tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post3735872600093368305..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Inflate and ExplodeEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-26751391754455818172020-02-05T17:51:57.605-08:002020-02-05T17:51:57.605-08:00The good is what was or will be—it is what never i...The good is what was or will be—it is what never is. Parasite of memory or of anticipation, past or possible, it cannot be actual—present—nor subsist in and of itself: as such, consciousness knows it not, and apprehends it only when it disappears. (E.M. Cioran)Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593856494794212834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-47622614079678636992020-02-03T12:37:46.584-08:002020-02-03T12:37:46.584-08:00Philosopher Eric: I'm glad you find the critic...Philosopher Eric: I'm glad you find the criticisms helpful! I'm not sure about dividing philosophers into those two groups, though. I'd rather see more cross-disciplinary interaction and more mixture of humanities and the arts with formal researches.<br /><br />I'm not so sure about the core principle you suggest. In general, my impulses go against core principles instead toward skepticism, pragmatism, and contextualism!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-61299012621808535862020-02-02T07:49:15.810-08:002020-02-02T07:49:15.810-08:00Professor,
I’ve always liked your “inflate and ex...Professor, <br />I’ve always liked your “inflate and explode” criticism of how philosophers sometimes become more distinguished. This shortened version of it could only help. It goes along with my belief that the field of philosophy needs to be split up into a standard form which is thus concerned about cultural and artistic matters to potentially appreciate eternally (or remains gratuitous rather than practical), as well as a form which is formally concerned only about developing generally accepted principles of metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology for effective general use. <br /><br />It seems to me that by calling out some of the shifty practices which tend to be rewarded in the field, your observations might help a group of philosophers take the second path. If even a small group were to become distinguished through a set of principles that they accept, this community might grow to eventually better found the institution of science itself. Without such philosophical principles, it seems to me that our mental and behavioral sciences suffer horribly today. <br /><br />Beyond your “inflate and explode” criticism, what principle might such a group use to set the topic of mind on firmer ground? Consider my single principle of axiology: <br /><br />It’s possible for a machine that is not conscious (like my brain), to produce a punishment/ reward dynamic from which to motivate the function of a machine that is conscious (like “me”). Philosopher Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126076811765843302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-14993646118913666302020-01-31T16:51:57.544-08:002020-01-31T16:51:57.544-08:00At Magnus blog, is "...committed to 'ther...At Magnus blog, is "...committed to 'there being" such a thing as consciousness...", an example of inflation-explosion...<br /><br />...That..."uninflated consciousness"(self) might survive in "shared philosophy", not towards "being there", but towards "being here"...Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-11489452796868409362020-01-31T10:54:36.800-08:002020-01-31T10:54:36.800-08:00Thanks for the continuing comments, folks!
PD: Ve...Thanks for the continuing comments, folks!<br /><br />PD: Very interesting! I've posted a reply on your blog.<br /><br />SelfAware: I'm not sure I agree. In this case, I do think there is some talking past each other. Stephen's point in response I endorse. But setting that aside to focus on divisions like "access" vs "phenomenal", also I think that the proliferation of "types" of consciousness may invite confusion rather than forestalling it. The definition of the type can lead people to wonder whether or not the target is the obvious thing we all know we have, rather than some more obscure and debatable thing.<br /><br />Howie: I know you have a beetle -- though how similar it is to mine is an open question. Of course, we could be radical skeptics about other minds, but that's a different issue.<br /><br />PPerson: I do think it's possible to question whether there is a shared property among the examples (that nonconscious mental states lack). Eliminativism along those lines wouldn't be inflate-and-explode. On the quasi-positivist concern: There are plenty of cases of things -- knowledge, furniture, games, love -- where we can point out examples, say *something* about those example, but be more committed to their existence than we are to any analysis of them or any assertion about their essential properties. Consciousness is like that, on my view.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-53842991026148888362020-01-30T16:04:09.553-08:002020-01-30T16:04:09.553-08:00Stephen,
I didn't mean to imply with those ter...Stephen,<br />I didn't mean to imply with those terms that they aren't part of one unifying consciousness. But you're right, if I talked about it within the context of one system, the onus would be on me to make that clear so people didn't think I was talking about multiple consciousnesses. SelfAwarePatternshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856665627652130336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-12993388532698672612020-01-30T13:04:22.319-08:002020-01-30T13:04:22.319-08:00SelfAware ... your suggestion about 'clarity&#...SelfAware ... your suggestion about 'clarity': "<i>which almost always means using the word "consciousness" with qualification: sensory consciousness, affective consciousness, self consciousness, etc.</i>" instead appears to support the existence of several different <i>kinds</i> of consciousness which is confusing and untrue rather than clarifying.<br /><br />Sensory, affective, etc. are distinguishable <i>types</i> of consciousness <b>content</b>, all integrated into a unified streaming experience termed consciousness.Stephen Wysonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213141784165096783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-3316702131273731772020-01-30T08:04:04.639-08:002020-01-30T08:04:04.639-08:00...is even "the self" (Eric's final ......is even "the self" (Eric's final thought this post), also, an example of inflation towards explosion...<br /><br />But "myself" an uninflatable example, enough, towards sharing philosophy on our planet...Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-26280707374597557732020-01-29T16:42:44.283-08:002020-01-29T16:42:44.283-08:00Do you think that even the most minimally possible...Do you think that even the most minimally possible remarks about consciousness like "these examples all share this property" could be questioned? Perhaps it's not clear that these sorts of examples are of things that possess properties at all for example.<br /><br />Also, do you think there might be an implicit move going on in this debate such that the eliminativist is committed to the idea that if you can't give a characterization of the nature of something, it isn't real? Or isn't a candidate for being real? Or something like that? Like a sort of general suspicion about spooky metaphysical entities with inherent ineffable properties, a kind of borderline positivist holdover hardline approach - if you can't tell me what it's like, it ain't real.PhilosopherPersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13834075338456336422020-01-29T16:25:42.214-08:002020-01-29T16:25:42.214-08:00So Eric, how about this- if we're not sure wha...So Eric, how about this- if we're not sure what it is, maybe we can't be too sure that it is, or that it's the same in all cases- I think Wittgenstein said something about my beetle versus your beetle- if we experience the world in radically different ways, like cultures, than maybe what it is like for each of us is so radically different that it is risky to say we're conscious in the same wayHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-60039715100803857632020-01-29T15:19:48.354-08:002020-01-29T15:19:48.354-08:00I'm always struck by how many philosophical de...I'm always struck by how many philosophical debates amount to people talking past each other with different definitions. Consciousness in particular seem rife with them. <br /><br />Illusionists usually do end up clarifying that they're talking about the inflated versions of consciousness with all the dubious aspects. The problem is that, by that point, people have typically stopped listening. <br /><br />And of course, this is exacerbated by people who simply don't want to see that their preferred version of consciousness and the deflated version are disassociable. <br /><br />Personally, I think the solution is clarity, which almost always means using the word "consciousness" with qualification: sensory consciousness, affective consciousness, self consciousness, etc. When someone uses the c-word by itself, the usage almost always has a theoretical assertion embedded in it, intentional or otherwise.SelfAwarePatternshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856665627652130336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-59075899723531817032020-01-29T12:06:13.109-08:002020-01-29T12:06:13.109-08:00I started to write a comment, but it grew out of c...I started to write a comment, but it grew out of control so I made it <a href="https://www.fecundity.com/nfw/2020/01/29/inflate-and-explode-analyze-or-explicate/" rel="nofollow">a blog post</a>. (I'm not sure whether it's gauche to link to my blog in the comments at your blog. Apologies if it is.)P.D. Magnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799239684943144310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-27703452043177103472020-01-29T11:37:02.244-08:002020-01-29T11:37:02.244-08:00I think both your and my consciousness exist. No ...I think both your and my consciousness exist. No need to doubt that (at least to a credence of 99.8%). Whether consciousness is a "thing in the world" -- well, if raise some doubts about that, I wonder if you are packing something into the phrase "thing in the world" beyond the minimal commitments that I prefer to make, so we'd need to unpack.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-71275524730334048192020-01-29T11:23:27.496-08:002020-01-29T11:23:27.496-08:00why can't we say that conscious thoughts gush ...why can't we say that conscious thoughts gush out of the brain just as words gush out of the mouth, or light from the sun or gravity from matter, so that matter 'has' and 'causes' experience in some primal way?<br />You could say that the brain converts raw sensations into experiencehowardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-32710589163876813862020-01-29T10:05:18.070-08:002020-01-29T10:05:18.070-08:00Why don't you say that my consciousness exists...Why don't you say that my consciousness exists? Consciousness cannot exist as a thing in the world; therefore your consciousness does not exist, while mine doeshowardnoreply@blogger.com