On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

Yes Little Idiot, when does consciousness enter the lump of meat.

Check this out! http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 19#p404519

Wow! He just 'splained the whole thing for me. That's it man, my neurology books going in the trash now. Gonna get me a menticle cloud chamber and figure it out that way.

Cheap shot.
Quote about 10% of my post in yours, then link to your post as if that was it, as if that was my explaination, rather than my link between what you were asking and what I said above (in my post).

Nowhere s near as cheap as your answer. I clipped the only part of the post that even remotely had anything to do with the question. The rest of the post was bramble about QM and I have no idea what you were on about except smoke and mirrors. If you don't want cheap shots then make a little effort.

[SpeedOfSound]

My question is really simple. Its one I have asked many times. SD didnt answer it either.
What exactly is the evidence for a non-mental physical world out there?

No one wants to talk to you about your god damned question until you figure out that why it's a dualist assumption and therefore meaningless. Answering just encourages your ill formed logic.

Jesus christ. We have been explaining this to your for over a year now. Don't ask silly loaded questions show us some foundational logic.

[Little Idiot]

'Mental' is a naive R1 representations of a set of neurological functions. Neurology is getting well with identifying all sorts of supposed mental. The key to this hypothesis is that the parts of 'mind' that knows things and thinks are not identical to the parts that 'experience'. If we introspect inside the bubble we find it is empty. Qualia are just labels (bits of neural nets that respond to particular stimuli, recognisers). A 'sense of real-ness' is another of these labels. Your certainty in your experience of qualia might be a physical response to the activation of these recognisers.

This R1 idea of mental/mind is firmly Cartesian dualism. We can't utter an English phrase without it. This is why it is so easy to look like you have an argument against physicalism when all you have is naive idealism.

There are two traps set here. The first is to buy the idea at all of a mental substance. Mental substance is cloaked in many different sheepskins.

The second is the idea of observer-consciousness.

Almost every human being alive, including the best neuroscientists, buy into this bullshit without even thinking. The reason for that is that creating this representation of the mind and observer conscious is exactly what the brain is structured to do.

Someone linked a TedTalk yesterday whee the guy said the brain did not evolve to give a clear picture of the world. It evolved to give a picture that was useful to US. Not a realistic picture at all. The biggest ad best illusion and magic trick of the brain is to get us to believe we are separate form our biology.

All I do here is consistently fight with people that can't see outside that little tinted plastic bubble of the silly man-ape's meat brain.

Does seem odd that a lump of meat should cause consciousness.
Isnt it altogether more likely that the lump of meat is a tool used by consciousness than the actual cause of consciousness, I mean; GET OUT OF HERE! why would meat become self-aware...

For the same reason that a worm slithers out of the ground when it rains or a stem cell turns into part of a liver. It is just a more capable system of interacting with the environment.

But there is no reason for 'me' to be a "subjective experiencer" in that explaination; it works just as well for an end result of evolution to be a zombie who reacts mechanistically to the environment, doesnt it?
In fact, it would be an overall advantage for the species if the individuals were not subjective, and would work for the collective good more, and individual good less. In other words, a subjective sense of 'good for me screw the rest' is often counter to the best eolutionary path and should not have evolved. Right?

[GrahamH]

'Mental' is a naive R1 representations of a set of neurological functions. Neurology is getting well with identifying all sorts of supposed mental. The key to this hypothesis is that the parts of 'mind' that knows things and thinks are not identical to the parts that 'experience'. If we introspect inside the bubble we find it is empty. Qualia are just labels (bits of neural nets that respond to particular stimuli, recognisers). A 'sense of real-ness' is another of these labels. Your certainty in your experience of qualia might be a physical response to the activation of these recognisers.

This R1 idea of mental/mind is firmly Cartesian dualism. We can't utter an English phrase without it. This is why it is so easy to look like you have an argument against physicalism when all you have is naive idealism.

There are two traps set here. The first is to buy the idea at all of a mental substance. Mental substance is cloaked in many different sheepskins.

The second is the idea of observer-consciousness.

Almost every human being alive, including the best neuroscientists, buy into this bullshit without even thinking. The reason for that is that creating this representation of the mind and observer conscious is exactly what the brain is structured to do.

Someone linked a TedTalk yesterday whee the guy said the brain did not evolve to give a clear picture of the world. It evolved to give a picture that was useful to US. Not a realistic picture at all. The biggest ad best illusion and magic trick of the brain is to get us to believe we are separate form our biology.

All I do here is consistently fight with people that can't see outside that little tinted plastic bubble of the silly man-ape's meat brain.

Does seem odd that a lump of meat should cause consciousness.
Isnt it altogether more likely that the lump of meat is a tool used by consciousness than the actual cause of consciousness, I mean; GET OUT OF HERE! why would meat become self-aware...

For the same reason that a worm slithers out of the ground when it rains or a stem cell turns into part of a liver. It is just a more capable system of interacting with the environment.

But there is no reason for 'me' to be a "subjective experiencer" in that explaination; it works just as well for an end result of evolution to be a zombie who reacts mechanistically to the environment, doesnt it?
In fact, it would be an overall advantage for the species if the individuals were not subjective, and would work for the collective good more, and individual good less. In other words, a subjective sense of 'good for me screw the rest' is often counter to the best eolutionary path and should not have evolved. Right?

What would enable zombies to cooperate?
Do you think they might need a theory of mind to understand each other from external observations?
Do you think the zombies would need to understand something of their own mind to make sense of their own behaviour?

There is no evolutionary reason for animals with brains to know anything about brains or the detailed working of minds (or bodies) until they become capable of science and spend a few centuries working it out.

There are lots of evolutionary reasons for animals with brains to understand something simplistic about how animals behave.

'I feel hungry' is the simplistic version of a detailed report of energy levels in the body.
'My hand hurts' is the simplistic version of a detailed report of cellular damage.

'I feel hungry, but "feel" is only a representative abstraction"' is unnecessarily complicated, much harder to achieve and has no obvious evolutionary benefit.

'good for me screw the rest' is often counter to the best eolutionary path

Why? The primary evolutionary necessity is individual survival to reproduction.

Evolution isn't about survival of the species. Read 'The Selfish Gene'.

[Sean Hayden]

Ok Little Idiot, it's stranger than I thought.

How does the BM make the lump of meat aware?

[jamest]

What would enable zombies to cooperate?
Do you think they might need a theory of mind to understand each other from external observations?

Actually, that's the point of 'theory of mind' - understanding the perspective of another to make use of that information. So, how would you explain the choice of altruistic or cooperative behaviour without having the capacity to review and understand the motives of other individuals?

Humans are not single-minded. What makes us different to nearly all other species, is in our ability to co-operate where we see fit. I think that a zombie would necessarily have to be single-minded and wouldn't have this capacity to review each situation by its own merits.

[GrahamH]

What would enable zombies to cooperate?
Do you think they might need a theory of mind to understand each other from external observations?

Actually, that's the point of 'theory of mind' - understanding the perspective of another to make use of that information. So, how would you explain the choice of altruistic or cooperative behaviour without having the capacity to review and understand the motives of other individuals?

Humans are not single-minded. What makes us different to nearly all other species, is in our ability to co-operate where we see fit. I think that a zombie would necessarily have to be single-minded and wouldn't have this capacity to review each situation by its own merits.

I know that's the point of theory of mind. I was pointing that even zombies would need a theory of mind to enable them to cooperate.

Theory of mind is not subjectivity. Theory of mind is entirely compatible with cognitive / representational theories of consciousness and evolutionary development.

All mammals and birds cooperate to some degree, even if only with their offspring. (some exception apply, such as cuckoos)

[Surendra Darathy]

My question is really simple. Its one I have asked many times. SD didnt answer it either.
What exactly is the evidence for a non-mental physical world out there?

I think I would be willing to go to that question as soon as you make some statements about the "physical' which go beyond saying that "the physical is a subset of the mental".

Of course, there are entire books filled with statements about how elements of this "subset" interact. But all you can say about the physical is that it is a "subset of the mental".

If you are going to use the word "subset", I think you need to present the criteria which place aspects of your all-mental universe into the subset. You used the word "subset"; no one else did.

Apparently, in other posts, the physical is that which lies outside the "body". This leads nowhere, as I've pointed out in other posts. All you need is a sharp knife to separate some parts of the body from others. It is up to you to decide whether having your hand cut off is "all mental".

What is it about spoon-bending that places it necessarily in the physical subset? Every day of the week, I can walk down a street in my city and find people who appear to be talking to themselves, but what they are really doing is having a telephone conversation using a "hands-free" device. Those devices, I assume, fall into the "physical subset", and they are not having "telepathic" conversations with other pure mentalities.

Just wait until I get around to asking you about "hands-free wanking"! Or is that, "dick-free wanking"?

[Little Idiot]

My question is really simple. Its one I have asked many times. SD didnt answer it either.
What exactly is the evidence for a non-mental physical world out there?

I think I would be willing to go to that question as soon as you make some statements about the "physical' which go beyond saying that "the physical is a subset of the mental".

Why would you put a pre-condition on your answer?
Will you answer or not? It would seem 'not' is your answer.
Do you have in mind anything particular you want me to 'make a statement about'?

Of course, there are entire books filled with statements about how elements of this "subset" interact. But all you can say about the physical is that it is a "subset of the mental".

Yes, physics. I hear about it time to time.
As you know, I teach physics, and understanding the physical interactions of the physical objects does not stand in contradiction to understanding that these are mental objects; this is in full agreement with them being mental objects apearing as physical.
Just as in a dream the mental 'objects' say, a dream table and chairs, interact. Dream objetcs do not follow waking world physics, you could say they follow dream physics, but that does not matter - the point is that mental objects can be experienced as physical.

If you are going to use the word "subset", I think you need to present the criteria which place aspects of your all-mental universe into the subset. You used the word "subset"; no one else did.

The word subset fits my meaning exactly; all physical objects are mental, but not all mental objects are physical. Since there are many physical and many mental objects both are well described by the word 'set', and so physical is a subset of mental describes my model perfectly.
My laptop exists as a physical object, but it is also a mental experience (all my experiences are mental). Where as 'Ohms law' or 'Pi' or 'root two' or '3' is not a physical object, however it is an idea or a 'mental object'. I can say, think, manipulate mentally 'pi x root two' without a specific physical object.

Apparently, in other posts, the physical is that which lies outside the "body". This leads nowhere, as I've pointed out in other posts. All you need is a sharp knife to separate some parts of the body from others. It is up to you to decide whether having your hand cut off is "all mental".

Removing a hand is a very physical act, which is also (like all physical) mental.

What is it about spoon-bending that places it necessarily in the physical subset? Every day of the week, I can walk down a street in my city and find people who appear to be talking to themselves, but what they are really doing is having a telephone conversation using a "hands-free" device. Those devices, I assume, fall into the "physical subset", and they are not having "telepathic" conversations with other pure mentalities.

Yes, technology, ehh it wasnt like that when I was their age. Tsk. Kids today, huh?
Oh, did you have a point?
Obviously the devices are physical, which as I said (repeatedly) is also mental; all I can know of my hands free head set is my mental experience of it, your the one going to provide evidence its non-mental, if you can.

Just wait until I get around to asking you about "hands-free wanking"! Or is that, "dick-free wanking"?

Yes, its dick free wanking.

[Little Idiot]

Ok Little Idiot, it's stranger than I thought.

How does the BM make the lump of meat aware?

The lump of meat is a very complex CPU, it handles and processes the sense data from the nerves and sense organs.
The lump of meat reacts mechanistically only, the awareness is not one of its properties, the mind is aware of the activity going on in the brain.
Ask these crazy physicalists, they say the lump of meat has the awareness, I dont. No more than a CPU of a PC is aware of the data it processes, anyway.

IMO its the mind which is aware of the experience, not the brain, so lets ask the neuroscientists;
Over to you boys, Can you explain for Sean and I how does the consciousness get into the lump of meat?

[Little Idiot]

This R1 idea of mental/mind is firmly Cartesian dualism. We can't utter an English phrase without it. This is why it is so easy to look like you have an argument against physicalism when all you have is naive idealism.

There are two traps set here. The first is to buy the idea at all of a mental substance. Mental substance is cloaked in many different sheepskins.

The second is the idea of observer-consciousness.

Almost every human being alive, including the best neuroscientists, buy into this bullshit without even thinking. The reason for that is that creating this representation of the mind and observer conscious is exactly what the brain is structured to do.

Someone linked a TedTalk yesterday whee the guy said the brain did not evolve to give a clear picture of the world. It evolved to give a picture that was useful to US. Not a realistic picture at all. The biggest ad best illusion and magic trick of the brain is to get us to believe we are separate form our biology.

All I do here is consistently fight with people that can't see outside that little tinted plastic bubble of the silly man-ape's meat brain.

Does seem odd that a lump of meat should cause consciousness.
Isnt it altogether more likely that the lump of meat is a tool used by consciousness than the actual cause of consciousness, I mean; GET OUT OF HERE! why would meat become self-aware...

For the same reason that a worm slithers out of the ground when it rains or a stem cell turns into part of a liver. It is just a more capable system of interacting with the environment.

But there is no reason for 'me' to be a "subjective experiencer" in that explaination; it works just as well for an end result of evolution to be a zombie who reacts mechanistically to the environment, doesnt it?
In fact, it would be an overall advantage for the species if the individuals were not subjective, and would work for the collective good more, and individual good less. In other words, a subjective sense of 'good for me screw the rest' is often counter to the best eolutionary path and should not have evolved. Right?

What would enable zombies to cooperate?
Do you think they might need a theory of mind to understand each other from external observations?
Do you think the zombies would need to understand something of their own mind to make sense of their own behaviour?

Animals and birds cooperate, with no theory of mind. Why would zombies be different. They could react just as animals, or just robotically. Either way they could function perfectly.

There is no evolutionary reason for animals with brains to know anything about brains or the detailed working of minds (or bodies) until they become capable of science and spend a few centuries working it out.

And there is nothing stopping zomies developing technology to move for food easily, grow reliable food sources etc.
There is no evolutionary need for subjective experience here.

There are lots of evolutionary reasons for animals with brains to understand something simplistic about how animals behave.

'I feel hungry' is the simplistic version of a detailed report of energy levels in the body.
'My hand hurts' is the simplistic version of a detailed report of cellular damage.

'I feel hungry, but "feel" is only a representative abstraction"' is unnecessarily complicated, much harder to achieve and has no obvious evolutionary benefit.

So what? There is no need for subjective experience for this to occur; mechanistic response; blood sugar level low therfore seek food.

'good for me screw the rest' is often counter to the best eolutionary path

Why? The primary evolutionary necessity is individual survival to reproduction.

Evolution isn't about survival of the species. Read 'The Selfish Gene'.

No thanks, you stick to other peoples ideas, I am able to ask my own questions, thanks.
Yes, the survival of the individual helps the evolution. But there is tremendous waste of resources in competition for mating. Logical non-subjective mating program would rapidly advance a species, and make far more evolutionary sense. Again, you have provided zero evidence to suport a claim that subjective experience helps evolutionary success, therefore in the scientific, physicalist model we should not have subjective experience, but we do.
Therefore the physicalist model can not explain the empirical facts.
Therefore the physicalist model is flawed and if it can not explain the empirical facts it is falsified.

[SpeedOfSound]

Animals and birds cooperate, with no theory of mind.

Where did you get this particular piece of misinformation?

[SpeedOfSound]

No thanks, you stick to other peoples ideas, I am able to ask my own questions, thanks.
Yes, the survival of the individual helps the evolution. But there is tremendous waste of resources in competition for mating. Logical non-subjective mating program would rapidly advance a species, and make far more evolutionary sense. Again, you have provided zero evidence to suport a claim that subjective experience helps evolutionary success, therefore in the scientific, physicalist model we should not have subjective experience, but we do.
Therefore the physicalist model can not explain the empirical facts.
Therefore the physicalist model is flawed and if it can not explain the empirical facts it is falsified.

Trust me. You NEED to read some books before you start spouting stuff about evolution and the biological role of consciousness. Your own thinking has got you to this place and this place is called Fail.

[Sean Hayden]

Ok Little Idiot, I want to see if I'm following you here.

There is consciousness. Within consciousness there exist lumps of meat like me that are similar to computers in that like computers which are unaware they are running
Microsoft Windows, the lump of meat <me>, is unaware that it's running a "program" called mind, which is in fact aware.

--am I close?

[Little Idiot]

Animals and birds cooperate, with no theory of mind.

Where did you get this particular piece of misinformation?

That they cooperate or that they have no thory of mind?