on 13/1/03 10:18 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So do you accept the mind as real, without any empirical evidence for its > existence? >
I think Marvin already addressed this in his post, so 'what he said'. I'd just add that from an empirical point of view, the existence of self-aware consciousness is the null hypothesis. I don't see any cognitive scientists, or other theorists working on the mind, worrying about whether the subject of their study exists or not! And for an example of the kind of ridiculous pseudo-science that results from getting this backwards, one need only look at the behaviourists. >>> and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that >>> humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by >>> biochemistry. >>> >> It makes a big difference to the truth value of the phrase "I am self aware". >> And empirically one could look at the patterns of activity in a person's >> brain when they uttered that phrase to see if they were lying or not. >> > No, the self awareness contributes nothing to models of the behavior of > humans, thus, by definition, there is no scientific evidence for > self-awareness. Well *of course* self-awareness is a vital part of a good model of the behaviour of humans! I'm not aware of anyone working on a model of how the mind works (Dennett, Pinker, Hofstadter ...) who doesn't have self-awareness right at the centre. What models are you thinking of? > I'll agree that the word conscious is part of the language > that is used to describe brain states as well as self awareness. Thus, I'd be > happy to grant it the same "reality" to consciousness as I grant to reduced > mass. > > Let's look at two models. One uses calls conscious and unconscious, the other > uses "state A", and state "B". Both assume a biochemical basis for all human > behavior. The predictive value of each is identical. In this case, conscious > and state A are equally useful descriptions. Equally useful descriptions of what? If we assume that it was somehow possible to construct a complete bottom-up model of a human brain (and body and an environment to provide sensory input (And somehow 'scanned' in from a volunteer at the lab. Call him Bob.)) which worked by modelling the physics from atomic level up, that model would tell us nothing about consciousness. It would just be an inscrutably complicated black box. We call up Bob on the videophone inside his model: "Hi Bob, what's it like in there?" - Kinda Weird. "Enough chit-chat, time for the $64,000 question. Bob, are you self-aware?" - Yes. "Are you sure about that? You're really nothing but biochemistry. In fact you're not even that, you're just a model of biochemistry!" - I sure feel self-aware to me. Are you sure you're self-aware? "Don't be silly! Of course I'm self-aware!" Etc... :) > > Indeed, state A would, in a real sense, be preferred because it doesn't carry > implicit baggage that is not actually part of the scientific model. But 'state A' tells us nothing about the very thing we wanted to know about! So it is a completely useless scientific model. >>> Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, and argue long >>> and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. >>> >> What has atheism got to do with consciousness? Atheism addresses the >> question of the existence of god(s), and has nothing to do with the question >> of consciousness. >> > Well, the proof seems to be: > > There is no empirical evidence for God It is foolish to consider something > that there is no empirical evidence for as existing. Thus there is no God. > > I'm attacking statement number 2 with > > There is no empirical evidence for the existence of self consciousness It is > very reasonable to consider self-consciousness as real. Thus, statement 2 > given above is false. > Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument fails. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
