sman Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Yes, its true. :o I am a zombie, and I am hereby officially emerging from the graveyard of the callow transcendentalism of my youth. Actually, I’ve known about it for awhile, but I feel a public statement is in order. What I mean, of course, is a philisophical zombie or a p-zombie, a term concocted by the opposition intended as some kind of strawman. The problem is this: The Strawman doesn’t fall over! In fact - and this is the main contention I’m making here - he is, despite highest hopes, the very core of the argument for the materialistic view. The argument usually assumes the form of a thought experiment. Something like this: If, in some parallel universe - exactly the same as this one, molecule-for-molecule - there exists an sman just like me in every material way - he would look like me, behave like me, vote like me… etc - but he couldn’t be me because… well, because I’m me. He would be a zombie version of me. Let’s call him zman. Interestingly, zman presumably holds the same thoughts & beliefs as I do. For instance he has an overpowering conviction - no less than I - that he is the true me and that I am the zombie! Actually, right now he’s publishing some sesquipedalian, quasi-intellectual diatribe about how we’re both zombies! Just to be facetious, I’m guessing. :lol: It may at first seem that an avowal of my allegiance among the undead would belong in the Strange Claims Forum. However, if you’ve read this far and thereby understand my true contention, you’ll indulge me in by plea that this is nothing more than standard science, and in my conviction that, in fact, any opposition is, itself, a Strange Claim. But, more than a declaration of what I am, this opening is an admission of what I am not: I am not a ghost-in-the-machine; I am not uniquely an agent of free will; I am not a strange loop... et cetera. My position, while seemingly audacious, is simply one of common parsimony. I believe that human behavior (including their precious, personal, subjective inner-lives) can be accounted for completely by what we already know of Biology, Physiology, Neurology and of the Chemistry & Physics which underlie & interlace with these disciplines and that no observation requires any such necromancy as the summoning of dead things as vitalism or élan vitals nor any frankensteins as quantum mysticism or Godelian self-referencial rat's-nests for explanation. But aside from anything this topic may proclaim about me, it is perhaps more poignant what it claims implicitly about you, dear reader. For as you must surely know from countless B movies, it only takes one scratch or bite - one proverbial philosophical nibble - and before long, as the cello score crescendos, your eyes will glaze over and you will be drawn inexorably over into the bleak, blanched, parallel world of philosophical materialism. Mmwwwa ha ha ha haaaaa.... :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Well, as a literary effort its clever, if a little contrived; as philosophy it seems half a century - at least - late; as science, it's good you put it in the philosophy section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sman Posted February 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Well, as a literary effort its clever, Thank you. I give it that kind of effort because awareness of the subject is important to me and I feel it’s up to me to earn the reader’s attention. ... if a little contrived; That’s fair. as philosophy it seems half a century - at least - late; As far as I can tell, the “problem of consciousness” and the “problem of free will” and things of that nature are being debated currently. Certainly, they come up often enough here in the philosophy forums. My use of the term “transcendentalism”, however, may be outdated/misguided. I mean only the idea that the mind “transcends” the matter comprising the brain. as science, it's good you put it in the philosophy section. Any criticisms on the science would be warmly embraced by this cold-bodied corpse. JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Well, as a literary effort its clever, if a little contrived; as philosophy it seems half a century - at least - late; as science, it's good you put it in the philosophy section. Ah... the flame of reality exposes the strawman for what he truly is... fuel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sman Posted February 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Ah... the flame of reality exposes the strawman for what he truly is... fuel... You should know by now, moon, that I take your drive-by comments to heart. And so I’ve been re-reading my OP looking for the strawman and I think I see your point. ....I believe that human behavior (including their precious, personal, subjective inner-lives) can be accounted for completely by what we already know of Biology, Physiology, Neurology and of the Chemistry & Physics which underlie & interlace with these disciplines and that no observation requires any such necromancy as the summoning of dead things as vitalism or élan vitals nor any frankensteins as quantum mysticism Here I have lumped all quantum theories of consciousness in with quantum mystics - unfairly so. John Searl (no less), in his most recent book seems now embracing quantum indeterminism to bolster his career-long campaign of denial philosophical explanations of human consciousness. This argument is very different than anything proposed by quantum mystics. ....or Godelian self-referencial rat's-nests And here I’ve used the very denigrating term “rat’s nest” to designate what is actually the most stalwart & scientifically robust theory of consciousness I’ve ever read about and one deservedly accredited with my broadest respects: Hofsteader's elegant Strange Loop theory. So I’m afraid I may indeed be guilty of building straw men to topple. Nevertheless, I decry all theories of consciousness - tantamount to declaring that there is no such thing! This is a position that may be attacked from most any angle... Silence is agreement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) I've been unconscious for many years... :blink: DID may support the Strange loop theory... IMHO anyway... Edited February 8, 2013 by Moontanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Nevertheless, I decry all theories of consciousness - tantamount to declaring that there is no such thing! This is a position that may be attacked from most any angle... Silence is agreement! Define consciousness please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sman Posted February 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Define consciousness please... Well, obviously, I don’t mean the kind of consciousness that is the opposite of “asleep”. With that out of the way, when I say “I decry all theories of consciousness”, it seems I mean I am opposed to every other definition. I oppose, of course, any idea that pre-supposes non-material or unobservable phenomena, and am happy to set all of these aside from the start. What we’re left with then, I guess, is consciousness as self-awareness. And yes, I am opposed to that! I do not deny that self-awareness exists, just that it is meaningful or important. For instance, I see no reason to think that my own self-awareness in qualitatively different from that of other creatures, or that it is in a different class from awareness of anything at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 For instance, I see no reason to think that my own self-awareness in qualitatively different from that of other creatures, or that it is in a different class from awareness of anything at all.Are you asserting that a squirrel or an alligator has a theory of mind? If so what is your evidence to support this assertion? CraigD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sman Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Are you asserting that a squirrel or an alligator has a theory of mind? If so what is your evidence to support this assertion? The mind of an alligator maintains a model of the world which includes those aspects of the alligator’s environment that are pertinent to its survival and ultimate reproduction. For the alligator, this world-model - continuously updated with data from vision, hearing and a kind of chemical analysis via olfactory which humans will have a hard time associating with - is a 2-dimensional plane encompassing the body of water it inhabits and just a bit up the shore an all sides, but not venturing far above or below the water-line with much resolution. The squirrel, OTOH, maintains a rich 3-dimentional world-model by which it tracks cats, hawks and ever-changing quick-escape routs incorporating long, gangly branches swaying in the air currents. The z-axis is much more salient for the squirrel’s survival (and ultimate reproduction) than for the alligator. Incidentally, humans also maintain this kind of rich 3-D world-model. It is a vestige from the time their ancestors enjoyed great motility within the forest canopy, something like squirrels, but probably more like gibbons. Hard to say if this investment is still paying off for humans, but it did allow me to operate a 40-foot forklift in a busy warehouse for a few years for pretty good money. :lol: Now, one aspect of the human’s environment in which investment in the surveillance of absolutely does pay off is other humans. They are, let’s face it, intensely social creatures, compared to alligators or squirrels (but not wolves or chimps). Humans truly live-or-die by their ability to negotiate the social environment and to accurately estimate their tribes-mate’s thoughts and intentions. The result is a theory of mind. This really is a different set of data than is available to - say - the alligator. I am only asserting that there’s no reason to think of it as any more meaningful than - say - the olfactory of the alligator, which is unavailable to us. Moontanman and JMJones0424 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 The mind of an alligator maintains a model of the world which includes those aspects of the alligator’s environment that are pertinent to its survival and ultimate reproduction. For the alligator, this world-model - continuously updated with data from vision, hearing and a kind of chemical analysis via olfactory which humans will have a hard time associating with - is a 2-dimensional plane encompassing the body of water it inhabits and just a bit up the shore an all sides, but not venturing far above or below the water-line with much resolution. The squirrel, OTOH, maintains a rich 3-dimentional world-model by which it tracks cats, hawks and ever-changing quick-escape routs incorporating long, gangly branches swaying in the air currents. The z-axis is much more salient for the squirrel’s survival (and ultimate reproduction) than for the alligator. Incidentally, humans also maintain this kind of rich 3-D world-model. It is a vestige from the time their ancestors enjoyed great motility within the forest canopy, something like squirrels, but probably more like gibbons. Hard to say if this investment is still paying off for humans, but it did allow me to operate a 40-foot forklift in a busy warehouse for a few years for pretty good money. :lol: Now, one aspect of the human’s environment in which investment in the surveillance of absolutely does pay off is other humans. They are, let’s face it, intensely social creatures, compared to alligators or squirrels (but not wolves or chimps). Humans truly live-or-die by their ability to negotiate the social environment and to accurately estimate their tribes-mate’s thoughts and intentions. The result is a theory of mind. This really is a different set of data than is available to - say - the alligator. I am only asserting that there’s no reason to think of it as any more meaningful than - say - the olfactory of the alligator, which is unavailable to us. You are making a very good point, I'm thinking that loading my shotgun might be a prudent measure, where do you want it.. the forehead? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 sman, re your post #10, was that a yes or a no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.