Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Intentionality” explained:

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 

A good place to begin understanding why consciousness is not strictly reducible to the material is in looking at consciousness of material objects — that is, straightforward perception. Perception as it is experienced by human beings is the explicit sense of being aware of something material other than oneself. Consider your awareness of a glass sitting on a table near you. Light reflects from the glass, enters your eyes, and triggers activity in your visual pathways. The standard neuroscientific account says that your perception of the glass is the result of, or just is, this neural activity. There is a chain of causes and effects connecting the glass with the neural activity in your brain that is entirely compatible with, as in Dennett’s words, “the same physical principles, laws, and raw materials that suffice” to explain everything else in the material universe.

Unfortunately for neuroscientism, the inward causal path explains how the light gets into your brain but not how it results in a gaze that looks out. The inward causal path does not deliver your awareness of the glass as an item explicitly separate from you — as over there with respect to yourself, who is over here. This aspect of consciousness is known as intentionality (which is not to be confused with intentions). Intentionality designates the way that we are conscious of something, and that the contents of our consciousness are thus about something; and, in the case of human consciousness, that we are conscious of it as something other than ourselves. But there is nothing in the activity of the visual cortex, consisting of nerve impulses that are no more than material events in a material object, which could make that activity be about the things that you see. In other words, in intentionality we have something fundamental about consciousness that is left unexplained by the neurological account.

Raymond Tallis, emeritus professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Comments
It would be a shame if this interesting OP got derailed in to a discussion of the evolution of vision, but I must take issue with GilDodgent here:
Light reflects from the glass, enters your eyes, and triggers activity in your visual pathways.
The problem with Darwinists is that they never consider the astronomically complex engineering that would be required to produce such a phenomenon.
Well, yes, we do :) Or at any rate, if you count most biologists and vision scientists and neuroscientists as "Darwinists" which you probably do.
This is perfectly understandable, of course, because the typical Darwinist is a complete ignoramus concerning even the most trivial engineering principles.
Well, I'm not sure what you call a "typical" Darwinist, but I have never met a biologist, vision scientist or neuroscientist who was a "complete ignoramus concerning even the most trivial engineering principles". Some of my colleagues even have engineering degrees, and in the field of AI vision scientists are almost indistiguishable from engineers.
The Darwinist waves his hands in the air, proclaims that spontaneous generation turned dirt or “the primordial soup” into a highly complex information-processing system in the first living cell,
Name one; not only name one, but name one who asserts that such a vanishingly unlikely event, should have even occurred, could be explained by "Darwinism".
and then asserts that random errors introduced into this highly complex information-processing system turned that cell into Mozart in 10^17 seconds with hopelessly inadequate probabilistic resources. This is fantasy. Silliness.
It is indeed. It is a complete straw man.
A bizarre disconnect from reality, logic, and any notion of basic scientific reasoning.
Which is why nobody with any grip on reality and logic, or any notion of basic scientific reasoning proposes such a thing.
How do these arguably intelligent people live with such nonsensical anti-reason? I know why, because I was once one of them. I’ll give you the answer in a future post.
Well, I can give you your answer now: if that's what you thought the reasoning behind evolutionary theory was, you took a very sensible decision in abandoning it! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As for the piece referenced in the OP: I've read it now (and also checked my copy of Consciousness Explained, and Dennett is indeed using "in principle"! mockingly, and the view expressed is not his own). However I do not blame Tallis for missing the point, as he seems to have misunderstood Dennett's book in its entirety. I find it a very odd article. For a neuroscientist (perhaps because his experience is in neurology and stroke rather than psychiatry and cognitive psychology) he seems to have an oddly regional approach to brain function. I'm not at all sure what point he is even making, other than "consciousness can't be localized". No, it can't. But he himself is a "distinguished supporter of the British Humanist Association http://www.humanism.org.uk/about/people/distinguished-supporters, and on accepting the honour, wrote:
I feel deeply honoured and am delighted to accept. I am, of course, a humanist and see my work as a doctor and as a philosopher as respectively an expression of, and as setting out the case for, my humanist convictions. My trilogy on human consciousness - very generously reviewed by A C Grayling, another of your Distinguished Supporters - which was published by Edinburgh University Press is an attempt to characterise human beings in a way that avoids both supernaturalism and the rather bleak (and erroneous) naturalism of some writers.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/about/people/distinguished-supporters/Professor-Raymond-Tallis-FMedSci I must say, I don't think he succeeds.Elizabeth Liddle
June 17, 2011
June
06
Jun
17
17
2011
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Neil Rickert:
Nothing could be clearer, than that the eye is not the result of any kind of engineering design. Instead of a high precision lens, the organism uses a bag of jelly to focus the light.
Is this an accurate description of all known types of eyes in the biological world? For example, the trilobite eye? What would be the biological consequences of having a high-precision lens type eye? Basically, as I see it, your argument boils down to this here particular type of eye cannot be designed, because I can think of a different way the eye could have been designed taht I think would have been a better design. Weak. Very weak. But then, if that's all you've got I guess you have to trot it out and hope for the best.Mung
June 17, 2011
June
06
Jun
17
17
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Neil Rickert stated: 'Nothing could be clearer, than that the eye is not the result of any kind of engineering design." I guess beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder; :) "How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art…. Was the Eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?" - Sir Isaac Newton What astonishes me is that evolutionists are so easily led astray by the dubious bad design argument when the staggering level of complexity is so readily apparent: The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera. It can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages, contains over 2 million different working parts, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain. The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells, 130 million rods (allowing the eye to see in black and white), and 7 million cones (allowing the eye to see in full color). In an average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, using muscles that, milligram for milligram, are among the body’s strongest. The body would have to walk 50 miles to exercise the leg muscles an equal amount. The eye is self-cleaning. Lacrimal glands produce secretions (e.g., tears) to flush away dust and other foreign materials. Eyelids act as windshield washers. The blinking process (3-6 times a minute) keeps the sensitive cornea moist and clean. And, tears contain a potent microbe-killer (lysozyme) which guards the eyes against bacterial infection. During times of stress, one eye will “rest” while the other does 90% of the work; then the process is reversed, allowing both eyes equal amounts of rest. The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones. There are about seven-million shades of color the human eye can detect. It takes 200 million billionths of a second for the retina to create vision from light. The eye is so sensitive it can detect a candle one mile away. One type of light sensitive cell, the rod, can detect a single photon. For visible light the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye. There is a biological computer in the retina which processes and compresses the information from those millions of light sensitive cells before sending it to the visual cortex where the complex stream of information is then decompressed. While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second. The human is the only species known to shed tears when they are sad. In spite of this stunning evidence evolutionists use a very dubious and philosophically based "bad design" argument to try to undermine the obvious Theological implications. Something tells me evolutionists are not being fair with the evidence. And all this begs the question for the evolutionists; Can you go into your laboratory and design a better eye by random mutations? Optimized hardware compression, The eyes have it. - February 2011 Excerpt: the human visual processing system is “the best compression algorithm around”. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/optimised-hardware-compression-the-eyes-have-it/ the inverted retina, which evolutionists insist is "bad design", is now found to be a 'optimal design: Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-ken-miller-is-right-about-our-backward-retina/#comment-354274 "Evolution" gave flawed eye better vision Excerpt: IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. ,,, Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages. At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and "noise" that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157 Why the eye is better than a camera at capturing contrast and faint detail simultaneously - May 2011 quote; 'The human eye long ago solved a problem common to both digital and film cameras: how to get good contrast in an image while also capturing faint detail.' (of note; saying the human eye 'solved' these problems is ridiculous. A eye can 'see', but it takes a mind to 'see' into the future so as to anticipate these problems and devise solutions.) http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-05-eye-camera-capturing-contrast-faint.html Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye - Molecular Animation http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4189562/bornagain77
June 17, 2011
June
06
Jun
17
17
2011
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Neil Rickert:
Nothing could be clearer, than that the eye is not the result of any kind of engineering design.
Yet there isn't any evidence that it is the result of the accumulation of genetic accidents. NR:
As a result, there is a lot of distortion (spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, astigmatic effects) in what shows up on the retina. There is no sign of that “complex engineering”.
Strange how baseball players can hit a small sphere traveling over 90 mph with only hundreths of a second to respond.Joseph
June 17, 2011
June
06
Jun
17
17
2011
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
The problem with Darwinists is that they never consider the astronomically complex engineering that would be required to produce such a phenomenon.
Nothing could be clearer, than that the eye is not the result of any kind of engineering design. Instead of a high precision lens, the organism uses a bag of jelly to focus the light. As a result, there is a lot of distortion (spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, astigmatic effects) in what shows up on the retina. There is no sign of that "complex engineering".Neil Rickert
June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
Light reflects from the glass, enters your eyes, and triggers activity in your visual pathways. The problem with Darwinists is that they never consider the astronomically complex engineering that would be required to produce such a phenomenon. This is perfectly understandable, of course, because the typical Darwinist is a complete ignoramus concerning even the most trivial engineering principles. The Darwinist waves his hands in the air, proclaims that spontaneous generation turned dirt or "the primordial soup" into a highly complex information-processing system in the first living cell, and then asserts that random errors introduced into this highly complex information-processing system turned that cell into Mozart in 10^17 seconds with hopelessly inadequate probabilistic resources. This is fantasy. Silliness. A bizarre disconnect from reality, logic, and any notion of basic scientific reasoning. How do these arguably intelligent people live with such nonsensical anti-reason? I know why, because I was once one of them. I'll give you the answer in a future post.GilDodgen
June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
uoflcard (#5)
All other biological sciences, by your logic, are also trying to find the “design” of everything in biology, if by that you mean why things work.
I am not suggesting that at all. If anything, biology has been criticized as mostly cataloging. It is evolutionary theory which has changed that. My comment about trying to find "design" was particularly related to the issue of intentionality. Philosophers adopt something like a design stance, look at language as a symbolic representation system, and then they find that they have to invent the intentionality problem to fill in the resulting gaps. Tallis writes: "Consider your awareness of a glass sitting on a table near you. Light reflects from the glass, enters your eyes, and triggers activity in your visual pathways. The standard neuroscientific account says that your perception of the glass is the result of, or just is, this neural activity." That's a designers way of looking at things. That's how the AI people look at it in their attempts to design an artificially intelligent agent. But maybe that's the wrong approach. Perhaps we should go with J.J. Gibson's ecological approach, his ideas of direct perception, where the idea of looking outward is the starting point.Neil Rickert
June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Neuroscience is attempting to find the “design”. If it cannot succeed, that should count as evidence against intelligent design. My blog posts on a natural basis for purpose have been attempting to point to a different way of addressing these issues.
I fail to follow this statement for two main reasons. 1.) It does not accurately reflect the claims of ID. ID does not say that things in biology are intelligently designed because we have found the "designs", but because what we find is best explained by intelligence. There are some things that could be argued to be "designed" but are explicable by natural causes (like a river bed that transports water to the nearest larger body of water). A sewer system generally does the same thing, but its components are not explicable by anything but intelligence. Water and gravity, given millions of years, will not form pipes, valves, elbows, etc. 2.) All other biological sciences, by your logic, are also trying to find the "design" of everything in biology, if by that you mean why things work. If a failure to do this is "evidence against intelligent design", then successfully finding designs should count in favor or ID, right? So then all of mainstream biology is doing science in pursuit of ID. And since we have discovered thousands/millions of different designs in biology, then ID is confirmed and who cares if neuroscience also backs it?uoflcard
June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Something odd here - Tallis writes:
This critique of the neural theory of consciousness will begin by taking seriously its own declared account of what actually exists in the world. On this, I appeal to no less an authority than the philosophy professor Daniel Dennett, one of the most prominent spokesmen for the neuroevolutionary reduction of human beings and their minds. In his 1991 book Consciousness Explained, Dennett affirms the “prevailing wisdom” that
there is only one sort of stuff, namely matter — the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology — and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain.... We can (in principle!) account for every mental phenomenon using the same physical principles, laws, and raw materials that suffice to explain radioactivity, continental drift, photosynthesis, reproduction, nutrition, and growth.
So when we are talking about the brain, we are talking about nothing more than a piece of matter. If we keep this in mind, we will have enough ammunition to demonstrate the necessary failure of neuroscientific accounts of consciousness and conscious behavior.
Now, I don't have my copy of Consciousness Explained to hand, so I will check later, but IIRC this passage represents Dennett taking a pot shot at the view it expresses. Note the way he inserts "(in principle!)". Dennett is actually, here, attacking the notion that we can "in principle" account for the mind in such reductionist terms. In fact, that is his his whole point - that the mind cannot be understood from what he calls the "physical stance". We must ascend first to a "design stance" and them to an "intentional stance". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance#Dennett.27s_three_levels I won't level the vexed charge of "quotemine" here, because I'm sure Professor Tallis has honestly mistaken Dennett's position, but mistaken it he has, as should be clear not only from the context of the quote (which I will check), but from the whole corpus of Dennett's work, including his "three levels" approach outlined in the wiki link. There's a better summary of Dennett's position here, for anyone interested: http://www.consciousentities.com/dennett.htmElizabeth Liddle
June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
From the extract you give, Tallis seems to be underestimating neuroscience. Neuroscience does not posit a solely "inward causal path", although clearly there are inward causal paths. But there are also outward causal paths, interacting causal paths and looping causal paths. And it is these that give us a basis for formulating a neuroscience of consciousness. But I'll read the whole piece later. Thanks for posting it (a title would be useful!)Elizabeth Liddle
June 16, 2011
June
06
Jun
16
16
2011
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
You somehow managed to post that without a title. I hope that can be fixed. I have not yet finished reading the cited article. I may have more to say on the topic when I have had time to finish reading it. I will make one quick comment. Neuroscience is attempting to find the "design". If it cannot succeed, that should count as evidence against intelligent design. My blog posts on a natural basis for purpose have been attempting to point to a different way of addressing these issues.Neil Rickert
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
so, again, what does this have to do with ID? That once again this is evidence of a non-material designer? or that we have souls?paragwinn
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply