METAZOA, Animal life and the birth of the mind, Peter Godfey-Smith

Philosophy
181

That’s nice way of putting. It’s an interesting perspective you wrote up - Lausten finds problems with it, but I think he’s applying a higher standard then I am, plus he’s a died in the wool Cartesian so take that into account, I’m a tad more organic shall we say.

Also you might want to check out Dr. Mark Solms who frames the discussion from an evolutionary perspective. Instead of Free Will, our body/brain ~ mind developed a Free Won’t, in that we’ve developed the ability to STOP - and consider - before acting.

Although for me, Chalmers grand challenge which can be boiled down to “Why is it feel like something, to be something” - is contrivance by our ultimately self absorbed mind, incapable of appreciating anything except from within a self-serving framework of expectation.

Oh and I’d suggest, it feels like something to be something, bat, rat, or man, because you inhabit one specific body, you are your body, and it’s your body that is carrying on the dialogue inside your head.

Useful fictions.
If you’re into that, check out the book “Sapiens”, by Yuval Noah Harari or YouTube, although I see there’s a lot of recent stuff and it seems he’s engaging in politics - which I’m unfamiliar with. This video is regarding his book. A fascinating look at the broad sweep of human history.

1 Like
182

Knowing what Descartes said and how it changed culture is not the same as “died in the wool”.

You are arguing with someone who exists in your head.

183

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/

The philosophy of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of action. The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter explains the intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states

Intentionality is the key.

184

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/

close examinations of scientific practice that philosophers of science have undertaken in the past fifty years have shown, however, that several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable. The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example.

185

You are claiming I created a straw man but the problem is that there is no opposing argument. We cover that in a way earlier with the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The appeal to definition (also known as the argument from dictionary) is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone’s argument is based, in a problematic manner, on the definition of a certain term as it appears in a dictionary or a similar source.

https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/

I have laid the framework out over numerous posts. That is besides the point.

You are right that my post are lacking the definitional structure that is needed. The problem is there is no concise way to do that. Philosophers spend pages on definitions to avoid the problem but I’m not sure that would profit us here.

Anyway thanks for the comments. It is never a waste of time to consider other perspectives. What you said is in a way accurate in that I’m arguing with myself. I considered each of your points in my head before posting. The first thing you do when working something out is strongman the opposing arguments. You can’t expect other people to provide them for you because that is not how this format works.

186

You linked back to my response to CC, so not sure what you’re referring to.

Of course there is. You can’t just use your own definotions and expect to be understood. If you can’t “lay out a framework” then maybe what your saying is the problem.

187

That’s an interesting statement. Question is if intentionality is a conscious choice or an expression of ability.

188

I didn’t make this fallacy. I didn’t base an argument on a definition, and I didn’t do it in a fallacious manner.

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/v6emj/define_your_terms/

“define your terms” is a common phrase. I didn’t think I would need to explain it.

189

:grin: Relax, I couldn’t resist. Da devil made me do it.

Besides, considering you holding up Pinker, you got it coming . . . . .
We’ll revisit that dude sometime when a few free days come my way. Because he’s an excellent example of this being trapping with in his mindscape thing that you try to dismiss, and I’m ready to give him a Hoffman treatment.

Appreciating the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide, is way more than a jingle. And something our society as a whole has been a total failure at - much to our own detriment. Just look at the news, show me one avenue of human endeavor that reflects sanity towards future generations or this Earth that nurtures and sustains us.

Take a look at the mega projects being undertaken right and left, how many of them offer any realistic route towards sustainability, or reflect the realities of a warming, energizing global climate engine - coupled with depleting resources?

190

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/how-do-all-electric-cars-work

Superfund | US EPA.

191

Well you write better than I do.

Thanks for the response.

192

Yes there are lots of questions as you know. The only point I was trying to make is that there are accepted philosophical definitions that a standard dictionary will not offer. Now I’m not a philosopher but I have absorbed a wee bit of their language. Perhaps not as well as I should have.

I don’t think philosophy is going define intentionality in a way that will satisfy you. It seems to be more about the precise definition of terms than the thing itself.

I keep asking for an explanation of “understanding”. I prefer Dennett’s approach to those kinds of questions. I would put that approach as the thing itself is unknowable but we only need to know the relevant aspects of it to put the concept to use. He points out that a lot of what we call consciousness is an illusion. A matter of frame of reference. We can talk about anesthesia as you did and it’s relationship to consciousness without really knowing what consciousness is. What you want to know is the mechanism of consciousness but the philosophical question has more to do with the consequences.

As Steven Weinberg points out the use of philosophers to science is largely to argue against the bad ideas of other philosophers. I would make a minor argument against his opinion by pointing out the the original concept of science was natural philosophy and that is a useful idea. I used Darwin as an example because at the point of insight he didn’t actually know much about mutations. It was just accepted that they existed. That assumption was key to selection in the way it actually takes place. That takes me back to the question of what is understanding. It isn’t just in categorization or the assembly of facts.

193

Interesting that Mark Solms has grappled with these same words.

194

Yep, that’s the “hard question”.

Tegmark suggests that instead of asking for answers to the unknown “hard question”, perhaps we should start with the known “hard answers” based on the principle that the organism already possesses all the abilities for consciousness, without needing some kind of supernatural gift.

I see Tononi’s “Phi” as being the equivalent to Penrose’s “OR” (objective reduction)

I asked Copilot and it came up with this";
“can Tononi’s “Phi” be compared to "ORCH OR” ?

more…

In summary, while Tononi’s IIT and Penrose-Hameroff’s Orch OR share common ground in recognizing quantum aspects of consciousness, they approach the problem from different angles.

The quest to bridge these theories continues, and perhaps the ultimate answer lies in a synthesis of their insights. :star2:12

Bing AI - Search?

1 Like
195

I finally got around to watching the video.

There is a lot to unpack there. It is what I was saying when I said that DNA was not an instruction set for building a wet robot. That part is obvious. It is the evolved to evolve part that I’m having trouble with. It applies intentionality that cannot be there. Taking Noble’s example of the immune system asking for mutations is not how I think it works nor is it likely he has missed the problem. It is simply hard to explain any system dependent on randomness. I used another example earlier which is how DNA sets the environment for the reevolution of organs. Proximity seems to be a key part of the puzzle. The same “code” for hair produces different expressions dependent on what it is proximate to. If elements of the immune system lose their reproductivity fidelity it is because they are competing with each other not asking for permission. That is exactly how bacteria rapidly evolve. It is how the brain “culls” itself in what is called “Synaptic pruning”.

I’m sure lausten will come along and say I don’t see any evidence in this discussion. Well I’m not Google. To have a discussion you have to have some agreement on what the facts are. In other words you have to assume that the facts are out there somewhere and our assessable. I see nothing wrong with Noble’s position because as he says a cultural shift is underway. What will emerge from the complexity is hard to predict but what we can be sure of is it isn’t going to be in a text book or on Wikipedia. It’s not Noble’s fault that people people don’t see the cultural shift nor do I think he has to go to length to describe it. Some things are simply obvious starting points for discussion. If you deny the cultural shift no conversation is possible on these topics. Could the cultural shift simply be wrong? of course. If you that way however you are just chasing your tail.

196

wolfhnd said:

“It applies intentionality that cannot be there. Taking Noble’s example of the immune system asking for mutations is not how I think it works nor is it likely he has missed the problem. It is simply hard to explain any system dependent on randomness. I used another example earlier which is how DNA sets the environment for the reevolution of organs. Proximity seems to be a key part of the puzzle. The same “code” for hair produces different expressions dependent on what it is proximate to. If elements of the immune system lose their reproductivity fidelity it is because they are competing with each other not asking for permission. That is exactly how bacteria rapidly evolve. It is how the brain “culls” itself in what is called “Synaptic pruning”.”

This entertaining and informative video is worthy of watching.
It explains a lot of the questions posed in the above quote.

A lot of new information about how the brain processes different kinds of information.

This is good stuff.

And that also brings up the question of “entanglement” within the brain’s neural network.

197

We are on the same page here.

You don’t make progress without making assumptions and testing them. It seems so self evident that it shouldn’t have to be pointed out. I think the problem we are having is a cultural one, who is allowed to make assumptions? There is a kind of competency hierarchy that you have to consider. The problem is that the competency hierarchy is not just meritocratic but also involves social status that can be established in a variety of ways. If you just go with the expert that has the highest social status you are likely to pick the wrong one. That is because social status follows accepted norms. When the norms are in question where does that leave you? I have gone to some length to explain why logic doesn’t work. Logic only works in closed systems or existing norms. Still there is a norm we can follow and that is which explanation follows evolutionary principles more closely. It can’t be the one that doesn’t involve randomness or strict determinism.

198

That sounds very similar to a principle of the scientific method: that the laws of the universe are consistent across space and time, and we can experiment on them to get data and conclude how they function. So, yes, I agree with that.

Noble has considerable evidence. I never said he didn’t or that you don’t have evidence. It’s the conclusions that get leapt to that I comment on.

How could anyone have a problem with that? Unless you are having a discussion about how you feel about a complex problem, where the facts are difficult to obtain, or there are contradictory facts and a lack of consensus. But we’re having a scientific discussion here. Often, my comments to you are that you are assuming a lot of facts that aren’t as true as you seem to be assuming.

This is where you lose me. Noble is arguing, quite strongly, that Dawkins is wrong. He’s saying things like epigenetics show that the gene is not the basic element of evolution. He says the organism controls genes, or something, I think he gets vague, which is why I’ve asked questions, and tried to get you and CC to tell me what you understand. I’m trying to have a discussion. The two of you seem to be putting stuff up, saying it’s so, and getting upset when someone asks a question.

You are also vague, saying, “what will emerge from the complexity is hard to predict”. Of course it is. If someone says science WILL discover this or that, then they aren’t doing science. You get the evidence first, then you make conclusions. Darwin knew that his theory was to shake up culture, he left us extensive diary notes about it. I’m trying to think of an example of a cultural shift that helped lead to a scientific discovery, and I’m having trouble with that.

This I completely do not get. A cultural shift like the abolition of slavery was partially driven by reason and logic, but it happened in the face of massive denial. If people couldn’t talk about it to those people who denied it, it would not have happened.

This paragraph of yours is a mix of culture and science and what causes what, and I can’t tell how you conclude that, in the case of the theory of evolution, a cultural shift is happening, what it is, or what facts you are basing it on.

199

I don’t usually like quoting whole paragraphs, but there isn’t something I can pick out of this one. This is a good start for a discussion on science functions in the real world. In my lifetime, women and POC have been “rediscovered”, that is, their contributions were not written up in the official papers, but there was enough history left for us to find that their work was just as important as the men who were given the credit at the time.

On the other hand, in principle, science is a system based on merit. There are many stories of young people presenting their conclusions based on their experiments, and being applauded. Often, by the old people who’s conclusions are overridden by the new science. So, yes, picking the expert based on social status is NOT science. I have this conversation often with conspiracy theorists who don’t understand what “scientific consensus” means, they think it means “popularity contest”.

So, we’re kind of in agreement up to there. Then you say logic doesn’t work. Well, we’re screwed if that is true. What else is there? What logic are you going to use to prove logic doesn’t work?

200

We’d have done much better to work harder at understanding nature’s ways and means, before becoming these half blind, stupidly destructive gods that we’ve turned into. Heck for the most part, we can’t even recognize the difference between patent lies and established facts.

Let alone appreciate the difference between our desires and fantasies - and physical reality.

Then why ignore information as it’s shared?