Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Gary Childress »

In his essay, "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" David Chalmers asks:
"Why doesn't all this information-processing go on 'in the dark', free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red?"
Expanding a little on Chalmers' statement above, would it be theoretically possible for a "zombie" to exist that perfectly mimics EVERY overt or observable characteristic of human behavior except that the "zombie" doesn't have any kind of "awareness" or is not "conscious"? For example: the zombie might eat a piece of fried chicken in order to chemically generate the power necessary to perpetuate its existence, but the zombie wouldn't feel "hunger pangs" of an empty stomach when it needs to power itself. Would it be possible to create a fully functional replica of a human being only the replica didn't have awareness or experience? For Instance how would a replica know it is in need of more fuel and therefore know it needs to eat something if it didn't "feel" hunger pangs?

Or to come at the concept of consciousness from another direction, when I unplug a computer from an electric outlet, does the computer begin to feel "hunger pangs" as the electrons stop flowing through the cable? Would it be possible to create a computer that does feel "hunger pangs" when I unplug it? And how would someone go about creating such a computer?

And if it is not possible to create a computer that feels "hunger pangs", then what is so special about beings predominately made of carbon based molecules that such beings can be created through allegedly random natural processes to feel such things as "hunger pangs"?

Furthermore, what are the ethical implications of creating a computer that feels hunger pangs when a person unplugs it? Would it be morally wrong to subject such a computer to starvation by unplugging it if the computer is capable of feeling discomfort and suffering from lack of electricity?

And again, conversely, if it is perfectly moral for a person to unplug a computer that suffers hunger pangs when it is unplugged, does that mean it is perfectly moral to intentionally starve a human being by denying them food for whatever reason? Again, are carbon based conscious entities somehow uniquely special to other entities with consciousness?

Thank you for reading this and thank you if you decide to post some musings of your own on this topic.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Impenitent »

intentionally starve whomever you like...

be sure you unplug them first

-Imp
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Dubious »

Gary Childress wrote:In his essay, "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" David Chalmers asks:
"Why doesn't all this information-processing go on 'in the dark', free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red?"
Different retinas result in different perceptions of color even among humans...or simply because the human brain is programmed to decipher it accordingly. A dog's brain or reptilian brain translates the same frequency very differently aside from other creatures being able to see below and beyond OUR infra's and ultra's. Why? Because of chemistry. Mr. Chalmers should take a basic science course. Why, for example, would two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen result in water? We know the result; can we understand the WHY of it? Why water? Why not something else!
Gary Childress wrote:Furthermore, what are the ethical implications of creating a computer that feels hunger pangs when a person unplugs it? Would it be morally wrong to subject such a computer to starvation by unplugging it if the computer is capable of feeling discomfort and suffering from lack of electricity?
What would you feel if you were dead? It's long been known that you can't turn on a dead person as you would a computer with a whole new set of memories with each flick of the ON switch. So the question becomes would not the computer become a new entity with new insurgence of electric power forever oblivious to having been turned on innumerable times before? Such anthropomorphism no-longer applies to the thoroughly dead.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Gary Childress »

Dubious wrote:Different retinas result in different perceptions of color even among humans...or simply because the human brain is programmed to decipher it accordingly. A dog's brain or reptilian brain translates the same frequency very differently aside from other creatures being able to see below and beyond OUR infra's and ultra's. Why? Because of chemistry. Mr. Chalmers should take a basic science course. Why, for example, would two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen result in water? We understand the result; can we understand the WHY of it? Why water? Why not something else!
Thank you for a thoughtful response, Dubious.

Why do you say Chalmers needs to study basic science? I'm not sure of Chalmers' credentials in "basic science". However, looking at the quote from Chalmers above, At first glance, I don't see reason to think that Chalmers may not already know such alleged facts. He doesn't seem to be saying here that people DON'T see things differently. For example: perhaps what I call a sensation of "red' you would call a sensation of "blue" if we could magically swap minds and compare. Chalmers' statement has more to do with the fact that we have "consciousness" at all. Is it possible, for example, that human beings could have evolved without consciousness? Presumably a calculator doesn't need "awareness" or "consciousness" to add numbers together. Does a human being necessarily need "awareness" or "consciousness" to do all the things we do or could all the things we do be done by a non-sentient machine of some kind? If the answer to the latter question of a non-sentient machine is "yes" then it would seem to make the positon of "reductive materialism" questionable. Chalmers is a dualist, believing that mind is non-material in nature.
Dubious wrote:What would you feel if you were dead?
My prima facie assumption is that I wouldn't feel anything if I were dead. I would cease to exist completely. I had no conscious awareness before I was born that I know of and there doesn't seem to be much reason for me to think I did. I assume when I die and my body decays it will be the same as before I was born.
Dubious wrote:It's long been known that you can't turn on a dead person as you would a computer with a whole new set of memories with each flick of the ON switch.
Is it perhaps logically or theoretically possible to revive a dead human body after a lengthy period of time, though? What if it's just a matter of having the right technical devices and ability? Would it be the same person who is revived or would it be a different person?
Dubious wrote:So the question becomes would not the computer become a new entity with new insurgence of electric power forever oblivious to having been turned on innumerable times before? Such anthropomorphism no-longer applies to the thoroughly dead.
I suppose it might be possible to create a computer that could retain memory of its prior "existences" on a hard drive that remains persistent throughout the cycles of being turned on and off. One question I'm most interested in would be whether or not a computer could be created to have conscious experience at all. And if it were possible, my next question would be what sort of ethical implications would result if a computer were created that was conscious and could "suffer" or "feel" pain and things like that.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Dubious »

Gary Childress wrote:Chalmers is a dualist, believing that mind is non-material in nature.
I never could figure out why “mind” is considered to be so philosophically esoteric. To me mind is nothing more than the total complex of thoughts output by the brain which is how consciousness manifests itself. In that sense mind is immaterial since you cannot materialize a thought...something god was supposed to have done when He created the universe. The brain is the organic factory which generates thoughts, ideas, etc., and therefore cannot be immaterial. In short, the mind (to me) is the epiphenomenon of a physical process which generates motive, intent and decision based on everything it is aware of and re-digests in the form of recursive input like a self-fertilizing forest.
Gary Childress wrote:Is it perhaps logically or theoretically possible to revive a dead human body after a lengthy period of time, though? What if it's just a matter of having the right technical devices and ability? Would it be the same person who is revived or would it be a different person?
I think what you're asking is if that person would be damaged or not. If a “different” person it begs the question to what degree has the pre-dead person disappeared or in fact died. An interesting event to speculate upon or better, observe if one could, is what a cryogenically processed person would be like once defrosted. Would he proceed with the same brain activity or mindset or would there be a modification in ID which would, in effect, amount to an exchange of something lost for something gained or simply distorted.

Gary Childress wrote:And if it were possible, my next question would be what sort of ethical implications would result if a computer were created that was conscious and could "suffer" or "feel" pain and things like that
Western culture especially – if still existing - I think would give such implications serious thought. Any conscious entity capable of feeling is no longer remote from us regardless by what physical means such sentience is generated. Historically we've always had a problem with "differences" beginning with the most minute variations in racial features.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Gary Childress »

Dubious wrote:I never could figure out why “mind” is considered to be so philosophically esoteric. To me mind is nothing more than the total complex of thoughts output by the brain which is how consciousness manifests itself. In that sense mind is immaterial since you cannot materialize a thought...something god was supposed to have done when He created the universe. The brain is the organic factory which generates thoughts, ideas, etc., and therefore cannot be immaterial. In short, the mind (to me) is the epiphenomenon of a physical process which generates motive, intent and decision based on everything it is aware of and re-digests in the form of recursive input like a self-fertilizing forest.
I don't know how "esoteric" it is for philosophers to ponder questions having to do with the mind. Much of the discourse on philosophy of mind is rather straight forward and can be understood by almost anyone. However, when you say that the mind is "nothing more than the total complex of thought output by the brain", it sort of leads to a lot of other interesting philosophical questions which no one seems to know the definite answers to. And to answer many of those questions requires a more thorough understanding of what the "nature" of consciousness is.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Dubious »

Gary Childress wrote:
Dubious wrote:I never could figure out why “mind” is considered to be so philosophically esoteric. To me mind is nothing more than the total complex of thoughts output by the brain which is how consciousness manifests itself. In that sense mind is immaterial since you cannot materialize a thought...something god was supposed to have done when He created the universe. The brain is the organic factory which generates thoughts, ideas, etc., and therefore cannot be immaterial. In short, the mind (to me) is the epiphenomenon of a physical process which generates motive, intent and decision based on everything it is aware of and re-digests in the form of recursive input like a self-fertilizing forest.
I don't know how "esoteric" it is for philosophers to ponder questions having to do with the mind. Much of the discourse on philosophy of mind is rather straight forward and can be understood by almost anyone. However, when you say that the mind is "nothing more than the total complex of thought output by the brain", it sort of leads to a lot of other interesting philosophical questions which no one seems to know the definite answers to. And to answer many of those questions requires a more thorough understanding of what the "nature" of consciousness is.
...which is more prone to be understood by scientific investigation than philosophic speculation.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Gary Childress »

Dubious wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
Dubious wrote:I never could figure out why “mind” is considered to be so philosophically esoteric. To me mind is nothing more than the total complex of thoughts output by the brain which is how consciousness manifests itself. In that sense mind is immaterial since you cannot materialize a thought...something god was supposed to have done when He created the universe. The brain is the organic factory which generates thoughts, ideas, etc., and therefore cannot be immaterial. In short, the mind (to me) is the epiphenomenon of a physical process which generates motive, intent and decision based on everything it is aware of and re-digests in the form of recursive input like a self-fertilizing forest.
I don't know how "esoteric" it is for philosophers to ponder questions having to do with the mind. Much of the discourse on philosophy of mind is rather straight forward and can be understood by almost anyone. However, when you say that the mind is "nothing more than the total complex of thought output by the brain", it sort of leads to a lot of other interesting philosophical questions which no one seems to know the definite answers to. And to answer many of those questions requires a more thorough understanding of what the "nature" of consciousness is.
...which is more prone to be understood by scientific investigation than philosophic speculation.
True.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Nick_A »

It seems to me that if you believe the brain creates consciousness then a computer could eventually become sophisticated enough to become alive. However, if you believe that the brain is really a living machine that interprets consciousness already existing, then the whole seems to be greater then these parts we are aware of and call brain. Conscious life comes from life.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Image
Nick_A wrote:It seems to me that if you believe the brain creates consciousness then a computer could eventually become sophisticated enough to become alive. However, if you believe that the brain is really a living machine that interprets consciousness already existing, then the whole seems to be greater then these parts we are aware of and call brain. Conscious life comes from life.
Image

Have you heard of the philosophical fallacy "non sequitur"?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Gary Childress »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Image
Nick_A wrote:It seems to me that if you believe the brain creates consciousness then a computer could eventually become sophisticated enough to become alive. However, if you believe that the brain is really a living machine that interprets consciousness already existing, then the whole seems to be greater then these parts we are aware of and call brain. Conscious life comes from life.
Image

Have you heard of the philosophical fallacy "non sequitur"?
Speaking of non sequiturs. What does a picture of a cracked pot have to do with what has been discussed so far in this thread? Is that supposed to be directed metaphorically at someone? :?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ponderings and Meanderings in Philosophy of Mind

Post by Gary Childress »

Nick_A wrote:It seems to me that if you believe the brain creates consciousness then a computer could eventually become sophisticated enough to become alive. However, if you believe that the brain is really a living machine that interprets consciousness already existing, then the whole seems to be greater then these parts we are aware of and call brain. Conscious life comes from life.
Interesting. So when you say in the later case that the brain could be "a living machine that interprets consciousness already existing", do you mean, for instance, that there could be such a thing as a mind without a body?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

I'm pretty sure mind/self/I is what a brain of particular and peculiar complexity and structure, embedded in a body of a certain type, embedded in the world, does, in the same way that legs 'do' walking. You can't examine walking without examing that which walks, and you can't examine mind without examining that which 'minds' (thinks, self-references, etc.).

I see no evidence that you or I are just 'receivers', or 'containers'. Seems to me: 'I' arises from, is the on-going result of, the workings of flesh, bone, blood, muscle and -- of course -- brain.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re:

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote:I'm pretty sure mind/self/I is what a brain of particular and peculiar complexity and structure, embedded in a body of a certain type, embedded in the world, does, in the same way that legs 'do' walking. You can't examine walking without examing that which walks, and you can't examine mind without examining that which 'minds' (thinks, self-references, etc.).

I see no evidence that you or I are just 'receivers', or 'containers'. Seems to me: 'I' arises from, is the on-going result of, the workings of flesh, bone, blood, muscle and -- of course -- brain.
I agree that all the evidence seems to suggest the mind supervenes upon the brain. It seems like one cannot possibly have a mind without a brain. Chalmers sort of turns it around I think and asks a very provocative question; can there be a brain without mind. If there can be a brain without mind, then it seems to open up a whole new "can of worms".
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Gary Childress wrote: I agree that all the evidence seems to suggest the mind supervenes upon the brain. It seems like one cannot possibly have a mind without a brain. .
Your first sentence seems to imply a dualism; your second a mind-brain unity.

Surely if you can't have a mind without a brain, you are not suggesting a "supervening" mind, but a fully embodied one.
The "mind" is what the brain does; not a connected but separate entity?
Post Reply