DOCSLIB.ORG

Is Human Information Processing Conscious?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is Human Information Processing Conscious? CommentaryfVelmans: Consciousness The resistance against a natural-science approach to conscious consciousness is required for it. He considers semantic analysis experience reminds one also of the great debate a century ago of novel word combinations, on-line analysis of speech, learn- between Darwinians and creationists. Darwin's opponents ing, memory, identification, planning and control of complex clearly believed they were attacking not a mere scientific hy- novel action, and others, arguing in each case that these things pothesis, but a conception of human nature that would tear away can be done without consciousnessp. (This survey is the bulk of the last remaining shreds of human dignity. The contemporary his paper.) He concludes that there is no type of information resistance by Velmans and others to a straightforward natural- processing for which consciousnessp is required, and therefore science approach to conscious experience may be driven by a that consciousness plays no causal role in and does not "enter similar anxiety. But Darwin did not deprive us of human into" information processing, and is in that sense dignity; treating conscious experience as a normal topic of epiphenomenal.1 psychology and neuroscience will not do so either. The fallacy of this argument is equally simple. Even if Indeed, one can make the opposite argument: that denial of Velmans is right that consciousnessp is not required for any first-person conscious experience in other people may lead to a particular sort of information processing, it does not follow that profound kind of dehumanization. It comes down to saying that consciousness does not causally enter into information process- other people are not capable of joy or suffering, that as far as the ing. Consciousnessp might actually enter into and causally outside observer is concerned, we are not to see others as they influence information processing even if it is not essential, even see themselves. The consequence of this prohibition against the if something else could substitute for it. An analogy: A business first-person perspective is a kind of mechanization of other school degree is not required for getting rich, but it does often people. Psychology under the thumb of behaviorism did indeed serve that function. All processing Velmans describes is process- display this kind of dehumanizing, mechanistic thinking. It is ing in specialized modules outside the central executive system. only when we acknowledge the reality of conscious experience Executive system processing itself is not required for processing in the minds of others that we can recognize their full humanity. in the specialized modules, so if Velmans's reasoning were right, it would show that executive system processing is epi- phenomenal. (Here, as in what follows, I assume that there is a central executive system that is in charge of focal-attentive Ewidence against epiphenomenaSism processing and its role in control of action, reasoning, and reporting.) Ned Block Velmans is concerned with an "essential function of con- Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of sciousness," that is, whether consciousness "plays some essential Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 role." His concern is whether consciousnessp does something Electronic mail: [email protected] that cannot be done without it. Hence his one-by-one examina- Velmans argues for epiphenomenalism, the view that con- tion of types of information processing activity (identification, sciousness has no function. I claim, however, that the survey of semantic analysis, etc.) to show that these things can be done data he presents actually provides interesting evidence against without consciousness . However, the epiphenomenalism issue epiphenomenalism. as Velmans describes it (i. e., whether consciousness "enters into Senses of "consciousness." As Velmans sees, the word "con- or causally influences" information processing) is not an issue of scious" is used to mean many different things. (Unfortunately, essential function in this sense, but rather actual function. The "aware" - which he uses to explicate "conscious" - is ambiguous heart does not have the essential function (in Velmans's sense) of in much the same way.) The most important distinction from the pumping blood, if blood vessels could be constructed that point of view of the target article is the distinction between squeeze the blood along on their own. But the heart does have the phenomenal consciousness and various kinds of cognitive con- actual function of pumping blood. The issue of epi- sciousness. If we are computational devices, I can nonetheless phenomenalism is not whether consciousness is essential in this wonder whether what it is like to he a computationally equiv- sense to information processing, but rather whether it plays an alent silicon-based device is the same as what it is like to be me actual role - even if something else could substitute for it. (Nagel 1974). What it is like = phenomenal consciousness, (Digression: Why do we have consciousness if it is not which I will write here as consciousnessp. As Velmans notes, essential? The answer is that evolution often picks one of several some writers use "conscious processing" to mean focal-attentive options, any of one of which would do the job, depending on processing. This is one of many cognitive sense of "con- how handy these options are. My favorite speculation about the sciousness." Other senses, for example, involve second-order ultimate evolutionary origin of consciousnessp is its role in states, or self-consciousness, or internal soliloquies, or monitor- motivation.) ing. Velmans usually has consciousnessp in mind, and his con- As I just mentioned, all the cases of information processing clusion, the one I wish to argue he actually provides evidence without consciousnessp that Velmans discusses are plausibly against, is that consciousness plays no causal role in information construed as information processing in specialized modules processing. (I will leave it to others to criticize Velmans's views rather than the central executive system. Indeed, Velmans on the complementarity between the first- and third-person himself would seem to agree, since he emphasizes that focal perspectives.) attentive processes (which are executive processes in my termi- Does conscSousne§§p exist? As Velmans notes, many writers nology) are not involved in the nonconsciousp activities he on this topic (and I'm sure many of the commentators in this surveys. So Velmans can be right that the processes he surveys issue) don't believe in consciousnessp, or, more sym- do not require consciousnessp even if consciousness does have pathetically, they don't believe in consciousnessp as distinct an effect on information reaching the central executive. from one or another of the cognitive notions they hope can My point can be seen more clearly if we contrast the two satisfy the demands that lead some of us to acknowledge a models illustrated below. Model 1 is adapted from Schacter distinct consciousness (e.g., Dennett 1978; 1979; 1988; Har- (1989). It gives consciousnessp an information processing role in man 1990; Nelkin 1989; Rey 1988; Rosenthal 1990). This is integrating the outputs of specialized modules and transmitting not the place to debate the issue, but for clarity's sake, I wish the resulting signals to the executive system. Model 2 is an to emphasize that I'm on Velmans's side here (see Block inverted version of Schacter's model intended to capture 1978; 1990). Velmans's idea that consciousnessp does not enter into informa- The argument f®replphenomen&llsm. Velmans's argument for tion processing. epiphenomenalism is simple. He considers a large variety of If all the sophisticated information processing that Velmans types of information processing, asking of each one whether surveys is done by the specialized modules, then perhaps he is 670 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1991) 14:4 Commentary/Velmans: Consciousness inveigh against Cartesian materialism, the view that there is a place in the brain where consciousnessp happens. Cartesian modularism is a far more plausible view for friends of con- sciousness but I don't know whether Velmans would buy into it. The evidence against epiphenomenalism. Note the following SpeciaiizedN I Modules " H difference between Models 1 and 2: if Model 1 is correct, we should never get information reaching the executive system (which you will recall is in charge of focal-attentive processing, and its role in control of action, reasoning, and reporting) without Declarative/ first passing through the consciousness module. Nothing gets to Phenomenal Consciousness p (Consciousnessp) the executive that isn't consciousp. In the case of Model 2, by contrast, the executive system could for one reason or another process information without passing it to the consciousnessp module. Velmans has combed the literature looking for evidence of sophisticated information processing without consciousnessp. The most interesting thing about the evidence that he has Executive System collected is that nothing he mentions makes a plausible case for information reaching the executive without being in con- sciousnessp. According to every model I have ever heard of that postulates a central executive system, the executive system is the home of the most sophisticated processing (even if some sophisticated processing is accomplished elsewhere, as Velmans Procedural/Habit System maintains), so if a search for sophisticated processing without consciousness reveals no executive processing without con- Figure 1 (N. Block). Model 1: Consciousness plays a causal sciousness^ then the search confirms Model 1, arguing against role. epiphenomenalism, not for it. Note that my claim is not that all information in the executive is sent to consciousness . That is not a commitment of either model. The point is that the structure of Model 1 precludes any information from any of the right that consciousness , is not essential for sophisticated pro- p specialized modules reaching the executive system without cessing. But even if correct, this claim does not distinguish passing through consciousness . between Model 1 and Model 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, XII-2 | 2020 Santayana’S Epiphenomenalism Reconsidered 2
    European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy XII-2 | 2020 Democracy as a Form of Life Santayana’s Epiphenomenalism Reconsidered Robin Weiss Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/2138 DOI: 10.4000/ejpap.2138 ISSN: 2036-4091 Publisher Associazione Pragma Electronic reference Robin Weiss, « Santayana’s Epiphenomenalism Reconsidered », European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy [Online], XII-2 | 2020, Online since 14 December 2020, connection on 15 December 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/2138 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ ejpap.2138 This text was automatically generated on 15 December 2020. Author retains copyright and grants the European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Santayana’s Epiphenomenalism Reconsidered 1 Santayana’s Epiphenomenalism Reconsidered Robin Weiss 1 Recently, it has become increasingly common to question the extent to which Santayana’s philosophy of mind can and should be identified as a kind of epiphenomenalism, as has traditionally been the case. Most scholars take Santayana’s epiphenomenalism for granted, and either assert or deny that he gives an argument to support it.1 However, others have questioned whether the evident similarities between Santayana’s own views and those of modern-day epiphenomenalists obscure more significant differences. I will argue that, indeed, Santayana’s views are potentially inaccurately captured by the term “epiphenomenalism.” However, I shall argue that this is true for reasons other than other scholars have given for this view. 2 The issue turns on what Santayana means by a “cause” when he denies that ideas are causes of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism
    Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. MA by Research in Theology and Religion David Horner September 2018 Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. Submitted by David Horner to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of MA by Research in Theology and Religion in September 2018 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Jonathan Hill and Dr Joel Krueger for their support and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation and for their patience in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to acknowledge the many conversations, on this and other topics, I have had with my friend and philosopher, Dr Chris Boyne, who sadly died in June of this year. I thank all my other chums at The Bull, Ditchling, for listening to my metaphysical ramblings. And finally, I thank my wife, Linda, for once more putting up with this kind of thing. 2 Abstract This dissertation is a contribution to debates in the philosophy of mind and of personal identity. It presents a critical account of arguments for substance dualism to be found in Richard Swinburne’s Mind, Brain, and Free Will (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • William James's Objection to Epiphenomenalism
    William James’s Objection to Epiphenomenalism Alexander Klein*y James developed an evolutionary objection to epiphenomenalism that is still discussed today. Epiphenomenalists have offered responses that do not grasp its full depth. I thus offer a new reading and assessment of James’s objection. Our life-essential, phenomenal pleasures and pains have three features that suggest that they were shaped by selection, according to James: they are natively patterned, those patterns are systematically linked with antecedent brain states, and the patterns are “universal” among humans. If epiphe- nomenalism were true, phenomenal patterns could not have been selected (because epi- phenomenalism precludes phenomenal consciousness affecting reproductive success). So epiphenomenalism is likely false. 1. Introduction. William James developed an evolutionary objection to epi- phenomenalism that is still regularly discussed today.1 Perhaps because the classic passage where he lays out the objection is so pithy, epiphenomenalists have offered responses that do not, I will argue, grasp its full depth. I begin with a brief history of James’s own encounters with epiphenomenalism. Then I make use of more recent theoretical tools from evolutionary biology to un- pack his worry. *To contact the author, please write to: University Hall 310A, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]. yI would like to thank Trevor Pearce and Elisabeth Lloyd for helpful feedback, as well as the US-UK Fulbright Commission, which financially supported this work. 1. More recent advocates of epiphenomenalism have included Jackson (1982) and Rob- inson (2004). An oft-cited successor to James’s argument against epiphenomenalism from evolutionary considerations can be found in Popper and Eccles (1977).
    [Show full text]
  • Santayana's Anticipations of Deleuze: Total Natural Events and Quasi- Pragmatism
    Abstract *O B NPOPHSBQI QVCMJTIFE MBTU ZFBS MJU- FSBSZ UIFPSJTU .BSL /PCMF OPUFT UIBU JO UIF XBZ %FMFV[F VOEFSTUBOET UIF SFMB- UJPOTIJQ CFUXFFO NBUFSJBMJTN BOE TVC- KFDUJWJUZ %FMFV[F iBMTP TPVOET DVSJPVTMZ Santayana’s MJLF4BOUBZBOBw'PSFYBNQMF UIFXPSLPG CPUI QIJMPTPQIFST iMPDBUFT IVNBO WBMVF JOBTPVSDFBUPODFJNNBOFOUBOEBMJFOw Anticipations /PCMFBMTPXPOEFSTiXIFUIFSUIFMFTTPOPG 4BOUBZBOBTPXOOFHPUJBUJPOXJUIIJTUFO- of Deleuze: EFODZUPIVNBOJ[FUIFOPOIVNBOHSPVOE PG FYQFSJFODF BMTP BOUJDJQBUFT UIF UISJMM Total Natural %FMFV[FDIBTFTXIFOQPTJUJOHUIFVOJWPD- JUZPGCFJOHw*OUIFQSFTFOUBSUJDMF *XJMM Events and BUUFNQUUPFMBCPSBUFPOUIJTiBOUJDJQBUJPO w UIFJNQMJDBUJPOTPGXIJDIJODMVEFBHSFBUFS Quasi- BQQSFDJBUJPO PG 4BOUBZBOB PO UIF QBSU PG %FMFV[F FOUIVTJBTUT BO VOEFSTUBOEJOH Pragmatism PG CPUI QIJMPTPQIFST BT 64JOìVFODFE Joshua M. Hall &VSPQFBORVBTJQSBHNBUJTUT BOEBEFDJTJPO JOGBWPSPG.JDIBFM#SPESJDLTSFDFOUJOUFS- QSFUBUJPO PG 4BOUBZBOB BT B iUPUBM OBUVSBM FWFOUwQIJMPTPQIFSPGNJOE Keywords: George Santayana, Gilles Deleuze, Essence, Event, Phantasm, Ghost, Epiphenomenalism, Philosophy of Mind, Pragmatism *O UIF QSFTFOU BSUJDMF * IPQF UP BSUJDV- MBUFUISFFJNQPSUBOUJNQMJDBUJPOTPG.BSL /PCMFTSFDFOUPCTFSWBUJPOUIBU%FMFV[FBU UJNFT iTPVOET DVSJPVTMZ MJLF 4BOUBZBOBw1 'JSTU 4BOUBZBOBQSFEBUFTNBOZPG%FMFV[FT NPTU GBNPVT JOTJHIUT ɨVT JO SFHBSE UP UIFJOìVFODFPO%FMFV[FPG64"NFSJDBO UIJOLFST CPUI%FMFV[FBOEIJTJOUFSQSFUFST IBWFCFFOSFNJTTJOGPDVTJOHBMNPTUFYDMV- TJWFMZ PO UIF 1SBHNBUJTUT BOE FTQFDJBMMZ PO$41FJSDF 4FDPOE POFDBOIFMQGVMMZ TRANSACTIONS OF THE CHARLES S. PEIRCE SOCIETY 270
    [Show full text]
  • Park, Sam-Yel (1999) a Study of the Mind-Body Theory in Spinoza. Phd Thesis. Copyright and Moral R
    Park, Sam-Yel (1999) A study of the mind-body theory in Spinoza. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2040/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] A Study of the Mind-Body Theory in Spinoza Departmentof Philosophy University of Glasgow A Study of Theory in Spinoza the pffindýBody by Sam-Yel Park A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Arts in Fulfilment of the Requirementsfor the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy June 1999 C Sam-Yel Park 1999 Abstract A Study of the Mind-Body Theory in Spinoza by Sam-Yel Park This thesis investigates Spinoza's mind-body theory starting with the discussion of the diverse interpretations of his mind-body theory such as hylomorphism.,idealism, epiphenomenalism,and materialism. From the critical comments on inadequaciesof these interpretations, it turns out that Spinoza's argumentof the relationshipbetween the mind and the body should be understood as holding that there is a non-causalrelationship between the mind and the body and that they have equal weight.
    [Show full text]
  • A Type-F Monist Account of Phenomenal Consciousness
    INTRINSIC NATURALISM: A TYPE-F MONIST ACCOUNT OF PHENOMENAL CONSCIOUSNESS By LUKE ALEXANDER GORDON PALMER A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of Master of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham September 2010 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The aim of this thesis is to provide a theory of phenomenal consciousness which accords with both the science-friendly spirit of physicalism and the acknowledgement of panpsychism that phenomenal properties may be inextricably linked to entities, but with none of the problems associated with either type of model. Initially, physicalism and panpsychism are evaluated by the lights of their most serious problems, and solutions are offered to these problems from the point of view of a third kind of model: intrinsic naturalism, presented in the final chapter. This model holds consciousness to be among the battery of a functional system’s intrinsic (i.e. non-dispositional) properties. A definition is given, and defence made for the existence of these properties, and their compatibility with an otherwise physicalist ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Where's the Action? Epiphenomenalism and the Problem of Free Will Shaun Gallagher Department of Philosophy University of Central
    Gallagher, S. 2006. Where's the action? Epiphenomenalism and the problem of free will. In W. Banks, S. Pockett, and S. Gallagher. Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? An Investigation of the Nature of Volition (109-124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Where's the action? Epiphenomenalism and the problem of free will Shaun Gallagher Department of Philosophy University of Central Florida [email protected] Some philosophers argue that Descartes was wrong when he characterized animals as purely physical automata – robots devoid of consciousness. It seems to them obvious that animals (tigers, lions, and bears, as well as chimps, dogs, and dolphins, and so forth) are conscious. There are other philosophers who argue that it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that robots and other artificial agents may someday be conscious – and it is certainly practical to take the intentional stance toward them (the robots as well as the philosophers) even now. I'm not sure that there are philosophers who would deny consciousness to animals but affirm the possibility of consciousness in robots. In any case, and in whatever way these various philosophers define consciousness, the majority of them do attribute consciousness to humans. Amongst this group, however, there are philosophers and scientists who want to reaffirm the idea, explicated by Shadworth Holloway Hodgson in 1870, that in regard to action the presence of consciousness does not matter since it plays no causal role. Hodgson's brain generated the following thought: neural events form an autonomous causal chain that is independent of any accompanying conscious mental states. Consciousness is epiphenomenal, incapable of having any effect on the nervous system.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Epiphenomenalism
    Epiphenomenalism – the Do’s and the Don’ts Larry Shapiro and Elliott Sober University of Wisconsin, Madison Abstract: When philosophers defend epiphenomenalist doctrines, they often do so by way of a priori arguments. Here we suggest an empirical approach that is modeled on August Weismann’s experimental arguments against the inheritance of acquired characters. This conception of how epiphenomenalism ought to be developed helps clarify some mistakes in two recent epiphenomenalist positions – Jaegwon Kim’s (1993) arguments against mental causation, and the arguments developed by Walsh (2000), Walsh, Lewens, and Ariew (2002), and Matthen and Ariew (2002) that natural selection and drift are not causes of evolution. A manipulationist account of causation (Woodward 2003) leads naturally to an account of how macro- and micro-causation are related and to an understanding of how epiphenomenalism at different levels of organization should be understood. 1. The Weismann Model August Weismann (1889) is widely credited with disproving the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In one of his famous experiments, Weismann cut off the tails of newborn mice; when the mice grew up and reproduced, their offspring had tails as long as their parents’ had prior to surgery. These results remained constant over many generations. Weismann saw the same pattern, and the same evidence against the inheritance of acquired characteristics, in the fact that circumcision over many centuries had not caused boys to be born without foreskins. He also thought that his theory of the continuity of the germ plasm threw further doubt on the inheritance of acquired characteristics, though it is worth asking whether this theory was evidence against Lamarckianism (as Gould 2002 argues) or merely assumed that Lamarckian inheritance does not occur.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Why I Am Not a Property Dualist by John R. Searle I Have Argued in a Number of Writings1 That the Philosophical Part (Though
    1 Why I Am Not a Property Dualist By John R. Searle I have argued in a number of writings1 that the philosophical part (though not the neurobiological part) of the traditional mind-body problem has a fairly simple and obvious solution: All of our mental phenomena are caused by lower level neuronal processes in the brain and are themselves realized in the brain as higher level, or system, features. The form of causation is “bottom up,” whereby the behavior of lower level elements, presumably neurons and synapses, causes the higher level or system features of consciousness and intentionality. (This form of causation, by the way, is common in nature; for example, the higher level feature of solidity is causally explained by the behavior of the lower level elements, the molecules.) Because this view emphasizes the biological character of the mental, and because it treats mental phenomena as ordinary parts of nature, I have labeled it “biological naturalism.” To many people biological naturalism looks a lot like property dualism. Because I believe property dualism is mistaken, I would like to try to clarify the differences between the two accounts and try to expose the weaknesses in property dualism. This short paper then has the two subjects expressed by the double meanings in its title: why my views are not the same as property dualism, and why I find property dualism unacceptable. There are, of course, several different “mind-body” problems. The one that most concerns me in this article is the relationship between consciousness and brain processes. I think that the conclusions of the discussion will extend to other features of the mind-body problem, such as, for example, the relationship between intentionality and brain processes, but for the sake of simplicity I will concentrate on consciousness.
    [Show full text]
  • Could Anyone Justiably Believe Epiphenomenalism?
    Could Anyone Justiably Believe Epiphenomenalism? Richard Swinburne [Swinburne, Richard, 2011, “Could Anyone Justiably Believe Epiphenom- enalism?”, Journal of Consciousness Studies, vol 18, no 3-4, 2011, pp.196-216.] Abstract: Epiphenomenalism claims that all conscious events are caused immediately by brain events, and no conscious events cause brain events. In order to have a justified belief in a theory someone needs a justified belief that it or some higher-level theory predicts cer- tain events and those events occurred. To have either of the latter be- liefs we depend ultimately on the evidence of apparent experience, memory, and testimony, which is credible in the absence of defeaters; it is an undermining defeater to a belief produced by apparent memory that it was not caused by a past belief, and to a belief pro- duced by apparent testimony that it was not caused by an intention to say what the speaker believes. A justified belief in epiphenomenalism requires either evidence about when conscious events occurred or evidence about what some theory that brain events are caused solely by physical events predicts, but epiphenomenalism rules out the avail- ability of the evidence of apparent memory and testimony on these matters. Hence only a rare individual scientist who could hold in her mind at one time the proof that a theory makes certain predictions could have a justified belief that epiphenomenalism is true. It follows that recent neurophysiological work in the tradition of Libet has no tendency whatever to provide a justified belief in epiphenomenalism. I Introduction I understand by ‘epiphenomenalism’ the theory that [X] all conscious events have physical events (viz.
    [Show full text]
  • Phil Mind Seminar Syllabus W 21
    Phil 296D: Phil Mind Seminar W 21 Prof Aaron Zimmerman Office Hours: By Appointment Office: https://ucsb.zoom.us/j/5972101028 The Evolution of Consciousness and the Development of Pragmatism I. General Description: The nature of consciousness (subjectivity, qualitative experience, what- it-is-likeness, etc) and the nature of agency (or control, will, volition, choice, decisions etc.) are the two most central issues in contemporary philosophy of mind. Though Pragmatism has come to be associated with anti-realist views of truth and reference, and coherence theories of meaning and justification, it in fact originated in the philosophy of mind and an approach to that subject grounded in developmental and evolutionary biology. Broadly speaking, pragmatists began to adopt a developmental approach to the will or our ability to control our behaviors and used this conception to define core components of consciousness and cognition: i.e. belief, doubt and those states of mind operative in the articulation and evaluation of philosophy itself. Indeed, James introduced the term “pragmatism” to name a philosophy that results from applying an account of belief grounded in evolutionary biology to debates over the nature of philosophy and its methods. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that pragmatism is experiencing a resurgence in the philosophy of mind as cognitive scientists have tried to integrate their work with what is known about the evolution of our nervous systems and have simultaneously come to recognize how much computation is devoted to action and how extensively action shapes perceptual experience. Our plan is to begin with this history and the intuitions that lead some philosophers to regard an organism’s consciousness as something that cannot be fully explained if we limit ourselves to the tools utilized by neurobiologists and other cognitive scientists: some philosophers, concluding from this that consciousness and/or agency are non-physical (dualism) and others concluding that consciousness is a fundamental force (panpsychism).
    [Show full text]
  • Idealism, Panpsychism and Emergentism
    The Radical Wing of Consciousness Studies: Idealism, Panpsychism and Emergentism 1 Why Consider Radical Approaches? There is always a legitimate philosophical interest in the history of significant doctrines and there is no doubt that all of idealism, panpsychism and emergentism have illustrious pasts. They have been championed by very heavy weight thinkers; no history of philosophy could ignore them. But unlike topics that have, as we say, purely historical interest (for exam- ple, Aristotle’s views on spontaneous generation) the problem of consciousness remains the subject of intense investigation and despite staggering advances in the scientific study of the brain remains fundamentally unsolved. Why is that? The answer lies in a certain under- standing of the physical and the roadblock this throws up when we try to integrate subjective experience into a world whose nature is restricted to that conception of the physical. The modern locus of this concern is Thomas Nagel’s (1974) famous reflection on our inability to get a grip on the subjective nature of non-human consciousness despite the openness to investigation of the objective world specified in our physical theories1. This way of problematizing consciousness shows that it can be understood in quite simple terms: not ‘self-consciousness’ or ‘transcendental subjectivity’, or awareness of the self as a subject, or awareness of one’s own mental states, or the ability to conceptualize one’s own mental states as such. Consciousness is simply sentience, or the way things are present to the mind (abstracting from the question of whether anything exists which matches what is present).
    [Show full text]