Resolution of Transporter Problem

[Nick227]

So what do you refer to when you say, 'I'? From this post, you seem to be claiming that there IS no 'you', at all.

Materialism accepts the label 'you' and 'I' just fine. It places all strictly into deterministic, material terms. 'You' (presumably) are a human being which, on the Internet, goes by Nick. 'You' is a body, a brain, a history of being, a group of possessions, an ideology, part of a social pattern containing other human beings, and so forth. 'You' are reading this post right now. 'You', however, are not non-existent - or 'you' couldn't reply to this message.

You almost seem to be arguing some bizarre form of acosmism or nihilism, not materialism.

The brain is reading. The brain is watching. How it does so is still not understood, but that's the end of the line, materialistically speaking, and that's where the label finds its most fundamental use - at the brain.

You are your brain.

Likely your most stunning entry yet for "Dualist of the Year" award.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Something labelled you!? The same thing that is reading this post?! RD, you are so enmeshed in duality it's ridiculous. Materialism....no one is reading. No one is watching. If it's just data processing, how can it be that something is observing data processing? This is just nonsense, RD. The notion of an observer and the notion of an experience can only be aspects of the processing...flatlanders dreaming of 3D, a trick of the light. I'm sorry but this is kid's stuff. This fantasy you have that you're a materialist!

Thats right Nick, people don't read because there is no such thing as a person and there is no such thing as reading.

Brilliant! Is this what you have learned from reading the works of those authors you champion? Well, I really should read them then!

 

[Nick227]

I wouldn't waste your time, Z. You aren't the first to try to explain this to him.



He is. Again, you aren't the first to be in this spot!

Ironically, Nick's apparent belief that words and communication are useless -- because nothing really exists -- doesn't prevent him from making widespread use of words and communication.

I have never said nothing exists. I have said that the word "I" is a referent which has no physical reference and this, as far as I'm concerned, is a true statement. Least no one has ever AFAI'mA produced objective physical evidence to the contrary. If you actually have any evidence, as opposed to construing nonsense from what are admittedly complex statements to process, please put it out.

A suggestion... if it confuses you - say so. Most regarded commentators who've written on selfhood will happily admit the subject is acutely paradoxical and deeply confusing. It is. It is OK to say you don't understand.

Nick

 

[Lithrael]

Jeez. I was really enjoying Nick's posts there for a while, and I was trying to figure out where I'd gotten the impression that I didn't like reading him.

Now I remember. Or should I say 'now' 'I' 'remember'?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

(i) where precisely this coherent visual representation is physically located in the brain and ...

Same place that it's precisely located in a hologram.

If it's just data processing, how can it be that something is observing data processing?

Can't some other process be "observing" a process? It doesn't have to be an infinite regress, because we are not aware of all levels of processing.

~~ Paul

 

[Nick227]

Same place that it's precisely located in a hologram.

You're saying the brain is holographic in nature?

Can't some other process be "observing" a process? It doesn't have to be an infinite regress, because we are not aware of all levels of processing.

~~ Paul

So, you're saying that this "other process" is actually "You?" Just to get clear here.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Something labelled you!? The same thing that is reading this post?! RD, you are so enmeshed in duality it's ridiculous.

Boy are you confused. What rocketdodger is saying is saying is pure materialist behaviourism.

Materialism....no one is reading.

Wrong.

No one is watching.

Wrong.

If it's just data processing, how can it be that something is observing data processing?

It is just data processing. That's what people are - data processing.

This is just nonsense, RD. The notion of an observer and the notion of an experience can only be aspects of the processing

Yes. And?

...flatlanders dreaming of 3D, a trick of the light. I'm sorry but this is kid's stuff. This fantasy you have that you're a materialist!

What are you talking about?

 

[PixyMisa]

You're saying the brain is holographic in nature?

It's an analogy.

So, you're saying that this "other process" is actually "You?" Just to get clear here.

No. You is self-referential. You is a synthesis of all the processing going on in your brain.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm sorry but to me, as an actual materialist, what you have written above is pure dualist fantasy nonsense.

You are not a materialist, Nick. You are a dualist.

The computer does not have experiences.

Of course it does.

Of course it does.

It processes information. What do you think experiences are?

You might be able to get it to print out the statement "I have experiences" but this is a close as you'll get.

Completely and hopelessly wrong. One of the wonderful things about using computers as models for the human mind is that we can explore what is happening within the models. We can see the experiences unfold - in real time, or step by step, in whatever level of detail or abstraction we desire.

The whole notion of experience is inevitably dualistic at a conceptual level.

Only if you're a dualist.

This to me is really basic, basic materialism. I mean, I'm talking basic here.

You're talking basic nonsense.

Processing occurs. Given that the human and the computer both have a state that might be deemed healthy or unhealthy so processing can likewise be labelled.

And?

Personally I would consider this statement complete unmitigated dualist bollocks.

No. It's strict materialism.

As a materialist it must be accepted that in reality no one is experiencing.

Why?

After all, we know that in reality someone is experiencing.

Why should we accept this obvious falsehood you are promoting?

How you then explain the apparent state of experience is up to you.

Data processing.

But what is utterly clear to any real materialist is that the notion of experience is completely an illusion.

Yes, it's an illusion. This is particularly clear with visual perception, for example. There are entire layers to the illusion that we "see" the "real world".

But the fact remains that we do see the real world.

And no, there's no contradiction there. Just language problems.

If I'm "my brain" then to what does the "my" in "my brain" refer.

The brain that is processing you.

I'm sorry, but again this is so basic it's ridiculous you don't get it. Daniel Dennett...benign user illusion. Please read.

It's you that needs to read it. Again, as the case may be.

As long as we assume dualism. To whom does the word "your" refer? If you are your brain then to whom does the word "your" refer?

You is not your brain. Your brain is a couple of pounds of grey goop. You is what your brain does.

I'll help you out a little here....it refers to nothing. That's why it can be replicated.

That is wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

I have never said nothing exists. I have said that the word "I" is a referent which has no physical reference and this, as far as I'm concerned, is a true statement.

Seriously, you don't get it.

If you say a reference has no referrent, you are saying it doesn't exist.

Under materialism, where everything is physical, saying a reference has no physical referrent is also saying it doesn't exist.

 

[Darat]

OK. I currently appear to be experiencing a computer monitor right in front of me. I understand that this is a representation. Please tell me...

(i) where precisely this coherent visual representation is physically located in the brain and

...snip...

Can someone please point out where precisely running is physically located in the legs?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can someone please point out where precisely running is physically located in the legs?

The invisible Baker's cyst behind the knee. Much like a pineal gland, it is unpaired when only on one side. Wonderful thing, the Baker's cyst.

 

[Nick227]

It is just data processing. That's what people are - data processing.

I agree. So why does RD appear to believe that someone is experiencing the data processing? This has to be patent nonsense. Like I say, it's very basic materialism.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Seriously, you don't get it.

If you say a reference has no referrent, you are saying it doesn't exist.

Under materialism, where everything is physical, saying a reference has no physical referrent is also saying it doesn't exist.

I agree. It does not exist. It's what Dennett terms the "benign user illusion." However, as I see it, evolution has directed us to believe in its existence, indeed to generally not even question its existence, and inevitably many human needs are tied up in acting as though it exists. So, for me, it does not exist, but...!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No. You is self-referential. You is a synthesis of all the processing going on in your brain.

The brain is a machine, Pixy. It creates a sense of selfhood, a user illusion - a non-physical conceptual entity that is the purported subject of experience and holder of various attributes. It's not real. To paraphrase Dan Dennett, the brain just wanted to be famous so it dreamt it had a personal identity and all these attributes and then conveniently forgot it was all a dream!

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

I agree. So why does RD appear to believe that someone is experiencing the data processing? This has to be patent nonsense. Like I say, it's very basic materialism.

Nick

I don't appear to believe that to anyone but you Nick.

I have never said "X experiences data processing." What I have said is "X experiencing Y is data processing."

Big difference.

 

[rocketdodger]

I agree. It does not exist. It's what Dennett terms the "benign user illusion." However, as I see it, evolution has directed us to believe in its existence, indeed to generally not even question its existence, and inevitably many human needs are tied up in acting as though it exists. So, for me, it does not exist, but...!

Nick

If it does not exist, then why do you keep using "I" in your sentences?

I don't think you get it -- if you use a reference, a referrent exists. That is how references work.

 

[rocketdodger]

The brain is a machine, Pixy. It creates a sense of selfhood, a user illusion - a non-physical conceptual entity that is the purported subject of experience and holder of various attributes. It's not real. To paraphrase Dan Dennett, the brain just wanted to be famous so it dreamt it had a personal identity and all these attributes and then conveniently forgot it was all a dream!

Nick

And this invalidates Pixy's definition of "you" how?

 

[Nick227]

Can someone please point out where precisely running is physically located in the legs?

Perhaps you could point out why you apparently believe this statement has any parity with the statement of mine you quoted. I'm ****ed if I can see it! Is it perhaps that you believe you can say the word "ran" or "running" and all problems with your perspective will somehow be magicked away? Based on several of our more recent dialogues this seems to be the case.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps you could point out why you apparently believe this statement has any parity with the statement of mine you quoted. I'm ****ed if I can see it! Is it perhaps that you believe you can say the word "ran" or "running" and all problems with your perspective will somehow be magicked away? Based on several of our more recent dialogues this seems to be the case.

Nick

You asked where thinking physically occurs in the brain. That is equivalent to asking where running physically occurs in the legs.