Explain consciousness to the layman.

[westprog]

So are you now denying that consciousness exists ?

Certainly not. I have direct, certain knowledge of one instance of it.

So you are ? What's all this nonsense about consciousness being a hard problem and everything, if it doesn't exist at all ?

I would say that if something is undefined and has no reliable test for its detection, then that constitutes a hard problem. I know there's a solution that relies on consciousness not existing, or being an illusion, which I regard as quite obviously wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

I would say that if something is undefined and has no reliable test for its detection, then that constitutes a hard problem.

lol

This statement is the gem of the thread thus far.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Certainly not. I have direct, certain knowledge of one instance of it.
I would say that if something is undefined and has no reliable test for its detection, then that constitutes a hard problem. I know there's a solution that relies on consciousness not existing, or being an illusion, which I regard as quite obviously wrong.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that was precisely Skinner's position.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Certainly not. I have direct, certain knowledge of one instance of it.

"Consciousness" is an English word, which presumably you didn't invent. Given this, how do you know that the thing you have direct, certain knowledge of is what everyone else is on about when they say "consciousness"? How can you tell if, say, you know nothing about it at all, but somehow mistook what it was for that thing you think it is?

 

[tsig]

Just fine. I'm just waiting for an "explanation", not a superficial description.

Apparently you'll only accept an explanation that fits your beliefs.

 

[westprog]

"Consciousness" is an English word, which presumably you didn't invent. Given this, how do you know that the thing you have direct, certain knowledge of is what everyone else is on about when they say "consciousness"? How can you tell if, say, you know nothing about it at all, but somehow mistook what it was for that thing you think it is?

I can say for sure that the thing I am referring to when I say consciousness exists.

 

[westprog]

Don't take this the wrong way, but that was precisely Skinner's position.

I'm not going to take it the wrong way until I have a few more clues. Then I might overreact totally. What's Skinner's position?

 

[Complexity]

I can say for sure that the thing I am referring to when I say consciousness exists.

Nonsense.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I'm not going to take it the wrong way until I have a few more clues. Then I might overreact totally. What's Skinner's position?

Cosciousness, thinking, picturing things mentally - these all exist. The fact is that they are private behaviors which cannot be scientifically studied.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I can say for sure that the thing I am referring to when I say consciousness exists.

But any uncertainty you have in this regard to other people's use of the term directly translates to an uncertainty that you are using the term properly.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Cosciousness, thinking, picturing things mentally - these all exist. The fact is that they are private behaviors which cannot be scientifically studied.

Why not? If I can study electricity by perceiving a moving needle on a voltimeter, what stops me from studying perceptions of movements of needles?

If the latter cannot be studied because perceptions are private, by what means are we studying the former?

 

[Jeff Corey]

The moving needle is a potentially public event. Two independent observers could report their observations and the reliability of their observations could be determined.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The moving needle is a potentially public event. Two independent observers could report their observations and the reliability of their observations could be determined.

And by doing so, they ipso facto demonstrate that they each perceived it.

FYI, take a look at my avatar. Do the lines seem straight? If not, could you kindly explain to me what appears to be going on?

 

[westprog]

But any uncertainty you have in this regard to other people's use of the term directly translates to an uncertainty that you are using the term properly.

"Using the term properly" is a language issue. Since nobody else has a privileged position in using or defining the term, my version is as good as anyone else's.

 

[westprog]

Why not? If I can study electricity by perceiving a moving needle on a voltimeter, what stops me from studying perceptions of movements of needles?

If the latter cannot be studied because perceptions are private, by what means are we studying the former?

You are studying the person's response to the needle. You can't study what it feels like to see the needle.

And when I say can't, I mean can't at the moment. I don't claim that there is no ultimate possibility of accessing subjective experience. I also don't assert that there is.

And while there is no scientific way to assess someone else's feelings, that doesn't mean that it is totally impossible.

 

[Minoosh]

What does having blue or green eyes have to do with survival?

I get that traits may emerge that don't have a direct bearing on survival. Consciousness may be one. I'm not firmly in either camp here - actually I'm not sure what the camps are - materialism and dualism? Does that sound right?

 

[yy2bggggs]

You are studying the person's response to the needle.

But likewise, by studying the needle's response to voltage, I can study voltage. Using a measuring device is already a level of indirection, and it's the same thing to argue that I'm not really studying voltage but its effects.

You can't study what it feels like to see the needle.

I can study any aspect of what it feels like that can generate a response. If we can describe what it feels like, we can describe things we can study. I'm just as legitimately studying what it feels like by using those kinds of descriptions as I am studying voltage by using the needle movements.

Incidentally, there are a lot of traits regarding these private experiences that can be so described. Green looks nothing like red; yellow looks brighter than blue. Dark orange looks like a whole new color--brown; dark blue just looks like a dark version of blue.

It's possible these qualities are culturally influenced. But we can study this--dare I say, scientifically. We have our moving needles. The rest is good old fashioned science.

And while there is no scientific way to assess someone else's feelings, that doesn't mean that it is totally impossible.

If you find a way to do it, why would that way not be scientific?

 

[Jeff Corey]

And by doing so, they ipso facto demonstrate that they each perceived it.

FYI, take a look at my avatar. Do the lines seem straight? If not, could you kindly explain to me what appears to be going on?

Yes, it's a visual illusion, most likely induced by lateral inhibition. We call them visual illusions because they are non-veridical percepts agreed upon by most observers.
Next?

 

[Leumas]

I get that traits may emerge that don't have a direct bearing on survival. Consciousness may be one. I'm not firmly in either camp here - actually I'm not sure what the camps are - materialism and dualism? Does that sound right?

Well.... materialism is definitely one camp...... but I am not sure what the other camp is or if it is just ONE camp at that..... I think the other camp(s) are not sure themselves what they think...

But there is one sure other camp .... the religious one ... where consciousness is of course the SPIRIT.

Unfortunately for them the fact that some types of brain damage can result in a drastic change in the personality of a person, means that either he got a new spirit or the brain is the person and there is no spirit.

Of course in the old days they used to say he was possessed by demon spirits....but today they can't use that excuse any longer.

So this might account for some modern CASUISTIC explanations of consciousness trying to pause as "scientific" or “philosophical” and of course this accounts for the VAGUENESS of it all….. just apologists trying to still sneak in god in any gaps or even worse…. Resorting to the Usurping God Of Hindsight.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nonsense.

Indeed. One of the things we've established conclusively about consciousness is that it isn't at all what it seems.