In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?

[Gary Childress]

I have no idea what you mean by "wrong". It's just an assertion for assertion's sake. Suppose I assert that it's "right". What then?

If a person hit a defenseless child unprovoked, then I would say it's wrong according to my moral sensibilities which seem to be innate. If you truly think it's right, then I'm afraid we would be at an impasse and on the same page as me trying to explain what consciousness is to you if you don't possess it.

Such a person clearly miscalculated. The child may or may not be able to retaliate, but other people can retaliate on behalf of the child. Passers by, policemen etc.

Just because the child can't retaliate doesn't mean the person hitting the child won't suffer negative consequences. A random passer-by could retaliate on behalf of the child. We employ people whose job it is to retaliate on behalf of those who can't retaliate for themselves.

That's why we have (and enforce) laws. Laws are consequences.

Laws are based on morals and ethics. What if the person knew they weren't going to face a penalty (even from the law) for hitting a defenseless child, would it be wrong?

Precisely - utility.

In the case of inanimate objects, sure.

[Skepdick]

If a person hit a defenseless child unprovoked, then I would say it's wrong according to my moral sensibilities which seem to be innate.

And if you were to SAY that it's "wrong to hit a defenseless child", rather than intervening in the situation - I would SAY that you are a virtue-signalling immoral coward. Morality is not about lip service, morality is not about SAYING what's "right" or "wrong" - morality is about decisive action.

Less talking - more doing.

If you truly think it's right, then I'm afraid we would be at an impasse and on the same page as me trying to explain what consciousness is to you if you don't possess it.

You got me all wrong. I don't think that hitting a defenseless child is "right" or "wrong".

What I think is that if you hit a child in my presence, I am going to intervene, and possibly hit you back.

Less talking - more doing.

Laws are based on morals and ethics. What if the person knew they weren't going to face a penalty (even from the law) for hitting a defenseless child, would it be wrong?

What does the verbalism "right" and "wrong" mean to you? They mean nothing to me.

I am unable to comprehend what the "rightness" and "wrongness" of a particular event means when decontextualised from consequences. The deontological approach doesn't work for me.

Those actions which maximise my individual, and our collective wellbeing is moral.
Those actions which maximise my individual; or our collective wellbeing is immoral.

The words "right" and "wrong" are much like the words "consciousness" and "experience" - they are just words. How do you use them?

In the case of inanimate objects, sure.

In the case of humans also - it's useful to be moral, because my chances of survival increase if we cooperate.

Morality breeds trust. Trust is an epic foundation for building a society.

[Gary Childress]

If a person hit a defenseless child unprovoked, then I would say it's wrong according to my moral sensibilities which seem to be innate.

And I would SAY that you are a virtue-signalling immoral coward. Morality is not about words, morality is not about SAYING what's "right" or "wrong" - morality is about action.

Less talking - more doing.

If you truly think it's right, then I'm afraid we would be at an impasse and on the same page as me trying to explain what consciousness is to you if you don't possess it.

You got me all wrong. I don't think that hitting a defenseless child is "right" or "wrong".

What I think is that if you hit a child in my presence, I am going to intervene, and possibly hit you back.

Less talking - more doing.

Laws are based on morals and ethics. What if the person knew they weren't going to face a penalty (even from the law) for hitting a defenseless child, would it be wrong?

What does the verbalism "right" and "wrong" mean to you? They mean nothing to me.

I am unable to comprehend what the "rightness" and "wrongness" of a particular event means when decontextualised from consequences.

In the case of inanimate objects, sure.

In the case of humans also - it's useful to be moral, because my chances of survival increase if we cooperate.

Morality breeds trust. Trust is an epic foundation for building a society.

I certainly commend you on your stance of "doing", however, on what basis are you hitting the person back for hitting a defenseless child? Is it because you think the person was wrong for doing that?

[Skepdick]

I certainly commend you on your stance of "doing", however, on what basis are you hitting the person back for hitting a defenseless child? Is it because you think the person was wrong for doing that?

There you are - trying to put your words in my mouth. Put the "right" and "wrong" language aside.

I don't think it's "right" or "wrong" - those words don't even feature in my decision-making process.

What features in my calculation is "I want less child abuse in the world - I want humans with less emotional trauma. I want to build a society based on mutual trust and human solidarity. To this end any action which breeds distrust amongst humans is harmful to social order.

This person miscalculated. They thought there will be no negative consequences for hitting a child - I am providing the corrective evidence they need to think otherwise next time. At the same time, the child gains a role model - does not default to thinking that all adults are assholes.

[Gary Childress]

I certainly commend you on your stance of "doing", however, on what basis are you hitting the person back for hitting a defenseless child? Is it because you think the person was wrong for doing that?

There you are - trying to put your words in my mouth. Put the "right" and "wrong" language aside.

I don't think it's "right" or "wrong" - those words don't even feature in my decision-making process.

What features in my calculation is "I want less child abuse in the world - I want humans with less emotional trauma. I want to build a society based on mutual trust and solidarity. To this end any action which breeds distrust amongst humans is harmful to social order.

This person miscalculated. They thought there will be no negative consequences for hitting a child - I am providing the corrective evidence they need to think otherwise next time."

OK. What if they hit a defenseless rock? Would you hit them if they hit a defenseless rock?

[Skepdick]

OK. What if they hit a defenseless rock? Would you hit them if they hit a defenseless rock?

You are working over-time to misunderstand.

A person hitting a rock is clearly in emotional distress. It's only human to try and help however we can.

If that person's anger gets redirected towards me (irrespective of whether it was aimed at a rock or a child beforehand) - I am going to use whatever means necessary to avoid harm to myself.

I would hit them if I have to. Violence is just a tool - I use it if I have to use it. It's not used for punishment, it's used to affect future outcomes.

It's proactive, not reactive.

[Gary Childress]

OK. What if they hit a defenseless rock? Would you hit them if they hit a defenseless rock?

You are working over-time to misunderstand.

A person hitting a rock is clearly in emotional distress. It's only human to try and help however we can.

If that person's anger gets redirected towards me (irrespective of whether it was aimed at a rock or a child beforehand) - I am going to use whatever means necessary to avoid harm to myself.

I would hit them if I have to.

Are you sure you know what "emotion" means? What are emotions if not something we experience? A rock doesn't have emotions does it? So a person is different in that respect to rocks. They are "conscious".

[Skepdick]

Are you sure you know what "emotion" means? What are emotions if not something we experience?

You are working your ass off to work your way back to the vocabulary/language of "experience"....

Emotion is a mental state associated with the nervous system brought on by chemical changes variously associated with thoughts, feelings, behavioural responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure.

Look! A definition that makes no use of the words "consciousness" or "experience".

A rock doesn't have emotions does it? So a person is different in that respect to rocks. They are "conscious".

So that's the ONLY thing that differentiates you from a rock? Wow. You must be a weird-looking human.

Everything is different to everything else in some aspects.
Everything is the same as everything else in other aspects.

These sorts of statements are not profitable. Similarity and difference (pattern-matching!) are the cornerstones of cognition.

[henry quirk]

Told ya so.

[Gary Childress]

Are you sure you know what "emotion" means? What are emotions if not something we experience?

You are working your ass off to work your way back to the vocabulary/language of "experience"....

Emotion is a mental state associated with the nervous system brought on by chemical changes variously associated with thoughts, feelings, behavioural responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure.

Look! A definition that makes no use of the words "consciousness" or "experience".

OK. But do you think a computer such as an iPad has mental states? Why or why not?

[Skepdick]

OK. But do you think a computer such as an iPad has mental states? Why or why not?

I can argue for and against both positions.

Depending on my intent and my interlocutor's understanding I could CHOOSE to make either argument.

Which answer do you want?

[Gary Childress]

OK. But do you think a computer such as an iPad has mental states? Why or why not?

I can argue for and against both positions.

Depending on my intent and my interlocutor's understanding I could CHOOSE to make either argument.

Which answer do you want?

A computer (in itself) either has mental states or it does not--independently of whether or not you argue one way or the other. If you don't know whether they do or not, then that's fine, neither do I. I'm tempted to think an iPad doesn't have mental states but I can't say for sure because mental states are something only the one having them can know (at least at this point in science).

[Skepdick]

A computer (in itself) either has mental states or it does not

A computer "in itself"? Hahahaha. Even Kant knew that there's nothing to be said about noumena. You are going too far into the land of false dichotomies.

I am not entirely sure whether there is any difference between a "mind" and a "computer". Heck - I am not entirely sure that the universe is not a computer. As with anything else. I can argue for or against the position, but I am finding myself on the fence.

I could SAY that an iPad has mental states.
I could SAY that it doesn't.

I recognise both as valid perspectives.

I recognise both as valid things to say and I understand why somebody might say it.

And that's about as far as I care about the answer to the question "Does a computer have mental states?"

independently of whether or not you argue one way or the other.

OHHHHHH, you are of the religion of mind-independence?

I don't subscribe to that lunacy.

If you don't know whether they do or not, then that's fine, neither do I. I'm tempted to think an iPad doesn't have mental states but I can't say for sure because mental states are something only the one having them can know (at least at this point in science).

So the iPad would know it has mental states but I wouldn't know the iPad has mental states?

So how is that any different than our current situation?

You know that you have mental states, but I don't know that you have mental states.

[Gary Childress]

So if the iPad had mental states, the iPad would know but you wouldn't?

So how is that any different to you knowing that you are conscious, but I don't?

Exactly. A "mental" state is a state of "mind" as distinct from a "physical" state. "Mind" is more or less another word for "consciousness". You have basically been using the terminology of the mind seemingly without realizing it.

Your neurons are in a physical state having a particular physical configuration. A mental state is what your "mind" is in. Emotions are mental states. Pain is a mental state. The redness of red is a mental state.

Only I know for sure that I'm conscious and only you know for sure that you are conscious. We can only hypothesize by extension that the other has consciousness. As far as religion, I am agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, however, religion and whether or not there is consciousness can be two different things.

[Skepdick]

Exactly. A "mental" state is a state of "mind" as distinct from a "physical" state.

You are making the exact same error as Descartes.

"Mind" is more or less another word for "consciousness".

No, it isn't. "Mind" is more or less another word for "computer"

You have basically been using the terminology of the mind seemingly without realizing it.

I realise it just fine. My mind is a computer. I know how computers work.

Hardware and software.

Your neurons are in a physical state having a particular physical configuration. A mental state is what you're "mind" is in. Emotions are mental states. Pain is a mental state. The redness of red is a mental state.

Only I know for sure that I'm conscious and only you know for sure that you are conscious. We can only hypothesize by extension that the other has consciousness. As far as religion, I am agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, however, religion and whether or not there is consciousness can be two different things.

Software states correspond to physical states.