Simon Blackburn - Why a Mind-Body Problem?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 кві 2017
- How does the brain produce the mind? This is one of the most difficult problems in science, because how can physical qualities, no matter how complex and sophisticated, actually be mental experiences? Electrical impulses and chemical flows are not at all the kind of stuff that thoughts and feelings are. The physical and the mental are different categories.
Click here to watch more interviews on the mind-body problem bit.ly/2ooDcyW
Click here to watch more interviews with Simon Blackburn bit.ly/19MI5Fw
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
excellent stuff by Blackburn. He and Khun were exploring and narrowing definitions. Anyone who thinks they were disagreeing didn't understand what they were watching.
true that.
Hey Rob I think this is one of your best discussions
It seems to me only Chomsky has really grasped the problem so far. What is the physical? Sure, the brain and the consciousness produced comes from physical processes. But we have such a limited understanding of the physical. Certainly, it's not a mechanical process based on cause and effect. Physics more than accepts the idea of fundamental properties.
I'd recommend Simon Blackburn's book "Think" for anyone starting out with philosophy.
That said, I disagree with him about the mind. The mind isn't just an organising principal or a functioning of the body, it is the experience of the functioning of the body. That experience is generated by the body but the experience itself is not the body in the same way that the light produced by a lamp is not the lamp.
Imagine a person with a brain that does not give rise to a mind. That person would react to being touched in the same way you or I might but they would not actually experience the touch. If you tortured them they would scream and cry but they wouldn't actually be *feeling* any pain, they would only appear to be. They'd be a very convincing humanoid robot, not a person. By person I mean a conscious being deserving of moral consideration.
So, you are a property dualist
This comment is... bad. Imma just say that, and extend an invitation to debate. Philosophical zombies are a played out trope.
@@hollisticbomber2660 When I wrote this comment 4 years ago I was a second year philosophy undergrad. I'll finish my master's this year, and looking back at what I wrote there's only a couple of things I would change, and it's mostly just how I'd phrase it.
If you want a debate you'll have to offer more than "hurr P zombies don't real".
I was with him until the last part about a being requiring it to be alive with whatever that means. I think it bias on his part to suggest that a machine can not exhibit the same consciousness as a carbon organism.
Aerex12 I agree. introducing 'life' as a requirement for consciousness is no better than the mystical 'spirit' cited by dualists.
I agree. In principle. But I also see his struggle. Is a 'body-less' computer program a conscious beeing? Or a China brain? If your answer is 'no', you have to draw the red line ... somewhere.
He went off the rails there at the end.
Does the mind function mathematically so the brain can function informationally?
bruckheimer?
Mind is llusion so ?according to Illusion?
Is there any example of "consciousness" that is not associated with a living physical body?
God
@@1974jrod Does "God" have a body? I suppose it is possible the "body of God" is the physical universe itself. My point is that when we study "consciousness" it is always associated with something living.
@@prestonbacchus4204 I would say God created heavenly bodies, and God created a specific body known as Jesus in which all his power is conducted through. But God himself is a spirit or a non material being who is the cause of all materials. The scriptures, Hawking, Allen Guth and Vilenken all tell us that the material world(cosmos) had a beginning. God did not have a beginning, and he is not dependent upon the material world for his existence.
@@1974jrod Sounds religious, but cool.
Are we more than the atoms in our body? Yes and no. We are the atoms and their properties: their positions, speeds, accelerations, charge, etc.
Three stones on a sheet of paper are more than three stones on a sheet of paper: There are the stones' positions relative to each other as well. There's information on that sheet of paper.
The mind-body problem solved: The stones are the body, and the information they contain is the mind.
You assume that position, speed, and acceleration are not problematic. Quantum mechanics and both theories of relativity seem to indicate that speed and position are not so obvious. And acceleration can be speeding up or slowing down relative to a frame of reference, but not in any absolute sense.
I'd love for you to talk with Elon Musk
No thanks
Are you kidding? that was ALL fucking purple haze. "it has to have life's """processes""",??? Well what are they then? Purple haze I guess..
Your comment reads very emotionally heavy. The principle of charity should instruct you to try to make a steel man case for those you disagree with - at the least - before turning to such simple rejections.
*Simon Blackburn is actually a denialist. he solves problems by denying that they exist. How cute ! ...*
There is more evidence needed to put him into this category.
But anyway, the phrase 'How cute !' shows that your conclusion is based more on emotions then ratio.
Mindless nonsense!