Nick,
I'm not sure if I am correctly representing your position about the third-person point of view, but I would agree that if we want to construct a scientific theory of consciousness, it must be based on a third person approach. But it seems possible that there are some facts about 'the world as it really is' that are not now accessible to science. If this is so, the impressions we receive from the first-person point of view may offer us the best insights we can get, given the current state of scientific knowledge. So why must we rigorously ignore such impressions? I agree with your point that our language about consciousness is not very consistent. Trying to use precise language about our minds may be as difficult as creating a scientific theory of our 'inner lives'. Maybe when discussing this area, we can only use language metaphorically and hope that the person we are communicating with can make sense of it. What about your statements that 'consciousness is an illusion' or a 'huge language game' . Are these metaphors or precise statements? --John ________________________________________ From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:24 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The ghost in the machine (was 'quick question') Dear Jochen, What I am about to say will seem crazy and I certainly don't expect to convince you. At max, I might get you to try out the world from this rather strange point of view, and see why somebody might explore it. My basic position is that consciousness is an illusion. I am not talking "user-illusion" here or even epiphenomenalism. What I am saying is much stronger and more obnoxious than either of those positions. The best metaphor I can think of is "the sun rising." We all talk as if the sun rises, but it doesn't, or at best, the statement, "the sun rises", relates only in a vague way to the actual state of affairs. Our belief that the sun rises get's its force not from the facts but from the enormous authority of language, and other social arrangements. Consciousness is a huge language game, which we violate on pain of being called crazy. So what do I have to offer instead? Well, nothing, actually. I confess to being as caught in the illusion as anybody else. All I can say is that the way we talk about consciousness verges seems not to make a lot of sense, much of the time. For instance, not only do we talk as if the conscious-actor can act on his body, or through his body, on the world; we also talk as if the conscious-actor can act on his own mind, e.g., "make it up" like a rumpled bed. In these intra-mental transactions, who is the agent and who the receiver of the action? Only in talking about consciousness do we allow the agent to act upon itself in such a profligate way. An other oddity is our curious ambivalence concerning third-person point of view. There are four billion people in the world, right? When you and I speak of any of those people, we take a third-person point of view. Early in the conversation, we will make a decision, depending on our metaphysics, concerning whether another person's consciousness is something we have access to, or not. Some will take the position that we never REALLY can know what is in another person's mind. We could, of course, ask the agent, but the agent need not tell us the truth. So we are stuck because [scientific] knowledge of another's mind is beyond our reach. For such people, a scientific conversation concerning the true thoughts, feelings, intentions, etc., of another person is not possible. But what of people who don't hold to the primacy of the first person view. With such people we can have a conversation about the true intentions of another person, confident that we can get to the truth of the matter. Was OJ Simpson a murderer? Don't ASK him; look at the evidence. Our legal system is based on the notion that the intentions of an agent are something that a jury of peers can assess. In such circumstances, we are convinced that we can invade the so called privacy of the mind. But even people who grant their own powers to see the true intentions of others, still grant themselves primacy in the determination of their own behavior. To that extent, we indulge ourselves in a dualism in which we hold one theory that works for ourselves and another theory that works for the other 4 billion people on earth. And it is the personal theory that holds the most sway when called upon to talk about the relationship between the "brain and consciousness." Ok, so having confessed to all of that, please allow me to comment on your letter below. I will use CAPS, because it is a quick way to distinguish my text from yours. Owen will accuse me of SHOUTING, which I promise I am not. I am speaking in a teensy weensy voice. All the best, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Jochen Fromm <jfr...@t-online.de> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Date: 6/14/2009 9:50:27 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The ghost in the machine (was 'quick question') > > The question was why do many of us have the > belief that they can move their body in a certain > direction if they want to do it voluntarily or > consciously? The belief must be based on a perception > of a process or interaction. If downward causation > is like self-consciousness an illusion, then what > kind of stimuli or causal chain preceeds a conscious > action? THE BEST I CAN OFFER IS A PROCEDURE FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, WHICH IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW ONE WOULD GO ABOUT ANSWERING IT IN THE THIRD PERSON CASE. I GRANT TO MYSELF ALL THE POWERS OF PERCEPTION THAT I GRANT TO ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING, AND NO MORE. SO, I AM PRESENT EVERYWHERE I GO, AND I SEE MYSELF DO STUFF (ALTHOUGH MY POINT OF VIEW ON MY OWN ACTIONS IS UNIQUE). MY INTENTIONS ARE A KIND OF STANDING IN RELATION TO THE WORLD AND MY CONSCIOUSNESS IS A KIND OF STANDING IN RELATION TO MY INTENTIONS. ALL OF THIS IS AS EVIDENT TO OTHERS AS IT IS TO MYSELF, ASSUMING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND ME AS MUCH AS I HAVE. WHAT FOLLOWS IS METAPHYSICS OR ONTOLOGY OR BOTH. I HAVE NEVER KNOWN THE DIFFERENCE. WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE REMINDS ME OF DESCRIPTION'S OF THE LEVELS OF PURGATORY IN MILTON. SURE, IT BEARS SOME VAGUE RELATION TO THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT -- OTHERWISE THE PASSAGES WOULD BE UNINTELLIGIBLE -- BUT DESCRIBING THE WORLD AS WE FIND IT IS NOT THE PRIMARY IMPULSE OF THIS WRITING. THE PRIMARY IMPULSE, AS IN MILTON, IS TO DESCRIBE THE WORLD THAT LIES BEHIND OUR SENSES ... THE WORLD AS IT REALLY IS. THE AUTHORITY OF SUCH CLAIMS LIES NOT IN IS DESCRIPTIVE POWER BUT IN ITS COALESCENCE WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE THINK WE KNOW, AND THOSE COME NOT FROM THE SENSES BUT FROM LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY. > > I think the answer is maybe a complex interaction > of several causal chains and circuits: THE DECISION TO USE THE CURCUIT AND THE CHAIN METAPHORS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND NOT ONE THAT IS WARRANTED BY THE ANALOG PARALLEL PROCESSING SYSTEM THE BRAIN SEEMS TO BE. > > * There is causal chain from the outer world > to the brain and back (including the internal > stimuli-response or perception-action loop) > > * There is a causal chain inside the body > from the primary sensoric and motoric regions > of the brain to the corresponding body parts > > * There is a causal chain inside the mind from > the high-level level goals and abstract > intentions to the low-level actions and > concrete behavior patterns NOTE HOW THE NOTION OF CAUSAL CHAIN IS METAMORPHOSING HERE. HOW DOES A GOAL CAUSE? WE ARE FUSING BRAIN-TALK WITH LOGICAL ANAYSIS TALK. IT MAKES A KIND OF SENSE TO DO SO, BUT SO DOES ALL METAPHYSICS, AND METAPHYSICS DOES NOT TELL US MUCH ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE IN EXPERIENCE. . > > Now a mental thought occurred, a physical activity > of the body happened, and afterwards we witness > it. Has the mental thought triggered the physical > action? The causal chain which preceeds a conscious > action goes roughly like this > > WHAT FOLLOWS IS INDEED WHAT OUR LANGUAGE PRESUPPOSES, IN THE SAME WAY THAT EQUIVALENT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT PRESUPPOSED. BUT, AS WE ARE DISCOVERING WITH DEVELOPMENT, THE BODY DOES NOT BEHAVE LOGICALLY AND IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT BEHAVE EFFICIENTLY. WASTE IS THE HALL MARK OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEM, BUILDING UP ONLY TO TEAR DOWN ARE REBUILD. The mind formulates a intention and selects a goal, > according to the current beliefs and desires > (for example "i want to reach a certain region") > > - The body is in a certain state and environment > > - The mind perceives the current situation > > - The mind triggers a certain action suitable for the > the current situation and the current goal NO, I DISAGREE. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE MIND DOES, IN ANY CASE. THIS IS WHAT YOU DO, AND IF I WATCH YOU CLOSELY, I CAN SEE YOU DODING IT. > > - The body is in a new state > > Here conscious action is possible through modulation > of the causal chain from the outer world to the brain > and back, which is described usually as a perceive > -reason-action or belief-desire-intention loop. > The illusion of downcard causation seems to arise > through a fundamental attribution error and > an interaction of several causal chains. > > There is also book named "The Self and Its Brain: > An Argument for Interactionism" by Karl Popper and > John C. Eccles which discusses a similar topic. J. THANKS FOR THIS EXCHANGE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CAPS AGAIN. OWEN WILL NOT FORGIVE ME, BUT I THINK YOU WILL. NOW i WILL RETURN TO ORDINARY TEXT. Take care. If you every were so idle and demented as to want to read something I have written on the subject, you might try: http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/id36.html Nick > > -J. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > To: <friam@redfish.com> > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:45 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The ghost in the machine (was 'quick question') > > > > Jochen, > > > > What follows is a behaviorist snit, and I apologize in advance for it. > > > > Why does the defence of consciousness always come in this form: > > > > "Yet although we agree there is no mysterious downward causation, > > we can without doubt consciously influence the activities and movements > > of our body" > > > > It is NOT without doubt. I doubt it. So there is at LEAST ONE doubt. I > > doubt that I am conscious and that my consciousness affects my acts. > > > > Surely after 5 hundred years there is SOMETHING to be said beyond Decartes > > meditations. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
