The Hard Problem of Gravity

[Nick227]

You can't have read the Wikipedia article then. Because it's right there under "Definitions of qualia", where you'd kind of expect it to be:

As Darat notes, this is the basis of Jackson's "Mary's room" argument (which is an example of the petitio principii fallacy, i.e. begging the question) - which is also in the Wikipedia article.

Dennett defines them the same way - again, in the Wikipedia article - only he points out that the concept is logically incoherent.

And it's the basis for the concept of p-zombies - which have some relevance to this thread - and which are also discussed in the Wikipedia article, and which are also a logically incoherent concept.

These are the definitions of individuals involved in debate over qualia. Actually, Dennett's is interpretation. He's not defining qualia. Jackson is defining qualia, but he's not Websters. This is his personal definition.

When you write "Qualia are defined as..." to me the impression given is that this is a dictionary definition. If you actually mean "Frank Jackson defines qualia as..." then for me it would be great if you would put this. Otherwise, for me you're leaning towards intellectual dishonesty. If you can come up with a dictionary definition that matches yours, please do so and I will happily withdraw that.

eta: actually, if you do find a dictionary definition that's in agreement with you, for me you would still need to re-write as "Qualia are sometimes defined as..." because it's clear that many definitions are not the same as yours.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Neuroscience is science. What do you expect it to be grounded in? Magic elves?

The point is that you are running together individual statements and creating a grand statement which is by no means necessarily true. In this case...

* Neuroscientists learned their trade at academic institutions.

+

* Academic institutions of this nature are philosophically grounded in materialism.

+

* The computational theory of consciousness is grounded in materialism

you make =

* All neuroscientists agree with Strong AI

I'm afraid that it ain't necessarily so.

Nick

 

[AkuManiMani]

I agree. Whatever consciousness is it most definitely does not consist of little homuculi or one magical module. The mind and consciousness are clearly a holistic phenomena involving the collective functions of entire organisms.

What evidence can you provide to support this claim?

The basic premise of the GWT is that consciousness involves parallel processing between the various modules of the brain. Ofcourse, the brain itself does not operate in a vacuum and it directly tied to the rest of the nervous system, endocrine system, cardiovascular system, immune system, etc...

This is why earlier I suggested that the noumenal mind [or 'self'] must be a kind of field activity. Such a conception is quite compatible with [and I think, strongly suggested by] the GWT model of consciousness.

If it is compatible with GWT, that's a major strike against GWT, because you still haven't addressed any of this idea's fatal flaws:

The flaws you've listed aren't actual features of what I'm proposing. But you legitimately don't understand what I'm actually saying I'll take the time to address your concerns.

The mind doesn't behave like that.

The mind seamlessly integrates modular processes across the brain to generate our conscious experience. There is no central administrator in the brain so clearly, whatever the nature of the mind, it is a distributed function. The most obvious mechanism for syncing all of these processes into an integrative whole would be a field.

The brain doesn't work like that.

So EEGs and MEGs are artifacts of science fiction?

There is no transmitter for such a field.

They're called neurons.

There is no receiver for such a field.

They're called neurons.

There is no such field.

I'm not convinced and neither are any of the professionals which use brain imagining technologies like the ones mentioned above. Care to back up that assertion with some substance?

It's physically impossible.

Please explain why

 

[PixyMisa]

These are the definitions of individuals involved in debate over qualia. Actually, Dennett's is interpretation. He's not defining qualia. Jackson is defining qualia, but he's not Websters. This is his personal definition.

When you write "Qualia are defined as..." to me the impression given is that this is a dictionary definition. If you actually mean "Frank Jackson defines qualia as..." then for me it would be great if you would put this. Otherwise, for me you're leaning towards intellectual dishonesty. If you can come up with a dictionary definition that matches yours, please do so and I will happily withdraw that.

Good grief.

Nick, just read the Wikipedia article. Everything in it confirms what I have said.

 

[Nick227]

In this and previous threads he has also asserted on several occasions that all cognitive neuroscientists will back up his position. When investigated, it's found that he claims this not because there is any direct evidence that they agree to Strong AI. In fact there is evidence to the contrary which I've cited.

No. The evidence you have cited does not support your claims.

Please read back. Carter, speaking of the HPC in the introduction of her book, and summarising current research, states..."The only comprehensive theories which deal directly with the hard problem are those which claim it does not exist - that consciousness simply is physical processes and everything else is illusory. That is a neat idea and may turn out to be correct. But few people - myself included - are satisfied by it."

How does that not support my claim that not all neuroscientists agree with Strong AI?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Good grief.

Nick, just read the Wikipedia article. Everything in it confirms what I have said.

Whether that is true or not is beside the point. You started a sentence "Qualia are defined as...." then proceeded to give interpretation, in the guise of definition. To me that's not honest.

Nick

 

[H'ethetheth]

A little off topic, but that Mary argument is really silly. I hadn't seen it before, but seriously, are there any physicalists who would contend that knowledge about brain states is the same as having those brain states? That's like saying that if I know everything there is to know about aircraft, I have an aircraft. If Mary would know everything there is to know about the brain states corresponding to redness, she might figure out a way to induce her brain to "see" redness with the help of some lengths of wire, batteries, a lemon and a swiss army knife, just like MacGyver. And what's nice is that she can check her findings after she gets out of the box.

About the scientificness of qualia, I think they're not just, like Akumanimani says, beyond the reach of science, but they are forever beyond it's reach. No one can ever check for qualia in any other experiencer. Al that will ever be observed are the non-private aspects of experience.
Unless of course someone finds a way to repeatably superimpose someone else's brain states on yours in a way that one can completely experience being someone else...if that is a coherent idea at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

The basic premise of the GWT is that consciousness involves parallel processing between the various modules of the brain. Ofcourse, the brain itself does not operate in a vacuum and it directly tied to the rest of the nervous system, endocrine system, cardiovascular system, immune system, etc...

Directly? No.

The flaws you've listed aren't actual features of what I'm proposing.

Ah. So when you say it's a field, you don't mean it's a field, even though when pressed on what you mean by field you say it's a field.

Do I have that right?

But you legitimately don't understand what I'm actually saying I'll take the time to address your concerns.

Okay, great.

The mind seamlessly integrates modular processes across the brain to generate our conscious experience.

Nope. The mind does nothing of the sort. If you say that the mind is the integration of modular processes across the brain, then that I would certainly agree with. There's nothing seamless about it, though. Even the most cursory study of neuroscience or psychology shows seams all over the place. Information lost, inconsistencies, confabulation, that sort of thing.

There is no central administrator in the brain

There's no single central administrator, that's true. That doesn't mean that there's no part of the brain that is the key to consciousness.

so clearly, whatever the nature of the mind, it is a distributed function.

But yes, in general, this is quite correct. But it's not a global function. Different parts of the brain performa different functions, and we can acutally see activity progressing from one part of the brain to another during (for example) visual perception experiments.

The most obvious mechanism for syncing all of these processes into an integrative whole would be a field.

NO.

The mind doesn't behave like that. It is not seamless. It is not synchronous. It is not unified.
The brain doesn't work like that. It's a switch network. The neurons are interconnected.
There is no transmitter for such a field. The RF signal of individual neurons is extremely weak.
There is no receiver for such a field. The RF signal of the whole brain is not powerful enough to change the operation of a single neuron.
There is no such field. Yes, the brain gives off electromagnetic radiation. This does not contain the information or have the effect you claim.
It's physically impossible. See all of the above.

So EEGs and MEGs are artifacts of science fiction?

Your computer radiates RF noise. That in no way implies that it works via RF noise.

And indeed it doesn't.

They're called neurons.

They're called neurons.

Sorry, no, this is completely wrong.

You can, with a sensitive antenna array and a special amplifier (and very close proximity), pick up the electromagnetic waves produced by the electrical impulses in the brain.

A neuron cannot do that. It just plain doesn't have the hardware necessary to transmit or receive signals that way.

What it does have is direct connections to other neurons. And we can directly monitor signals going from neuron to neuron, and and activity happening as bursts of signals fire between neurons in specific regions of the brain, and map it to various cognitive functions, and at no time is any field implied or requried to explain the observations.

TMS - transcranial magnetic stimulation - can induce cognitive changes. The magnetic field used for this is on the order of a Tesla. The magnetic field produced by the brain itself is on the order of a femtoTesla. In other words, it's a quadrillion times weaker than what we know is required to influence the operation of the brain in the way you suggest.

That's what sciency types refer to as "physically impossible".

I'm not convinced and neither are any of the professionals which use brain imagining technologies like the ones mentioned above. Care to back up that assertion with some substance?

Read the MEG article you linked to, then look up transcranial magnetic stimulation, then try to bridge the 15-orders-of-magnitude gap.

For those playing at home, fifteen orders of magnitude is equivalent to saying that the planet Mars weighs the same as the Empire State Building.

Please explain why

Or that the US federal budget deficit is about a fifth of a penny.

In closing, I'll note that I understood perfectly what you were saying from the beginning. You said field. You meant field.

And it is completely impossible, exactly as I said the first time.

 

[PixyMisa]

Please read back. Carter, speaking of the HPC in the introduction of her book, and summarising current research, states..."The only comprehensive theories which deal directly with the hard problem are those which claim it does not exist - that consciousness simply is physical processes and everything else is illusory. That is a neat idea and may turn out to be correct. But few people - myself included - are satisfied by it."

How does that not support my claim that not all neuroscientists agree with Strong AI?

Carter is not a neuroscientist. That's merely her personal opinion. Cite a neuroscientist stating that. And even then, it's not much of a position to claim that not all neuroscientists completely disagree with you, is it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Whether that is true or not is beside the point. You started a sentence "Qualia are defined as...." then proceeded to give interpretation, in the guise of definition. To me that's not honest.

Nope.

I gave the definition, as the word is used, as the people who use the word define it, as it is given in the article you pointed to, as discussed in the article you pointed to.

The definition you chose is incomplete, as the article you took the defintion from makes painfully clear.

Which you'd know if you'd bothered to read beyond the first sentence.

 

[PixyMisa]

A little off topic, but that Mary argument is really silly. I hadn't seen it before, but seriously, are there any physicalists who would contend that knowledge about brain states is the same as having those brain states?

No, it's obvious nonsense in practical terms, in the real world.

But Jackson says that Mary knows everything there is to know about the physical process of seeing colour - completely impossible in real-world terms, of course - and then pulls a bait-and-switch to try to assert dualism.

That's like saying that if I know everything there is to know about aircraft, I have an aircraft. If Mary would know everything there is to know about the brain states corresponding to redness, she might figure out a way to induce her brain to "see" redness with the help of some lengths of wire, batteries, a lemon and a swiss army knife, just like MacGyver. And what's nice is that she can check her findings after she gets out of the box.

No, that's not really the same.

If you know "everything there is to know" about the physical process of seeing colour, then you know what it feels like, because that is simply part of the physical process. Unless you assume that it's not physical - which is precisely what Jackson does, which is why his argument isn't logically valid.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I already put up. You have completely failed to address any of the problems with your argument. At this point all I need to do is point out that you are still wrong, in the same way and for the same reasons that you were wrong to begin with.

You've yet to even address my argument. All you've done is straw-man and make blind assertions expecting us to accept what you say merely on your personal authority. If you care so little about your own credibility or personal integrity, so be it; but don't hold other posters up to standards you yourself are unwilling to follow.

Here's a proposition. I would like YOU to go back to each and every post in this thread where you exposit your definition of what qualifies as 'aware' and 'conscious'. Then I would like you to either repost them in quote format or simply provide them as a list of links. If you can can firmly demonstrate that I've been misrepresenting your argument thus far I will concede.

Nope.

You want to prove the point, you quote me and show that what I said is not what I said I said. How you propose to accomplish this is beyond me, but have at it.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that you're exempt from actually substantiating your assertions. When I asserted that you misrepresented what was said *I* went back and provided quotations and links to what was already said. I've gone thru the effort to actually back-up what I say and I expect you to extent the same courtesy.

You've yet to show even a a fraction of the initiative other participants have in providing evidence and argumentation to backup your assertions. This is clear to anyone who has been following this discussion and I'm not the only individual to point out this fact. As I've said, your integrity and credibility are seriously in question.

I'm not going to continue spending hours of my time compiling evidence, quotes, and argumentation while you just sit on your lazy behind making blind, fiat declarations. If you indeed believe that I've misrepresented YOUR arguments then YOU provide proof that I have done so. If you are unwilling to do this simply concede or STFU.

None of the listed definitions are mutually exclusive.

So what? That is entirely beside the point.

The point is that the six different definitions are six different definitions, and you cannot change definitions mid-sentence and expect to make a meaningful statement.

And yet, you do this persistently.

How can I change the definition of a term 'mid-sentence' if the I only use the term once in a sentence? Care to cite a specific example of me 'changing' definitions? Care to substantiate ANY assertion you've made thus far in this discussion?

I provided all the listed definitions of 'unconscious' to be as thorough and comprehensive as possible since you have a penchant for demanding definitions to the nth degree.

So you have utterly failed to grasp the point.

Six definitions for a term are of no value. Provide a single definition that tells us what you mean when you use the word "consciousness". It doesn't matter if it's your definition or you borrowed it from a dictionary, but you have to pick one and stick with it.

I HAVE provided a SINGLE definition for each of the terms I've been asked to define atleast a DOZEN times. I have used each of the terms consistently and in accordance with the definitions provided. At this point, even rocketdodger is clear on what I mean what I mean when I say 'qualia', 'subjective experience', and 'consciousness'. So can we move on or will you continue to filibuster?

I see. So the very meaning of the words you use is irrelevant to the discussion in which they are used?

No. But your chronic stonewalling and goalpost moving is counterproductive and downright aggravating. I've given, and consistently used, the same definitions of 'consciousness', and 'qualia' atleast dozen times. For you to consistently lie and claim that I have not provided definitions is inexcusable and downright deplorable. Having a 'discussion' with you is about a productive as conversing with kurious_kathy.

Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is epic win in my book

Fail.

Your shameless hypocrisy is indeed full of fail.

 

[Nick227]

Carter is not a neuroscientist. That's merely her personal opinion.

Her personal opinion based around the fact that she is a well-respected academic journalist who has interviewed and has personal connections with many of the leading players on the consciousness research scene. I wouldn't personally count it as being a definitive statement of the state of people's belief systems c2002, but it is never-the-less significant.

I bring it back up because I do object to these sweeping statements you make which actually cannot be substantiated. I completely fail to see how anything is usefully served by claiming things to be definitions, when actually they're interpretations of definitions, or claiming that everyone in a certain scene agrees with you when it's clear that not everyone does. All it does in my eyes is bring Strong AI into disrepute. I like to think that if something is a strong enough proposition it does not need these dubious measures to further its case.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

You've yet to even address my argument.

What argument? The one that is completely wrong, which I pointed out the moment you made it?

All you've done is straw-man and make blind assertions expecting us to accept what you say merely on your personal authority.

Wrong.

You made, for example, the assertion that consciousness is caused by some kind of "field". I pointed out that this is impossible, and why it is impossible. You gave this not the slightest bit of consideration, and just reiterated your claim. Which, as I pointed out, is off by fifteen orders of magnitude.

Why do I have to do your homework for you? You want to make a claim, you spell it out, you provide precise definitions, you provide supporting evidence.

Not my job. And you're still wrong.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that you're exempt from actually substantiating your assertions.

I'm under no such delusion. And you're still wrong.

When I asserted that you misrepresented what was said *I* went back and provided quotations and links to what was already said. I've gone thru the effort to actually back-up what I say and I expect you to extent the same courtesy.

What evidence have you provided to support what? Give me one example. Just one.

And you're still wrong.

You've yet to show even a a fraction of the initiative other participants have in providing evidence and argumentation to backup your assertions.

And yet, I'm right and you're wrong.

This is clear to anyone who has been following this discussion and I'm not the only individual to point out this fact. As I've said, your integrity and credibility are seriously in question.

Ad hominem.

I'm not going to continue spending hours of my time compiling evidence, quotes, and argumentation while you just sit on your lazy behind making blind, fiat declarations.

I've seen no sign of you spending any time on this.

If you indeed believe that I've misrepresented YOUR arguments then YOU provide proof that I have done so.

I have. You're wrong.

If you are unwilling to do this simply concede or STFU.

Ad hominem, strawman.

How can I change the definition of a term 'mid-sentence' if the I only use the term once in a sentence? Care to cite a specific example of me 'changing' definitions? Care to substantiate ANY assertion you've made thus far in this discussion?

You might go back to where I pointed out that you did this in a specific sentence. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I HAVE provided a SINGLE definition for each of the terms I've been asked to define atleast a DOZEN times. I have used each of the terms consistently and in accordance with the definitions provided. At this point, even rocketdodger is clear on what I mean what I mean when I say 'qualia', 'subjective experience', and 'consciousness'. So can we move on or will you continue to filibuster?

You just provided six - count them, six - definitions for consciousness. Why? If you have only one, what are the other five there for?

No. But your chronic stonewalling and goalpost moving is counterproductive and downright aggravating. I've given, and consistently used, the same definitions of 'consciousness', and 'qualia' atleast dozen times.

Where? I may have missed this. In any case, the point remains that you use the word consciousness inconsistently and you provided six definitions when I asked you for one.

If you have one definition, just provide that one definition. Easy.

For you to consistently lie and claim that I have not provided definitions is inexcusable and downright deplorable.

Instead of throwing tantrums, perhaps you could just provide the definition?

I am not the one who provided six definitions when asked for one. If you want to clear the matter up, it is very very easy. Pick one definition. State it. Stick to it.

Having a 'discussion' with you is about a productive as conversing with kurious_kathy.

And yet, I'm still right, and you're still wrong.

Your shameless hypocrisy is indeed full of fail.

Fail.

 

[PixyMisa]

Her personal opinion based around the fact that she is a well-respected academic journalist who has interviewed and has personal connections with many of the leading players on the consciousness research scene. I wouldn't personally count it as being a definitive statement of the state of people's belief systems c2002, but it is never-the-less significant.

No. It's her opinion. That's all. One journalist's opinion.

I bring it back up because I do object to these sweeping statements you make which actually cannot be substantiated.

What sweeping statements?

I completely fail to see how anything is usefully served by claiming things to be definitions, when actually they're interpretations of definitions

It's the definition. Read the Wikipedia article. Not just one sentence. Read it, Nick. You cited it, now read it.

or claiming that everyone in a certain scene agrees with you when it's clear that not everyone does.

Nick, neuroscience is science. It's necessarily a methodologically naturalistic discipline. I'm sure there are people trained in neuroscience who believe weird things outside of their specific focus of research. This in no way helps your point.

All it does in my eyes is bring Strong AI into disrepute.

Ad hominem.

I like to think that if something is a strong enough proposition it does not need these dubious measures to further its case.

Ad hominem, strawman.

 

[Nick227]

No, it's obvious nonsense in practical terms, in the real world.

But Jackson says that Mary knows everything there is to know about the physical process of seeing colour - completely impossible in real-world terms, of course - and then pulls a bait-and-switch to try to assert dualism.


No, that's not really the same.

If you know "everything there is to know" about the physical process of seeing colour, then you know what it feels like, because that is simply part of the physical process. Unless you assume that it's not physical - which is precisely what Jackson does, which is why his argument isn't logically valid.

Can't fault that.

Jackson's thought experiment may have been created in all innocence, but it is pretty feeble reasoning if so, and just plain manipulative otherwise. I don't see how it anyway challenges Strong AI.

Nick

 

[Dancing David]

They're called neurons.



They're called neurons.

Hi AMM, there are not field effects in the way neurons work, sorry (at least in the way they pass information). At least not in the way physics defines an EM field. They are biochemical bags that use a phase shift in the polarity of the cell membrane and ion flux (through channels) to self signal the release of neurotransmitter.

The EM pulse that is detected by machines is the side effect of the phase shift in the membrane and the ion flux/movement. When the postsynaptic receptors reach threshold they tell the cell to 'fire' this cause the channels to open and the calcium, sodium and potassium ions to cross the membrane due to osmotic pressure. The calcium has one charge and the sodium and potassium have another. So the overall balance of ion potential changes when the cell fires (I forget which way it goes, if the calcium goes out and the sodium comes in or visa versa.) But it goes from one state of osmotic ionization potential to a neutral one, this wave of depolarization travels down the axon and signals the presynaptic vesicles to release neurotransmitter. And that is what makes the next neuron fire, and so on.

But the weak EM signal that machines detect is from the shift in ion osmotic potential and the ions rush in or out. The signal is carried by the neurotransmitter in the cleft, it is not carried between cells through the weak EM pulse.

So at least in the sense of EM fields in physics, there is no transmission signal from the EM pulse between neurons, it is through the release and binding of neurotransmitters.

 

[PixyMisa]

Can't fault that.

Jackson's thought experiment may have been created in all innocence, but it is pretty feeble reasoning if so, and just plain manipulative otherwise. I don't see how it anyway challenges Strong AI.

To be clear, I don't think Jackson is being dishonest in any way. But it is an illustration of how those philosophers who use the term qualia... use the term qualia.

 

[PixyMisa]

The EM pulse that is detected by machines is the side effect of the phase shift in the membrane and the ion flux/movement. When the postsynaptic receptors reach threshold they tell the cell to 'fire' this cause the channels to open and the calcium, sodium and potassium ions to cross the membrane due to osmotic pressure. The calcium has one charge and the sodium and potassium have another. So the overall balance of ion potential changes when the cell fires (I forget which way it goes, if the calcium goes out and the sodium comes in or visa versa.) But it goes from one state of osmotic ionization potential to a neutral one, this wave of depolarization travels down the axon and signals the presynaptic vesicles to release neurotransmitter. And that is what makes the next neuron fire, and so on.

I am frequently astounded that our brains work at all.

So at least in the sense of EM fields in physics, there is no transmission signal from the EM pulse between neurons, it is through the release and binding of neurotransmitters.

Yep. There's an EM field, but it's a tiny one, and its effect on even the adjacent neurons is completely swamped by the direct effect of the electrochemical activity itself, and its effect on more remote neurons is essentially nil.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just a PS to AkuManiMani:

You took the time to explain yourself in some detail. Thank you for that. I explained in commensurate detail why you were wrong.

See how that works?