My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[RandFan]

You can explain it all you want. Color or experience are not relevant. If brain states are identical to mental states, I don't need to ever see anything to know what "seeing color" is like. I could be blind, it doesn't matter. So long as I know the relevant brain state "seeing color", I know the mental state.

There is a fatal flaw in your argument. Not ALL mental states are the same. Learning about a brain state isn't the same thing as having the same brain state.

Their brains change when they learn, but scientists do not have to adopt a particular brain state in order to learn about brain states. Yet that is exactly what is being asserted: in order to have complete knowledge of brain state X, one must replicate brain state X in their brain. That does not go on in neurological studies, nor is there any reason to think it will ever become a necessary condition.

You are still making the same fundamental error. Knowledge about a brain state isn't the same thing as having the brain state.

Um, that's my point. Adopting a paricular brain state is not required ¹to gain knowledge of brain states. Yet to have ²complete knowledge of a brain state, it's being asserted by you (and a few others), that one must... adopt a partcular brain state. This is not consistent, and no one has answered my question: what neural process or anatomy (or any other part of a brain state) is inacessile unless a person adopts that particular brain state?

You don't need a particular brain state for #1. You do for #2 (you admit as much below).

This is your straw man and non sequitur combined. #2 doesn't follow from #1.

I have explained to you over and over. And I've given you many analogies. If you are in an accident and the doctor tells you that you will need to re-learn to walk he won't give you a book.

To make a computer peform an operation you can't simply upload the data into it's memory.

To learn about a guy's arm?

Another straw man. I NEVER SAID THIS. We can learn significant but incomplete information.

It hasn't been demonstrated. It's merely been asserted. If Joe's ability is a particular mental state(s), then knowledge of the brain state(s) is knowledge of that ability.

It's knowledge OF the ability. You could even gain knowledge of every instruction of how to move the arm but if these instructions are not in the correct module of your brain it won't replicate Joe's experience.

See Capgras Disorder. It proves my point.

Do you believe they're identical?

Not all brain states are identical to all mental states! Reading about color isn't the same thing as seeing color. Would you agree with that? Reading about color won't activate the area in the brain that is required to experience color.

That area doesn't need to be activated.

It absolutely must.

If mental states ARE brain states, then knowing the brain state "seeing red" IS knowing the mental state "seeing red".

NOT ALL BRAIN STATES ARE IDENTICAL TO ALL MENTAL STATES!

Reading about color doesn't produce the same brain state.

Mary could have no eyes at all and still have the mental event "see red", if brain states = mental states.

NOT ALL BRAIN STATES ARE IDENTICAL TO ALL MENTAL STATES. She could have the mental event "see red" but getting the information by listening to an audio tape wont' replicate the mental state.

¹Of course I agree with you that she has to see color (or have her brain activated in a color-seeing way) in order to know the mental state "color perception".

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Yes, Mary needs a PARTICULAR mental state.

²Type physicalism, which holds that mental events are identical to physical events, doesn't work.

But listening to an audio about seeing red CAN'T REPLICATE the mental state.

#2 doesn't follow from #1 therefore it's a non sequitur. It's also a bit of a straw man and sleight of hand.

 

[Malerin]

How to contruct a reply to Pixy:
Yes
Yes
No
Maybe
No
Not even close
Ok,... some of these: NO WRONG WHAT?
Oh, and appropriate smilies:



Next topic, please.

 

[RandFan]

We can simulate many processes by computer. We can simulate weather systems, for example. Using the computer to gain insight into how things work is a worthwhile endeavour - provided we don't fall into the trap of thinking that a simulation is the thing simulated.

Weather systems are processes that require many physical elements that are not needed by the brain to process information.

Again, your analogy fails.

You would have to assert that consciousness is a biological processes.

 

[westprog]

Received or internally generated in particular ways, yes.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. What do you mean by "experience ... can only be obtained by sensory means"? I can generate internal experiences at will.

You can generate the "red" experience quite easily, but it's not the same as the "seeing red" experience, and it's quite easy to differentiate between the two.

Which could be obtained from the real world or generated by the vat circuitry of the "brain in a vat."

~~ Paul

In theory - but we don't have any "brains in vats" to test it out on.

We can already simulate a bus with a picture of a bus. We don't need to remove living brains from a skull to do that.

 

[westprog]

Weather systems are processes that require many physical elements that are not needed by the brain to process information.

Again, your analogy fails.

You would have to assert that consciousness is a biological processes.

I don't think that's any more controversial than the assertion that respiration is a biological process.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You can generate the "red" experience quite easily, but it's not the same as the "seeing red" experience, and it's quite easy to differentiate between the two.

And why is the difference interesting?

In theory - but we don't have any "brains in vats" to test it out on.

You don't think we could fool a brain into thinking it was in the real world?

We can already simulate a bus with a picture of a bus. We don't need to remove living brains from a skull to do that.

Sorry, don't understand.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Next topic, please.

But surely you want to answer my question:

Are you defining "knowledge of a particular brain state" to include being in or having been in that brain state?

~~ Paul

 

[RandFan]

I don't think that's any more controversial than the assertion that respiration is a biological process.

Let me try and clarify. Only a biologogical process? You are saying there could never be artificial respiration? You are saying that is impossible?

 

[RandFan]

Next topic, please.

Do you agree that not all brain states are identical to all mental states?

 

[westprog]

Let me try and clarify. Only a biologogical process? You are saying there could never be artificial respiration? You are saying that is impossible?

On the contrary. If it's a biological process, it's a physical process, and if it's a physical process, then in theory it should be possible to duplicate. However, until it's known precisely how it works, this will be difficult to do.

 

[PixyMisa]

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/exhausted.jpgHow to contruct a reply to Pixy:
Yes
Yes
No
Maybe
No
Not even close

Malerin, you have not only failed to address any of the problems I have pointed out in your argument, you have failed to address any of the problems that anyone else has pointed out in your argument.

I highlighted one of your key errors in BIG RED LETTERS in the (apparently futile) hope that you might notice it.

Next topic, please.

You haven't even started to address the current topic.

 

[PixyMisa]

You can generate the "red" experience quite easily, but it's not the same as the "seeing red" experience, and it's quite easy to differentiate between the two.

Really?

How?

Exactly?

We can already simulate a bus with a picture of a bus.

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

On the contrary. If it's a biological process, it's a physical process, and if it's a physical process, then in theory it should be possible to duplicate. However, until it's known precisely how it works, this will be difficult to do.

Yes. We can't duplicate it perfectly, of course, but we can duplicate it. So all of that is true, and all of that flatly contradicts the Mary's Room argument.

Within the context of that post alone there is nothing I actually disagree with and only one point that I felt needed expanding upon. So wherefore all the other rubbish?

 

[westprog]

And why is the difference interesting?

Because it's a difference that applies to humans beings, and not computers.

You don't think we could fool a brain into thinking it was in the real world?


Sorry, don't understand.

~~ Paul

We can fool brains quite easily. In fact, vast amounts of evolution is in trying to trick other species into mistaking tasty food for something poisonous or dangerous in order to avoid being eaten. We don't need to put the brain in a vat - in a year or two we'll have all-over body suits that can replicate any given environment in a way that we can't distinguish.

However, the experience of "seeing red" will still involve the optic nerve.

 

[RandFan]

On the contrary. If it's a biological process, it's a physical process, and if it's a physical process, then in theory it should be possible to duplicate. However, until it's known precisely how it works, this will be difficult to do.

You now seem to be contradicting yourself. I'm not sure.

In any event, have you ever heard of cardiopulmonary bypass?

 

[RandFan]

However, the experience of "seeing red" will still involve the optic nerve.

Why?

 

[westprog]

You now seem to be contradicting yourself. I'm not sure.

In any event, have you ever heard of cardiopulmonary bypass?

I think in respiration it's possible to leave out certain biological components, but I'm not aware of any systems that remove the biological element entirely.

 

[westprog]

Why?

The difference between seeing a red object and imagining the colour red, or dreaming about something red, is that seeing involves the eyes. I don't claim that this is 100% accurate, but it's certainly better than 99.9 %. Indeed, I can't think of an example of seeing something that didn't involve something optical.

That the thing we see might not be an accurate representation of external reality is always possible. Indeed, it's quite certain. There's always transcription errors.

 

[rocketdodger]

However, the experience of "seeing red" will still involve the optic nerve.

Except for those individuals who go blind after being able to see.

Or are you suggesting that all such individuals loose the ability to experience red when they go blind?

I would like you to find someone who lost their sight as an adult and ask them "do you experience your memories in black and white?"

lol

 

[PixyMisa]

Because it's a difference that applies to humans beings, and not computers.

That's nice.

But what actually is it?

However, the experience of "seeing red" will still involve the optic nerve.

No. This is not true now - not if you're stating it as a matter of necessity - and in fact, never has been.