[TomS]

Zitat von Timm

Ich habe mich, wie erwähnt, mit diesen Fragen nicht beschäftigt, vermute aber, dass sie in der Fachwelt strittig sind.

Davon kannst du ausgehen

Zitat von Timm

Du hast dazu viel gelesen, wie argumentieren jene, die die in dieser Post beschriebenen Annahmen (NN hat Bewusstsein, Gefühle ... ) ablehnen?

Ich fasse zunächst mal den Begriff der Erklärungslücke nach Wikipedia zusammen, was genau es da abzulehnen gilt; meine Ergänzung in [...]

Levine geht davon aus, dass der Physikalismus wahr ist, was impliziert, dass mentale Zustände [mit] physische[n] Zustände[n] [identisch] sind. Dies bedeutet nach Levine, dass sich die Existenz von mentalen Zuständen durch eine physikalische – bzw. eine neurowissenschaftliche oder kognitionswissenschaftliche – Theorie verständlich machen lassen sollte. Nun haben einige mentale Zustände jedoch die Eigenschaft auf bestimmte Weise erlebt zu werden. Auch diese subjektiven Erlebnisgehalte (Qualia) müssten durch eine vollständige naturwissenschaftliche Theorie erklärt werden. Nach Levine ist jedoch genau dies nicht der Fall. Kein physisches – oder neuronales – Ereignis könne verständlich machen, warum [und wie] etwas erlebt werde. Genau deshalb bleibe bei jedem Identifikationsversuch von physischen und mentalen Ereignissen eine Erklärungslücke bestehen.

Der Begriff der Erklärungslücke beschreibt das Bewusstseinsproblem in einem erkenntnistheoretischen und keinem ontologischen Rahmen: Levine will nicht zeigen, dass es sich bei mentalen Zuständen um nichtphysische Entitäten handelt. Vielmehr ist schon im Begriff der Erklärungslücke enthalten, dass es sich um ein nichtontologisches Problem der Erklärungsleistungen handelt. Genau dies unterscheidet Levines Analyse von eigenschaftsdualistischen Theorien wie der von David Chalmers, der in der Erklärungslücke das Scheitern des Materialismus sieht.

Zu einer Gegenposition ist das hier ist ganz gut:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia...tics_of_qualia
https://www.philoclopedia.de/2017/06...alia-wirklich/
https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennet...ryOfQualia.pdf


Dann noch einige kurze Textpassagen.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Illusional

According to illusionists (Dennett), conscious experience is an illusion. It certainly seems to us that conscious experiences, and thus qualia (at least in sense (1) of the four senses distinguished at the beginning of this entry) exist, but in reality there are no such things. Qualia are like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. It is not being denied here that through the use of our senses, we genuinely encounter a wide range of qualities, for example, in perception, colors, auditory qualities such as pitch and loudness, various textures and aromas. But the qualities so encountered are not properties of experiences; for we do not genuinely undergo any experiences. To be sure, when we introspect, it certainly seems to us that we are the subjects of experiences with widely varying phenomenal character. But we are wrong.

There is a possible weaker version of this view under which it is only qualia in senses (2)–(4) that are being repudiated. And in some passages, some adherents of illusionism seem inclined to endorse this alternative. Frankish, for example, holds that we are under an illusion in thinking that when we introspect, we come across special, private qualities. But he also says that consciousness is a matter of being related to the world in various informational and reactive ways. This suggests that he holds that consciousness really does exist and thus also qualia in sense (1). Still, there are other passages in Frankish that endorse the unqualified line, and overall he seems to accept the strong illusionist view.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/m.../#ArgForEliMat

Although most discussions regarding eliminativism focus on the status of our notion of belief and other propositional attitudes, some philosophers have endorsed eliminativist claims about the phenomenal or qualitative states of the mind (see the entry on qualia). For example, Daniel Dennett (1978) has argued that our concept of pain is fundamentally flawed because it includes essential properties, like infallibility and intrinsic awfulness, that cannot co-exist in light of a well-documented phenomenon know as “reactive disassociation”. In certain conditions, drugs like morphine cause subjects to report that they are experiencing excruciating pain, but that it is not unpleasant. It seems we are either wrong to think that people cannot be mistaken about being in pain (wrong about infallibility), or pain needn’t be inherently awful (wrong about intrinsic awfulness). Dennett suggests that part of the reason we may have difficulty replicating pain in computational systems is because our concept is so defective that it picks out nothing real. A similar view about pain has been offered by Valerie Hardcastle (1999). Hardcastle argues that the neurological basis for pain sensations is so complex that no one thing answers to our folk conception. However, despite her own characterization of pain as a “myth”, Hardcastle’s arguments appear to be aimed not at showing that pain is unreal, but rather that it is actually a more complicated phenomenon than suggested by our folk conception.

In another well-known article, “Quining Qualia” (1988), Dennett challenges not just our conception of pain, but all of our different notions of qualitative states. His argument focuses on the apparently essential features of qualia, including their inherent subjectivity and their private nature. Dennett discusses several cases—both actual and imaginary—to expose ways in which these ordinary intuitions about qualia pull apart. In so doing, Dennett suggests our qualia concepts are fundamentally confused and fail to correspond with the actual inner workings of our cognitive system.

Some writers have suggested an eliminativist outlook not just with regard to particular states of consciousness, but with regard to phenomenal consciousness itself. For example, Georges Rey (1983, 1988) has argued that if we look at the various neurological or cognitive theories of what consciousness might amount to, such as internal monitoring or the possession of second-order representational states, it seems easy to imagine all of these features incorporated in a computational device that lacks anything we intuitively think of as “real” or robust consciousness. Rey suggests that the failure of these accounts to capture our ordinary notion of consciousness may be because the latter corresponds with no actual process or phenomenon; the “inner light” we associate with consciousness may be nothing more than a remnant of misguided Cartesian intuitions (see also Wilkes, 1988; 1995 and Irvine and Sprevak, forthcoming).

A somewhat similar outlook has been proposed by Keith Frankish and others, and is commonly referred to as “Illusionism” about consciousness, a label designed to help indicate why it seems to us that phenomenal consciousness is real (Frankish, 2016, 2017). Illusionism is motivated in part by broader theoretical considerations, such as the problematic nature of consciousness from the standpoint of physicalism and the observation that even reductive accounts of phenomenal experience typically suggest some sort of misapprehension of what is really going on. Illusionism claims that introspection involves something analogous to ordinary sensory illusions; just as our perceptual systems can yield states that radically misrepresent the nature of the outer world, so too, introspection yields representations that substantially misrepresent the actual nature of our inner experience. In particular, introspection represents experiential states as having phenomenal properties—the infamous and deeply problematic what-it-is-likeness of our qualitative mental states. Illusionists claim that these phenomenal properties do not exist, making them eliminativists about phenomenal consciousness. What is real are quasi-phenomenal properties—the non-phenomenal properties of inner states that are detected by introspection and misrepresented as phenomenal.

An obvious challenge for such a view is explaining how we can experience something as having feature X without such as experience actually involving the real experience of X. It could be argued that even if the what-it-is-likeness is a feature of how we introspectively represent certain mental states, it would nevertheless be a real aspect of introspection—a feature that is perhaps relocated, but not removed. Famously, the illusion/reality gap seems to collapse when it comes to our inner experiences; as Searle puts it, “where consciousness is concerned the existence of the appearance is the reality” (Searle, 1997, p.122, italics in original). Frankish insists that we can introspectively represent ourselves as having a certain type of experience without actually having that type of experience: “...when we think we are having a greenish experience we are in fact merely misrepresenting ourselves as having one” (Frankish, 2016, p. 33). Illusionism thereby forces us to reconsider the sort of access we have to our own experiential states.