Consciousness:The Mind-Body Problem

I apologise for the UV, I was just on my way to a trance night! A brief introduction to the mind body problem. I discuss some of the issues, and attack the homunculus fallacy which still permiates modern neurology.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• consciousness
• mind
• hard
• body
• dualism
• cartesian
• dennett
• phenomenology
• chalmers
• zombie

[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.

[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!

[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?

[dancingwithcalvin]

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

[dancingwithcalvin]

@dfpolis

damn true about Dennet. 

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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")

[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?"