Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[The Norseman]

You underestimate the unfalsifiability of the Hard Problem. Of course it would create qualia, since you'd experience something. Out of thin air, too!

This is a good point; it seems to me that the unfalsifiability of the HPC is either deliberately built-in to the whole concept or deliberately ignored by proponents of the idea. I think this is where philosophy demonstrates its uselessness in trying to determine actual answers to reality as we comprehend it; this is the purview of science.

Ah, I look forward to hearing the causal scientific explanation as to how brains are conscious...

Well, naturally. When you always ask vague and sometimes malformed questions, it's easy to dismiss when people attempt to answer them. It's nothing more than appearing like you're interested in determining facts about reality but would rather keep your beliefs protected and intact.

 

[baron]

So would you consider that the perception is the qualia, where does the difference lie?

How does a visual perception differ from the experience of the visual perception?

As I described, qualia is one level beyond perception. A camera / computer set-up perceives, but it doesn't have conscious perception (at least not in any significant way). It can recognise red just as well as humans can (actually better), but it has no concept of redness.

 

[Belz...]

As I described, qualia is one level beyond perception. A camera / computer set-up perceives, but it doesn't have conscious perception (at least not in any significant way). It can recognise red just as well as humans can (actually better), but it has no concept of redness.

You keep making these claims but without supporting them. It seems to stem from the simple impression we often get just being conscious, but it doesn't mean the impression is true. Plenty of things we thought were obvious were overturned once science got its dirty little paws on it, so there's no reason to think that this time is any different.

Why doesn't a camera experience redness? What's the difference? Once you get beyond the threshold at which whatever entity we're talking about starts to "experience", where do those qualia magically come from? If they're not magical, then they are emergent properties and can, by definition, be detected. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Darat]

As I described, qualia is one level beyond perception. A camera / computer set-up perceives, but it doesn't have conscious perception (at least not in any significant way). It can recognise red just as well as humans can (actually better), but it has no concept of redness.

I have no concept of experience redness, I see something red and I know it is red, that's the experience.

 

[baron]

You keep making these claims but without supporting them.

It's not a claim, it's what qualia means. It's a definition and as such, it's factual.

It seems to stem from the simple impression we often get just being conscious, but it doesn't mean the impression is true.

If it wasn't true you couldn't experience it. It's true in that it's experienced, that's what makes it true.

Plenty of things we thought were obvious were overturned once science got its dirty little paws on it, so there's no reason to think that this time is any different.

And plenty of things that were ridiculed, or thought not to be possible, or not even imagined, have been proved to exist.

Why doesn't a camera experience redness?

You tell me. If you find an answer then you're on your way to solving the hard problem.

What's the difference? Once you get beyond the threshold at which whatever entity we're talking about starts to "experience", where do those qualia magically come from? If they're not magical, then they are emergent properties and can, by definition, be detected. You can't have it both ways.

Why do you keep referring to things you don't understand as magic? You have no idea how an electron can move from A to B without traversing the distance in between, or how an electron can be in two places at once, yet it happens, and it's not, as far as anybody knows, magic.

 

[baron]

I have no concept of experience redness, I see something red and I know it is red, that's the experience.

Does a camera know that it's seeing red? How would you program software to not only detect red, but to understand that what it was seeing was red?

 

[Belz...]

It's not a claim, it's what qualia means. It's a definition and as such, it's factual.

I know that that's how it's defined. I'm saying that they don't exist in reality.

If it wasn't true you couldn't experience it.

Aether is defined as the thing that makes light travel. If it didn't exist, light couldn't travel. Light travel, therefore Aether exists. QED.

And plenty of things that were ridiculed, or thought not to be possible, or not even imagined, have been proved to exist.

Yes and you know what those things had in common? They could be detected, something you're saying cannot be done with qualia.

You tell me. If you find an answer then you're on your way to solving the hard problem.

No such problem exists, except for philosophers and dualists.

Why do you keep referring to things you don't understand as magic?

You misunderstand. I understand the concept perfectly. You're saying that it is undetectable and therefore outside the realm of science. We call that "magic".

 

[surreptitious57]

Anyone who is a functioning human being knows they are conscious but because consciousness cannot be independently verified it is not within
the remit of science to demonstrate it. I only know for certain that I have conscious experience. I think all other functioning human beings have
it too even though I do not have access to their minds. So it is theoretically possible everyone else is just a mental construct of my own mind as
per idealism / solipsism or a p zombie. I do not think either of these are actually true but I cannot be absolutely certain. Neither can anyone else

 

[Belz...]

Anyone who is a functioning human being knows they are conscious but because consciousness cannot be independently verified it is not within the remit of science to demonstrate it.

Sure it can. I can verify that my coworkers are conscious. Give me a second...

...


...yep. Conscious.

I only know for certain that I have conscious experience. I think all other functioning human beings have it too even though I do not have access to their minds. So it is theoretically possible everyone else is just a mental construct of my own mind as
per idealism / solipsism or a p zombie. I do not think either of these are actually true but I cannot be absolutely certain. Neither can anyone else

Solipsism is useless, and p-zombies are a self-defeating concept.

 

[ynot]

Magical/paranormal believers believe their beliefs are normal and they will rarely agree that they aren’t. It’s like con artists ending up believing in their own cons and convincing themselves they aren’t con artists.

 

[Darat]

Does a camera know that it's seeing red? How would you program software to not only detect red, but to understand that what it was seeing was red?

By encoding a definition of red, just like I learned what to label red. Not sure why this is an interesting question?

 

[Belz...]

Does a camera know that it's seeing red? How would you program software to not only detect red, but to understand that what it was seeing was red?

Far out, dude!

 

[Darat]

Anyone who is a functioning human being knows they are conscious but because consciousness cannot be independently verified it is not within
the remit of science to demonstrate it. I only know for certain that I have conscious experience. I think all other functioning human beings have
it too even though I do not have access to their minds. So it is theoretically possible everyone else is just a mental construct of my own mind as
per idealism / solipsism or a p zombie. I do not think either of these are actually true but I cannot be absolutely certain. Neither can anyone else

How did you learn you had counciousness? I would say the same way you learned other people are councious beings, you observed behaviour just happens that for at least a little while longer one set of observations of behaviour are limited to being "private".

 

[Darat]

Sure it can. I can verify that my coworkers are conscious. Give me a second...

...


...yep. Conscious.



Solipsism is useless, and p-zombies are a self-defeating concept.

p-zombies are real, I am apparently a p zombie because I act in every single way as if I am conscious but I have no qualia, I have no "feeling" of redness, I simply perceive something is red.

 

[Belz...]

p-zombies are real, I am apparently a p zombie because I act in every single way as if I am conscious but I have no qualia, I have no "feeling" of redness, I simply perceive something is red.

I knew something was off about you...

 

[surreptitious57]

I can verify that my coworkers are conscious

You cannot verify that they experience consciousness because that would require you to have access to their minds. For all
you know they could be biological androids with no independent mental capacity at all rather highly sophisticated synthetic
machine intelligence with automatic programming. If they passed a Turing Test you think they were human. Of course I do
not think they are biological androids but I cannot be absolutely certain of this. And neither can you. This is all I am saying

 

[baron]

I know that that's how it's defined. I'm saying that they don't exist in reality.

That's your opinion. If you are wrong, it would not make them magic.

Aether is defined as the thing that makes light travel. If it didn't exist, light couldn't travel. Light travel, therefore Aether exists. QED.

Nobody experienced aether. What's more, it was taken very seriously by science and it was only the famous Michelson/Morley experiment that eventually disproved it. Nobody suggested it was magic.

Yes and you know what those things had in common? They could be detected, something you're saying cannot be done with qualia.

Excuse me? That's pretty much one of the things they all did not have in common. Until 1900 people hadn't stood around saying, "You know what, I'm feeling all these electrons and muons buzzing around and we really need to get evidence they exist." Nothing is detected until it is detected. Even now we have various postulated particles, none of which have been detected, and we have the hypothesis that 95% of the universe is made from substances that we cannot detect at all, and may never be able to detect. None of this is magic.

No such problem exists, except for philosophers and dualists.

Or, No such problem exists, except for [in the minds of...] the very people who have given it serious thought and rationalisation.

And in any event, that's not true. There are scientists who believe in the hard problem.

You misunderstand. I understand the concept perfectly. You're saying that it is undetectable and therefore outside the realm of science. We call that "magic".

I'm not. I'm saying it's outside the realm of current science, and perhaps even the current scientific method. That doesn't mean it's not solvable, and it doesn't mean it's magic.

p-zombies are real, I am apparently a p zombie because I act in every single way as if I am conscious but I have no qualia, I have no "feeling" of redness, I simply perceive something is red.

That is a valid explanation.

 

[Belz...]

You cannot verify that they experience consciousness because that would require you to have access to their minds.

What do you think a mind is? It's not some black box that's outside the realm of science. We have tools that can actually tell which part of your brain is working, when you're conscious of something, and what you're most likely visually thinking about.

We've got our claws on the mind.

For all you know they could be biological androids with no independent mental capacity at all rather highly sophisticated synthetic machine intelligence with automatic programming. If they passed a Turing Test you think they were human.

If they passed all that they'd be conscious.

Of course I do not think they are biological androids but I cannot be absolutely certain of this. And neither can you. This is all I am saying

Well, you're wrong.

 

[Belz...]

That's your opinion.

It's my conclusion, pending evidence of their existence.

Nobody experienced aether.

You're missing the point. You can define something to necessarily exist but definitions don't change reality.

Excuse me? That's pretty much one of the things they all did not have in common.

What in the blazes are you talking about? If we detected them then they are detectable.

Or, No such problem exists, except for [in the minds of...] the very people who have given it serious thought and rationalisation.

They can think about it all they want.

And in any event, that's not true. There are scientists who believe in the hard problem.

There are scientists who believe in fairies, too.

I'm not. I'm saying it's outside the realm of current science, and perhaps even the current scientific method.

Ok but that's not what you said earlier. You said they weren't theoretically detectable. What you meant was that they are theoretically detectable but not practically detectable at this time.

Ok, then: how could you detect them?

 

[Fudbucker]

You can even do it with a bunch of rocks...

Dave

I'm made that point repeatedly. Since materialism leads to an absurdity like the above, it fails as a theory.