Materialists: here's your shot for the Mind-Body problem.

[lebe0024]

I know this board is chalk full of "intellectually consistent" atheists, so take a crack at the mind-body problem. And remember, be good readers and clear writers.

1) What do you think is the relationship between your conciousness and your physical brain? (most of you should have a simple answer for this).

2) If our brain is absolutely reducable and accounted for purely mechanically, can we build a machine that has an inner qualia of conciousness. (Can we build a machine that experiences emotions like we do, not just act like it does (strong AI))

.......2b) (optional) If we can create strong AI (you would probably say that it is still reducable to simple mechanical computations) would it be immoral to turn it off? And if not, do you think it is immoral to kill human beings? And if so, is it immoral to turn off your microwave?

3) If we learn everything from observable behavior (a modern thought), what is your account of the seemingly private knowledge contained in your conciousness? (example: if you have sex, why don't you say "That was great for you, how was it for me?")

4) Are you really in control of your thoughts and actions and beliefs? (Do you have free will?)

Dont bother posting unless you have something well thought-out to write AND you're a materialist/atheist.

 

[BD2003]

DYOHW! (Do your own homework!)

 

[lebe0024]

Just for the record, this isn't for homework. Come on guys!

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Why bother...sounds as though you already have the correct answer.

 

[lebe0024]

I don't Nor did I every say so. But hey, you can try! COME ON!!! You're smart!

 

[PistachioByAzul]

I don't know what it means to be a materialist or an atheist so I'm probably neither.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can scavenge this thread for your answers and add your own thoughts if you wish, no requirements.

 

[morkinva]

This is from my soul poll, the results of which can no longer be seen.

1) The only thing you have is your body. There is no spirit or mind or soul. Your consciousness is a natural progression of evolution, a concurrent development with the growth of your neocortex, advanced spinal cord and
the development of language. Abstract thought is a natural function of the organism. We are nothing more than an animal, albeit possibly the preeminent animal currently on the planet.

2) I don't think you'll ever be able to replicate consiousness, unless we are able to do it organically.

3) My brain hurts

 

[lebe0024]

morkinva,

Why only organically? If our brain can be "mapped out" and is completely phisycal, what are your reasons for saying conciousness can't be represented as a complex inorganic machine?

moonbeam,

I didn't find anything that really answered one of my questions in it's entirety. Just a lot of jargon.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
Just a lot of opinions and jargon.

as opposed to the answer to the question which is not opinion?

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh, well, if your looking for complete answers, that's different.

tweakmm,

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
morkinva, Why only organically? If our brain can be "mapped out" and is completely phisycal, what are your reasons for saying conciousness can't be represented as a complex inorganic machine? moonbeam, I didn't find anything that really answered one of my questions in it's entirety. Just a lot of opinions and jargon.

It's just a hunch. Lemme think about it some more when my brain doesn't hurt.

 

[Ameesh]

1) Science has not been able to fully explain this yet, but i would venture a guess that a persons conciousness resides in their brain.

2) Yes,
2b) Morality is a social construct, who is to say a thing is moral or not. I don't believe in morals.

3) Please rephrase i dont follow what you are asking.

4) Yes.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
I don't Nor did I every say so. But hey, you can try! COME ON!!! You're smart!

Well, lebe, it's pretty obvious to all that you believe you have all the answers. So why not share your answers with the questions?

I think it's safe to say that consciencness is somehow tied to the physical brain. Given the evidence around brain injuries and the effects on conscienceness, there's really little room for anyone to argue otherwise.

I'm not sure our brain can be "accounted for as purely mechanically" (if I understand what you mean by that). The activity in the physical brain is certainly chemical in nature, and apparently doesn't operate anything like the computers that we now have. AI as we know it can be very powerful, but it's not really like the human brain at all (as an example, compare the way that computers are programmed to play chess and the thought processes of human chess players). As morkinva suggested, the organic nature of the brain might well be central to the nature of consciencness. If so, a "mechanical" or computer-based reproduction of the observable chemical processes may well miss what is really important to consciencness. As an example, I read one suggestion that consciencness might be a by-product of quantum wave affects across the atoms in the brain's structure. I'm not suggesting that this is true; just citing it as an example of how deep consciencness might be beneath the surface we perceive. And yet it could still be a direct consequence of the brain's physical nature.

You're also asking what it means to be human, as to what level of consciencness must a "thing" have before we recognize it as a peer with "human rights". We already face this question in our relationships with other living creatures. I suspect we will extend our thinking on animals (and plants) to non-living things when that becomes necessary. Persoanlly, I have no more trouble turning off my microwave than I do swatting a mosquito.

I have no idea what you're driving at in question 3. And if I was really in control of my thoughts and actions, I probably wouldn't have responded to this thread.

 

[lebe0024]

I don't have the answers. I said that already.

2b) Morality is a social construct, who is to say a thing is moral or not. I don't believe in morals.

Gosh. Ok. Do you think it's immoral in THIS Society? Is it immoral to YOU? Would you OBJECT to it like you would to me blowing your brains out?

I'm not sure our brain can be "accounted for as purely mechanically"

By mechanically I don't mean metal and gears and circuits. When I say that our conciousness is entirely mechanical, I mean an entirely functional combination of chemical, electrical, etc. etc. processes.

 

[lebe0024]

Note: If you're truly a materialist, do you see the problem with saying you have any free will of your own?

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
I don't have the answers. I said that already.

2b) Morality is a social construct, who is to say a thing is moral or not. I don't believe in morals.

Gosh. Ok. Do you think it's immoral in THIS Society? Is it immoral to YOU? Would you OBJECT to it like you would to me blowing your brains out?

I'm not sure our brain can be "accounted for as purely mechanically"

By mechanically I don't mean metal and gears and circuits. When I say that our conciousness is entirely mechanical, I mean an entirely functional combination of chemical, electrical, etc. etc. processes.

like i said its a social construct you and i dont neccesarly live in the same "society" as each other. Using a television in an Amish house would be questionable to other Amish but would it be questionable in your house? or mine? you see my point? what you think or what other people think is not going to be a basis of where you can build "morals" from.

that being said i would object to you blowing my brains out but not because it is immoral but because its not something i want for myself, your action would affect me. But im not about to start going around telling you things you do or think are immoral. I'll leave that to the religious zealouts.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

1. brain is the organ of cognition.
2. absolutely reducible.
2b. immoral to turn off machine (but i'm a philosophical nihilist, so technically, no)
3. not everything we know is from direct experience. some knowledge is instinctual. explicit knowledge is through experience.
4. free will is an illusion

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
Note: If you're truly a materialist, do you see the problem with saying you have any free will of your own?

Actually, that was one of the intriguing facets of the quantum wave produced consciencness idea I mentioned earlier. If consciencness did in fact have its roots in the quantum nature of the physical brain, then maybe the inherent (Hiezenberg?) uncertainity in quantum mechanics leaves room for "free will".

Lebe, I agree with you that you probably don't have the answers to these questions...but your disparaging comments to others responding to this thread leads me to believe that you must think that you really do have the answers. Sensing a literal "holier than thou" attitude, let me ask the following question: If you're a "true believer" (in the sense that you believe that God is responsible for the creation of everthing in this universe and that God knows everything that has, is, and will happen in this universe), then you do see the problem with saying you have any free will of your own? After all, God must already know what you'll eventually type in response to my question (if anything). And he already knows everything else you'll ever do in your life -- even whether you are going to heaven or hell. Doesn't feel like there's much room for free will does it?

 

[BD231]

Comparing living conciousness to the activity of a functioning microwave......... A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

What do you think is the relationship between your conciousness and your physical brain? (most of you should have a simple answer for this).

They work together, a simple conciousness is useless with out the means of expression which the human body provides in many different ways.

If our brain is absolutely reducable and accounted for purely mechanically, can we build a machine that has an inner qualia of conciousness. (Can we build a machine that experiences emotions like we do, not just act like it does (strong AI)

Maybe, maybe not. The mere fact that we has humans can not read and or pin point other people/machines thoughts and feelings precisely prevents us from knowing such things without out absolute evidence (the evidence would be the actions of this machine)

If we learn everything from observable behavior (a modern thought), what is your account of the seemingly private knowledge contained in your conciousness? (example: if you have sex, why don't you say "That was great for you, how was it for me?")

You dont ask that question because in reality you have no idea how it was for the other person, why?, because people have the ability to lie and fake emotions. My explination? The fact that certain thoughts and observations lead to other completely randome thoughts and view points on either that single observation or on a completely different observation that ties in with the other original observation. One only has to read your post to consider that a fact. You really have to ask yourself why in the world a brain or conciousness would want to ask such qeustions as you do without sevral different view points and observations taken into consideration, I think your missing a few.

Did you ever consider the fact that you may not really know what free will is?

ps: I'd like to know what your take on natural instinct and creativity is

 

[lebe0024]

I'm sorry if I'm coming off cocky. For the record, I don't have any good answers on this. I'm in a philosophy of the mind class right now, and these are the problems that mind philosophers face. Just wanted to see what you materialists think on these issues. If I were a materialist, I think I would have to answer:

1. all conciousness is reducable to simple physical processes residing in the brain.
2. Yes. (but I don't think we can ever truly know if we even did. Example: how do you even know for sure that I experience real pain, let alone a machine?)
2b. This is hard, I'm stumped.
3. I don't think we know everything through observable behavior, but rather through private introspection. (I don't know if that makes sense either)
4. I in no way have free will, but my will is simply a distant product of the Big bang.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
morkinva, Why only organically? If our brain can be "mapped out" and is completely phisycal, what are your reasons for saying conciousness can't be represented as a complex inorganic machine? moonbeam, I didn't find anything that really answered one of my questions in it's entirety. Just a lot of jargon.

Okay I've thought about this and now my brain really hurts!

Perhaps consiousness arises in organic beings because of drives for procreation, food, etc. It is a way for an organism to solve a multitude of problems associated with satisfying these drives. There are things to consider like emotions and ego which may also enter into the equation.

An organic being HAS to deal with these things, a machine does not. Consiousness arose out of necessity. I don't see how a machine would have to develop this in order to solve problems.

But the respected Daniel Dennett disagrees and says that a machine with silicon 'brain cells' could indeed be consious. As usual, I'm more than willing to accept that if it can be proven to be true. At present, the brain is the most massively parallel device ever known, and a machine won't begin to approach that for a long time to come.

 

[Placer14]

These are really intriguing thoughts. I can't necessarily contemplate this right now at work. I will think about this more. But something to add, that might or might not be relevent, but i'll pout it out there anyway...

"If God were omnipotent, could he make a boulder he couldn't lift?"

Maybe it's this kind of rhetoric that creates an unanswerable questions. Especially with a situation that is unprovable.

 

[lebe0024]

I don't think the qualia of conciousness is dependent on "desire for necessities". I enjoy conciousness if I'm just sitting there thinking, perfectly content with my health. Besides, who says that necessities can't be "programmed" in?

Can a human ever know what it's like to be a bat? (And I don't want you to go jump around in a bat costume). Can a machine ever know what it's like to be a human? to have the same expierences as humans do?

 

[gopunk]

1) What do you think is the relationship between your conciousness and your physical brain? (most of you should have a simple answer for this).

the brain is merely where "consciousness" occurs through various chemical reactions and whatnot

2) If our brain is absolutely reducable and accounted for purely mechanically, can we build a machine that has an inner qualia of conciousness. (Can we build a machine that experiences emotions like we do, not just act like it does (strong AI))

assuming you had the technology and knowledge.... but i doubt that will come any time in the near future. we simply don't know enough about how the brain works yet.

.......2b) (optional) If we can create strong AI (you would probably say that it is still reducable to simple mechanical computations) would it be immoral to turn it off? And if not, do you think it is immoral to kill human beings? And if so, is it immoral to turn off your microwave?

i'm going to assume you mean "consciousness" by "strong AI"

it would depend on a few things... for example whether the machine wanted to to be turned off. similarly, whether killing a human is immoral or not also depends on such things. for example, i don't consider assisted suicide to be immoral.

and whether or not it is immoral to turn off my microwave would depend first, on whether or not it had consciousness.

in general, i see where you're going with this... but i'm going to have to cut you off and say that i believe a requirement of consciousness is the ability to feel emotion. this is not to simply say act in a manner to preserve one's self, but really *feel* emotion. and frankly, i don't see why we would ever make a microwave that could have emotions....



3) If we learn everything from observable behavior (a modern thought), what is your account of the seemingly private knowledge contained in your conciousness? (example: if you have sex, why don't you say "That was great for you, how was it for me?")

i don't recall saying that we learn everything from observable behavior... but the reason we don't say that is because we infer that it would not be socially acceptable, given the society we are accustomed to.

4) Are you really in control of your thoughts and actions and beliefs? (Do you have free will?)

partially.