Philosophy of Mind

[The Sum of Awe]

Having had this curiosity for a long time now, I decided now to make a thread about it because the thought had arisen again. In a sort of way, it relates to the thread called What Lies Behind Thought.

Sorry for the long post:

What is 'you'? This question has been asked so often, and there are many answers to this, but only two of which I found that would make logical sense: (1) A soul, or some sort of observer of your thoughts, activities, etc. and the controller of all you do, literally is you beyond your meatsuit, responsible for your ego. (2) There simply is no you.

I've been finding myself agreeing with the second one, mainly because I can't fit the soul into any of the questions I've asked myself alongside the "What am I?" These following questions are questions that I've asked myself: (1) If my meatsuit had another set of genes or was in some way different, especially if my parents had never met and my mother met another man, would the next 3rd born child be this perception, this consciousness? My answer to it is no, it is an entirely different brain, an entirely different life, an entirely different set of memories. But still, what of my perception?

(2) If there is no soul, why am I not of the brain of the 1st or 2nd born child in my family? Why am I the third born? Why am I not of another species? Why am I of this specific family? Basically: Why am I in this meat suit?

My answer to that has always been: There's nothing that I'm really in, there's nothing really in this flesh, the flesh is all there is, there is no 'I' other than what I call myself, and in fact, 'I' is the only universal name if you think about it, all of us are 'I', that's who I is. But other than that, there really is nothing inside of this body, I does not exist in one body, but the I presides in all bodies, in each individual flesh. It is a name that we all agree to identify ourselves with, and that's all it is, a name, nothing more.

"But I am conscious, obviously" and "I think, therefore I am". Well, just because you think, only means that your thoughts exist, it doesn't mean that you exist.

Most physicalists agree that thoughts and the mind are creations of the brain, just as dreams are, and I very much agree with that idea. And what are thoughts? What is mind? I suppose that we'll start with in order to make it make sense, according to my concept of mind:

Consciousness, or the perceiver: Literally is our senses, our physical senses. We often identify our consciousness or "the perceiver" with our head, popularly believed that this is because our brain is in our head, and the brain is the main source of our consciousness. No, the brain merely works as a receiver, contrary to popular belief that it works as a transmitter, for our senses. Our senses come from our sense organs, eyes, ears, etc. The reason why our head is identified with the perceiver is because the majority of our sense organs are consistent with it: The nose, the ears, the eyes, and the tongue persuade on there. All together, when you are seeing, feeling, smelling, and hearing something all at once (possibly tasting to be included, possibly not, tasting is not as used compared to the other four), it might seem that this is more than just sensing, that this is experiencing, that this is consciousness itself. While it is experiencing, and we simply don't pay attention that "all of these individual senses are working at once", we define it as experiencing and forget what is doing the experiencing: we might think the ego is experiencing, or soul, the I. But really, all that is doing the experiencing is the senses, and just because all of them or most of them are working together, does not mean that this creates an I.

(by the way, while there are more than five senses, I'm only identifying with the common five in here, for many reasons: it's hard to keep track of all five, no need to do more explaining than I have to, and because the main five are just that: main.)

Memories: Memories are reminders of senses of the past, a bundle of senses, or an experience, being re-sensed.

Thoughts: Thoughts are different memories bundled together to make something new, sort of like photoshop, you can cut the head off someone in one picture and delete the rest of the picture, paste some more cut-outs from a picture to create an entire picture full of cut-outs. Thoughts are never new or original, the only thing that can be imagined is something that you have once saw in the past. You may claim thoughts of things that don't exist are creative but, while you can imagine a unicorn, but you have the image of 'horse' and a horn in your head, you simply paste them together and that is a thought.

Self-Awareness: This, if not the consciousness, is probably the next thing mistaken as the I. Self-awareness is the awareness of these thoughts, this consciousness, of an 'I' concept. The self awareness is simply thoughts, there is no recognition, all it is is thoughts of your thoughts, thoughts of your memories, thoughts of your knowledge, etc. But then again, I am still thinking about the self-awareness, this is not my official stance on it, I just haven't thought much about it yet.

So that's my theory (note: not the scientific term for theory). There is no I, there is no perceiver. I'm to answer any questions. If this thread does get any respondents, I might think about the self-awareness more tomorrow and edit this.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

It is all a matter of perspective.

Sometimes, it's #1...sometimes, it's #2 and often, a combination of both, depending on where your 'conscious awareness' is, at that time.

I'd like to try and philosophise/reason it out, but my ability to do that is waning for some inexplicable reason...it's like 'I just don't have it in me' anymore.

There is 'duality' and there is 'non-duality'. Dvaita vs Advaita and this is the difference between being a Monotheist (in which one has a 'relationship' between themselves and one God/egoless Self/Brahman) and Absolute Monism (when one becomes absorbed in this whole consciousness so that nothing exists outside or apart from it) - making that transition between being the believe-er and becoming what is believed in is the most difficult aspect of it...

"I love God...no, scratch that, I love myself...no...it is God I love, not myself....etc' and on and on it goes like this.

That's why, in a similar thread about 'who are you?' I replied "I honestly do not know" because to "know" who you are, means one does not know anyway...so it's easier just to cut to the chase there.

I don't know what to say beyond that, so I will end it here. I prefer direct questions being asked of me so I can answer philosophically, instead of trying to philosophise over a nebulous concept, knowing what to say, but being struck dumb because I cannot find the words.

 

[Juanita]

That is a lot to grapple with at one time... We are spiritual Beings temporarily in a physical body..The physical body has a brain, but the soul/spirit has conscienceness. Ego is who we think that we are or how we want others to perceive us.. Our personality is who we really are--bubbly,etc...Thoughts come from our perceptions of what we glean from our five senses, but can also come as guidance from spirit...That's about all that I can contribute for now..

 

[raw_thought]

I am using a tablet and so cannot post sites. Also, forgive my spelling/grammar, no spell check and I got big fat fingers!:yes:
Google "qualia stanford encyclopedia of philosophy ". Qualia is what something feels like. For example, what pain,blue, sugar,saddness and even a thought (what does 2+2=4 feel like? Obviously we are aware of (experience) the tjhouhht 2+2=4) feels like. To say that blue is a particular segment of the spectrum is not to be talking about blue's qualia.
Qualia is what does it feel like. Dennett does not believe in qualia because he belieces everything is physical (measurable, quantifiable ). Illusions require qualia because if there is no difference between what something looks like and what it is,then by definition there is no illusion.
Visualize a triangle. If someone were to open your brain, they would not find a triangle. There would not be neuron's firing in a triangular pattern etc. Since there is no physical triangle (according to Dennett ) there is no triangle. Since Dennett denies the existenxe of qualia he must say that you did not visualize a triangle!!! *But you know you did! Dennett denies first person narratives. He believes that only second and third person narratives exist. One morning he woke up and asked his wife,"it was good for you. Was it good for me"?
* He cannot say that you only experience (qualia ) a triangle, that it is an illusion because he believes that qualia do not exist!

 

[nilsz]

If I were to conflate the conception of "metaphysical self" and "free will" I would argue that a self not influenced by its situation is useless, as it cannot make context-sensitive decisions. The physical self is as good as any self.

I do feel a sense of there being a "observer of my thoughts and senses", which I have difficulty accepting is entirely mechanical, but for practical purposes, it seems irrelevant.

 

[raw_thought]

Suppose you torture someone and to make the thought experiment precise you do not cause any physical damage. Dennett says that pain=C fibers firing. There is no (according to him) what pain feels like. Therefore, torture is ethically neutral *because causing a person's C fibers to fire does not cause a significant physical effect. Therefore, Dennett would have to say that torture is ethically neutral. Obviously, Dennett does not think that torture is OK. My point is that his position contradicts itself and so therefore is absurd.
* Perhaps an eliminative materialist (google that) would say that it is unethical to invade another person's personal space (in this case their brain). However, is it unethical to invade (or does it even make sense that one can do so) an unconscious (lacks qualia) physical objects space? Besides, even if we were to say,"yes". There is a huge difference ethically between causing intense pain and trespassing.
There are many other arguments that prove the existence of qualia. For example, Mary's room, inverted spectrum, Chinese room... However, I cannot post sites. You will have to google them.

 

[Leftimies]

Both. Soul does exist, but its temporary collection of memories and learned patters - spiced up with some creativity. Before birth and after death it is no more in this form, but instead all there will be left is death itself, pure existence, free of perception.

 

[nilsz]

Suppose you torture someone and to make the thought experiment precise you do not cause any physical damage. Dennett says that pain=C fibers firing. There is no (according to him) what pain feels like. Therefore, torture is ethically neutral *because causing a person's C fibers to fire does not cause a significant physical effect. Therefore, Dennett would have to say that torture is ethically neutral. Obviously, Dennett does not think that torture is OK. My point is that his position contradicts itself and so therefore is absurd.
* Perhaps an eliminative materialist (google that) would say that it is unethical to invade another person's personal space (in this case their brain). However, is it unethical to invade (or does it even make sense that one can do so) an unconscious (lacks qualia) physical objects space? Besides, even if we were to say,"yes". There is a huge difference ethically between causing intense pain and trespassing.
There are many other arguments that prove the existence of qualia. For example, Mary's room, inverted spectrum, Chinese room... However, I cannot post sites. You will have to google them.

As a programmer of sorts, I would describe an understanding of a sense as an internal representation of knowledge - bits and bytes that reflect reality but are not reality, while qualia is the stimulation of sensors in the program that takes input from itself or the wider system. What the Mary's Room thought experiment illustrates, is that the knowledge of a stimulation does not necessarily enable one to cause the stimulation.

 

[raw_thought]

Qualia is what something feels like. Are you saying that when a computer (with a camera) takes in data (lets say of a red ball) it experiences red?
Or if you hit the computer and a warning light comes on * (that means it passed the Turing test) it is experiencing pain?
* instead of saying "ouch" or screaming. The form the signifier takes is irrelevant.

 

[nilsz]

I am saying that the thought experiment fails to distinguish people from machines. There is a distinction, but it is much more abstract.

 

[raw_thought]

Actually, the purpose of the thought experiment is to differentiate between machines and people. It shows that people can be conscious (have qualia ) and machines cannot.
Yes, it does not explain why we have qualia. It only proves that we have qualia and machines do not. Unless of course you are prepared to say that a hit computer whose warning light goes on is experiencing pain.

 

[nilsz]

To "experience pain" is not something we commonly use about machines with simple functions, unless they are supposed to emulate it.

A sophisticated machine, with an artificial intelligence, can reason about how it will react to the view of colours. Yet, it may be unable to experience it in a room with only shades of grey.

 

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that experiencing (qualia ) something = the manipulation of symbols (signifiers, the physical form of the symbol,) not the concept it refers to?
So if a machine with simple functions (such as the hit computer) emulates a behaviour (its warning light goes on and so it passes the Turing test) is experiencing pain?

 

[nilsz]

I will not humanise a camera with such wording. Pain is something much more abstract, first of all experienced by a somewhat sentient being, artificial or not. Passing such a simple Turing test does not mean it is sentient.

We all experience things in different ways. That too is abstract.

 

[raw_thought]

Agreed! Passing a Turing test has nothing to do with if something is conscious or not.
Machines can only manipulate signifiers* and so therefore can never create consciousness.
* Perhaps not for you but for our audience, a signifier is the physical nature of the symbol. For example the signifier "dog" is the physical pattern of ink or the physical sound pattern created by pronouncing "dog". The signified is the concept dog. Concepts are universals and are not physically tangible objects. For example, the concept "dog" does not refer to a particular breed,size, color...etc of dog. There is nothing physical that resembles something that lacks a particular size, mass...ad infinitum.

 

[nilsz]

"Machines can only manipulate signifiers* and so therefore can never create consciousness. "

I suppose it is kind of like how a lumberjack can only cut trees, not rid forests.

 

[raw_thought]

Are you saying that pain is an abstraction and not an experienced reality? True, a conscious being can experience an abstraction but the experience itself is not an abstraction. For example, the signifier "1+1=2" is meaningless unless experienced by a conscious observer.
On a related topic. If I say, "Chocolate tastes better than vanilla ", that is a statement of opinion. However, if I say "I like chocolate better than vanilla " that is a statement of fact.

 

[raw_thought]

"Machines can only manipulate signifiers* and so therefore can never create consciousness. "

I suppose it is kind of like how a lumberjack can only cut trees, not rid forests.

What I am saying is that a lumberjack can cut trees but cannot rid us of the concept "forest".

 

[bobhikes]

I think the way to look at it is there is only you. Your sense of the world, Your memories of the world and your feeling of the world.

What we try to do is relate and in relating we get conflicting information. We then stop trusting ourselves my reality is incorrect thereby, I must be wrong.

You are the only thing that exists but you don't want it to be that way.

 

[raw_thought]

I think the way to look at it is there is only you. Your sense of the world, Your memories of the world and your feeling of the world.

What we try to do is relate and in relating we get conflicting information. We then stop trusting ourselves my reality is incorrect thereby, I must be wrong.

You are the only thing that exists but you don't want it to be that way.

As Bertrand Russell once said, he was talking to a woman that claimed to be a solipsist and she wondered why there were not more people holding her position.