• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Darat said:
HPC/p-zombies were something we discussed here right at the start of the forum, I believe it may even have been the impetus for the creation of the first "R&P" section. And back then I didn't realise that I had this abnormality in the way my brain/mind works. Which is why for me I've always said I'm a p-zombie by the definition of those that claimed there is a HPC, what they described as attributes of being a p-zombie seemed to describe how I experienced the world! I didn't realise that other people have quite a different internal "experience".

To me this has really rammed home the concept that we can't assume anything in these types of discussions.
Click to expand...

This condition of yours is unfortunate, but it is very fascinating. Thanks for sharing that.
 
Darat said:
Of course it doesn't, the cascade of damage or destruction of nerves and other tissues are what "hurt". Hurt is simply a human behaviour that we exhibit when our body is stimulated in a certain way, so when hurt I will say "ouch" or I will shake my hand in the air when I've hit my thumb with a hammer.

No qualia in sight.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like you want a serious discussion.
 
Darat said:
No.

This is what I was referring to earlier about something I learned about only comparatively recently, I do not have what is called "a minds eye".

For all my life I thought people were just being poetic about "seeing" things when they close their eyes, when they said "I can imagine a red apple". I did not realise that you all actually meant you see something like you see something in the real world. I cannot "visualise" anything in my minds eye, when I think about someone I can not call up their face in my mind, I cannot "experience red" unless I am looking at something that is red.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

This means I have no separate "experience of redness" away from my direct perception of things that are red. Therefore I do not have "qualia" so even if they exist they are not a necessary component of consciousness.
Click to expand...


Just from what is written in that brief Wiki page, without checking to see what (if any) other recent properly conducted research has been done, the description is of a condition, or rather something that is thought to be a condition, that is by no means clear as being unusual at all, or even clear as being anything actually different from what everyone else normally experiences. By which I mean ...

... from that Wiki description it's far from clear that other people really are visualising images which are as vivid and realistic as they are claiming.

Why should we be sceptical of people saying that they can visualises a highly realistic bright red or green apple, simply by closing their eyes whilst fully awake and deciding to visualise whatever they wish ... why should we be sceptical of the accuracy of any claim such as that? The answer is because human history is overflowing with zillions of claims of what people say they can experience or "see" as "visions" or imagery in their thoughts or in the "minds eye" ... but afaik, very few of those cases can be shown, or have been shown, to be as clear and well-defined as the person is saying ...

... IOW, afaik it is far more common for people to say that all sorts of things were/are very clearly envisioned or experienced or manifesting in their thoughts, but it's far less clear that their experiences are actually much if any different to what other people experience when they describe a far less obvious vivid or clear imagination.


Or to put that even more clearly – I certainly cannot visualise a realistic 3D image of an apple (or anything else), merely by closing my eyes (or, why even close your eyelids??) and deciding that I will conjure up any such fabricated visions. On which basis, I would naturally be suspicious of others who claimed they could do that … I expect they are actually getting no clearer “vision” than I or anyone else can normally produce/create/imagine ... the difference only being that the most "vivid" part is their way of describing it (rather than the clarity and realism of the on-demand imagination).
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
FFS. OK, how is psychology different from psychology? And why can't you just give me a good answer?
Click to expand...
You're right, I don't know how, but I did mis-read what you wrote. I saw 'consciousness' but 'psychology' didn't register.


You asked for them, you read them.
Click to expand...
I can easily find my own links. The purpose of asking you is for you to provide some sort of support for what you're claiming. You apparently cannot and that's fine.
 
The Norseman said:
You're right, I don't know how, but I did mis-read what you wrote. I saw 'consciousness' but 'psychology' didn't register.
Click to expand...

OK, great. Now that we've established that "psychology" is the same as "psychology" we can apply that lesson to the next problem:

The Norseman said:
I can easily find my own links. The purpose of asking you is for you to provide some sort of support for what you're claiming. You apparently cannot and that's fine.
Click to expand...

You asked me for "any papers published by psychologists that discuss a topic with the presupposition of qualia". I gave you links to papers published by psychologists that discuss a topic with the presupposition of qualia. So how are "papers published by psychologists that discuss a topic with the presupposition of qualia" different from "any papers published by psychologists that discuss a topic with the presupposition of qualia"?

You seemed to be implying that Psychologists's don't take qualia seriously. I gave you links showing they do. And in exactly the form you asked for.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You seemed to be implying that Psychologists's don't take qualia seriously. I gave you links showing they do. And in exactly the form you asked for.
Click to expand...
How do you know what's in those papers in order to tell me that they meet my requirements?
 
The Norseman said:
How do you know what's in those papers in order to tell me that they meet my requirements?
Click to expand...
It's related to that fact that I don't require multiple posts to figure out that I missed a word.

And FFS, in the time you were wasting overlooking a single word other links have been posted in the thread.
 
Belz... said:
Except that psychology isn't the science that would look into these things. It should be neurology.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty stupid thing to say at this point given how many references to psychologists have been given at this point. And a simple trip to the Wikipedia pages on neuroscience and psychology will show that this is more in the realm of psychology.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
That's a pretty stupid thing to say at this point given how many references to psychologists have been given at this point.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it isn't a term used in psychology. I'm saying that psychology isn't the science where this should be discussed. Psychology is about behaviour. If you're saying that qualia are real, physical things, then they will be in the physical brain, where psychologists don't look.
 
Belz... said:
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it isn't a term used in psychology. I'm saying that psychology isn't the science where this should be discussed. Psychology is about behaviour. If you're saying that qualia are real, physical things, then they will be in the physical brain, where psychologists don't look.
Click to expand...
Could you just freaking read the first sentence at the article (the sentence that starts with "Psychology is the") at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Edited by jsfisher: 
...snip... Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read it. It doesn't contradict what I said: psychology doesn't look at the workings of the brain, but at the behaviour of the person. If you want to study brain chemistry, structure or the action of neurons, you don't need a shrink.

Also, could you lay off the personalisation? I'm trying to have a discussion here.
 
SusanB-M1 said:
I decided to read the last page of this topic and see this post of yours. I did not know such a condition existed. Have you discussed it with ophthalmologists? There is a department of the RNIB in London (King's Cross) where there is someone who knows all about the Charles Bonnet syndrome and I bet there's someone there who would be most interested in what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Actually, I've been thinking about this further, and I realise that if I close my eyes and try to see a red bus, I can't! I'm going to see what happens by testing this during the next few days.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
But the aspect of consciousness we are talking about isn't a behavior. In fact, as the blindsight examples shows, the same behaviors can result from both conscious and non-conscious thought. That's the main reason some of us are sure it can't be tested for.

One wonders why consciousness exists at all. As far as we know now it provides no benefit.
Click to expand...


Some behaviors can (under some conditions) result from either conscious or non-conscious thought. But I've never seen any evidence that behaviors such as building a shelter or learning a dance or a mutually wary meeting of strangers can occur without consciousness.

By building a shelter I don't mean e.g. an experienced bricklayer working all day on a long low straight section of wall using familiar pre-manufactured materials under managed and safe conditions, who might go into a state of flow or automatic behavior for a while without reducing (and perhaps even improving) the quality of the work. I mean building a shelter under realistic frontier or wilderness conditions where the builder must select a location, plan and perhaps obtain the materials, and carry out the construction while also being able to assess any natural hazards and threats that might happen to arise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom