Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

You missed my point. Suggesting that statements like "we don't know" indicates a lack of intelligence or an unacceptable worldview as a general statement is trivially silly/wrong. In certain contexts it may be a fair assessment.

In this context, it is a fair assessment.

The statement "we don't know" in the context of the objective superiority of whites over blacks, or men over women, or blue over green, or Mozart over Bon-Jovi, indicates an unacceptable worldview.

That is the hypothesis of Penrose/Hameroff -- that the microtubles in neurons "somehow" allows our brains access, via a mechanism that can be best described as the results of a nondeterministic calculation being "returned" or "reported" via the collapse of quantum superposition into one observable state, some kind of Platonic ideals that are embedded in the fabric of the universe. The hypothesis is that human insight is the result of this access. Unfortunately, insight is not limited to mathematical theorems, nor do Penrose/Hameroff claim this. They are perfectly content to include all of ethics and aesthetics -- areas traditionally riddled with insight -- in their hypothesis.

It is not a stretch to imply that Beth agrees with the possibility of whites being superior to blacks. It is a direct implication of the existence of Platonic ideals. You can't agree with the possibility of Platonic ideals in just a few areas. It is all or none. Perhaps Beth doesn't know enough about the Penrose/Hameroff hypothesis to have concluded that it implies the possibility of such things. That is why I have not attacked Beth personally -- she probably just hasn't thought this through. But that is the implication. Plain and simple.

Penrose is an elitist. In a trivial sense he is an elitist beause he isn't content that humans might just be the most advanced bunch of particles around -- he wants us to be more that just particles. In a more indirect sense he is also an elitist because he is a supporter of platonic realism. Honestly, what kind of an intelligent person supports platonic realism? An elitist, that is who. Someone who either wants what they consider "good" to be the objective "good," or someone who wants to know what the objective "good" is in order to change their own views. You should be very suspicious of people who are so obsessed with objective "good." I certainly am.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you have to ask then you're not conscious and are therefore not qualified to meaningfully participate in the discussion.

Is that really going to be your answer?

 

[rocketdodger]

My own opinion is that the best attitude to take, both personally and as social policy is the clearly false ideal that 'all people are created equal'. Would that statement be platonic ideal? I don't know.

That is the point, Beth. Platonic ideals in math is easy to agree with, because that is actually how we use math. Platonic ideals in anything else is a crap shoot -- how do you know that your ideal of equality is the platonic ideal?

We don't. What if it isn't?

Why take the chance?

Outside of numbers, I have no real idea what a platonic ideal would be. But accusing Penrose of racism because of his belief in platonic ideals seems pretty far fetched to me.

It isn't racism, it is possible racism.

I do not agree with the possibility that any race is objectively superior to any other in a Platonic sense. Platonic ideals are ideal "just because." That is the way it is. Humans aren't meant to question it -- we just need to determine what the ideal is, and then accept it. That is the whole point of Platonism.

Of course we can say whites are lighter than blacks, and blacks have better natural malaria resistance, and there are height differences, and hair differences, etc. And we can also say that statistics show income and education differences in many populations, and cultural differences between populations, etc. But this doesn't imply that there is any objective superiority -- in any metric -- just because. Like you said, if the meaning of "superior" is defined, then clearly we can say A is superior to B because A has a higher measurement of the metric in question. But that isn't Platonism -- Platonism is about defining which metrics matter.

I disagree with that possibility. My worldview doesn't allow for it. Physicalism doesn't allow for it. We are all just particles -- for some to be better than others, by any metric, in a Platonic sense is just nonsense.

As to whether Penrose thinks this, well, let me ask you -- if the whole point of the hypothesis is to explain where humans get insight, and the vast majority of humanity has no mathematical insight whatsoever, but has much ethical and aesthetic insight, then don't you think perhaps the hypothesis is more sweeping that Penrose might have first intended? Yet he has never stated "well, it only applies to mathematical insight."

No -- he just started with the math thing because that is what he thinks is "provable" in a formal sense. But obviously he understands that insight is insight and platonic reality is platonic reality. That is why I don't respect him as a person. A mathematician and physicist, yes, but not a person.

 

[Frank Newgent]

How will your end of the future of this conversation be different from what it would be if you believed me RD?

At the very least, I typed different characters on my keyboard.

Is that not action?

I plan to type different characters than I would otherwise.

Is that not intent to act?

Your claim was that belief is not equivalent to intent to act. That claim is unverifiable -- any belief you hold is going to affect your intent to act. Even if you purposefully don't intend to act any differently, that is intending to act as if you were not intending to act differently.

Lost you there.

You want an example of something concerned not with the belief/truth of propositions but rather with the intent/value of actions?

You should be very suspicious of people who are so obsessed with objective "good."

ETA: reason you and I got off on this tangent was me wondering how one might formalize normative statements such as your last quote.

 

[Malerin]

What is a feeling, emotion, sensation, perception and experience?

 

[Malerin]

In this context, it is a fair assessment.

The statement "we don't know" in the context of the objective superiority of whites over blacks, or men over women, or blue over green, or Mozart over Bon-Jovi, indicates an unacceptable worldview.

That is the hypothesis of Penrose/Hameroff -- that the microtubles in neurons "somehow" allows our brains access, via a mechanism that can be best described as the results of a nondeterministic calculation being "returned" or "reported" via the collapse of quantum superposition into one observable state, some kind of Platonic ideals that are embedded in the fabric of the universe. The hypothesis is that human insight is the result of this access. Unfortunately, insight is not limited to mathematical theorems, nor do Penrose/Hameroff claim this. They are perfectly content to include all of ethics and aesthetics -- areas traditionally riddled with insight -- in their hypothesis.

It is not a stretch to imply that Beth agrees with the possibility of whites being superior to blacks. It is a direct implication of the existence of Platonic ideals. You can't agree with the possibility of Platonic ideals in just a few areas. It is all or none. Perhaps Beth doesn't know enough about the Penrose/Hameroff hypothesis to have concluded that it implies the possibility of such things. That is why I have not attacked Beth personally -- she probably just hasn't thought this through. But that is the implication. Plain and simple.

Penrose is an elitist. In a trivial sense he is an elitist beause he isn't content that humans might just be the most advanced bunch of particles around -- he wants us to be more that just particles. In a more indirect sense he is also an elitist because he is a supporter of platonic realism. Honestly, what kind of an intelligent person supports platonic realism? An elitist, that is who. Someone who either wants what they consider "good" to be the objective "good," or someone who wants to know what the objective "good" is in order to change their own views. You should be very suspicious of people who are so obsessed with objective "good." I certainly am.

Well, there goes any shred of respect I had for you.

 

[Beth]

My own opinion is that the best attitude to take, both personally and as social policy is the clearly false ideal that 'all people are created equal'. Would that statement be platonic ideal? I don't know.

That is the point, Beth. Platonic ideals in math is easy to agree with, because that is actually how we use math. Platonic ideals in anything else is a crap shoot -- how do you know that your ideal of equality is the platonic ideal?

We don't. What if it isn't?
Why take the chance?

So what if it isn't? What would it be so terrible to find out that our contemporary view of differences between races aren't based on reality? I already know that my ideal of being created equal isn't true in reality.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the notion that platonic ideals can be anything other than mathematical notions. I could be wrong, perhaps aesthetics are as well. But this idea that we should eschew consideration of idealism because racism might be a possible outcome strikes me as a bit absurd.

Physicalism or Materialism are equally open to the charge of possibly leading to racism and elitism. In fact, if my understanding of the history of the eugenics movement in the U.S. is correct, it already has. I'm don't understand why you find this such an issue with idealism when it is a possibility inherent in any and all worldviews.

Outside of numbers, I have no real idea what a platonic ideal would be. But accusing Penrose of racism because of his belief in platonic ideals seems pretty far fetched to me.

It isn't racism, it is possible racism.

I do not agree with the possibility that any race is objectively superior to any other in a Platonic sense. Platonic ideals are ideal "just because." That is the way it is. Humans aren't meant to question it -- we just need to determine what the ideal is, and then accept it. That is the whole point of Platonism.

Perhaps. It's not what I see as the point of it.

But that isn't Platonism -- Platonism is about defining which metrics matter.

Okay. This isn't how I think of Platonism, but it's not inconsistent with my understanding of it either.

I disagree with that possibility. My worldview doesn't allow for it. Physicalism doesn't allow for it. We are all just particles -- for some to be better than others, by any metric, in a Platonic sense is just nonsense.

Okay. So? With or without platonism, we still end up placing values on different metrics and deciding for ourselves what we think is important. Any and all worldviews can lead to racism depending on what the person holding that viewpoint decides is "best". Physicalism included.

As to whether Penrose thinks this, well, let me ask you -- if the whole point of the hypothesis is to explain where humans get insight, and the vast majority of humanity has no mathematical insight whatsoever, but has much ethical and aesthetic insight, then don't you think perhaps the hypothesis is more sweeping that Penrose might have first intended? Yet he has never stated "well, it only applies to mathematical insight."

I have no idea whether it only applies to mathematical insight. I simply haven't seen any evidence that it applies to anything else, but I can't conclude that it doesn't so I wouldn't make such a statement. Why would you expect Penrose to make such a statement?

No -- he just started with the math thing because that is what he thinks is "provable" in a formal sense. But obviously he understands that insight is insight and platonic reality is platonic reality. That is why I don't respect him as a person. A mathematician and physicist, yes, but not a person.

I do not understand this paragraph. Why is this a reason not to respect him as a person? Especially if, as you said at that beginning, you only accused him of possible racism.

 

[Third Eye Open]

It is obviously both accurate and reasonable to claim that we do not know certain things. Painting statements like "we don't know for sure" as indicating a lack of intelligence with a broad brush is trivially inaccurate and unreasonable.

So, be specific please. What is it you are claiming to know for sure that people are denying is the case?

I'm not claiming to know anything for sure. I'm trying to say that it is TRIVIAL that we don't know ANYTHING for sure. So when someones whole argument is 'well we don't know for sure' I find it really irritating. Come up with an alternative then, if you don't like what people are saying. Add something useful to the discussion.

 

[rocketdodger]

Physicalism or Materialism are equally open to the charge of possibly leading to racism and elitism. In fact, if my understanding of the history of the eugenics movement in the U.S. is correct, it already has. I'm don't understand why you find this such an issue with idealism when it is a possibility inherent in any and all worldviews.

Because under physicalism or materialism, things like racism are entirely subjective -- there is zero chance that it is an objective viewpoint. Under Platonism, it might be objective. Now we could all just say "I am going to ignore the platonic ideals I don't agree with" but that doesn't change the fact that they are objective ideals. What good is an objective ideal if one ignores it? And under Penrose's hypothesis, in particular, if one ignores the ideals then one wouldn't have as much "insight" as others.

Okay. So? With or without platonism, we still end up placing values on different metrics and deciding for ourselves what we think is important. Any and all worldviews can lead to racism depending on what the person holding that viewpoint decides is "best". Physicalism included.

Hopefully I just answered this.

I have no idea whether it only applies to mathematical insight. I simply haven't seen any evidence that it applies to anything else, but I can't conclude that it doesn't so I wouldn't make such a statement. Why would you expect Penrose to make such a statement?

Because if I proposed a hypothesis, and later on I realized that implications of that hypothesis were beyond what I wanted to support, I would make an effort to reconcile the hypothesis with what I did intend to support.

Penrose's hypothesis is about human insight. He isn't dense enough to think that mathematical insight is the only insight around, or the only insight that matters -- especially when it comes to consciousness. Thus he either agrees that access to the platonic reality is responsible for ethical and aesthetic insight, or he isn't nearly as smart as everyone thinks when it comes to this issue.

Then again, many people have always thought he didn't know what he was talking about on the issue of consciousness to begin with, so perhaps I am wrong about him.

But what about you? Would you support a hypothesis, apriori, that posits human insight comes from some yet undiscovered access to platonic reality? Even with all the implications we have just gone over?

I would not. Apriori. I don't care how plausible the hypothesis might be in and of itself, it is inconsistent with everything else I know about reality. I don't even need to test it. There is no platonic reality. I don't buy it. I never will.

I do not understand this paragraph. Why is this a reason not to respect him as a person? Especially if, as you said at that beginning, you only accused him of possible racism.

I don't respect possible racism. That means just a lack of the same respect I would give, for instance, a fellow humanist who doesn't even accept the possibility of objective racism.

I disrespect confirmed racists. That means intentional disrespect. I don't claim Penrose is one of those. There is a difference.

I just think he is an elitist that is so wrapped up with himself and trying to prove he is special in this universe it becomes distasteful.

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, there goes any shred of respect I had for you.

I didn't expect you to understand any of what I said. I stopped expecting that some time ago.

Beth understands, and we are having a good discussion. You are irrelevant.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Is that really going to be your answer?

If you find my answer to be unsatisfactory then take it as a sign that you didn't properly qualify your question.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you find my answer to be unsatisfactory then take it as a sign that you didn't properly qualify your question.

Qualify in what way? I asked for your definitions of those words which you included in your previous answer to my question (not directed to you), "what do you mean by 'qualia'?". This is not a trivial point. Discussing the meaning of those words is central to what 'qualia' means.

 

[Beth]

Because under physicalism or materialism, things like racism are entirely subjective -- there is zero chance that it is an objective viewpoint. Under Platonism, it might be objective. Now we could all just say "I am going to ignore the platonic ideals I don't agree with" but that doesn't change the fact that they are objective ideals. What good is an objective ideal if one ignores it? And under Penrose's hypothesis, in particular, if one ignores the ideals then one wouldn't have as much "insight" as others.

I think platonic ideals have to be essentially universally accepted. The reason that numbers are an example is because people don't quibble over what the number 536 means. They understand it in the same way.

I think a proposed ideal that generates a disgust reaction in a majority of people cannot be considered a candidate for such an ideal.

Because if I proposed a hypothesis, and later on I realized that implications of that hypothesis were beyond what I wanted to support, I would make an effort to reconcile the hypothesis with what I did intend to support.

Penrose's hypothesis is about human insight. He isn't dense enough to think that mathematical insight is the only insight around, or the only insight that matters -- especially when it comes to consciousness. Thus he either agrees that access to the platonic reality is responsible for ethical and aesthetic insight, or he isn't nearly as smart as everyone thinks when it comes to this issue.

I've got to say that your analysis of what Penrose must be thinking is, well, it seems like specious reasoning to me.

But what about you? Would you support a hypothesis, apriori, that posits human insight comes from some yet undiscovered access to platonic reality? Even with all the implications we have just gone over? I would not. Apriori.

No. I wouldn't support it. But I wouldn't reject it either. At least I would not reject it apriori as you seem to be doing. I would probably try to determine what the person proposing the hypothesis meant to communicate to me by their references to 'human insight' and 'platonic reality'. What do you mean by those terms?

I don't care how plausible the hypothesis might be in and of itself, it is inconsistent with everything else I know about reality. I don't even need to test it. There is no platonic reality. I don't buy it. I never will.

Um...the way you describe it sounds as if it is like a religious belief to you. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'supporting a hypothesis'. Does considering it and/or testing it constitute support in the context of your above question?

 

[Meed]

I'm not claiming to know anything for sure. I'm trying to say that it is TRIVIAL that we don't know ANYTHING for sure. So when someones whole argument is 'well we don't know for sure' I find it really irritating.

You aren't being very specific. Which ideas do you think are known with a high degree of certainty that are being dismissed due to the fact that we don't know anything for sure?

I mean I get that it would be a little annoying if someone dismissed all of science due to Hume's problem with causality or whatever, but I don't see anyone doing that here.

Come up with an alternative then, if you don't like what people are saying. Add something useful to the discussion.

A wrong idea is a wrong idea and coming up with an alternative is not necessary to recognize it as such. If I were to find a flaw in M Theory, I would not have to come up with an alternative unifying theory of physics before voicing my criticism. It is also useful to a discussion to challenge claims that appear wrong or flawed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think platonic ideals have to be essentially universally accepted. The reason that numbers are an example is because people don't quibble over what the number 536 means. They understand it in the same way.

I think a proposed ideal that generates a disgust reaction in a majority of people cannot be considered a candidate for such an ideal.

Hmm, couldn't there be an ideal of evil?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Qualify in what way? I asked for your definitions of those words which you included in your previous answer to my question (not directed to you), "what do you mean by 'qualia'?". This is not a trivial point. Discussing the meaning of those words is central to what 'qualia' means.

Again, to even ask the question shows that either A) you are not conscious yourself or B) you have no idea what you're asking.

I already gave as clear and concise a definition of qualia as is posible to convey with words alone. When one speaks of qualia one is speaking of the the fundament the foundation of meaning IN AND OF ITSELF.

You wanna to know the definition of FEELING? Introspect your own goddamn feelings. Wanna know what an EMOTION is? Dude, you %@&*ing experience them all the time! You ask what SENSATION is? Touch your flippin' keyboard! To even ask "what is perception?" -- "what is experience?" -- "what are qualia?" demonstrates a profound lack of self-awareness. THEY ARE THE SPECTRUM OF YOUR VERY BEING!

THAT qualia are is beyond question to any self-aware being. WHAT qualia are is not something that can be conveyed by words alone.

More pertinent questions would be: What is the ontological relation between our "interior" subjective being and the "exterior" objective world? Or, in more scientific terms, what is the equivalence relation between qualia and quanta?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Again, to even ask the question shows that either A) you are not conscious yourself or B) you have no idea what you're asking.

I already gave as clear and concise a definition of qualia as is posible to convey with words alone. When one speaks of qualia one is speaking of the the fundament the foundation of meaning IN AND OF ITSELF.

You wanna to know the definition of FEELING? Introspect your own goddamn feelings. Wanna know what an EMOTION is? Dude, you %@&*ing experience them all the time! You ask what SENSATION is? Touch your flippin' keyboard! To even ask "what is perception?" -- "what is experience?" -- "what are qualia?" demonstrates a profound lack of self-awareness. THEY ARE THE SPECTRUM OF YOUR VERY BEING!

THAT qualia are is beyond question to any self-aware being. WHAT qualia are is not something that can be conveyed by words alone.

More pertinent questions would be: What is the ontological relation between our "interior" subjective being and the "exterior" objective world? Or, in more scientific terms, what is the equivalence relation between qualia and quanta?

OK. So you have decided up front that physicalism is false. That is fine, but it is nice to see those assumptions up front and center.

 

[Beth]

Hmm, couldn't there be an ideal of evil?

Of course. Now that I muse on the it, it occurs to me that the personification of pure evil is SATAN and the personification of the platonic ideal of good is, of course, GOD.

 

[Beth]

OK. So you have decided up front that physicalism is false. That is fine, but it is nice to see those assumptions up front and center.

I don't see his statement as a rejection of physicalism. Why do you feel that way about it?

eta: AkuManiMani could you clarify please. Do you feel you are rejecting physicalism up front?

 

[AlBell]

What is a feeling, emotion, sensation, perception and experience?

Qualia!


































Sorry. I couldn't resist.

OK, back on track: SRIP! Church-Turing! Read GEB!