searle, nagel, and wide comp Flashcards
what was the sate of mental theories before Searle
so far, every theory of consciousness denies that consciousness is a part of the physical world
what is the scandal in seaeles opinion
the truth is that we dont have an adequate neurobiological account for consciousness.
History of phil of mind is filled with false claims about consciousness
in regards to mind/body problem, and nothing has been solved
describe how each theory of mind faults in regaurds to consciousness (beh,compt,epip,read,obj/sub,mat)
Behaviourism: consciousness doesn’t exist–all behaviour
Computationalism: consciousness doesn’t exist–all just a program or several programs
Epiphenomenalism: consciousness does exist but its not physical and has no impact on the physical world (they say it exists, but if so it has no evolutionary function)
Readiness Potential: consciousness does exist, but has little importance–research shows that our actions are initiated before our conscious mind is aware of what we are doing
Objective/Subjective: consciousness isn’t even a suitable study for science because it is subjective in nature and science is an objective area of study
Materialism: if consciousness exists it must really be something else (there is no room for the mind in the material world)
what are searles first two assertions about consciousness
- consciousness is real
2.it is a biological phenomenon
what are the two “residual” views that are hurting us according to searle
- spiritual dualism: a sense that the mind is an aspect of the soul (residual greek phil)
- materialism: that forces itself into eliminativism
“the time has come for psychology to discard ___all references to consciousness___…it is neither a definable nor useable concept, it is merely another word for ___the soul___of more ancient times…” (Watson, 1925)
what is ontological subjectivity and why is it important to recognize according to searle
the idea that some things that objectively exist are subjective in nature ( these can coexist)
for example “i am in pain” is an objective fact, but “pain” is ontologically subjective.
pain is always pain of a subject, so it is by nature of its objective existence, subjective.
what are the five features of consciousness that ANY correct theory of mind must include according to searle
Qualia: for every conscious state there is something that it is like to be in that state (NOT DEBATABLE )
Ontological Subjectivity: qualia are BY nature subjective—they are experienced by a subject
Unity: our conscious states have unity—not mere perception and sensation but we have a single unified conscious field
Intentionality: mental states are often about things in the physical world
Intentional Causation: consciousness causes behaviour, the environment is presented to my consciousness
how does searle propose we solve the mind-body problem
searles general account is that all of our conscious states are caused by neurological processes
these conscious states exist only as a high level feature of the brain (they do not exist at the same level as neuro activity)
explain higher level existence with an example
consciousness is a FEATURE of the brain in the same way that liquidity of water is a feature of the system of H2o molecules
if you look at an h2o molecule, you do not see the “feature” of liquidity, you merely see h20 becuase the liquidity is a high level feature OF the h20
in the same way–Consciousness is a condition of the underlying structure (the brain)
searle believes the right account of the mind must be..
non-reductive
mental states can not be reduced to neuro
Ontological (liquid and h2o) vs causal reduction (demons to grems)
We cannot ontologically reduce mind- but we can casually reduce it.
fill in the blanks :
That sounds so simple; but why haven’t we been able to give a causal account of how ______________gives rise to this macro condition __________________?
searle “____________.” However what is true; our methods are way too limited in scope
That sounds so simple; but why haven’t we been able to give a causal account of how ___neurological activity__gives rise to this macro condition _____called conciousness_____________?
Searle:
“_______i dont know___________.” However what is true; our methods are way too limited in scope
what is smallism
the idea that the best explanation is the most reductive one
what is searles criticism of behaviourism
Behaviourism is an embarrassment of a theory, because it denies the obvious subjectivity of consciousness
what is searles criticism of computationalism
Computationalism is wrong because programs are defines purely syntactically.
You cant explain consciousness by computation because it is observer relative (Either a concuss agent is carrying out the computation or a conscious agent is using a machine and that agent
interprets it relative)
what is searles criticism of Epiphenomenalism
it seems as obvious as anything That my intention to raise my arm is what raises my arm, so i experience this causal relationship
we know that without chemicals we cant do these things, so there is clearly a causal story to tell even if we haven’t figured it out yet
what is searles criticism of Readiness Potential:
people make too much of Readiness Potential experiments and didnt show what people claimed them to show,
you get the same readiness potential even when someone decides not to act
People are so desperate to solve the mind body problem that they want to discredit consciousness altogther and that is an embarrassment to scientific studies
what is searles criticism of objective/ subjective
there is no reason to think we cant study the mind because it is subjective
what is searles criticism of materialism
problem come with all of the conceptual baggage and terms that have been carried over from theory to theory
these terms and concepts carve up Body and mind as exclusive categories that cause the mental and physical to be incompatible.
what does searle suggest we prioritize, get awat from and reject
prioritize cognitive neuroscience
get away from computationalism
Reject ANY view that denies the undeniable subjective consciousness state
why is Nagel easy to misunderstand
he is mostly critical of theories of mind
he gives rough descriptions
easy to assume he hold to a particular view but he is careful not to endorse a theory of mind
how does Nagel define consciousness
an organism has consciousness if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism
if there is nothing that it is like to be X then it X is not conscious
He treats the phenomenological by how things are presented to the mind subjectively speaking.
what does Nagel say about reductive accounts
like searle. he thinks they fail.
We have so many different reductive accounts that have the same problem the story will always be incomplete without the qualia
what does Nagel think about physicalism
alot of philosophers of mind desire to get to a physical account.
but if we are physicalists, phenomenological perceptual experiences must be given a physical account
But we have no idea how to explain perceptual experiences–and we are no closer to explaining it physically
every subjective phenomenon is essentially (by definition) connected to a….?
point of view
why are we no closer to explaining phenomenological stuff on a physical level?
SUBJECTVIVITY
because every subjective phenomenon is essentially (by definition) connected to a point of view
objective descriptions seem to abandon subjectivity
how are we able to explain the subjective from an objective point of view ?
provide an example for the complications that explains the issue that arises when trying to objectively explain something subjective
Bats:
1.we are biologically similar
- they have experiences and consciousness
- Perceive the world by sonar
- very different experiences than we have
- even if i have all of these physical facts i cant KNOW what it is like to be a bat. At most i can imagine what it is like FOR ME to be a bat, but i can not fully know.
If Nagel is right about the body and mind then…
the mind body problem is far worse off than
the problem is deeply troubled
why is the mind/ body problem deeply troubled according to Nagel
If facts of experience are only accessible from one point of view
It is a genuine mystery how the true character of experiences could be revealed in the physical operation of the organism
WHY;
Physical operations are objective
It is not a matter of doing more work in neuro science (it is not a matter of completleing the “full story”)
If explained in purely physical terms it misses the fundamentally subjective content.
What its like to be an organism is only accessible from the point of view from the organism itself. I cant capture all there is to capture.
Applies to Any conscious organism
what is something we talk about both subjectivly and objectively
lightning can be spoken about in both Objective and subjective ways
there is the Pov; how we perceive lightning and there is the objetive scientific explanation of whats “really going on”
what is something that introtheoretic reduction/ science does well
remove personal experience and give a neutral objective description.
remove the unneeded to get to what is really going on,
unneeded here is the subjective experience
explain the quote from Nagel “ the physicalists want to do with the mind what is done lightning” and why is that problematic
The problem is that the mental is the phenomena we are trying to explain, it IS the appearance that is the object of study not what is behind the experience. Can we really capture all of the perceptual things objectively? like with lighting ?
experience is intimately related to
pov
FIll in the blank and explain : there is not an _________ ________ to experience
there is not an objective character to experience
There is nothing objective beyond the subjective nature of experience
and If that is true then there is not a way for a physiologist to observe mental states
why does reduction fail
We move from descriptions that depend on impressions we have to more general properties
We ainclude properties that are unrecognizable/ inaccessible to human species
The less it relies on human view point the more objective it it
The process of reduction is an attempt to move from subjectivity toward objectivity
But objectivity does not = accuracy in the account
The process of reduction is a move to _______________
The process of reduction is a move to ____the more objective___
the “more accurate things”
Science/Philosophy are in the business of giving a ___ _____________________
Science/Philosophy are in the business of giving a description of reality and not mere appearance
Trying to avoid specific view points (we have historical success in doing this)
But__________does not appear to fit this pattern
The idea of moving ________________makes no sense whatsoever
“If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to _____________—that is, less attachment to _____________—does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us further away from it.” -Nagel
But__experience________does not appear to fit this pattern
The idea of moving ___from appearance to reality_______makes no sense whatsoever
“If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to ___greater objectivity___—that is, less attachment to ______a specific view point_______—does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us further away from it.” -Nagel
what does nagel say about subjectivity and objectivity
they are not simply different ways of talking about/explaining something,
They are actually COMPETING ways that are sometimes incompatible with one another
why cant we move from appearance to reality in Phil of mind according to Nagel
because the appearance IS the reality.
Study of mind is the study of experience WHAT IS experience
explain reductive failures in phil of mind
In cases like sickness we carve off the experience from the reality “what is really going on”
You can not do this with conciseness, once you carve off the experience you carve off the very thing that you are trying to explain.
all these theories that try to reduce consciousness fail because of this
“If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for ___________, we must admit that __________gives us a clue how this could be done.”
“If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for ____the subjective character of experience _______, we must admit that ____no presently available conception____gives us a clue how this could be done.”
Objectivity is insufficient
does nagel claim that physicalism is false
NO
It might still be true that mental states are physical states even if we don’t know how or which physical states
provide an example for how
You might have evidence for something and but not know exactly what it proves
the butterfly example
Suppose a man who does not understand metamorphasis
Puts caterpillar in safe
opens the case he sees a butterly -
May not udneestnad what just happened but can have reasonable evidence that the butterfly used
to be the catipliiar
Perhaps that is the situation we are currently in with the mind and physicality
Or maybe were not but it is tough to say
maybe we dont yet have ________________ to explain why mental states are physical
adequate conceptual tools
explain some issues with the physical descriptions of the mind
Maybe mental states are physical but they are irreducible
Maybe we dont yet have adequate conceptual tools to explain how they are physical
maybe they are physical but we dont have the tools to explain HOW they could even BE physical.
according to nagel are we close to solving the mind/ body problem?
we DO NOT know how far odd we are
how is it different to ask how a car works vs how the mind works
It makes sense to ask how a car really works or what an illness really is
but does not make any sense what so ever to ask what my experiences are really like as opposed to how they appear to me.
It makes no sense to ask what my experienced are really like
MIND/ experience IS what it is really like
what is Nagels proposal in regard to physical descriptions of the mind
We need to try and get an objective decription of phenomenological events, experiences, perceptions
by expanding our concepts
what dies nagel mean by expanding our concepts and why do we need to do this
come up with concepts that are completely alien to us.
reconsider what it means for something to be physical
capture subjectivity in an objective way
we need to do this because we cant even articulate the problem properly, and so we cant come up with a solution
what does the correct theory of mind need to overcome according to nagel
the subjective objective gap
what did Nagel conclude about explaining the mind physically (physicalism)
Physicalism is problematic unless we greatly widen our concepts (even the definition of physicality)
long way to go to solve mind body
Might have to accept that we cant explain or prove some things
Dualists: isnt that what we said…
what is (new) mysterianiam
the view that the mind body problem can not be solved
what is the distinction between weak and strong mysterianism
Weak: humans are not smart enough to solve this problem
Strong: the problem is in principle unsolvable (nothing to do with intelligence)
most mysterians will accept either form
what is one argument for mysterianism
for humans, as intelligent as we are, the mind body problem is just too much to solve
what is a bundled problem
not a singular problem but a problem that COMEs with a whole host of problems
as a bundled problem what other problems does the mind/body problem come with
mental causation,
subjectivity,
Quaila,
consciousness
what is the paradoxical problem that comes with the mind/body problem
for humans to even have the ability to solve the mind body problem we would need to be vastly more intelligent and for this to be possible we would have more complex minds that would in turn be more difficult to explain creating the same issue
what does it mean that the mind is a “genuine mystery”
Either there is no answer or has no answer available to humans (hard problem)
not an argument from a lack of knowledge but an argument FROM knowledge
Everything we KNOW about the mind leads to dead ends
The more we know the more confused we are
The solution always produces more problems.
what is the one reason the mind could be a mystery
Consciousness cannot understand consciousness
NOthing to do with intelligence of humans but the very nature of the mind
IN PRINCIPLE the mind has no capacity to understand itself
Nature of the mind to not not know the mind
what is cognative closure
according to mysterians, humans are cognatively closed to the mind body problem
the idea that there are some things humans are closed to understanding
just as elephants are cognitively closed to particle physics–humans are cognitively closed to the mind body problem
what did Clark and Chalmers call into question
the boundry of the mind
what are the three views about the boundary of the mind
- Traditional view: The skin and the skull
- Some mental content and some meaning actually extends into the world (externalists)
- The mind literally extends beyond the skin and skull into the environment (extended mind thesis) (wide computationalism, active externalism)
what brand of mental theory does the boundary of the mind fall under
functionalism
what is wide computationalism
the idea that the mind LITERALLY extends beyond the skin and skull into the environment
also called active externalism
what is externalism
SOME mental content and some meaning actually extends into the world
what is the goal of the “extended mind” and who wrote it
Clark and Chalmers
argue that the mind extends beyond the skin and skull
The environment plays an active role in mind —a CENTRAL and active role
Literally not a metaphor
they also argue that the common view of the mind is only held by tradition
what are the three cases of human problem solving
.1 Person sitting in front of a screen, asked to fit shapes into sockets- do so mentally
- Person sitting in front of a screen, asked to fit shapes into sockets- they have the option to mentally move it or press a button to move it physically
- Person with an neuro implant sitting in front of a screen, asked to fit shapes into sockets-they can perform the rotation as fast either way neuro implant or mentally
what is the difference between epistemic and pragmatic action
Epistemic Actions alter the world in order to aid or augment cognition (requires a distribution of epistemic __??__)
Pragmatic Actions alter the world because some physical change is desirable
fill in the blank
“If, as we confront some task, a part of the world functions as a process which, were it done in the head, we would have no hesitation in recognizing as part of the cognitive process, then that part of the world __________________.”
“If, as we confront some task, a part of the world functions as a process which, were it done in the head, we would have no hesitation in recognizing as part of the cognitive process, then that part of the world is part of the cognitive process.”
what is extended cognition
the idea that the mind extends beyond the skull and skin.
what is a coupled system
the organism linked with some external entity
provide an example of a coupled system in terms of the extended mind
math with pencil and paper:
If you remove the pen and paper, this changes the behaviour of the cognitive system.
They are playing a key role in cognition
They are a PART of the cognitive system
what is a good reason to accept active externalism (extended mind)
more explaination for a variety of our actions
what is objection one to the extended mind and the reply to the objection
Its not plausible that consciousness extends outside my head in these cases especially
reply: not EVERY cognitive process is an extended cognitive process
what is objection two to the extended mind and the reply to the objection
Extended coupled systems are not portable and are too easily separated.
they are just add ons to the mind
reply: the fact that something is contingent doesn’t rule out its cognitive status.
In the future might have modules in our Brian to help us, we might want to call them a part of our cognition—these things wont disqualify something like counting on your fingers
Portability is really not an issue—mayne they are concerned about reliability
explain extended cognition to mind
it is not just cognition that extends into the world–the mind itself does
this is because some of our beliefs are in the world.
explain the Inga vs Otto argument for the extended mind
inga has imbeded memory
hears about an art show
thinks the MOMA is on 53rd
goes to MOMA
Inga believed and consulted her memory, the belief was there waiting to be accessed.
Otto has Alztiemers desise
he uses a notebook to write down and consult memories
His notebook plays the role that is usually played by biological memory
He hears about the MOMA, he consults the notebook sees its on 5rd
and goes
BOTH have to retrieve the information, one is stored externally and one is internal– they play the same role NO less reliable– near eachother precisely
explain the case of twin otto
proof that beilefs actually EXTEND into the world
Otto wrote 53rd
Twin wrote 51st
Twin Otto is going to go to 51st street—his belief will govern his action and create his reality
what is the lesson from otto
What makes some information count as a belief is ______the role it plays ____
it is a Functionalist view
what are the hesitations from critics reguarding the otto
ottos memory can be easily taken away (shower)
Memory is accompanied by some phenomenological experience/ aspect
what c and c replies to the hesitations from critics reguarding otto
Ingas memory isn’t always there either (drunk)
C and c think this is just question begging—they already treat the notebook as not mental
otto retrieved info and he has some persecptual states —that is not all that different from how we retrieve memory
what are the four reasons to extent ottos mind
- Notebook is constantly in his life, he would rarely take action without consulting the book
2 reason is directly available to him
3 upon retrieving info he auto endorsed
4 info has been consciously endorsed at some point in the past–by him
what is a consequence of the extended mind view
A consequence of this view is that _____mental states____ can be partly constituted, in principle, by other thinkers.
Our minds can someones extend to other minds
Elderly couple- at a restrurant
Waiter asks what they want
Husband cant remember wife says order waffles you always want those
They are a coupled system—she is acting as his notebook
HIS belief is stored In HER
Language is a tool to extend our cognition
Talking and brain storming is offloading our system
what does evolution have to do with extended mind
We have evolved to be able to _____extened our mind_______
we can now offload computational processes into our environment
Our minds take advantage of and create tools out of our environment
if you are still hesitant about extended minds after all the replies you are probably
a dualist.
you have probably made a irreconcilable gap between us and the enviromrent
