worth noting that Descartes was simply paraphrasing Augustine:
"Again in explicit refutation of the Skeptics of the Academy, he argues that if a person is deceived, then it is certain that he exists. Expressing the point in the first person, as René Descartes (1596–1650) did some 1,200 years later, Augustine says, “If I am deceived, then I exist” (Si fallor, sum).
"To give a concrete example, you can’t see you your own eye balls, without a mirror." Have you noticed that you cannot see your eyes move in a mirror? This is evidence that what we have as Experience is a virtual reality.
On self referential "paradoxes". They are only paradoxes within the system being created. Certainly this creates problems for the system but not for our understanding of things outside the system. A set that is described by a member of the set that contains the whole set is only a problem for set theory.
Similarly the idea that consciousness might involve an infinite regress of moving data from place to place is only a problem for theories of consciousness as "processing", as moving things from place to place in an essentially 3D universe. The failure of simple processing models means that consciousness is likely to be about form (geometry) rather than function or due to more advanced processing involving more than 3D and Newtonian time.
Enjoyed this very much Lorenzo. We are but small ships tossed on the wild sea of the unconscious, like the "wandering bark, whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken" (apologies to Shakespeare).
Fascinating foray into the nitty-gritties of consciousness. On a quick skim, you certainly seem to have hit most or many of the high points in a rather puzzling but profoundly important topic.
Somewhat relative to that and to a comment in the first installment, I'm reminded of several amusing passages from a book -- by another Australian philosopher of some repute, David Chalmers 😉🙂 -- titled "The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory" (highly recommended):
DC: "The International Dictionary of Psychology does not even try to give a straightforward characterization:
Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of confusing consciousness with self-consciousness – to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it. (Sutherland 1989) [pg. 3]."
An amusing and refreshing bit of honesty.
However, I kind think you're putting far too much emphasis on "structure", for example with your insistence that, "Without systematic tests against structure, there is no way to systematically ground concepts." You might note that even Chalmers emphasizes both the concepts of structure AND dynamics, i.e., structure AND process:
DC: "Any account [of consciousness] given in purely physical terms will suffer from the same problem. It will ultimately be given in terms of the structural and dynamical properties of physical processes, and no matter how sophisticated such an account is, it will yield only more structure and dynamics. While this is enough to handle most natural phenomena, the problem of consciousness goes beyond any problem about the explanation of structure and function, so a new sort of explanation is needed. [pg. 121; process without physical structure? Y210823a]"
Moot of course how process itself can be quantified -- maybe kind of like trying to square the circle -- but I think, he apparently thinks, that it has some relevance and utility. You might consider a durable analogy in the form of the paradigmatic "black box":
Wikipedia: In science, computing, and engineering, a black box is a system which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics), without any knowledge of its internal workings."
One provides some inputs, turns the crank, and voila, an output! There's an internal process that changes the inputs into an output -- often on a regular basis which constitutes the 'sine qua non' "essence", so to speak. Like the standard biological definitions for the sexes which are likewise based on processes ....
But, a maybe more tangible analogy: if we have a home-handyman type of cement mixer then we plug it into an electrical socket, one of the inputs, throw in some cement, sand, gravel, and water, push the button -- other inputs -- let it do its magic, and then shortly thereafter we have a load of concrete -- the output -- available for walls and sidewalks.
The process is the thing, but it consists of a number of stages of different "structures" organized into something of a coherent whole, those with some degree of continuity. Moot of course where we might say that the process "exists" -- it really doesn't exist at a single point in time; by definition it exists over multiple points. And moot also what process exactly consciousness might consist of -- there's clearly some difference between that and a running cement mixer. Maybe it too is conscious!! 🤔😉🙂 But maybe if we knew exactly then we might eventually "upload" ours into computers?!! Immortality for the masses! 😉🙂
Still seems like an important part of the puzzle that you seem a bit too quick to "discard". At least part of the "baby" you want to throw out with the bathwater.
worth noting that Descartes was simply paraphrasing Augustine:
"Again in explicit refutation of the Skeptics of the Academy, he argues that if a person is deceived, then it is certain that he exists. Expressing the point in the first person, as René Descartes (1596–1650) did some 1,200 years later, Augustine says, “If I am deceived, then I exist” (Si fallor, sum).
That opens up a whole new panorama - how as conscious beings do we deal with the unconscious void?
For avoidance of doubt and clarity of thought:
"I doubt therefore I think [Ed], I think therefore I am"
(Though I always disagreed, saying, even as a child, "You might as well describe any experience or act")
"To give a concrete example, you can’t see you your own eye balls, without a mirror." Have you noticed that you cannot see your eyes move in a mirror? This is evidence that what we have as Experience is a virtual reality.
On self referential "paradoxes". They are only paradoxes within the system being created. Certainly this creates problems for the system but not for our understanding of things outside the system. A set that is described by a member of the set that contains the whole set is only a problem for set theory.
Similarly the idea that consciousness might involve an infinite regress of moving data from place to place is only a problem for theories of consciousness as "processing", as moving things from place to place in an essentially 3D universe. The failure of simple processing models means that consciousness is likely to be about form (geometry) rather than function or due to more advanced processing involving more than 3D and Newtonian time.
Enjoyed this very much Lorenzo. We are but small ships tossed on the wild sea of the unconscious, like the "wandering bark, whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken" (apologies to Shakespeare).
Fascinating foray into the nitty-gritties of consciousness. On a quick skim, you certainly seem to have hit most or many of the high points in a rather puzzling but profoundly important topic.
Somewhat relative to that and to a comment in the first installment, I'm reminded of several amusing passages from a book -- by another Australian philosopher of some repute, David Chalmers 😉🙂 -- titled "The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory" (highly recommended):
DC: "The International Dictionary of Psychology does not even try to give a straightforward characterization:
Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of confusing consciousness with self-consciousness – to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it. (Sutherland 1989) [pg. 3]."
An amusing and refreshing bit of honesty.
However, I kind think you're putting far too much emphasis on "structure", for example with your insistence that, "Without systematic tests against structure, there is no way to systematically ground concepts." You might note that even Chalmers emphasizes both the concepts of structure AND dynamics, i.e., structure AND process:
DC: "Any account [of consciousness] given in purely physical terms will suffer from the same problem. It will ultimately be given in terms of the structural and dynamical properties of physical processes, and no matter how sophisticated such an account is, it will yield only more structure and dynamics. While this is enough to handle most natural phenomena, the problem of consciousness goes beyond any problem about the explanation of structure and function, so a new sort of explanation is needed. [pg. 121; process without physical structure? Y210823a]"
Moot of course how process itself can be quantified -- maybe kind of like trying to square the circle -- but I think, he apparently thinks, that it has some relevance and utility. You might consider a durable analogy in the form of the paradigmatic "black box":
Wikipedia: In science, computing, and engineering, a black box is a system which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics), without any knowledge of its internal workings."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
One provides some inputs, turns the crank, and voila, an output! There's an internal process that changes the inputs into an output -- often on a regular basis which constitutes the 'sine qua non' "essence", so to speak. Like the standard biological definitions for the sexes which are likewise based on processes ....
But, a maybe more tangible analogy: if we have a home-handyman type of cement mixer then we plug it into an electrical socket, one of the inputs, throw in some cement, sand, gravel, and water, push the button -- other inputs -- let it do its magic, and then shortly thereafter we have a load of concrete -- the output -- available for walls and sidewalks.
The process is the thing, but it consists of a number of stages of different "structures" organized into something of a coherent whole, those with some degree of continuity. Moot of course where we might say that the process "exists" -- it really doesn't exist at a single point in time; by definition it exists over multiple points. And moot also what process exactly consciousness might consist of -- there's clearly some difference between that and a running cement mixer. Maybe it too is conscious!! 🤔😉🙂 But maybe if we knew exactly then we might eventually "upload" ours into computers?!! Immortality for the masses! 😉🙂
Still seems like an important part of the puzzle that you seem a bit too quick to "discard". At least part of the "baby" you want to throw out with the bathwater.