Re: Criticisms to Functionalism : Quantum Fallacies

Video Cam Direct Upload

response to LordImmolation: http://youtube.com/watch?v=InV0cVH6KZc

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Consciousness
• AI
• Penrose
• Hameroff
• Quantum
• Coherence
• microtubules
• functionalism
• emergence

[TheDevilsAdvocate55]

I picked up "I Am a Strange Loop" by Hofstadter and am still kicking it around a bit and haven't gotten to any juicy stuff yet, but i've heard that Hofstadter attempted to explain how consciousness came from dead inanimate matter from it in there- just in case your still looking.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I've read strange loop and a small bit of GEB. Good stuff, but the hard problem still stands. I'd love to discuss Hofstader with you when you're done reading.

[JohananRaatz]

@StevenErnest Right well I've solved it as well in that kind of way, but I've taken a slightly different panexperientialist route. The brain is able to do this because it's made of protophenomenal stuff -essentially it's all reducible to something that seems more abstract than more physical -even the physical stuff.

Wait you study Kabbalah, but you're sounding a tad like an eliminativist here.Do you reduce "physical" to protophenomenal or did I miss something. How do you compatibilize these 2?

[StevenErnest]

@JohananRaatz Right, but it is my opinion that the so-called Hard Problem does not really exist..  Without consciousness residing in the brain, there would be no internal or external perception. Abstract thoughts have a physical source. There is no dilemma.

[JohananRaatz]

@StevenErnest Oh definitely, I was just using these two concepts to explain what is called the "hard problem" though. That is why we have no idea how to get an internal phenomenal mind to emerge from an empirical brain.

[StevenErnest]

@JohananRaatz To be honest, I don't think I'm really following your point. I think you are too hung up on the specific definition of these two terms. Sometimes new concepts are required. Brain science, neurology, is complex, and cannot be reduced to two philosophical concepts, in my opinion. :)

[JohananRaatz]

@StevenErnest Right and I'd agree, it's just the way around it to explain how the two can interact is to reduce both to something else -like with protophenomenalism.

[StevenErnest]

@JohananRaatz I don't think I'm "jumping between empirical and phenomenal." We are aware of, and interact with, the exterior world -- and also we are aware of our self, our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. If we bang our knee, and experience pain, the world "out there" is having an effect on our "in here." So the phenomenal and the empirical are casually linked.

My case with Matt is that I do think consciousness emerges from the brain. There is no insurmountable body-mind problem.

[JohananRaatz]

@StevenErnest Well empirical would be the "out there" physical aspect, while phenomenal would be the internal "in here" aspect. The mental states like pain, love, truth, red, or "I" that we don't experience in an "out there" sort of way.

[StevenErnest]

@JohananRaatz You'll have to explicate, please; from your brief comment I don't know how you are using phenomenal and empirical regarding the emergence of consciousness. I know what the terms mean, I'm not clear on how our are applying them here.

[JohananRaatz]

@StevenErnest "Because a human level of consciousness didn't develop in an ant colony, there can't be emergence? Come on."

That's not the issue. The issue is not that structures can emerge, but that you can't use that to jump between empirical and phenomenal. The phenomenal doesn't emerge from the empirical.

[JohananRaatz]

@otonanoC But they aren't applying Godel's theorem to material objects, they are applying it to Platonic states. Granted you might think this would imply a substance duality, but this isn't necessary once you realize matter breaks down to protophenomenal states.