by Coded Logic 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
As I understand Dennett he seems to say that thoughts are somehow independent of actions. That we may think the thought "I will lift this cup" leads to me lifting the cup, but that we are mistaken. Thoughts are reduced to unrelated music that accompany actions we would perform in any case.
This doesn't seem fantastic to you? It's not more reasonable to suppose that thoughts are real and have effect? That the thought, "I will stroke the cat on the head" results in the movement itself?
I genuinely don't know.
What seems to be happening in our heads is not a reliable guide to what is actually going on.
I found Dennett's ideas fascinating.
Sam Harris also has some compelling ideas on the topic.
I would just point out (a point that Midgley hammers home relentlessly) that reductionists like Dennett are inconsistent in their use of language on these matters. One minute he will tell us that self is an illusion. Next minute he will say, "I don't think that thoughts are what really cause actions". Who the hell is "l" in such a construction? And why is the "I" who thinks that thoughts are not really effective taken more seriously than the thinker of the original thought? Shouldn't he really be saying: "the collection of atoms that shares the delusion that it has a self of its own accord experiences the sensation of thinking that thoughts are not what really cause actions"? Yet he doesn't talk like that. Even when denying the self he uses language which supposes a self in order to deny it. This is telling.
Do you really think Dennett doesn't realise that and deal with it in his book?
Shouldn't he really be saying: "the collection of atoms that shares the delusion that it has a self of its own accord experiences the sensation of thinking that thoughts are not what really cause actions"? Yet he doesn't talk like that.
I wonder why?
I have a possible answer to consiousness:
Self awareness and consciousness requires at least two computational systems in feedback with each other. The awareness is not generated by each separate computational system but rather by the feedback loop between the two that is actually a measurable value but which is the product of a time differential. The feedback loop IS the awareness but is dependent on the existence of the two computational systems. Self awareness is thus dependent on anatomy but is actually also effectively ethereal.
Just a thought.
Coded, maps and territories are physical. A thought is not physical.
-SBF
Clearly we have reached opposite conclusions on this. I think thoughts are physical while you think they are not physical. Let's see if we can find out exactly where our differences lie and why.
I suppose a good start would be to ask you do you think the electrochemical reactions in our brains influence our thoughts? And do you think that, when we change the chemistry in the brain, it changes how we think (e.g. drinking coffee, alcohol, hallucinogens, etc).
Also, would you categorize the simulations run on my X-box as immaterial?
I actually love this topic. It has been argued for thousands of years. Why? Because no matter how you slice it, we will never know how consciousness exists. Oh we may say it originates here or there. But how? We will never know. But one thing is for sure, you can talk about the "mind" simply being a product of chemical reactions till the cows come home ( and you are correct), but no matter what comes out of your mouth on this forum, your HEART tells you that you are greater than the sum of the parts. You can deny that all you want, but you (plural) are full of crap. Speaking of heart, has it occurred to you that it is only in recent years that scientists are beginning to see that the heart is more than just a pump? It is known as the "little brain". The heart's reaction, was once viewed as the byproduct of the brains thoughts or feelings. But now, that may be changing. Scientists are only beginning to learn about this. In otherwords, the issue is far more complex than imagined. Here is for starters: http://www.mindfulmuscle.com/heart-has-consciousness-knows-before-brain/
What can I say? Hmmm.... Well my heart says...
"I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. My soul knows that very well." - Psalm: 139:14
And your SOUL knows that as well.
we will never know how consciousness exists
History tells us that is is foolish to assert "we will never know...."
Every mystery ever solved turned out to be not magic.
no matter how you slice it, we will never know how consciousness exists. Oh we may say it originates here or there. But how? We will never know.
No offense TL, but I think you're claiming to know things you can't possibly know. The diverse speciation on our planet was also once hailed as an insoluble mystery. But despite such cynicism Darwin did the hard work and spent half a lifetime doing field research looking for an answer. And do you know what happened?
. . . He developed the scientific theory of evolution that is now the backbone of modern biology. I think his words, as someone who knew first hand, carry a lot of wait on the topic:
Saying that we can't know the answer to something is perhaps the most closed minded position a person can ever have. I would sincerely encourage you to be a little more open minded on the topic.
History tells us that is is foolish to assert "we will never know...."
History tells us that it is foolish to assert "we know this and we will never need to change our mind..."
