A'' Moschovakis

1
Biologikh qewria thV suneidhshV Egceirhma in
principle katadikasmeno

• A.?. Moschovakis
• Institute of Applied and Computational
  Mathematics, FORTH Dept. Basic Sciences, Faculty
  of Medicine, University of Crete

2
To shmeio ekkinhshV

• p?? ta ?a???????a ded?µ??a
  ?a??st??? ef??t? t?? ep?ßeßa??s? pa?a???????
  p??t?p?? ta ?p??a e?????? ??a??p???t??? p?? ?
  e???fa??? pa???e? s??e?d?s? (Papanikolaou
  2003)

• Qema I. Ti einai h suneidhsh

• Qema II. ???a? ?eµ?t? h apaithsh
  kataskeuhV paragwgikou protupou

3
Ti einai h suneidhsh

• ????t?te? ß??µat?? (Qualia)

• ?p????s? (awareness)

• ??t????s?a (self-awareness)

? ?ata????? de? e??a? p????? ? ???st???? ?a? de?
??e?a?eta? ?a ???e? ??a ?a p??????se? ? s???t?s?
µa?
4
???a? ??a?e a?a??a??? ?a? e?????? st???? ?
epe?e??as?a ?a?????vn pa?a?????vn p??t?pwn

• ??? ??e??? p?? ?a p??spa??s? t??a ?a pe?s?
  e??a? p?? µ?a t?t??a p???pt??? e??a? ??? ap??? 
  a??f??t?  a??? ?a? ?st??? ?? st??e?s? ??a t??
  a????p??? s???? ?a? d??s? ?e????. epe?d? ?a
  pa?aß?a?e apa?t?se?? p?? af????? ??p???t?ta
  ?a? ??e?µat???t?ta (PefanhV, 2004)

• ??? ?pe?d? de? d???e???? ets? ?? ep?st?µe? (µe
  a??a ????a, ? e?t?p?s? t?? Hempel/Oppenheim ?t?
  ?? ep?st?µe? ??a??p????? pa?a?????e?-??µ??????e?
  p??d?a??afe? de? e??a? p?st? se ?aµµ?a ep?st?µ?
  ??s??ßa???, 2004 Thompson, P. The Structure of
  Biological Theories. SUNY, New York, 1989)

5
Does the relationship between Brain and Mind
satisfy sufficiency AND necessity criteria?
?a?, ?e????? p?? a?????e? t? s?et??? ep?f??a??
t?? ?apa?????a?? ?a? ?ta? e?a ap? ta ????t?a
a?a??t?s?? pa?a??????? p??t?p?? ?? de?te??
e?d?? a?t??? e??a? a?t? p?? ap??a???µe
a?a??a?e? ?a? ??a??? s?????e?. ?p?d?d??ta? a?t??
t?? ?d??t?ta st?? e???fa?? ?a ?p?epe ?a p??µe
p?? ? e???fa??? ap?te?e? t?? a?a??a?a ?a? ??a??
s?????? t?? s??e?d?se??. ???? t?t??? p???µa
e??a? e?te??? a?edaf???... (Papanikolaou, 2003)
6
Does the relationship between Brain and Mind
satisfy sufficiency AND/OR necessity criteria?
Observation (as described by Skaliora)
Activation of area MT biases the motion percept
of subjects per the direction preference of
neighboring cells
If A then B, always Sufficiency criterion
MT lesions lead to motion agnosia
7
MT lesions

• Small regions of area MT were chemically
  lesioned in monkeys

• Subjects were unable to match the speed of their
  smooth pursuit eye movements to the speed of the
  moving target, at least until a saccade lets the
  image of the target be represented on a part of
  the visual field not affected by the lesions

WT Newsome, RH Wurtz, MR Dursteler, and A Mikami.
Deficits in visual motion processing following
ibotenic acid lesions of the middle temporal
visual area of the macaque monkey. J. Neurosci.
5 825-840, 1985.
8
Impairment of human motion processing

• Patient with no subjective experience of
  movement in depth, (she could only discriminate
  between stationary and moving targets in the
  periphery of her otherwise intact visual fields).

• The lesion was bilateral and it affected the
  lateral temporo-occipital cortex and the
  underlying white matter.

J. Zihl, D. von Cramon, and N. Mai. Selective
disturbance of movement vision after bilateral
brain damage. Brain 106 313-340, 1983.
9
Does the relationship between Brain and Mind
satisfy sufficiency AND/OR necessity criteria?
MT lesions lead to motion agnosia A is necessary
for B
10
?? ep??e???µa µ?? (5 ß?µata)

• ????e?µe?? a. ? s??e?d?s?
  ap?te?e? a?t??e?µe?o t?? ????????a? ?a? ?
  e??efa??? ap?te?e? a?t??e?µe?? t?? ?e???ep?st?µ??

• ????e?µe?? b. St?? µe?e? µa?
  ep?t???a?eta? ? d?a?e???t??? a?a???? t??
  ????????a? (?) se ?e???ep?st?µe? (?)

• S?µpe?asµa c. ? b µa? pa?e?e?
  ?a???? ?????? ?a ??µ????µe ?t? ? ? ?a
  a?a??e? se ?

• S?µpe?asµa d. ? d?a?e???t??? a?a????
  p?? ?p?s?eta? ? c
• s??epa?eta? ??t??????? a?a???? t??
  a?t??e?µe???
• t?? ? (s??e?d?s?, a?t?????, µ??µ?,
  ?.a.) sta a?t??e?µe?a t?? ?
  (d?ast????t?ta ?e??????
• ??tta???, e?e???p???s? pe?????? t??
  e??efa???, ?.a.)

• S?µpe?asµa e (p????pte? ap? t??
  a d).
• ? s??e?d?s? ?s?d??aµe? µe e?e???p???s? ?ata?
  ????? ?e?????? ?????µat??

11
????e?µe?? a

• ? s??e?d?s? ap?te?e? a?t??e?µe?o t??
  ????????a?

• O e??efa??? ap?te?e? a?t??e?µe?? t??
  ?e???ep?st?µ??

12
????e?µe?? b

• St?? µe?e? µa? (100 te?e?ta?a ?????a)
  ep??e??e?ta? ep?t???? d?a?e???t??? a?a???? t??
  ????????a? se ?e???ep?st?µe?

S????? ? e? ???? d?a?e???t??? a?a???? af??a
tµ?µata t?? ????????a? (?p?? ????f?s???,
???????a, ??p.) ?a? e??a? µ?a ????µ? d?ad??as?a
µe t?? e????a ?t? d?µ????????ta? ?e?? ??ad?? t??
ep?st?t?? (?p?? ?e??????????a, ?e???????????a,
??p.)
13
Mach bands and the 1967 Nobel prize for
Physiology or Medicine (to Granit, Hartline and
Wald)
14
En oida, oti ouden oida
Skeptiko epiceirhma ...µe t? da?µ??a t??
a???st???sµ?? st?? p??t? - a?t?? t?? ??pt?t?
ade?f? t?? S???at???? da?µ??a - ?a µ?? ???????e?
ep?µ??a st a?t? µ? ???e?? t??µpa t?? ?a??? s??
?? ap??t?s? se ??t? t?t??a p??ß??µata de?
?p???e?... (Papanikolaou, 2005)
Antirealistiko epiceirhma ?ed?µe???
?e?da?s??se??, p??e? ? ßeßa??t?ta µa? ??a
?,t?d?p?te ?a µp????saµe ?a ?s????s???µe ??a t?
??sµ? (Benierh, 2005)
Amfotera stoceuoun pera apo th suzhthsh maV, me
thn enoia oti oi epifulaxeiV pou empneoun aforoun
th gnwsh genika kai oci to prospelasimo thV
SuneidhshV eidika. Uparcoun alla pedia (p.c., h
Kbantomhcanikh) pou prosferontai polu perissotero
apo oti h Yucologia gia suzhthseiV uper h kata
tou skeptikou kai tou antirealistikou
epiceirhmatoV.
15
?pa????? ?a?a pa?ade??µata d?a?e???t???? a?a?????
µeta?? ep? µe???? ped??? t?? F?s????. ?e?
?pa??e? ?a?e?a µeta?? d?af??et???? ep?st?µ??.
?p? t? ???????a st? F?s??? ...se ???a ß?µata
q f (a1/2), q Conduction velocity, a fiber
diameter
IM C(dV/dt) gNa(V-VNa) gK (V -VK ) gL (V
-VL)
Kirchoffs 1st 2nd law

Bridging statements (Observation curve fitting)
Kirchoffs 1st law
Ohms law
x qt
16
???t? a?t????s? (t?? ?e?ass?d?)
??a?oµe?? ?a? a?a??? a?????? st?? ?d?a ep?st?µ?
?a fa???µe?a p?? a?af??e?? e??a? t?? ?d??? ?????
p???t?t??. ??a?µate???ta? ??e?t???? ?e?µata ?a?
??e?t???? d??aµ??? se d?af??et??? µ??? ?????
s??µata ?a? ?e?????? ??e?. (?e?ass?d?? 2005).
?? ep?st?µe? d?das???ta? µe t??p? pa?ade??µat???
(µe t?? e????a t?? Kuhn). ?? t? ???aµ???
??e??e?a? e??a? F?s???, e??a? ap???a? a??? ??at?
µ?a t?s? s?µa?t??? ep?t???a t?? F?s???? de?
pe???aµßa?eta? se ?a?e?a ??ass??? s????aµa
f?s???? (p.?., ta Lectures on Physics).
?? t?? ?ste??? (d??ad? µeta t?? ep?t???
????????s? ??asd?p?te a?a?????), ?t?d?p?te
a?a??µe?? µ??a?e? ?a a???e? st?? a?a???sa (st?
pa?ade??µa µa?, ?a? p?? ?e???a se te???? a?a??s?,
st? F?s???). ??t? e??a? ep??e???µa ?ata ? ?pe?
t?? a?a??????? e??e???µat??
17
?e?te?? a?t????s? (t?? ?e?ass?d?)
?? p?se? pe??pt?se?, ??a? t?t???? ??µ?? ?s??
ß????e? t??? ?e????????? ??a ??p??e?
???t????µµ??e? (µe t? µ?t? e??? F?s????)
p??ß???e??, de? ß??p? ?µ?? ?a µa? ??e? t?p?te ??a
t? ??t?µa t?? a?a????? ??a t? ?p??? t??
ep??a??st??e? (?e?ass?d?? 2005)
????? p?? p????pte? e?a? ??µ?? t?? ???????a? ap?
??µ??? t?? F?s???? ?a? ? ?e?ass?d?? de? ß?epe? t?
s?es? e?e? a?t? µe d?a?e???t??? a?a????.
18
S?µpe?asµa c

• S?µpe?asµa c. ?? b µa? pa?e?e?
  ?a???? ?????? ?a ??µ????µe ?t? ?ap??a ????????a
  (??? a???ß?? a?t? p?? d?a?et??µe t??a) ?a
  a?a??e? ?ap?te se ?ap??a ?e???ep?st?µ?
  (ep?s?? ??? apa?a?t?ta a?t? p?? d?a?et??µe
  t??a).

19
The Balzer-Moulines-Sneed (BMS) derivability
condition
20
Does the Brain/Mind pair satisfy the BMS
derivability condition?

• ?a?, a? d?a?et??µe pa?ade??µata ape?????s??
  t?p?? ? (d??ad? pe??pt?se?? ?p?? ???sta st???e?a
  t?? ????????a? ape????????ta? se ???sta st???e?a
  t?? ?e???ep?st?µ??).

• ???, a? e??a? ???sta pa?ade??µata t?p?? ? ?p??
  de? e??a? d??at? ? a?a???? st???e??? t??
  ????????a? se st???e?a t?? ?e???ep?st?µ??
• ??a ?????? a????
• ??a ?????? eµpe???????

21
Davidsons anomalous monism

• The principle of causal
  interaction Some mental events interact causally
  with physical events

• The principle of the nomological character of
  causality Events related as cause and
  effect have descriptions that fall under
  a strict deterministic law.

• The principle of the anomalousness of the
  mental There are no strict deterministic
  laws from which mental events can be
  predicted and explained (i.e, there are no
  psychophysical laws)

12_-3
However

• The claim that there are no psychophysical laws
  (Davidsons Principle 3) is false

22
An example of a psychophysical law Stevens law
Y K(F-Fq)n
(LogY nLog(F-Fq) C)
The discharge of single CNS cells (e.g., thalamic)
23
Multiple realizability?. Across structure types
Consider what the brain-state theorist (aka
reductionist) has to do to make good his claims.
He has to specify a physical-chemical state such
that any organism (not just a mammal) is in pain
if and only if (a) it possesses a brain of
suitable physical-chemical structure (b) its
brain is in that physical-chemical state. This
means that the physical-chemical state in
question must be a possible state of a mammalian
brain, a reptilian brain, a mollusks brain
(octopuses are molluscs and certainly feel pain),
etc. (Putnam H. Mind, Language and Reality. In
Philosophical Papers v. 2, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1975).
But, humans in pain need not be in the same
brain-state as mollusks-in-pain or
Martians-in-pain, etc. Instead, the pain-brain
relationship may be a LOCALLY reductive one, and
this is hardly news. For example, temperature is
mean molecular kinetic energy in gases but not in
solids (mean maximal molecular kinetic energy),
plasma (where there are no molecules) or black
bodies.
24
Multiple realizability?I. Same individual across
times
It is entirely possible that the nervous system
of higher organisms characteristically achieves a
given psychological end by a wide variety of
neurological means at different times (Fodor
J. Representations, Chapter 5. MIT Press,
Cambridge MA,1981)
?e?e???? ed? ???p??, epa?a?aµß????ta? p???? t??
e??st?te a?epa????pt?? eµpe???a? e??a? ?
a?epa????pt? a?a????a t?? pe??e?t???t?t?? t?? se
e??te????t?ta, ?µete??t?ta, ?d??? ?a? ?d???
(?apa?????a?? 2004)
One should not address this in the manner we used
to address Putnams argument (relativize per
time/subject as well as domain) because this much
domain specificity is surely incompatible with
the presumed generality of science)
?a? s?µf??? ??t??, ta ae? ?????µe?a ?a?
µetaßa???µe?a pe??e??µe?a t?? s??e?d??a?, ??
d?ad?????? ?? a?epa????pte? eµpe???e???te µp??e?
?a ???e? a?t??e?µe?? ep?st?µ?????? ???s?? ??t?
??e?a p??ta ?? e??, ??t???. ????? p?? e?? ep?s??
??e?a (?a? ???) p?? a???ß?? ?? a?t?? t?? ???? ??
e??efa????? µ??a??sµ?? t?? p???? t?? ?p??a?
s???e???µ???? ?? a?epa????pt?? eµpe???a? e??a?
p??a? t?? d??at?t?t?? µa? ?a ta?t?p???s??µe.
(?apa?????a?? 2004)
25
Multiple realizability, Fodor type,and
reducibility
?ne should find a textbook case of reduction from
the history of science, one which involves this
stronger sort of multiple realizability.
The movements of the molecules in state 1 is
nothing like that in state 2 (actually, they are
point symmetric). Yet the temperature of the
system at time t1 is identical to that at t2
(Bickle, J. Psychoneural Reduction. The New Wave,
MIT Press, 1998).
This demonstrates that even multiple
realizability in Fodors sense does not block
reducibility and undercuts the key premise of his
argument from multiple realizability.
26
?? ep??e???µa µ??(ta 2 te?e?ta?a ß?µata)

• S?µpe?asµa d. ? d?a?e???t??? a?a????
  p?? ?p???e? ? c s??epa?eta? ??t??????? a?a????
  t?? a?t??e?µe??? p?? apas?????? t?? ????????a
  (s??e?d?s?, a?t?????, µ??µ?, ??p.) sta
  a?t??e?µe?a p?? apas?????? t?? ?e???ep?st?µe?
  (d?ast????t?ta ?e?????? ??tta???, e?e???p???s?
  pe?????? t?? e??efa???, ??p.).

S????? ? ?st???a t?? ep?st?µ?? de? d?a?eta?
?a?e?a pa?ade??µa d?a?e???t???? a?a????? p?? ?a
µ?? e?sp?a?t??e sa? ??t??????? a?a????. G?a ?a
de??e? ?a?e?? ?t? a?t? e??a? a?a???e? a??e? ?a
pe????a?e? e?a pa?ade??µa pe?? t?? a?t??et??.

• S?µpe?asµa e. H S??e?d?s?
  ?s?d??aµe? µe e?e???p???s? ?ata?????? ?e??????
  ?????µat??.

S????? ?? e p????pte? ap? t?? d?at?p?se?? a ?a?
d. G?a ?a de??e? ?a?e?? ?t? e??a? a?a???e? a??e?
?a de??e? e?a ap? ta d?? a) ????a??st?? µ?a ap?
t?? p???e?µe?e? e??a? a?a?????. ß) ?? s?µpe?asµa
de? p????pte? ap? t?? p???e?µe?e?.
27
Einai h epexergasia miaV biologikhV qewriaV thV
suneidhshV egceirhma in principle katadikasmeno

• ?? a?t??et?. ??s? ta ded?µe?a
  p?? ?d? d?a?et??µe a??a ?a? ? eµpe???a ap?
  p??????µe?e? d?a?e???t??e? a?a???e? µa?
  ßeßa?????? p?? t? e??e???µa ßa??e? ?a???.