On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4/25/2017 2:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Bruce Kellett >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is the >>>>>> hypothesis that our mind supervenes on computations (sorry Bruno, it's >>>>>> easier to write for the purpose of this discussion :). You are >>>>>> declaring that mind supervene on the physical brain. >>>>> >>>>> That is not it at all. We've clarified with Bruno many times that >>>>> computational supervenience is compatible with physical >>>>> supervenience. Which is just as well, as otherwise it would be so much >>>>> the worse for computationalism. >>>> >>>> I have no doubt that the brain is a physical computer, and that >>>> computations performed by the brain are no different from any other >>>> computations. >>>> >>>> We are discussing physicalism and computationalism, and if they are >>>> compatible or not, correct? >>>> >>>> Bruce repeatedly makes variation of the claim: "look, the brain is >>>> physical and the brain generates consciousness, these are the facts". >>>> This is what I am replying to. It's an argument from authority that >>>> leaves no space for debate or reasoning. >>> >>> >>> First, it is not an argument from authority, it is an argument made on >>> the >>> basis of all the available evidence -- consciousness supervenes on the >>> physical brain. >> >> Empirical evidence requires observation. How do you observe >> consciousness? I bet other people are conscious because they look >> similar to me, and I know I am. Are cats conscious? Bacteria? The >> universe as a whole? The Earth's ecosystem? Stars? I don't know, and >> nobody knows. >> >> We have a large amount of evidence for the brain being a computer >> capable of supporting complex algorithms that support behaviors that >> we label as "intelligent". Simplistic models of the brain (artificial >> neural networks) are now capable of things like recognising faces, >> driving cars and even producing nightmarish works of art. There is >> also massive evidence for this intelligent machine being an outcome of >> Darwinian evolution. All of this is clear. >> >> Consciousness? You are just sweeping the hard problem under the rug. >> Explain to me: >> >> 1. Why we are not just Zombies, with the exact some capabilities but >> no consciousness; >> 2. How consciousness emerges from the known laws of physics. What are >> the first principles that explain that emergence? Give me other >> emergent behabiors and I can show you the first principles. Not so >> with consciousness. > > > I think that is wrong. It is not wrong because we can "explain > consciousness", it's wrong because we don't explain physics either. The > theories of physics are good predictors. So we believe them in proportion to > the evidence. But as Newton said, "Hypothesi non fingo." Explanations > depend on understanding; i.e. you explain A in terms of B and B in terms of > C and so on until you get to R or S or X... which you understand.
I agree with your view of what science is, and of what a scientific explanation means. > So when > we explain behavior, including reported thoughts, in terms of physics of the > body and brain and environment we will have provided all the explanation > possible. Perhaps it is true that it is all the explanation possible -- I don't question that. In fact, this is where I tend to disagree with Bruno. I am convinced that he proves that computationalism and physicalism are incompatible, but I am not convinced that he explains what consciousness is. What I don't like about your position is this: just because science cannot address (or as not so far been able to address) a mystery, doesn't mean that this mystery becomes irrelevant or that we can pretend it doesn't exist -- or worse, that we should pretend that we have a viable theory when we don't. This is essentially what makes me agnostic instead of an atheist: I recognise that the big mystery is there. Labelling people that recognise that the mystery is there as lunatics does not serve intellectual rigor. >> >> Then we can talk about evidence. >> >>> Second. An argument from authority is not necessarily a reason to reject >>> that argument. Because life is short and we cannot be experts in >>> absolutely >>> everything, we frequently have to rely on authorities -- people who are >>> recognized experts in the relevant field. I am confident that when I >>> drive >>> across this bridge it will not collapse under the weight of my car >>> because I >>> trust the expertise of the engineers who designed and constructed the >>> bridge. In other words, I rely on the relevant authorities for my >>> conclusion that this bridge is safe. An argument from authority is >>> unsound >>> only if the quoted authorities are themselves not reliable -- they are >>> not >>> experts in the relevant field, and/or their supposed qualifications are >>> bogus. There are many examples of this -- like relying on President >>> Trump's >>> assessment of anthropogenic global warming, etc, etc. >> >> I agree that arguments from authority are necessary to save time, but >> in the context of a debate about a mystery of nature for which no >> strong and widely-accepted scientific theories exist, it is >> nonsensical to invoke authority. >> >> Also, this is not a place where people come to have their car >> repaired, or their doctor appointment. This is a discussion forum >> about the unsolved deep mysteries of reality. > > Which is exactly the point. Because their mechanic can repair their car > they suppose we have explained cars - but we have only found the Lagrangian > that described them. When we can write the programs that produce > "conscious" behavior of whatever kind we choose, cheerful, autistic, morose, > lustful, humorous,..., then most people will think we have explained > consciousness. Mystics will still claim there's a "hard problem". This feels like thought policing. Of course the mystery is still there, and it's huge! Why am I conscious? I can't think of a more compelling mystery. Why is it so hard to say: "I don't know"? Congrats on your daughter's wedding! Telmo. > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
