Resolution of Transporter Problem

[Nick227]

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

Because it points out how, imo, Pixy's brain is trying to "usefully reassign" its own user illusion. I prefer Dennett. I find him more straight. If it don't exist then just say so. The next step Pixy usually takes in this dialogue, apparently to avoid admitting that it doesn't actually exist, is to say that the thoughts are aware of themselves. I will then point out to him that this is idealism. And he will go back to another definition of "thinking."

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

I have a biological need to communicate. I play the game. I thought about going off to the Himalayas, a few years ago, to meditate in a cave for the rest of my life. Well, I thought about it for about 15 seconds, then my lust for intellectual honesty waned somewhat, and I continued chasing after women as usual.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

Perhaps you could cast your mind back a few posts. Then you could perhaps elucidate on your latter statement so I can take a closer look. Thanks

Nick

 

[Lithrael]

How exactly is intellectual honesty less of an illusion than anything else the illusory self might have the illusion that it is thinking about?

 

[Nick227]

How exactly is intellectual honesty less of an illusion than anything else the illusory self might have the illusion that it is thinking about?

Well, I guess the thoughts are present. And it can be that they do articulate the organism's needs. It so happens that they do this through a "user illusion." So, for example, in the statement "I need water," there is no actual "I" to which the word refers, but the organism does still need water. So, in the same way, perhaps there can be a need for intellectual honesty that exists without an illusory self to claim ownership of it.

Nick

 

[Lithrael]

Then why can we not define "I" to mean that organism which is associated with the illusion of its being a thing that thinks it needs water? And how is that different from what Pixy or RD have been trying to define it as?

 

[rocketdodger]

Then why can we not define "I" to mean that organism which is associated with the illusion of its being a thing that thinks it needs water? And how is that different from what Pixy or RD have been trying to define it as?

That is exactly how Pixy and I try to define it for Nick.

But because Dennet told Nick that it must be "counterintuitive," and because Dennet told Nick that anyone who doesn't find it "counterintuitive" must be a dualist, Nick insists Pixy and I are dualists.

The logical validity of what Pixy, Me, or anyone else says is irrelevant to Nick. What is relevant to Nick is whether we blindly worship Daniel Dennet.

 

[rocketdodger]

If it don't exist then just say so.

Because it does exist. If it didn't exist then Lord Dennet wouldn't have made money from a book about it -- and you wouldn't be able to throw his name around so much.

A reference can't exist without the existence of a referrent.

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps you could cast your mind back a few posts. Then you could perhaps elucidate on your latter statement so I can take a closer look. Thanks

Nick

I cast my mind. You are wrong. I never said anything equivalent to "X experiences data processing."

Try again?

 

[rocketdodger]

I have a biological need to communicate. I play the game. I thought about going off to the Himalayas, a few years ago, to meditate in a cave for the rest of my life. Well, I thought about it for about 15 seconds, then my lust for intellectual honesty waned somewhat, and I continued chasing after women as usual.

Nick

You have a need to communicate... about what?

I don't understand why you bother to communicate about an entity that doesn't exist.

When you said "I continued chasing after women as usual" I initially pictured a guy chasing after women, but clearly since your "I" doesn't exist my understanding is wrong. So I guess I should picture "nothingness" chasing after women?

 

[PixyMisa]

Because it points out how, imo, Pixy's brain is trying to "usefully reassign" its own user illusion. I prefer Dennett.

You don't appear to understand Dennett at all, because what I am saying is almost exactly what he is saying.

I find him more straight. If it don't exist then just say so.

It does exist. I am a conscious entity. I have a continuous self-identity - sort of. What doesn't exist is a place in the brain where this happens, which is what (for some reason) you keep asking for. Consciousness - self - is a post-hoc self-referential synthesis of a variety of brain processes.

The next step Pixy usually takes in this dialogue, apparently to avoid admitting that it doesn't actually exist, is to say that the thoughts are aware of themselves.

I never said that or anything like it. I have said the opposite, though.

I will then point out to him that this is idealism.

It's not idealism either. I don't know what it is, other than a strawman.

And he will go back to another definition of "thinking."

I've always operated from one definition of thinking - it's information processing.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I guess the thoughts are present.

Of course. That is clear.

And it can be that they do articulate the organism's needs.

That is also clear.

It so happens that they do this through a "user illusion."

Yes. This is less obvious, but it is true, at least in the more intelligent animals.

So, for example, in the statement "I need water," there is no actual "I" to which the word refers

You just contradicted yourself.

The "user illusion", as you put it, is the actual "I".

It's an illusion, but that doesn't mean it's not real, just that it's not what it appears to be. Which we already know from experimental data.

 

[PixyMisa]

I agree. So why does RD appear to believe that someone is experiencing the data processing?

I don't know why he appears to believe this to you, because he doesn't appear to believe this to anyone else.

It's a question you need to ask yourself: Why do you insist on interpreting straightforward behaviourist explanations for consciousness in dualistic terms?

This has to be patent nonsense.

It is indeed. So why did you do it?

 

[PixyMisa]

The brain is a machine, Pixy.

Sure.

It creates a sense of selfhood, a user illusion

Yes.

a non-physical conceptual entity that is the purported subject of experience and holder of various attributes.

No, that's just something made up by dualists.

It's not real.

Of course it's not. It's something made up by dualists.

The illusion is real, though.

 

[Nick227]

Then why can we not define "I" to mean that organism which is associated with the illusion of its being a thing that thinks it needs water? And how is that different from what Pixy or RD have been trying to define it as?

You can define it as this. However, for me what needs to be examined is whether you are trying to "usefully reassign" personal identity or actually investigate it. Personally, I can do either. Socially not much would happen for me if I refused to use the word "I." I like using it. I like identifying with thoughts and feelings, well most of the time! But I'm also interested in investigating it. And, on a philosophy forum, I figure one can do this stuff. In reality, of course, many people lose their investigative zeal when confronted by these kinds of issues.

The sense in the phrase "my body" is that there exists some entity who owns the body. This is the "user illusion." Now I have a choice. I can simply regard it as some anomaly of language, or I can investigate. Who's body is it?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

You have a need to communicate... about what?

I don't understand why you bother to communicate about an entity that doesn't exist.

When you said "I continued chasing after women as usual" I initially pictured a guy chasing after women, but clearly since your "I" doesn't exist my understanding is wrong. So I guess I should picture "nothingness" chasing after women?

You are confusing notional selfhood with the physical existence of the body....still!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

You don't appear to understand Dennett at all, because what I am saying is almost exactly what he is saying.

Care to bring out some quotes to back that statement up? (he asks, knowing as usual none will be forthcoming!)

It does exist. I am a conscious entity. I have a continuous self-identity - sort of.

I have a continuous self-identity? I take it this statement is just the best way you could state it.

What doesn't exist is a place in the brain where this happens, which is what (for some reason) you keep asking for. Consciousness - self - is a post-hoc self-referential synthesis of a variety of brain processes.

Uhm, I would say that thinking (that is, as I and dictionaries define this word) is a post-hoc self-referential synthesis of a variety of brain processes.

I never said that or anything like it. I have said the opposite, though.

Pixy, you've said it on several occasions. I recall one of our first dialogues when you came out with it, sometime around autumn 06. And, if I recall, you went there again, or very nearby, in some discussion about gerunds a few months back. Amazing the stuff the brain remembers!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The "user illusion", as you put it, is the actual "I".

It's an illusion, but that doesn't mean it's not real, just that it's not what it appears to be. Which we already know from experimental data.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The illusion is real, though.

Well, one might say that "the illusion is real" whilst the organism persists in believing so. However, if you go by this logic you could also say that Fairies are real if one refuses to examine evidence to the contrary. I do find this a slightly odd position for one to take on a skeptics forum, however.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, one might say that "the illusion is real" whilst the organism persists in believing so. However, if you go by this logic you could also say that Fairies are real if one refuses to examine evidence to the contrary. I do find this a slightly odd position for one to take on a skeptics forum, however.

Nick

That is not logically equivalent.

What is logically equivalent is to say that Fairies are real in the form of patterns of neuron excitation within the brain of someone thinking of them.

That is all Pixy is saying -- that the illusion of self exists as a real entity in the form of whatever is the substrate of the data processing. In this case, patterns of neural firing.

 

[rocketdodger]

But I'm also interested in investigating it.

Given your stubborn negative attitude towards educating yourself in the relevant fields such as computer science, cognitive science, biology, psychology, mathematics, and in general anything, I find the above to be a dubious statement.

What you are interested in is telling everyone else why they are wrong and Daniel Dennet is right -- even though we aren't saying anything in disagreement with him. If you knew anything about, for instance, computer science, you might realize that.