Clever Philosophy Dudes

Post by cowboy carl
Now for the meat of my post...
I have to write this essay about Descartes and stuff (his Meditations),
nothing fancy, just a regular essay to show I understand what he wrote.
I was wondering if people in here (one particular person in fact ... if
he's around :)) could give me a few pointers...
The points I have to hit in the essay are why he needs a 'completely
clean slate', the 'wake/sleep contrast' and what he means by 'a thing
that thinks'.
So basically I have to explain hyperbolic doubt and how consciousness
survives it.
However ... I don't think it does.
I mean, Descartes said that we shouldn't trust things which have once
deceived us -- implying that we should trust things which have never
deceived us ... as far as we know. And that if something has never
deceived us then it must be 'true'.
Well he doesn't quite say that, but that's an extrapolation. Which is
clearly nonsense, because we could easily be perfectly deceived.

No, he doesn't say that, so it seems pointless to invent it in order to
knock it down. He's saying that all his senses have at some time deceived
him, so he cannot trust his senses to yield any certain knowledge.

Post by cowboy carl
Indeed,
it is more likely we are perfectly deceived by an 'evil demon' than we
are imperfectly deceived and he keeps making mistakes -- every time we
look at a tower in the distance for example, or every time we go to
sleep. That'd just be silly.
But that's not what I want to talk about (although would it be fair to
put that in my essay? can I just make up my own stuff, or do I have to
do loads of research and only/mainly cite famous philosophical arguments
to Descartes? -- if so, has anyone mentioned what I just mentioned, and
what I'm about to talk about, i can't believe i am the first ;))
So my main point comes back to something I posted here a few months ago
about consciousness.
I was asleep, the radio came on, I dreamt I was the person they were
interviewing, and it felt like I was thinking that person's thoughts.
So if I can be deceived into thinking I am thinking as someone else,
then maybe I am doing someone else's thinking right now.
This, I think (heh), is a slight weakening of Descartes "I think
therefore I exist" into "something is thinking therefore something
exists", but that something might not be 'me'.

Yes, that's a perfectly respectable line, that the "cogito" doesn't
produce everything Descartes wants it to.

Post by cowboy carl
The evil demon could be doing all our thinking for us.
And also, back to my first point, how can Descartes know for sure that
he can't be fooled into believing he is thinking?

It doesn't matter: if the evil demon could do such a thing, it would
still imply something (Descartes) having a thought - since to believe
something is to have a thought of some kind.

St Augustine (of Hippo) already tackled this in City of God: if I don't
exist, there's nothing to deceive; if I can be deceived, I must exist.

Post by cowboy carl
I know it sounds
completely ridiculous but maybe that's just because our brains aren't
naturally wired for such metaphysical thought.
Since we don't really know what "thinking" is,

Don't we? How come we're doing philosophy, then? (Sorry: that's a bit
like Dr Johnson refuting Berkeley)

Post by cowboy carl
how can we not consider
the possibility it isn't happening.
I suppose Descartes would argue that "thinking" is the thing we know best.

Surely it's just the primary characteristic of (self-)conscious beings,
whereas sense data are somehow secondary and therefore unreliable.

Post by cowboy carl
But the point of this post wasn't so much to start a discussion, but to
ask for references and pointers to other people (cleverer than me) who
might have thought about this before (or who might have had thinking
done for them ;)) who I can refer to.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm#Hyperbolic Doubt

seems a good place to start

Most of what I can remember about it all is thirty years old, so if Mark
T has an idle few moments, maybe he'll help you out.

SW

cowboy carl

2004-12-29 15:25:09 UTC

Yes, that's a perfectly respectable line, that the "cogito" doesn't
produce everything Descartes wants it to.

Post by cowboy carl
The evil demon could be doing all our thinking for us.
And also, back to my first point, how can Descartes know for sure that
he can't be fooled into believing he is thinking?

It doesn't matter: if the evil demon could do such a thing, it would
still imply something (Descartes) having a thought - since to believe
something is to have a thought of some kind.
St Augustine (of Hippo) already tackled this in City of God: if I don't
exist, there's nothing to deceive; if I can be deceived, I must exist.

I meant that the evil demon is the thing which is thinking, these
thoughts are then projected out onto various creatures, such as me and
Descartes.

So nobody is being 'deceived', it is all just happening.

Heh, I dunno why, but I'm sat here trying as hard as I can to convince
myself that I don't exist :-/ Do you think I'll suddenly disappear if
it happens?

Anyway, "if I can be deceived, I must exist" is circular, since the last
three words kinda 'fit inside' the second word.

It would be better to say "if deception can occur"

Then the only thing which can be deduced is "something may be deceived"

In which case "something might exist to be deceived"

Which is getting us nowhere...

Don't we? How come we're doing philosophy, then? (Sorry: that's a bit
like Dr Johnson refuting Berkeley)

Well, we don't know what causes thought.

If it's "only" neurons firing in our brain, then we can easily be made
to believe we are thinking, in fact, we *are* being made to believe we
are thinking, cos the laws of physics are somehow giving us the illusion
of free will (assuming there are such things as 'laws of physics').

And what about hypnosis?

I've never been hypontised, and I don't know much about it, but from
what I've seen ... well ... people have been hyponotised into beliving
they are chickens and they go around clucking.

Now I don't know what is going through their brains at this point, but
haven't they been deceived into thinking they are something else?

Which doesn't quite make us not exist, but it gives us reason to doubt
our thoughts, since they have deceived us.

Post by cowboy carl
how can we not consider
the possibility it isn't happening.
I suppose Descartes would argue that "thinking" is the thing we know best.

Surely it's just the primary characteristic of (self-)conscious beings,
whereas sense data are somehow secondary and therefore unreliable.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm#Hyperbolic Doubt
seems a good place to start
Most of what I can remember about it all is thirty years old, so if Mark
T has an idle few moments, maybe he'll help you out.

Thanks :)

cc

Robert de Vincy

2004-12-29 16:59:51 UTC

cowboy carl did write:

[snip]

Post by cowboy carl
Heh, I dunno why, but I'm sat here trying as hard as I can to convince
myself that I don't exist :-/

You don't.

That is, there is no "I" that keeps on existing from one second to the
next in a sort of immutable, unchangeable way. "You" (or "I" from your
perspective) are the collection of received sensations triggering a
particular set of memories.

I read _The Ape That Spoke_ (by John McCrone) recently. Ignoring the bits
that are blatantly bad pop-science writing (e.g., he thinks that sign
languages are just gestured representations of spoken language, and he
says in one chapter that multi-cellular life has been around several
billion years and then contradicts that by saying it's only several
hundred million in a later chapter), he gives a rather useful definition
of consciousness. He says that consciousness (that is, the phenomenon of
feeling aware and alive and of you being you) is a second-by-second series
of small "Aha!" moments of recognition in which the brain is constantly
dredging up memories in response to sensory stimulation. There is, he
claims, a constant background "buzz" of these moments again and again,
ever so slight but always there when we're awake and this is what we mean
by consciousness. We can't help it so long as we're receiving sensory
stimuli, just as we can't help seeing if we have our eyes open (and a
healthy visual system, of course!).
I guess that if you could somehow break that chain of recognition somewhere
along the line (stop the triggering of any memories, for example; but that
might be as impossible as opening your eyes and making yourself not allow
any light to excite your retinal cells) then perhaps "you" would no longer
exist. It might be incredibly horrific or it might be complete bliss...
I don't know.

Post by cowboy carl
Do you think I'll suddenly disappear if it happens?

It would be interesting to find out, but then... there would be no "you"
to say what happened during that time if you ever came back!

Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, "if I can be deceived, I must exist" is circular, since the
last three words kinda 'fit inside' the second word.
It would be better to say "if deception can occur"
Then the only thing which can be deduced is "something may be
deceived"
In which case "something might exist to be deceived"
Which is getting us nowhere...

Imagine a friend says to you that he has seen a herd of blue elephants
and shows you a rather crude snapshot of some African plain with what
looks like blue elephants in the far distance.
You believe him... I mean how could you not? There's a picture right
there in front of you! So you go off and because this person is a great
friend and you want to vindicate his belief in blue elephants, you write
a whole great pile of stuff about how such a thing could have evolved,
what survival advantages being blue offered, all the various ramifications
that an elephant coloured blue would entail. Some other friends see what
you're doing and you tell them about it and they see your enthusiasm, and
a sample of what you've written already, and so they join in, too, with
you all sitting up till all hours of the night discussing the implications
and natural history of blue elephants. The whole thing might be grounded
in the most unshakable and solid scientific theories of the day and you
would all feel rightly proud of your accomplishments. "Look!" you
announce at the end, "We've proved beyond doubt that blue elephants are
viable!"
Then, the original Blue-Elephant Spotter returns and tells you that he
got it wrong. It was a trick of the light or the lens or something.
Whatever it was, they weren't blue elephants... just your regular grey
ones.
All that time! That effort! What a waste. If only you'd gone and actually
checked that blue elephants really did exist.

Let's face it: Descartes was talking a load of bollocks. Body, spirit,
mind... it's just a grand illusion that they're separate things. We
might believe they're separate but does that mean they really are?

Post by cowboy carl
And what about hypnosis?
I've never been hypontised, and I don't know much about it, but from
what I've seen ... well ... people have been hyponotised into beliving
they are chickens and they go around clucking.
Now I don't know what is going through their brains at this point, but
haven't they been deceived into thinking they are something else?

Only some people can be hypnotised. Some just don't fall under the
"spell" and these are the ones who, it seems, refuse to play the game
that the hypnotiser suggests. There has to be some sort of willingness
to go along with the suggestions before the person does it.

Post by cowboy carl
Which doesn't quite make us not exist, but it gives us reason to doubt
our thoughts, since they have deceived us.

No. We've deceived ourselves in hypnosis. Because we (or they) are
hypnotised, they are -- by default of being capable of hypnotism -- willing
to believe anything to keep the pretence going. They don't really believe
they are actually genuinely truly 100% chickens. They're play-acting as
chickens just like children would, only it's a much stronger conviction
to play the part.
That's why a lot of these "regression" sessions in which claimed UFO-
abductions are brought from out of repressed memories are looked at with
caution and scepticism. The people who can be hypnotised are those who
are more likely to 'pretend' a situation and go along with the hypnotiser's
suggestions.

--
BdeV

cowboy carl

2004-12-29 17:28:30 UTC

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by cowboy carl
Heh, I dunno why, but I'm sat here trying as hard as I can to convince
myself that I don't exist :-/

You don't.
That is, there is no "I" that keeps on existing from one second to the
next in a sort of immutable, unchangeable way. "You" (or "I" from your
perspective) are the collection of received sensations triggering a
particular set of memories.
I read _The Ape That Spoke_ (by John McCrone) recently. Ignoring the bits
that are blatantly bad pop-science writing (e.g., he thinks that sign
languages are just gestured representations of spoken language, and he
says in one chapter that multi-cellular life has been around several
billion years and then contradicts that by saying it's only several
hundred million in a later chapter), he gives a rather useful definition
of consciousness. He says that consciousness (that is, the phenomenon of
feeling aware and alive and of you being you) is a second-by-second series
of small "Aha!" moments of recognition in which the brain is constantly
dredging up memories in response to sensory stimulation. There is, he
claims, a constant background "buzz" of these moments again and again,
ever so slight but always there when we're awake and this is what we mean
by consciousness. We can't help it so long as we're receiving sensory
stimuli, just as we can't help seeing if we have our eyes open (and a
healthy visual system, of course!).
I guess that if you could somehow break that chain of recognition somewhere
along the line (stop the triggering of any memories, for example; but that
might be as impossible as opening your eyes and making yourself not allow
any light to excite your retinal cells) then perhaps "you" would no longer
exist. It might be incredibly horrific or it might be complete bliss...
I don't know.

So what happens when we are asleep?

Consiousness stops, and when we wake, it just picks up where it left off?

I mean, if the only reason we are consious is because we remember what
happened a fraction of a second ago ... then how do we ever wake up?

Post by cowboy carl
Do you think I'll suddenly disappear if it happens?

It would be interesting to find out, but then... there would be no "you"
to say what happened during that time if you ever came back!

Or maybe I move onto Level 2...

Imagine a friend says to you that he has seen a herd of blue elephants
and shows you a rather crude snapshot of some African plain with what
looks like blue elephants in the far distance.
You believe him... I mean how could you not? There's a picture right
there in front of you! So you go off and because this person is a great
friend and you want to vindicate his belief in blue elephants, you write
a whole great pile of stuff about how such a thing could have evolved,
what survival advantages being blue offered, all the various ramifications
that an elephant coloured blue would entail. Some other friends see what
you're doing and you tell them about it and they see your enthusiasm, and
a sample of what you've written already, and so they join in, too, with
you all sitting up till all hours of the night discussing the implications
and natural history of blue elephants. The whole thing might be grounded
in the most unshakable and solid scientific theories of the day and you
would all feel rightly proud of your accomplishments. "Look!" you
announce at the end, "We've proved beyond doubt that blue elephants are
viable!"
Then, the original Blue-Elephant Spotter returns and tells you that he
got it wrong. It was a trick of the light or the lens or something.
Whatever it was, they weren't blue elephants... just your regular grey
ones.
All that time! That effort! What a waste. If only you'd gone and actually
checked that blue elephants really did exist.
Let's face it: Descartes was talking a load of bollocks. Body, spirit,
mind... it's just a grand illusion that they're separate things. We
might believe they're separate but does that mean they really are?

Hehe, can I use that in my essay? ;-)

But yeah ... the reconstruction part of Descartes is rubbish, which is
partly why I'm not doing the essay on it, because if I don't believe
what he is saying, I can't be sure that it isn't because I don't
understand it properly, in which case, I will write with less confidence.

Ah, right-o, will ignore hypnosis then :)

cc

Robert de Vincy

2004-12-29 18:12:54 UTC

cowboy carl did write:

[snips]

Post by cowboy carl
So what happens when we are asleep?
Consiousness stops, and when we wake, it just picks up where it left off?

Um, well, no. It doesn't ever go away completely until you die. How else
would you remember your dreams if "you" were not there when you slept?

Post by cowboy carl
I mean, if the only reason we are consious is because we remember what
happened a fraction of a second ago ... then how do we ever wake up?

Ah! I think you're taking "sleep" to equal "when we don't have consciousness"
rather than some process that happens which has an effect on your level
of consciousness. You're still conscious when asleep, but at a different
level. Your example with the radio interview is one example of that.
You're still capable of receiving sensory input (hearing, in that case)
but because your brain is operating differently (and, in turn, making
your body behave differently... closed eyes, slower breathing, paralysis
during certain periods of sleep) it treats that input differently.
Some input will be ignored or only produce an interference in your dreams,
and other input will be responded to physically. For example, turning
over in your sleep when your arm or ear or whatever 'complains' about
being squashed on that side.
I guess you might say that this is just some sort of inbuilt reaction and
doesn't need any "you" to be aware, but that's looking at it from a
discontinuist point of view. "You" are still aware of sensory input at
some level during sleep, so I believe there's no cut-off point at which
some input-reaction behaviour is below and, therefore, is not "consciousness"
and other input-reaction behaviour is above it and is "consciousness".
It's a matter of degree. To wake up, your brain switches from one state
of operation to another, in which there are subsequent changes in bodily
function and so an increase in the types of sensory input and the responses
to that input. Because the brain is now taking in and reacting to more
sensory stimuli, you experience more "consciousness" awake than when
asleep.

You can get another example of this "continuum" model of consciousness for
sleep from the fact that in major surgery it is not enough just to be asleep.
You need to be "deeper" than normal sleep when anaesthetized because in
normal sleep you still have some kinds of reaction to input (e.g., feeling
pain) that would mess up any attempts to perform the surgery.
And when anaesthetized, you still have some kind of consciousness but it
is so far down on the scale that you don't have any sense of time passing
or the opportunity to create dreams, yet there are still what you might
call the automatic responses (e.g., a change in CO2 content in what you
are breathing will see an appropriate response in breathing rate). At
this level, it's tempting to say that consciousness really plays no part,
but if you want to claim a discontinuist view then a cut-off point has to
be made and the tricky part is deciding what it is that has suddenly
disappeared when that point is crossed. A spirit/soul? That's returning
to Descartes' dualism and brings in more questions than it answers.

--
BdeV

cowboy carl

2004-12-29 18:28:18 UTC

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snips]

Post by cowboy carl
So what happens when we are asleep?
Consiousness stops, and when we wake, it just picks up where it left off?

Um, well, no. It doesn't ever go away completely until you die. How else
would you remember your dreams if "you" were not there when you slept?

Post by cowboy carl
I mean, if the only reason we are consious is because we remember what
happened a fraction of a second ago ... then how do we ever wake up?

Ah! I think you're taking "sleep" to equal "when we don't have consciousness"
rather than some process that happens which has an effect on your level
of consciousness. You're still conscious when asleep, but at a different
level. Your example with the radio interview is one example of that.
You're still capable of receiving sensory input (hearing, in that case)
but because your brain is operating differently (and, in turn, making
your body behave differently... closed eyes, slower breathing, paralysis
during certain periods of sleep) it treats that input differently.
Some input will be ignored or only produce an interference in your dreams,
and other input will be responded to physically. For example, turning
over in your sleep when your arm or ear or whatever 'complains' about
being squashed on that side.
I guess you might say that this is just some sort of inbuilt reaction and
doesn't need any "you" to be aware, but that's looking at it from a
discontinuist point of view. "You" are still aware of sensory input at
some level during sleep, so I believe there's no cut-off point at which
some input-reaction behaviour is below and, therefore, is not "consciousness"
and other input-reaction behaviour is above it and is "consciousness".
It's a matter of degree. To wake up, your brain switches from one state
of operation to another, in which there are subsequent changes in bodily
function and so an increase in the types of sensory input and the responses
to that input. Because the brain is now taking in and reacting to more
sensory stimuli, you experience more "consciousness" awake than when
asleep.
You can get another example of this "continuum" model of consciousness for
sleep from the fact that in major surgery it is not enough just to be asleep.
You need to be "deeper" than normal sleep when anaesthetized because in
normal sleep you still have some kinds of reaction to input (e.g., feeling
pain) that would mess up any attempts to perform the surgery.
And when anaesthetized, you still have some kind of consciousness but it
is so far down on the scale that you don't have any sense of time passing
or the opportunity to create dreams, yet there are still what you might
call the automatic responses (e.g., a change in CO2 content in what you
are breathing will see an appropriate response in breathing rate). At
this level, it's tempting to say that consciousness really plays no part,
but if you want to claim a discontinuist view then a cut-off point has to
be made and the tricky part is deciding what it is that has suddenly
disappeared when that point is crossed. A spirit/soul? That's returning
to Descartes' dualism and brings in more questions than it answers.

So your aim isn't to get at the truth, it's to come up with a model with
accurately reflects what we see?

I would suggest that "I" am not present in dreams, especially since we
only remember the dreams which we wake up in the middle of.

I think dreams are the result of us waking up in the middle of our brain
doing something, and then some other part of our brain (our
consiousness?) then tries to make sense of all the stuff which is
floating around at the point when we wake up.

Which is why dreams are so crazy and seem to defy time (i.e. we hear a
noise during sleep which wakes us up, but we seem to have a 'dream
explanation' of the noise, even tho there is no way we could have known
the noise would occur -- e.g. in the real world, someone slams a door
and I hear a bang, in my dream world, I see a big peice of wood slam
against the ground and I hear the same bang, the image of the wood
slamming must have been created in my 'consiousness' *after* the sound
was perceived).

So it is for that reason I do not believe any kind of consiousness which
we recognise whilst being awake, exists whilst asleep.

Also we don't make 'decisions' whilst asleep, things happen, we do
stuff, but we don't make logical informed decisions. We might even
think stuff, but we don't have any control over our through processes,
or where they might lead.

Well, I don't think we do anyway...

cc

Robert de Vincy

2004-12-29 19:57:53 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
So your aim isn't to get at the truth, it's to come up with a model
with accurately reflects what we see?

Which, ultimately, will be the truth, I hope.

If I can work out some great hypothesis about something, that accurately
predicts every possible aspect of that something -- and I mean *every*
aspect -- then isn't that exactly the same thing as for all effects,
intents, and purposes, the truth?

And if it isn't "the truth" then the only way I will ever find out is if
some aspect is different and shows up to be different from reality. At
this point, I'll then have to scratch my chin, go "Hmmm...", and set about
rethinking everything because -- obviously -- what I've proposed is not
an adequate description and reality has made me realize it.

This, of course, relies on there being only one way to achieve the particular
thing I'm modelling if I intend to get at "the truth" of the matter. But
even if there are several and I've managed to find one of the alternatives,
then so what? What difference would it matter if my hypothesis accurately
predicts the subject now and for all times past and present?
Isn't this the basis for what we like to call the "scientific method"?
We can't prove anything beyond doubt, but we can produce incredibly
accurate explanations and theories that stand up well against reality.
And every time one of those theories seems to fail against a part of
reality then we go back to the drawing board and refine and hone and
tweak to compensate for that lapse. By this process, time and again, we
can slowly achieve a description that describes reality to an incredible
accuracy, and that is the best that anyone can ever hope for.

Post by cowboy carl
I would suggest that "I" am not present in dreams, especially since we
only remember the dreams which we wake up in the middle of.

Have you never woken up, got up etc, taken part in your day, and then
during that day suddenly been hit with a memory of a dream you had the
night before? I have. It's weird. It's like I suddenly remember that,
yes, that dream happened and I was there and it was last night, but I
didn't have any recollection of it when I woke up until now.
There's a phrase that I don't use but I've heard other people use it to
describe when that memory is triggered by someone else: "You've broken
my dream" or similar, meaning that whatever "you" has done has evoked
the memory of the dream that the speaker had.

I think this goes against a purely "we only remember the dreams we wake
up in the middle of" view. Or how would you explain it?

Post by cowboy carl
I think dreams are the result of us waking up in the middle of our
brain doing something, and then some other part of our brain (our
consiousness?) then tries to make sense of all the stuff which is
floating around at the point when we wake up.

Which sounds plausible, but what about "serial dreams"? I've had dreams
that continue on for more than just a single scenario. I assume that
when you say "we wake up" this is an instantaneous moment and yout brain,
at that very split-second, contains various images and thoughts, right?
So how do you explain that events can take place and progress within a
dream? How do you explain that one dream can merge into another (and
into another, and so on...). That would be one whole load of images and
stuff going on in our brains at the split-second we emerge into wakefulness
to need so many dream sequences to explain it all!

And what do you mean by "our consiousness"? Are you claiming that there
is something (as yet undefined) that gets 'switched off' when we sleep
or are anaesthetized? If so, what do you think it might be? Is it the
"ego" of "cogito ergo sum"?

Post by cowboy carl
Which is why dreams are so crazy and seem to defy time (i.e. we hear a
noise during sleep which wakes us up, but we seem to have a 'dream
explanation' of the noise, even tho there is no way we could have
known the noise would occur -- e.g. in the real world, someone slams a
door and I hear a bang, in my dream world, I see a big peice of wood
slam against the ground and I hear the same bang, the image of the
wood slamming must have been created in my 'consiousness' *after* the
sound was perceived).

As you say, time is all messed up in dreams. How do you know that the
'sound' occurring in your dream happened at the exact same moment that
it reached your ears? How do you know that there isn't some sort of lag
between your ears picking up the sound, your brain recognising it, trying
to find a valid reason for hearing that sound, then incorporating this
reason and the image of the sound itself into your dream, and this lag
(of milliseconds) is stretched or condensed just like time normally is
within dreams?

Post by cowboy carl
So it is for that reason I do not believe any kind of consiousness
which we recognise whilst being awake, exists whilst asleep.
Also we don't make 'decisions' whilst asleep, things happen, we do
stuff, but we don't make logical informed decisions. We might even
think stuff, but we don't have any control over our through processes,
or where they might lead.
Well, I don't think we do anyway...

Lucid dreamers are allegedly able to. I haven't had any explicit
experience of that, but I do remember a few dreams in which I am thinking
of doing a particular thing and then manipulating the "world" I'm in
to get that thing done. Was that an illusion of control created as part
of the dream? Or was it really my own conscious will wanting to direct
things? I don't know. I wish I were as sure as you without any proof.

--
BdeV

cowboy carl

2004-12-30 00:09:00 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
So your aim isn't to get at the truth, it's to come up with a model
with accurately reflects what we see?

Which, ultimately, will be the truth, I hope.
If I can work out some great hypothesis about something, that accurately
predicts every possible aspect of that something -- and I mean *every*
aspect -- then isn't that exactly the same thing as for all effects,
intents, and purposes, the truth?
And if it isn't "the truth" then the only way I will ever find out is if
some aspect is different and shows up to be different from reality. At
this point, I'll then have to scratch my chin, go "Hmmm...", and set about
rethinking everything because -- obviously -- what I've proposed is not
an adequate description and reality has made me realize it.
This, of course, relies on there being only one way to achieve the particular
thing I'm modelling if I intend to get at "the truth" of the matter. But
even if there are several and I've managed to find one of the alternatives,
then so what? What difference would it matter if my hypothesis accurately
predicts the subject now and for all times past and present?
Isn't this the basis for what we like to call the "scientific method"?
We can't prove anything beyond doubt, but we can produce incredibly
accurate explanations and theories that stand up well against reality.
And every time one of those theories seems to fail against a part of
reality then we go back to the drawing board and refine and hone and
tweak to compensate for that lapse. By this process, time and again, we
can slowly achieve a description that describes reality to an incredible
accuracy, and that is the best that anyone can ever hope for.

I guess ... I suppose your explanation just wasn't 'romantic' enough for
me ;-)

Post by cowboy carl
I would suggest that "I" am not present in dreams, especially since we
only remember the dreams which we wake up in the middle of.

Have you never woken up, got up etc, taken part in your day, and then
during that day suddenly been hit with a memory of a dream you had the
night before? I have. It's weird. It's like I suddenly remember that,
yes, that dream happened and I was there and it was last night, but I
didn't have any recollection of it when I woke up until now.
There's a phrase that I don't use but I've heard other people use it to
describe when that memory is triggered by someone else: "You've broken
my dream" or similar, meaning that whatever "you" has done has evoked
the memory of the dream that the speaker had.
I think this goes against a purely "we only remember the dreams we wake
up in the middle of" view. Or how would you explain it?

I would explain it thusly (is thusly a word?)...

Often I wake up in the middle of a dream, remembering the dream, but
then, even just a few minutes later, *completely* forgotton the dream.

Sometimes all I remember is that I had a cool dream, but no idea what
about, and not able to recollect a single thing about it.

Then, sometime during the day, something sparks my memory (like, seeing
a greenhouse) and I suddenly remember a part of the dream.

It is possibly one of the strangest feelings I've ever had, it used to
happen more often when I was at school, hasn't happened for AGES since.

Another thing which helped was if I woke up in the middle of the night,
remembering a dream, and I wrote down what I was dreaming of, then went
back to sleep. When I woke up in the morning, I wouldn't remember the
dream *at all*. But when I read what I had wrote, it all came flooding
back, exactly the same feeling as described above, a really bizzare mix
of 'real' memories, yet knowing they didn't actually happen.

The strange thing about 'dream memories' is that they vanish so
completely, yet remain intact somewhere in my brain, until something by
chance reconnects them.

I don't think I've ever remembered a dream which I didn't wake up in the
middle of, then forgot about.

You assume wrongly, I think that we can wake up slowly, which helps with
the 'serial dreams'.

In that case, it's not so much a 'snapshot' which our consiousness is
trying to make sense of for us, but the ongoing process of whatever it
is our brains do when we dream (sorting out our memories?).

Post by Robert de Vincy
And what do you mean by "our consiousness"? Are you claiming that there
is something (as yet undefined) that gets 'switched off' when we sleep
or are anaesthetized? If so, what do you think it might be? Is it the
"ego" of "cogito ergo sum"?

Well, assuming there is something in us which 'thinks'. It is this which
is 'switched off' when we sleep.

Also when we do mind numbing things, like watch Eastenders or throw a
ball against a wall. Well, perhaps not switched off then, but certainly
used less than when thinking about highly abstract things.

It (whatever 'it' is) isn't sustainable, we can't think about solving
complex problems constantly, and some of us are more able to concentrate
for long peroids than others. We all need 'downtime', but what is this
downtime?

Well that is one possibility, but it is no more plausable than mine, in
fact it may be less so.

There is no reason I am aware of, as to why memory, when it is created,
should be created 'in order'.

Especially when there is evidence (a New Scientist article I read once,
couldn't possibly cite it I'm afraid) that dreams occur whilst our brain
is organising our memories.

I'm not as sure as I sound :) I just tend to 'argue' as if I am, I dunno
why. I'm still being open minded about it all, I just find it easier to
keep a discussion going if I try and take the opposite view, otherwise I
find myself becoming convinced far too quickly and never questioning enough.

But anyway, I've had a similar experience, where I made some guy fly up
into the sky once after realising I was dreaming.

Then I woke up.

Then I woke up again.

So I was only dreaming that I was dreaming.

Which was quite bizzare.

But might sortof explain it ... I was dreaming that I was lucid
dreaming, rather than actually lucid dreaming.

Didn't some guy once go to bed with his head on a cold iron bar in order
to help acheive lucid dreaming?

cc

Robert de Vincy

2004-12-31 14:36:20 UTC

cowboy carl did write:

[brutal snips]

Post by cowboy carl
In that case, it's not so much a 'snapshot' which our consiousness is
trying to make sense of for us, but the ongoing process of whatever it
is our brains do when we dream (sorting out our memories?).

Maybe, maybe, maybe! But there is no evidence for the "recreating what
our brains were processing at the moments of waking" hypothesis, whereas
the "dreams taking place during sleep and then we remember them hours
later" does have experimental evidence that shows when a dream is occurring
is separate from when the person wakes up.

Stephen LaBerge has done a wide range of experiments on sleeping and
dreaming (and lucid dreaming, most relevantly here) in which he got some
people who claimed they could lucid dream to give signals when they
possibly could from within their dreams (agreed-upon movements of the
eyes, etc). These happened within the periods of sleep that the person
was not awake nor in the process of waking up, showing that there is
probably no "recreation" event taking place at wake-up but the memories
are being formed from experiences taking place in real-time.

This is quite a hefty article, but it mentions these points:
http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html

Post by Robert de Vincy
And what do you mean by "our consiousness"? Are you claiming that
there is something (as yet undefined) that gets 'switched off' when
we sleep or are anaesthetized? If so, what do you think it might be?
Is it the "ego" of "cogito ergo sum"?

Well, assuming there is something in us which 'thinks'. It is this
which is 'switched off' when we sleep.

That's perilously close to dualism, and if you haven't already grasped
it, I'm totally against such an idea of there being some "thing" in us
that does our thinking. It's all just "us" -- brain, mind, spirit, body,
the whole works: I don't think there is any separation except if we make
it so.

Post by cowboy carl
Also when we do mind numbing things, like watch Eastenders or throw a
ball against a wall. Well, perhaps not switched off then, but
certainly used less than when thinking about highly abstract things.
It (whatever 'it' is) isn't sustainable, we can't think about solving
complex problems constantly, and some of us are more able to
concentrate for long peroids than others. We all need 'downtime', but
what is this downtime?

I'm not sure how to fit that within your idea of a "thing" that gets
switched off during sleep, but within a "continuum" hypothesis of
consciousness we can explain all those things as different 'heights'
of conscious awareness... for things that require more control or things
that are novel and therefore need a novel response (rather than a learned/
instinctive response) we need more input. More input = more flashes of
recognition and "being aware" = more consciousness. We don't need to
switch off our thinking "thing"... we just don't need to attend to quite
as much of the sensory input for that particular activity. But if, say,
you're watching an extra dreary episode of Eastenders and a stampede of
(blue?) elephants starts up outside your house, you start attending more
and more to this new input so you feel more "conscious" and aware than
when slumped on the sofa watching TV.

If anything is switched off (in a "continuum" model) then it's probably
the associations of sensory input to past experiences being attenuated
to the level appropriate for the situation.

Post by Robert de Vincy
As you say, time is all messed up in dreams. How do you know that
the 'sound' occurring in your dream happened at the exact same moment
that it reached your ears? How do you know that there isn't some
sort of lag between your ears picking up the sound, your brain
recognising it, trying to find a valid reason for hearing that sound,
then incorporating this reason and the image of the sound itself into
your dream, and this lag (of milliseconds) is stretched or condensed
just like time normally is within dreams?

Well that is one possibility, but it is no more plausable than mine,
in fact it may be less so.

See the LaBerge experiments, which seem to contradict both of our ideas,
but at different points!

--
BdeV

cowboy carl

2004-12-31 15:36:11 UTC

Post by Robert de Vincy
[brutal snips]

Maybe, maybe, maybe! But there is no evidence for the "recreating what
our brains were processing at the moments of waking" hypothesis, whereas
the "dreams taking place during sleep and then we remember them hours
later" does have experimental evidence that shows when a dream is occurring
is separate from when the person wakes up.
Stephen LaBerge has done a wide range of experiments on sleeping and
dreaming (and lucid dreaming, most relevantly here) in which he got some
people who claimed they could lucid dream to give signals when they
possibly could from within their dreams (agreed-upon movements of the
eyes, etc). These happened within the periods of sleep that the person
was not awake nor in the process of waking up, showing that there is
probably no "recreation" event taking place at wake-up but the memories
are being formed from experiences taking place in real-time.
http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html

Cool! I shall have to make use of the college's nice printing
facilities me'thinks :)

Post by Robert de Vincy
And what do you mean by "our consiousness"? Are you claiming that
there is something (as yet undefined) that gets 'switched off' when
we sleep or are anaesthetized? If so, what do you think it might be?
Is it the "ego" of "cogito ergo sum"?

Well, assuming there is something in us which 'thinks'. It is this
which is 'switched off' when we sleep.

I'm not sure how to fit that within your idea of a "thing" that gets
switched off during sleep, but within a "continuum" hypothesis of
consciousness we can explain all those things as different 'heights'
of conscious awareness... for things that require more control or things
that are novel and therefore need a novel response (rather than a learned/
instinctive response) we need more input. More input = more flashes of
recognition and "being aware" = more consciousness. We don't need to
switch off our thinking "thing"... we just don't need to attend to quite
as much of the sensory input for that particular activity. But if, say,
you're watching an extra dreary episode of Eastenders and a stampede of
(blue?) elephants starts up outside your house, you start attending more
and more to this new input so you feel more "conscious" and aware than
when slumped on the sofa watching TV.
If anything is switched off (in a "continuum" model) then it's probably
the associations of sensory input to past experiences being attenuated
to the level appropriate for the situation.

Kinda like a dimmer switch ... but dimmer switches can be turned
completely off.

Okay, so I could be very wrong about the dreaming thing and I'm nowhere
near knowledable enough to form solid opinions on that, but how about
when we are asleep but not dreaming?

Can it then be said, using your model, that thought doesn't exist, but
consiousnes does, but it's really really dim and only enough to keep our
body alive.

Oh yeah, also, if there is abosutely no dualism, how come we can't stop
our heart from beating by thinking, but we can stop ourselves breathing,
or we can breathe normally without 'thinking' about it. And, indeed,
some people have been known to be able to control the speed of their
heart with thoughts, I dunno if they do it directly, or indirectly (e.g.
by thinking about something scary or something relaxing).

Surely there must be *some* seperation between the consious mind and the
body?

And finally, if you are such an empiricist, where does the ability to
reaon and infer from experience come from? (I just read that in a
critism of Locke ... maybe possible explanations are given later in this
book, but I thought I'd ask you).

It seems a bit chicken and egg-like.

The very fact that we can infer things from experience has been learnt
from experience.

Hasn't it?

cc

Robert de Vincy

2005-01-09 23:03:20 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Kinda like a dimmer switch ... but dimmer switches can be turned
completely off.
Okay, so I could be very wrong about the dreaming thing and I'm
nowhere near knowledable enough to form solid opinions on that, but
how about when we are asleep but not dreaming?
Can it then be said, using your model, that thought doesn't exist, but
consiousnes does, but it's really really dim and only enough to keep
our body alive.

Kinda, yeah, that's almost what I'm saying. We're able to respond to
input at increasingly (or decreasingly) different levels depending on
whether we're "awake" or "asleep" or any of the states in between, above,
or below. For example, when we're in REM sleep, certain parts of the
brain-stem release inhibitors that affect only certain functions (paralysis
of the voluntary motor system being the most well-known one) and yet other
functions are not inhibited at all (e.g., the ability to make associations,
hence we get dreams that are full of 'linked' images).

Post by cowboy carl
Oh yeah, also, if there is abosutely no dualism, how come we can't
stop our heart from beating by thinking, but we can stop ourselves
breathing, or we can breathe normally without 'thinking' about it.
And, indeed, some people have been known to be able to control the
speed of their heart with thoughts, I dunno if they do it directly, or
indirectly (e.g. by thinking about something scary or something
relaxing).
Surely there must be *some* seperation between the consious mind and
the body?

That's not what dualism is about, though. It/they claims/claim that the
mind is something totally separate from the body. That if you remove
anything that you might consider "the body" then you've still got "mind"
there... somewhere. I don't know where that might be, and that's one of
the (many) reasons I reject such an idea.

But of course there's a separation of *function*! That's why we have
lungs that do breathing and livers that metabolise alcohol, and neither
does the other's job. So, the brain does a major share of the controlling
function, and the other non-brain bits do their jobs according to the
control impulses they might receive. That *is* a separation, but only
because we've evolved as multi-celled creatures that have differentiation
in our cells. (Division of labour is a powerful thing that can open up
the doorway to all sorts of advances in complexity.)
It doesn't support or follow the Dualists' view that the "mind" is something
that operates separately from the fleshy bits that make up the brain.

Post by cowboy carl
And finally, if you are such an empiricist, where does the ability to
reaon and infer from experience come from? (I just read that in a
critism of Locke ... maybe possible explanations are given later in
this book, but I thought I'd ask you).
It seems a bit chicken and egg-like.
The very fact that we can infer things from experience has been learnt
from experience.
Hasn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by "infer" here. It could cover
several mental processes.

--
BdeV

Stuart Williams

2004-12-29 20:48:56 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
And also, back to my first point, how can Descartes know for sure that
he can't be fooled into believing he is thinking?

It doesn't matter: if the evil demon could do such a thing, it would
still imply something (Descartes) having a thought - since to believe
something is to have a thought of some kind.
St Augustine (of Hippo) already tackled this in City of God: if I don't
exist, there's nothing to deceive; if I can be deceived, I must exist.

I meant that the evil demon is the thing which is thinking, these
thoughts are then projected out onto various creatures, such as me and
Descartes.

But this idea of "projected onto" is (at the moment) obscure. What can it
mean to project thoughts into someone else's brain so that they are not
thinking (as in they are not the author of their thoughts) and yet they
think they're thinking (which is enough to establish existence, even if
it doesn't establish autonomy)? You seem to be missing the point: it
doesn't matter *what* you are thinking, nor *whether you started* the
thought processes concerned, it's the mere fact that you are thinking -
something that it is surely impossible to fake.

Post by cowboy carl
So nobody is being 'deceived', it is all just happening.
Heh, I dunno why, but I'm sat here trying as hard as I can to convince
myself that I don't exist :-/ Do you think I'll suddenly disappear if
it happens?

No: your objective existence is at least partially secured by the large
number of people in whose lives you figure in a more or less direct way.
(Thank God for Kant.)

Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, "if I can be deceived, I must exist" is circular, since the last
three words kinda 'fit inside' the second word.

Again, this is another perfectly respectable view of the cogito argument:
all that is boils down to is "Ego" - the mere formation/utterance of the
the thought "I" is enough to produce (slender) foundations for certain
knowledge.

Post by cowboy carl
It would be better to say "if deception can occur"
Then the only thing which can be deduced is "something may be deceived"
In which case "something might exist to be deceived"
Which is getting us nowhere...

No, it's a very interesting issue.
One of the reasons everyone starts with Descartes is that it's a lot
easier than to start with Kant. The day you can write an essay with the
title "No 'I' without an 'It'; no 'It' without an 'I'" you'll be doing
something suitably challenging.

Don't we? How come we're doing philosophy, then? (Sorry: that's a bit
like Dr Johnson refuting Berkeley)

Whoa. Here comes the boring old brain in the vat argument.

On another tack, you seem to suffer from the disease I've encountered in
virulent form in most Oxbridge candidates I've taught in the last few
years - they all take refuge in Relativism with a capital R: the symptoms
include

1. You can't criticise or (a fortiori discuss) anyone else's moral,
political or aesthetic values, since all values are relative. So no
question along the lines of

a) what do we think of ritualistic infant male circumcision; or

b) is Beethoven a better composer than Ivor Novello

can never be discussed in any useful way.

2. The mystery of quantum mechanics liberates us from holding any macro-
psychological views about the brain, such as free will. Because the
interaction between brain and mind (begging a lot of questions there) is
obscure, and because quantum events are intrinsically uncertain, there
must be a connection: mental events are somehow "quantised", so there's
free will after all!

I keep pointing out to them that they're only being recruited to provide
the tutor with an interesting 60 minutes: the more they back off from
argument, the more likely they are to be rejected.

How do they know what a chicken does? This knowledge doesn't stem from
the hypnotist: they must have had some sort of (fairly elaborate) mental
life and stock of knowledge before they were hypnotised. And why don't
they behave *exactly* like chickens? shitting on the stage? running away
in panic from an unfamiliar human being? pecking the floor? They haven't
been deceived into thinking they are something else - they're in the
position of someone who has been told to audition for a part in Animal
Farm, and who hasn't got the willpower to say no thanks.

SW

cowboy carl

2004-12-29 23:48:58 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
And also, back to my first point, how can Descartes know for sure that
he can't be fooled into believing he is thinking?

It doesn't matter: if the evil demon could do such a thing, it would
still imply something (Descartes) having a thought - since to believe
something is to have a thought of some kind.
St Augustine (of Hippo) already tackled this in City of God: if I don't
exist, there's nothing to deceive; if I can be deceived, I must exist.

I meant that the evil demon is the thing which is thinking, these
thoughts are then projected out onto various creatures, such as me and
Descartes.

So, if someone doesn't have free will, but they are experiencing
consiousness, are they still "thinking", even if they have no control
over what it is they are thinking?

No: your objective existence is at least partially secured by the large
number of people in whose lives you figure in a more or less direct way.
(Thank God for Kant.)

But what if nobody exists, and all it takes is for one person to realise
this before everyone disappears ;-)

Post by cowboy carl
Since we don't really know what "thinking" is,

Don't we? How come we're doing philosophy, then? (Sorry: that's a bit
like Dr Johnson refuting Berkeley)

Whoa. Here comes the boring old brain in the vat argument.
On another tack, you seem to suffer from the disease I've encountered in
virulent form in most Oxbridge candidates I've taught in the last few
years - they all take refuge in Relativism with a capital R: the symptoms
include
1. You can't criticise or (a fortiori discuss) anyone else's moral,
political or aesthetic values, since all values are relative. So no
question along the lines of
a) what do we think of ritualistic infant male circumcision; or
b) is Beethoven a better composer than Ivor Novello
can never be discussed in any useful way.
2. The mystery of quantum mechanics liberates us from holding any macro-
psychological views about the brain, such as free will. Because the
interaction between brain and mind (begging a lot of questions there) is
obscure, and because quantum events are intrinsically uncertain, there
must be a connection: mental events are somehow "quantised", so there's
free will after all!
I keep pointing out to them that they're only being recruited to provide
the tutor with an interesting 60 minutes: the more they back off from
argument, the more likely they are to be rejected.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dumb, but I don't see the connection with
what I said.

I said that we don't know what thinking is, and what I meant by that was
we don't know what consiousness is, we don't know how free will comes
about, if indeed we have it at all.

cc

Stuart Williams

2004-12-30 10:13:00 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Well, we don't know what causes thought.
If it's "only" neurons firing in our brain, then we can easily be made
to believe we are thinking, in fact, we *are* being made to believe we
are thinking, cos the laws of physics are somehow giving us the illusion
of free will (assuming there are such things as 'laws of physics').

Whoa. Here comes the boring old brain in the vat argument.
On another tack, you seem to suffer from the disease I've encountered in
virulent form in most Oxbridge candidates I've taught in the last few
years - they all take refuge in Relativism with a capital R: the symptoms
include
1. You can't criticise or (a fortiori discuss) anyone else's moral,
political or aesthetic values, since all values are relative. So no
question along the lines of
a) what do we think of ritualistic infant male circumcision; or
b) is Beethoven a better composer than Ivor Novello
can never be discussed in any useful way.
2. The mystery of quantum mechanics liberates us from holding any macro-
psychological views about the brain, such as free will. Because the
interaction between brain and mind (begging a lot of questions there) is
obscure, and because quantum events are intrinsically uncertain, there
must be a connection: mental events are somehow "quantised", so there's
free will after all!
I keep pointing out to them that they're only being recruited to provide
the tutor with an interesting 60 minutes: the more they back off from
argument, the more likely they are to be rejected.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dumb, but I don't see the connection with
what I said.
I said that we don't know what thinking is, and what I meant by that was
we don't know what consiousness is, we don't know how free will comes
about, if indeed we have it at all.

OK, I was having a bit of a rant, but I do think you're much too ready to
shun further argument by asserting that we don't know what we're talking
about. These issues (thinking, consciousness, free will) are after all
the meat and drink of great swathes of philosophy, physiology, psychology
and presumably computing. It's just false to claim that we don't know
what these things are, unless you mean that we have no analysis purely in
terms of Physics. At the very least, we all *think* we know what's meant
by these three terms, including you. You may well say that they are all
puzzling on deeper analysis, but that is why philosophy (etc) exists.
Just because we can't come to some widely-shared objective understanding
(as we can with electric current, for example) doesn't mean we throw up
our hands and bury our heads in ignorance.

[The link with my rant was simply that this seems a very common strategy
among Sixth Formers today when they are pressed to think harder about
something difficult: the strategy varies with the topic - with moral,
political or aesthetic issues, we get Relativism; with epistemological
questions, we get a denial that we can know anything at all.]

SW

cowboy carl

2004-12-30 15:37:51 UTC