Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, unless we clear our minds of everything we have learned and return to the primordial ooze we cannot understand the profundities of philosophy.

I don't know about philosophy, but this might be true of consciousness.

~~ Paul

 

[AlBell]

No, but it might be vastly different from what we talk about.

~~ Paul

Hard to say, but you know what your subjective experience is; as I know what mine is. And those are the only experiences either of us will ever have.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, unless we clear our minds of everything we have learned and return to the primordial ooze we cannot understand the profundities of philosophy.

Look, dude... It ain't that deep. It ain't that complicated. Get over it.

 

[westprog]

No, but it might be vastly different from what we talk about.

~~ Paul

And what is it that we talk about? And what would we talk about differently?

 

[tsig]

Look, dude... It ain't that deep. It ain't that complicated. Get over it.

Consciousness is chemical.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Consciousness is chemical.

Wow, really? Then it should be easy for you to answer these questions:

What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience? What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences? How is this process expressed thru the biochemistry of neurons? What part of the system actually has the experience(s) and what are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?

Once you're finished answering them feel free to collect your Nobel Prize.

 

[Frank Newgent]

So 夢工場 ドキドキパニック Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panikku isn't like Super Mario after all?

That aside, if you were in a simulation with no connection whatsoever to the external world where I happened to be... how could we carry on like this?

Frank didn't you read my post -- I said if we were in different situations, or one of us in a simulation and the other not in a simulation, then nothing I said applies anymore.

We could obviously not carry on like this. We are both in the same frame, or at least in frames that have a connection.

And we both seem to be aware that we both might be, either, in a simulation/vat or in the real/external world.

So already knowing that any passing detail that we observe could be, either, a feature of simulation/vat programming or an actual detail on a sunny afternoon in the real/external world I wonder... how might a simulation/brain in a vat even start to confront the question of what is external and what is simulated concerning real brains and real vats?

With no difficulty whatsoever I have confronted the question of what is external and what is simulated concerning real brains and real vats.

Might a simulation/brain in a vat note evidence of being a simulation/brain in a vat leading it to reasonably state "I am a simulation/brain in a vat"?

The simulation/brain in a vat that made this statement would then exist in the real/external world and would not be a simulation/brain in a vat. Anymore.

You might try denying the external world to make your simulation/brain in a vat argument more consistent.

 

[dlorde]

I agree, but what does? How can we objectively establish when SRIP is taking place?

It's tricky - I'd expect to see feedback, so the system can modify its behaviour according to the results of its actions, and adaptability/plasticity so that processing can change according to the feedback. But this alone is the realm of simple devices (thermostats, etc.) and simple adaptive neural nets. I don't think it gets interesting until you begin to get specialisation of functionality within the system, e.g. a monitoring sub-process that can perform more sophisticated evaluation and direction of processing than can simple feedback, e.g. using memory to provide a repertoire of past strategies, store a rating of their effectiveness in past contexts, evaluate the current context and select the appropriate strategy. This can lead on to more sophisticated functions such as evaluation by internal modelling/projection.

It may not be particularly interesting until there's a certain level of complexity, but the more complex the system, the harder to see what's happening. Functional specialisation can make it easier to see how various parts of the system interact, but in living creatures the lack of explicit design tends to cloud the boundaries.

 

[Belz...]

And just what am I continuing to "avoid", Belz?

Have you forgotten already ?

You yourself claim that you can't follow the points being presented to you and yet here you are trying to argue against them.

That's your claim. I've already corrected you on this twice. Please follow the conversation or stop pretending to understand it.

All I get from you in response is your braying and whining about about how I've not explained anything

Ah, so you DO remember !

Do you not see the absurdity of your own behavior right now? Really?

You don't speak for the whole of reality, Aku.

Tell you what: If you can demonstrate the ability clearly summarize what my actual position is I'll continue this discussion with you.

That's what I'm trying to ascertain but there's the whole avoidance issue you claim to not remember while in the same post making a reference to it...

 

[Belz...]

I'm saying that "qualia" are what our experiences reduce to.

Ah, so qualia is not a synonym of experience. It's a component. So far so good. So, two questions:

1) How do you know experience reduces to anything ?
2) How do you know it reduces to anything else than "neurons firing" ?

However, instead of their defining properties being discrete magnitudes their essence lies in being distinct qualities [as per the dictionary definition of a 'quale' being

It doesn't answer why ice is cold, though. How does a quale have a quality ?

"Don't let that fool you"...? "It's not like qualia can be defined or tested for"...?

Are you truly so utterly dense that after all this time you -still- can't comprehend what the word "qualia" refers to? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

Speaking of wrong with someone, do you think you could write a single post to me without some sort of insult ? Please remember your membership agreement.

 

[Belz...]

The only reason for the qualia term is to avoid confusion with non-subjective experience. I don't find it a help simply because it leads to digressions like this.

No such animal.

 

[Belz...]

Look, dude... It ain't that deep. It ain't that complicated. Get over it.

No offense, but this is somewhat funny coming from someone who posits an unknown in order to explain something for which we might not need it.

Oh, and if a theist says that me not understanding trinity even after years of him explaining it to me, I wouldn't give much weight to his opinion considering how ridiculous the concept it. Same with qualia.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hard to say, but you know what your subjective experience is; as I know what mine is. And those are the only experiences either of us will ever have.

No, I not at all sure that I know what it is. I only know what it feels like.

And what is it that we talk about? And what would we talk about differently?

Philosophers have talked about philosophy of mind for millennia. How do they know that what they are saying has much to do with what is actually going on?

~~ Paul

 

[Philosaur]

Look, dude... It ain't that deep. It ain't that complicated. Get over it.

Did you take rhetoric lessons from Sarah Palin? You know, where you get all folksy to take the wind out of the intellectual blowhards who are trying to over-complicate your simple theory of qualia?

Let me ask you something: what explanatory power does this notion of qualia have? What do we get by saying that experiences are composed of qualia?

Does it answer any questions about subjective experience? Does it make possible any new experiments or measurements? Does it somehow deepen our understanding of the mind? From all I have found, the answer is a big, fat NO.

"Qualia" is a place-holder, a gap-filler, as blatantly as the notion of a deity. Your claim that experiences are composed of qualia is only true if you *define* qualia as being components of experience. But terms and definitions don't give us new (synthetic, in Kantian terms) knowledge about the world, they merely give us a short-hand way of referring to something. In the case of qualia, it's something we still--despite having given it a name--know next to nothing about.

 

[AkuManiMani]

And when you're shown to be demonstrably wrong, what do you do? Dig your heels in like a stubborn mule. Typical...

And just what am I continuing to "avoid", Belz?

Have you forgotten already ?

Oh right, your asinine anecdotes about god and dragons that have no relevance to the discussion but you feel are pithy and damning in some way?

You yourself claim that you can't follow the points being presented to you and yet here you are trying to argue against them.

That's your claim. I've already corrected you on this twice. Please follow the conversation or stop pretending to understand it.

The irony never ends...

All I get from you in response is your braying and whining about about how I've not explained anything

Ah, so you DO remember !

Remember what? The fact that you wouldn't recognize an explanation if someone beat you over the head with it, or the fact that I've foolishly wasted my time over the years thinking you had the brain power sufficient to understand what I've been saying?

Do you not see the absurdity of your own behavior right now? Really?

You don't speak for the whole of reality, Aku.

Of course not, but unlike you I've atleast enough presence of mind to see whats going on right in from of me.

Tell you what: If you can demonstrate the ability clearly summarize what my actual position is I'll continue this discussion with you.

That's what I'm trying to ascertain but there's the whole avoidance issue you claim to not remember while in the same post making a reference to it...

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Speaking of wrong with someone, do you think you could write a single post to me without some sort of insult ? Please remember your membership agreement.

Wheres the insult? I just wanted to be sure that the person with whom I'm speaking isn't clinically handicapped in some way. Its not a crime to be retarded, Belz

 

[AkuManiMani]

In the case of qualia, it's something we still--despite having given it a name--know next to nothing about.

Replace the word "qualia" with consciousness and you should have some better insight into what this discussion is really about: we currently lack a rigorous scientific understanding of how consciousness figures into known physics. I really don't get what your objection is to the label of "qualia", but the debate over whether or not its a good word is a red-herring. In any case, when you decide to address my post, which already answered your questions, I'll get back to you.

 

[AlBell]

No, I not at all sure that I know what it is. I only know what it feels like.

Indeed. Which is all any conscious entity will ever know; an accepted name for it is qualia. (my bolding)

 

[rocketdodger]

Might a simulation/brain in a vat note evidence of being a simulation/brain in a vat leading it to reasonably state "I am a simulation/brain in a vat"?

The simulation/brain in a vat that made this statement would then exist in the real/external world and would not be a simulation/brain in a vat. Anymore.

Yes, correct.

And then, the question of whether it was a BIVIV must be addressed, and then once that is answered whether it is a BIVIVIV.

Which is all pointless, if you ask me.

The only reason the simulation hypothesis is even important is that it shows something about logical consistency -- since it is logically impossible to determine if you are in the *base* frame -- the frame that is not some kind of a nested simulation -- then any arguments must be valid (not necessarily correct) in both the case of us being in a simulation and the case of us being in the base frame.

Case in point -- westprog had argued that if we are in a simulation, then we are not really conscious, because real consciousness cannot exist in a simulation. I don't think this is logically valid, given any definition of consciousness. If it were, then since we know we are really conscious, we could prove we were in the base frame. An inconsistency.

The logically valid formulation of the idea westprog was getting at is to say that perhaps any simulations we make within this frame -- which would be a frame higher or lower than our own, depending on how you look at it -- wouldn't be able to support consciousness like our own frame can. This could be for any number of reasons, all of them reducing to the fundamental question of whether we can simulate every feature of our own frame. That is a valid question. This also implies that if we are in a simulation, perhaps there is stuff one frame out that cannot be part of "our" simulation for the same kinds of reasons. And in that case, it would also be valid to say that we are not really conscious in the same way that a being in that outer world might be conscious. But it is nonsense to say "if I am in a simulation, then I am not conscious."

 

[Belz...]

Speaking of wrong with someone, do you think you could write a single post to me without some sort of insult ? Please remember your membership agreement.

And when you're shown to be demonstrably wrong, what do you do? Dig your heels in like a stubborn mule. Typical...

I guess I'll take that as a "no".

Oh right, your asinine anecdotes about god and dragons that have no relevance to the discussion but you feel are pithy and damning in some way?

No content.

The irony never ends...

No content.

Remember what? The fact that you wouldn't recognize an explanation if someone beat you over the head with it, or the fact that I've foolishly wasted my time over the years thinking you had the brain power sufficient to understand what I've been saying?

No content.

Of course not, but unlike you I've atleast enough presence of mind to see whats going on right in from of me.

No content.

We get it, Belz. You're too slow to understand the explanations given to you so you hold me responsible for your deficiencies. I preferred to avoid the issue but, really, theres no way of getting around it: you're just a strait-up blockhead. Hit me up when you figure out what the topic of discussion is, m'kay?

No content.

If you bothered to put any effort at all into the actual content of your posts rather than their form (that is: insulting), maybe you'd stand a chance in getting understood.

I don't give a hoot whether or not you think I'm a total idiot, and I think you know this. So you repeating it apparently serves only to stroke your own ego. And no, I have no idea how to reduce that to.