Thread: Perception of Self Entirely Based on Sensory Input?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

I dont care about anyone's personal opinion, i am trying to discuss objectively the proper arguments for and against certain views.

No, you just don't seem to have a personal, intelligent opinion. Parroting other people's theories is not an opinion. I refuse to just say "hell, it's been done before, what do I know? I should stop thinking right now and just let people tell me what's true!"

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Do you actually think the ideas expressed by yourself and others in this thread have not been expressed in a far more in-depth and excessively technical manner by others, thus making your comments look like chicken scratch?

Chicken scratch is far better than blind plagiarism, my friend. I'm fifteen, remember? I'm still developing my ideas about the world. I refuse to be referred to random articles in a discussion - I'm not here to compare sources, I'm here to have an intelligent debate which will help form my ideas.

It would be much better if you could summarize those articles in your own words, and then we could discuss their content, instead of dismissing my objections with a vague wave in the direction of 'professionals'.

Originally Posted by Neruo

What the hell. Only because I saw you quoted it, I saw what a retarded statement that guy made.

Actually, I am extremely sure we can 'see' with an MRI scanner whether someone is eating sour or sweet food. There are just different kinds of receptors in those areas. Slightly different parts of the brain will light up.

Or like, once you know what (tiny) area of the brain is linked to syrup (by showing it or something), you might see activity of that area if someone is eating sugar or something that tastes sweet, like syrup.

Basically, you are greatly underestimating what we can see with an MRI scanner. I can't even begin to imagen what we will be able to 'see' in the brain over 100 years. I don't think there will be much of the 'great mystery' left.

The argument works differently. Eat a chicken sandwich and remember the taste, then do the same with a bunch of scientists analyzing your brain. Let them tell you what they found and which neurons fired while you experienced the taste of chicken sandwich. Listen carefully and look closely at the pictures of your brain they will show you. They might be able to tell you which neurons correlated to you experiencing the taste. They might even tell you what you ate without looking at it. But explain how any of that qualifies as actual taste. No matter what, they will have no idea how chicken sandwich tastes to you, why you experience taste at all and if they've never eaten chicken sandwich themselves they will have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about. If a computer analyzed and structured the human brain on its own, it wouldn't get the idea to name any of the regular stuff "taste" or "smell". It would give numbers to the experiences but the whole project would be completely meaningless.

Originally Posted by Korittke

No matter what, they will have no idea how chicken sandwich tastes to you, why you experience taste at all and if they've never eaten chicken sandwich themselves they will have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about.

What does that prove?!

1) I can feel things
2) I can't feel things if you just explain them to me
3) The explanation must be false - I'm feeling something else

There is a difference between telling someone how something works and having them experience it. This is common sense. How does that in any way suggest that the taste is not mechanical?

Originally Posted by Korittke

The argument works differently. Eat a chicken sandwich and remember the taste, then do the same with a bunch of scientists analyzing your brain. Let them tell you what they found and which neurons fired while you experienced the taste of chicken sandwich. Listen carefully and look closely at the pictures of your brain they will show you. They might be able to tell you which neurons correlated to you experiencing the taste. They might even tell you what you ate without looking at it. But explain how any of that qualifies as actual taste. No matter what, they will have no idea how chicken sandwich tastes to you, why you experience taste at all and if they've never eaten chicken sandwich themselves they will have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about. If a computer analyzed and structured the human brain on its own, it wouldn't get the idea to name any of the regular stuff "taste" or "smell". It would give numbers to the experiences but the whole project would be completely meaningless.

Now, take those same scientists and have them stimulate your brain in the same places that were active during the eating of the chicken sandwich. If the correct portions of your brain are isolated and stimulated, you will find that you can't tell the difference between what they are doing and actually eating the sandwich.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Now, take those same scientists and have them stimulate your brain in the same places that were active during the eating of the chicken sandwich. If the correct portions of your brain are isolated and stimulated, you will find that you can't tell the difference between what they are doing and actually eating the sandwich.

To be fair, practically speaking if such an experiment were performed they would tell the difference.

This would be because they would have no memories of picking up the sandwich, and no way to rationalize why they suddenly seem to be eating a sandwich. They would become confused, or maybe just attribute the experience to the scientists mucking about.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

To be fair, practically speaking if such an experiment were performed they would tell the difference.

This would be because they would have no memories of picking up the sandwich, and no way to rationalize why they suddenly seem to be eating a sandwich. They would become confused, or maybe just attribute the experience to the scientists mucking about.

With enough understanding and control its possible to give the sensation of picking up a fictitious sandwich and biting in to it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

With enough understanding and control its possible to give the sensation of picking up a fictitious sandwich and biting in to it.

Haha. I thought of that after I had posted. That would be quite the experiment, though - you would have to figure out which parts of the experience were included in your 'neural preset' or whatever you want to call it. For example, if your stimulation doesn't include the proprioception of actually holding something to your mouth, you would have to make them mime it or risk compromising the results.

Human beings actually have a sixth sense called proprioception(sp?) that tells us where our various body parts are. This is separate from our sense of touch. If we could simulate proprioception as well as the other five senses, it would be just the same to us as if we were actually in a different place. If a man was born within such a simulation he would, from his perspective, actually exist in that separate, simulated reality.

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Human beings actually have a sixth sense called proprioception(sp?) that tells us where our various body parts are. This is separate from our sense of touch. If we could simulate proprioception as well as the other five senses, it would be just the same to us as if we were actually in a different place. If a man was born within such a simulation he would, from his perspective, actually exist in that separate, simulated reality.

Well, there are actually many more senses than even those six. For example, the entire vestibular system plays a big role in telling you where your whole body is in relation to the earth (proprioception is just in relation to yourself) and how fast you are moving. We are also sensitive to electricity to some extent, I believe, and there are plenty of other random senses around.

Simulating proprioception would be necessary for the chicken sandwich, otherwise you might feel like you just had a sandwich hanging in front of your face instead of you holding it. However, I bet there are also some other senses that come into play (i.e. thermoreceptors to feel the cool bread and chicken, or whatever). A complete replica would be necessary.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Now, take those same scientists and have them stimulate your brain in the same places that were active during the eating of the chicken sandwich. If the correct portions of your brain are isolated and stimulated, you will find that you can't tell the difference between what they are doing and actually eating the sandwich.

So? This does in no way indicate that the taste itself is of a physical quality. At best it tells us that physical and mental processes correlate. Even if you consider mental processes part of the physical universe, what's the point of them if we can explain everything without them? Does every physical process come with a mental process? The point of the whole experiment is that at no point it has anything to do with the experience of mind. The whole thing would work just as well if there was no mind at all. And if you presume the existence of mind, it doesn't say anything about its nature apart from correlation. Neither identity nor causality can be said to be true by using such an experiment.

I'll just quote what I posted before but what you didn't answer:

I ask you to explain how matter makes for a subjective experience if you have a materialist standpoint. Do you believe that every physical process has a subjective experience of existing that represents this physical process in a different way, on a different ontological level? Do you believe that either only machines or only biochemical machines can create this experience because of their complexity? Then how would that work, in contrast to a chicken sandwich which you believe to have no subjective experience of its existence.

If you're materialist, you are probably an evolutionist, so unless you are saying that the mind doesn't exist because its existence cannot be proven, then why did the human mind develop in the first place? If we're just biochemical computers, what's the point of having a representation of the processes in the mind.

Or are you trying to say that there is no such thing as subjective experience because it cannot be proven? If this is so we have reached the end of the discussion.

You replied:

No, a chicken sandwich is not capable of the same things that I am since it does not have a brain, not to mention any of several other key ingredients to sentient life. Show me the existence of the mind without the brain and you might convince me.

What's so special about a brain that it would produce a mind? And as I said before, why would a mind develop if a brain can be explained fully without a mind. A brain is nothing more than a very complex chicken sandwich.

Originally Posted by Korittke

What's so special about a brain that it would produce a mind? And as I said before, why would a mind develop if a brain can be explained fully without a mind. A brain is nothing more than a very complex chicken sandwich.

You are aware that you're assuming we have a mind, right? The mind didn't 'develop' independently from the brain - the brain IS what you call the mind.

How consciousness arises is one of the great mysteries of modern neuroscience. However, to invent a non-physical component to the brain because you don't understand how the brain could do it is ridiculous.

You see a phone running Windows XP. "I can't imagine how a phone could do that," you say. "That phone doesn't look so very complicated or anything... Ah! There must be an invisible, intangible part of the phone in another plane of existence or something which is helping it run! Sure, you can explain the phone fully only looking at its physical components, but the invisible part of it doesn't interfere with the phone, it just gives it XP!!"

That's really how I see your argument. I am still waiting for a good reason to assume the existence of a non-physical component to the human brain.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You are aware that you're assuming we have a mind, right?

Very much so.[quote]

You see a phone running Windows XP. "I can't imagine how a phone could do that," you say. "That phone doesn't look so very complicated or anything... Ah! There must be an invisible, intangible part of the phone in another plane of existence or something which is helping it run! Sure, you can explain the phone fully only looking at its physical components, but the invisible part of it doesn't interfere with the phone, it just gives it XP!!"

This analogy doesn't work at all. We probably all agree that a phone is completely physical in nature. We also agree that software is nothing more than a specific organized state of these physical phenomena. There's nothing magical to software, because we as humans designed it in a way that is purely physical. But if you look at the color green and perceive green as green, then how in the world is that the same as neurons firing? If you look at a brain and you were to find out what this person is experiencing, you'd never find out how he perceives the color green, not even with the most advanced scientific methods that we can't even begin to think of.
And for the last time, if you believe that every physical phenomenon has a subjective quality to it (so that existing is not merely an objective physical process but furthermore includes a physical subjective experience of the thing that exists), does this go for chicken sandwiches as well? And if not, why does it go for a brain? Does it go for my teeth, or my skin? And if it goes only for a brain, what's the point of that if the physical system works just as well without subjective experience.

One more out-of-body-experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El9Rt...elated&search=

Originally Posted by Korittke

If you look at a brain and you were to find out what this person is experiencing, you'd never find out how he perceives the color green, not even with the most advanced scientific methods that we can't even begin to think of.

Of course we could. We simply don't know enough about how the brain works to do so yet, but we can already detect general things like emotions. As we learn more about the specific functioning of the brain, we will probably be able to tell what people are thinking more precisely, even to the point where we can get an idea of how they perceive a color, simply by observing which emotions they experience in reaction to it, etc.

Keep in mind, I may not be very clear about this, but I'm NOT saying that I KNOW we are only physical. I'm just saying that there is no reason we couldn't be, and that fact combined with Occam's Razor leads me to believe that there is no good reason to assume that there is any non-physical component to the human brain.

Originally Posted by Korittke

And for the last time, if you believe that every physical phenomenon has a subjective quality to it (so that existing is not merely an objective physical process but furthermore includes a physical subjective experience of the thing that exists), does this go for chicken sandwiches as well? And if not, why does it go for a brain? Does it go for my teeth, or my skin? And if it goes only for a brain, what's the point of that if the physical system works just as well without subjective experience.

Chicken sandwiches cannot process reality. We can, and the reality we process is what we subjectively experience. Does that not make sense to you?

Your teeth and skin, combined with your brain, process reality. They send the brain messages about reality, and the brain interprets them. A chicken sandwich, on the other hand, does not. The chicken's flesh once had the ability to transmit information about reality, but not inside of a sandwich.

What's the point? There is no point. Why should there be? It just is.

Originally Posted by Korittke

So? This does in no way indicate that the taste itself is of a physical quality. At best it tells us that physical and mental processes correlate. Even if you consider mental processes part of the physical universe, what's the point of them if we can explain everything without them? Does every physical process come with a mental process? The point of the whole experiment is that at no point it has anything to do with the experience of mind. The whole thing would work just as well if there was no mind at all. And if you presume the existence of mind, it doesn't say anything about its nature apart from correlation. Neither identity nor causality can be said to be true by using such an experiment.

I'll just quote what I posted before but what you didn't answer:



You replied:
What's so special about a brain that it would produce a mind? And as I said before, why would a mind develop if a brain can be explained fully without a mind. A brain is nothing more than a very complex chicken sandwich.

You have failed to define "the mind" and so I will reserve comment on the existence of it, and why such an existence would arise.

In my opinion, what you seem to be describing as the mind does not exist; it being some extra-physical cognitive soul of some kind. When I use the word mind, I am referring to the total translation of the physical world created in the brain, as well as the various internal thoughts and functions of the brain. The assumption that all of my perceptions are subjective doesn't contradict this model, as all perceptions are internalized in the brain and therefore even without an external mind, it is impossible to fully objectify experience; each brain being different and its own internal world.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

No, you just don't seem to have a personal, intelligent opinion. Parroting other people's theories is not an opinion. I refuse to just say "hell, it's been done before, what do I know? I should stop thinking right now and just let people tell me what's true!"

Chicken scratch is far better than blind plagiarism, my friend. I'm fifteen, remember? I'm still developing my ideas about the world. I refuse to be referred to random articles in a discussion - I'm not here to compare sources, I'm here to have an intelligent debate which will help form my ideas.

It would be much better if you could summarize those articles in your own words, and then we could discuss their content, instead of dismissing my objections with a vague wave in the direction of 'professionals'.

Hey if your in high school then you should already know that you need sources to back up your arguments and opinions. Its plagiarism to defend or otherwise hold beliefs that someone else has already gotten credit for, rather than source that material.

I hope current high school students aren't being told they dont have to become familiar with the vast body of information that is out there before they can make valid arguments.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Hey if your in high school then you should already know that you need sources to back up your arguments and opinions. Its plagiarism to defend or otherwise hold beliefs that someone else has already gotten credit for, rather than source that material.

I hope current high school students aren't being told they dont have to become familiar with the vast body of information that is out there before they can make valid arguments.

...Its plagiarism... to hold beliefs? Are you joking? Its plagiarism to dictate the words of another verbatim or close enough to it and pass it off as your own, but that doesn't bar you from describing your own beliefs that happen to be similar to the beliefs of someone that has described them before you. He's asking you to describe the concepts you are posing in your own words; since otherwise its obvious you don't understand them and can only refer us to argue with someone else.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

He's asking you to describe the concepts you are posing in your own words; since otherwise its obvious you don't understand them and can only refer us to argue with someone else.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

I have no problem with you supplying those sites as a backing for your arguments, provided you actually HAVE arguments. The problem arises when all you do is post a link every time I challenge something you say - it becomes an appeal to authority instead of a supporting resource.

Also, though those sites may have relevant information to our current debate, they will not directly answer my specific questions. If you are going to present those sites as representatives of your beliefs, you still have to at least answer my arguments in a specified manner, and not just refer me to an existing 'body of knowledge'.

It's sad that we've diverged so much from the extremely interesting original article. It was a very interesting experiment, but no one is actually discussing it.

Originally Posted by skysaw

It's sad that we've diverged so much from the extremely interesting original article. It was a very interesting experiment, but no one is actually discussing it.

There's nothing to discuss because everyone already knew what the results would be. I can do a more interesting experiment with a sock and a wiener.

Originally Posted by Korittke

There's nothing to discuss because everyone already knew what the results would be. I can do a more interesting experiment with a sock and a wiener.

While I'm sure a thread on your sock and wiener would prompt much useful discussion, at least the Associated Press found the original topic interesting. As did Gnome and I did. Maybe you're just in the wrong thread.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

I have no problem with you supplying those sites as a backing for your arguments, provided you actually HAVE arguments. The problem arises when all you do is post a link every time I challenge something you say - it becomes an appeal to authority instead of a supporting resource.

Also, though those sites may have relevant information to our current debate, they will not directly answer my specific questions. If you are going to present those sites as representatives of your beliefs, you still have to at least answer my arguments in a specified manner, and not just refer me to an existing 'body of knowledge'.

So you admit you havnt read a single academic paper discussing these issues? Being 15 years young isnt an excuse to have an ignorant opinion that is unwilling to be informed by academic research. When I was 15 I had read Einstein's special and general theories of relativity, loads of political philosophy, theology, and even some philosophy of biology. Its never too early to begin a project of learning, and a thirst for academic rigor (not to mention respect for the giants on whose shoulders all future discoveries rest) that will last the rest of your life.

I gave you in my own words a few variations of what is known in academic philosophy of mind as the knowledge argument. Which again, goes something like: Since no amount of knowledge of the physical processes going on in the brain and body will amount to knowledge of what it is like to have an experience of some qualitative state of consciousness, like pain or color, the what-it-is-like must be additional knowledge beyond knowledge of the merely physical. So, to answer this if you are a eliminative materialist you must be able to satisfactorily answer the question: Is there is a type of knowledge that can only be obtained by undergoing the relevant experience and not by simply knowing everything that is physical about it?

For helpful reference with these arguments its appropriate to trace them back to their founding source, Saul Kripke, who should be studied by anyone seriously wishing to be informed on the hard problem of consciousness and other debates taking place between physicalists, emergentists, dualists, and all the other positions in that article I posted that was unfortunately met with outcries and read by no one.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

So you admit you havnt read a single academic paper discussing these issues? Being 15 years young isnt an excuse to have an ignorant opinion that is unwilling to be informed by academic research. When I was 15 I had read Einstein's special and general theories of relativity, loads of political philosophy, theology, and even some philosophy of biology. Its never too early to begin a project of learning, and a thirst for academic rigor (not to mention respect for the giants on whose shoulders all future discoveries rest) that will last the rest of your life.

I gave you in my own words a few variations of what is known in academic philosophy of mind as the knowledge argument. Which again, goes something like: Since no amount of knowledge of the physical processes going on in the brain and body will amount to knowledge of what it is like to have an experience of some qualitative state of consciousness, like pain or color, the what-it-is-like must be additional knowledge beyond knowledge of the merely physical. So, to answer this if you are a eliminative materialist you must be able to satisfactorily answer the question: Is there is a type of knowledge that can only be obtained by undergoing the relevant experience and not by simply knowing everything that is physical about it?

For helpful reference with these arguments its appropriate to trace them back to their founding source, Saul Kripke, who should be studied by anyone seriously wishing to be informed on the hard problem of consciousness and other debates taking place between physicalists, emergentists, dualists, and all the other positions in that article I posted that was unfortunately met with outcries and read by no one.

Somehow I doubt you read Einstein's special and general relativity, because aside from them being heavily laden with complicated mathematical formulae, you seem to be incapable of reading common English.

There was no mention that anyone had failed to read up on the subject, simply that you seem incapable of actually discussing, and therefore must regurgitate other people's arguments and then point us in the direction of someone who might no more than the jack shit that you do.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

So you admit you havnt read a single academic paper discussing these issues? Being 15 years young isnt an excuse to have an ignorant opinion that is unwilling to be informed by academic research. When I was 15 I had read Einstein's special and general theories of relativity, loads of political philosophy, theology, and even some philosophy of biology. Its never too early to begin a project of learning, and a thirst for academic rigor (not to mention respect for the giants on whose shoulders all future discoveries rest) that will last the rest of your life.

My philosophy is that I can read up on these things later, after I've formed my own opinions. I am convinced that if I 'look in the back of the book' for the answers, I will only end up with beliefs that I do not fully understand, because I did not come up with them myself.

Of course, at some point I'll have to admit that I can go no further on my own, and THEN I can check my answers and revise my theories, with a full understanding of how they work, against those of the 'giants'. I KNOW that they know more than I do, and I don't want them to spoil it for me. No offense, but you seem to be supporting my theory - you refuse to put your ideas into your own words, instead citing authorities because you are unable to fully articulate your opinions yourself - probably because you didn't come up with them.

I will need some time to think about this 'knowledge argument', it is interesting.

Edit - xaqaria, "Somehow I doubt you read Einstein's special and general relativity, because they are heavily laden with complicated mathematical formulae"

I would think it possible to at the very least get a general gist of the theories at fifteen. I took AP Calc AB last year and am taking BC this year, as well as AP Physics. With a good foundation in calculus and physics, I believe you have a good shot at deciphering the theories. I haven't read the actual texts myself, but I have a good basic understanding of the concepts. Don't underestimate people based on their ages ;P

Amazing how some of these responses are a page-long and are complete, fallacial nonsense.

Just google "brain in a vat" and be done with it.