Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Interesting philosophy of mind argument

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 5:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey guys,

I recently thought of an interesting philosophy of mind argument. Usually when we explain what "matter" is, we contrast it to intelligence. We say something like "just physical stuff" as in "lacking intelligence." It seems to me that our whole understanding of what physical matter is, is in its difference from intelligence, and rationality.

However, if this is the case, how can the mind be matter? If we're contrasting the two, doesn't that mean they're different things?

I'll admit this isn't a very strong argument, but I found it to be an interesting thought.

Also, James Ross' argument is interesting.

P1: No physical process is determinate.
P2: Formal thinking is determinate.
C: Formal thinking is not a physical process.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 7:47:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with your preambles. Pansychists (like Rupert Sheldrake) aside, matter (or physical stuff) is taken not to have mind(s). The distinction between both must be made. Given that, in so far as 'determinate' could be taken to mean (or means) 'has will', I would say Ross' argument is stronger than you think.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:13:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 5:55:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Hey guys,

I recently thought of an interesting philosophy of mind argument. Usually when we explain what "matter" is, we contrast it to intelligence. We say something like "just physical stuff" as in "lacking intelligence." It seems to me that our whole understanding of what physical matter is, is in its difference from intelligence, and rationality.

However, if this is the case, how can the mind be matter? If we're contrasting the two, doesn't that mean they're different things?

I'll admit this isn't a very strong argument, but I found it to be an interesting thought.

Also, James Ross' argument is interesting.

P1: No physical process is determinate.
P2: Formal thinking is determinate.
C: Formal thinking is not a physical process.

I think you need to expand on your justification for P1 a bit more.

But as far as I see, formal thinking is just the concept, the same way words and numbers are just raw concepts with no physical properties other than information.

No?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 5:36:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:13:27 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/26/2014 5:55:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Hey guys,

I recently thought of an interesting philosophy of mind argument. Usually when we explain what "matter" is, we contrast it to intelligence. We say something like "just physical stuff" as in "lacking intelligence." It seems to me that our whole understanding of what physical matter is, is in its difference from intelligence, and rationality.

However, if this is the case, how can the mind be matter? If we're contrasting the two, doesn't that mean they're different things?

I'll admit this isn't a very strong argument, but I found it to be an interesting thought.

Also, James Ross' argument is interesting.

P1: No physical process is determinate.
P2: Formal thinking is determinate.
C: Formal thinking is not a physical process.

I think you need to expand on your justification for P1 a bit more.

But as far as I see, formal thinking is just the concept, the same way words and numbers are just raw concepts with no physical properties other than information.

No?

True. This means that information is not a physical object, it is a mental concept inferred or expressed using objects. This distinction must be kept firmly in mind.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 5:40:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Information can still be an epiphenomena of physical processes, or nominalism would be sound, which are the two more prominent positions of the field (other than fictionalism). It's doubtful whether all physical processes are determinate, but the argument is inductively strong, I think.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:19:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:13:27 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/26/2014 5:55:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Hey guys,

I recently thought of an interesting philosophy of mind argument. Usually when we explain what "matter" is, we contrast it to intelligence. We say something like "just physical stuff" as in "lacking intelligence." It seems to me that our whole understanding of what physical matter is, is in its difference from intelligence, and rationality.

However, if this is the case, how can the mind be matter? If we're contrasting the two, doesn't that mean they're different things?

I'll admit this isn't a very strong argument, but I found it to be an interesting thought.

Also, James Ross' argument is interesting.

P1: No physical process is determinate.
P2: Formal thinking is determinate.
C: Formal thinking is not a physical process.

I think you need to expand on your justification for P1 a bit more.


Yes, Ross has an interesting idea of "determinate" in this sense. I'll post it later.

But as far as I see, formal thinking is just the concept, the same way words and numbers are just raw concepts with no physical properties other than information.

No?

Hmmmm... Well information doesn't necessarily have meaning per se. If you deny premise 2, but accept premise 1, then you're essentially saying that all deductive arguments are invalid, and that we've never really added 2+2.

I'll expand later.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:53:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 10:19:57 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:13:27 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/26/2014 5:55:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Hey guys,

I recently thought of an interesting philosophy of mind argument. Usually when we explain what "matter" is, we contrast it to intelligence. We say something like "just physical stuff" as in "lacking intelligence." It seems to me that our whole understanding of what physical matter is, is in its difference from intelligence, and rationality.

However, if this is the case, how can the mind be matter? If we're contrasting the two, doesn't that mean they're different things?

I'll admit this isn't a very strong argument, but I found it to be an interesting thought.

Also, James Ross' argument is interesting.

P1: No physical process is determinate.
P2: Formal thinking is determinate.
C: Formal thinking is not a physical process.

I think you need to expand on your justification for P1 a bit more.


Yes, Ross has an interesting idea of "determinate" in this sense. I'll post it later.

But as far as I see, formal thinking is just the concept, the same way words and numbers are just raw concepts with no physical properties other than information.

No?

Hmmmm... Well information doesn't necessarily have meaning per se. If you deny premise 2, but accept premise 1, then you're essentially saying that all deductive arguments are invalid, and that we've never really added 2+2.

I'll expand later.

What I take issue with is the equating of the concept of formal thinking with the 'mind'. P1 I find questionable off the face of it and am interested in hearing your justification for this.

This argument, seems to be an equation akin to the ink of the numbers on a page being the non-physical concept of the numbers. Similarly the concept of formal thinking is meaningless without it's physical manifestation (but we already argued to a stalemate on this in that other thread)
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:29:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

Which is an easily refutable position.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:32:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

That's a fallacy. Water is not identical to atoms. That is like saying a doughnut is identical to eatable. Yes, a doughnut is eatable, but there is more to a doughnut than just being eatable. Similarly, water is atoms, but there is more to water than just that (it is arranged a certain ways, gives off certain things ect.). Thus, they are not identical.

If two things are identical, they must share all the same properties. Or, else, they are different. However, if they are different, then they cannot be the same.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 2:32:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

That's a fallacy. Water is not identical to atoms. That is like saying a doughnut is identical to eatable. Yes, a doughnut is eatable, but there is more to a doughnut than just being eatable. Similarly, water is atoms, but there is more to water than just that (it is arranged a certain ways, gives off certain things ect.). Thus, they are not identical.

Yeah maybe identical isn't the correct word. But this seems to be a semantically critique.

If two things are identical, they must share all the same properties. Or, else, they are different. However, if they are different, then they cannot be the same.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:36:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 2:35:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:32:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

That's a fallacy. Water is not identical to atoms. That is like saying a doughnut is identical to eatable. Yes, a doughnut is eatable, but there is more to a doughnut than just being eatable. Similarly, water is atoms, but there is more to water than just that (it is arranged a certain ways, gives off certain things ect.). Thus, they are not identical.

Yeah maybe identical isn't the correct word. But this seems to be a semantically critique.

If two things are identical, they must share all the same properties. Or, else, they are different. However, if they are different, then they cannot be the same.

* semantic
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:43:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 2:35:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:32:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

That's a fallacy. Water is not identical to atoms. That is like saying a doughnut is identical to eatable. Yes, a doughnut is eatable, but there is more to a doughnut than just being eatable. Similarly, water is atoms, but there is more to water than just that (it is arranged a certain ways, gives off certain things ect.). Thus, they are not identical.

Yeah maybe identical isn't the correct word. But this seems to be a semantically critique.

If two things are identical, they must share all the same properties. Or, else, they are different. However, if they are different, then they cannot be the same.

Not really, as the way I used "identical" is the only way that matters. You tried to undermine a version of Leibniz Law there, but it didn't work because of an equivocation fallacy.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 6:47:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

Are you talking about the Chinese room one?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 6:51:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

I also don't think property dualism is bound to a functionalist idea of the mind. So it may not even be a problem
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 7:21:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 6:47:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

Are you talking about the Chinese room one?

Yes that one, and that the whole idea of what a computer is, is relative to whether or not a mind perceives it as such.

Well it seems that if property dualism is the case, then the mind is like software running on the brain, which is the hardware.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 7:26:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Information is the organization of matter into something specific that does a specific thing. I suppose that information is relative, when you look at it.
Any type matter can be organized into information, such as the electrical signals in computers and the compounds that make DNA. Our minds are information composed out of electrical signals.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 7:33:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 7:26:50 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Information is the organization of matter into something specific that does a specific thing. I suppose that information is relative, when you look at it.
Any type matter can be organized into information, such as the electrical signals in computers and the compounds that make DNA. Our minds are information composed out of electrical signals.

No it's not, lol.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 7:36:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 7:33:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 7:26:50 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Information is the organization of matter into something specific that does a specific thing. I suppose that information is relative, when you look at it.
Any type matter can be organized into information, such as the electrical signals in computers and the compounds that make DNA. Our minds are information composed out of electrical signals.

No it's not, lol.

What is it then?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 7:39:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 7:36:47 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/28/2014 7:33:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 7:26:50 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Information is the organization of matter into something specific that does a specific thing. I suppose that information is relative, when you look at it.
Any type matter can be organized into information, such as the electrical signals in computers and the compounds that make DNA. Our minds are information composed out of electrical signals.

No it's not, lol.

What is it then?

I don't have a worked out philosophy of mind position, so I don't know. But I'm convinced it's not just information or anything physical.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 3:18:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 7:21:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:47:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

Are you talking about the Chinese room one?

Yes that one, and that the whole idea of what a computer is, is relative to whether or not a mind perceives it as such.

Well it seems that if property dualism is the case, then the mind is like software running on the brain, which is the hardware.

I'm not sure. Because property dualism seems to be a general description of what the mind is. Not a specific one. Claiming water is an emergent property of atoms doesn't make a claim about how the water or atoms work. If that makes sense.

I'm not too certain about this, but I have seen the idea in the past that the man who doesn't understand Chinese is irrelevant. The system as a whole does.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:04:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 3:18:45 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 7:21:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:47:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

Are you talking about the Chinese room one?

Yes that one, and that the whole idea of what a computer is, is relative to whether or not a mind perceives it as such.

Well it seems that if property dualism is the case, then the mind is like software running on the brain, which is the hardware.

I'm not sure. Because property dualism seems to be a general description of what the mind is. Not a specific one. Claiming water is an emergent property of atoms doesn't make a claim about how the water or atoms work. If that makes sense.


Well ok. You seem to agree that property dualism entails epiphnomenalism, right? But if that's the case, how can we "think"? Our mental properties are caused by physical phenomena, but not vice versa. In which case, it seems that we couldn't choose to "think about" anything in the first place. I think Dennett has an objection similar to this, and argues that under property dualism we don't even know if we're p-zombies or not, since we can't introspect.

I'm not too certain about this, but I have seen the idea in the past that the man who doesn't understand Chinese is irrelevant. The system as a whole does.

Yes, that's true. Which is why Searle also makes the point of saying he could memorize the whole book, and then he would be the system. So then when someone says something to him in Chinese, he knows how to respond, which gives the illusion of understanding and meaning, even though it's not present.

But I think the point that what constitutes a computer in the first place is dependent upon a mind which perceives it as such is stronger. I mean, lots of natural processes take in stuff and spit something else out.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:06:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 3:18:45 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 7:21:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:47:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

Are you talking about the Chinese room one?

Yes that one, and that the whole idea of what a computer is, is relative to whether or not a mind perceives it as such.

Well it seems that if property dualism is the case, then the mind is like software running on the brain, which is the hardware.

I'm not sure. Because property dualism seems to be a general description of what the mind is. Not a specific one. Claiming water is an emergent property of atoms doesn't make a claim about how the water or atoms work. If that makes sense.

I'm not too certain about this, but I have seen the idea in the past that the man who doesn't understand Chinese is irrelevant. The system as a whole does.

In other words, this whole conversation has been determined by physical processes, and we're not really "thinking about" anything. The physical processes are causing us to have this conversation, and meaning seems to be an illusion. Which begs the question: How do we know we're really conscious? Under property dualism it doesn't seem like you can say: "I am conscious" since that assumes you can introspect and think about your own states of mind.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 12:58:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:04:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/2/2014 3:18:45 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 7:21:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:47:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

Are you talking about the Chinese room one?

Yes that one, and that the whole idea of what a computer is, is relative to whether or not a mind perceives it as such.

Well it seems that if property dualism is the case, then the mind is like software running on the brain, which is the hardware.

I'm not sure. Because property dualism seems to be a general description of what the mind is. Not a specific one. Claiming water is an emergent property of atoms doesn't make a claim about how the water or atoms work. If that makes sense.


Well ok. You seem to agree that property dualism entails epiphnomenalism, right? But if that's the case, how can we "think"? Our mental properties are caused by physical phenomena, but not vice versa. In which case, it seems that we couldn't choose to "think about" anything in the first place. I think Dennett has an objection similar to this, and argues that under property dualism we don't even know if we're p-zombies or not, since we can't introspect.

Property Dualism doesn't necessarily entail epiphenomenalism. I'm starting to move away from it and accept Donald Davidson's view. That mental properties can have causal influence on the world. It seems better, after all every other emergent properties have causal influence.

I don't really find a problem with epiphenomenalism and introspection. Our knowledge of our successive links in consciousness doesn't tell us the causal nature of it. Like the sequence of a shadow doesn't tell us what has caused it.

I'm not too certain about this, but I have seen the idea in the past that the man who doesn't understand Chinese is irrelevant. The system as a whole does.

Yes, that's true. Which is why Searle also makes the point of saying he could memorize the whole book, and then he would be the system. So then when someone says something to him in Chinese, he knows how to respond, which gives the illusion of understanding and meaning, even though it's not present.

I've seen it said that then the two minds would constitute one system. Although, I'm not sure that works. Searle accepts something similar to property dualism if I remember correctly.
But I think the point that what constitutes a computer in the first place is dependent upon a mind which perceives it as such is stronger. I mean, lots of natural processes take in stuff and spit something else out.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:33:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 12:58:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:04:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/2/2014 3:18:45 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 7:21:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:47:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:35:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:26:41 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:17:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:40:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
I guess you could respond to this the same you can respond to other arguments from non-identical properties. It simply states, two things being the same doesn't entail that one thing has all the properties of another. Water and atoms for example. Water is atoms, but they don't have 100% the same properties as atoms. Water is simply something that emerges from atoms.

So you're something of an epiphenomentalist property dualist?

Yes

How do you reply to Searle's arguments against the computational/representational theory of though? (I assume you hold this to be true as well, since that seems in line with what you're saying)

Are you talking about the Chinese room one?

Yes that one, and that the whole idea of what a computer is, is relative to whether or not a mind perceives it as such.

Well it seems that if property dualism is the case, then the mind is like software running on the brain, which is the hardware.

I'm not sure. Because property dualism seems to be a general description of what the mind is. Not a specific one. Claiming water is an emergent property of atoms doesn't make a claim about how the water or atoms work. If that makes sense.


Well ok. You seem to agree that property dualism entails epiphnomenalism, right? But if that's the case, how can we "think"? Our mental properties are caused by physical phenomena, but not vice versa. In which case, it seems that we couldn't choose to "think about" anything in the first place. I think Dennett has an objection similar to this, and argues that under property dualism we don't even know if we're p-zombies or not, since we can't introspect.

Property Dualism doesn't necessarily entail epiphenomenalism. I'm starting to move away from it and accept Donald Davidson's view. That mental properties can have causal influence on the world. It seems better, after all every other emergent properties have causal influence.


That's interesting.

I don't really find a problem with epiphenomenalism and introspection. Our knowledge of our successive links in consciousness doesn't tell us the causal nature of it. Like the sequence of a shadow doesn't tell us what has caused it.


I'm saying that if all our thoughts and inner conscious experience are caused by something physical, then we can't really choose to think about anything, and consequently can't really "know" anything. Particularly whether or not we're conscious.


I'm not too certain about this, but I have seen the idea in the past that the man who doesn't understand Chinese is irrelevant. The system as a whole does.

Yes, that's true. Which is why Searle also makes the point of saying he could memorize the whole book, and then he would be the system. So then when someone says something to him in Chinese, he knows how to respond, which gives the illusion of understanding and meaning, even though it's not present.

I've seen it said that then the two minds would constitute one system. Although, I'm not sure that works. Searle accepts something similar to property dualism if I remember correctly.

That sounds pretty far out there to me. Wouldn't that mean anytime information is exchanged between two people, a consciousness emerges?

I think you're correct about Searle too.

But I think the point that what constitutes a computer in the first place is dependent upon a mind which perceives it as such is stronger. I mean, lots of natural processes take in stuff and spit something else out.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."