent and useful sensory experience regardless. — flannel jesus

    I am a functionalist about mental properties, so talking about "digust" or "experience" is fine but "qualia" is a good way to lose me completely. I don't believe there is a color wheel to rotate, that idea is a mistake.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪flannel jesus


    This is more of a conceptual distinction, I think what you call an "experience" I would call a "reaction" that is distinct from the smell as such. The smell/sight/sound/whatever is just the sum of information picked up by a sensory organ. So if me and a fly pick up on the same information, it is the same smell, and our different reactions are irrelevant.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    We can't both be experiencing smells "as they are" considering how viscerally different our experiences are. — flannel jesus

    What would be the problem with just saying the fly, dog or human has a different reaction to the same smell?
  • Is philosophy just idle talk?
    For me philosophy is just an intrinsically compelling activity, I've never concerned myself with its "value" or "importance".
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Ok, with this aside, let us define Direct Realism, the thesis that do indeed have direct access to the external world.

    Now let me propose a few arguments for Indirect Realism that I run. Note that all the names I'm giving these are non-standard.     — Ashriel

    Did you forget to write something in between these two paragraphs?

    Based on what you do write I'm not sure what position you're arguing against, surely no-one believes we can see anything without light, eyeballs and other "middle men"?
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    I would add that there are important ways in which consciousness is not an illusion. Emotional, experiential, rational, doxastic content, means something, points toward something true, is important. — NotAristotle

    While we may agree in denouncing illusionism, we clearly have different reasons for doing so. Like I said earlier, there are two tenets to illusionism:

    A) Phenomenological consciousness appears to be real
    B) Phenomenological consciousness is not real

    I reject A while you reject B, that's the difference.
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    A lie is an illusion is it not? Well, what misleads more, the lie or the liar? — NotAristotle

    No, a lie is not an illusion. Not everything that misleads is an illusion, anything can be misleading in theory, even the truth.

    Would you define the "consciousness" you say is not an illusion? (...) Maybe that is an unfair question because consciousness may be undefinable. — NotAristotle

    I don't think it's undefinable, it's just a word that's used a bit inconsistently.

    Consciousness has a functional component, this is pretty much undisputed, it is the functionality that a person loses when someone whacks them over the head with a mallet and they faint. Obviously this is not an illusion.

    But it is also generally taken have a qualitative or phenomenological component. This is the "interesting" part as far as philosophy of mind is concerned, but I think one should keep in mind that it is not the only part.

    why defend consciousness as not an illusion; what's at stake? Why is consciousness not being an illusion important to you? — NotAristotle

    I think illusionism is false and an obstacle to solving major problems in philosophy of mind. It's not like I have a strong emotional stake in the issue though.

    And the viewer of the illusion is the illusion itself. An illusion is fooled into thinking itself to be real. That's a heck of a magic trick! — Patterner

    Like I've told you, I don't subscribe to illusionism, I'm not going to defend the position.
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    ↪NotAristotle


    Leaving aside how negative or positive thinking affects our judgement, I would have to say your idea of an illusion seems too broad. Not everything that misleads us is an illusion, liars are not illusions for example.

    An illusion in my opinion is a kind of appearance. To say that "consciousness is an illusion" is to say that "there appears to be consciousness, but there actually isn't".
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    Negative thinking, patterns of thought, insofar as we identify these things with consciousness, it is easier to see how consciousness is an illusion; it is an illusion just as negative thinking and patterns of thought are an illusion, they are part of a script so to speak. — NotAristotle

    I'd like to hear what your idea of an illusion is for you to conclude that "negative thinking" is illusory. Is positive thinking somehow more real than negative?
  • Are all living things conscious?
    if that's all there is to it, do you mean consciousness is functionality? — Patterner

    That is how I use the word, yes.
  • Are all living things conscious?
    I'm thinking the "what it is like to be..." is due to subjective experience. Kind of the same thing. If I did not have subjective experience, there would be nothing it is like to be me. — Patterner

    I am skeptical of phenomenal properties, so if it were up to me I would strip that out of the definition, thus "salvaging" the word.

    Do you think consciousness is subjective experience, but it doesn't lead to "what it is like to be..."? If not, if you don't think consciousness is subjective experience, and you don't think it is the concept of self, then what do you think consciousness is? — Patterner

    Consciousness also has a functional component, when someone loses consciousnesses they also lose functionality. As far as I am concerned that is all there is to it.

    Apologies if you've told me this before. — Patterner

    No worries, it was many months ago on my thread about illusionism.
  • Are all living things conscious?
    I agree. I like Nagel’s definition in What is it like to be a bat? — Patterner

    I think we've talked about this already, but I don't like that definition at all. Bundling phenomenological properties into the definition kills the word for me.

    I assume you mean taught while interacting with others, which i agree with. I doubt someone raised without the slightest human contact, or interaction from whatever machines kept it alive, would develop a sense of self. Perhaps hearing ideas from outside our own heads is key to noticing self. The idea that there is no self without other. — Patterner

    Yeah pretty much, having a pet dog might be enough even. I think the usefulness of the concept comes from drawing conclusions about others from observing yourself.

    I also don't think having a concept of self is such a special thing, computers have it is as well ("This PC").

    A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. — Gnomon

    What about a roomba? They need to crawl back to their recharge station occasionally to sustain themselves.
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    You're asking the wrong person because I have the same question; I don't think consciousness is an illusion. — NotAristotle

    I know, but it seems that from your perspective denial of the reality of consciousness leads to illusionism. Did I at least get that right?
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    I'm not sure I understand the question; I guess I take it as given that an illusion is necessarily differentiable from non-illusion . — NotAristotle

    I agree, but how would you differentiate them in this case? What specifically did evolution do to trick you into believing you are conscious?
  • Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
    And, if consciousness really is an illusion, why the illusion? Wouldn't we be better equipped evolutionarily speaking to see the truth; reality as it really is. — NotAristotle

    But how would that "truthful image" even be distinguishable from one that involves the so-called illusion?
  • Are all living things conscious?
    Being conscious and having a concept of selfhood is very different, I'd say many or most animals have consciousness, I mean it makes sense to say "the dog was knocked unconscious", right?

    A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    Take an example by analogy: Imagine I gave you a bucket of colored blocks and asked you separate them into piles by color. You pick up a red one, put it in the red pile; blue, in the blue pile; etc. — Bob Ross

    The difference is, these categories do not inform me about color. I already have that understanding from some other source, in other words I already have a formula.

    But imagine if you gave to this task to someone who has no understanding of what red or blue even meant, and you tell them "red means it belongs in the red pile, blue means means it belongs in the blue pile." The person would have no clue what to do, the categories do not help at all.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    The core of this theory is that ‘the good’ and ‘the bad’ are not determined by mind-independent states-of-affairs or arrangements of entities in reality but, rather, are abstract categories, or forms, of conduct. The (mind-independent) states-of-affairs, or arrangements of entities, in reality inform us of what is right or wrong in virtue of being classified under either category. — Bob Ross

    Just like how I can separate triangles into one pile and squares into another, and more generally shapes into one pile and non-shapes into another, I, too, can put generous acts into one pile and respectful acts into another, and more generally good acts into one pile and bad acts into another. — Bob Ross

    This seems circular to me, on one hand the categories "inform us" of the particulars of good and bad, on the other the categories are empty ("there is no formula") until we stuff them with particulars.
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    Physicalism/materialism is in massive trouble if it can't find a way to get out of p-zombie open-mindedness. — RogueAI

    Being open-minded is a red flag? Why is that? Usually I find dogmatism to be a red flag.

    Indeed, and yet a necessary condition for denying the existence of my mind is the existence of my mind. — RogueAI

    Not really, you can talk to chatGTP and it will deny having a mind.
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    I cannot be wrong about not being a zombie. — RogueAI

    "I cannot be wrong", that sounds extremely dogmatic.

    Do you think you're a zombie? — RogueAI

    Sure, why not? At least it is worth considering.
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    It would be wrong in doing so, since I'm not a p-zombie. — RogueAI

    You are, given a physicalist view of human beings. Insisting that you are not is just question-begging.

    Possibly, but only if it doesn't have mental states of its own. If the alien is not a zombie, it would know mental states cannot be expressed in purely physical terms. — RogueAI

    Would you call everything which lacks phenomenological consciousness a zombie? Are rocks zombies? Why would you assume that an alien had phenomenological consciousness?
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    Could the alien figure out, from that purely physical description of my rage-induced red-light running behavior, that I am not a p-zombie? — RogueAI

    You could turn that around and say that given a physicalist understanding of human beings, the alien would conclude that you are a p-zombie, and it would be correct in doing so. Accounting for your phenomenology would be not just impossible but also redundant.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    ↪Banno
    Justification is for suckers, and if someone hassles you over it just give them my name. — Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    That's what they deserve. — Banno

    This I would call making a virtue out of necessity, that you refuse to provide justification has nothing to do with who is deserving of it or not, and everything to do with your own inability to do so.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    ↪Banno
    Yet one cannot wait until our ethical considerations are all settled and our morality derived from a foundation of certainty before one acts; That you choose not to eat babies - to return to your example - shows that you act ethically, and this despite not having the firm foundation you crave.

    What about those of us who are not here necessarily to figure out how to act on a personal level, but wish to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of moral systems purely out of intellectual curiosity? All you're giving them is a gigantic dodge.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    ↪Banno
    Not at all. But this is where Wittgenstein was heading - that at some stage the justifications have to end, and we say: "This is what we do!"

    But why must it end there? This seems like fleeing from battle while declaring your victory. Admitting that your belief is just an arbitrary dogma gets you points for honesty but not much else.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    How are such tokens (historically contingent black glyphs on a white background) even invented or exchanged by the non-inferentially blind (by us, I mean, as opposed to the traditionally blind ) ? — plaque flag

    You mean, how did we invent writing and other means of information exchange? Do you believe that without qualia, the invention and use of writing becomes inexplicable?

    Can you live your life as normal with your eyes closed ? — plaque flag

    I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I know skepticism of qualitative properties does not entail a loss of ability.

    Are you committed to a p-zombie approach to human existence? So that the meaning of your own claims doesn't exist for you first-person ?

    As far as we can say from experience, the world is only given perspectively to different sentient creatures. Denying subjectivity is just denying the being of the world.

    I say this as a direct realist who doesn't think consciousness is more than awareness of this world. I see the world and not the inside of a private bubble.     — plaque flag

    It seems you are "bundling" concepts together in a (to me) arbitrary way, such that denial of one becomes denial of all. I don't remember ever denying subjectivity, consciousness or meaning as useful concepts, if these can only make sense in relation to qualitative properties you will have to explain why.

    But like I said before this topic is a waste of time. — Darkneos

    Ok.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    But what I was trying to clarify here is whether you grant (basically) that life/experience involves a 'nonconceptual surplus.' — plaque flag

    To me "experience" is just a functional concept or abstraction. So no, there is no "surplus". And me saying this is just restating what I have already said, are you struggling to just take what I say at face value?

    I think red functions structurally and inferentially in a way that makes knowledge of red possible for those born blind, but I don't think the referent of red is exhausted by or as its role in this structure. — plaque flag

    Well, I think that it is.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    I hope I haven't been rude. — plaque flag

    No problem, don't worry.

    I'm challenging what I see as your psychologism (rationality is just rationalization) — plaque flag

    I think only in your case is it rationalization, the way I see it you are pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. You are rational because the norms of rationality compel you, that's like saying you play chess because the rules of chess say that you must play. It's just a cover-up for an arbitrary decision.

    and your functionalism (your version seems to deny the qualitative aspect of experience) — plaque flag

    This though is right on the money. I want to solve the problems of philosophy of mind, the hard problems and so on, and I do believe skepticism of phenomenal properties is the way to go.

    You mention your curiosity. Is that something you feel ? And do you not see color or feel pain ? — plaque flag

    Feeling and sight can be accounted for functionally, so yes I have feelings and yes I see colors. But the way I understand these terms is a bit different from yours, as I think I have already made pretty clear.

    To be honest I think this is a pretty shallow approach you're taking, you're basically just restating a question I've already answered. Rhetorical incredulity is not enough, if you want to show me the error of my ways I need explicit criticism.

    Just so you understand, this is how this line of questioning looks like from my perspective:

    "I heard you deny phenomenal properties, is that true?"
    "Yes."
    "But do you really?"
    "Yes."
    "But do you reeeally?
    "Yes."
    "But do you reeeeeeally?"
    etc.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    Overall you seem to be saying that you are an unfree-irresponsible meatbot or the algorithm inside it. You basically claim that pain don't hurt. You also reject the founding claim-constraining normativity of rational conversation.

    Try to see this pose you are offering from the outside. Why should one trust an amoral robot programmed by its environment when 'it' claims to be such an amoral robot ? 'I am a liar.' ' I don't care about truth.'     — plaque flag

    First off, you make it sound like I'm claiming I'm a "robot" and you're a real boy. I don't think you and me are any different really, I've made the decision to trust you despite not believing you really are compelled by the "normativity of rational conversation", based on prior experience and on my observations of your behavior, and I don't see why you can't do the same.

    Second I think we are different in how we conceptualize motivation. I do not care about truth because I am rational, I am rational because I care about truth. Like most people I have curiosity, an irrational appetite or desire to know the truth and to figure things out. But if you do think that me being an erratic liar better explains my behavior, then by all means believe that.

    I don't mean to be rude. I'm just pointing out the strangeness of you offering your opinions with a certain confidence while eroding any possible authority or interest they are likely to have. Like a drunk at a bar, satisfying with something that sounds edgy, 'unsentimentally' numb to the lack of coherence. — plaque flag

    Well I don't mind your appraisal, I just don't see the point to it. It is not enough to just claim that what I say is incoherent, you also have to show it.

    To be clear, I think you do care about truth, which is to your credit. And you are just trying to see around your culture to that transcendent truth by avoiding sentimental attachment to norms that might get in the way of that truth-seeing project. Nietzchean stuff. — plaque flag

    All right, I'll just take that as a slightly patronizing compliment.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    The issue is whether you ought to believe whatever I tell you. In short, I'm trying to get you to account for the normative dimension of the project of establishing beliefs rationally. — plaque flag

    If I am rational, it is not because I "ought" to be or some such, but because it is in my nature, just like it is in my nature to walk, breathe, eat etc. There are "oughts" to being rational in the sense that rationality is a set of norms, but there are no norms that compel me to be rational in the first place.

    Another way to put it: why would a person be proud of being a scientist ? of trusting science ? Why would a person be proud of living an examined life ? — plaque flag

    I don't think they should or should not be proud of whatever they do with their life, that's really just a psychological question. I don't think there is such a thing as a "correct" emotion to feel about anything.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    Why don't you just take my word for my claims ? Why don't you just believe what I tell you to believe ? — plaque flag

    So if I lacked autonomy I would just believe whatever you said? Are you implying that anything that lacks autonomy instead becomes perfectly obedient or amenable?
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    I'd say they couldn't do so rationally. Recall what I actually claim. — plaque flag

    Ok well, I think we just have different conceptions of rationality. Maybe I believe no-one is rational in your sense of the term. So what?

    Note that you are asking me to justify my claims (which also involves their clarification) as an expression of your autonomy. — plaque flag

    I don't understand how this is so at all. Yes I am asking you to justify your claims, yes I do believe I am being rational, I just don't see how autonomy figures into it.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    I would not have thought that I have been giving the impression that that’s what I believe. I was stating a position that some people believe that makes no sense to me. — Patterner

    You're right, sorry. Basically I just wanted to make clear I distance myself from epiphenomenalism (qualia as real, but causally impotent), so there is no need for you to argue against it.

    Did you the sign the 'member of the English speaking community' contract ? Or did you absorb its semantic norms mostly without trying ? — plaque flag

    The latter mostly, why does it matter?

    Autonomy means [ approximately ] self-rule. Rejecting the unjustified claims of other is part of that. — plaque flag

    Why? Why can't a non-autonomous being reject unjustified claims?
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    The notion of being 'rational' is essentially normative (ethical). One prides oneself on not being credulous, on [autonomously] thinking for one's self. One is ashamed to contradict oneself, embarrassed to find oneself caught in a performative contradiction. One resents being described as a kind of 'machine' that did not reasonably (autonomously) decide but was rather 'programmed' by its environment. 'You are just saying that because you are white/black, male/female, rich/poor, straight/gay.' — plaque flag

    Well I cannot speak for the thoughts and feelings of "one" but I see no contradiction whatsoever between being a product of my environment and being rational. To be rational is just to act in accordance with the norms of reason, which have nothing to do with being "autonomous" or any other strange fantasy. I also don't see how this directly relates to qualitative properties.

    Rationality is universal. It applies to all of us in the rational community. You don't get your own logic. Neither do I. It's an aspect of a humanism which has liberated itself from scripture. Both the species and its individuals are grasped as autonomous beings, ideally subject only to the laws they themselves recognize as legitimate. Basically, rational people all agree that they have a sort of better self in common, namely a rationality that binds them all. 'May the best human win [ may we fallibly defer for now to whoever makes the best case.]' — plaque flag

    Well as far as I can remember I never signed such a contract, but in your view I did so implicitly when I joined the rational community? Could you be more specific about how denying my autonomy results in self-contradiction?

    If the same events would take place due to the laws of physics if I did not have the false belief that what I think is at all relevant, then why have the false belief that what I think is at all relevant? It is difficult to understand why evolution would select for this. — Patterner

    Personally I don't believe evolution is to blame, I think the concept of qualitative properties is the product of culture. But I also don't believe that qualia is the result of some vestigial or useless "ability" as you seem to do, I think it is simply a mistaken idea that can be gotten rid of just by changing your mind.

    Phantom pains exist. Those aren't functional. — Marchesk

    Yes they are, anything that has an effect also has a functional component. For example, if you go to the doctor for help with your phantom pain, that is an effect. That the concept of "phantom pain" is even used at all is also an effect.

    It actually does contradict what we know, you know need to know how light works to know that's an illusion. This is just wrong and we know the water is fooling us by "bending" the stick. — Darkneos

    Sorry, are you being literal here? You think that the water is deceiving you intentionally?

    I maintain the water is innocent, it is simply behaving in accordance physics just as everything else. If you are "fooled" by this, the problem is with yourself.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    I don't resent functionalism as a mapping strategy, but on a more serious ontological level it looks absurd to me. — plaque flag

    Knee-jerk incredulousness is a common response, but I generally find there is not much of substance to back up the sentiment. Which is to say I don't mind "looking absurd" if that is your main objection.

    You seem to imply that your words are as empty of meaning as those of a stochastic parrot. — plaque flag

    Not to worry, "meaning" too can be accommodated by the functionalist account. Pretty much any useful concept can.

    Do you not see that you are making the bold controversial claim here ? — plaque flag

    I didn't mean to imply it's wrong to make bold claims (what a boring place this would become then). You just have to be prepared to defend them.

    You seem to miss that science and philosophy exist within a 'field' of normatively. Speaking of human speech acts as merely causal is a self-subverting psychologism. — plaque flag

    Really? That's not obvious to me, you'll have to elaborate.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    Contentious claim indeed, sir ! Could you justify it carefully with one hand in an open flame ? — plaque flag

    Sure, and then I'd probably pull the hand back and start screaming, as that is the usual functional response. The functionalist account is in no way lacking in terms of explaining human behavior.
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    ↪Patterner


    Well it's really just a tangential point, I will rephrase the question so we get back on track: why do you believe that pain has a qualitative component? As you know I view pain only as functional, what is the problem with this?
  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    It doesn’t matter what the origin of thunder is. You can claim it’s an act of god. That doesn’t stop an atheist from hearing thunder. — Patterner

    Yes it does, technically. If thunder is an act of god, by definition, then if god does not exist then no one can hear thunder. The "thunder" we would hear would not be thunder, as it did not come from god, but something else.

    I think you need to consider the difference between defining something and describing it, the two are very different.

    Have you looked into Popper's idea of basic statements ? — plaque flag

    No, but I don't think Popper would say you can dodge skepticism of a statement by declaring it to be "basic". If you make a contentious claim you have to be prepared to justify it, if you refuse then you are really only pretending to argue.
Home » goremand