Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Veritas

Consciousness as Irreducible

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

This is a confusing way to talk about it.

First off, it is fair to consider information a part of physical reality, much like how light is part of physical reality, or color, or taste (information can't be called an object,. but it is physical)  To call consciousness and other mental phenomena as mental is just to say that they are internal processes of information processing. Color is not a thing you "put onto" objects; flavors are not "put onto" objects. Mental content is not a distinct form of existence, and fundamentally unique compared to anything else that exists - it's just a type of information. So asking what they consist of doesn't make sense. The mind (consciousness) is an action, and action don't really "consist of" anything. What does running consist of? But there are physical parts to the degree that you, the entity, need physical components (more specifically, tangible components) to do anything. 

 

" action don't really "consist of" anything. What does running consist of?"

Conceptually speaking, composites or complexities of any category consist of portions or parts of the same category... so a complex or high level action can consist of a number of subactions etc. until one gets to what one could call "atomic" or fundamental actions.  So running can be a composite action consisting of bending a knee, raising a leg. extending the foot... etc.

Mind not being a substance it would not consist of substances, but it could be a complex process/action (IMHO) consisting of subprocesses/subactions (recalling a memory, bringing a set of premises into focus, repeating the premises, weighing the implications, concentrating on one of the senses, etc.)

Now, your statement (The mind (consciousness) is an action, and action don't really "consist of" anything) I think also implies (more importantly) that action does not consist of substances... which I totally agree with. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Grames said:

With the new conceptual framework of information theory even mental phenomena can now be included with the category of "physical reality". 

I don't see how. Binswanger addressed this view starting on page 45 of How We Know. Do you disagree with his position that computers don't literally process information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I don't see how. Binswanger addressed this view starting on page 45 of How We Know. Do you disagree with his position that computers don't literally process information?

I emphatically disagree. He does not know what he is talking about.  It is demonstrably false that the only information is semantic information since Shannon published in 1948.  Denying nonsemantic information is as absurd as denying evolution, or more absurd since he uses the internet everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...