Consciousness and passage of time

[Psy]

Is it just me or are we nothing but observers to our past consciousness due to our consciousness being a process that changes of time? For example what we thought 1 year ago only exists to us through memories which are no different then our other memories making us an observer to our past since we are looking back at it with our current consciousness, even when we write down our thoughts we are looking at those thoughts with our current consciousness not our past consciousness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I pointed out in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index.html

the word 'consciousness' is just a faint echo of the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian 'soul', and should find no place in a materialist theory.

[Hit The North]

As I pointed out in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index.html

the word 'consciousness' is just a faint echo of the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian 'soul', and should find no place in a materialist theory.

Given that Marx uses it extensively in his materialist theory (see, particularly, The German Ideology), which materialist theory do you champion, Rosa?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Given that Marx uses it extensively in his materialist theory (see, particularly, The German Ideology), which materialist theory do you champion, Rosa?

As I have told you before, when Marx sticks to this principle of his (from the German Ideology):


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.

he tends to get things right. Where he slips from this, and attends to the "distortions" introduced into language from traditional philosophy (such as the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian tradition I mentioned), he goes astray.

So, I 'champion' Historical Materialism that has not been traduced in this way, as you have been told many times.

Why do you need to be told things as many times as a very small child?

[Hit The North]

Unless you have a context and role for consciousness, you cannot have historical materialism.

Marx doesn't just dispense with consciousness like some crude, mechanical materialist.

I don't know of one version of historical materialism that doesn't have the concept of consciousness as part of its equation. If you know of one, please enlighten me.

[Decolonize The Left]

Is it just me or are we nothing but observers to our past consciousness due to our consciousness being a process that changes of time? For example what we thought 1 year ago only exists to us through memories which are no different then our other memories making us an observer to our past since we are looking back at it with our current consciousness, even when we write down our thoughts we are looking at those thoughts with our current consciousness not our past consciousness.

Consciousness, if understood as the state of being conscious, is not problematic in regards to your question. Do you see why?

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Unless you have a context and role for consciousness, you cannot have historical materialism.

For HM polluted by ruling-class mystcism, I agree. But, only you fans of the dialectic seem to want that.


Marx doesn't just dispense with consciousness like some crude, mechanical materialist.

Neither do I; I dispense with it since it is a throw-back to Platonic/Christian/Cartesian mysticism -- having paid attention to Marx advice (unlike you), quoted above.


I don't know of one version of historical materialism that doesn't have the concept of consciousness as part of its equation.

That is because of this other piece of advice comrades like you ignore:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.

The forms of HM you have seen have clearly been corrupted by these "ruling ideas"; what is worse, you refuse to be told.

Look, even Marx's thought is dominated here by Cartesian mysticism. Let that be a warning to you...

[Some hope!]


If you know of one, please enlighten me.

I have found over the last two-and-a-half years that it is in fact impossible to 'enlighten' you about anything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW:


Consciousness, if understood as the state of being conscious, is not problematic in regards to your question. Do you see why?

There is no such thing as a 'state conciousness'. You can regain consciousness after a bang on the head or an operation, but there is no more a state of 'consciousnes' than there is a 'state of winning' if you come first in the egg and spoon race. You win, that is it.

[Decolonize The Left]

There is no such thing as a 'state conciousness'. You can regain consciousness after a bang on the head or an operation, but there is no more a state of 'consciousnes' than there is a 'state of winning' if you come first in the egg and spoon race. You win, that is it.

I think you misunderstand.

I am not saying there is such a thing as consciousness, or a state of consciousness.
What I am saying is that what we call "consciousness" is merely "the state of being conscious."
In this case, "conscious" is:
"1. perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation" (merriam-webster)

Does that make sense?

- August

[Leo]

the word 'consciousness' is just a faint echo of the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian 'soul', and should find no place in a materialist theory.I've got some problems with this. These are the definitions of the term which are accurate in regards to reflecting what people understand from the term in my opinion:

con⋅scious⋅ness /ˈkɒnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʃəshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnɪs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-shuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngs-nis]
–noun
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness. 6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.
7. Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consciousness

We can go over these one by one:


1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. So consciousness first of all means one being aware of oneself. While there is an amount of human-centered thinking here this is obviously natural. Certainly, there is a difference between the non-existent self-awareness of a non-living matter like a rock or that of an organic but very simple or non-living cell or organism and that of an animal, living organisms which have evolved into a certain biological complexity. An animal perceives the world, it perceives its own self, it feels it's needs, can search for what will fulfill it's needs, feels pain and attempts to avoid it and so forth while a rock can't do any of this, thus animal have some awareness of itself. Humans, being even more evolved forms of animals have an even higher level of self awareness. It is of course a matter of difference between the level of self-awareness and humans certainly don't have a soul-like or an ideal consciousness, but simply a more evolved version of the self-awareness of the animals, which has been called the state of being conscious in a human-centered way. I don't see anything mystical or idealist with this definition, it is a common word used in the common language.


2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.This too is quite simply being conscious of something collectively and is not an invalid or an idealistic definition in my opinion.


3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting. This is not only a valid definition but a scientific and perfectly accurate one also, it describes a normal human medical condition.


4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.This basically means one person being aware, conscious of things that are not regarding himself but other, social or environmental things. Again the environmental and to a lesser degree even the social aspects of it exists in animals, but for humans especially the latter but even the former are more complicated because of the developed human language and developed scientific research. Again, there isn't an idealistic or mystical aspect of this definition.


5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.Speaks for itself in my opinion.


6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.Again, a completely valid and scientific definition, consciousness as in used by psychology and psychiatry.


7. Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.Now on this definition and this definition only, Rosa Lichtenstein's comments regarding the word 'consciousness' being just a faint echo of the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian 'soul', and should find no place in a materialist theory are completely true without any doubt, and it should indeed be pointed out that this is an idealistic definition if it is what is understood from the term. On the other hand, I don't think it is the most common usage of the term at all. It is an easily refutable one also, simply because our thoughts, feelings etc. being effects of our genetic and hormonal structures and our social and environmental surroundings, thus not having any being in themselves other than those effects.

What Marx is talking about here:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.... on the other hand has got nothing to do with the 7. definition of consciousness or idealism in my opinion. Just because Marx is talking about ideas doesn't make Marx an idealist while dealing with them. The marxist, materialist approach, the scientific approach does not reject the existence and influence of ideas or concepts in peoples' minds themselves, it explains saying that they are all based in material reality and nothing else.

[Hit The North]

"1. perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation" (merriam-webster)
What is the "controlled thought"?

EDIT: Leo, I wanted to thank you for that post but I can't find your 'Thanks!' button...

EDIT EDIT: I think Rosa's intervention in this debate is a good demonstration of how she approaches problems like a philosopher, rather than like a Marxist.

[Leo]

Give me a rep point instead then :p

[Psy]

I think you misunderstand.

I am not saying there is such a thing as consciousness, or a state of consciousness.
What I am saying is that what we call "consciousness" is merely "the state of being conscious."
In this case, "conscious" is:
"1. perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation" (merriam-webster)

Does that make sense?

- August

By consciousness I'm referring to the process of perceiving, apprehending, ect.

To make a comparison a artilect (artificial intelligence) could reload save states of its past consciousness if it wanted to, so the artilect wouldn't have to wonder what its younger self would think of current situations as it could just load up its younger self and see. Humans doesn't have this luxury our past consciousness is constantly being overwritten by our current consciousness, we only have memories of the output of our old consciousness.

[Decolonize The Left]

By consciousness I'm referring to the process of perceiving, apprehending, ect.

To make a comparison a artilect (artificial intelligence) could reload save states of its past consciousness if it wanted to, so the artilect wouldn't have to wonder what its younger self would think of current situations as it could just load up its younger self and see. Humans doesn't have this luxury our past consciousness is constantly being overwritten by our current consciousness, we only have memories of the output of our old consciousness.

The problem you are having is that you are conceiving of consciousness as some sort of an actual thing which exists through time. Hence you say that there is a 'current' and 'past' consciousness. This is false.

- August

[Psy]

The problem you are having is that you are conceiving of consciousness as some sort of an actual thing which exists through time. Hence you say that there is a 'current' and 'past' consciousness. This is false.

- August

All processes exists through time, like a computer's logic the logic of humans exists via processes that accrue though the passing of time, the immediate output of a human's logic brings what we call consciousness, as more time passes that consciousness just become memories as a new consciousness has formed with the new immediate output of human logic.

[Hit The North]

The problem you are having is that you are conceiving of consciousness as some sort of an actual thing which exists through time. Hence you say that there is a 'current' and 'past' consciousness. This is false.

- August

There might not be such a thing as past consciousness, but we have consciousness of the past. It seems to me that we live moment to moment with a sense of history and biography. Memories are part of our consciousness. Our consciousness is not always solely there in front of our faces in the present.


Originally posted by Psy
All processes exists through time...

Yes, and human beings have a keen apprehension of time.

[Psy]

There might not be such a thing as past consciousness, but we have consciousness of the past. It seems to me that we live moment to moment with a sense of history and biography. Memories are part of our consciousness. Our consciousness is not always solely there in front of our faces in the present.



Yes, and human beings have a keen apprehension of time.

We also had past consciousness, yet the difference between humans and theoretical artilects is that artilects in theory would be able to reprocess old save states of their logic (as it would be as simple as loading up a backup of their past logic), humans can't reprocess we can only process memories under our current logic. It is not even a issue of human memory it is an issue that our logic is just not static and we have no memory of our past logic just the output of our past logic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PSY:


I am not saying there is such a thing as consciousness, or a state of consciousness.
What I am saying is that what we call "consciousness" is merely "the state of being conscious."
In this case, "conscious" is:
"1. perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation" (merriam-webster)

But, I have just denied that there is such a thing as "the state of being conscious" -- so, no, it doesn't help.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


I've got some problems with this. These are the definitions of the term which are accurate in regards to reflecting what people understand from the term in my opinion:

Oh dear, yet another comrade who thinks philosophical problems can be solved by using a dictionary!

You must know that dictionaries are repositories of use, which includes all the confused and mystical uses of this word.

So, thanks for all that effort Leo, but it advances us not one millimetre.

May I suggest you read the thread I linked to earlier to bring you up to speed on this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I think Rosa's intervention in this debate is a good demonstration of how she approaches problems like a philosopher, rather than like a Marxist.

So, Marx then was no Marxist, for he is was who pointed out:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.

You will note that Marx blames philosophers for this mess, and so do I. Hence, your accusation more properly should be aimed at yourself, for you are just one among the many here who has swallowed the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian myth.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW:


The problem you are having is that you are conceiving of consciousness as some sort of an actual thing which exists through time. Hence you say that there is a 'current' and 'past' consciousness. This is false.

This is exactly what I am not doing (but it is what others here are doing). Read the thread I linked to.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^All of the above:

Thanks for proving Marx right -- the ideas of the ruling-class really do rule. Here too.:(

[Psy]

PSY:



But, I have just denied that there is such a thing as "the state of being conscious" -- so, no, it doesn't help.
And I'm saying what we consider consciousness is the end result of our logic processes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


And I'm saying what we consider consciousness is the end result of our logic processes.

Well, I am not sure 'we' do (which 'we', anyway? -- certainly not me).

And from the above, I don't think anyone else does, either.

What I am claiming is that there is no such thing as 'consciousness'. My reasons can be found in that other thread.

[Psy]

Psy:



Well, I am not sure 'we' do (which 'we', anyway? -- certainly not me).


We as in self-aware beings.



And from the above, I don't think anyone else does, either.

What I am claiming is that there is no such thing as 'consciousness'. My reasons can be found in that other thread.
If we didn't have consciousness then we wouldn't be self-aware (or have the illusion of being self-aware). From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) regarding consciousness "It has been defined from a biological and causal perspective as the act of autonomously modulating attentional and computational effort, usually with the goal of obtaining, retaining, or maximizing specific parameters, such as food, a safe environment, family, or mates." by that definition consciousness not only exists but could in the future exist in man made machines with sufficient AI.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PSY:


We as in self-aware beings.

Maybe so, but what has that got to do with 'consciousness'?


If we didn't have consciousness then we wouldn't be self-aware (or have the illusion of being self-aware). From Wiki regarding consciousness "It has been defined from a biological and causal perspective as the act of autonomously modulating attentional and computational effort, usually with the goal of obtaining, retaining, or maximizing specific parameters, such as food, a safe environment, family, or mates." by that definition consciousness not only exists but could in the future exist in man made machines with sufficient AI.

1) I think the Wiki article makes all the usual mistakes (of those trapped in the Cartesian paradigm).

2) I deny that machines can have 'consciousness' since there is no such thing. [I also deny they can be 'intelligent'.]

Again, my reasons can be found in that other thread.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is exactly what I am not doing (but it is what others here are doing). Read the thread I linked to.

I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't say that you said that - in fact, I was saying that Psy said that and was wrong. I am well aware of the fact that you are not on board with this whole discussion of consciousness, and in most regards, I agree with you completely. I was merely addressing a comment made by Psy which centered around a belief which I felt was unjustified.

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW: apologies -- I do not know how I came to make that mistake. Perhaps lack of sleep -- I wrote it at approx 3am local time, not being able to sleep.

[benhur]

AW: apologies -- I do not know how I came to make that mistake. Perhaps lack of sleep -- I wrote it at approx 3am local time, not being able to sleep.

Perhaps, you were not conscious of what you were doing.;)

Seriously, though, it's quite foolish to deny consciousness, as it precedes everything. It's the very substratum of all that exists, which is why even during sleep (where there's an absence of material objects), consciousness still goes on. It proves the point that consciousness is not merely a 'thing' that's created, or something that 'comes and goes.' It's always there, and material objects merely give a certain shape or form to it.

[Leo]

Oh dear, yet another comrade who thinks philosophical problems can be solved by using a dictionary!

It's your philosophical idol who came up with the ordinary language philosophy analysis.

Certainly dictionaries are not perfect, but they do reflect what is understood from a certain term to a sufficient extent. They are a good enough reference point for anyone who wants to use ordinary language while dealing with philosophical problems.


You must know that dictionaries are repositories of use, which includes all the confused and mystical uses of this word.

What matters is that they include the uses of the word period. Only one of these uses were mystical in the case of 'consciousness' in my opinion, others were not mystical at all.

Now what you are doing is taking the very definition of the term which you should refute, the mystical one as a fact and accusing people of being mystics for using other definitions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Perhaps, you were not conscious of what you were doing.

Maybe so, maybe not; but you definitely weren't.


Seriously, though, it's quite foolish to deny consciousness, as it precedes everything. It's the very substratum of all that exists, which is why even during sleep (where there's an absence of material objects), consciousness still goes on. It proves the point that consciousness is not merely a 'thing' that's created, or something that 'comes and goes.' It's always there, and material objects merely give a certain shape or form to it.

Which just tells me that you too have fallen into the Cartesian trap.

No surprise there, then.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


It's your philosophical idol who came up with the ordinary language philosophy analysis.

1) I do not have a 'philosophical idol'. Nevertheless, I see you too are resorting to low blows. I will reply in kind.

2) Ordinary language is OK as it is. Dictionaries, as you should know, were invented in the 18th century so that the ruling class could regulate the use of language.

3) Wittgenstein also argued that we fall into error when we allow out intellect to be seduced by language -- looks like this applies to you, too.


Certainly dictionaries are not perfect, but they do reflect what is understood from a certain term to a sufficient extent. They are a good enough reference point for anyone who wants to use ordinary language while dealing with philosophical problems.

They will also tell you a lot about 'God'. But do you uncritically swallow all they say? Perhaps you do.


What matters is that they include the uses of the word period. Only one of these uses were mystical in the case of 'consciousness' in my opinion, others were not mystical at all.

Fine, that just tells me you, too, have fallen into the Cartesian trap.


Now what you are doing is taking the very definition of the term which you should refute, the mystical one as a fact and accusing people of being mystics for using other definitions.

You should also know that it is not possible to 'refute' a defintion. One can refute a theory, or even an asserted indicative proposition, but not a defintion.

I suspect you might have confused 'refute' with 'reject', here.

May I suggest you look both up in a dictionary?

[Psy]

PSY:

Maybe so, but what has that got to do with 'consciousness'?

You can't have self-awareness without consciousness, you can't even have the illusion of self-awareness without consciousness, without consciousness we would have hardwired logic that is totally static like that of a microorganism. Thus to say consciousness doesn't exist is to say learning doesn't exist and all knowledge has to pre-programmed into each mind.

Again remeber I am talking about consciousness as in autonomously modulating attentional and computational effort which psychologists state is required for problem solving, decision making, error detection, planning, learning, adaptation, context creation, ect

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PSY:


You can't have self-awareness without consciousness, you can't even have the illusion of self-awareness without consciousness, without consciousness we would have hardwired logic that is totally static like that of a microorganism. Thus to say consciousness doesn't exist is to say learning doesn't exist and all knowledge has to pre-programmed into each mind.

So you keep saying, but we have yet to see the proof.

Sure, we have to regain consciousness after a blow on the head or after an operation if we are to resume being self-aware, but there is no state of consciousness after we 'come round' any more than there is a state of buying minutes or hours after you buy a paper.

In other words, this medical use of 'consciousness' is the only one that is viable.

Other senses of this word depend on the Platonic/Cartesian myth that we are embodied minds/'souls'.


without consciousness we would have hardwired logic that is totally static like that of a microorganism. Thus to say consciousness doesn't exist is to say learning doesn't exist and all knowledge has to pre-programmed into each mind

I don't see that this follows at all. Our use of the verb 'to learn' is in no way directly connected with what happens to us when we recover from a blow on the head.

[Psy]

PSY:



So you keep saying, but we have yet to see the proof.

Sure, we have to regain consciousness after a blow on the head or after an operation if we are to resume being self-aware, but there is no state of consciousness after we 'come round' any more than there is a state of buying minutes or hours after you buy a paper.

Think of state as in a save state of a computer, a save state for a computer is taking a snap shot of its logical processes meaning it is a saved state of the computer's logic at a particular point in time. So why there is not state of consciousness there are states of consciousness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


Think of state as in a save state of a computer, a save state for a computer is taking a snap shot of its logical processes meaning it is a saved state of the computer's logic at a particular point in time. So why there is not state of consciousness there are states of consciousness.

Well, I am not sure that this analogy helps at all. What computers get up to has no bearing at all on our psychology.


So why there is not state of consciousness there are states of consciousness.

I am sorry, I did not understand this.

[Psy]

Psy:



Well, I am not sure that this analogy helps at all. What computers get up to has no bearing at all on our psychology.


Both humans and computers have logic and through this logic they gain self-awareness (just that we haven't reached the processing power to give computers self-awareness but theoretically a self-aware computer is possible and its consciousness would exist through its logic). Also the human brain like electronic logic works based on electrical impulses just that the brain realizes on chemicals to control these electrical impulses.



I am sorry, I did not understand this.
That you can take snap shots of human consciousness to see its states at each state there is self-awareness thus consciousness it just always changing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


Both humans and computers have logic and through this logic they gain self-awareness (just that we haven't reached the processing power to give computers self-awareness but theoretically a self-aware computer is possible and its consciousness would exist through its logic). Also the human brain like electronic logic works based on electrical impulses just that the brain realizes on chemicals to control these electrical impulses.

Human being do not 'have logic'. Most human beings reason, and a few humans have developed formal systems we can collectively call 'logic'. And the huamn brain does not work at all like a computer (see below).

Moreover, computers have their 'logic' programmed into them by human beings -- but computers do not action that logic in any way similar to us humans (since we do not in general think along formal lines, but informally, at best).

And the problem is even worse than this, as John Haugeland pointed out:


"Reasoning (on the computational model) is the manipulation of meaningful symbols according to rational rules (in an integrated system). Hence, there must be some sort of manipulator to carry out those manipulations. There seem to be two basic possibilities: either the manipulator pays attention to what the symbols and rules mean or it doesn't. If it does pay attention to the meanings, then it can't be entirely mechanical -- because meanings (whatever exactly they are) don't exert physical forces. On the other hand, if the manipulator does not pay attention to the meanings, then the manipulations can't be instances of reasoning -- because what's reasonable or not depends crucially on what the symbols mean.

"In a word, if a process or system is mechanical, it can't reason; if it reasons, it can't be mechanical. " [Haugeland (1985), p.39. Italic emphasis in the original. I owe this reference to Shanker (1988), p.252.]

Haugeland, J. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea (MIT Press).

Shanker, S. (1998), Wittgenstein's Remarks On The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence (Routledge).

That puts paid to the idea that machines can reason.


That you can take snap shots of human consciousness to see its states at each state there is self-awareness thus consciousness it just always changing.

This can't be done, anymore than you can photograph a ghost.

[Psy]

Psy:

Human being do not 'have logic'. Most human beings reason, and a few humans have developed formal systems we can collectively call 'logic'. And the huamn brain does not work at all like a computer (see below).

Yes humans have logic as do all animals with a brain, the electrical pulses in the brain forms a logic where inputs are processed into outputs.



Moreover, computers have their 'logic' programmed into them by human beings -- but computers do not action that logic in any way similar to us humans (since we do not in general think along formal lines, but informally, at best).

I'm talking beneath consciousness, meaning how information from senses are processed so the brain can be aware of its surroundings.



And the problem is even worse than this, as John Haugeland pointed out:



Haugeland, J. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea (MIT Press).

Shanker, S. (1998), Wittgenstein's Remarks On The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence (Routledge).

That puts paid to the idea that machines can reason.

It is theoretically possible to program a computer to program itself based on what it learned thus you in theory could get a computer to pay attention to what symbols and rules means.



This can't be done, anymore than you can photograph a ghost.
Actually it can, just like you can a computer. Lets take a human sitting in a well lit room and the human is well aware they are sitting in a well lit room. The we stop time and turn off the lights, they are unaware of the change, we advance time half a second, they are still unaware the lights went out but their brain is processing the change, we advance time another half second the human is now aware that they are sitting in the dark thus conscious of the fact the lights are out, thus reached a new conscious state.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


Yes humans have logic as do all animals with a brain, the electrical pulses in the brain forms a logic where inputs are processed into outputs.

You can't mean logic as a formal system (since that was only invented 130 years ago), you must mean that humans all reason to some extent.

But, as a matter of fact, human beings reason informally:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/


I'm talking beneath consciousness, meaning how information from senses are processed so the brain can be aware of its surroundings

Ah, that word again -- 'consciousness'. And like Big Foot, people still believe in it.

However, the brain is aware of nothing, but we humans are. You seem to think the brain is a person!


It is theoretically possible to program a computer to program itself based on what it learned thus you in theory could get a computer to pay attention to what symbols and rules means.

Who doubts that computers can 'learn', but whether they can learn is another matter.

And I'd like to see the proof that computers can grasp meaning.


Actually it can, just like you can a computer. Lets take a human sitting in a well lit room and the human is well aware they are sitting in a well lit room. The we stop time and turn off the lights, they are unaware of the change, we advance time half a second, they are still unaware the lights went out but their brain is processing the change, we advance time another half second the human is now aware that they are sitting in the dark thus conscious of the fact the lights are out, thus reached a new conscious state.

This assumes that what you are photographing (if that is what is being done here) is 'consciousness'. But, as with ghosts, we have yet to see the proof that it exists so that is can be photographed.

What you have here at best is a correlation between an outer state and an inner brain process. But that does no show that the inner process is 'consciousness' (or even awareness), any more than photographing rustling leaves proves that a ghost is moving them.

[Psy]

Psy:



You can't mean logic as a formal system (since that was only invented 130 years ago), you must mean that humans all reason to some extent.

But, as a matter of fact, human beings reason informally:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

I meant a mechanical logic, for example our brain figuring out it is hungry based on a mechanical logic based on electrical impulses. Human logic is based on this mechanical logic, we are not even a brain but the end result of electrical impulses traveling between brain cells, thus there really isn't a reason why man made mechanical logical devices can't think like humans.



Ah, that word again -- 'consciousness'. And like Big Foot, people still believe in it.

However, the brain is aware of nothing, but we humans are. You seem to think the brain is a person!

No, the logic of the brain is a person. Just like the self-aware part of a computer would be the end logic of its circuits not its circuits, meaning turning such a computer off would kill the "person" hosted by computer even though circuit remain, similarly you can view yourself as being hosted by your brain and you die once your brain stops hosting your for whatever reason.



Who doubts that computers can 'learn', but whether they can learn is another matter.

And I'd like to see the proof that computers can grasp meaning.

We are based on mechanical logic thus it is possible for computers to grasp meaning given enough processing power.



This assumes that what you are photographing (if that is what is being done here) is 'consciousness'. But, as with ghosts, we have yet to see the proof that it exists so that is can be photographed.

What you have here at best is a correlation between an outer state and an inner brain process. But that does no show that the inner process is 'consciousness' (or even awareness), any more than photographing rustling leaves proves that a ghost is moving them.

Since what we consider consciousness is nothing more then the end result of processes of the brain then consciousness exists as long as the brain performs this function.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


I meant a mechanical logic, for example our brain figuring out it is hungry based on a mechanical logic based on electrical impulses. Human logic is based on this mechanical logic, we are not even a brain but the end result of electrical impulses traveling between brain cells, thus there really isn't a reason why man made mechanical logical devices can't think like humans.

Human beings get hungry, for they have stomachs, brains do not, for they haven't. Once more, you seem to think brains are human beings! [See below.]

And there is no such thing as 'mechanical logic', as John Haugeland explained.


No, the logic of the brain is a person. Just like the self-aware part of a computer would be the end logic of its circuits not its circuits, meaning turning such a computer off would kill the "person" hosted by computer even though circuit remain, similarly you can view yourself as being hosted by your brain and you die once your brain stops hosting your for whatever reason.

If the logic of the brain is a person, what is the 'logic' of its brain? Another person? And what is the logic of its brain? Yet another? And so on, ad infinitem.

If this 'inner person' has no brain, then how can it be a person? If it has a brain, how can you stop that infinite regress?

Your 'inner person', it seems to me, is different from the 'rational soul' of Cartesian mysticism in name alone. As I indicated, comrades who go in for this sort of talk, end up in the Cartesian quagmire pretty quickly. Better not to go there in the first place. [See below.]

And computers are not 'self aware' for they aren't persons.


We are based on mechanical logic thus it is possible for computers to grasp meaning given enough processing power.

We can't be 'based' on mechanical logic, for there is no such thing.


Since what we consider consciousness is nothing more then the end result of processes of the brain then consciousness exists as long as the brain performs this function.

Then how do you know that your belief in brains is not a figment of your own brain? Or that you even have a brain to begin with if everything is a figment?

[You might recognise here the yawning chasm of scepticism opening up in front of you (if not, I will soon make it plain to you), which also opened up in front of Descartes -- which is why he ended up a dualist. Your approach will have you there in no time.]

Ah that word again -- 'consciousness'! You'll be telling me you believe in the Tooth Fairy next!

[Psy]

Psy:

Human beings get hungry, for they have stomachs, brains do not, for they haven't. Once more, you seem to think brains are human beings! [See below.]

The stomach is connected to the mechanical logic of the brain through the body.



And there is no such thing as 'mechanical logic', as John Haugeland explained.

Yes there is, thus why logic gates are called logic gates.



If the logic of the brain is a person, what is the 'logic' of its brain? Another person? And what is the logic of its brain? Yet another? And so on, ad infinitem.

Logic doesn't have a brain, that is like saying the logic of a computer has a computer.



If this 'inner person' has no brain, then how can it be a person? If it has a brain, how can you stop that infinite regress?

The brain is simply what is processing the stimuli, our personality is a function of the logic of the logic of our brain.



And computers are not 'self aware' for they aren't persons.

Computers can be self-aware since your brain only connects to the outside world through electronic impulses, thus you can have a computer that is self aware.



We can't be 'based' on mechanical logic, for there is no such thing.

So mechanical calculators don't exist in your world, good to know.




Then how do you know that your belief in brains is not a figment of your own brain? Or that you even have a brain to begin with if everything is a figment?

We don't, just like a self-aware computer wouldn't really know for sure that its consciousness nothing more then the end result of electrical impulses traveling through circuit boards.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


The stomach is connected to the mechanical logic of the brain through the body.

Even if we could make sense of 'mechanical logic', this still would not mean that brains were hungry.


Yes there is, thus why logic gates are called logic gates

These words are used metaphorically, unless you think these 'gates' are real gates (to gardens, parks or driveways, perhaps).

This is quite apart from the fact that there aren't any such 'gates' in the brain.


Logic doesn't have a brain, that is like saying the logic of a computer has a computer.

Then you withdraw your claim that logic of the brain is a person, I take it?


The brain is simply what is processing the stimuli, our personality is a function of the logic of the logic of our brain.

What is 'logic of logic'?


Computers can be self-aware since your brain only connects to the outside world through electronic impulses, thus you can have a computer that is self aware.

But the brain isn't self-aware, we are. And we have yet to see the proof that computers are self-aware.


So mechanical calculators don't exist in your world, good to know.

What on earth makes you say that? Calculators do not reason.


We don't, just like a self-aware computer wouldn't really know for sure that its consciousness nothing more then the end result of electrical impulses traveling through circuit boards.

How do you know there are such things as circuit boards and electrical impulses? They too could be figments of your brain (or of the workings of an evil demon -- as was the case in Descartes' version of this fairy tale).

[Leo]

1) I do not have a 'philosophical idol'. Nevertheless, I see you too are resorting to low blows. I will reply in kind.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was merely referencing to you upholding Wittgenstein.


2) Ordinary language is OK as it is. Dictionaries, as you should know, were invented in the 18th century so that the ruling class could regulate the use of language.

Ruling classes, being a strong part of the society, always regulates the use of languages to an extent, and their regulations give the words new meanings and/or clarifies and alters the old meanings of the words. When the bourgeoisie was in it's ascendancy, the did apply all their ideas to language and they regulated it to a sufficient extent, and it is a process which is more or less finished in the epoch we are living in. So the ordinary language we use, whether we like it or not, has been regulated by the bourgeoisie to an extent and unless we can come up with a proletarian language, we have to examine the mystical elements in the ordinary language as well as in the dictionaries with a case-by-case approach.


3) Wittgenstein also argued that we fall into error when we allow out intellect to be seduced by language -- looks like this applies to you, too.

Surely, indeed we should not allow our intellect to be seduced by language, we should not say that if a term has a dictionary definition then it is materialist as a concept or anything. We should clarify the meanings and critically analyze. I am not saying dictionaries or language gives us the ultimate truth, I am saying they can be used as a reference point for analysis.


They will also tell you a lot about 'God'. But do you uncritically swallow all they say? Perhaps you do.

Not at all, but I am not uncritically swallowing the definitions given either - quite the contrary I analyze them and if a certain definition is mystical in my opinion, I do, as I did in my first post, say it is so.


Fine, that just tells me you, too, have fallen into the Cartesian trap.

As you wish - perhaps you should instead try to show what is wrong with the definitions and my comments on them specifically, in order to 'enlighten' me?


You should also know that it is not possible to 'refute' a defintion. One can refute a theory, or even an asserted indicative proposition, but not a defintion.

I suspect you might have confused 'refute' with 'reject', here.

English is my second language after all.


May I suggest you look both up in a dictionary?

Patronizing about the language errors made by those who speak English as a second language is quite disturbing Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


So the ordinary language we use, whether we like it or not, has been regulated by the bourgeoisie to an extent and unless we can come up with a proletarian language, we have to examine the mystical elements in the ordinary language as well as in the dictionaries with a case-by-case approach.

It's not possible to regulate successfully ordinary language, since it is the product of co-operative labour and communal life. [The novel 1984, for example, tries to argue that this can be done, but there is no way that it can be made to work.]

Anyway, give me an example of this 'regulation', and I will show you how it isn't.


Surely, indeed we should not allow our intellect to be seduced by language, we should not say that if a term has a dictionary definition then it is materialist as a concept or anything. We should clarify the meanings and critically analyze. I am not saying dictionaries or language gives us the ultimate truth, I am saying they can be used as a reference point for analysis.

Why do this if all we have to do is examine how we use certain words, and gain what Wittgenstein called a 'perspicuous view' of the use of that word in ordinary contexts.

Dictionaries are only of use when we encounter new words we have never met before, or we want to check a spelling.


As you wish - perhaps you should instead try to show what is wrong with the definitions and my comments on them specifically, in order to 'enlighten' me?

Good grief! What am I? Some sort of prophet who has to do all your thinking for you?

In the meantime, may I suggest you have a look at these:

http://www.filozofija.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=40

http://uk.geocities.com/philosocbbk/HanflingTalk.htm

http://www.def-logic.com/articles/silby013.html

[Recall, I do not necessarily endorse everything that the above say.]


English is my second language after all.

Ah, then forgive my crass reply.


Patronizing about the language errors made by those who speak English as a second language is quite disturbing Rosa.

As 'disturbing' as your insensitive attempt to read into the minds of SWP comrades here some quasi-racist beliefs and attitudes? [But, I also say such things to those who first language is English, too -- recall this is one of the few uses dictionaries actually have.]

Anyway, I did say that I would respond in kind [I]now that I have changed my mind about you.

[Psy]

Psy:



Even if we could make sense of 'mechanical logic', this still would not mean that brains were hungry.

No it means that the logic of the brain can come to the output that it needs to eat.



These words are used metaphorically, unless you think these 'gates' are real gates (to gardens, parks or driveways, perhaps).

This is quite apart from the fact that there aren't any such 'gates' in the brain.

Not the logic part as there is a mechanical logic to gates for example a AND gate has the logic that if A and B high means output is high else output is low. Brains work on similar mechanical logic.



Then you withdraw your claim that logic of the brain is a person, I take it?

I'm saying the output of the brain is a person.



What is 'logic of logic'?

Take a computer, the mechanical logic the circuit boards allows the higher logic of the software.



But the brain isn't self-aware, we are. And we have yet to see the proof that computers are self-aware.

And we are a function of the brain, we are no different then self-aware software running on a computer.



What on earth makes you say that? Calculators do not reason.

Reason does not equal logic.



How do you know there are such things as circuit boards and electrical impulses? They too could be figments of your brain (or of the workings of an evil demon -- as was the case in Descartes' version of this fairy tale).
Again we don't, yet we have to work with the information we have.

[Lynx]

And computers are not 'self aware' for they aren't persons.
[...]
But the brain isn't self-aware, we are. And we have yet to see the proof that computers are self-aware.
Do we need to see the proof that persons are self aware while everything else is not, or is this definition of self awareness sufficient?

[Leo]

It's not possible to regulate successfully ordinary language, since it is the product of co-operative labour and communal life.Not completely of course but just as it is possible to partially regulate co-operative labor and communal life it is possible to partially regulate ordinary language - dictionaries are a part of it and they are succesful partially, they are reality of the world we live in.


The novel 1984, for example, tries to argue that this can be done, but there is no way that it can be made to work.Well, if the novel argues that it can be done, then it basically means that it has been been done in the Soviet Union completely since the language bits are basically a reflection of Soviet terminology - certainly it wasn't the case anyway.

Orwell hardly makes an argument about full alteration of daily language in the philosophical or linguistic sense.


Anyway, give me an example of this 'regulation', and I will show you how it isn't.The promotion of all state-languages of all countries, the BBC English in Britain, American English in the US, Constantinople Turkish in Turkey, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic by colonial expansion etc. as well as the promotion of English as the international language are quite clearly partial succesful regulations of ordinary languages.


Dictionaries are only of use when we encounter new words we have never met before, or we want to check a spelling.And yet, considering most English speakers in the world are second language speakers we use dictionaries very frequently and especially while learning the language. But even when studying Turkish in school we used the dictionary frequently to "perfect" our understanding of what the terms meant and all as well as in order to learn new terms. I have witnessed new vocabulary terms being taught in American schools regularly using dictionary definitions.


Why do this if all we have to do is examine how we use certain words, and gain what Wittgenstein called a 'perspicuous view' of the use of that word in ordinary contexts.Because the 'perspicuous view' of the use of a certain word in the ordinary context is not clear sometimes, as in this case. You seem to be taking a certain definition as the 'perspicuous view' of the use of the word, while as far as I am aware of there are more common uses of the word than that. Certainly you aren't going to say a doctor who says that 'his patient has regained consciousness' is a mystic!


Good grief! What am I? Some sort of prophet who has to do all your thinking for you?No dear Rosa, I made an analysis of some definitions given by the dictionary and concluded that they weren't mystical, you said I was being a mystic for saying that and I kindly want to see why you think that and how you'd refute my conclusions.


Ah, then forgive my crass reply.Apology accepted.


As 'disturbing' as your insensitive attempt to read into the minds of SWP comrades here some quasi-racist beliefs and attitudes?I never said individuals posting here had quasi-racist beliefs or attitudes, I just said that the attitude fanatically in support of Hamas put forward by the SWP as well as other leftists from the first world come across to me as being very chauvinistic and appealed to stereotypes about Middle Easterners being more backward etc. in peoples minds. I never accused anyone of subjectively doing that though, it was a political criticism.


But, I also say such things to those who first language is English, tooStill not a kind thing to do, patronizing people about the lack of their attention to English classes in school.


Anyway, I did say that I would respond in kind now that I have changed my mind about you. Be that as it may, I don't think this justifies either being rude or being patronizing, and that considering I didn't either insult you or was rude to you or patronized you or questioned your intentions or integrity personally.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry comrades, but as I noted to Leo, I have set mysself a deadline (Feb 1st!) to finish a very long essay on this very topic -- but it is now clear to me that I will have to put that deadline back at least a week. So, I will have to suspend my comments on this topic until then.