TSW: "The mystery can be intensified by stressing the dissimilarities between animals and humans, thereby cutting the evolution of consciousness from its origins."
BW: Not all animals are conscious, but all vertebrates are ... from anglerfish to humans. So, the first requirement for an analysis of "mind" is to distinguish among animals, vertebrates, and humans. It isn't a matter of "cutting the evolution of consciousness from its origins", but recognizing essential characteristics. Presumably, animals are evolved from plants, so we can further make a distinction between fixed and mobile living things. Failing to do that will cripple any argument.
TSW: D’Holbach: "It is the height of folly to deny intellectual capacities to animals; they feel, think, judge and compare ..."
BW: Which is why it's so important to find a clear, fundamental distinction between consciousness and sapience. Humans are called "Homo Sapiens" for a reason and it's important to define the difference between humans and other conscious animals: we are sapient.
TSW: "Our modern, sophisticated indeterminist is a systems philosopher who typically links the advent of consciousness with free will and neovitalism..."
BW: Most "system philosophers" reject neovitalism and deny free will. The term "free will" is usually associated with humans (sapients), not all conscious animals.
TSW: "Until the terms mind and brain are defined, the mind-brain question is meaningless."
BW: Agreed. I don't think you do that.
TSW: "The air could not be seen, but when it moved, it moved other things that could be seen. Logically, spirit was possessed by anything that moved ..."
BW: The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. It wasn't that spirit and *motion* were equated, but that energetic motion that *could not be seen* was considered "spirit". In ancient Hebrew, the word for "breath" and "spirit" are identical. The human breath (which could not be seen) was considered an immaterial "spirit". When a person died, their spirit ("breath") ceased and "left them". That's the foundation of all things spiritual.
[GB: Sorry, but motion, whether “energetic” of not, and spirit always have been associated. Thus, “school spirit” is demonstrated by students jumping around at sports events, etc. “Spiritualism” hangs on the idea that there is more to the universe than plane old dead matter. Indeed there is, and it is described by matter in motion.]
TSW: "Hegel recognized that minds were not parts of nature, because they were not found situated in space."
BW: The word "recognized" implies that Hegel's view was true. I don't think you really want to endorse the idea of mind being separate from nature.
TSW: "Mechanists have insisted correctly that: All that really exists is the material particles of the substance of the nervous system."
BW: So, now you're a mechanist? This seems at odds with your immediately prior endorsement of Hegel's assertion that mind is not a part of nature.
TSW: "Thinking is what the brain does, just as running is what the legs do."
BW: Correct: it is a process, not an object. One of those Westmiller Things, rather than a Borchardt Thing. Nevertheless, all distinct processes require *particular configurations* of matter in motion, with distinct means for achieving the effects. The brain (animal or human) has the means of producing conscious acts.
BW: However, I don't think you've "circumvented" the muddle, since you still haven't defined your terms. You say "mind" is the motion of matter, without saying what material construct produces the conscious effect. Obviously, it's somewhere in the brain, but you haven't distinguished between the consciousness of animals and human sapience. Assuming there is a distinction, you haven't explained the correlation between "mind" and "knowledge". You just jump ahead to a discussion of human intelligence, which is NOT characteristic of other conscious animals.
TSW: "Knowledge, power, science, revolution, life, global competition, survival - the interconnections are profound ..."
BW: True, but those attributes are not all characteristics of conscious vertebrates, they are characteristics of sapients.
TSW: "If knowledge is the result of the interaction of real humans with the real world, then whether we classify it as 'science' or 'religion' ... makes no difference - it is still knowledge."
BW: It seems to me that you're conceding that religious "knowledge" is a consequence of "interaction" with the real world and therefore just as valid as scientific facts about reality. Clearly, it isn't. Again, the problem is that you still haven't defined "knowledge". Clearly, non-human animals *know* something about reality, even if they never interact with humans.
TSW: "Both the scientists and the priests behave in fundamentally scientific ways: they accept sensory data, compare it with stored data, and then act on the macrocosm according to their conclusions."
BW: Now you've gone a step further, suggesting that priests follow some scientific method. They don't: they simply assume facts that they don't know and jump to conclusions, with no regard for evidence or logic. It seems to me that you're perverting the idea of scientific knowledge, simply because you've failed to define either term. Saying that it all comes under the category of epistemology says nothing about the content of the two kinds of claims.
Next: The Mind-Brain Muddle (Part 2 of 7)
cotsw 050
"Not all animals are conscious."
ReplyDeleteDo you mean aware(ness)? How can you conclude that? All organisms that have sense response built in are aware, are they not?
Consciousness is the most misunderstood word in modern times.
Bligh
"Systems philosophers"
ReplyDeleteI agree that GB lumps immaterist in with materialists when using systems as a way to try and separate the two. E.g Aristotle was not an immaterialist.
B
"Motion not part of nature."
ReplyDeleteHa!
Spinoza is grinning in his grave.
B
Again! "Thing" or "Things" is a word that can apply to matter or motion so need to find another word.
ReplyDeleteTry matter AND motion. Two different but interrelated objects of thought.
B
Processes are matter in motion.
ReplyDeleteDo either of you disagree?
B
Mind is the sum total of brain processes. There is no location other than the brain itself.
ReplyDeleteIt is a disseminated, serial, and parallel process of neuronal firings, for one definition.
B
GB is right, according to Aristotle both scientists and priests use inductive and deductive logic. The difference is that the premises have observable or non observable objects in them.
ReplyDeleteB
GBs assumptions are Kuhn-worthy. In both the Seinfeld sense and the impact on philosophy sense.
ReplyDeleteB
I agree with Bill. Consciousness requires a nervous system, which is not present in some animals. It is true that all microcosms respond to changes in their macrocosms. Salt, for instance, dissolves when placed in water, but we would not consider that response to be a result of consciousness. Consciousness obviously involves much more complex motions.
ReplyDelete[GB: Then, I guess that "Westmiller Things" include matterless motion. What a concept!]
ReplyDeleteWe're just using different definitions of "things". You view things as exclusively material objects; I consider the motion of objects as distinct events or processes, even if they're not material objects. I think I've said multiple times that I do not believe in "matterless motion".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing
[GB: The point of that discussion was to emphasize that mind is motion and brain is matter: end of discussion ...
Not the "end". All vertebrates either have "mind" or they have a dead brain; they go together. I realize that you don't want to consider the distinction between other vertebrates and humans, but I don't think it's purely a matter of quantity: the complexity is structural, producing different kinds of "motions" in the human brain.
[GB: ... Knowledge is inside the brain; information outside the brain.
That's an interesting distinction, which has some merit. Knowledge inside the brain that is communicated to others is usually considered "information" and portions of the brain can memorize raw information, without knowing the meaning of the content.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
[GB: ... You are right that religious "knowledge" is not valid. Nonetheless, it is knowledge when it appears in the brain even if it is based on nothing but lies or imaginings.]
I agree, but I think it's important to distinguish between a memory of what others have said ("information" = "doctrine") that is independent of any knowledge derived from reality.
[GB: ... Your claim that priests are illogical is false.
I don't think I said that. They may make an effort to resolve logical inconsistencies in their "received" or "revealed" knowledge (more akin to subjective information), but they askew or reject any claim to concrete evidence in reality which supports their assumed premises (since it doesn't). That, to my mind, is as unscientific as you can get.
---
Bligh said...
>... All organisms that have sense response built in are aware, are they not? ...<
Glenn offers a good example of an "unconscious" response, which is called "autonomic" in animals without a centralized nervous system.
Thanks.
ReplyDelete