On 12/21/2017 12:37 PM, David Nyman wrote:


On 21 Dec 2017 19:25, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



    On 12/21/2017 5:01 AM, David Nyman wrote:
    On 21 December 2017 at 11:34, Telmo Menezes
    <te...@telmomenezes.com <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote:

        > So we are told.  But what if someone could look at a
        recorded MRI of you
        > brain and tell you what you were thinking?

        Why do you need the MRI? You can look at the text that I
        write and
        know what I'm thinking. We've been doing that all along.
        The text I write comes from my fingers hitting the keyboard,
        and the
        fingers move in a certain pattern because the muscles are
        activated by
        nerves that are connected to my brain and completely
        correlated to my
        neural activity. What does the MRI add beyond precision? How
        does this
        help solve the mystery that I am conscious, instead of a zombie?


    ​Well put.

    However if we follow Bruno in taking the antique Dream Argument
    as our point of departure (which to a certain extent can be made
    distinct from an explicitly computationalist hypothesis) then the
    question becomes:

    Starting from the position that these present thoughts and
    sensations (i.e. the 'waking' dream) are beyond doubt, and that
    they appear also to refer to events in an externalised field of
    action, how does it come to be the case that all this appears to
    play out in the very particular way it does?

    When the question is asked in some such way, it should perhaps
    not then be unexpected that brains, nervous systems and bodies,
    as intrinsic components of the field of action in question,
    appear precisely to be mechanisms (in the generalised sense for
    now) for translating transactions, between themselves and the
    remainder of that field, into action. And also unsurprising that
    this continues to generalise whatever detailed level of analysis
    is applied to the field in question, whether 'narrower' or
    'wider' in focus (i.e. the consistency requirement). And further
    that this is just the sort of tightly-constrained and consistent
    set of mechanisms that we might expect to be picked out from an
    even more generalised 'mechanistic' environment, owing to the
    very particular requirements of the 'self-observation' with which
    we began.

    So far, perhaps so un-Hard. But the question then still remains
    of the precise relation between the phenomena of the dream itself
    and the transactional mechanisms that make their appearance
    within it, including and especially the aforementioned brains. If
    we turn for a moment to an analogy, it doesn't surprise us, when
    watching a movie play out on an LCD screen, that the mechanism
    that implements this playing out fails to resemble point for
    point, although is obviously systematically correlated with, the
    ultimate phenomena it stimulates the viewer into realising. But
    the reason of course for our lack of surprise is that we consider
    the bulk of the burden of such realisation to be shouldered by
    the viewer's brain, not by the LCD device alone. So for that
    reason, no such loophole seems possible for the final relation
    between the phenomena of the dream and the mechanisms of the
    brain itself. It must somehow shoulder the final burden of
    'self-observation' and 'self-interpretation'; the matter can no
    longer be 'externalised'.

    Good explication.  And I think I agree on the reason for the scare
    quotes.  The 'self-observation' by introspection is really very
    limited and it seems that external observation of action tells us
    things about what someone is thinking that are not available to
    introspection.  One of the nice things about Bruno's theory is
    that implies this division...but in an extremely idealized form.


I don't get it Brent. You seem to either violently agree or equally disagree with what I say, as in the case of your other most recent comments. Can you clarify for me what differentiates the two cases?

OK, I'll try to agree and disagree more gently.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to