哲学基本问题：物质怎么就决定意识了？
Summary
TLDR本视频探讨了心身问题，即意识与物质之间的关系。介绍了七种哲学流派的解决方案，包括实体二元论、伴随现象论、行为主义、身份理论、消除主义、功能主义和属性二元论。这些理论试图解释意识现象是如何从物质世界中产生、它们是否独立于物质存在，以及心身如何相互作用。视频鼓励观众参与讨论，思考自己更倾向于哪种解释。
Takeaways
- 🧠 意识与物质的关系问题是哲学中的基本问题，被称为心身问题。
- 📚 中学教科书的标准答案是物质决定意识，意识是物质世界的长期发展产物。
- 🤔 笛卡尔的实体二元论认为物质和精神是两种独立且不可分割的实体。
- 🚫 物质主义无法解释人类意识现象，如语言能力和灵活处理问题的能力。
- 💭 笛卡尔提出“我思故我在”，强调思考是确定知识存在的依据。
- 🔄 心身互动问题在于物理事件如何引起精神状态，以及精神状态如何引起物理事件。
- 👸 波希米亚的伊丽莎白公主对笛卡尔的实体二元论提出了质疑。
- 🏫 物理主义和行为主义试图通过物质活动解释精神状态，但忽略了意识的主观性。
- 🧪 功能主义认为意识是物质实体的功能状态，支持多重实现性，即为软件在硬件上的实现。
- 🧬 属性二元论认为精神属性是物质实体的一种属性，但独立于物质属性。
- 🌐 意识的本质和起源问题仍然是哲学和科学领域中一个开放的讨论话题。
Q & A
什么是心身问题？
-心身问题是指探讨意识（心智）与物质（身体）之间的关系的哲学问题。它探讨的是我们的意识现象是如何从物质世界，尤其是人脑的物理过程中产生的。
笛卡尔的二元论是如何解释心身关系的？
-笛卡尔的二元论认为，物质和精神是两种独立且不相互依赖的实体。物质是可延伸的实体，而精神则是不可延伸的，具有思考属性的实体。因此，物质和精神是两个独立的存在，但又不可分割地联系在一起。
物理主义是如何解释意识现象的？
-物理主义认为所有存在的事物，包括意识现象，都可以基于物理事实来清楚地描述。它主张意识是大脑神经活动的物理状态，或者是大脑中分子、原子等基本粒子的基本运动的结果。
什么是行为主义？它如何解释心理状态？
-行为主义是一种哲学立场，主张心理状态应当等同于人的行为倾向。它不关注内在的精神状态，而是关注可观察的行为表现。行为主义者认为，只有通过行为表现，我们才能真正了解一个人的心理状态。
身份理论是如何尝试解决心身问题的？
-身份理论认为心理状态实际上就是大脑的状态。换句话说，心理状态和大脑状态实际上是同一件事情。身份理论试图通过将心理状态还原为大脑的神经状态来解决心身问题，从而避免了笛卡尔二元论中的交互问题。
消除主义是如何看待心理状态的？
-消除主义认为，我们日常语言中描述的心理状态，如疼痛、情感、信念、欲望等，都是幻觉，并不对应任何底层的神经状态。消除主义者主张，我们应该放弃使用日常语言中的这些心理词汇，而改用科学术语，如神经元、轴突、树突和神经递质等来讨论心理现象。
功能主义是如何解释意识与物质之间的关系的？
-功能主义认为意识是一种功能状态，是物质实体（如人脑）的精神状态。它强调意识可以被实现为多种物理形式，即所谓的“多重可实现性”。功能主义者将意识比作软件程序，而大脑则是运行这些程序的硬件。
属性双重论是如何在物理主义框架内解释意识的独立性的？
-属性双重论认为，虽然世界上只存在一种实体，即物质实体，但这种实体表现出两种属性：物质属性和精神属性。精神属性独立于物质属性存在，因此意识作为一种精神属性，不能完全用物质属性来解释。
哲学家大卫·查尔默斯是如何区分意识问题的简单问题和困难问题的？
-大卫·查尔默斯将关于意识的问题分为简单问题和困难问题。简单问题涉及大脑的结构、神经网络的连接方式、脑波的放电模式等，这些问题可以通过物理主义的第三人称科学语言清楚地描述。而困难问题则是关于我们为什么有意识，以及我们的意识现象——即主观体验——是什么，这些问题涉及意识的主观性，难以用语言清晰表达。
什么是哲学僵尸的思想实验？
-哲学僵尸的思想实验是一种假设存在的生命体，它们在物理结构和行为上与正常人类没有任何区别，但它们没有任何主观的意识体验。这个思想实验用来证明精神属性独立于物质属性，即使物质结构完全相同，也可能不存在意识。
涌现理论和泛心论是如何解释意识的来源的？
-涌现理论认为意识是大脑神经网络整体协同作用的产物，当神经元以适当的方式连接时，意识就会突然产生。而泛心论则认为，就像所有事物都具有物理属性一样，所有事物也都具有精神属性，意识是宇宙中所有物理实体固有的属性。
Outlines
🤔 探讨心身问题
本段讨论了心身问题，即意识与物质之间的关系。提到了中学教科书中的标准答案，即物质决定意识，并探讨了这一观点的局限性。提出了意识现象的神奇之处，以及意识是否独立于物质世界。
💭 笛卡尔的二元论
介绍了17世纪法国哲学家笛卡尔的二元论观点，他认为物质和精神是两种独立的实体。笛卡尔的世界观是机械论的，认为世界是物质的基本粒子在基本力作用下的基本运动。但他同时认为，机器无法模拟人类的意识现象，因此物质主义无法解释意识现象。
🤯 心身互动的问题
探讨了心身互动问题，即人类既有物质身体也有精神意识，这两者如何相互作用。笛卡尔试图通过松果腺来解释物质与精神的互动，但这一解释仍存在许多疑问。
🌪️ 物质主义的几种解释
介绍了物质主义对心身问题的几种解释，包括副现象论、行为主义、身份理论和消除理论。这些理论试图用物理主义的科学语言来解释人类意识现象，但都存在一定的问题和批评。
🧠 身份理论与批评
身份理论认为意识状态实际上就是大脑状态，但批评指出这一理论无法解释意识的主观性，也无法解释非碳基物质可能产生意识状态的可能性。
🚫 消除理论与批评
消除理论认为日常语言中描述的意识状态是幻觉，不是真实的，应该被消除。批评指出，消除理论忽视了常识心理学的价值，并且无法解释意识的主观性。
🔄 功能主义与批评
功能主义认为意识是物质实体的功能状态，强调意识的多重可实现性。批评主要集中在功能主义无法解释意识的主观性，以及对强人工智能的可行性提出质疑。
🌈 属性二元论
属性二元论认为意识状态是物质实体的精神属性，这些属性独立于物质属性。这一理论试图为意识的独立存在提供空间，但也面临着解释精神属性来源的挑战。
📣 讨论与总结
总结了七种探讨心身问题的理论方案，包括实体二元论、副现象论、行为主义、身份理论、消除理论、功能主义和属性二元论，并邀请观众参与讨论这一哲学大问题。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡心身问题
💡物质决定意识
💡笛卡尔
💡行为主义
💡身份理论
💡消除主义
💡功能主义
💡属性二元论
💡意识
💡自由意志
💡强人工智能
💡泛心论
Highlights
节目讨论了心身问题，这是哲学中一个基本的大问题。
标准答案是物质决定意识，意识是物质世界的长期发展的产物。
介绍了七种哲学流派对心身问题的解答，包括实体二元论、副现象论、行为主义、同一性理论、消除主义、功能主义和属性二元论。
笛卡尔是实体二元论的代表，他认为物质和精神是两个独立而完整的实体。
笛卡尔的机械世界观对当时的知识分子世界观产生了重大影响。
提出了关于心身互动的问题，即物质事件如何引起精神状态，以及精神状态如何引起物质事件。
伊丽莎白公主对笛卡尔的心身互动问题提出了质疑。
介绍了副现象论，认为精神状态是物质运动的副产品，但本身不会引发新的事件。
行为主义认为精神状态等于行为倾向，忽略所有无法测量或验证的无形精神实体。
同一性理论认为精神状态实际上就是大脑状态。
消除主义认为日常语言中描述的精神状态都是幻觉，不对应任何神经状态。
功能主义认为精神状态是物质实体的功能状态，可以实现多次。
属性二元论认为精神状态是物质实体的精神属性，不能归结为物质属性。
提出了哲学僵尸的思想实验，用以证明精神属性独立于物质属性。
对于心身问题，除了物理主义的解释，还有出现论和泛心论等尝试解释精神属性来源的理论。
心身问题至今仍是一个有争议的问题，表明意识问题不是一个简单的科学问题。
节目最后呼吁观众参与到这个大问题的讨论中来，表明这是一个开放的哲学议题。
Transcripts
Hello everyone,
the big question to be discussed in this episode of the Big Questions program is
the mind-body problem.
Regarding this question,
those of us who have attended middle school all know that the standard answer
is that
matter determines consciousness, and matter is the first.
Consciousness is the long-term development of the material world. The product is the function of the human brain and the subjective image of the material world.
Of course, if you answer this way, you are definitely right.
When answering short answer questions in the middle school exam,
even if you don’t know anything,
first say "matter determines consciousness and consciousness reacts on matter." You can always get a few points
by attacking first
, but
it has been so many years since our college entrance examination.
Regarding this issue, if you still only know these few big words,
if I ask you to explain it in detail, you won’t be able to explain why.
Then we are here The level is still at the middle school level.
I remember when I was an undergraduate in college,
I majored in business.
I remember when I was a freshman
, the management teacher shared a business case in a management class
and then asked a classmate to analyze it. In this case,
this classmate stood up
without saying a word, opened his mouth, came here, and
immediately shocked the management teacher next to him.
Do you think this is a reward or not?
So in today’s short program,
we will talk about the relationship between consciousness and matter.
Let’s put aside these big words and talk about some detailed reasons.
Indeed, our human consciousness phenomenon is indeed a very magical existence.
Are we unique? mind?
Or are we just a body
like other animals or machines
? Does consciousness have an independence from matter
? Or is consciousness just a derivative of the material world?
If consciousness is derived from matter
, how is it derived?
In fact, this question is indeed a big question.
Some materials say that this question is a "basic question of philosophy."
Indeed, the answer to this question
also lays the foundation for answering a series of other big questions in philosophy,
such as the problem of free will, the problem of strong artificial intelligence, and the self. The issue of identity
, the issue of immortality of the soul, etc.
It can be said that the discussion of these big issues
ultimately needs to return to the discussion of this basic philosophical question. Regarding
this basic question,
today we will introduce the solutions of seven philosophical schools.
They are:
Of course, since there are relatively many factions introduced,
this program will last about an hour.
However, even so, the introduction of
this basic philosophical issue
in today’s short program of about one hour is definitely incomplete.
Today’s introduction is only Let's start with some
ideas for everyone to criticize and discuss. Now let's
go to the main part of the meeting.
First, we invite Descartes, the representative of entity dualism, to
appear. When talking about this issue of the relationship between consciousness and matter,
I have to say
that this pit was dug by the 17th-century French philosopher Descartes.
We started from From middle school textbooks, we can know that
Descartes is a dualist.
On the one hand, he believes that matter is an independent and self-contained entity.
On the other hand, he believes that spirit is also an entity that is independent and self-contained from matter.
Our simple understanding of the meaning of this entity is that it is
independent and self-contained. Things
can exist independently on their own without relying on other things.
Therefore, the two entities of matter and spirit are independent of each other
and have an inseparable relationship.
That's why we call this view dualism.
We have to say that
Descartes is first of all. A materialist
, he is a mathematician and physics after all.
He is not like some great gods who
just talk about the soul and destiny all day long.
Descartes still talks about science.
We need to know that in the 17th/18th century
The worldview of Western intellectuals has changed from the original religious worldview
to the "Cartesian-Newtonian" worldview.
What does this worldview mean?
It means following Newtonian mechanics.
To put it bluntly, it is a mechanistic worldview.
Simply put, there is nothing mysterious about this world. Everything in the
world is the basic movement of basic particles under basic forces.
This worldview is very materialistic. This was Descartes’s worldview at the time.
This materialistic worldview was very popular among the intellectual circles at the time.
If you are in the circle of friends It doesn't talk about mechanics or materialism. It
talks about Plato's ideas and Aristotle's forms.
It feels like your village has not yet connected to the Internet.
Descartes's mechanistic worldview
can not only explain things like Descartes also believed that
there is nothing mysterious about
objects such as stones, clouds, tables, and rags. The
human body is just a machine, a complex machine at most.
Our bones, blood vessels, and meridians are also equivalent to this. The components of a machine
are all in line with materialism
, but the following question arises.
Although materialism can explain everything in the world and even the human body
, Descartes believes that
there is only one thing that materialism cannot explain,
and that is human beings.
Why can't materialism
explain mental phenomena, that is, human consciousness ?
The reason Descartes gave
is quite similar to the reason given by the current artificial intelligence academic circle.
He asked
us if we can imagine that we can create a complex machine
. Can we simulate human-like consciousness?
Descartes believed that this was obviously impossible.
Descartes gave two reasons.
First, a machine cannot have human language capabilities.
A machine is just a repeater.
You can only store different memes in advance for it
, and then it just repeats these memes and does If you don’t play jokes creatively,
to put it simply, this machine itself has no jokes. What about
the second point? The machine can only do specific things.
It is not like us humans who can handle different things flexibly.
AlphaGo can only play chess but not I know how to clean,
let alone tell jokes,
so machines cannot simulate human consciousness,
so materialism cannot explain the phenomenon of consciousness.
Of course
, you may think that computer science in Descartes’ time has not yet been developed.
His argument is a bit rough
. Don’t worry. Descartes also has a trump card argument
, which is "I think,
therefore I am". The original intention of the argument is to find the certainty of knowledge.
Descartes asked
what things in this world definitely exist and can withstand doubt. Woolen cloth?
You say that this cup definitely exists because it can be seen and touched.
That’s not necessarily true.
We have all seen the movie "The Matrix". It
is very likely that we are living in the virtual world of the Matrix.
This is completely possible logically. So
the world in front of us, including all kinds of things
, even scientific knowledge and mathematical knowledge, can be doubted.
But here comes the key.
Descartes discovered that when I doubt everything with such thorough doubt,
the only thing that cannot be doubted is the doubt itself.
Because if I doubt that I am doubting, it means that I am still doubting.
Therefore, doubt itself cannot be doubted.
Then doubting is thinking.
Doubting is me. Thinking is me thinking.
So I can have no body
, but I cannot not have thinking,
so I think, so I It must exist.
This is "I think, therefore I am.
" "I think, therefore I am." That's how it came about.
After universal doubt, Descartes
discovered that such a thinking mind cannot be doubted. It is
a truly reliable thing.
Descartes' "I think, therefore I am."
The argument
"
in
_
_ Simply put , the meaning of high
is that it can be seen and touched.
The other kind of entity is the spiritual entity. It has no extension, that is, it cannot be seen or touched.
Its attribute is thinking.
These two entities are independent and real.
In fact, let's talk about
Descartes' dualism. In fact, it is in line with the common sense of our people.
Of course, the world is first of all material. Needless to say,
things in this world are extended and can be seen and touched.
It can be measured through physical instruments
, but we have to admit that
our mental phenomena are also real.
Although it is invisible and intangible
, we can still really feel that we are spiritual.
For example, when we are in love, Sometimes
we will question each other and say,
"Do you love my soul or are you just greedy for my body?
This all shows that our common sense is Cartesian.
We will think that spirit is different from matter
and even spirit is higher than matter.
We would hope that the other person fell in love with me because we read a lot of poetry
or told a good joke,
rather than because of my body
or the many coins in my account at Station B.
This is what Descartes said. A brief introduction to dualism.
After introducing dualism,
we will introduce the criticism of dualism.
In today's program,
every time we introduce the thoughts of a
school , we will also introduce the
basic philosophical issue of criticism of this school of thought.
In fact, there are different schools. There is a lot of quarrel among scholars
, so today we will introduce the pros and cons
for you to discuss.
Descartes
's dualism
seems
to be very complete
. The peaceful situation where water in a well does not interfere with the river
has encountered a bug in one thing.
What is this thing?
This thing is a human being.
We humans have both a material body and a spiritual consciousness.
The problem lies in
these two things. How does it interact?
For example, you watch our video program on your mobile phone.
This is a physical event
, but this physical event triggers a state of mind for you.
After you watch this program, what do you feel in your heart? I am very happy
and then this mental state triggers the next mental state,
which is that you want to like this program and cast coins.
Then this mental state triggers the next physical event
, that is, you actually move your finger to thumb up and cast coins.
The problem is The two steps
are how a physical event can cause a mental state
and how a mental state can cause a physical event. You
must know that
the physical world must comply with the law of conservation of mass and energy,
which means that
the causal relationship in the physical world must be Closed in the physical world,
something that is visible and tangible
must trigger the movement of another visible and tangible thing.
You say that an invisible and intangible state of mind
triggers a visible and tangible thing. The movement of matter
, Descartes, are you still a scientist
? Do you want to work here?
In fact,
the problem of mind-body interaction had already appeared when Descartes was alive. At
that time, Descartes had a fan girl
named Elizabeth of Bohemia. Princess
, she became obsessed with Descartes after reading Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy".
But Elizabeth was very talented
and saw the problem at a glance.
She wrote to Descartes and asked about
the human spirit and human body. How did they interact?
After receiving the letter, Descartes discovered
that I, a philosopher and ancient philosopher, have a girl? My fan is
also a princess. Let’s chat privately for a while.
So Descartes wrote back to answer this question.
At first, Descartes The answer is that the influence of the mind on the body
is similar to the influence of gravity on objects.
Descartes’s answer to a reader’s question in this issue was very clever. He
used the popular physics terms at the time to bluff people,
just like some boys and girls we have today. When chatting,
she always likes to talk about quantum spin and wave function collapse to
bluff people, making other girls stunned.
But Princess Elizabeth is an ignorant girl. She definitely doesn’t buy it.
Descartes sees that this female fan is not easy to fool
him. He also replied that this interaction between spirit and matter
occurs in a place called the pineal gland in the human brain.
Descartes himself also drew a schematic diagram
saying that in this pineal gland,
material things can be converted into spiritual things. into matter
, but this answer is still very confusing.
You said that the pineal gland is the place where matter and spirit are converted into each other
. So how exactly does it convert?
So is the pineal gland itself material or spiritual?
This is a huge pit that Descartes dug for later generations of philosophers.
It is the so-called mind-body problem.
How do our spiritual existence, the mind, and the material existence, the body, interact? It
can be said about the future development of philosophy of mind.
To a large extent, they are filling the hole dug by Descartes,
which is also answering Princess Elizabeth’s question to Descartes.
In fact, the root of this mind-body problem is what we call
consciousness and the relationship between consciousness and matter. The root cause of the problem of
mind-body interaction
is that Descartes had to insist on a kind of dualism.
He had to separate consciousness and matter into two different entities.
In order to solve the problem of mind-body interaction,
later philosophers generally believed that
we must abandon dualism and return to dualism. As for monism,
most of the monism before Descartes was idealistic,
that is , matter and spirit were well unified
through some Platonic idea or the Christian God.
But after Descartes,
it was all after the scientific revolution. In the world,
not many intellectuals are willing to take the road of idealism.
The current mainstream scientists and philosophers all follow materialism
, or to use a more common term in the academic world, it is called physicalism. Physicalism
is what we usually call
materialism. A version of
physicalism that combines the development of modern natural science. Simply put, it means that
all things that really exist in the world
are based on physics and can be described clearly by natural science
, including physics, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences.
In addition, if Things that cannot be explained clearly by physics are not real.
So if the phenomenon of human consciousness is described using physicalism,
it can only be described clearly using scientific language such as brain nerves, molecules, and atoms. At most,
one quantum is added.
Other than that, don’t do any mysterious chores.
This is physicalism.
Well, the next problem is that
since philosophers and scientists who insist on physicalism believe that matter determines consciousness
, they will face such a difficult problem
: the state of mind of consciousness. How is it derived from material things?
What is the derived mechanism?
Well,
in this episode,
let’s introduce several theories from the physicalist camp.
Let’s see how they fill the hole Descartes dug.
Let’s first introduce the relationship between epiphenomenalist
consciousness and matter.
Let’s first introduce it. Let’s introduce one solution in materialism,
which is epiphenomenalism.
Before explaining what epiphenomenalism is, let’s take a closer look. As
mentioned before, physicalists want to solve the problem of mind-body interaction.
In fact, they want to explain what consciousness is. Or
rather, it
can explain what our human mental state is.
However, since you are from the materialist camp,
when you use materialism to explain the human mental state,
you must follow the following two creeds
. Otherwise, Are you not a materialist?
Then these two tenets are:
first, observing the closed nature of physical cause and effect.
You can't just leave it here to perform power from a distance.
Second, observing that matter determines consciousness.
In other words, consciousness is a product derived from matter.
It is to use the scientific language of physicalism to describe the phenomenon of human consciousness
instead of doing any mysterious and complicated work.
Under the premise of adhering to these tenets,
the homework materialists have to do is
how to use the language of physicalism. It is to use scientific language to explain the human state of mind.
To resolve the somewhat mysterious sounding state of mind
using the language of physicalism
, that is, to write a clear description on the right side of the equal sign that can be explained clearly in the scientific language of physicalism.
Okay, so the answer given by
the epiphenomenalist on the right side of the equal sign for what is a mental state
is that the mental state is an epiphenomenon of the movement of matter.
What is an epiphenomenon?
English is by-products, which means by-products,
just like the smoke produced by the train, the shadow left by the billiard ball rolling across the table,
or the squeak made by new shoes.
You see, smoke, shadows and squeaks are all by-products. By-products
affect the operation of the system. They don't play any role.
They are just products of accompanying nature.
Let's draw a picture to explain it and it will be clear at a glance.
For example, if you watch the show Dialectic,
it is a physical event
, and you feel very happy in your heart
, and then something comes up in your brain. The desire to vote for a thumbs up
, and then move your finger to actually vote for a thumbs up.
These boxes are all physical events
, and these round boxes are mental states.
What really happens in this world is just the physics in the boxes. event
and the state of mind in the circle is just a by-product.
The box caused the circle, but the circle stopped there. The circle
will not cause any further events.
So you give Big Questions a thumbs up and a coin. What is
the correct way to describe this event? It is
you who saw this video, which triggered your brain activity
, and this brain activity triggered your action of tossing in coins and likes.
These are all conductive relationships between physical events.
You feel happy in your heart, and you want to toss in coins and like.
These mental states are just by-products
and will not trigger the next event.
If you look at the plan of epiphenomenalism, it avoids
the use of special functions to break the closure of physical cause and effect.
It also adheres to the creed that matter determines consciousness
. To put it bluntly, epiphenomenalism
means that your conscious phenomena are useless mental pollution.
Do you think that your reflection and imagination all day long will have an impact on your real life?
What you don’t have
is not that you first think about how I should live in your mind
and then you live according to your ideas.
Ask yourself
where do you come from so much reflection in your life?
You get up every morning, eat, go to work, fish, get off work, and talk. When you're in love or when you have children,
don't you just live how you should live according to the inertia of life?
You think about
everything all day long and a
robot who doesn't think about anything all day long, eats or drinks, doesn't take it to heart,
actually life doesn't mean much. The substantive difference.
The only difference between you and that robot is that
there is some extra mental pollution in your brain.
This is a simple summary of epiphenomenalism.
The
human mental state is a by-product of material movement
, but it itself will not cause new events. Now
that we’ve introduced epiphenomenalism,
let’s introduce some criticisms of it.
The first criticism of epiphenomenalism is
that it’s too counterintuitive, right?
What? Are mental states just a by-product?
The state of mind cannot cause the next event?
For example, if you like this video and vote for it, what
we intuitively feel is that it is
because we are very happy in our hearts that our mental state triggers the action of liking and voting for this video. For
example
, for example, for
example, if you have a girlfriend,
she She is very nice to you and waits for you to cook delicious dinner for you every day after work.
Epiphenomenalism insists on saying that she is very nice to you. It is not because of her inner love for you.
You insist on treating your girlfriend as a robot.
This love cannot be helped. Of course
,
if you think this criticism based on common sense is not strong enough,
there is another criticism from the perspective of evolution.
That is to say,
epiphenomenalism violates the principle of parsimony of natural selection.
This means that millions of Over the years,
nature has allowed us to evolve a brain trait that can produce mental states.
Epiphenomenalists actually say that these mental states are useless.
You must know that the energy consumption of our human brain is very large,
among all mammals. The mass of the human brain, which consumes the most energy,
only accounts for 5% of the entire body, but its energy consumption accounts for 20%.
A large amount of energy consumption is the result of conscious activities.
You epiphenomenalists can say that these energy consumptions are all useless. So
why did millions of years of natural selection
select such a useless but energy-consuming trait?
If it was really useless,
wouldn't it have been eliminated by natural selection long ago?
So this epiphenomenalism is a bit intellectually lazy,
and it is just a very simple and crude way to fill the hole Descartes dug
, right
? What? Do people have psychic phenomena?
Then cover your eyes,
I won’t look, I won’t look!
I pretended it didn't exist! I thought it was just an epiphenomenon!
Then we can maintain the closure of physical cause and effect.
It seems too easy to say this, right? After
introducing epiphenomenalism,
let’s introduce another materialist plan.
Behaviorism
’s answer to the relationship between consciousness and matter
is the materialist camp. There is also a solution called behaviorism.
What is behaviorism?
We don’t want to talk about dualism, material entities, spiritual entities, epiphenomena.
We don’t want to talk about essences, entities, etc.
These are all metaphysical presuppositions. To be clear,
you said you have a spiritual entity. Why don't you take it out and show it to me? If you
can't take it out, don't
talk about
it. Let's talk about it . Let's talk about things that can be actually measured.
What can be measured?
People. Behavior, to
put it simply, is what we Chinese say when discussing things, regardless of
your heart. Don’t talk about what you think in your heart.
We can’t explain it clearly.
We only look at what you do.
So the behaviorist explanation of people’s mental state is
the mind
.
State is equal to a person's behavioral tendency
. For example, someone comes to me and says, Mr.
What do I mean by love from the heart?
What is a deer collision?
How much do you like it from the bottom of your heart?
How many newtons of force did the deer collide with?
Can it break the phone screen?
I can't feel your heart.
Your heart is a black box to me.
Your love for this show
must be reflected in a way that everyone can measure.
For example, you should translate your love for this show. Cheng
Na, after observing your series of behavioral operations,
I can tell
that you really like this program.
So behaviorism focuses on input and output
, and what inner experience is experienced between input and output.
From the perspective of behaviorism, complex change
is a black box . Let's not talk about it.
We only look at the physical events at both ends of the input and output
, or only the stimulus and response.
Behaviorism does not presuppose any invisible and intangible mental entities
. It is necessary to eliminate all those things that cannot be measured or verified.
This is in line with the spirit of Occam's razor, which is "Don't add entities unless necessary.
So under this logic,
for example, your girlfriend treats you very well
every day . I cooked delicious dinner for you after work.
In this case, we can conclude that your girlfriend actually loves you very much. We
can determine the state of mind of a person through her actions,
even if your girlfriend is a robot.
As long as she is good to you in terms of behavioral tendencies,
she will truly love you.
In fact, this is also in line with
the spirit of the Turing test proposed by Alan Turing,
the father of computer science . The Turing test is a test used to test whether a computer has reached the level of human intelligence.
We don’t want to make conceptual definitions.
We don’t want to talk about what model this computer conforms to
or what advanced technology it is made of.
Instead, we use a behavioral approach to define it.
After you chat with this computer on QQ
for a long time, If you are not sure whether it is a computer or a real person,
then we can say that this computer has passed the Turing test and
has the level of human intelligence.
This is the behaviorist plan.
In a simple summary
, the state of mind is equivalent to behavioral tendencies.
Let’s not talk about it. Those invisible and intangible spiritual entities are black boxes.
We only look at the physical events at both ends of the input and output. Now that we
have introduced behaviorism,
let’s introduce its criticisms. Criticisms
of behaviorism focus on this point,
that is,
you behaviorists equate mental state with behavioral tendencies.
Is this too much?
Then if we want to refute your words,
we only need to find out
that there is a corresponding mental state but no corresponding behavioral tendency.
Then the equal sign you drew is wrong.
For example,
most of us will cry out if we are pricked by a
needle . Everyone will show a mask of pain
, but the question is, does feeling pain equal a mask of pain?
We can imagine that there is a well-trained actor
or a well-trained agent.
You torture him to extract a confession, for example, stick him with a needle.
He will not show pain due to years of training.
The mask will act very calm and He happily faces
a physical event like you pricking him with a small needle with a smile on his face.
But can you
conclude that he doesn't feel pain in his heart just because he doesn't show a mask of pain?
Therefore, the equation drawn by behaviorism is a bit arbitrary and too full of words.
In the final analysis, it must translate all mental states into behavioral tendencies.
But the question is,
can all mental states be translated?
There are a lot of duplicity scenes in our lives
, especially when facing our girlfriends.
If there are some mental states that you can't translate,
just ignore them as a black box
and use Occam's razor to eliminate the other person's thoughts. Then
I guess you'll never find a girlfriend. After
introducing behaviorism,
let's introduce another materialist scheme,
identity theory
. The original intention of identity theory is also to fill the hole Descartes dug.
Descartes had to insist on a kind of dualism
, and then Through a pineal gland, material things are transformed into spiritual things.
This creates a problem of interaction between the body and the mind.
The identity theory says that
we do not want dualism. We are staunch materialists.
All mental states can be reduced to physics. To be precise, the mechanism
is to restore it to the state of the brain
. Therefore, the answer given by the identity theorists on the right side of the equal sign is that
the state of the mind is actually the same as the state of the brain.
The state of the mind and the state of the brain are actually the same thing. They
are the same.
The "identity" of this identity theory "That's what it means.
This identity theory actually follows a reductionist approach.
What is reductionism?
Reductionism is a very typical physicalist approach,
which means that all high-order mental states can be reduced to low-level mental states. The identity theory
is to restore the mental state to the neural state of the human brain.
Of course, this identity theory also benefits from the development of brain science.
Brain science tells us that
your feelings and thoughts are actually a series of discharges of your brain's neural network. It’s just a process.
Each of your mental states
actually corresponds to a specific wiring state of the brain nerves.
For example, if you are pricked by a
needle, you feel pain
in your heart and shout: Ah! I feel pain.
In fact, according to the reductionism of identity theory,
this sentence should be translated as:
Ah,
my brain nerve C fibers are stimulated.
Then the claim of identity theory makes this theory very smooth,
and it solves the problem of flute very well. The pitfall of the mind-body interaction problem that Karl dug
is, for example, if you watch this video,
you feel happy in your heart
, and then you have the desire to like and throw coins
, and then you start to like and throw coins, and
use identity theory to explain
each of your actions. They all correspond to a neurological state.
One state triggers the next state.
Regardless of whether the event is a mental state or a physical state,
it can actually be reduced to one neurological state of your brain
triggering the next neurological state.
This solution avoids side effects. The bug between phenomenalism and behaviorism
is that they cannot explain that mental states cause physical states
because neither school admits the existence of mental states.
However, identity theory can explain it
because the causal relationship between any events is actually
a state of brain nerves. Does it make sense to say that there is
a causal relationship between the two? After
introducing the identity theory,
let's introduce some criticisms of it.
The criticisms of the identity theory can be simply summarized into two
points. The first is that it cannot explain the subjectivity of consciousness.
How do you say this?
One of the efforts of identity theory
is to translate all mental states into
brain states that can be studied through the third-person perspective.
Because the natural science of physicalism emphasizes the third person,
in fact, it is what we often call " "Objectivity"
but
can this kind of translation fully explain people's mental state?
It misses an important feature of human consciousness,
which is that consciousness is subjective.
Each of us can
intuitively experience that we are conscious and feel from a first-person perspective
. This subjective feeling is sometimes difficult. Use language to explain it clearly.
For example , if you translate the subjective experience of pain
into a third-person description of the state
, what does it mean? C nerve fibers are stimulated and
it doesn’t have that flavor. This
loses many important features of consciousness.
So this kind of The philosopher Thomas Thomas taught that it is incomplete
. Nagel conducted a thought experiment
to refute this reductionist physicalism.
He asked
what it was like to be a bat.
This question is a bit like Zhihu.
We know that
bats perceive the outside world through the echolocation of sonar.
Bats emit fast high-frequency screams and then perceive the direction through echoes.
Of course, as a scientist, you
can put a A bat was disemboweled and studied the sonar system on its body
to understand every detail of the bat's body structure.
But the problem is that
even if you study the physical structure of the bat more clearly,
do you dare to say that you have experienced the experience of being a bat? ?
Do you dare to post on Zhihu to answer this question?
You can't answer this question,
so Nagel believes that
mental states are not completely equivalent to brain states.
The identity theory is incomplete.
The second criticism of the identity theory is that
the identity theory equates mental states with human brain states.
This is a kind of carbon-based chauvinism.
What does this mean?
Does it mean that
only carbon-based materials like the human brain can produce the corresponding mental state?
Is your statement too arbitrary
? If the human brain were not made of carbon-based material,
it would not produce mental states?
Philosopher Hillary. Putnam used artificial intelligence as an example
.
Although we are currently technically unable to build
a computer that can produce a state of mind similar to that of humans
, it can be done in theory.
So if there is such a thing? A supercomputer
also has emotions and feelings. It
says it feels pain.
But we can say that
this computer does not have any C nerve fibers
, so the pain displayed by this artificial intelligence is not pain?
Simply put, Putnam’s attack on the identity theory is
that your identity theory tightly binds the state of mind to the state of the human brain,
as if only the carbon-based melon seeds of the human brain can produce the state of mind.
Then you This statement is too full and too arbitrary.
The state of mind can be completely realized by things other than the human brain
. Of course, this involves the so-called issue of multiple realizability,
which we will discuss later when we introduce functionalism. Now that we have introduced
the identity theory of materialism,
let’s introduce a materialist solution.
Elimination theory
regarding the relationship between consciousness and matter
is also considered a tough physicalism.
It can also be said to be an upgraded version of the identity theory we just introduced.
Even the radical version,
where eliminativism and identity theory have something in common is that
when we talk about things, we use the language of brain science
and don’t say that we are in pain.
But if
C nerve fibers are activated,
then there is no difference between elimination theory and identity theory?
There is still a difference.
Identity theory admits that there are mental states.
However, identity theory emphasizes reductionism and
advocates reducing all mental states to the physical activities of brain nerves,
which means pain, feelings,
beliefs, and desires in our daily language. Daily words such as , self, etc.
are all reduced to the physical activities of brain nerves.
However ,
elimination theory believes that
there is no such thing as
pain, feeling, belief, desire, self, and other mental states described in daily language
. These mental states described in daily language are all Illusions
, and these illusions do not correspond to any underlying neurological state at all.
They are just
the product of folk psychology.
What is folk psychology
? The so-called folk psychology can also be translated as "common sense psychology."
Folk psychology is what we just talked about.
These are the words that we ordinary people use to describe the state of mind in daily language,
such as belief, memory, desire, self, and reason.
But the elimination theorists will ask
whether these ordinary people's statements are scientific?
What is belief? What is self?
Can you see these things if you open your brain?
Elimination theorists believe that
most of the statements in folk psychology are illusions
and are just the product of poor scientific knowledge.
What is this like?
This is like the old days when witch doctors were popular,
when people explained illness as being possessed by the devil. But
later, with the development of science,
we now know that human illness is caused by bacteria and viruses
. Now people think that the explanation of devil possession is obviously an illusion.
The same goes for those folk feelings, beliefs, desires, and self.
The psychological view
is just like the witch doctors who equated illness with demon possession, which is
obviously just an illusion.
Elimination theory believes that the reason why there are many confusions, bugs
and controversial pseudo-problems
in the philosophy of mind for a long time is because you always Using the vocabulary of false folk psychology to talk about things
, so the solution given by the elimination theory is
not to mention the state of mind, which means nothing. What
people usually call the state of mind is just an illusion caused by folk psychology,
and it is not real at all,
so eliminate it. This
is what the
so-called "elimination" theory means.
We won't talk about folk psychology when ordinary people talk about it, but
philosophers and scientists are doing serious research. When discussing,
we should not use the vocabulary of common sense psychology
, but use scientific terms such as neurons, axons, dendrites, and neurotransmitters
to talk about things
. If this is the case, then what do the pits Descartes dug
include the mind and body? The problems of interaction and consciousness have
all been solved philosophically.
This is the solution of elimination theory.
After introducing the solution of elimination theory,
let’s talk about the criticism of elimination theory
. The first criticism of elimination theory
is based on common sense psychology. If you criticize elimination theory from the perspective of nursing,
you can say that
if you don’t find things in the brain
that correspond to common sense psychology such as pain, desire, and self,
then you can say that common sense psychology is wrong?
If this is the case, we can make an analogy, let’s
say this physics.
In addition to scientific physics, there is also folk physics or common sense physics. Scientific physics is
the Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics that
we have learned in textbooks. Ah,
the concepts used here are all
basic forces, quarks, quantum superpositions, gravitational fields, etc. However,
when we ordinary people chat in daily conversations, we
don’t talk about these scientific physics concepts
but about common sense physics concepts
. The concept of common sense physics, for example,
we will say that this thing is very big
, or that it is very hard, or that it is very soft
, or that this thing is easy to break
, or that thing is a bit far away
, or we will also say that this meat is edible.
We often say this
or that this fruit tastes a bit noodle. These
are common sense physics concepts that we people usually use.
But this is what we people usually use
, and it is very convenient and effective.
You can't say These common-sense physics concepts are not as scientific as those in textbooks,
so I said that this meat tastes a bit woody, so it is illegal to say
this. This is a criticism of eliminativism.
Of course, there is another criticism
, like identity theory,
eliminativism also advocates that everything should be eliminated. The description of consciousness is translated into a third-person description,
so it cannot explain the subjectivity of consciousness.
This is a criticism that is valid for all physicalism.
Regarding this criticism from the perspective of the subjectivity of consciousness,
we mentioned Neig before when criticizing the identity theory.
Here is a thought experiment like your bat.
Here we introduce another thought experiment,
which is also used to criticize physicalism for its inability to explain the subjectivity of consciousness.
In order to point out the incompleteness of physicalism,
various scholars have really used their imaginations to come up with all kinds of strange things. A thought experiment with a strange setting.
The thought experiment I want to introduce here is
called the Black and White Mary House Argument
proposed by the philosopher Frank Jackson . It says that there is a girl named Mary
who has lived in a house since she was a child. In
this house Everything is in black and white.
The TV in this house is also a black and white TV.
All the books in this house are also printed in black and white.
And Mary has been wearing a pair of special contact lenses since she was a child.
Even if Mary looks at her own skin, she will be Converted to black and white.
In short, everything Mary has seen since she was a child is black and white.
However,
Mary has also learned various knowledge about colors in this black and white room since she was a child.
What are the wavelengths of colors, how the human eye accepts various wavelengths,
etc. Mary was so familiar with this kind of knowledge about color
that she took a science test about color. Mary
answered fluently and got a very high score.
It can be said that Mary is a very outstanding color scientist.
Well, here comes
the following question, which has never been seen before . Mary, the color scientist who has experienced color,
if one day we took off her contact lenses
and opened the door of the black and white room, let her go to the outside world
and see the blue sky, clear lake water, and green grassland.
When Mary saw the big Will she exclaim
when seeing these vivid colors in nature?
Will she involuntarily say "oh my god"
or "fuck"?
As long as Mary says "fuck"
, then physicalism is incomplete. Why do you
say that? If you think about it,
if the third-person description of physicalism is complete,
then Mary, as a color scientist, should react by
harming these colors. I have learned them from textbooks since I was a child.
This feels like a
doctoral student seeing it. Why should she exclaim
when a primary school student should have a calm attitude when taking exams?
As long as she exclaims, it means that the third-person description of physicalism,
no matter how detailed and scientific the description,
cannot fully explain the experience of consciousness
, because the important feature of consciousness is Its subjectivity
is unclear in the third-person description of physicalism.
Of course, there will be many thought experiments that attack physicalism, which
we will introduce later. After introducing
elimination theory,
let’s introduce another kind of relationship between consciousness and matter. Solution
Functionalism
Speaking of this functionalism,
we can say that this theory is a mainstream theory in the field of philosophy of mind.
Of course, what I say may be a bit simplistic and crude
, because the philosophy of mind is also constantly being debated and developed.
Functionalism now also has many Development and Variation
Here we will briefly introduce a typical functionalist position.
How does functionalism respond to the problem of the relationship between consciousness and matter?
Functionalism fills in the answer to the right side of the equal sign.
As the name suggests, it is the functional state.
The mental state is equal to the functional state.
How do we say this?
We say that consciousness is derived from matter,
so how is it derived?
The typical physicalist answer to this
is the identity theory, which says that consciousness is the function of the human brain and the state of the brain.
Then the question arises.
When we introduced the identity theory before, we also pointed out whether this kind of criticism
must be based on the human brain. Only by planting melon seeds in the head made of carbon-based material can one produce consciousness.
Can't it be replaced by another material?
Identity theory believes that it is definitely not possible. It must be made of material such as the human brain.
Functionalism will say that in order to realize a function,
you can choose what kind of material you use at the bottom.
Consciousness and matter are not fixed in this way. The binding relationship.
Human consciousness is actually a functional state.
To achieve this functional state
, it does not necessarily have to be carbon-based brains such as the human brain.
Other materials can also achieve consciousness
through appropriate assembly and arrangement. Functionally,
this is equivalent to realizing the function of biting things.
No matter whether it is a denture made of porcelain or a denture made of metal, they
are all used the same.
This is the multiple realizability that functionalism emphasizes,
or it is called matrix neutrality.
In fact, The rapid development of functionalism in the 20th century
is due to the development of another discipline, that is, computer science. Computers
provide a good reference for us to examine issues of human consciousness
and the relationship between mind and body
. You think of it?
Computers are divided into hardware materials and Software program
, the relationship between our human body and mind
is like the relationship between computer hardware and software.
Let’s go back to the concept of multiple realizability just mentioned.
Let’s think about whether the computer satisfies multiple realizability
in order to achieve a certain kind of
We think that the development history of computers has also gone through different hardware materials.
The earliest
computer was developed by Charles. The computer designed by Babbage
is called the Babbage Machine.
The hardware of Babbage is composed of
brass gears, cylinders, control rods and various small mechanical devices.
If the Babbage Machine is assembled well,
it will be completely It can execute programs that computers can execute today
, such as playing a game of chicken
. Of course, this Babbage machine that can play chicken may be super huge,
but in theory, it can play a game of chicken
. We can update the functionalist formula that
mental state is equal to function.
If we hold a
machine functionalist position that regards the human mind as a computer program,
then mental state is actually equal to the program,
and our consciousness is equivalent to the computer. Programs
and our bodies, including the brain, are equivalent to computer hardware.
Although programs such as human consciousness are realized, they must rely on material hardware.
In terms of the philosophy of mind, consciousness is attached to matter,
that is, if there is no underlying layer. If there is no matter, then consciousness will be wiped out.
However, the relationship between consciousness and matter is not tightly bound
, but can be realized in multiple ways.
Just like the same software can run on different hardware,
human consciousness is not It must be realized by a carbon-based human brain.
A very sophisticated machine can theoretically realize human intelligence.
So functionalism has laid a theoretical foundation for the feasibility of strong artificial intelligence.
What is strong artificial intelligence?
A simple understanding is that artificial intelligence that has reached the level of human intelligence
is actually artificial intelligence that has passed the Turing test.
In addition,
functionalism has also laid the theoretical possibility for consciousness uploading.
The same software can run on different hardware.
You cannot do it here. When playing chicken on a computer,
the AK47 fires bullets from the front when the trigger is pulled.
After changing the computer, the AK47 fires bullets from the back. It is impossible that
the program in the software has the same function no matter which hardware it is running on.
What if it is For example,
if you are now in your 70s or 80s and feel that your body is getting older,
you can undergo a consciousness uploading operation
to extract your consciousness
and download it to a younger body.
Your perceptions, memories, desires, etc. The software is still the same as before, and
your life experience has been continued on the new hardware.
In this sense, you can completely
achieve immortality through consciousness uploading
. Of course, this realization of immortality is a bit science fiction. It is only a theoretical possibility. In
short, functionalism is the key word. It is "multiple realizability".
Consciousness is equivalent to software programs. The brain is equivalent to hardware.
Although consciousness is attached to matter,
human consciousness can be realized in multiple ways.
After briefly introducing functionalism,
let's introduce the concept of functionalism. Criticisms
of functionalism focus on this point,
which is that functionalism emphasizes
that mind equals function. The critics still use the same routine
, saying
that functionalists are saying too much again?
As long as the corresponding function is realized, it is considered to have a mental state?
Critics will look for counterexamples.
It achieves a certain functional state but does not have any mental state.
Criticism based on this
is actually a criticism of strong artificial intelligence
. In other words, even a supercomputer
can achieve various However,
it does not have the same mental state as humans .
There is a relatively famous thought experiment
to criticize this kind of strong artificial intelligence,
that is, the Chinese Room thought experiment.
Its proposer is the philosopher John.
Sercer is an American.
For English-speaking Americans, Chinese is completely garbled and incomprehensible.
If an American who doesn’t understand Chinese is locked in a small dark room,
a group of Chinese people
pass through the crack in the door. Communicate with the Americans in the room by stuffing notes underneath.
Of course, the Americans in this room cannot understand the Chinese characters on the notes at all.
However, in this small dark room, there is a large basket of notes with Chinese characters written on them
, and these notes have been It has been numbered
, and there is also a large rule book written in English in this room.
What rules are written in the rule book? For example,
if the outside of the house is stuffed in, the Chinese characters No. 1437 + Chinese characters No. 2486 + Chinese characters No. 94 + 532
Then the Chinese characters
for No. 325 + No. 2144 + No. 1828 are just the Chinese characters
that have the same meaning.
In fact, the situation is that
the Chinese outside put in a note saying
"Please tell a joke." "
After a while, a note came out and said,
I remembered that a weatherman, Xiao Wang, made the elephant angry again."
The Chinese outside looked at it
and said, "This is very understandable.
The people in this room are very funny."
Then they passed . After many rounds, a note was stuffed outside saying
"GLGJSSY"
and a note was stuffed inside saying "QYHFBQZ",
which is pretty much what it means.
Anyway, after many rounds,
the Chinese people outside the room concluded
that the person in the room must be someone who understands Chinese. But
the actual situation is that the Americans in the room don't understand Chinese at all.
He just mindlessly combines the notes according to the rules of the rule book.
Serge said
, isn't this the case of the so-called artificial intelligence that has passed the Turing test
? Americans are equivalent to an artificial intelligence.
Chatting with a Chinese outside the room is equivalent to a Turing test.
Then people outside the room mistakenly think that the people in the room understand Chinese.
Isn't this equivalent to mistakenly thinking that an artificial intelligence machine exhibits
various functional states? The supercomputer has a human mind.
However, the computer is only processing the rules of syntax.
It doesn't really have a human mind state
because it doesn't understand the meaning.
Just like the Americans in the room don't really understand Chinese.
This is Serge. Criticism of functionalism.
Nasser himself is opposed to multiple realizability.
He holds a so-called biological naturalism position,
saying that this kind of mental phenomenon unique to human beings cannot be separated from the underlying substrate and
is a kind of human brain. Biological attributes
must be generated by carbon-based human brains to taste like that.
Even if you create an artificial intelligence that can pass the Turing test
, but it can only process syntactic rules but cannot understand meaning,
it just doesn’t taste like
that . It's probably equivalent to what audiophiles say about
the difference in sound quality between speakers
powered by hydropower and speakers powered by thermal power.
It probably means something
like this. This is a criticism of functionalism,
which is that being in a certain functional state does not correspond to any mental state. After
introducing functionalism and its criticisms,
let’s introduce
attribute dualism
about the relationship between consciousness and matter, or about the relationship between consciousness and matter.
We have also mentioned before that the first person to dig into the mind-body problem
was Descartes in the 17th century . The answer he gave was a dualistic solution.
According to our middle school textbooks,
this was a solution that mixed idealism and materialism.
In the end, it was Will it fall towards idealism
? After entering the 20th century,
the mainstream solutions given by the philosophy of mind world are all biased towards physicalism,
including
the epiphenomenalism, behaviorism, identity theory, elimination theory and functionalism we introduced before,
which are all biased towards physicalism. Nowadays, few scholars in
the academic circle have retreated to the idealist position.
However, the
reason why this mind-body problem is still a controversial issue to this day
shows that this issue of consciousness is not a simple scientific issue.
If physicalism can combine consciousness with Easily explained
. So why is this philosophical issue still debated today?
Philosopher David. Chalmers divided the question "What is consciousness"
into two levels: simple questions and difficult questions. The
simple questions are how the brain is structured,
how the cranial nerves are wired, and how brain waves are discharged.
In short, it is based on physics. The third-person scientific language of ism can describe things clearly.
Although the current development of brain science, biology, and physics is limited and
cannot be fully explained technically
, in theory these technical issues are only simple ones
, while the difficult issues about consciousness are Why
are we conscious? And the phenomenal consciousness we have,
this phenomenal consciousness is what we mentioned before. The subjective experience of consciousness
means that each of us
can feel and experience our own consciousness from a first-person subjective perspective
, and this experience is difficult to describe clearly in words.
For example, when we see a piece of red
, it is not just the red wavelength
that stimulates our visual nerves. We can describe it clearly.
We will have an indescribable feeling about red.
This feeling cannot be expressed in the third person. The scientific description makes it clear.
In fact, this is what Mary mentioned in the black-and-white Mary's House argument mentioned before.
When she walked out of the house and saw
the colorful world with her own eyes, she said "f*ck".
Human's phenomenal consciousness is not simple. Molecules, atoms, and nerve fibers can be clearly explained. In
short, the problem of consciousness is difficult,
so Descartes proposed a dualism at the beginning.
This means that our description of the phenomenon of consciousness
must be the same as the description of matter. It’s different.
The description of consciousness must be self-contained
, so he came up with dualism.
But the problem is
that we
are now in 2021.
Is it possible that we still have to go back to dualism or idealism?
This is obviously impossible.
However, although Cartesian entity dualism cannot go back,
we can still choose an attribute dualism.
This attribute dualism is both compatible with physicalism
and maintains a certain independent existence of consciousness phenomena. What
is attribute dualism? What is the difference between it and Descartes' entity dualism?
Let's talk about it by looking at the pictures.
Descartes' entity dualism believes that there are two kinds of entities in the world,
one is the material entity and the other
is the spiritual entity.
The properties of material entities are the properties of extended spiritual entities.
So what does property dualism look like? Property dualism
is actually entity monism.
Property dualism believes that there is only one kind of entity in the world,
and that is material entity.
At this point, property dualism is physics. However
,
this material entity will show two attributes
, one is the material attribute and the other is the mental attribute.
Therefore, the attribute dualism equates
the mental state with the mental state equal to the mental attribute of the material entity
. And the key is
Mental attributes are independent of physical attributes.
How to understand that mental attributes exist independently of physical attributes?
For example,
a typical physicalism, such as identity theory,
would think that as long as matter is Once the configuration is in place
, for example, if the C fiber is activated
, then the mental state must be I feel pain.
Matter determines consciousness.
But attribute dualism will ask
you, is this too full?
Is there a
state where the material is in place but the spirit is not in place
? This is an old trick.
So in order to prove this point,
that is, to prove that spiritual attributes are independent of material attributes,
Chalmers did such a thought experiment
, which is about Arguments for philosophical zombies.
What is a
philosophical zombie? A philosophical zombie
is different from the zombies in Hollywood movies.
You can tell at a glance that the zombies in Hollywood movies are different from normal people.
However, philosophical zombies are different from zombies in terms of behavior and body structure.
He can't see any difference from normal people. In
fact, philosophical zombies are what we just said.
In terms of simple questions about consciousness, there is no difference between him and normal people.
The brain nerves are wired correctly, and the brain waves are also following the clock.
But
the only difference between philosophical zombies and normal people is reflected in the difficult problem of consciousness,
which is that
philosophical zombies have no subjective conscious experience.
For example, there is a philosophical zombie. His name is Robot Mr. Xia No. 1.
He usually looks smiling.
It's okay, but he also hosts a video show called Dialectic that is posted online.
If you give him three clicks, he will appear very happy,
but he doesn't really feel happy deep down.
He just acts very happy. In
fact, deep down in his heart, he
seems to have no emotion.
If you run over to him and
ask Mr. Xia, are you a philosophical zombie?
He will definitely appear to be denying it,
but do you think he is deliberately trying to lie to you?
Does he have any ulterior motives?
It's not that
he doesn't even have consciousness. What else is there on purpose?
Okay, then Chalmers will ask at this time
whether this kind of philosophical zombie who has no conscious experience
but is exactly the same as a normal person in terms of physical structure
is logically conceivable without falling into contradiction?
Well, since it is logically conceivable, then it is possible to exist.
So as long as it is possible to exist,
then physicalism is so full of words
that as long as the material is in place, the spirit will be in place, which is wrong.
Therefore, the mental attributes are independent of the physical attributes. The
proof is complete
. In fact, attribute dualism and functionalism are also inextricably linked.
When we introduced functionalism before, we also said that
the software of the mind is attached to the hardware of the human brain.
However, there is no connection between them. It is not a bound relationship
but an attribute that can be realized multiple times.
On this basis, dualists will further say
that the spiritual attribute of the human mind is attached to the material attribute,
but the mental attribute is irreducible to the material attribute.
You see?
The word "reduction" is a typical physicalist vocabulary,
but attribute dualists will refuse to use this word.
Let's take computers as an example.
Students who have studied computers know that
computers are layered and have
different levels of things. It has certain The degree of independence of
software-level things is attached to the hardware level,
but it cannot be restored to the hardware-level things.
For example, you use an AK47 to headshot the opponent in a chicken game
, but you say this game Can the scenes in the interface
find one-to-one corresponding components at the hardware level?
If you restore it downwards, you can only restore it to the transistor in the CPU
. Which wire in this transistor corresponds to the AK47?
You can't find it.
So our human consciousness is like software.
It is a spiritual attribute expressed by material hardware,
but it cannot be reduced to material attributes.
Spiritual attributes have their own independence
. Well, the following question arises.
Since this spirit Attributes are independent and do not depend on material attributes
. So the question is
where does this spiritual attribute come from?
This is the weakness of attribute dualists.
Scholars from other camps criticize attribute dualism mostly here.
The criticism of attribute dualism is reflected in the fact that
you say that mental attributes are not derived from material attributes
. So where did it come from?
You can't explain it clearly using physicalism or scientific methods.
It seems that you have returned to the nagging idealism.
Of course, some attribute dualists still try to use
language that is compatible with natural science to describe how mental attributes come from.
At present, there are two main theories
: one is emergence theory and
the other is panpsychism. Do you think
it is convincing? Emergence theory means that
consciousness is the product of the joint operation of the entire human brain neural network,
which means that
we are composed of Each neuron in the brain is unconscious,
but if they are connected together in an appropriate way,
consciousness will emerge
quickly.
But the problem is that
this emergence is only a post hoc description.
How did this emerge specifically? Does it have math?
Can emergent phenomena be artificially manipulated or predicted?
No one in the academic community can explain clearly
what the specific mechanism of emergence is.
Of course, scholars who support emergence theory will say
that the so-called "explain clearly" itself is a reductionist approach
that emphasizes Ding is Dingmao is Mao
, and our theory of emergence is Those of you who oppose reductionism
still expect us to use reductionist words to explain emergence theory clearly?
Bah,
we won’t be fooled by this.
There is another way to explain how spiritual attributes come from, which is panpsychism.
Panpsychism says
that just like all things have physical attributes,
all things also have spiritual attributes.
From the beginning of the universe Since there are physical entities,
all things have not only physical attributes, but also spiritual attributes.
Therefore, panpsychism answers the question of where the spiritual attributes come from,
or dispels them.
It is an inherent attribute of all things. Well,
we never ask where the material attributes of all things come from. In the same way,
everything has its own spiritual attributes from the beginning.
Isn’t it a natural thing?
This kind of spiritual attribute applies not only to living objects but also to non-living objects. The objects of life,
this means that
not only we humans and animals have spiritual attributes
, for example, a table or a stone also has spiritual attributes.
This does not mean that a stone also has consciousness,
but at least it can be said that
stones also have consciousness. There are weak signs
that mental properties are completely different from material properties,
so don’t use material properties to explain mental properties. That is,
you cannot simply use the language of physicalism to describe mental properties.
This is the logic of panpsychism.
The logic is quite clear. It is also very consistent with the presupposition of attribute dualism.
However, its problem is that
it is too incompatible with the physicalist scientific world view,
so it is still the same problem.
It cannot be explained clearly.
Well, this is an introduction to attribute dualism. Let’s
briefly summarize
the attributes. Dualism believes that mental states are equal to the mental attributes of material entities.
In this case, it opens up a certain space for the independent existence of the mind.
However, its problem is that
although attribute dualism strives to be compatible with physicalism
, it always has some unexplained idealism. There are elements of ism in it
, so there is still a bit of Cartesian dualism in it, which means that it works across the air.
Well, this is the scheme of attribute dualism.
Regarding the problem of the relationship between consciousness and matter, or the mind-body problem,
we have introduced seven schemes today.
They are
entity dualism
. The second alternative is epiphenomenalism, which
advocates that mental states are
independent and real entities. The
third alternative is behaviorism,
which advocates that mental states should be translated into behavioral tendencies.
The fourth alternative is identity. The
fifth approach is eliminativism, which advocates reducing mental states to brain activity. The
fifth approach is eliminativism
, which advocates eliminating mental states as an illusion caused by folk psychology.
The sixth approach is functionalism,
which advocates treating mental states as multiplexable. The seventh solution of the realized functional state or program
is attribute dualism
, which advocates that the mental state is the spiritual attribute of the material entity
and cannot be reduced to the material attribute. Among
the seven solutions introduced today about the relationship between consciousness and matter,
which one do you agree with more? Woolen cloth?
Of course , there are not only these seven options for exploring
the big issue of the relationship between consciousness and matter.
For example,
the recent development of philosophy of mind will be combined with European phenomenology to explore mind-body issues,
and some will be combined with China and India. Eastern philosophy explores mind-body issues.
Of course, we have skipped these solutions in this short program.
One is because it exceeds the outline.
The second one is mainly because it exceeds the time limit.
At the beginning, we also talked about
such a basic philosophical issue.
Basically, all philosophical schools will do it. Some of the plans introduced today
related to this issue
are only for friends to criticize and discuss.
Let us return to this big issue.
Obviously, the world is made of matter.
These matters can be clearly described by modern science, which is becoming more and more perfect.
They are nothing more than elementary particles performing basic functions. It is a basic movement under force
, but at the same time,
we can also feel that we have a soul.
We can feel that our hearts have feelings.
When we appreciate a beautiful painting, when
we recall our childhood,
when we can't help but feel... When we fall in love with someone,
can our inner feelings at this moment
also be explained clearly
using brain nerves, discharges, molecules, atoms, and quarks?
You are welcome to participate in the discussion on this big issue with the philosophers.
They have finished expressing their opinions.
Now it is your turn to speak
. Please cast your vote
and express your opinions.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
