Consciousness:The Mind-Body Problem

[dancingwithcalvin]

I hold the Nicolas Malebranche theory to the mind body problem of God as the ultimate causality.

[dfpolis]

Dennett is dishonest. Before he wrote Consciousness Explained (a joke!) he defined consciousness as subjectivity. In CE he has no definition, but tries to make us forget what he admitted. The paradigmatic function of mind is knowing. In every act of knowing there is a known object and a knowing subject. Eliminate the subject, & you have data processing, not knowing. D showed that naturalism is inadequate to our experience of knowing. What is inadequate to experience is falsified.TY DD. Peace, DP

[dancingwithcalvin]

@dfpolis

damn true about Dennet. 

[toecutterr6]

Watch the 'Consciousness, Qualia and Self' vid by Dr. Rama here on youtube.

[kentheseer]

I did a couple videos on the mind / body gap. If you put those three words in the search engine, they should be on top, or go onto my channel.

[AProudAtheist]

there is no inner subjective experience, we dont interpret things, theyre already there, as unglamourous as it sounds, consciousness is just seeing things(perceptual check out russell)and being in pain for example (as opposed to owning qualia)

[LordImmolation]

I wouldn't deny subjective experience, I think that utterance is slightly misguided.

But both the Qualia theorist, and the sense datum theorist (e.g. Russell) are peeps I disagree with. I am more along the lines of the Representationalist (Harman, Tye) or Naive Realist (Martin, McDowell)

[AProudAtheist]

maybe i got the wrong end of the stick but this does sound scarily like Chalmers. Its interesting that you cite Tye as someome you agree with, didnt he present ten problems of consciousness?

[LordImmolation]

I don't deny that we have experiences, that is the problem of consciousness...I just think that these experiences are reducible to the physical (which Charlmers does not).

Tye is a hardcore representationalist and a functionalist, positions which I lean towards. (See for example, Color, Content and Experience...or something like that).

He thinks that perceptual experience is nothing more than objects and the relations subjects bare to those objects.

[AProudAtheist]

id be careful of your phrasing there, we experience things, we dont have experiences. I think Wittgenstein is your answer, my criticisms are all very Wittgensteinian

[39knights]

I think it's a mistake to follow someone like Dennett down the physical path. The observed physical (matter) of the universe makes up 4% of it. My experience of consciousness involves 'timelessness', 'awareness', 'non-causality'. If I look at the new scientific theories these attributes seem to fit in the quantum world; or somewhere but not the physical world. Perhaps we may have to realize that models relying solely on the causal-matterverse don't work, or can't work.

[AllahConsciousness]

@LordImmolation If there is not an eternal observer/actor, then wouldn't it be logical to assume that it doesn't exist whatsoever? Wouldn't this theorhetical eternity of void contradict what you are experiencing right now? Eternity must be birthless and deathless to be consistent with its definition. There is no doubt some eternal factor. Either it is void, or it is something.

[NDPofNovaScotia]

@LordImmolation

You agree with both representationalism AND naive realism? How can that be when one is indirect realism, and the other is direct realism?

[applefarfromthetree]

Very lucid, thanks.

[AProudAtheist]

The Cartesian notion of consciousness is completely and utterly pants. We do not have minds, thought of as mental spaces and we dont have anything in them to be conscious of. Consciousness is being aware, being sentient. there is no hard problem of consciousness

[mindbodyhealer]

It sounds like you need a mind / body healer to bridge a few of the gaps in your concepts and conclusions.

[robotaholic]

I wanna say your problem is that you're stuck in dualism- that inner subjective feel is identical to neuron actions- but i can't say how thats possible- i guess im stuck in dualism too

[Fichte9233]

As we're all. :) Maybe this is a consequence of simply adopting the "language (and conceptual schemes) of the past." We've just fallen into the trap (if you will allow me to call it that). We need a new way of thinking and speaking about the world. we need to conceptual schemes. (Rorty might shed some light on this idea.)

[ex0gen]

but Rorty would say that we need to edify with new terms and therefore create a new language game to keep the conversation going. but why keep it going if the point of solving these "problems" is illusory?

[Fichte9233]

I hear this often when discussing Rorty. In his defense, however, the type of "conversation" that he wants everyone to engage in is certainly not the 'same-old' conversation about Truth ("Truth talk") dating back to the ancients. What he suggests (the word "suggest" is very important, as it doesn't necessarily imply a truth-claim about what we 'ought' to do) is a conversation about what social-hopes we may have, and the best ways to pursue those hopes.(though, he is SO vague on this issue!)

[Fichte9233]

"point", not "issue"

[ex0gen]

Rorty is flawed though. before he reaches his conclusion in philosophy and the mirror of nature he says things like "if this is sound then..." that is even before his chapter in epistemology. Rorty's little game that he plays is that he deconstructs something from a perspective and then when you attack that he jumps to a metaprespective then back again. it really is just a language game. but it's a game for him. ultimately he has no place to stand on.

[Fichte9233]

I agree. He is SUCH a devisive figure (at least within the 'philosophical community'). He doesn't have a place to stand on, and this is intentional (as you said). but, its more than a game-- its an integral part of his philosophy. he wants us to restructure our thinking is some way that avoids the impulse to ask questions like "From where do you speak?"

[Fichte9233]

also, we don't need Rorty to make the point about "dissolving" (as opposed to 'solving') the mind-body problem. We can just as easily use Dewey (Rorty considered himself a "Dewey-disciple")

[jjccccc]

have a shave and get laid this will solve all your problems

[Censeo]

Logic: I think that because physical zombie you and you are the same in our world view (A = not A) our world view is false. Why is there consciousness? I reply "Why would it not be?". How does the brain give rise to experience? I answer "I don't know, but why wouldn't it?". I think the world view gives rise to this question in the first place. If we had the correct world view, the question would not arise.

[Jihunn]

very good, please continue with this stuff

[StevenErnest]

Interesting thoughts! I've been discussing/debating this with Matt/ThouArtThat, as he doesn't see how consciousness can come from "dead matter," while I say the emergence theory explains it: given enough complexity, etc. I don't say consciousness is a simple subject, but given the complexity of the brain, neurons, synapses, etc., a self-awareness evolved.

Keep the thoughtful vids coming!

[MaBu888]

Homonculus est mortuus!

[7horianfiddler]

that mind can not be completely reduced to brain/matter. (*great videos By the way)

[7horianfiddler]

the idea of altered state of consciousness needs to be more invastigated in philosophy of mind. Aldus Huxley, in doors of perception, connects the altered states with bergson's philosophy. Deep waters. Great videos, gy the way...

[LordImmolation]

Yes, as you can tell, I favour functionalist/emergence approach to the mind body problem, I will elaborate further on my position soon. This video, was just to "set the scene" so to speak. Nah, lol I'm optimistic that we will be able to solve the problem eventually (even if we can't I intend to die trying!) But if you differ from this view post a video response!

[5PhiV]

very well put together and informative video. I initially agreed with the idea that subjective experience, consciousness in the sense of sentience is the same kind of question which is comparable to "how do these molecules of H2O interacting give this property of wetness?" but, it is us, the ones with the subjective experience who perceive h2o as "wet". Nevertheless, I think that sentience is worth investigating even if ultimately it is found as something beyond our problem solving modules.

[2cabs2toucan]

I enjoyed that and hope you post more on the subject.