On 7/26/2021 2:15 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>> That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good
enough, they all fit the facts equally well, choosing one is
entirely a matter of taste.
/So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or is
immortal soul stuff are equally good theories? Both consistent
with the fact that alcohol affects consciousness...assuming it
affects soul stuff?/
I don't drink but I'm sure alcohol would affect my consciousness and
my behavior,and I would be able to prove it affects your behavior too,
but I have no way of proving it affects your consciousness, assuming
you even have consciousness.
You keep resorting to "prove" and "know" to argue that science can't
apply to consciousness. All theories of consciousness are equally good
and bad. But "prove" and "know" are not the standard in any science.
We never "prove" or "know" things in physics either. All we ask for is
predictive power and theoretical consilience.
/> If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a
machine that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what
that brain was consciously thinking...an effective theory of
consciousness...then/
Then I would ask, how do you know the machine is working properly, and
how on earth do you read the machine's output?
The machine prints out "JKC is thinking about Kate Beckinsale" and then
I ask you and you say, "I was thinking about Bruno Marchal"...but I can
see the erection.
Suppose I'm sad and you put me in the machine and the pointer on the
machine's sadness dial moves to the 62.4 mark, does that number enable
you to understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad? I don't
think so.
But I can already understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad,
because I've been sad. Isn't that a good theory...and don't tell me it
doesn't /*prove*/ that I know.
> people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it
fundamentally?"
Exactly, even if by some miracleyou could somehow prove thatX caused
consciousness they would still not be satisfied, they would demand to
know WHY X causes consciousness, and they want to know what caused X.
My point is that none of that prevents having an effective theory of
consciousness. It's my main compliant about Bruno's theory. It's
almost completely descriptive of what conscious information processing
might be. It's not effective.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c33422c2-4e12-4a6e-3584-972e3d62e1ce%40verizon.net.
