ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
As to not derail PCH thread.

I am at the office, so, I might take a while to come back.

Quote
No you misunderstood him, and because of that you quoted him out of context. He said in reference to EPIPHENOMANLISM, we are all zombies, because EP is ridiculous. But to say we are zombies in any other context is take him out of context. He clearly doesn't believe in p-zombies.

You...do know that epiphenominalism is the only recourse to naturalism right? To say dualism is not true, and epiphenominalism is not true would entail actual p-zombies.

No I don't know that. And I don't think you know what EP is either.

I work on the brain for a living. A have a graduate degree in brain and behavior research. Before that I studied philosophy of mind. I've worked with cognitive psychologist and neuroscientists.

I've never met a single person in any of those fields who believe in EP (or dualism).

I have a question.

How does the true belief content, "Good, JudeNebula, has a graduate degree in brain and behavior research. And before that, he studied philosophy of mind. He is in the know" enters the causal chain that leads to me writing the following question?

Why do you, Jude Nebula, think those people do not belief in EP nor dualism?


You can put the 2nd question aside, if you prefer.

Thanks.

Great question! But it actually stems from the same faulty assumption that leads to both dualism and EP. So if you understand this faulty assumption, you will then see why dualism and EP are false, and why these people don't believe in either.

The faulty assumption is that biological processes and beliefs are two different things, instead of the same thing viewed from two different perspectives.

So in EP - biological processes (A) cause mental processes (B), which in turn have no causal effect the other way- at least as usually stated by EP believers.

in Dualism- biological processes (A) and mental processes (B) are two different substances.

But what most philosopher's of mind/neuroscientists/cognitive psychologists believe is that mental processes are simply the subjective experience of biological processes. Meaning what it is like when you ARE those biological processes.

A belief is the 1st person experience of neurons firing. Just as sight is the first person experience of light entering the retina and signaling parts of the brain.

Therefore that belief "Jude Nebula etc.." is part of the causal chain because it is neurons firing (from an objective perspective)

Is that clear?

1

JudeNebula

  • ***
  • 2387 Posts
    • View Profile
and what is your response?
--This account has been banned--

2

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
and what is your response?

Sorry, I am at the office, and, I would have to think about it.

I am not sure I understand the gist of the answer. Would you say that the view you describe is of the reductive type (say identity. mental properties are brain properties, neurophysiological properties, with different modes of presentation, perhaps? , or, a non reductive type?


3

JudeNebula

  • ***
  • 2387 Posts
    • View Profile
and what is your response?

Sorry, I am at the office, and, I would have to think about it.

I am not sure I understand the gist of the answer. Would you say that the view you describe is of the reductive type (say identity. mental properties are brain properties, neurophysiological properties, with different modes of presentation, perhaps? , or, a non reductive type?

The former is more correct.
--This account has been banned--

4

depthcharge623

  • ***
  • 4296 Posts
    • View Profile
A belief in a proposition, such as the one OM posited, is determinate with respect to meaning.  A neural firing pattern is indeterminate.  Therefore a neural firing pattern is NOT "just the same thing as the belief."

5

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
The way I am understanding it:
Mental states are simply the subjective experience of cells and organic material, for the most part,  manifested within the nervous system as the organization of those basic elements into functional circuits processing information and mediating behavior.

Meaning what it is like when you are those cells and organic material, for the most part,  manifested within the nervous system as the organization of those basic elements into functional circuits processing information and mediating behavior.

You stated :

"A belief is the 1st person experience of neurons firing. Just as sight is the first person experience of light entering the retina and signaling parts of the brain."


So, let´s take sight (the faculty to see) this faculty or act corresponds to light entering the retina and signaling the brain, just as, mental states corresponds to neurons firing or certain neurobiological activity.

What is this correspondence relation?
The light that enters the retina signals parts of the brain, it causes some neuro activity in the brain, something happens, and then, we have this sight experience , with an aspectual shape of light quality.

similarly, we have neurons firing or certain neurobiological activity, something happens, and then, we have this experience of neuron-firingly presentation, with an aspectual shape of something like the proposition "Good, Jude nebula .. this...or that".

I intuit that you want to say that there is no separation between the experience and the neuro firing, but, that is not explicitly clear in the account, you gave.

But if you want to say that it is an identity relation the experiene of a something, the way it appears to be , the way its is presented , represented is numerically different than what is being  presented, represented, etc...


then you say
"Therefore that belief "Jude Nebula etc.." is part of the causal chain because it is neurons firing (from an objective perspective)"

I find this conclusion strange. As I explained above the experience of a phenomena or event is in principle different from the phenomena or event itself.

I could be wrong, maybe I misunderstood something.

Perhaps you can expand your explanation , that could make a difference.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2015, 07:49:09 am by ontologicalme »

6

depthcharge623

  • ***
  • 4296 Posts
    • View Profile

7

Lawlessone777

  • *****
  • 13838 Posts
    • View Profile
Again I'm really not seeing how this solution brings qualia from physical events. If consciousness is composed of discreet physical events which are, themselves, subject to the laws of physics then saying that consciousness can arise as the subjective experience of these cells would imply qualia pre-existed qualia. In order for something to have subjective experience of physical events then meta-cognition must pre-exist the foundation of meta-cognition.

We're not simply talking about experiential knowledge through subjective neurological events, we're talking specifically about first order experience and intensionality.

In essence this would just ignore the problem that physicalism basically entails mereological nihilism without the addition of a non-reductive material/entity which is not subject to the laws of physics. In essence saying "consciousness is the subjective experience of matter experiencing itself" is backwards. You would require qualia before acheiving qualia, or just presume it there without argument. You don't actually explain how we attain intensionality from extensionality.
God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.