Are we Machines?

[Interesting Ian]

You don't seem to have taken a great deal of attention as to what I said in my previous post.

-----------------------------------------
Yes, I would stress intentionality and I would remove all mention of gravity precisely because it is no respecter of free will.
-----------------------------------------

Then very clearly neither is any other law! There is nothing magical about gravity as compared to any other law!

If gravity is no respecter of free will then you are presupposing the falsity of materialism. As I say I don't agree that my article is inappropriate in this respect. Other people would need to agree with you.

"..such laws THAT we have observed?" No. "such...as ", but this sort of construction is what I meant about the 18th century style. Nobody talks like this. Why write like it?

I don't understand what is wrong with using "that".

----------------------------------------
Ian it is precisely your (self imposed) task to make sure that as many readers as possible DO understand you.

I've done that. If I've failed then at least I've tried the very best I can. I am not in agreement with your criticisms.

This means you must try to forestall and clarify that confusion. This is not an easy task. Do you think you will get it right in a first draft?

Confusion?? If people are confused then there is nothing I can do about that. I've explained myself as clearly as I am able to. Explaining myself even more simply is beyond my ability.

--------------------------------------------
You say (in your reply) that "we feel we are different from all other objects in the universe" Well, I disagree,

{sighs} Don't be so utterly preposterous.

I fear you won't sell me on the TV analogy,

If you can think of anyway else to explain my ideas then go right ahead. Since I very strongly suspect you don't even understand what I'm saying you can therefore be in no position to ascertain whether it is appropriate or not. Nevertheless feel free to offer a better way of explaining. I know from bitter experience then if I don't use some metaphor then people are absolutely clueless as to what I'm talking about. So go ahead and try to explain my ideas without using any metaphors/analogies.

because any way you look at it, you can (and indeed almost certainly will) change the programme if you fiddle randomly with the insides. (Not, as you say, the content of the program which is fixed elsewhere, but you definitely could change the channel and how could you tell if the program you find yourself watching was the one you would have seen had you not fiddled with the works?)

I've already explained this. If I started to say if one started to mess about with the innards, apart from the tuner, and not messing so much that the picture disappears completely, it makes it needlessly complex. I'm very far from convinced that this is a good idea. Give me an example as to what you think that paragraph should like like, then I can decide.

It introduces an avoidable ambiguity to your explanation, which is a point of potential weakness. It's always a risk with analogy. You have to decide if the metaphor has enough explanatory power to justify the potential confusion. I don't think it has. Your call of course. I wonder what others think?

I'm very open to any suggestions as to how I can better explain my ideas. I could use another metaphor such as videophones, but on the whole I thought TV sets were better. I know from past experience that if I do not use any metaphor, then people are absolutely clueless as to what I'm talking about. At least Skeptics are. Never tried anyone else.

--------------------------------------------------------

Re the 18th century style, yes , it was Berkeley I was referring to.
I'm more a Hutcheson, Hume and Hutton man. The Scots enlightenment produced plenty freethinkers, (many of them correspondents of Berkeley),but they all tended to write the same stilted prose- Johnsonian in style , but lacking his acid touch- which they got from thinking in Latin half the time, while guzzling gallons of claret. The sonorous polysyllables roll convincingly and authoritatively off the tongue...see? You've got me doing it now. It's addictive, but (I feel) offputting to the youthful novice. Be cool. Be hip. You feel this is relevant to the twenty first century. Write like you live in it.

You're being seriously idiotic in your suggestion that my writing is somehow archaic Anyway, nothing I can do about that, it's simply the way I communicate. If there are any words which you feel I ought not to use, or if there is anything else you feel is inappropriate, then please be more specific rather than simply asserting my writing is archaic.

A writer can't help bringing unconscious assumptions into his work (Good teachers are have learned this , through bitter experience, and change their ways accordingly). For example, you assume your readers will know that by human behaviour you mean conscious behaviour,

Well, if a person threw himself of a roof, it would seem strange to my ears if someone commented "I wish that person would behave himself". When discussing the behaviour of people it is normally taken for granted we are not referring to something like falling down a flight of stairs, but rather voluntary behaviour.

I'm beginning to feel you're being rather silly in your criticisms.

Who are your target audience?

Anyone who is interested in such questions. It's not for me to say a certain sex or age etc will be more interested.

You hope to educate them; you must then have some expectation of what mental baggage they are already lugging. Will they think more like you than like me?

Sam, hope you don't my me saying this, but if they think like you then I'm completely wasting my time and I might as well just give up on it now. I have to assume that there are people who don't think like you. If other people do think like you, then I would have absolutely no idea how to express my ideas. Indeed I strongly suspect it would be impossible.

I see Dymanic has just agreed with one of my points.

No that was due to an error on my part. Did you not read my response? He thought the original article was referring to us rather than man-made machines.

So I'm not alone.

If you're right I feel seriously depressed. Just my fervent hope that most people are not like you otherwise I'm simply wasting my time.

I'll certainly have a look on the net, but even if there is a more concise and clearer exposition of your points out there- would it help you to read it? I feel we learn how to write best by reading bad writing: we see how awful it is and we strive to be better.

If I cannot communicate effectively then I agree I'm simply wasting my time. Indeed I'm wasting my time communicating on these fora.

The danger with good writing is that we despair of being as good and resort to plagiarism.

Actually I think my writing in explaining philosophical ideas is much better than other stuff on the Net, so no temptation at all for me to plagerise. Anyway, these are my ideas. If I'm simply copying ideas from someone else, then what is the point of creating a website??

Nope. Reject my painstakingly considered advice. Spurn the accrued wisdom of the ages. Do your own thing and be darned to you, sirrah!

I think I'll do that. I think that Skeptics tend to be particularly stupid in this subject area. Being realistic I'm not going to persuade any of them. I might as well try to persuade a concrete block.

It's a complex subject and an ambitious project, Ian. Don't expect to get it perfect at the first draft. I bet you are still revising come Christmas. I'll be interested to see the next bit.

I can't keep revising it for evermore. This constitutes maybe about 5% of the stuff I'll be writing. I'll make a few minir adjustments, but I won't be rewriting it. If people do not understand what I'm talking about, then so be it. I've tried my very best.

 

[Interesting Ian]

NO! The TV idea is lousy. Back to the drawing board.

As I've already said, I couldn't disagree with you more. It's the best way I can think of to explain my ideas. As I say, if you have a better way, then let's hear it.

I'm off to see if there are any edible mouse droppings in the cupboard.

ps This one seems comprehensible at first glance.(ie I haven't read it yet).
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/brains.html

Says cannot find server at the moment. Will try later.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
"To sum up. The argument that many people make is that we have no compelling reason to suppose we are different from any other object in the Universe, and thus, in common with all other objects in the Universe, we are just as susceptible to physical laws as any other object."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the light of what has previously been said about gravity, and apples, the image invoked at that point has to do with people falling out of trees.

I say right near the beginning:

"By physical laws we simply mean regularities that we observe in nature. Thus, possibly the most obvious example we could point to here, is the law of gravitation which accounts for the fact that objects near the surface of the Earth, will, when released, fall at pretty much the same acceleration".

It should be extremely clear that gravitation does not exhaust all possible physical laws. I explicitly state it's the most obvious example which by implication means there are other physical laws.

But you and Sam were complaining about the very last sentence of that paragraph, so how about the rewording below??

{quote}
One very persuasive criterion by which we might judge that we are essentially machines is to ask ourselves whether our behaviour, in common with the behaviour of all other objects in the Universe, simply follows physical laws. By physical laws we simply mean regularities that we observe in nature. Thus, possibly the most obvious example we could point to here, is the law of gravitation which accounts for the fact that objects near the surface of the Earth, will, when released, fall at pretty much the same acceleration. The fact that the world exhibits such regularities allows us not only to predict future events, but also allows us to exercise a degree of control over our environment. Thus modern times has witnessed a bewildering proliferation of various machines capable of carrying out all sorts of tasks. But no matter how complex such machines might be, ultimately they are simply operating according to such physical laws that we have observed, and their behaviour simply reflects the playing out of physical laws, just as the motion of an apple when released represents the playing out of the physical law referred to as gravitation
{/quote}

I can expand upon things where it might not be entirely clear. But people actually complain that when I explain something I make it too long and people get bored. So what compromise should I reach?? Basically I have to presume my audience will not be completely stupid otherwise my articles are simply going to be too long and people will be put off, and also get pissed off when I belabour the bleeding obvious. And I'm sure that other people can't possibly be as stupid as Skeptics are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This being so, and acknowledging that the brain is a physical object like any other physical object which operates according to physical laws, it seems that a sensible position is to conclude that we are, indeed, essentially machines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we have maybe brains falling out of trees. I guess what I'm looking for is something along the lines of the microevents which make up brain function occuring in accordance with the laws of physics.

Too specific. We need to talk about the behaviour of humans as a whole, not just processes in the brain. Many materialists would say its overt behaviour which constitutes consciousness.

I was also going to say something very much like Soapy's comment: "A writer can't help bringing unconscious assumptions into his work", for example, with regard to what we know 'intuitively':

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We intuitively suppose that the vast preponderance of physical processes in the Universe are not accompanied by any conscious awareness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do we?

I would bet my life on it yes. Sure, there are some people who might believe everything is conscious, and there are people whilst not believing everything is, certainly believe something like a thermostat is. But they are very much in a minority. You dispute this??

To assume that we do may be to take for granted the collective efforts of countless individuals over many centuries to identify the causative factors behind physical processes such as weather, volcanism, rocks rolling down hills, etc -- and to forget the effort required (through study) to become a beneficiary of that knowledge pool. Those explanations are often quite 'counter-intuitive' -- our intuitive inclinations in such matters being better reflected in the myths of our ancestors, and by the pervasiveness and persistence in our language of anthropomorphic metaphor. Using words like "angry" to describe phenomena such as hornets or storm clouds is likely to produce a functionally adequate understanding despite some flawed assumptions.

I don't care about any historical determinents in why we suppose such a thing. This isn't really relevant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We think of our behaviour as a result of our intentions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider this slightly modified version of that statement: We think of behavior as the result of intentions -- and refer to the last sentence above.

(Edited to add: I know, I know, you'll discuss it in the free will section)

What's to consider about it? Sure, a lot of my behaviour is a result of intentions, and they are my intentions.

 

[Interesting Ian]

NO! The TV idea is lousy. Back to the drawing board.

I'm off to see if there are any edible mouse droppings in the cupboard.

ps This one seems comprehensible at first glance.(ie I haven't read it yet).
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/brains.html

Ah yes, the Beloff paper. You've just happened to pick possibly the most accessible article out there on the mind/body problem. It's excellent although there are problems. Anyway, just reading through it again now (I've read it before).

Just laughing where he states:

Before the Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century, the distinction between the mental and the physical was vague and very little was known about the workings of the brain. Even so, it was taken for granted that there was a private world of thoughts and feelings which was different from the public world in which we all live out our lives. The boundary, however, was vague because perception was not yet understood. Thus, it was generally assumed that colours, sights, sounds and all that go to make up our phenomenal world belong to the objective public world out there. Indeed, such 'naive realism' is still widely shared today by those who are either philosophically unsophisticated or, in some instances, philosophically super sophisticated!

I believe that "colours, sights, sounds and all that go to make up our phenomenal world belong to the objective public world out there". Therefore I'm philosophically super sophisticated! (since I'm obviously not philosophically naive)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ah yes, the Beloff paper. You've just happened to pick possibly the most accessible article out there on the mind/body problem. It's excellent although there are problems. Anyway, just reading through it again now (I've read it before).

Nah, just reading it now and I would say that a person who knows nothing about philosophy won't understand it. This is in contrast to what I wrote.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I disagree with him where he states:

But materialists and behaviourists are not stupid.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I can expand upon things where it might not be entirely clear. But people actually complain that when I explain something I make it too long and people get bored. So what compromise should I reach??

Yeah, that can be a tough one. You aren't going to please everyone no matter what you do. For what it's worth, I find your dedication to these issues commendable, as well as your willingness to let us rip on this thing. Maybe there is some place where you could find room for a little more clarification by chopping out something redundant. One possible candidate:

"But no matter how complex such machines might be, ultimately they are simply operating according to such physical laws that we have observed, and their behaviour simply reflects the playing out of physical laws, just as the motion of an apple when released represents the playing out of the physical law referred to as gravitation."

Now, that part is talking about man-made machines. Your next comment (in the thread, not the article) bears on this also:

"Too specific. We need to talk about the behaviour of humans as a whole, not just processes in the brain."

I think that your use of language such as: "...acknowledging that the brain is a physical object like any other physical object which operates according to physical laws..." obligates you to at least some minimal attempt to clarify the position you are paraphrasing, which holds that what we observe at the level of 'behavior' is the result (the sum, or average) of an enormous number of micro-events occurring in the brain.

I don't care about any historical determinents in why we suppose such a thing

Yes, I can see that. That's why I mentioned it.

This isn't really relevant.

Your call. Questions regarding how we arrive at our suppositions do tend to arise in these discussions, and our 'intuitive' feelings presented as if they carried the weight of evidence.

Sure, a lot of my behaviour is a result of intentions, and they are my intentions

So... what are your intentions a result of?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Ian. I was away over the weekend.
I assume that you want to share your thoughts with others. They will fall into certain types-
1. Sceptics, who are , as you say, a lost cause.
2. People smarter than you, who probably know it all already and are by definition, very rare birds indeed.
3. People who are too thick to understand you. (See 1. above).
4. People who are smart and already think like you.

I just wondered who you were imagining as a typical reader.

You say I do not understand your message. True. You say we think quite differently- probably also true, within hardware limits.
Let me take a random guess at your point then: Tell me if I'm warm:-
There is a continuous essence which is the self. This is independent of the body and brain at a fundamental level, but relies on them for it's external function. Therefore damage to the hardware affects the apparent quality of output, but only superficially.

Assuming you mean something like that, I return to my question;-why use the TV analogy? It seems you use it so you can point out that adjusting the machine state, whilst affecting the output, does not actually affect the programme, which continues, unobserved, elsewhere.

But the analogy- ( I say nothing about the argument, you appreciate), the analogy is flawed.

1. The film is actually being broadcast from a master copy. This is not, remotely , how minds work and I assume it is not, remotely, the impression you want to give.

2. Your man knows less about TVs than you or I do about 23rd century technology. After a brief fiddle with a black box in 2204 could we say with confidence that it did not support an AI?
He knows nothing of transmitters. He has nothing meaningful to say about TV sets at all. He is not justified in his conclusions.

3. The first thing you have your protagonists do is TINKER WITH THE WORKS OF A TV. This is a fine illustration of Clarke's Law , not to mention Natural Selection, but what would it tell them about how a TV works? (Did you look inside one recently?)

4. While tinkering with the innards, they are NOT allowed to alter the tuning which might give them an entirely different storyline. (Well , mildly different. Can you tell Soaps apart these days?) But these guys are not au fait with current cultural norms- how would they know they had changed channels?

5. What happens when there is a disruption in signal? What does that mean in terms of your analogy?

6. What if the output signal is specifically designed to damage the TV set? (Which is actually quite simple to do).

People can raise too many quibbles about the model. If you are committed to this sort of technoanalogy, simplify it, so only the variables you need are present; a continuous signal source and an output channel.

Simpler suggestion- A DVD player. No tinkering with the guts permitted. They can play with the controls, but there is no tuning to mess with, no broadcast to divert the argument and the story is clearly there, on the disc, yet quite undetectable except through the process whereby the player turns the recorded signal into a watchable event.
The downside from your POV may be that the clear, 1:1 mapping between the story and the disc does not fit your model, but the same argument can be made about your broadcast film. (Objection 1. above) The DVD can be played on ANY player remember. (Unless it's DVD R/W + of course.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Sam, I repeat myself yet again. I do not agree with you. If you think otherwise, then create your own page and argue how you see fit. I shall put my point across as I see fit. I believe it to be the most effective way. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not going to change it on your say so when I consider you are always wrong about everything else. Oh yes, and a DVD player would be more analogous to the materialist model. Not that I've ever seen the output of a DVD in my life LOL

You remind me when I was at 6th form college aged 17. In this class I was explaining about the expansion of the Universe using the analogy of blowing up a balloon with spots painted on the balloons service. The spots represented the galaxies, the surface of the balloon represented space-time, and blowing the balloon up represented the expansion of the Universe. When I first read about the analogy, 2 years previously when I was 15, in Paul Davies "The Runaway Universe", it helped me to understand how galaxies can all be moving away from each other without there being a centre of the Universe.

But one person in the class said that the balloon will go pop after you've blown it up after a while. And he nitpicked about other ways the analogy falls short. Indeed he went on, and on, and on, about it, saying how rubbish the analogy was.

You are that person Sam. You, like him, comprehensively fail to understand the purpose of analogies. Inevitably people like you, and him, and others will take the analogy too far. But like I suddenly understood the stuff about an expanding Universe by considering blowing up a balloon, so people will understand my underlying ideas. It's true that people who think like you and that lad might not get anything out of my site, but I realised I would never reach everyone. You and other skeptics would fail to understand no matter what analogy I used. I can't help that. I can lead you to the water, but I cannot make you drink.

Create your own website. Let's see who is more effective at getting people to understand. If you're more successful than me then I'll promise I'll sit up and take notice. A word of advice though, the DVD player sure as hell won't achieve what you intend.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Ian you miss my point so well I have to assume it's willful.

Remember what you wrote to Danish Dynamite?
"BTW, and this is to everyone. Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, is what I've written easy enough to understand??"

I'm trying to help by pointing out precisely the sort of criticism you will get. (I assume the website will have a feedback feature?).Now, you know perfectly well that while analogy is a useful tool in explanation, argument based on analogy is always suspect. Analogy has to be airtight. If it is only valid so far as you want it to be valid, then you must make that clear at the outset. (And yes, Inflating a balloon has serious limitations as a model of cosmic inflation. It's about tolerable to explain Olber's paradox and that's it.

I have no interest at all in trying to explain the sort of thing you are discussing, as I believe it to be nothing more than linguistic sophistry, wholly devoid of real meaning and a complete waste of time. But if you are putting that amount of effort into it, I would rather see you do it in a way that does not leave you open to the sort of criticism I'm making. ie better being sniped at by sceptics you already know and despise than by people who don't know you and who actually care. JREF has its standards you know. Even in these latter days. You may be a loon, but you're our loon and I don't want to be ashamed of you.

Bugger!
(I've got a laptop in bits and I just dropped a teeny wee spring somewhere. This may take some time. G'night.)

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm trying to help by pointing out precisely the sort of criticism you will get.

Only from stupid people who have no interest in understanding as I keep tirelessly explaining to you..

(I assume the website will have a feedback feature?).

No, inevitably I'll get facile comments. They can email me.

Now, you know perfectly well that while analogy is a useful tool in explanation, argument based on analogy is always suspect.

Good job it's not an argument then It's no more an argument than the balloon analogy for the Universe is.

Analogy has to be airtight. If it is only valid so far as you want it to be valid, then you must make that clear at the outset. (And yes, Inflating a balloon has serious limitations as a model of cosmic inflation. It's about tolerable to explain Olber's paradox and that's it.

You're either not reading my posts or not understanding them. It conveys the idea of how galaxies can be moving away from each other and yet for there not to be a common centre. It does this superbly.

I'm afraid you're just flat out wrong and I'm getting rather weary of repeating myself all the time.

I have no interest at all in trying to explain the sort of thing you are discussing, as I believe it to be nothing more than linguistic sophistry, wholly devoid of real meaning and a complete waste of time.

That doesn't surprise me coming from you. The website is not intended for the likes of you.

Please stop wasting my time. I wanted sensible criticism not the idiocies you spew forth.

But if you are putting that amount of effort into it, I would rather see you do it in a way that does not leave you open to the sort of criticism I'm making.

You're going to be disappointed matey. I will not be changing it. If you don't like it then do your own.

I'll be ignoring any response from you.

 

[FuzzyQuark]

Hi Ian,

I read your post with interest. This is a topic that fascinates me, and although I feel the jury is still out regarding the verdict I tend to agree with most of what you have said.

Are you familiar with the work of David Chalmers (you can find his web site on Google)? He has all kinds of interesting articles as well as his own theories which are strange, but deserve consideration.

If you are ok with a more metaphysical approach, take a look at the Monroe Institute website (any search engine can find this) - they have some pretty fascinating stuff and some tools to enable you to explore your own consciousness, although they are a bit pricey.

I look forward to your web site, do you have any articles published yet?

Cheers

 

[chance]

interesting Ian from the OP

We could replace some of the internal components of a television set with other components which perform the same function, and yet this certainly does not mean that the storyline of the TV programme is generated by such components. This being so, then it is possible that even if our neurons could be replaced with electronic circuits leaving our minds intact, this need not imply that our minds are actually created by these underlying processes. It is important to understand though that this does not mean that we can actually build a machine that will be conscious. By replacing neurons with electronic circuits we need to bear in mind the self already exists, and should all neurons be replaced with electronic circuits, it would simply mean the self now operates through a brain composed of electronic circuitry! But we cannot create a self from building a machine ground up

Why not? What would be the essential difference between an organic brain and an electronic one? Consider the growth of a child, at birth the ‘self’ is barely there at all, yet through the intervening years to adulthood, the self grows as the storage, recall and analytical systems expand in size and function. Would there be a ‘self’ in a person, comatose from birth and then coming too at say age 30 or would you be a child, using your model?

 

[Interesting Ian]

interesting Ian from the OP Why not? What would be the essential difference between an organic brain and an electronic one? Consider the growth of a child, at birth the ‘self’ is barely there at all, yet through the intervening years to adulthood, the self grows as the storage, recall and analytical systems expand in size and function. Would there be a ‘self’ in a person, comatose from birth and then coming too at say age 30 or would you be a child, using your model?

It doesn't seem to me you have understood my essay. There is no difference between a organic brain and an electronic one. But if we assume the self operates through the brain rather than being generated by the brain, then a normally a living brain will have a self operating through it and an electronic brain wouldn't have (if it were built ground up).

On saying the self is barely there at all, you are understanding this from the direction of materialism. But the alternative I was contemplating is *not* materialism. In the scenario I painted the self is either there or isn't. The self doesn't change a great deal, rather it is the selves mind states which change.

At the end of the day though, if you do not understand my original essay then you'll be less likely to understand the above since I quickly typed out in about 3 mins.

Edited to add:

Just to clarify I was *not* arguing against materialism/epiphenomenalism in my essay. That will come in the article I'm currently writing. What I'm saying is that materialism doesn't exhaust all the possibilities.

 

[Dancing David]

Yet the self is not innate to the organic brain, it manifests itself through the organic brain correct. As a TV manifests the TV program but does not generate it.
Why then exclude a mechanical brain from manifesting the self?

If the organic brain is a biological machine and it manifests a self, then why should a mechanical brain be excluded from manifesting a self.

Otherwise you seem to set up a category of 'special' for a brain that does not apply to other mechanisms that are similar. If the complexity of the rain allows a self to emerge than why not a complex machine?

 

[chance]

interesting Ian

It doesn't seem to me you have understood my essay. There is no difference between a organic brain and an electronic one. But if we assume the self operates through the brain rather than being generated by the brain, then a normally a living brain will have a self operating through it and an electronic brain wouldn't have (if it were built ground up).

Yes, that the bit I don’t get, (the difference between slowly replaced brain component by component, as opposed to the same thing only built from scratch). Assuming your essay/idea were true, what would you propose as being a likely outcome after switching it on?
premise – the built from scratch brain is functionally and physically identical in all respect in that:
It would be consuming power,
it would have inputs of sight, hearing, touch ,etc
it would have the function for memory
etc etc etc

What would it not be doing?

On saying the self is barely there at all, you are understanding this from the direction of materialism. But the alternative I was contemplating is *not* materialism. In the scenario I painted the self is either there or isn't. The self doesn't change a great deal, rather it is the selves mind states which change.

At the end of the day though, if you do not understand my original essay then you'll be less likely to understand the above since I quickly typed out in about 3 mins.

The perceived self from an outside observer, one could hardly say that a baby has much of a personality, this develops over time. With Transmission Theory (TT) what is preventing full expression (or state) in a baby?

Edited to add:

Just to clarify I was *not* arguing against materialism/epiphenomenalism in my essay. That will come in the article I'm currently writing. What I'm saying is that materialism doesn't exhaust all the possibilities.

For the future article - Well arguing against materialism using science would take on a ‘creation science’ flavour if there is no substance to an opposing theory, it’s not enough to pick holes in ambiguous areas where the science is uncertain. A good theory will give observable predictions, else it will be relegated to a “what if”.

 

[jj]

(removed material, forgot I was in CT forum)

Seriously, we're all machines, Ian, that's how it is. Complex ones that are by their very nature impossible to predict (you know my take on determinism), but machines. Do we have free will? Good question. Determinism, at least, is toast.

 

[Interesting Ian]

interesting Ian Yes, that the bit I don’t get, (the difference between slowly replaced brain component by component, as opposed to the same thing only built from scratch). Assuming your essay/idea were true, what would you propose as being a likely outcome after switching it on?
premise – the built from scratch brain is functionally and physically identical in all respect in that:
It would be consuming power,
it would have inputs of sight, hearing, touch ,etc
it would have the function for memory
etc etc etc

What would it not be doing?

Again you presuppose materialism, or at least that the world is physically closed (ie physical laws describe the totality of reality including our behaviour so that our behaviour is reducible to physical laws as understood in physics).

If the idea I proposed is correct it wouldn't be doing those things which we normally think of as being controlled by consciousness. I said in the essay to imagine switching a TV set on in the 17th century. You ain't going to receive any programme. Why do you not find this equally incomprehensible since there is nothing wrong with the TV set?? If you say, yeah, but it's not like a TV set, the self/brain is more like a Nintendo gameboy, then you are presupposing materialism and not acknowledging the possibility that the brain doesn't generate consciousness (rather than "filter" consciousness).

You and David need to read my essay more carefully because once you've understood it you'll find the answers to your questions. I'm unable to explain it in a more simple way than I have already done, so if you're genuinely unable to understand it then you'll just have to forget about it.

What I find absolutely astounding is peoples position that it simply is not possible that the brain does not generate consciousness.

Absolutely incredible.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yet the self is not innate to the organic brain, it manifests itself through the organic brain correct. As a TV manifests the TV program but does not generate it.
Why then exclude a mechanical brain from manifesting the self?

I don't, read my essay.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hi Ian,

I read your post with interest. This is a topic that fascinates me, and although I feel the jury is still out regarding the verdict I tend to agree with most of what you have said.

Are you familiar with the work of David Chalmers (you can find his web site on Google)? He has all kinds of interesting articles as well as his own theories which are strange, but deserve consideration.

If you are ok with a more metaphysical approach, take a look at the Monroe Institute website (any search engine can find this) - they have some pretty fascinating stuff and some tools to enable you to explore your own consciousness, although they are a bit pricey.

I look forward to your web site, do you have any articles published yet?

Cheers

Hi, thanks for your comments.

Yes I've read some of the Chalmers stuff. I'll be writing about 10 articles which I'm putting up on my web site fee to read. Only just started on the 2nd article so it will be some time.