On 4/25/2017 2:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Bruce Kellett
<bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
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. 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.
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".
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.
