epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory

[Arising_uk]

Wyman,

"I am not sure if Henry believes that his 'I' or 'mind' or 'self' (I'll settle on 'self') is just a concept, or if he thinks it's a physical thing."


Well, I thought I was clear with 'mind is what an animal with a particular and peculiar kind of complexity does' but it seems I just muddied the water.

Let me try again...

I don't have thoughts; I think.

I don't have feelings; I feel.

I don't have consciousness; I'm conscious.

As I point out up-thread: the language we use in conversations like this, on topics like this, colors things. Intended or not: talkin' about 'mind' and 'consciousness' and whatnot (no matter the perspective any of us take on those notions) is to treat the phenomena in question as 'object' that can be investigated unto itself.

I'm as guilty of this as any one (perhaps more so since I actively reject the idea of 'mind' or 'self' or 'consciousness' being anything other than 'action' [and, still I 'objectify' the phenomena]).

Again: it is absurd (to me) to talk about 'walking' as an entity when walking is what legs 'do'

Legs are comprised of a number of parts and -- certainly -- we can examine each of those parts in isolation from the others (we can dissect bone, splay open muscle, and analyze skin), but only as a unified whole can we talk about what legs can do (only in the observing of legs -- as units -- can we see legs in action and comprehend how all those pieces work together, how 'walking' happens).

'Consciousness' (self, 'I'), I assert, is the same.

We can divvy up the brain amongst researchers and have them examine the myriad of bits, and -- through those researchers' efforts -- perhaps glean out sufficient information on these parts to write nice, fat, books ('101 Uses for the Hypothalamus'), but nuthin' about those efforts will, I think, tell any one about the 'person', the 'I', that extended out from the coordinated operations of all those bits.

To 'see' the person, we have to consider 'the person' in his or her whole, fleshy, glory: or, a brain is comprised of a number of parts and -- certainly -- we can examine each of those parts in isolation from the others, but only as a unified whole can we talk about what a brain can do (only in the observing of the brain [in a body, in an environment] can we see a brain in action and comprehend how all those pieces work together, how 'I'ness happens).

Have to admit HQ that despite our political differences, with respect to the above, we talk the same walk.

[Arising_uk]

Ginkgo,

"I wonder if sight, sound and smell are a unified experience, or can I experience these thing as separate streams of consciousness?"


Irrelevant, I think, since 'I' will unify them.

I may be comprised of pieces and parts, but none of those pieces and parts exist in isolation. Each piece and part has developed along side and in coordination with all the others. These pieces and parts work together to form a whole: 'me'.

Sure, the sound is disconnected from the light which is disconnected from the smell which is disconnected from the textures, but 'I' don't exist as multiple entities (one for sight, one for hearing, etc). 'I' exist as 'one', a locus for apprehending multiple streams of disconnected information and then merging those streams into one model of the world. I do this (in this way) because 'I' am a single organism with all means of apprehension (my senses) located and connected within a single discrete mass.

It's a system ('I' am a system) that works well for moving in the world and using the world as resource.

Multiple streams of 'consciousness' need not apply.

And again.

[Arising_uk]

Someone, up-thread, mentioned Ryle.

Gilbert Ryle, yes?

I know next to nuthin' about the man and his work but he hits it square with this...

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle

"Ryle asserted that the workings of the mind are not distinct from the actions of the body. They are one and the same. Mental vocabulary is, he insists, merely a different manner of describing action."

Remember liking Ryle very much when I read him, 'ghost in the machine' was a nice turn of phrase and his Concept of Mind a strong read.

[henry quirk]

A_uk,

I don't see that our political thinking is so far apart...you're 'libertarian/objectivist', yes?

My '*anarchistic sociopathy' is not so different (though, perhaps, with an emphasis on different things).

And: I got a PDF of 'Concept of Mind' yesterday...lookin' forward to diggin' in soon.






*An insult levied against me elsewhere, one I've taken and transmuted

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

"I wonder if sight, sound and smell are a unified experience, or can I experience these thing as separate streams of consciousness?"


Irrelevant, I think, since 'I' will unify them.

I may be comprised of pieces and parts, but none of those pieces and parts exist in isolation. Each piece and part has developed along side and in coordination with all the others. These pieces and parts work together to form a whole: 'me'.

Sure, the sound is disconnected from the light which is disconnected from the smell which is disconnected from the textures, but 'I' don't exist as multiple entities (one for sight, one for hearing, etc). 'I' exist as 'one', a locus for apprehending multiple streams of disconnected information and then merging those streams into one model of the world. I do this (in this way) because 'I' am a single organism with all means of apprehension (my senses) located and connected within a single discrete mass.

It's a system ('I' am a system) that works well for moving in the world and using the world as resource.

Multiple streams of 'consciousness' need not apply.

And again.

It is impossible for the overwhelming majority of us to experience separate streams of consciousness. Once we ask ourselves this question we immediately unify these experiences into a single experience.In other words, such things as sight and sound are subsumed into a single experience that contains multiple parts. The unity theory is based on the idea of subsumption and the study of those unfortunate individuals who suffer from what is sometimes termed,"parallel streams of consciousness".

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosia

[Arising_uk]

A_uk,

I don't see that our political thinking is so far apart...you're 'libertarian/objectivist', yes?

Would say no but not sure what I am anymore, maybe communtarian/objectivist or objectivist/anarcho-syndicalist?

And: I got a PDF of 'Concept of Mind' yesterday...lookin' forward to diggin' in soon.

Thanks for that! Just found it and well pleased as the book was waylaid many moons ago.

[henry quirk]

"communtarian/objectivist or objectivist/anarcho-syndicalist?"

HA!

All over the map...you must bi-locate.

#

Over the years, I've found all manner of good shit as PDFs.

Not a fan of net-culture, but it does have benefits.

[henry quirk]

Agnosia, synesthesia, and other odd disorders can be vastly informative to folks lookin' to see how an individual does what he or she does when it comes to apprehending information (by way of senses).

That folks with such disorders deviate so sharply from the baseline is an example of that trite-ism, 'the exceptions that prove the rule'.

#

"Once we ask ourselves this question we immediately unify these experiences into a single experience."

I'm thinkin' we do the unifying just as a matter of course, without effort, simply cuz we each are single organisms with all means of apprehension (senses) located and connected within a single discrete mass (our fleshy-flesh).

That is: it's wholly natural and normal for a human individual to merge unconnected and dissimilar informations.

[Arising_uk]

HA!

All over the map...you must bi-locate.

Pick 'n' Mix idealist politics.

[henry quirk]

HA!

[NielsBohr]

In another thread, I asked Gingko about scientific explanations of consciousness. Since that would be off topic for that thread, I am starting this one.

Gingko (and anyone else who wishes to respond), what are epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory?

Obviously (I think it was already answered but I try in my own words), the dual-aspect theory, if taken in the singular, is about to tell that there are two realities, essentially:

• brain,
• mind.

And as we cannot say which of them has the priority of the cause (brain "generating mind", or mind orienting the brain), it is most admit - if do no mistake - that they are one next to the other, sort of "royal way" to let the most be according on this...

Epiphenomenalism consist only of giving the priority to the brain, as such matter it is (or would be), can solely give the consciousness and not the reverse...

-But we can destruct epiphenomenalism:

Indeed: How some material hoverer complex, can generate a principle, which can explain him ??
-This would be as we told that a theory could explain herself (which idea is destruct by Goedel's theorem),
or in the opposite side... that undergoing from matter, we couldn't explain anything, what would be worse, moreover for a philosopher...

This is why I accord more credit to dualism, than to epiphenomenalism.

[Ginkgo]

Hi Niels,

I think Godel's incompleteness in relation to philosophy of mind provides us with an argument, or criticism of reductionist explanations such as emergentism and materialism. I think Godel's theorem points to the possibility of a quantum theory of mind because of the non-reducibility or non-contractibility of quantum information.

[NielsBohr]

Thank you Ginko,

I believe you, but cannot tell much more about information quantum.

Nevertheless, I was about to think that the only creation of information was of God, an this way, was the creation of the world.
(I know, this is only a related theme.)

[Ginkgo]

Thank you Ginko,

I believe you, but cannot tell much more about information quantum.

Nevertheless, I was about to think that the only creation of information was of God, an this way, was the creation of the world.
(I know, this is only a related theme.)

I am running the rise of oversimplifying the idea, but I guess we could say God is the creator of information. However, if we replace the word "God" with quantum spin networks then we get a rough analogy.


P.S.

Einstein was probably wrong. God does play dice- quantum dice.

[Greylorn Ell]

Thank you Ginko,

I believe you, but cannot tell much more about information quantum.

Nevertheless, I was about to think that the only creation of information was of God, an this way, was the creation of the world.
(I know, this is only a related theme.)

I am running the rise of oversimplifying the idea, but I guess we could say God is the creator of information. However, if we replace the word "God" with quantum spin networks then we get a rough analogy.


P.S.

Einstein was probably wrong. God does play dice- quantum dice.

Before this silly post, observing a couple of "philosophers" who don't know anything about physics, (except for what they've learned from TV and a few pop-sci magazines) pretend to discuss physics, has been mildly amusing, like watching cats play with artificial mice. But when one of these pretentious nits shows up with the effrontery to declare that Big Al was wrong, the amusement stops.

Ginkgo, you are not qualified to pass judgment upon the opinions of those who have studied physics, much less upon one who actually discovered some physics. Take some physics courses in Relativity and QM before expressing your opinions on such subjects. If you must persist, why not attribute your little opinions to the TV perfesser from whom you learned them?

Greylorn