In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?

[Skepdick]

But we are conscious; at least I am.

You don't know that. It's just what you say about yourself. You have absolutely no idea how to falsify the claim 'I am conscious' - no amount of evidence would convince you otherwise.

It's a belief about yourself, not a fact about yourself.

Are computers conscious? Would a super sophisticated mechanical typewriter-like machine be conscious if it could overtly mimic various behavioral responses that LOOK (from the outside) like a human's?

Observe. You are using the phrase 'looks like a human'. That suggests relativistic/comparative language. It begs all sorts of questions: What does a human look like from the inside? What does a non-human look like from the inside?

If 'conscious human behaviour' looks differently from 'the inside' than it does from 'the outside' who could possibly account for that inside/outside difference and how?

Who could possibly attain an 'inside' AND an 'outside' view of their own 'consciousness' so they could tell us all about it?

Your brain is going to short-circuit into infinite regress (recursion) when you try to even imagine yourself form 'inside' and 'outside' at the same time. This line of inquiry is very unprofitable to any epistemic methodist.

[Gary Childress]

But we are conscious; at least I am.

You don't know that. It's just what you say about yourself. You have absolutely no idea how to falsify the claim 'I am conscious' - no amount of evidence would convince you otherwise.

It's a belief about yourself, not a fact about yourself.

It sounds like you've been reading the nonsense put out by the Churchlands, which is not only incorrect but ultimately dangerous and irresponsible. Do you believe that there is such a thing as consciousness? I mean, are you just some inanimate collection of matter? If someone kills you are they doing no more harm than turning off their ceiling fan? If someone tortures you do you not feel pain?

You may not be conscious but I know I am. Do you not feel pain or experience the color red when you see something that is red?

[Skepdick]

It sounds like you've been reading the nonsense put out by the Churchlands

You are mistaken.

, which is not only incorrect but ultimately dangerous and irresponsible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the "danger" and "irresponsibility" in claiming that I may not be conscious?

In fact, if history is to be a judge on this - it's generally all forms of dogmatism that end up being harmful. Think "theism".

Believing that you are conscious is a form of dogma.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as consciousness?

I don't have beliefs - I have use for such things. I have mental instruments that I use towards my own goals. Logic, reason, thought - they are all in servitude of my pragmatism.

The word "conscious" is an adjective we, humans use to describe ourselves. In so far as it matters to us no human actually knows whether they are conscious or not - we just parrot/mirror each other's language.

I am conscious - a rock is not. It is our consciousness that "makes us different" from the rest of nature. It's egocentrism of the highest form.

I mean, are you just some inanimate collection of matter?

I am a collection of matter. I am not inanimate because no matter is inanimate.

If someone kills you are they doing no more harm than turning off their ceiling fan?

Q.E.D you place a high value on this property of ours you call 'consciousness'.

If someone tortures you do you not feel pain?

I do.

You may not be conscious but I know I am.

How do you know?

Do you not feel pain or experience the color red when you see something that is red?

Are you saying that only consciousness is capable of experience?

Sounds swell, but it begs the question: what is experience?

[Gary Childress]

It sounds like you've been reading the nonsense put out by the Churchlands

You are mistaken.

, which is not only incorrect but ultimately dangerous and irresponsible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the "danger" and "irresponsibility" in claiming that I may not be conscious?

Do you believe that there is such a thing as consciousness?

Yes. The word "conscious" is an adjective we, humans use to describe ourselves. In so far as it matters no human actually knows whether they are conscious or not - we just parrot/mirror each other's language.

I am conscious - a rock is not. We value our intellect very very highly. It's egocentrism of the highest form.

I mean, are you just some inanimate collection of matter?

I am a collection of matter. I am not inanimate because no matter is inanimate.

If someone kills you are they doing no more harm than turning off their ceiling fan?

Q.E.D you place a high value on this property of ours you call 'consciousness'.

If someone tortures you do you not feel pain?

I do.

You may not be conscious but I know I am.

How do you know?

Do you not feel pain or experience the color red when you see something that is red?

Are you saying that only consciousness is capable of experience?

Sounds swell, but it begs the question: what is experience?

Consciousness basically is experience. If you experience something you are conscious. If you feel pain when someone tortures you, then you're conscious.

Have you ever smashed a rock? If you have then it sounds like by your reasoning you would be "egocentric" if you treat rocks worse than fellow humans.

[Skepdick]

Consciousness basically is experience.

You aren't saying anything of interest. If consciousness is experience, then what is experience?

If you experience something you are conscious. If you feel pain when someone tortures you, then you're conscious.

I don't know what "experience" is anymore than I know what "consciousness" is.

They are just words that I am parroting because everybody else is using them.

I KNOW HOW to use the words "consciousness" and "experience" - I DON'T KNOW what "consciousness" or "experience" is.

Have you ever smashed a rock? If you have then it sounds like by your reasoning you would be egocentric.

I have smashed both rocks and humans. I place a higher value on the latter, but that doesn't mean they are different in any ontologically significant sense - it's just my preference.

Both rocks and humans are made of matter. We just like the "human" arrangement more than we like the "rock" arrangement.

[Gary Childress]

Consciousness basically is experience.

You aren't saying anything of interest. If consciousness is experience, then what is experience?

If you experience something you are conscious. If you feel pain when someone tortures you, then you're conscious.

I don't know what "experience" is anymore than I "know" what consciousness is.

They are just words that I am parroting because everybody else is using them.

I know HOW to use the words "consciousness" and "experience" - I have no idea WHAT "consciousness" or "experience" is.

Have you ever smashed a rock? If you have then it sounds like by your reasoning you would be egocentric.

I have smashed both rocks and humans. I place a higher value on the latter, but that doesn't mean they are different in any ontologically significant sense.

Both rocks and humans are made of matter. We just line the "human" arrangement more than we like the "rock" arrangement.

I'm not interested in debating someone who doesn't know what consciousness is. When (or if) you find out, we'll pick up where we left off.

[Skepdick]

I'm not interested in debating someone who doesn't know what consciousness is. When (or if) you find out, we'll pick up where we left off.

What a stupid thing to say! If we both knew what consciousness is then there would be no need for debate!

It's precisely because you know and I don't is why we are here.

If you know what consciousness is then go ahead and tell me!

[Gary Childress]

I'm not interested in debating someone who doesn't know what consciousness is. When (or if) you find out, we'll pick up where we left off.

What a stupid thing to say! If we both knew what consciousness is then there would be no need for debate!

It's precisely because you know and I don't is why we are here.

If you know what consciousness is then go ahead and tell me!

OK. Fair enough.

We don't know what consciousness is made of or how to determine if something is conscious outside ourselves. Only you can know if you are conscious and only I can know if I'm conscious at this point in science. Consciousness is what we call the experience we have when we experience things. If you aren't conscious then there is basically no way to explain what it is to someone or something that isn't conscious. It would be like talking to your ceiling fan or, even more, taking to an automated voice on a phone recording. For example, read Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat". A bat could no more explain to us what it is "like" to experience bat radar than we could explain to a person who was blind at birth what it's "like" to experience color vision. It can't be described to someone who hasn't experienced it because you have to experience it to know what it is. The same thing applies to trying to convey what consciousness is to a computer program if it isn't conscious.

As far as the immorality of what is called "eliminative materialism" (what the Churchlands believe) if there is no such thing as consciousness, then there can be no morality. A rock is not conscious and therefore morality doesn't apply to it. Why? Because a rock can't feel cheated or miserable or that it is in pain if you strike it. A conscious being can. And if you don't believe other people are conscious then there's no basis for moral interpretations.

[Skepdick]

We don't know what consciousness is made of or how to determine if something is conscious outside ourselves.

Stop right there... How did you determine that you are conscious?

Could you have determined incorrectly?

Only you can know if you are conscious and only I can know if I'm conscious at this point in science.

How do I determine that I am conscious?

Consciousness is what we call the experience we have when we experience things.

OK, but as I pointed out that's begging the question: What is experience? How do I determine whether I experience things?

If you aren't conscious then there is basically no way to explain what it is to someone or something that isn't conscious.

Then why mention it?

It would be like talking to your ceiling fan or, even more, taking to an automated voice on a phone recording. For example, read Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat".

I am not sure what Thomas Nagel would be able to say on the matter - I doubt he's ever been a bat.

A bat could no more explain to us what it is "like" to experience bat radar than we could explain to a person who was blind at birth what it's "like" to experience color vision. It can't be described to someone who hasn't experienced it because you have to experience it to know what it is.

This is a terrible analogy. Have you ever seen a bat trying to explain to another bat what it is like to experience bat radar? No! Why?
Because there's no need to explain it!

Why then do you need to describe your experiences you have (taste, touch, smell, sight etc.) to another human?

As far as the immorality of what is called "eliminative materialism" (what the Churchlands believe) if there is no such thing as consciousness, then there can be no morality.

I don't buy it. I don't know whether I am conscious or not, but I know that I am moral.

A rock is not conscious and therefore morality doesn't apply to it. Why? Because a rock can't feel cheated or miserable or that it is in pain if you strike it. A conscious being can. And if you don't believe other people are conscious then there's no basis for moral interpretations.

Your moral theory is morally bankrupt.

If you ask me not to do something to you because you don't like it - then I will stop doing that thing to you. I am not "being moral" because you are conscious - I don't care if you are conscious or not.

I am being moral because I respect your wishes.

If I rock asked me not to smash it - I'd probably respect the rock's wishes too.

[Gary Childress]

If I rock asked me not to smash it - I'd probably respect the rock's wishes too.

If a rock were conscious I would too. But so far I've never experienced a rock that said anything to me. However, let me ask you this; if I made a recording on a tape recorder that said, "don't hit me" and played it on the tape recorder, would you refrain from hitting the tape recorder if you wanted to hit it?

[Skepdick]

If a rock were conscious I would too. But so far I've never experienced a rock that said anything to me. However, let me ask you this; if I made a recording on a tape recorder that said, "don't hit me" and played it on the tape recorder, would you refrain from hitting the tape recorder if you wanted to hit it?

Your strawman is not even worth engaging.

If an Artificial Intelligence in a cybernetic body asked you not to hit it - would you refrain from hitting it? Perhaps you won't.

What if it could hit back?

Would you hit your tape recorder if it could hit back?

[Gary Childress]

If a rock were conscious I would too. But so far I've never experienced a rock that said anything to me. However, let me ask you this; if I made a recording on a tape recorder that said, "don't hit me" and played it on the tape recorder, would you refrain from hitting the tape recorder if you wanted to hit it?

Your strawman is not even worth engaging.

If an Artificial Intelligence in a cybernetic body asked you not to hit it - would you refrain from hitting it? Perhaps you won't.

What if it could hit back?

Would you hit your tape recorder if it could hit back?

You didn't answer my question. So I'm not going to answer yours.

[Skepdick]

You didn't answer my question. So I'm not going to answer yours.

Gary Childish,

I don't have the urge, need or desire to hit a tape recorder - it serves me no purpose doing so.

IF I had the urge to hit a tape recorder and it served a purpose, I would hit it - irrespective of what recording it played.

What factors into my calculation is not what the tape recorder SAYS, what factors into my calculation is the tape recorder's ability to retaliate. What factors in to my calculation is the negative consequences for my actions. Risk vs reward.

IF the tape recorder had the ability to retaliate - I wouldn't hit it, irrespective of my urges, desires or needs.

So the question stands for you: IF the tape recorder had the ability to retaliate, would you hit it?

[Gary Childress]

You didn't answer my question. So I'm not going to answer yours.

Gary Childish,

I don't have the urge, need or desire to hit a tape recorder.

IF I had the urge to hit a tape recorder, I would hit it - irrespective of what it said.

What factors into my calculation is not what the tape recorder SAYS, what factors into my calculation is the tape recorder's ability to retaliate.

I see. Suppose someone hit a small child because the child couldn't retaliate against them. Would they be wrong in doing so.

As far as your question previously, no. I wouldn't hit a tape recorder if it could hit back, unless it was existentially necessary for me to do so (meaning my life depended on it).

[Skepdick]

I see. Suppose someone hit a small child because the child couldn't retaliate against them. Would they be wrong in doing so.

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? Such lip service is consequentially vacuous.

Such a person clearly miscalculated - they are taking a gamble. 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.

As far as your question previously, no. I wouldn't hit a tape recorder if it could hit back, unless it was existentially necessary for me to do so (meaning my life depended on it).

Precisely - utility.