1
   

This is my current theory of Prof Chalmer's Fallancy

 
 
Hermes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 07:29 am
@Whoever,
Whoever;73578 wrote:
I've had a quick scan. I expect I missed quite a lot. You've put in a lot of work, and I like the website design.


The feedback you give here is much appreciated :flowers:

Quote:

What seems missing from your idea is a mechanism whereby the brain becomes conscious. Without that I can't get excited about the idea of machine consciousness.


Yes, I understand. There is a placeholder there at the moment, near the end of the site, that attempts to describe phenomenal awareness and other emergent functions such as the inner voice and attention control - I am currently trying to refine/rework this part.

Quote:

The idea that a brain is sufficient for consciousness is highly controversial and thus not a sound starting point. But.. I may have misread you. Is your diagram meant to illustrate that method?


I understand that not everyone agrees with the brain being solely responsible for consciousness, but that is the view of the scientific community at present. Rather than second guess the complaints of others, I have decided to ignore them altogether. I am going for a fully computational and testable model, people can debate non biological models on forums.

Quote:

Personally I find it confusing to base your idea on Dasein, and would suggest finding a different word. Just about everybody is confused by Heidegger's use of this term. Certainly I am. If you're going to use Dasein in the theory, I think you may also need to include Existenz. As far as I understand it, for Heidegger Dasein arises from this, not from brains.


Yes this is a valid complaint, and one I find scientists especially raise. However, there is good reason for using this language:

a) there is a tradition, and it is a tradition the model is based upon, of using these words. Scientists wouldn't start calling "atoms" "hadron-lepton compsites" just because they are not "atomic" in the original sense of the word.

b) Heidegger himself writes that avoiding words such as "mind" or "consciousness" is vital in this work, because these common terms have reified the process into something unintelligible that covers up the true function.

Trust me, it helps to discard common language and keep reading it till you build up a new picture of things. I read some passages of Being and Time over 20 times before I understood what the words meant!

Quote:

One niggle. I note you say that evolution requires competition, warfare etc. I wish it were more commonly recognised that evolution may just as well be called the survival of the most co-operative. That is, the fittest may be the most co-operative and helpful, not the most musclebound and aggressive. After all, as someone predicted, it's the meek who inherit the earth.


Another valid point. I do gloss over things in this regard, in my experience anthropologists ascribe two main evolutionary pressures to h. sapiens evolution; conflict and communication (usually at the same time). To argue the relative strength each had on our evolution is a big topic in itself. I guess at that point in the model, to introduce the notion of cooperation/communication is opening a whole other pandoras box of reasoning (we have to start considering different modes of communication, linguistics, group theory, game theory and so on) which I didn't want to address there!

I just wanted to give some justification for an adaptive memory, but point taken, maybe I can balance it out a bit...

Quote:

I'm not able to summarise relative phenomenalism, but I'd recommend the article by Edward Barkin by this title. It's one of the best written pieces I've ever read. A search on 'dependent origination' will bring up plenty of info. on the idea it encapsulates.


OK will search. :detective:

Quote:

Edit. Just checked a reference and got this. Is your definition for Dasein the same as Heidegger's?

"For Heidegger, however, it (Dasein) must not be mistaken for a subject, that is something definable in terms of consciousness or a self. Heidegger was adamant about this distinction, which carried on Nietzsche's critique of the subject. Dasein, as a human being that is constituted by its temporality, illuminates and interprets the meaning of Being in Time. Heidegger chose this term as a synonym for "human entity" in order to emphasize the critical importance "being" has for our understanding and interpretation of the world. Some scholars have been confused on this issue, arguing that for Heidegger "Dasein" denoted some sort of structured awareness or an institutional "way of life"[1] but the textual evidence for this claim is not strong."


This is mostly in agreement with how I interpret Dasein. The bold part especially. Computationally I see Dasein as having two forms; a function and an Entity within that function. The function is the mind itself (I would therefore equate this with the brain). The Entity is what the function has perceived of itself, by interacting with other sentient beings (ie. the ego), which takes a few years to develop in humans.

Heidegger defines Dasein, very explicitly, at the start of Being and Time. He says it is an entity for which its own being is transparent to itself. He calls Dasein the "inquirer" entity. By my count, he only once says that Dasein is "ourselves" (though it is continuously implied), mainly to avoid using common language and to promote clearer thought on the subject.

Quote:

Sometimes I wonder if his Dasein and Existenz could be replaced by Samsara and Nirvana.


Quite possibly! Like I said, I know nada about buddhist philosophy (except what I read in Yukio Mishima) so will have to read that stuff above. Smile
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 02:36 pm
@Hermes,
Interesting stuff. We may not be very far from holding the same view.

Hermes;73626 wrote:
I understand that not everyone agrees with the brain being solely responsible for consciousness, but that is the view of the scientific community at present. Rather than second guess the complaints of others, I have decided to ignore them altogether. I am going for a fully computational and testable model, people can debate non biological models on forums.

How about pasting this onto the front of the essay?

Quote:
Yes this is a valid complaint, and one I find scientists especially raise. However, there is good reason for using this language

I think I'm beginning to agree. Dasein and Existenz are no more or less confusing than Samsara and Nirvana. This cannot be unconnected with Heidegger's recognition of the same idea in Zen. Do you know Bradley? For him this two-worlds distinction was Appearance and Reality. Thanks. I've not delved into the meaning of Dasein and Existenz before. I hadn't realised this easy link could be made.

Regarding the point about evolution, I wasn't criticising you in particular, but almost every author I've read on the topic. Competition is impossible without co-operation, just as difference is impossible without identity, but still we hold on to this picture that evolution is all about lions ripping each other's throats out, or human warfare as typical of evolution at work, forgetting that only the most co-operative societies win wars. It is competely typical if it is common to call these twin behaviours 'conflict' and 'communication'. For goodness sake, conflict is communication. Anyway, you clearly have no problem with this co-operative view. Many people do. The point was off topic.

Quote:
Computationally I see Dasein as having two forms; a function and an Entity within that function. The function is the mind itself (I would therefore equate this with the brain). The Entity is what the function has perceived of itself, by interacting with other sentient beings (ie. the ego), which takes a few years to develop in humans.

What about the Being that Heidegger says is transparent to the sentient being? Is this also just the function mistaking the Entity for itself?

Quote:
Heidegger defines Dasein, very explicitly, at the start of Being and Time. He says it is an entity for which its own being is transparent to itself.

That's the one.

Quote:
He calls Dasein the "inquirer" entity. By my count, he only once says that Dasein is "ourselves" (though it is continuously implied), mainly to avoid using common language and to promote clearer thought on the subject.

It seems to me that he didn't like this word because it would confuse the issues. I'm giving him a certain interpretation here, by which Dasein would be what Bradley calls a 'centre of experience,' which is likewise not 'ourselves.' This is because there would be more to us than we usually know. Unless we are enlightened in the Buddhist sense, it would be transparent to us. This would be our Being, but also everybody else's as well, so it cannot quite be called 'ours' in the usual sense. Dasein would be emergent from something non-computational.

I wonder if you can give Heidegger any other interpretation than that he agreed with the Buddhists. Anyway, I think you might be in for a surprise if you delve into the literature of mysticism. It is entirely consistent with Heidegger's view, in a sypathetic intepretation.

Sorry. Must write shorter posts.
Hermes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:14 pm
@Whoever,
Hey Whoever, I would like to continue this, and rather than derail this thread further thought we could go to a new one...
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 05:04 am
@Greg phil,
Question: Is pain real? [y/n]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 03:14:18