What's wrong with functionalism?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Griffin
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 5th, 2018, 1:59 pm

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Griffin »

Namelesss wrote: February 7th, 2018, 1:49 am
There is plenty of science and philosophy in support of what I offered.
And, practically none to support that the wet lump of meat rattling around in our skulls manufactures thought and Consciousness.
An acquaintance of mine is currently dying of a brain tumour. As the tumour grows, she is progressively being robbed of the abilities she used to have that depend on her consciousness, such as the ability to concentrate, the ability to construct coherent sentences, etc.. This is evidence that her brain has hitherto been manufacturing her consciousness, and is still doing so, but the damage to her brain is causing the consciousness it creates to be more and more defective.

I don't think this is PROOF that her brain is manufacturing her consciousness, but it is certainly EVIDENCE that it is, in both science and philosophy, and I think there is plenty of such evidence around.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Consul »

JamesOfSeattle wrote: February 6th, 2018, 4:03 pmFrom the functional/subjective perspective it is entirely possible that all of the mental things that happen happen in a non-physical soul.
It's entirely impossible, because nothing can happen in a non-physical soul that is nothing but a 0-dimensional point. Such a thing doesn't have any inside or interior, since it doesn't have any (nonzero) volume. So nothing can exist or occur in, inside, or within an immaterial and spatially unextended soul. A 0-dimensional "soul-point" has no form or internal structure, and it has no surface either which is a boundary between inside and outside.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Consul »

Namelesss wrote: February 6th, 2018, 2:40 pm As far as the (erroneous) obsolete notion of 'causality';
"'Cause' and 'effect' is a clumsy way to say; two mutually arising opposite Perspectives of the same One Event!"
Causation is a non-reflexive relation: nothing can be a cause of itself.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Hereandnow »

Jamesofseatle:
Functionalism probably doesn't hold up to that reality, but then I think that reality is mistaken and not worth believing.
What could you possible mean by this term 'reality'? Your word, once you use it. If you have elucidation on this, the proposition has no value. Not to antagonize, but it is a very strong position you have and you need to be clear.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Hereandnow »

NO elucidation! If you have NO elucidation on this.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Consul wrote: February 7th, 2018, 4:16 pm
JamesOfSeattle wrote: February 6th, 2018, 4:03 pmFrom the functional/subjective perspective it is entirely possible that all of the mental things that happen happen in a non-physical soul.
It's entirely impossible, because nothing can happen in a non-physical soul that is nothing but a 0-dimensional point.
A few replies come to mind:
1. How do you know what a soul is?
2. If string theory is right and there are ten dimensions, maybe a soul is using four of the other dimensions?
3. “In” was a figure of speech. Maybe a soul can perform all the mental functions without extension. Maybe I should have said “by a non-physical soul”.

*
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Hereandnow wrote: February 7th, 2018, 5:02 pm What could you possible mean by this term 'reality'? Your word, once you use it. If you have elucidation on this, the proposition has no value. Not to antagonize, but it is a very strong position you have and you need to be clear.
By reality I mean a combination of two things:
1. Things that physically exist (as determined by their ability to interact with other things). So, matter.
2. Patterns (abstractions), which are real but don’t necessarily exist in the physical sense. Some patterns can be discerned in physical things, some cannot.

Do you need more?

*
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Hereandnow »

Jamesofseatle:
By reality I mean a combination of two things:
1. Things that physically exist (as determined by their ability to interact with other things). So, matter.
2. Patterns (abstractions), which are real but don’t necessarily exist in the physical sense. Some patterns can be discerned in physical things, some cannot.

Do you need more?
"Physically exist as determined their ability to interact with others?" Are you saying that physicality is something determined by interactions with others? Are you making a case for a social definition of what is Real? Please say more.

Patterns which are real, but not in the physical sense: they are real but not physical. But you say physicality is something determined by interaction with others. So, these patterns which are real, are not social constructs, per above?

A bit confused, but I take it that you think reality is problematic, ineffable and alien to analysis, and you should just say this rather than give definitions. My issue lies with taking something like functionlism and thinking this theory has encompassed the expanse of what it is to be human. Here is the issue, if you care to consider: We are here in the world, and the world is not, in its full analysis, eternally FOR something else, which is what functionlism tells us, that is, as a function to produce, to bring about, to foster. The world we live in is valuative, and in it experience is value, it is that which functions are about. This issue comes down value-in-Being. This, I will grant you, is transcendental, but it is the be all and end all.

Does not functionalism reduce experience to forward looking-ness, rather than that which is at hand? It is the presence at hand that is Reality, I would argue.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Hereandnow wrote: February 7th, 2018, 8:13 pm"Physically exist as determined their ability to interact with others?" Are you saying that physicality is something determined by interactions with others?
No, I said as determined by their ability to interact with other things. This is just a materialist view. Atoms exist because they bounce off other atoms, more or less. If there is something that doesn't interact with any of the matter that we know about, then there is no way for us to know it exists, and it doesn't matter anyway (pun not intended).
Patterns which are real, but not in the physical sense: they are real but not physical. But you say physicality is something determined by interaction with others. So, these patterns which are real, are not social constructs, per above?
A social construct is an abstraction, so, a pattern.
A bit confused, but I take it that you think reality is problematic, ineffable and alien to analysis, and you should just say this rather than give definitions.
But I think reality is quite effable. [Doing quick look up of "effable": able to be described with words ... yup] Neither is it problematic nor alien to analysis.
Here is the issue, if you care to consider: We are here in the world, and the world is not, in its full analysis, eternally FOR something else, which is what functionlism tells us, that is, as a function to produce, to bring about, to foster.
Depends on what you mean by "the world". By the world, I mean whatever exists (see above). So I agree that the world is not FOR something else. However, under certain circumstances, including the circumstances that gave rise to life, FORness can emerge in subsets of the world.
The world we live in is valuative, and in it experience is value, it is that which functions are about.
If by "the world we live in" you mean "the sum of our thoughts and experiences", as opposed to the world that exists out there as per above, then I would agree. But what you are talking about, I think, is necessarily from the perspective of one of those functional subsets of the world just mentioned. From the perspective of one of those subsets, everything is about value and function. Thus, from that perspective, everything is functional, thus functionalism.
Does not functionalism reduce experience to forward looking-ness, rather than that which is at hand?
Actually, not quite. Purpose is an explanation of how the system came to be. The functions of the system were developed for that purpose. But once the system exists, the purpose is irrelevant. The purpose could be gone, but the functions continue on. Also, things can be re-purposed.
It is the presence at hand that is Reality, I would argue.
I agree, but only from the perspective of an (emergent) functional system.

*
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Hereandnow »

"I agree, but only from the perspective of an (emergent) functional system."
Then how is that an emergent functional system, like myself, acknowledges anything that is not a function? If it is true, as you say, that presence is Real, but we are essentially and exclusively functional systems, what is Real must be analyzable in functionalist terms. Rorty is like this, and there is much in its favor, accept that there is nothing of presence in this, or, presence is acknowledged, as it is with you, but interpreted pragmatically, that is, as a pragmatic dynamic of a history of problem solving. It rests "beneath" the episodic presence of things, and the Isness that rises is no more than a reification of familiarity, a habit of perception and pragmatic "knowing."

I am guessing this in the vicinity of your position. And like I said earlier, it does nothing whatever to address value: this discomfort here, that pleasure, this music, that second degree burn. If it were the case that the world's presence were simply an acknowledgement, as one acknowledges disinterestedly an object, a cloud passing by, then a case could be made, but this is clearly not the case. The world is Being-in-Value, not Being-Here. Value is the Real. It is omnipresent in human experience and it makes the Real, real; not qualia, but value. Value is why the Turing test fails. Find me a computer that can care AND carry on a conversation, well, that would be a test, indeed.
Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Namelesss »

Griffin wrote: February 7th, 2018, 1:55 pm
Namelesss wrote: February 7th, 2018, 1:49 am
There is plenty of science and philosophy in support of what I offered.
And, practically none to support that the wet lump of meat rattling around in our skulls manufactures thought and Consciousness.
An acquaintance of mine is currently dying of a brain tumour. As the tumour grows, she is progressively being robbed of the abilities she used to have that depend on her consciousness, such as the ability to concentrate, the ability to construct coherent sentences, etc.. This is evidence that her brain has hitherto been manufacturing her consciousness,
Nonsense, and a non-sequitur fallacy.
Because you alter the parameters of a measuring device does not speak to the device nor to any differences in the perceived results after altering the context of the moment.
All moments are unique.
We perceive differently when an infant as opposed to a teenager.
Reality didn't 'change', Consciousness didn't change, merely the Perspective is different/unique, all the time.

and is still doing so, but the damage to her brain is causing the consciousness it creates to be more and more defective.
Again, nonsense!
Consciousness cannot be 'defective', and has never been shown to be so.
Hell, it has never even been defined, it cannot!
What you are suggesting is very short sighted and probably is rooted in some belief or other. Science does not support it.
Neither does philosophical enquiry.
Did you read the food for thought I offered?
Once more; materialism/physicalism is a long obsolete theory, gone with the 'objective observer' and such idealistic and 'street obvious' theories.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Hereandnow wrote: February 7th, 2018, 9:56 pm "I agree, but only from the perspective of an (emergent) functional system."
Then how is that an emergent functional system, like myself, acknowledges anything that is not a function?
A function takes an input and generates/specifies an output. So the input is not a function and the output is not a function.
I am guessing this in the vicinity of your position. And like I said earlier, it does nothing whatever to address value: this discomfort here, that pleasure, this music, that second degree burn.
Value is an implicit part of function. If the function works properly, the output is valuable relative to the purpose.
If it were the case that the world's presence were simply an acknowledgement, as one acknowledges disinterestedly an object, a cloud passing by, then a case could be made, but this is clearly not the case. The world is Being-in-Value, not Being-Here. Value is the Real. It is omnipresent in human experience and it makes the Real, real; not qualia, but value.
You seem to be talking about the difference between "input -> agent" (Being-Here) and "input->agent->output" (Being-in-Value). By the way, the functional description of this is "qualia->self->value".
Value is why the Turing test fails. Find me a computer that can care AND carry on a conversation, well, that would be a test, indeed.
Give me 10-20 years. It's coming.

*
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Hereandnow »

JamesOfSeattle:
A function takes an input and generates/specifies an output. So the input is not a function and the output is not a function.
And yet, it is the input and output, that, once removed from the process, would mean the extinction of experience. i am not saying that there are no functions, indeed, nothing could be clearer. I object to the function being taken as primordial. Heidegger held that there is no one thing that can be given this foundational placing, not Cartesian mind stuff, nor Kantian synthesis (a functionalist view). It is at the core of our Being an equiprimordiality of a number of things. Without going into details, and not to follow Heidegger, but to draw on his insight only, functionalism suffers the same fate as rationalism: it does not encompass, in its essence, the whole of our existence. Only a part. Again with emphasis, treating the screaming pain of my Achilles heal just severed as "input" merely, as if it were incidental to the processes that receive it, is, well, absurd.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Hereandnow wrote: February 8th, 2018, 12:23 am
JamesOfSeattle:
A function takes an input and generates/specifies an output. So the input is not a function and the output is not a function.
And yet, it is the input and output, that, once removed from the process, would mean the extinction of experience.
Yes, no input or no output = no experience.
I object to the function being taken as primordial.
Primordial (which I take to mean existing from the beginning) with respect to what? With respect to all matter? No. With respect to any one instantiation of a person? Yes.
Without going into details, and not to follow Heidegger, but to draw on his insight only, functionalism suffers the same fate as rationalism: it does not encompass, in its essence, the whole of our existence. Only a part.
Yes, the mental part.
Again with emphasis, treating the screaming pain of my Achilles heal just severed as "input" merely, as if it were incidental to the processes that receive it, is, well, absurd.
I treat your screaming pain as merely "input" because all I can see is the physical, third person description:
input (large numbers of c-fibers) -> (some control center in the brain) -> output (deep breath, rapid exhalation, tightening of the vocal chords, etc.)

I treat my screaming pain as different because I'm the subject and am intimately bound up with the functional explanations
Input (pain [probable damage] = qualia) -> self -> output (scream [make sure everyone knows that I have been damaged and may need help])

*
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: What's wrong with functionalism?

Post by Hereandnow »

No Jamesof Seatle, you treat your input of all of those things you mention, the deep breath, rapid exhalation, and so on, AS input. Because you put this as thesis about what it is to be a self, you present a model of human ontology that, sorry for the dramatics, massively misses the point, which is the WHAT of being here, as well as the how. It is reductionist, and therefore exclusionary. And if your thesis is exclusionary, like Husserl's reductions, then you have justify this.

Functionalism, I will say again, seems like a very apt way to discuss systems information processing, and I don't take issue with it as far as this goes. I agree, we are these input/output systems embedded in environments necessitate response to stimuli. This is a great model for solving problems, getting things done, etc. But it fails philosophically, utterly, for it fails to understand that we ARE our pains and pleasures horrors and blisses. This failure is an inherent feature of the characterization "input/output".
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021