My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[RandFan]

Philosophical attempts to define consciousness aren't doing a thing to show that it is or isn't empirical.

Can it be demonstrated? Can we correlate consciousness to awake states? Can we measure brain activity and test a subjects ability to perform tasks? Can we descriptively define consciousness?

Yes.

And they are?

More to the point, though, I think that someone like Dennett really would begin to come across as silly in his basic arguments if he weren't debating opponents who sound even sillier. The way that the basic research is used is the bigger waste of time.

So things you disagree with are silly?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hey, the guy who recommended me the Penrose book, suggested one he thinks it's even better (Not for understanding consciousness but for understanding science in layman terms). The book is called "The Shape of Space" by Jeffrey Weeks.

Anyone heard of it?
Thoughts? Opinions?....... rants?

 

[RandFan]

Philosophical attempts to define consciousness aren't doing a thing to show that it is or isn't empirical.

BTW: Youe argument would suggest that flight was not empirical before we understood aerodynamics. There was a time when we didn't know what flight was. We only knew that it was.

Consciousness is without doubt empirical. You can take a 1,000 people. Have them all take take an equivalent of the Turing test. Then give them general anesthesia and have them retake the test.

 

[westprog]

Hey, the guy who recommended me the Penrose book, suggested one he thinks it's even better (Not for understanding consciousness but for understanding science in layman terms). The book is called "The Shape of Space" by Jeffrey Weeks.

Anyone heard of it?
Thoughts? Opinions?....... rants?

Penrose is not really for a layman - it has some very deep maths - in all three books.

 

[James in New York]

What does Dan Dennett say that is silly, Maia?

 

[drkitten]

Penrose is not really for a layman - it has some very deep maths - in all three books.

.... which he gets wrong. So it's not really for a specialist, either.

Basically, it's for poseurs who don't know that the math is wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm sorry but we don't know enough to make such a statement at this time, IMO. We don't know if there isn't something intrinsic to biological systems. The examples of weather systems are apt. Weather isn't dualism because it can't be reproduced in a computer model. It's not dualism at all. It's just that weather is the result of physical properties not replicable in a computer simulation. I don't want to debate it. We can agree to disagree.

Westprog still has his work cut out for him. He still has to tell us what that missing thing is (he has said he does't believe in a ghost in the machine).

If you think that Weather cannot be reproduced in a simulation then you are a Weather dualist.

If you think that the Weather in our frame cannot be reproduced in a simulation -- a simulation by definition being some other frame -- then you are correct.

If you think that the Weather in our frame is real, and the Weather in all other frames is not real but simulated, and that if we are already in a simulation taking place in some other frame then our own Weather is no longer real ??? then you are westprog.

 

[RandFan]

If you think that Weather cannot be reproduced in a simulation then you are a Weather dualist.

Honestly I have no idea what this even means. I didn't say "simulation". Of course it can be reproduced in a simulation. Water doesn't seep out of my computer when I simulate weather on my computer.

If you think that the Weather in our frame cannot be reproduced in a simulation -- a simulation by definition being some other frame -- then you are correct.

If you think that the Weather in our frame is real, and the Weather in all other frames is not real but simulated, and that if we are already in a simulation taking place in some other frame then our own Weather is no longer real ??? then you are westprog.

Not a clue dude. "Frame"? What the hell is a frame? Do you mean frame of reference? Are you saying that because we can't disprove idealism then we must accept that a model of a tree growing fruit in my computer grows real fruit that would provide nourishment to some virtual person in cyberspace ala Tron/Matrix/The thirteenth floor?

If so, interesting but just navel gazing. I've no time for it. I can't disprove Idealism. I see no point to engage in speculation as though it were real. I'm happy to concede that it is possible.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Thats pretty interesting. I wonder how much of human physiology can be replaced with prosthetics without them losing the capacity for sensation.

All of it.

Well of course -you- would say that. You firmly believe that household appliances are conscious

 

[AkuManiMani]

Philosophical attempts to define consciousness aren't doing a thing to show that it is or isn't empirical.

Without consciousness there is no empiricism. I think we can agree that there must be an observer in order to have observations, right?

 

[Robin]

Yes. From Wikipedia: "A function F: N ? N of natural numbers is a computable function if and only if there exists a lambda expression f such that for every pair of x, y in N, F(x)=y if and only if f x =? y, where x and y are the Church numerals corresponding to x and y, respectively and =? meaning equivalence with beta reduction."

Of course, that's the definition using the lambda calculus; an equivalent formulation using Turing machines is simply that a function N ? N is computable iff there is a Turing machine that will effect that calculates that function.

But neither of these definitions will get you across the mathematical/physical divide (as earlier definitions had suggested).

You would have a pretty hard time convincing me that a brain is a function of natural numbers.

And the second definition seems to be the very thing PixyMisa claims it proves.

 

[Robin]

Without consciousness there is no empiricism. I think we can agree that there must be an observer in order to have observations, right?

But why does the observer have to be conscious?

 

[rocketdodger]

Honestly I have no idea what this even means. I didn't say "simulation". Of course it can be reproduced in a simulation. Water doesn't seep out of my computer when I simulate weather on my computer.

Not a clue dude. "Frame"? What the hell is a frame? Do you mean frame of reference? Are you saying that because we can't disprove idealism then we must accept that a model of a tree growing fruit in my computer grows real fruit that would provide nourishment to some virtual person in cyberspace ala Tron/Matrix/The thirteenth floor?

If so, interesting but just navel gazing. I've no time for it. I can't disprove Idealism. I see no point to engage in speculation as though it were real. I'm happy to concede that it is possible.

I am not talking about Idealism.

I am saying that because there is no way to prove we are not already in a simulation, it is a fallacy to speak of "reality" in anything other than relative terms.

In other words, the weather that drops rain on your head is only more "real" than the weather in your computer because it is in the same frame of reference as you -- period.

And it is not navel gazing, it is an argument that directly challenges the notions of those that think there is something special about the neurons in this frame, as opposed to all others, that makes consciousness like our's somehow unique to this frame.

Why? Because there are only two possibilities;

1) We are in the zero level frame I.E. we are not in any kind of simulation and true consciousness like our's is dependent upon the only truly primary primary properties -- those of the zero level frame.

2) We are in some other frame I.E. already in a simulation and consciousness like our's is unique to this frame for an arbitrary reason OR it is independent of the truly primary primary properties and thus can arise in any other frame as well.

And for reasons that should be clear, the people that want consciousness to be magical and restricted to humans don't like option #2.

The problem is, there is no way to tell which frame we are in. So such people have to make outrageous concessions -- which is exactly what westprog has done -- and say "well, if it turns out we are not in the zero level frame, then our consciousness isn't real either."

WTF? What kind of an argument allows for our own consciousness to be real under some conditions and not real under other conditions?

 

[RandFan]

I am not talking about Idealism.

?

I am saying that because there is no way to prove we are not already in a simulation...

AKA idealism.

What kind of an argument allows for our own consciousness to be real under some conditions and not real under other conditions?

None whatsoever. I only have evidence of THIS reality.

And yeah, it's navel gazing.

 

[AkuManiMani]

But why does the observer have to be conscious?

To get to the other side?

 

[Robin]

To get to the other side?

But seriously folks...

Can't a robot be an observer?

 

[RandFan]

Consciousness is without doubt empirical. You can take a 1,000 people. Have them all take take an equivalent of the Turing test. Then give them [those that pass the test] general anesthesia and have them [those that pass the test] retake the test.

Anyone venture a guess as to the outcome?

 

[Frank Newgent]

We are in some other frame I.E. already in a simulation and consciousness like our's is unique to this frame for an arbitrary reason OR it is independent of the truly primary primary properties and thus can arise in any other frame as well.

The words quoted are arbitrarily located.

 

[Robin]

Why? Because there are only two possibilities;

1) We are in the zero level frame I.E. we are not in any kind of simulation and true consciousness like our's is dependent upon the only truly primary primary properties -- those of the zero level frame.

2) We are in some other frame I.E. already in a simulation and consciousness like our's is unique to this frame for an arbitrary reason OR it is independent of the truly primary primary properties and thus can arise in any other frame as well.

And for reasons that should be clear, the people that want consciousness to be magical and restricted to humans don't like option #2.

The problem is, there is no way to tell which frame we are in.

But there is. We are always at zero level. If we are in a simulation we are deceived about what zero level is, but we are still at zero level.

Whatever mechanism is producing our consciousness is producing our consciousness, be it neurons or something else.

 

[Belz...]

It's just that weather is the result of physical properties not replicable in a computer simulation.

Not that I want to derail the thread but: such as ?