White Cat Experiment

[MRC_Hans]

Air occupies space though, right? So, why isn't it directly observable, in theory?

It's a question, not an argument, because I don't know the answer.

Yes, if your vision were in other parts of the spectrum, air might be directly observable.

But, consciousness is also theoretically observable. We are not now, but we might in the future be able to chart the signals in the brain with sufficient resolution and precision to observe consciousness.

There is a catch 22 for you to ponder here:

If consciousness is a material property of the brain, then it is in theory observable.

If consciousness is NOT a material property of the brain, then it is NOT theoretically observable.



Our present technology for observing the functions of the brain is much too crude to make a conclusion on this.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, I don't think so. I think Hans is arguing that consciousness is exactly like air, in that it is impossible to be directly observed, even in theory.

No, not "even in theory". In practice.

Now, I believe, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that even things like gravity and air are thought to be directly observable, in theory.

I don't know. You know, it depends on what you mean by "directly". If we want to nitpick about it, our brain observes nothing directly.

Does anyone here think consciousness is directly observable, in theory? I don't think it is - it doesn't occupy space, for a start.

We dont know (see my catch 22 reply, above). How do you know it doesn't occupy space? If it consists of signals in the brain, it does occupy space.

Hans

 

[Humphreys]

We dont know (see my catch 22 reply, above). How do you know it doesn't occupy space? If it consists of signals in the brain, it does occupy space.

Yeah, you're right actually Hans, I don't know for a fact whether consciousness is theorietically observable or not, but I do believe it isn't.

I can't offer you any better reason other than the fact it would seem absurd to me that we would ever be able to do this, and that I believe due to the fundamental strange nature of consciousness (which I believe is not comparable to anything else in existence), it isn't atually located anywhere and is therefore unobservable.

We'll probably have to wait and see though, right?

 

[MRC_Hans]

We'll probably have to wait and see though, right?

Basically, yes. In the meantime, of course, we can look at indications. Now, when the brain functions, you are conscious. If your brain is (temporally) rendered defunct, you are not conscsious. If the function of your brain is tampered with in various ways, your consciousness is changed. We can (indirectly) observe that a person with a functioning brain is conscious. We have never observed a person being concious without a functioning brain. (I will, for the time being, avoid discussion of whether a sleeping person is conscious, and whether a seriously brain-damaged person is).

If you were to make similar observations about a car, you would no doubt come to the conclusion that the engine was responsible for the intangible, non-observable "being able to run". .... Pending evidence to the contrary, I make the same assumption about the brain .

Hans

 

[Humphreys]

If you were to make similar observations about a car, you would no doubt come to the conclusion that the engine was responsible for the intangible, non-observable "being able to run". .... Pending evidence to the contrary, I make the same assumption about the brain .

Hans

There is no such thing as a "being able to run" though. It doesn't exist. It's a description, nothing else. We wouldn't ever have an argument whether a "being able to run" might be observable at some time in future

Apart from that, I don't have a problem with what you said, and the way you think about this issue seems pretty reasonable, to me.

 

[hammegk]

There is a catch 22 for you to ponder here:

If consciousness is a material property of the brain, then it is in theory observable.

If consciousness is NOT a material property of the brain, then it is NOT theoretically observable.

Hans

Agreeing that interactive dualism is nonsense, and then assuming that matter supervenes mind-- which is the actual question under discussion -- you are correct.

I state *I* do observe consciousness, my own, as you observe yours, or, you are a p-zombie.

 

[Filip Sandor]

The code of the written language isn't inherent in the paper and ink and therefore must exist 'outside' of it.

Very simply put, this is totally correct. Anyone who tries to argue that a code somehow 'exists' inside a physical structure is making an arguement out of ignorance.

Computers present a more difficult challenge, not from a technical standpoint (even the most comlex computer functions can be broken down to the physical 'logic gates' that operate according to the laws of physics, which we assign meanings to), but because we've developed such complex logical circuits it's hard to believe there is no code actually inside a computer when you see all that it can do for you. We don't expect a sheet of paper to talk back to us or show us video and download our e-mail so it's much easier to dismiss it as just another physical structure without any special qualities. I am sure not so many people would be using computers as an analogy to the brain back in the days when, due to physical limitations, the amount of assigned data they could 'process' was very small.

Now that technology has allowed us to shrink the parts in a computer that 'compute' we can cram assign (cram) a lot more data to the physical functions a computer performs, people are suddenly giving the once dumb machine an almost human-like characteristic and attributing things like thought or intelligence to a clump of logic circuits which are still nothing more than tiny physical structures with variable states depending entirely on the physical states of the other components, in other words, the laws of physics - and which only have meaning to us because we assign meaning to them.

I'm sure there will be more repeated, authoritive statements made against the facts here and I'm trying not to pay attention to them too much (although I still do find the air of cynicism and ridicule somewhat disturbing), but honestly, I get a lot more enjoyment out of somebody understanding what I'm trying to explain than someone who is not capable or willing enough to understand. I like to keep things simple, but unfortunately, that's not always the way other people want it.

 

[hammegk]

Filip, have you run across ...

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php

Might be of interest to you ....

 

[Ossai]

Filip Sandor
1. No, you exposed your ignorance in your last response to Darat.
I’ll stand by this statement since it’s rather apparent you don’t understand what Darat was speaking of. Either that or you’re playing dumb.

2. Imagining a ‘white cat’ is not a phenomenon for which there is no valid physical theory.
Again, had you even bothered to read what others have posted, the explanation has already been posted by MRC_Hans, at least twice.

3. I’m still waiting on you to state your hypothesis and provide even a bit of evidence or observation.
And I’m still waiting.
<chirp> <chirp>

I like how you try and insult me and then just re-state your opinion without any proof in your posts. It shows how smart you really are.

Ignorance is not an insult. Stupid is an insult.

So far your entire argument rests on, ‘I don’t understand it, therefore it must be, (fill in blank)’

Ossai

 

[MRC_Hans]

There is no such thing as a "being able to run" though. It doesn't exist. It's a description, nothing else. We wouldn't ever have an argument whether a "being able to run" might be observable at some time in future

Apart from that, I don't have a problem with what you said, and the way you think about this issue seems pretty reasonable, to me.

"Being able to run" is entirely as valid a construct as "experiencing red" and any other constructs we have discussed here. Consider two cars, one (A) with a defunct engine, another (B) with a working engine. Both are stopped, yet it is certainly a property of car B that it is "able to run", a property that car A does not have.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Computers present a more difficult challenge, not from a technical standpoint (even the most comlex computer functions can be broken down to the physical 'logic gates' that operate according to the laws of physics, which we assign meanings to), but because we've developed such complex logical circuits it's hard to believe there is no code actually inside a computer when you see all that it can do for you.

Excuse me, but what do you mean by saying that there is no code inside a computer. What is your definition of "code"?

Hans

 

[Piscivore]

"Thought" "consciousness" and your white kitten are all effects created by physical processes, not discrete things in and of themselves. Unless there is some mystic land in which "sunshine" exists apart from light.

 

[Roboramma]

Very simply put, this is totally correct. Anyone who tries to argue that a code somehow 'exists' inside a physical structure is making an arguement out of ignorance.[/b]

So address this point I made then:

"What I'm trying to say is that the brain-paper system is analgous to the computer-program system. Not the paper by itself. That is analogous to a disk with the program on it. It means nothing without the computer to interpret it's meaning."

A computer is more than just it's memory, it's a system that is capable of turning an input into a different output. It can interpret 2+2 and give you 4. It wasn't your mind that did that computation. It was the computer. The process that it uses to do this is analogous to thinking.
Can you think of any observable difference? The only one I can see is that computers are not yet as advanced as our brains.

attributing things like thought or intelligence to a clump of logic circuits which are still nothing more than tiny physical structures with variable states depending entirely on the physical states of the other components, in other words, the laws of physics - and which only have meaning to us because we assign meaning to them.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that our brains work by that same process.
The computer's 'code' is a definable thing. It is the logical process that it applies to inputs. And this returns something different. That doesn't happen to ink on a page. It does happen in our brains when we're looking at that ink though. And the process our brain uses when fed the input of written langauge is much the same as the process a computer uses when fed binary data.
What's the difference?

I'm sure there will be more repeated, authoritive statements made against the facts here and I'm trying not to pay attention to them too much (although I still do find the air of cynicism and ridicule somewhat disturbing), but honestly, I get a lot more enjoyment out of somebody understanding what I'm trying to explain than someone who is not capable or willing enough to understand. I like to keep things simple, but unfortunately, that's not always the way other people want it.

What facts am I (or anyone else) trying to refute? What facts have you offered?
I am trying to understand what you're saying here. I don't think I'm making authoritative statements, but trying to make arguements that as clearly as possible get across my point of view. I think most of the others are doing the same. We disagree, but that doesn't mean we're not willing to look at what you're saying.
I will say that I'm glad you started this thread. I'm finding myself looking deeply at an interesting issue, and I like that. That doesn't mean that I'll necessarily agree with you though, but I will try to keep an open mind. Just not convinced yet.

 

[Roboramma]

"Being able to run" is entirely as valid a construct as "experiencing red" and any other constructs we have discussed here. Consider two cars, one (A) with a defunct engine, another (B) with a working engine. Both are stopped, yet it is certainly a property of car B that it is "able to run", a property that car A does not have.

Hans

I wish I'd said that.

 

[clarsct]

Seems we have a very old question here: What is consciousness?

The honest answer: We just don't know yet.
Doesn't mean we can't, or won't. We, as a race, just aren't good enough yet.


That said, I've read a lot on this thread about thought process and memory. I think if you're looking for consciousness, you're looking in the wrong places. I've seen Alzhiemer patients whose memory was all but shot, and whose thought process had been ravaged by that terrible disease. But they still were aware that there was a " 'me' who is unique and not 'them' ". It is a basic concept that is the backbone of intellect. I would think it would be a great advantage, evolutionally speaking. I would think it is more related to instinct. It is the screen upon which we project our inner universe, our worldview. In the sense that is the product of evolution, I think it is a physical process.

I would take the analogy of the projector a bit farther. The brain is the projector, our consciousness is the screen, and the images being shown are our thought process. This is where our cat exists, in the thought process. But is it real, or just a figment? We can measure the photons hitting the screen, but a movie is more than just some photons bouncing off the screen and happening to hit our eye. If not, than what difference between a Monty Python movie or a fractal pattern on the screen? There is an illusion at work.

I know some people who would prefer watching the fractal to the movie, and a few to whom it would be no different. Thus we have a matter of emotion. It's simply which side of the fence you want to be on.

On other thoughts: Yes, the universe is made up of particles that have no height, width, or length being connected by a series of forces. Mass is an illusion created by the movement of Higgs bosons. Matter is a wave and a particle. Simultaneously! Take about four years of calculus and grab a Quantum Mechanics book, and you'll see just how wonderful our world is! That, or you'll go completely insane. Either way, you'll be in a happier place!

 

[Filip Sandor]

Filip, have you run across ...

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php

Might be of interest to you ....

I haven't had a chance to read (just read the first couple of sentences then I had to leave), but it looks interesting. Thanks for the link by the way.

P.S. I'll have to read it when I get some extra time.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Filip Sandor
1. No, you exposed your ignorance in your last response to Darat.

Appart from expressing your opinion to me, this is utterly useless information to the discussion, I think you know that and I don't know why you keep repeating it over and over.

I’ll stand by this statement since it’s rather apparent you don’t understand what Darat was speaking of. Either that or you’re playing dumb.

Let me see what Darat said, maybe I missed something...

Ok, I just read over Dara'ts response and answer is no, I am not claiming that a real white cat exists in my brain when I imagine a white cat. Maybe this clarifies some things for you, but if it doesn't then you can tell me what part you don't get and I'll try to clarify it for you. If you don't tell me specifically what it is you don't get then this debate is completely pointless.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Excuse me, but what do you mean by saying that there is no code inside a computer. What is your definition of "code"?

Hans

I think it would be more fair if you define that, since it was you that brought up the term 'encoded' before anyone else.

 

[Filip Sandor]

"Thought" "consciousness" and your white kitten are all effects created by physical processes, not discrete things in and of themselves.

Are you saying that the physical activity in the brain precedes the manifesation of mental phenomena? And that because the activity in the brain precedes the manifestation of mental phenomena then mental phenomena must exist?

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

 

[Filip Sandor]

So address this point I made then:

"What I'm trying to say is that the brain-paper system is analgous to the computer-program system. Not the paper by itself. That is analogous to a disk with the program on it. It means nothing without the computer to interpret it's meaning."

Are you saying that the meanings we perceive are inherent in the brain and/ or our computers?

A computer is more than just it's memory, it's a system that is capable of turning an input into a different output. It can interpret 2+2 and give you 4.

Who invented "2" and "+" and "4" and the logic that goes with it.. the transistors and silicon chips that make up the computer?

What facts am I (or anyone else) trying to refute? What facts have you offered?
I am trying to understand what you're saying here. I don't think I'm making authoritative statements, but trying to make arguements that as clearly as possible get across my point of view.

I don't mean to be rude here, but I get the feeling as though you expect me to explain how computers work and everything about the nature of mental phenomena. I don't have the time to explain how computers work, all I know is that switches go on and off depending on a physical input, the meanings we apply to the different parts of this system are not inherent in the physical system itself. The computer doesn't interpret anything, it's just a bunch of electrons flowing through wires and transistors. Around the 1950's or so (don't remember actually) we learned how to make switches that can be arranged to perform functions on meanings we apply to them, the functions are just following the laws of physics. Without our invention of language this text that you are reading right now would mean absolutely nothing! It would just be a bunch of confusing, black markings on your monitor, so why on earth would it mean anything to your computer??

P.S. I'm gonna try and figure out exactly how logic gates work and present a comprehensive example for us to study, it's the least I can do to uphold my belief in the importance of the implications of my theory.. just give me some time cause I'm pretty busy lately, but I'll try to do it within the next couple of days.