Incidentally, the lesson I take from Nagel’s paper is that it’s not really “common knowledge” that’s the problem, so much as the act of raising such common knowledge to public salience. (We may still refrain from publicly acknowledging even facts we’re privately quite certain that everyone else is also privately certain of, and so on.)
Richard4
Karma: 98
See also Nagel’s ‘Concealment and Exposure’:
“Admittedly nonacknowledgment can sometimes also serve the purpose of deceiving those, like children or outsiders, who do not know the conventions. But its main purpose is usually not to deceive, but to manage the distinction between foreground and background, between what invites attention and a collective response and what remains individual and may be ignored. The possibility of combining civilized interpersonal relations with a relatively free inner life depends on this division.
No, the real work is done by leaving unacknowledged things that are known, even if only in general terms, on all sides. The more effective are the conventions controlling acknowledgment, the more easily we can handle our knowledge of what others do not express, and their knowledge of what we do not express. One of the remarkable effects of a smoothly fitting public surface is that it protects one from the sense of exposure without having to be in any way dishonest or deceptive, just as clothing does not conceal the fact that one is naked underneath. The mere sense that the gaze of others, and their explicit reactions, are conventionally discouraged from penetrating this surface, in spite of their unstated awareness of much that lies beneath it, allows a sense of freedom to lead one’s inner life as if it were invisible, even though it is not. It is enough that it is firmly excluded from direct public view, and that only what one puts out into the public domain is a legitimate object of explicit response from others.”
For example:
“At the same party C and D meet. D is a candidate for a job in C’s department, and C is transfixed by D’s beautiful breasts. They exchange judicious opinions about a recent publication by someone else. Consider the alternative:
C: Groan....
D: Take your eyes off me, you dandruff-covered creep; how such a drooling incompetent can have got tenure, let alone become a department chair, is beyond me.
The trouble with the alternatives is that they lead to a dead end, because they demand engagement on terrain where common ground is unavailable without great effort, and only conflict will result. If C expresses his admiration of D’s breasts, C and D have to deal with it as a common problem or feature of the situation, and their social relation must proceed in its light. If on the other hand it is just something that C feels and that D knows, from long experience and subtle signs, that he feels, then it can simply be left out of the basis of their joint activity of conversation, even while it operates separately in the background for each of them as a factor in their private thoughts.”
Poke—“most ‘moral’ differences between countries, for example, are actually economic differences”
I’d state that slightly differently: not that moral differences just are economic differences (they could conceivably come apart, after all), but rather, moral progress is typically caused by economic progress (or, even more likely, they are mutually reinforcing). In other words: you can believe in the possibility of moral progress, i.e. of changes that are morally better rather than worse, without buying into any particular explanatory story about why this came to be.
(Compare: “Most ‘height’ differences between generations… are actually nutritional differences.” The fact that we now eat better doesn’t undo the fact that we are now taller than our grandparents’ generation. It explains it.)
Jess—“shouldn’t we all just grab a textbook on introductory moral philosophy?”
That would seem ideal. I’d recommend James Rachels’ The Elements of Moral Philosophy for a very engaging and easy-to-read introductory text. Though I take it Eliezer is here more interested in meta-ethics than first-order moral inquiry. As always, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good place to start (then follow up Gibbard and Railton, especially, in the bibliography).
On the other hand, one shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of good discussion. Better to reinvent the wheel than to go without entirely!
“moral progress, in my view, consists of better reasoning to make our morality more and more consistent”
Right, so morality is not our [actual, presently existing] “set of evolved norms” at all, but rather the [hypothetical, idealized] end-point of this process of rational refinement.
Try replacing every instance of ‘morality’ with ‘logic’ (or ‘epistemic normativity’ more broadly). Sure, you could create a mind (of sorts) that evaluated these things differently—that thought hypocrisy was a virtue, and that contradictions warranted belief—but that’s just to say that you can create an irrational mind.
I’m puzzled by Eliezer’s claim that anybody ever thought there were “universally compelling arguments”, that would convince every mind whatsoever. Who in the world (not made of straw) does not believe that irrational minds are possible? (We come across them every day.) Surely the not-transparently-ridiculous position in the vicinity he criticizes is instead that there are arguments which would be compelling to any sufficiently rational mind.
- 's comment on Conceptual Analysis and Moral Theory by (18 Nov 2014 20:17 UTC; 2 points)
- 's comment on Arguments against the Orthogonality Thesis by (23 Dec 2013 10:11 UTC; -2 points)
- 's comment on Magical Categories by (23 Jan 2014 17:29 UTC; -6 points)
- 's comment on Welcome to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013) by (20 Apr 2013 17:28 UTC; -11 points)
“Richard has credentials. I have competency.”
Funny. Again, just out of curiosity, what is your basis for thinking yourself philosophically competent? A self-gratifying intuition, perhaps? (Credentialing by acknowledged experts, though an imperfect guide, is at least some protection against quackery.) I haven’t even seen you make an argument, let alone a good one; all you do is make unsupported assertions and attempt to ridicule people who know more than you do. You appear to suffer delusions about your own abilities and the extent of your understanding. (As you say, “the inability… to perceive the wrongness with their arguments is generally insurmountable”—what puzzles me is why this doesn’t make you more humble about your own intuited greatness, given that nobody else is nearly so impressed.)
Now, you change the subject by shifting the burden to others, asking them to list the accomplishments of academic philosophy. (It’s beyond dispute that our understanding of thousands of philosophical problems has advanced significantly in the past century—just browse through any entry of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or my own dozen favourite ‘Examples of Solved Philosophy’—though of course philosophical progress does not readily translate into technological progress the way that progress in other disciplines can.)
The question HA is raising (and that I can readily confirm) is that you do not seem to know what you are talking about. From what I can tell, you are completely ignorant of the field of philosophy and the work that goes on in it; so there is no reason for anyone to take seriously the unargued denunciations you offer from on high. You don’t even know what it is that you’re denouncing. You are to philosophy what young earth creationists are to biology.
Of course, if you offer a reasoned argument then others may consider it on its merits. (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and all that.) But you lack the authority to make mere assertions and expect anyone to take your ignorant pontificating seriously. That’s all.
I’ve a new post - ‘Non-causal Talk’ - which points out some problems with Eliezer’s assumption that our words refer to whatever causes us to utter them.
I actually agree with the reductionist view about personal identity, though of course for very different reasons from Eliezer. (I think that identity-swapping is strictly inconceivable. There is no difference there in what the world is like, in stark contrast to the zombie or BIV case where we can understand the (albeit undetectable) difference in how things are.)
P.S. I’ve a new post explaining How To Imagine Zombies without variable question worries.
Eliezer—I also think the talk of ‘internal narrative’ is potentially misleading, since it brings to mind the auditory qualia or phenomenal feel of your thoughts, when really (I take it) you just want to talk about the underlying neural processing.
I won’t address the rest (it can’t be an empirical question what’s logically possible, etc.), other than to agree that we have some very deep-rooted disagreements here.
One final point bears noting though: my own fondness for the combination of zombies and epiphenomenalism may have inadvertently misled you about the state of the debate more generally. The two positions can come apart. So note that your arguments against epiphenomenalism are not necessarily arguments against the conceivability/possibility of zombies. (The latter view does not entail the former.) See Chalmers’ paper on Consciousness and its place in nature [pdf] -- esp. the discussion of ‘type-D’ and ‘type-F’ views—for more background.
Eliezer—your argument is logically invalid. (5) does not follow from (3) and (4) as stated. Note that the epiphenomenalist has a theory of reference/mental content according to which my thoughts about consciousness are partly constituted by the phenomenal properties themselves. That is, the qualia are part of “that-which-makes-me-think-I-have inward awareness”. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be having thoughts about consciousness at all. (Zombies don’t. They merely have brain states, which are not ‘about’ anything.) So I can grant that ‘consciousness’ refers to (part of) “that-which-makes-me-think-I-have” it, without it following that the object of reference (viz. phenomenal properties) are also present in the zombie world.
You can save the logical validity of the argument by tidying up (4), so that you instead assert that ‘consciousness’ must refer to the cause of my verbalization, or perhaps of the underlying brain state—build in some limitation to ensure that it’s some feature shared by any physical duplicate of myself. But then it’s a false premise, or at least question-begging—no epiphenomenalist is going to find it remotely plausible. And since we can offer a perfectly consistent alternative theory of reference, we are not committed to any logical inconsistency after all.
Jed Harris—you’re just reiterating old-fashioned radical skepticism. I might be deceived by an evil demon, or be a Brain in a Vat, or be deceived by alternative bridging laws into having the exact same experiences even if the physical world were very different from how I take it to be. Bleh. It’s a fun puzzle to think about, but it’s not a serious problem. Any adequate epistemological theory will explain how it’s possible for us to have knowledge despite the logical possibility of such scenarios.
Hal—our qualia are determined by physical states (+ the bridging laws), so no, we wouldn’t “feel chagrin” etc. (You seem to be assuming some kind of intuitive substance-dualist picture, where the soul does its thinking independently of its physical substrate. That’s not property dualism.)
Caledonian—why do you keep asking questions I’ve already answered? Once again, just follow my above link.
P.S. There seems to be a lot of confusion around about the targets of epistemic assessment, and what “rational brains” would conclude about the relative likelihood that they’re zombies, etc. I think this rests on some pretty fundamental philosophical errors, so will write up a new post on my blog explaining why.
Cyan—think of the million monkeys at typewriters eventually outputting a replica of Chalmers’ book. The monkeys obviously haven’t given an argument. There’s just an item there that you are capable of projecting a meaningful interpretation onto. But the meaning obviously comes from you, not the monkeys.
Credulous—I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. I think an agent could still have qualia without believing that this is so on a theoretical level. (Dennett springs to mind!) But I guess if you tinkered with the internal computational processes enough, you might eventually succeed in ridding the agent of [the neural underpinnings of] phenomenal representations (e.g. of pain) altogether. It would then behave very differently.
PK—Yep, you’re so very special that you’re the only discussant in this conversation who’s made entirely of straw!
Eliezer—thanks for this post, it’s certainly an improvement on some of the previous ones. A quick bibliographical note: Chalmers’ website offers his latest papers, and so is a much better source than google books. A terminological note (to avoid unnecessary confusion): what you call ‘conceivable’, others of us would merely call “apparently conceivable”. That is, you view would be characterized as a form of Type-A materialism, the view that zombies are not even (genuinely) conceivable, let alone metaphysically possible. On to the substantive points:
(1) You haven’t, so far as I can tell, identified any logical contradiction in the description of the zombie world. You’ve just pointed out that it’s kind of strange. But there are many bizarre possible worlds out there. That’s no reason to posit an implicit contradiction. So it’s still completely mysterious to me what this alleged contradiction is supposed to be.
(2) It’s misleading to say it’s “miraculous” (on the property dualist view) that our qualia line up so neatly with the physical world. There’s a natural law which guarantees this, after all. So it’s no more miraculous than any other logically contingent nomic necessity (e.g. the constants in our physical laws). That is, it’s “miraculous” in the same sense that it’s “miraculous” that our universe is fit to support life. Atheists and other opponents of fine-tuning arguments are not usually so troubled by this kind of alleged ‘miracle’. Just because things logically could have been different, doesn’t mean that they easily could have been different. Natural laws are pretty safe and dependable things. They are primitive facts, not explained by anything else, but that doesn’t make them chancy.
(3) I’d also dispute the following characterization: “talk about consciousness… arises from a malfunction (drawing of logically unwarranted conclusions) in the causally closed cognitive system that types philosophy papers.”
No, typing the letters ‘c-o-n-s-c-i-o-u-s-n-e-s-s’ arises from a causally closed cognitive system. Whether these letters actually mean anything (and so constitute a contentful conclusion that may or may not follow from other contentful premises) arguably depends on whether the agent is conscious. (Utterances express beliefs, and beliefs are partly constituted by the phenomenal properties instantiated by their neural underpinnings.) That is, Zombie (or ‘Outer’) Chalmers doesn’t actually conclude anything, because his utterances are meaningless. A fortiori, he doesn’t conclude anything unwarrantedly. He’s just making noises; these are no more susceptible to epistemic assessment than the chirps of a bird. (You can predict the zombie’s behaviour by adopting the Dennettian pretense of the ‘intentional stance’, i.e. interpreting the zombie as if it really had beliefs and desires. But that’s mere pretense.)
(4) I’m all for ‘reflective coherence’ (at least if that means what I think it means). I don’t see how it counts against this view, unless you illicitly assume a causal theory of knowledge (which I obviously don’t).
P.S. Note that while I’m a fan of epiphenomenalism myself, Chalmers doesn’t actually commit to the view. See his response to Perry for more detail. (It also addresses many of the other points you raise in this post.)
Caledonian, you may wish to reconsider who’s failing to listen to whom. Epiphenomenalists are well aware that phenomenal consciousness, as they understand it, plays no causal role in the world. This is indeed obvious. What’s not obvious is that it’s a fatal “flaw” in their view. You have a “strong conviction” that it is. Good for you. You still haven’t said anything that’s news to those you disagree with. Repeating common knowledge in a triumphant tone does not constitute an argument.
“the very smartest people have a hard time finding people capable of seeing through the arguments they make...”
Eh? You forget that top academics get positions in top departments, and so spend much of their time conversing with the other very smartest people around.
[tangent] Hi Brandon, you may find my post on The Problem of Other Minds to be of interest—note that the usual justification is to argue inductively from analogy (others are externally similar to ourselves, so most likely have similar inner lives).
I think you’re right that the diverse experience hypothesis (my red is your yellow, etc.) is ‘illogical’, at least in the weak sense of ad hoc or less than perfectly coherent/reasonable. It is logically possible, mind you—there’s no reason the would couldn’t have turned out that way, if the laws of nature had been different. But we are generally justified in believing that reality is governed by systematic laws. That is, a variation of Ockham’s Razor will prevent us from positing unnecessary arbitrary distinctions.
So you’re right that the diverse experience view is ‘baseless’. But note that it can’t be for the reason that it is “purely metaphysical with no implications for reality”. For the same could be said of the reasonable (and presumably true) view that in fact we both experience the same colour qualia when looking at a tomato. That too is a ‘metaphysical’ view with no scientific implications. But it’s also plainly reasonable. So, not all ‘metaphysical’ views are on a par. [/tangent]
Yes, this is old hat. See also my post on Misusing Kripke/Putnam, which explicitly explains why the analogy to ‘water = H2O’ (and similar a posteriori identities, like heat = molecular motion) is no help to the physicalist here.
Michael—unless I’ve misunderstood, athmwiji’s view sounds like good old-fashioned metaphysical idealism. It’s an interesting view, and deserves serious attention, but I don’t believe it myself because I think there could be a world (e.g. the zombie world) containing only physical stuff, without any need for “ideas” or phenomenal stuff. The idealist thus faces the same challenge as the materialist (just in the opposite direction): show me the contradiction in my description of the zombie world.
P.S. I use ‘scientism’ very precisely, to those who hold the indefensible assumption that empirical inquiry is the only form of inquiry (and associated verificationist claims, e.g. that only scientific discourse is coherent or meaningful). There was plenty of this sentiment expressed in the previous thread. (A couple of commenters even expressed their inability to distinguish between philosophy and religion, which is of course the primary symptom of scientism.) I suspect that this is one of the most common forms of bias among the scientifically educated but philosophically ignorant population. It would be interesting to see it (seriously) discussed here sometime.
Doug S. - see here for one objection to Fyfe’s view.