On Consciousness

[rocketdodger]

Now introduce something which is good for ones health but always leads to death, life. I wonder what your AI would do?

What do we do?

You keep asking what a machine would do, without ever bothering to critically evaluate what you yourself would do.

 

[Belz...]

For Pixy Misa [qimg]http://img.tapatalk.com/290687f4-6509-1ace.jpg[/qimg]

Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ?

 

[dlorde]

Seriously, you guys need to chill the hell out and try, just try, to understand what the other person is thinking?

Wow, there goes my irony meter...

But there are plenty more where that came from

This article may help explain what color 'qualia' actually are, in an interesting way, with striking examples: Chimerical Colors.

Part of the activity of the network of neurons in your head is you (i.e. your mental identity, sense of self, consciousness) - the patterns of neuronal activation are not causing you to feel things, they are you feeling things.

 

[tensordyne]

Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ?

About the best question I have seen in a while. Of course things are things, but we use that in two senses.

In one sense we think of (physical) things as being out there, independent of us. In another sense though, things are perceptual abstractions. What makes a chair a chair besides the abstract idea that when something is experienced in the waking state and visually has at least three legs and a sitting area, that it acts in various ways called chair, that it is a chair? Both are abstractions, so 'things' are abstractions.

Here is my question for pretty much everything you think you know is true, which is, "How do you know it is true?" I am not asking this rhetorically either. If you look at science and ask that question for a particular model, it comes back to two main types of concepts as you break the model down: math and observation.

So, how do you determine models in science? How do you determine their validity? Let me know how you think.

 

[tensordyne]

Wow. It seems deep and all but... aren't things things ?

Things are abstractions.

 

[tensordyne]

Interesting quote from the paper you gave dlorde.

The qualitative character of subjective experience is often claimed to be beyond the
predictive or explanatory powers of any physical theory (Chalmers, 1996; Huxley,
1866; Jackson, 1982; Levine, 1983; Nagel, 1974).

I do not believe that subjective experience is beyond the applicability of a physical theory (or at the very least, I see no reason to think that is true).

 

[Belz...]

About the best question I have seen in a while. Of course things are things, but we use that in two senses.

I know that. But it's so unskeptical to take some things and distinguish them from other things because they "feel" different, better or "special". It makes these things immune to skeptical inquiry, and it's definitely not a good thing in a rational discussion.

 

[PixyMisa]

The example I gave in the post before this one was not directly addressed. It concerned the fact that if you probe someone's brain and ask them what they are feeling sensation wise, that you do not have direct access to those sensations yourself, hence, studying consciousness itself is different than studying a rock.

You don't have direct access to anything.

Seriously, you guys need to chill the hell out and try, just try, to understand what the other person is thinking?

We're chill. We understand. You're wrong.

 

[annnnoid]

No,

The study of consciousness is exactly like the study of anything else.

Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning).

You don't have direct access to anything.

Wrong. You have direct access to you.

Right.

Right.

Yes. Of course, that includes computers.

They are part of reality. They exist in minds, and minds are brain function, and brains are quite obviously real.

Of course, every part of that sentence, and everything that follows, is entirely false.

There is: The very moment you start thinking there's more than one kind of stuff, you're wrong, your ideas are irredeemable, and must be discarded.

Abstractions must be instantiated to be considered, and the instantiation is physical. It can't be anything else. There is simply no problem to be solved here.

And where is it I’ve suggested that there is more than one kind of stuff? And what, by the way, is the meaning of ‘physical’?...and is there one that does not inevitably veer into metaphysics? Y’know Pixy, it’s amazing the degree to which you twist and trip over your own words in order to prop up your faltering ideology. This, it may enlighten you to know, is the signature of a zealot, not a scientist.

In response to the rest of it, I’ll ask you one simple question: If mathematics did not exist, would reality / the universe be any different? I do not mean in the trivial sense…as in if it was not discovered / created by human beings…I mean if it did not exist, period.

…and lest I forget…you claim

There is

….but (however hard I look)…there is not, at least, not anywhere in your post. Perhaps you could provide it…this explanation (not theory…explanation).

 

[PixyMisa]

Quite obviously not! Everything else is a model. Consciousness is the only phenomena we can experience the actual reality of (do you model ‘meaning’?...no, you actually are meaning).

Nonsense! Look at the references to Theory of Mind earlier in the thread by tensordyne. The context was rubbish, but what Theory of Mind is, is modelling other people's consciousness. And the point is, we all do that.

Wrong. You have direct access to you.

Nope.

And where is it I’ve suggested that there is more than one kind of stuff?

Do you accept that mind is a material process? If not, you are asserting that there is more than one kind of stuff. If you do, then you agree with me.

So... Which is it to be?

And what, by the way, is the meaning of ‘physical’?

Stuff that interacts with other stuff.

...and is there one that does not inevitably veer into metaphysics?

Yes.

Y’know Pixy, it’s amazing the degree to which you twist and trip over your own words in order to prop up your faltering ideology.

Sorry, no. The fact that your worldview is threatened doesn't make science any less powerful.

In response to the rest of it, I’ll ask you one simple question: If mathematics did not exist, would reality / the universe be any different?

If you can show that this question has any meaning at all, I will be delighted to answer it.

…and lest I forget…you claim

[Misquote snipped]

….but (however hard I look)…there is not, at least, not anywhere in your post. Perhaps you could provide it…this explanation (not theory…explanation).

How nice of you to remove the explanation from your quote and then wail about being unable to find it.

So, again: The very moment you start thinking there's more than one kind of stuff, you're wrong, your ideas are irredeemable, and must be discarded.

Abstractions must be instantiated to be considered, and the instantiation is physical. It can't be anything else. There is simply no problem to be solved here.

 

[tensordyne]

I know that. But it's so unskeptical to take some things and distinguish them from other things because they "feel" different, better or "special". It makes these things immune to skeptical inquiry, and it's definitely not a good thing in a rational discussion.

I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store.

 

[PixyMisa]

I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store.

Yes, you missed the point.

The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yes, you missed the point.

The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses.

"Your consciousness is just stuff"

You have made a definitive proclamation there.

Now, define 'stuff' in the context you used it [consciousness]

You need to open your mind, so a little bit of your brain will fall out, before you can start differentiating between the two.

It's a conceptual realization, which is not a [currently] scientifically definable phenomenon.

 

[tensordyne]

Yes, you missed the point.

The point is, there aren't things and then other... non-things, as !Kaggen would have it. There's just one sort of stuff, all accessible to science in exactly the same way. Your consciousness is just stuff. It has no special standing, and doesn't require us to change anything in the way we study it, compared with the way we study astrophysics or plate tectonics or the digestive tracts of albatrosses.

Things are abstractions. The idea that there is a universe out there, outside of our senses, that is an abstraction. Your idea of there being just one kind of stuff, that is an abstraction. Cart before horse, time and time again. I think I will take a cue from Dancing David and bow out conversing with you. Pipe Organs do not usually change their tune, after all.

Auf wiedersehen.

 

[PixyMisa]

"Your consciousness is just stuff"

You have made a definitive proclamation there.

Indeed. And this general point is the foundation of all science, and this specific point is the foundation of all cognitive science.

This is not something I came up with. This is science. If you don't like it, take it up with science. If you disagree that it's science, well, sorry, you're just wrong.

Now, define 'stuff' in the context you used it [consciousness]

Once again: There's only one kind of stuff. What do you think the definition is?

You need to open your mind, so a little bit of your brain will fall out, before you can start differentiating between the two.

No. You need to stop accepting fairy tales as fact.

It's a conceptual realization, which is not a [currently] scientifically definable phenomenon.

As above.

 

[tensordyne]

Indeed. And this general point is the foundation of all science, and this specific point is the foundation of all cognitive science.

This is not something I came up with. This is science. If you don't like it, take it up with science. If you disagree that it's science, well, sorry, you're just wrong.

Your ignorance is astounding. There are multiple philosophies of science. If I disagree with your philosophy of science, I am just doing what lots of other people have done who have accredited higher level degrees, do not believe in god and in all likelihood are a lot smarter than you are.

Plus, saying if you disagree you are wrong and not giving analysis why is tantamount to acting like a child.

How do you know there is one substance?

 

[punshhh]

Well, that's good to hear.

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

Certainly there are some who cannot agree with my conclusions.

None of you have ever made a coherent objection to my assumptions, though, so that's not my problem.

Incoherent in who's eyes?

 

[PixyMisa]

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

I've already shown that this is false, and explained in detail how we know it is false. So, no.

Incoherent in who's eyes?

We're talking about logic here. If you are working with different principles of logic to the rest of us, I can't help you at all.

 

[tensordyne]

As an abstraction derived from our limited experience of existing. It cannot tell us anything about existence, or form the basis for an ontology. As such your monist "stuff" is entirely unfalsifiable. Nothing more than naval gazing.

Exactly.

 

[Belz...]

I do not understand the idea above. We are not talking about feel like in feelings (sad, happy, mad, etc...), we are talking about this thing is black, and that red, kind of thing. If you can not make discriminatory judgments based on perception, I do not know where we are in terms of even going to the grocery store.

I'm sorry, what are you driving at ?