On Consciousness

[Belz...]

have you discovered the graviton and are holding back on us?

I see you have no idea what science is. You seem to be asking us to do science without using the scientific method.

 

[tensordyne]

If that's all they were I think we'd all be fine with the term.

A reasonable person! Yippee!

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, I get the impression your a Hitchens fan.

Yes, a big fan on many levels.

It would be extremely pertinent to watch this.

Not really, no.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I was watching Watson play Jeopardy today and applied the reductionist perspective to it to see what I got. When you examine it at the minutest scale, you see it's just a network of transistors. They allow current to flow through them when there's the right current or voltage on their base, and otherwise don't. That's all that is happening, but Watson "understood" enough English, and information about our world to beat the world's greatest players, even though not a single transistor "understood" anything about what it was switching for.

Likewise, no brain cell understands anything about what it's doing (neither English nor the lives we lead) yet the network as a whole understands our world well enough to nearly beat a man-made machine.

 

[tensordyne]

No.

Yes.

Then, since objective reality exists, the subjective clearly does not.

Do you even have the slightest clue what those words are about? What aspect of reality those two terms are trying to capture? I only ask because it is confusing to me to have to answer such a blindingly obvious question your statement above implies. First though, a detour.

The Semantic Web is an initiative of the W3C to create a standard that would allow for semantic (meaning) based searches. The technology is still somewhat in its infancy but the potential is huge. Compared with traditional searches that use string matching and recursive popularity based heuristic algorithms, a Semantic Web based search will follow a trail of links that have meaning.

The way this works is by using semantic triples. One of the simplest sentences one can say in most natural languages is composed of just a subject and a verb word such as "I eat". I guess you could complain though that this is an incomplete idea because you can't just eat, you have to be eating something! So we have subject, verb, object sentences.

I eat apples, for instance. That is a triple. Let S be subject, V verb and O object, then a semantic triple is (S,V,O),

Look at how the words are used in the sentence form of a triple. The subject is the thing that does the verb onto the object. The subjective is therefore about such kind of things, that is to say, us. It is subjective whether you find another person attractive or not, but it is objective fact how tall that person is.

In Special Relativity, it is a fact that each observer will report the same proper-time between any two events. The space and time intervals between the two events is determined by which observor one is talking about, hence it is subjective in nature. I could go on but I feel like it is silly to have to defend the idea that there are some things that are subjective and some things that are objective.

You haven't really thought this through, have you?

I know, crazy me. What was I thinking? I should be listening to the creepy internet pannochio character with all the answers. I'm sorry, I'll stop thinking now so I can agree with you.

Correct.

Oh good, you agree than that your position is metaphysical, and hence, not scientific! I noticed you also declined to tell us how to falsify your one substance model's predictions, or what predictions of any you have for this model.

See, there is progress yet. You just realize your position is unscientific metaphysics, let it go and read from the Empiricists who started the scientific tradition. Or you can go back to Dennett and his pseudo-scientific word games. Your choice.

Demonstrate that laws of the Universe are not logically consistent: That something can both happen and not happen.

BS flag!



Since you are the one making the claim you need to show that

• You have predictions based upon the model you advocate and that these predictions match with already established science where appropriate.
• Establish criteria for the possible falsification of your 'One Substance' model as per Popper. It is also at least somewhat advised that you should hopefully have observations showing that applicable tests of your model have not falsified your theory already.

Well, get chopping. It is not I who is making this claim but you!

No. Merely that your definition is incorrect.

The definition is fine.

Garbage. Utter garbage.

Yeah, I know, garbage in and garbage out is all Hard-AI'ers understand so I can see why you would think an empirical approach to consciousness would not sit well with you.

We know how the Universe works.

Arrogant much?!? "We know how the Universe works" peon. How dare you question my authorite!

Yes, I see, so some group (we), that you are a part of, knows the final laws of physics, consciousness and the non-meaning of life. OK, I bow down to you and your mighty invisible brain team.

FTFY: We know how to investigate phenomena to predict the outcome of observations and experiments in an objective way using the Scientific Method.

We know that there's only one sort of stuff, and it follows a consistent set of laws.

Define stuff and a falsifiable theory associated with it and I will consider your claim; as it is, it is not even wrong.

We know that mind arises as a process in matter, and not any other way.

It does not matter to me where it comes out, I am not even discussing such matters, and wouldn't even if I wanted to because it is metaphysical in origin, What matters is not what we think the world is composed of, but how we go about figuring that out. You are putting your metaphysical cart before your scientific horse.

We know this. It's not the subject for any rational dispute.

See the above FTFY section.

My position is supported by every scientific experiment ever, and you say that I'm presumptuous?

Science is much more about Epistemology than Ontology. The Royal Society did open demonstrations in auditoriums so that everyone could see that the predictions of the lecturer came to pass or not. To this day this is also done in many classrooms covering a scientific topic. This method of open demonstration of directly observable results bypassed the philosophical quagmire that existed up to that point whereby individuals would debate so called absolute causes (ontologies).

By shifting the perspective to how questions, and emphasizing observation over armchair theorizing, science recieved it's first boost. So you see, I become very concerned when I see on the SMMT forum a skeptic who engages in obvious metaphysical nonsense.

No. No, I don't think so.

Yes, unfortunately, it is true.

Seriously, get a grip. Searle's position is useful only as a teaching tool for undergraduates on how to spot logical fallacies. Dennett has his faults, but he punches through the nonsense very effectively.

What should I grip on to? The ludicrous idea that perception does not exist because that would mean scary spirits in some dualistic universe. The only ontologies that have anything like absolute status are perception and the abstract mind (I percieve, therefore I am; I think, therefore I know it.). Everything else is a model. A possibly very well tested model, but still, a model.

Of course, how to explain this seemingly simple idea to people like PixyMisa who think in terms of ontologies instead of epistemologies? There is an interesting video on one of the TED Neuro talks covering the work of one cognitive scientist working with children. She demonstrates in the video what is called Theory of Mind. Children below the age of five or so do not understand that others can have false beliefs. This is shown with a story involving two pirates and questions about what the two pirates will do. It seems that even though five year olds can understand false beliefs, they do not have a good sense of morality in anything like adult terms until the age of seven.

I wonder if we could do something similar here. Say we take me and PixyMisa. Obviously we have different ideas on some fundamental issues. It is my fear that PixyMisa has less of an advanced Theory of Mind about the topics we are discussing than I do. How to test this though? I mean, imagine the five year old debating the three year old, the three year old just does not have the mental machinery to follow along.

I do feel like that I understand PixyMisa's position (understand but do not agree), whereas from various writings of PixyMisa I am pretty sure PixyMisa is not understanding in any significant way my own position. To make a test we could have two questions, one for each of us. We would each answer our own question as well as try to act as if we were the other person in how they answer their own question. The format for answering would have to be a rigid, say, three sentences for each response, it is just that we do not agree). If, on the other hand, one of us can better mirror what the other would say, then that person who does the mirroring better wins. Four judges, Two Questions, Four Answers, Lots of Mirror Neurons.

You up for it PixyMisa?

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes.

Still no.

Do you even have the slightest clue what those words are about?

I know exactly what they mean. I don't know what you think they mean, though, because the way you use the words makes no sense.

First though, a detour.

Which is different how?

In Special Relativity, it is a fact that each observer will report the same proper-time between any two events. The space and time intervals between the two events is determined by which observor one is talking about, hence it is subjective in nature.

It is purely, verifiably, mathematically predictably objective.

I know, crazy me. What was I thinking? I should be listening to the creepy internet pannochio character with all the answers. I'm sorry, I'll stop thinking now so I can agree with you.

No, what I'm suggesting is that you start thinking.

Oh good, you agree than that your position is metaphysical, and hence, not scientific!

Not in any way whatsoever.

My statement was a statement of metaphysics. However, it is one that is backed up by all evidence of any kind ever.

I noticed you also declined to tell us how to falsify your one substance model's predictions, or what predictions of any you have for this model.

I not only answered that, that's the very next thing you quote. At least try to pay attention.

BS flag!

Well, yes, but that applies to all your posts.

Since you are the one making the claim you need to show that

1. You have predictions based upon the model you advocate and that these predictions match with already established science where appropriate.

All of science.

2. Establish criteria for the possible falsification of your 'One Substance' model as per Popper. It is also at least somewhat advised that you should hopefully have observations showing that applicable tests of your model have not falsified your theory already.

See above.

Well, get chopping. It is not I who is making this claim but you!

Yes. I'm saying science works. You're saying that you can make up whatever the hell you like and it's just as valid as reality.

I'll grant your point the day you manage to intuit a post onto this forum instead of using a computer.

The definition is fine.

But wrong - or simple nonsense.

Yeah, I know, garbage in and garbage out is all Hard-AI'ers understand so I can see why you would think an empirical approach to consciousness would not sit well with you.

You seem confused. I have no problem at all with an empirical approach. However, what you are offering is not an empirical approach, it is a word salad approach

Arrogant much?!?

Not at all. This is humility. Insisting that all of science is fundamentally wrong, with neither evidence nor logic nor even coherent argument, now that is arrogance.

"We know how the Universe works" peon. How dare you question my authorite!

Remind me: How exactly did you post that drivel to this forum?

Yes, I see, so some group (we), that you are a part of, knows the final laws of physics, consciousness and the non-meaning of life. OK, I bow down to you and your mighty invisible brain team.

Strawman, and not even an entertaining one.

FTFY: We know how to investigate phenomena to predict the outcome of observations and experiments in an objective way using the Scientific Method.

Yes. And since this method works, we know how the Universe works, and that rules out everything you appear to wish to believe.

Define stuff and a falsifiable theory associated with it and I will consider your claim; as it is, it is not even wrong.

Already done. You even quoted me. Try again.

And really, if there's only one sort of stuff, what do you think the definition is?

It does not matter to me where it comes out

Then you have a real problem, because that is the issue under consideration.

I am not even discussing such matters, and wouldn't even if I wanted to because it is metaphysical in origin

Not remotely. It's science.

What matters is not what we think the world is composed of, but how we go about figuring that out.

That's metaphysics.

See the above FTFY section.

My statement is still entirely correct.

Science is much more about Epistemology than Ontology.

In fact, under scientific naturalism, the two are isometric. And modern materialism is scientific naturalism with the recognition that ontology is epistemology.

To unpack that slightly, you can't know what anything is, only how it interacts. Which means that the only meaningful definition of what something is, is what it does. What things are and how we learn about them are thus the exact same thing.

The Royal Society did open demonstrations in auditoriums so that everyone could see that the predictions of the lecturer came to pass or not. To this day this is also done in many classrooms covering a scientific topic. This method of open demonstration of directly observable results bypassed the philosophical quagmire that existed up to that point whereby individuals would debate so called absolute causes (ontologies).

Yes. See above. We know how the Universe works, and as such, ontology is epistemology.

By shifting the perspective to how questions, and emphasizing observation over armchair theorizing, science recieved it's first boost.

Which is why you find me in this very thread telling people that they are asking the wrong questions.

So you see, I become very concerned when I see on the SMMT forum a skeptic who engages in obvious metaphysical nonsense.

So stop doing that, then.

Yes, unfortunately, it is true.

So, my position is supported by every scientific experiment ever, and yet I'm presumptuous to hold it?

You need to find a new dictionary; yours seems to be for a language other than English.

What should I grip on to?

Logic. Evidence.

The ludicrous idea that perception does not exist because that would mean scary spirits in some dualistic universe.

Since that idea is yours alone, no, I suggest you abandon that.

The only ontologies that have anything like absolute status are perception and the abstract mind (I percieve, therefore I am; I think, therefore I know it.).

Those are tautologies.

Everything else is a model. A possibly very well tested model, but still, a model.

And?

Of course, how to explain this seemingly simple idea to people like PixyMisa who think in terms of ontologies instead of epistemologies?

See above.

There is an interesting video on one of the TED Neuro talks covering the work of one cognitive scientist working with children. She demonstrates in the video what is called Theory of Mind. Children below the age of five or so do not understand that others can have false beliefs.

Thank you. I know that. Hide the toy and ask them where the other child will think the toy is.

I wonder if we could do something similar here. Say we take me and PixyMisa. Obviously we have different ideas on some fundamental issues. It is my fear that PixyMisa has less of an advanced Theory of Mind about the topics we are discussing than I do.

In other words, you've humiliated yourself, and are fishing about for an excuse.

Instead of wasting everyone's time with nonsensical ad hominem attacks, could you try to assemble some sort of coherent position, and, when you've done that, support it with evidence and reasoned argument?

 

[Belz...]

A reasonable person! Yippee!

Unfortunately that's not all they are, so no.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Here's a neat little video about "The Hard Problem" but I'm wondering why it's necessary to introduce EM (or anything in addition to action potentials).

 

[tensordyne]

I know exactly what they mean. I don't know what you think they mean, though, because the way you use the words makes no sense.

You use the word objective the way I would use the word true. That is not its only meaning.

Which is different how?

Hilarious, not.

It is purely, verifiably, mathematically predictably objective.

And yet, a particular observer making a particular observation is subjective. Huh, I wonder how that could be? Maybe it is because you do not know what the two words mean?

No, what I'm suggesting is that you start thinking.

Thanks for the pointless insult. I will let you know when I think you start thinking.

Not in any way whatsoever.

My statement was a statement of metaphysics. However, it is one that is backed up by all evidence of any kind ever.

Hold on here! The first sentence says no but then the next sentence says the opposite. Make up your mind, are you making metaphysical statements or not? And you can not back up metaphysical statements as they are concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world. Science does not make such pronouncements, it is epistemology, not ontology.

I not only answered that, that's the very next thing you quote. At least try to pay attention.

You did not give your one substance model. You say it is the same as the Science Models out there. As far as I can tell, such models do not make any mention of 'substances' as you would have it.

I will not let up on this point. Either your ideas are ontologies and therefore we can ignore you like we ignore any woo master, or you make predictions with your model that can be tested (epistemology, science, empiricism). To say your metaphysics is in line with current scientific consensus is a non-statement because science does not allow for discussion of metaphysics.

Well, yes, but that applies to all your posts.

BS diversion flag!


Isn't this how children argue? You are wrong. No I'm not. Yes you are...

I said your stance of saying science was your model was BS given the context. Instead of making an argument about what was being argued about, you make it about my posts (not the original topic at hand). Ergo, BS diversion.

All of science.

Oh, now I see, your model is just "science", forget about those pesky substances we were talking about a minute ago. No, no, do not look at the man behind the curtains.

See above.

Another non asnwer. Defend your one substance stance or give up on it. This obfuscating a metaphysical position with a scientific one is annoying in the extreme.

Yes. I'm saying science works. You're saying that you can make up whatever the hell you like and it's just as valid as reality.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest is on display above. OK, your saying science works, that is fine. Of course, what that further means can be left alone for the moment, but to say that I advocate making up whatever the hell I want and believe it to be just as valid as 'reality' is, that does not sound like the position I have been advocating for.

Reality is a kind of model. We check that model against what is observed. If the abstract model does not meet up with what is observed, it is chucked in favor of a hopefully better model. This is the scientific method in a nutshell. It does not involve 'substances', it does not involve metaphysical absolute natures, it involves an abstract mind capable of thought and perception.

Note the important thing about real models, they can be checked. How do you check your one substance ideas? How do you falsify them? If you can not, it is not science.

I'll grant your point the day you manage to intuit a post onto this forum instead of using a computer.

Shades of further diversion.

But wrong - or simple nonsense.

I am not the one arguing the implausibly ridiculous idea that subjective and objective are not opposites because the subjective does not exist.

You seem confused. I have no problem at all with an empirical approach. However, what you are offering is not an empirical approach, it is a word salad approach

Words are important because they convey meaning. I know the words ontology and epistemology are not exactly on the tip of everyone's tongue but the subject matter forces my hand. You believe in making scientific models into ontologies. It is as simple as that. I am against that idea because I respect the primacy of observation in settling disputes associated with models.

In action, I am sure you will act like a good scientist and follow the rules. As far as your world-view goes though, it is unscientific.

Not at all. This is humility. Insisting that all of science is fundamentally wrong, with neither evidence nor logic nor even coherent argument, now that is arrogance.

That is not what you said originally:

We know how the Universe works. We know that there's only one sort of stuff, and it follows a consistent set of laws. We know that mind arises as a process in matter, and not any other way.

You know how the universe works (not provisionally stated, or with some form of guarded adjectives such as 'mostly know', nope, you know it all!).

You know there is only one form of stuff and that it follows consistent laws.

You also seem to think I think science is all wrong (red herring, I do not). I think your view of science is wrong as to what it studies. I think science is a form of epistemology that you have turned into an ontology because you have read, for instance, the works of Dennett (or similar). That is what I think. You can quote me on it too.

Remind me: How exactly did you post that drivel to this forum?

Not worthy of much reply except to note, I did post it, and it was meant to be a reflection of how you are acting.

Strawman, and not even an entertaining one.

Strawman from you, that is hilarious. I noticed you did not provide an argument for why you thought it was a strawman. For it to be a strawman I have to be attacking a position you do not have. The reply you gave was to your original statements that were paraphrased by me and with some snarkiness added in for good measure. I can understand not liking the snarkiness, but you did say "We know how the Universe works."

So until you add in "We mostly know how the Universe works," or something to that effect, my position of unbridled incredulity at anyone pronouncing they know how the universe actually works in its entirety will stand as it is.

Yes. And since this method works, we know how the Universe works, and that rules out everything you appear to wish to believe.

How so? I am not even sure if you get what I am talking about, so a little more data would help here. I get the feeling though that when you use the sentence "we know how the universe works" you are not talking in that ultra-careful way that scientists talk about their results, but the way a mystic discusses the metaphysics of reality.

Again, I am not interested in metaphysics. This is a science forum. Go on the religion and philosophy forum if you want to discuss your religion, whatever form it may be in.

Already done. You even quoted me. Try again.

And really, if there's only one sort of stuff, what do you think the definition is?

OK, let me try this out. I am not the one making the claim. I do not have to define terms or make appropriate arguments. I do not have to argue about my stuff model. If your stuff model is just science to date, then you do not have your own model and there is no need to bring up stuff. If you do have a new model, then you should be able to defend it (unless you state you do not wish to defend it for the moment, your prerogative).

What you are doing now is obfuscating the empirical with the ontological, again.

Then you have a real problem, because that is the issue under consideration.

Under consideration (at least from my perspective) is how should a science of consciousness work, as well as what science is really all about? I do not care to discuss about unprovable substances of dualism, monism or any other ism except to note that they are unscientific.

Not remotely. It's science.

Ontologies related to the absolute nature of existence is not science, it is metaphysics.

That's metaphysics.

Yep, you got me, it is metaphysics that I said before. I did not mean for that statement to be metaphysical, so please allow me to restate it.

What matters is not what we think the world is composed of, but how we go about making predictions that match observation.

Predictions matching observation, or not, is really what I am about. I hope you do not consider that unscientific.

My statement is still entirely correct.

That you know how the universe works huh? OK, so how does Quantum Gravity work, brainchild? Or how many civilizations do there exist in the universe as well as some form of proof of the same. Oh yeah, you know how the universe works!

You and everyone else have models. These models come from observation and experiment as well as a lot of thought. Your unfalsifiable substances come from philosophers who do not have to prove what they say with anything like the same as occurs in science.

In fact, under scientific naturalism, the two are isometric. And modern materialism is scientific naturalism with the recognition that ontology is epistemology.

It should be isomorphic, not isometric, and they are not even that. Naturalism is an ontology that forgot it was one and so masquerades around town like it wasn't one. Remember, ontology is about existence! Epistemology is about figuring things out (knowledge).

To unpack that slightly, you can't know what anything is, only how it interacts. Which means that the only meaningful definition of what something is, is what it does. What things are and how we learn about them are thus the exact same thing.

So in the first sentence you agree with me but you forget to include "... only how it interacts with our senses." This would then mean the next sentence would have to include "... does to our senses."

And we are not talking about what things are, in and of themselves, we are talking of what we think they act like. You think of the whole world as one substance, whatever it is that means exactly. What you think of as substance I consider a model. A very well established model, but still a model (and an incomplete one because there is as yet no well agreed upon model of consciousness).

Plus, if you know how something interacts, then you know just that, how it interacts, not, what it is. Phenomena versus noumena, look it up. I deal only in phenomena and abstract concepts related to it. Noumena, such as "reality" or "substance", are unverifiable claims akin to religious statements. No thanks.

Yes. See above. We know how the Universe works, and as such, ontology is epistemology.

Yeah, tell a philosophy major that ontology is epistemology and they will think you are high or on something. The study of the nature of existence is not the same as the study of how we go about knowing things (especially in a scientific context).

Which is why you find me in this very thread telling people that they are asking the wrong questions.

You know, this gets me to another point. As a scientist, I am sure you would do a fine job (except possibly as it concerns studying consciousness). Not worried about it. My problem is with your world-view and always has been. You bring up the point about questions. If you for instance have no problem asking someone during a visual experiment what they are seeing (for fear that it is not scientific), I see no special point in arguing against you about your methods (just do not make claims that robots are conscious, because you do not even know what consciuosness is about).

Your confusion on some terms and the Naive Realism you have is most annoying though.

So stop doing that, then.

My concern will not abate just because you ask it to. Understanding the scientific mindset at its core is important, especially as we start to tease apart the mechanisms of consciousness.

So, my position is supported by every scientific experiment ever, and yet I'm presumptuous to hold it?

Your substance model is not even well thought out. Is it even a model, or an ontology? If it is an ontology, it is not scientific. If it is a model, you need to explicate what it predicts and how it does so. Make your choice.

You need to find a new dictionary; yours seems to be for a language other than English.

I use dictionary.com. It is not about the words though that you have a problem with, it is about the concepts, and you are missing a few of those.

Logic. Evidence.

Very well, but I am already pretty steadfast as far as that goes.

Since that idea is yours alone, no, I suggest you abandon that.

Ah, so you contend I am mischaracterising your position. If there is only one substance, where is the need or requirement for sensation (I guess what you would call the other substance)? Where does sensation enter your world-view, as something subservient to models, not even worthy of mention? Or is it one of the two primary aspects by how we figure things out and worthy of study for its own sake (my take)?

Those are tautologies.

I what sense, the rhetorical or the formal logical sense? In the rhetorical sense saying there are two things that have something like absolute ontological status and then saying what they are in parenthesis is not a tautology, it's an elaboration.

In the logic sense, what I wrote was not a tautology because there was no rule given as to how to replace one correct prepositional statement with another. Nor was the focus on such.

Or is it your goal to snow other people who are perhaps not as knowledgeable as you are about logic and science and so on with your statements? If such is the case, it is not going to work with me. First off, you say tautology as if it is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong in using a tautology to help one make an argument. Tautologies tell us how to make logical inferences in the proper manner. It is only a problem when all one has is tautology, then P and Q as sentences with a true or false value become unimportant and only the labels matter (as complained about by various authors in the past).

That is not what is going on above. I set out what I thought were the closest things to a knowable form of ontology. If you want to complain about them you will need to make an argument. As it is, the above is a vacuous misstatement.

And?

That means you are wrong. That means talking about the universe in terms of the models we have as if the universe really was that way, is wrong, or at best, a short hand for what we really mean, which is that the model and observation match. We do not test for 'existence' in the way you use that word with the words substance, reality, so forth. We test models only against observations that are ultimately based on perception.

I do not want you to think I am some kind of spiritualist, or naturalist either. In terms of science, both world-views are unscientific. Both make unfalsifiable claims about the ultimate nature of reality. I am an observationalist. I agree with the empiricists (who started science).

See above.

See below.

Thank you. I know that. Hide the toy and ask them where the other child will think the toy is.

So you do not want to do the challenge. Oh well, it probably would have been a shambles in one way or the other.

In terms of Theory of Mind, yours is that no one has one. I simply can not accept such a position as the basis for a social endeavor involving exploring consciousness known as the scientific method.

There is a famous quote by someone or other famous on how science is either physics or stamp collecting. To a large extent, I agree, but I think it is even simpler than that. Science is psychology taken to its maximal extent. If you can understand the previous sentence, you can understand where I am coming from.

In other words, you've humiliated yourself, and are fishing about for an excuse.

I fish for nothing other than logic and evidence. So far your pool is muddy with metaphysical nonsense.

Instead of wasting everyone's time with nonsensical ad hominem attacks, could you try to assemble some sort of coherent position, and, when you've done that, support it with evidence and reasoned argument?

Again, as far as substances go, I am not the one making the claim. As for the rest, my position is solid and has not changed. That position is in keeping with the best traditions of science in rejecting claims of utter certainty about the nature of reality (your position).

All the best to you all!

 

[PixyMisa]

You use the word objective the way I would use the word true. That is not its only meaning.

Then you need to check your definition of the word true, because you have that wrong as well.

Hilarious, not.

No, seriously. You spend all your time avoiding the topic.

And yet, a particular observer making a particular observation is subjective. Huh, I wonder how that could be?

Simple: You have not the slightest notion what you are talking about. Seriously. You do not have a clue.

Relativity is not subjective. It's relative. It's a straightforward mathematical relationship between different objects depending on their velocity vectors.

Thanks for the pointless insult.

It's not an insult, and it's not pointless. See above. You are completely and utterly wrong about this. Throw your ideas away and start again.

Hold on here! The first sentence says no but then the next sentence says the opposite.

No. You are conflating the subject of one single statement with the structure of my position, which is that of science.

Make up your mind, are you making metaphysical statements or not? And you can not back up metaphysical statements as they are concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world. Science does not make such pronouncements, it is epistemology, not ontology.

Science as a system is a meta-experiment, and as such, it does make statements about ontology, as I've already explained.

You did not give your one substance model. You say it is the same as the Science Models out there. As far as I can tell, such models do not make any mention of 'substances' as you would have it.

You couldn't be more wrong. The reason you can't find it in any specific theory is that it's the central concept of every scientific theory, without exception.

I will not let up on this point.

Then you'll have to accept that you're wrong.

Either your ideas are ontologies and therefore we can ignore you like we ignore any woo master, or you make predictions with your model that can be tested (epistemology, science, empiricism).

Right. And I can make predictions, and my position is falsifiable. I've already shown you how.

To say your metaphysics is in line with current scientific consensus is a non-statement because science does not allow for discussion of metaphysics.

This is wrong, as I've already noted.

Isn't this how children argue? You are wrong. No I'm not. Yes you are...

You're wrong. I've demonstrated this to any rational observer. Yet you persist.

I'm not sure what you expect at this point.

I said your stance of saying science was your model was BS given the context.

And you were wrong.

Instead of making an argument about what was being argued about, you make it about my posts (not the original topic at hand).

Nope.

Oh, now I see, your model is just "science", forget about those pesky substances we were talking about a minute ago.

No. This is wrong in every possible way.

There is only one type of stuff. This is the core principle of science.

Science as an organised undertaking is a meta-experiment into whether this principle is correct. So far, the answer is an unambiguous yes.

No, no, do not look at the man behind the curtains.

The man behind the curtains is also science.

Another non asnwer. Defend your one substance stance or give up on it. This obfuscating a metaphysical position with a scientific one is annoying in the extreme.

I have answered you. You're simply not paying attention.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest is on display above.

Stop doing that then.

OK, your saying science works, that is fine.

Good.

Of course what that further means can be left alone for the moment, but to say that I advocate making up whatever the hell I want and it being just as valid as 'reality', that does not sound like the position I have been advocating for.

Not what you are advocating for, what you are doing.

Reality is a kind of model.

Nope. Everything else is a model. Reality is real.

We check that model against what is observed. If the abstract model does not meet up with what is observed, it is chucked in favor of a hopefully better model. This is the scientific method in a nutshell. It does not involve 'substances', it does not involve metaphysical absolute natures, it involves an abstract mind capable of thought and perception.

I never mentioned "substances". Once again, that's just something you've made up, whatever the hell you think it means.

But that there is just one type of stuff is the essential principle of science.

Note the important thing about real models, they can be checked. How do you check your one substance ideas? How do you falsify them? If you can not, it is not science.

I've already answered this repeatedly, and you can find the answer in any halfway decent book on the philosophy of science.

The scientific method is based on methodological naturalism, that we should seek explanations of natural events (i.e. observations) exclusively in terms of other natural events (i.e. other potential observations).

With me so far?

What does that mean?

It means that science is an attempt to explain the Universe as if there was only one kind of stuff.

And what do we find?

This works.

And what can we conclude from that?

That there's only one kind of stuff.

ETA: This is a conclusion. If you respond as though I were claiming it to be a mathematical proof, I shall taunt you a second time.

Which is what I said.

Shades of further diversion.

Not a diversion at all. Not at all. It's precisely my point.

There's one kind of stuff. Conjuring up a new kind of stuff just because it makes for an appealing explanation (to you, certainly not to me) is the perfect antithesis of science.

I am not the one arguing the implausibly ridiculous idea that subjective and objective are not opposites because the subjective does not exist.

That bears no relation at all to anything I've said.

Words are important because they convey meaning. I know the words ontology and epistemology are not exactly on the tip of everyone's tongue but the subject matter forces my hand. You believe in making scientific models into ontologies. It is as simple as that.

No, that is precisely the opposite of what I've said.

If you would please just respond to what I post rather than what you would like to believe I've posted, that would cut down on the number of mistakes you are making considerably.

In action, I am sure you will act like a good scientist and follow the rules. As far as your world-view goes though, it is unscientific.

This is, as I have shown repeatedly, completely wrong.

You know how the universe works (not provisionally stated, or with some form of guarded adjectives such as 'mostly know', nope, you know it all!).

Again, this is not a rational interpretation of what I said.

We know how arithmetic works. Agreed?

Is 2^{2347823423849238423840912848945092492384098234289348923408923423470140834059623}-1 prime?

What, you can't tell me? You just agreed that we know how arithmetic works!

You know there is only one form of stuff and that it follows consistent laws.

Yes indeed. Because if this weren't true, science would not work.

You also seem to think I think science is all wrong (red herring, I do not).

What you are attempting to do is, as I've noted, the antithesis of science.

I think your view of science is wrong as to what it studies. I think science is a form of epistemology that you have turned into an ontology because you have read, for instance, the works of Dennett (or similar). That is what I think. You can quote me on it too.

Sure. You're wrong, again.

Not worthy of much reply except to note, I did post it, and it was meant to be a reflection of how you are acting.

The question was sincere. How did you post that drivel to the forum? That is, what was the mechanism, and how was that mechanism derived?

Strawman from you, that is hilarious. I noticed you did not provide an argument for why you thought it was a strawman.

I already had.

For it to be a strawman I have to be attacking a position you do not have.

Precisely.

The reply you gave was to your original statements that were paraphrased by me and with some snarkiness added in for good measure. I can understand not liking the snarkiness, but you did say "We know how the Universe works."

Yes.

So if you want to add in "We mostly know how the Universe works," or something to that effect, my position of unbridled incredulity at anyone pronouncing they know how the universe actually works in its entirety will stand as it is.

We know how the Universe works. And your response is a strawman, pure and simple.

How so? I am not even sure if you get what I am talking about, so a little more data would help here.

See all of the above. Science in itself is a meta-experiment into the nature of reality. That science works tells us something fundamental about how the Universe works.

Again, I am not interested in metaphysics.

That's a problem for you then, because your position is a metaphysical one, not a scientific one. And, in case you've forgotten, it's also wrong.

OK, let me try this out. I am not the one making the claim. I do not have to define terms or make appropriate arguments. I do not have to argue about my stuff model. If your stuff model is just science to date

Which it is.

then you do not have your own model

Which I have pointed out repeatedly.

and there is no need to bring up stuff.

Except for didactic purposes, because you have failed to understand what science is.

What you are doing now is obfuscating the empirical with the ontological, again.

Not at all. What I'm doing is pointing out that the ontological is isomorphic with the epistemological, and the empirical is a test of the epistemological, that in the end, through science, they are all the same thing.

Again:

The scientific method is a choice of epistemology. It is empirically successful, in a way no other choice is. The empirical data thus gathered lays very specific conditions upon what can be inferred about ontologies, leaving a set of statements that are equivalent to our epistemology in the first place.

Which sounds circular, but isn't, because that's just a side-effect of the process; the real work is the production of successive approximations to reality in the form of predictive mathematical models.

But since that work is only possible in certain types of Universe, the fact that it's possible in our Universe means that our Universe is one of those types.

Under consideration (at least from my perspective) is how should a science of consciousness work, as well as what science is really all about? I do not care to discuss about unprovable substances of dualism, monism or any other ism except to note that they are unscientific.

Science is inherently monistic. Has to be. Nothing else works. Saying that monism is "unscientific" is the diametric opposite of the point.

How would a science of consciousness work?

Like this: Computational neuroscience^WP

Ontologies related to the absolute nature of existence is not science, it is metaphysics.

That's what I said.

Yep, you got me, it is metaphysics that I said before. I did not mean for that statement to be metaphysical, so please allow me to restate it.

No problem.

What matters is not what we think the world is composed of, but how we go about making predictions that match observation.

Yes. Absolutely. And please note that my statements about ontology are that it is not meaningful to say what the world is composed of - only what it does.

Predictions matching observation, or not, is really what I am about. I hope you do not consider that unscientific.

I'm completely fine with that.

That you know how the universe works huh?

I never said that I know how the Universe works, I said that WE know how the Universe works.

OK, so how does Quantum Gravity work, brainchild?

Naturally.

Or how many civilizations do there exist in the universe as well as some form of proof of the same. Oh yeah, you know how the universe works!

You seem confused.

You and everyone else have models. These models come from observation and experiment as well as a lot of thought. Your unfalsifiable substances come from philosophers who do not have to prove what they say with anything like the same as occurs in science.

This bears no relation to anything I have said.

It should be isomorphic, not isometric

Quite correct, it was late, and something was bugging me when I wrote that. Sorry.

and they are not even that. Naturalism is an ontology that forgot it was one and so masquerades around town like it wasn't one.

No.

Remember, ontology is about existence! Epistemology is about figuring things out (knowledge).

Yes.

So in the first sentence you agree with me but you forget to include "... only how it interacts with our senses."

I did not forget that, because it is wrong. I meant precisely what I said.

And we are not talking about what things are, in and of themselves, we are talking of what we think they act like. You think of the whole world as one substance, whatever it is that means exactly.

Nope.

What you think of as substance I consider a model.

I'm not talking about models. And I never once mentioned "substance".

A very well established model, but still a model (and an incomplete one because there is as yet no well agreed upon model of consciousness).

Actually, there is a model of consciousness that is almost universal in the field of neuroscience: Mind is what brain does. Now, that's not a very detailed model, but it's certainly a model.

Listen to the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series, they say this right up front.

Plus, if you know how something interacts, then you know just that, how it interacts, not, what it is.

How it interacts is what it is. That's the point. The whole noumena/phenomena thing is nonsense.

Yeah, tell a philosophy major that ontology is epistemology and they will think you are high or on something.

Their problem.

The study of the nature of existence is not the same as the study of how we go about knowing things (especially in a scientific context).

Actually, in relationship to reality, it unavoidably is the same.

You know, this gets me to another point. As a scientist, I am sure you would do a fine job (except possibly as it concerns studying consciousness). Not worried about it. My problem is with your world-view and always has been. You bring up the point about questions. If you for instance have no problem asking someone during a visual experiment what they are seeing (for fear that it is not scientific), I see no special point in arguing against you about your methods (just do not make claims that robots are conscious, because you do not even know what consciuosness is about).

We clearly do know what consciousness is, because we talk about it, we discuss its behaviours. And it's clear that computer programs already demonstrate those behaviours.

Your confusion on some terms and the Naive Realism you have is most annoying though.

Sorry, that's just you.

My concern will not abate just because you ask it to. Understanding the scientific mindset at its core is important, especially as we start to tease apart the mechanisms of consciousness.

I'm not talking about your concern, I'm talking about your metaphysical nonsense.

Your substance model is not even well thought out.

Wrong.

Is it even a model, or an ontology? If it is an ontology, it is not scientific.

Wrong.

If it is a model, you need to explicate what it predicts and how it does so. Make your choice.

Already done.

I use dictionary.com. It is not about the words though that you have a problem with, it is about the concepts, and you are missing a few of those.

Nope.

Very well, but I am already pretty steadfast as far as that goes.

Not even remotely. Searle? I mean, seriously, Searle?

Ah, so you contend I am mischaracterising your position.

Always.

If there is only one substance

Your word, not mine. See what I mean?

where is the need or requirement for sensation (I guess what you would call the other substance)?

Where does that question even come from? To quote Babbage again, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

How does "requirement" come into anything? What "other substance"? Why would you be bringing that up when you just mischaracterised my position as there being only one kind of "substance"?

Where does sensation enter your world-view, as something subservient to models, not even worthy of mention? Or is it one of the two primary aspects by how we figure things out and worthy of study for its own sake (my take)?

Again, none of this bears any relation to anything I've said, and I can't even work out how you got there.

I said, there's only one type of stuff.

What we observe, that's stuff.

Our observations, that's stuff.

Our sensations, that's stuff.

Our awareness of those sensations, that's stuff.

I what sense, the rhetorical or the formal logical sense?

Formally. The problem with Descartes cogito is this it injects an is distinct from the does, which as I noted, is not supportable.

If we break it down to I am thinking, therefore I am doing... Well, that's a tautology. Which should be no surprise; you can't reason your way to the fundamental nature of reality.

In the logic sense, what I wrote was not a tautology because there was no rule given as to how to replace one correct prepositional statement with another. Nor was the focus on such.

Because the statements revolved around equivocations. Remove those, and the tautology is laid bare.

Or is it your goal to snow other people

Nope. My goal is to slow the rate of growth of nonsense as much as I am able.

First off, you say tautology as if it is a bad thing.

Merely that there is a limit to what you can infer from one.

That means you are wrong.

Nope.

I do not want you to think I am some kind of spiritualist, or naturalist either. In terms of science, both world-views are unscientific. Both make unfalsifiable claims about the ultimate nature of reality. I am an observationalist. I agree with the empiricists (who started science).

So you say. But you are the one who brought up Searle.

So you do not want to do the challenge.

I have shown, repeatedly, that you are not responding to what I write, but to what you imagine I have written. Your "challenge" was nothing more than a further elaboration on your strawman argument.

Oh well, it probably would have been a shambles in one way or the other.

Your argument has been that from the beginning.

In terms of Theory of Mind, yours is that no one has one.

Not even remotely. Once again, it is impossible to rationally infer that from what I have said. I have said, explicitly and repeatedly, precisely the opposite.

I simply can not accept such a position as the basis for a social endeavor involving exploring consciousness known as the scientific method.

And I really don't care whether you can accept position that are entirely of your own invention.

There is a famous quote by someone or other famous on how science is either physics or stamp collecting. To a large extent, I agree, but I think it is even simpler than that. Science is psychology taken to its maximal extent. If you can understand the previous sentence, you can understand where I am coming from.

You're coming from wrong.

I fish for nothing other than logic and evidence. So far your pool is muddy with metaphysical nonsense.

Again, wrong.

Again, as far as substances go, I am not the one making the claim.

Again, wrong. You brought up Searle, the metaphysical equivalent of parachuting into a minefield during a hurricane with a hundred rabid badgers chained to your ankles.

You should at the very least expect some turbulence.

As for the rest, my position is solid and has not changed.

You don't actually know what your position is.

That position is in keeping with the best traditions of science in rejecting claims of utter certainty about the nature of reality (your position).

And you most certainly don't know what my position is.

 

[PixyMisa]

Made a few edits and corrections to my above post; in case anyone has bothered to read the blasted thing, this was mostly for typos plus a couple of clarifications, nothing substantive changed.

 

[punshhh]

Made a few edits and corrections to my above post; in case anyone has bothered to read the blasted thing, this was mostly for typos plus a couple of clarifications, nothing substantive changed.

Sorry I couldn't be bothered, might be the last straw on the camels back

 

[Mr. Scott]

Hey guys, could you please stay on topic and not ugly-up the thread? Thanks!

Why is a network of 100 billion neurons connected to each other by 100 trillion synapses, together making possibly a trillion action potential spikes per second, inadequate to explain our subjective internal experiences?

Just the length of the axons in the brain, strung together, would reach 74% of the distance to the moon.

Hey, while looking for the count of neurotransmitter receptors, I found out a little about the mechanics of how love works:

The density of [dopamine receptor subtypes, D1 and D2] in an area of the brain called the nucleus accumbens plays an important role in both mating and social bonds. The D2 type receptor is necessary to initially form the pair bond between two monogamous animals. But for the bond to be maintained over time, there needs to be an adequate density of the D1 variety as well.

 

[Belz...]

Made a few edits and corrections to my above post; in case anyone has bothered to read the blasted thing, this was mostly for typos plus a couple of clarifications, nothing substantive changed.

Would you guys mind cutting down the size of those posts ?

 

[tensordyne]

Would you guys mind cutting down the size of those posts ?

It is hard when dealing with someone who believes in metaphysics not to respond to every little tid bit because every tid bit is drenched in metaphysical nonsense.

 

[tensordyne]

Science as a system is a meta-experiment, and as such, it does make statements about ontology, as I've already explained.

The statements in science as to ontology are in the models themselves (not to be confused with the ontologies you are talking about which are of a fundamental and not pragmatic nature) and must always be considered provisional as well as only there to meet the goal of better prediction. You can fancy up a pig however you like PixyMisa but metaphysics is not science, never will be, and never has been.

There is only one type of stuff. This is the core principle of science.

This is not a core principle of science, the core principle of science is that whatever you say is open to discussion unless it is not testable (in the perceptual sense). That is the core principle of science. The rest is a metaphysical interpretation you and others have grafted on to science because of habit of thought.

Nope. Everything else is a model. Reality is real.

Reality, as you use the word, is best interpreted in a scientific context as a model. "Reality is real" is something I would expect my 10 year old niece to say, not someone who is trying to discuss the topics we are discussing here. It is a pointlessly unfalsifiable statement that does not lead to predictions or testable hypotheses.

The scientific method is based on methodological naturalism, that we should seek explanations of natural events (i.e. observations) exclusively in terms of other natural events (i.e. other potential observations).

The above is one philosophy of science. It is wrong because it does not recognize the primacy of observation.

Some stuff statements for later referrence.

It means that science is an attempt to explain the Universe as if there was only one kind of stuff.

That there's only one kind of stuff.

There's one kind of stuff. Conjuring up a new kind of stuff just because it makes for an appealing explanation (to you, certainly not to me) is the perfect antithesis of science.

Now you finally go about defining 'stuff'.

I said, there's only one type of stuff.

What we observe, that's stuff.

Our observations, that's stuff.

Our sensations, that's stuff.

Our awareness of those sensations, that's stuff.

OK, so there is one kind of stuff, and yet the stuff you listed above is of very different kinds. "What we observe" is what most people mean when they say stuff, such as chairs, milk, etc. Our observations though can either be thought of in the percept (abstract perceptual concept sense) or in the purely perceptoral sense (an idea that is missing in Hard-AI'ers), which is related to the next line about sensations. Awareness is a further different kind of stuff.

Are abstract ideas a stuff to you as well? If so, there is no hope.

Each of your stuffs is of a different kind (contra to your numerous monist statements), both conceptually and in terms of definition. The thing that holds your statements together with something like rigor is that each is a concept we generally hold to exist. If that is your definition of 'stuff', that it exists, than you are simply saying that science applies to all that exists.

How ingenious, and wrong. Mathematics does not work by the same rules as science does in its study, and in some sense we hold the things in math to exist. So if we use mathematical methods to study math and not scientific methods, than that stuff (the maximal kind of stuff that includes everything that is your seeming definition) is not studied by science.

Not at all. What I'm doing is pointing out that the ontological is isomorphic with the epistemological, and the empirical is a test of the epistemological, that in the end, through science, they are all the same thing.

The scientific method is ...

... not about ontologies related to the absolute nature of reality. That is what a certain field of philosophy is about called metaphysics.

Yes. Absolutely. And please note that my statements about ontology are that it is not meaningful to say what the world is composed of - only what it does.

Do I detect a change in mindset? Don't answer that, the last person to realize they have lost a debate is the one who has lost.

I'm completely fine with that.

Then there is no need to bring up methodological naturalism or other metaphysical nonsense of various kinds. We can move on to how we should go about studying consciousness in a way that is hopefully as close to how science is studied now (with as few starting assumptions as needed) as possible.

Sorry for the length. I guess I am naturally wordy.

 

[Belz...]

It is hard when dealing with someone who believes in metaphysics not to respond to every little tid bit because every tid bit is drenched in metaphysical nonsense.

A simple "yes" will suffice. "Yes, master", even better.

 

[tensordyne]

A simple "yes" will suffice. "Yes, master", even better.

Yes of course Master Fiend God of the 23rd Dimension!

 

[PixyMisa]

Would you guys mind cutting down the size of those posts ?

I won't do another of those for tensordyne; unless the discussion moves considerably, there's no point. If he says something interesting (right or wrong), I'll respond to that specifically.

 

[PixyMisa]

A note: Anything that I haven't commented on, assume that I disagree entirely and just don't consider it of sufficient interest to respond.

Reality, as you use the word, is best interpreted in a scientific context as a model.

Sure. Reality as anyone uses the word is best interpreted in a scientific context as a model.

But you are interpreting something. There is, of necessity, some system that is not your model.

OK, so there is one kind of stuff, and yet the stuff you listed above is of very different kinds.

Nope. That's the point, and if you don't understand that, you don't understand anything at all.

It's all just material, physical interactions. Mind is what brain does.

"What we observe" is what most people mean when they say stuff, such as chairs, milk, etc. Our observations though can either be thought of in the percept (abstract perceptual concept sense) or in the purely perceptoral sense (an idea that is missing in Hard-AI'ers), which is related to the next line about sensations. Awareness is a further different kind of stuff.

No.

If these are fundamentally different kinds of stuff, they can't interact.

If they are trivially different kinds of stuff, then sure, they can interact - but why are you so worried about trivial differences?

Are abstract ideas a stuff to you as well?

Abstractions aren't stuff; instantiations of abstractions, however, necessarily are. When you think about an abstraction, that's stuff.

Do I detect a change in mindset?

Not even remotely.