On Consciousness

[Belz...]

I meant among those of us who do not try to replace conscious sensation with physical or computational models and recognize that sensation is of its own and fundamental kind in terms of 'how do we know' questions. I agree that the poll definitely does not exhaust the possibilities, even in a generic sense. I would have hoped for it to at least include a physical basis for consciousness as one option, but what can you do?

You're still here ?

 

[Belz...]

Can you prove that first sentence?

Yes. Very easily, in fact.

 

[PixyMisa]

I meant among those of us who do not try to replace conscious sensation with physical or computational models and recognize that sensation is of its own and fundamental kind in terms of 'how do we know' questions.

Ah. Dualists.

 

[tensordyne]

What about mystics? I hope your not lumping us in with the religious folk.

I am with the physicists myself.

 

[tensordyne]

You're still here ?

Yeah, I know, what is the point? Aside from a couple of good refs to papers and books (thank you and always welcome refs) to read and a post or two by Piggy, I have not learned much except how crazy comp.lit is (which I kind of knew already).

 

[tensordyne]

Ah. Dualists.

I already told you, I am not a Dualist, I am an Empiricist. I deal with the facts at hand that come from observation and try to use whatever abstract model explains them the most succinctly, period. If a monist type model explains them, then that is what I will use. If a dualist type model explains them, that is what I will use. If something completely different than either comes up and is the most successful, that is what I will use.

The one thing I will not do is confuse sensations with abstract models anyone might come up with to predict properties about said sensations (read observation in a science sense). That is something done every day by comp.lit on this thread. It is a category error and it is annoying.

You up for an experiment of sorts PixyMisa (anyone)? Take any theory you think is true (that is not related to consciousness), and just keep asking yourself "How do I know?" Do it over and over again for each part of the answers you come up with. Let me know what you get if you do it. I would not like to spoil anything.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, I know, what is the point? Aside from a couple of good refs to papers and books (thank you and always welcome refs) to read and a post or two by Piggy, I have not learned much except how crazy comp.lit is (which I kind of knew already).

Just pointing out that I knew you wouldn't leave. Not that I blame you, it's a fascinating subject. I just wish people could, you know, discuss it. Piggy and you and me and Pixy, rather than just nay-say each other.

Wouldn't that be awesome ?

Yeah, I know. Not going to happen.

 

[punshhh]

I am with the physicists myself.

Well I always regard what physics discovers and describes pretty much as fact. Although theoretical physics is stretching its reach a bit far these days perhaps. Its just that I regard philosophical thought of equal value in establishing a rounded appreciation of the reality we find ourselves in and developing attitudes and strategies for moving forward in life.

In a sense mysticism is a physics of religious belief and existence.

I already told you, I am not a Dualist, I am an Empiricist. I deal with the facts at hand that come from observation and try to use whatever abstract model explains them the most succinctly, period. If a monist type model explains them, then that is what I will use. If a dualist type model explains them, that is what I will use. If something completely different than either comes up and is the most successful, that is what I will use.

This is my approach too, however I don't stop there. I include all experiences known to humanity as forms of empirical evidence.

The one thing I will not do is confuse sensations with abstract models anyone might come up with to predict properties about said sensations (read observation in a science sense). That is something done every day by comp.lit on this thread. It is a category error and it is annoying.

Quite, you will find little appreciation of the intricacies of the self here.

You up for an experiment of sorts PixyMisa (anyone)? Take any theory you think is true (that is not related to consciousness), and just keep asking yourself "How do I know?" Do it over and over again for each part of the answers you come up with. Let me know what you get if you do it. I would not like to spoil anything.

I did not need to conduct the experiment, I am perpetually aware of the answer or result.

 

[punshhh]

Just pointing out that I knew you wouldn't leave. Not that I blame you, it's a fascinating subject. I just wish people could, you know, discuss it. Piggy and you and me and Pixy, rather than just nay-say each other.

Wouldn't that be awesome ?

Yeah, I know. Not going to happen.

It would be awesome, it is what I came to the jref to do, but what did I find?

 

[Belz...]

It would be awesome, it is what I came to the jref to do, but what did I find?

Reality.

In your case, you came here to try to convince people of your woo, and it didn't work. The folks at the JREF are actually very good skeptics when it comes to faeries in pictures.

 

[tensordyne]

Just pointing out that I knew you wouldn't leave. Not that I blame you, it's a fascinating subject. I just wish people could, you know, discuss it. Piggy and you and me and Pixy, rather than just nay-say each other.

Wouldn't that be awesome ?

Yeah, I know. Not going to happen.

Oh... very well, what is your methodology? As long as it does not include statements about robots being conscious or sensations being the same as abstract models, I am all for discussing whatever you want.

 

[AlBell]

I don't understand what you are saying here. How can your model "account for it"?

That's easy. Because for Pixy etal nothing exists except computations. In this case in a brain.

No one has yet discussed the potential effects of dark matter and/or dark energy, 90% of the composition of the universe, on consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just pointing out that I knew you wouldn't leave. Not that I blame you, it's a fascinating subject. I just wish people could, you know, discuss it. Piggy and you and me and Pixy, rather than just nay-say each other.

Wouldn't that be awesome ?

Yes. It would be great. But one side of the argument - the computational side - is monist, and the other side is dualist. And there is no bridging that divide. Never mind scientific plausibility, the dualist position is not even logically consistent.

 

[Belz...]

Oh... very well, what is your methodology? As long as it does not include statements about robots being conscious or sensations being the same as abstract models, I am all for discussing whatever you want.

I don't really have a side. I think that computers can become conscious. I think there's nothing special about consciousness and that the feeling of specialness is just bias on our part. I think that the computational model is a convincing good start to explain consciousness.

That said, so far there hasn't been much evidence in this thread, and I find that unfortunate.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. It would be great. But one side of the argument - the computational side - is monist, and the other side is dualist. And there is no bridging that divide. Never mind scientific plausibility, the dualist position is not even logically consistent.

Of course the dualist side is inconsistent. I'm not sure that non-computationalists (is that even how you write that ?) are dualists, Pixy.

Maybe if everyone made their position on this clear, it would help. Of course, if they say "I don't know", then the debate is closed.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course the dualist side is inconsistent. I'm not sure that non-computationalists (is that even how you write that ?) are dualists, Pixy.

They insist that consciousness (or qualia, or whatever) is fundamentally different from everything else, and requires a fundamentally different approach to understanding it.

That's dualism.

Maybe if everyone made their position on this clear, it would help. Of course, if they say "I don't know", then the debate is closed.

"I don't know" would be an improvement. You can work with that. Dualism is a roadblock on the path to enlightenment.

 

[rocketdodger]

No, I'm not asking you to mind-read, just wondering if you have any cogent explanation for the unwillingness of the comp.lits to actually discuss contemporary brain science, which is the only area of inquiry directly addressing consciousness, in favor of irrelevant discussions of AI, fictional conscious machines, p-zombies, rope-brain consciousness, false claims about Church-Turing, and so forth, if they are not simply uninformed and mistaken?

The fact is, they cannot discuss the current research because it contradicts their claims, so instead they descend on every thread about consciousness that pops up and they clog it up with false or irrelevant arguments.

- The functioning of animal visual processing circuits
- The functioning of animal neurons
- The functioning of animal neural networks
- The functioning of animal memory
- A number of anomalies in human auditory and visual processing
- The role of language in human conscious processing
- The functioning of specific pathways in animal brains

I guess that isn't really "brain science," but then again who knows what anything is when people just make up their own meanings...

 

[dlorde]

Can you prove that first sentence? The other two are correct and don't contradict what I said.

Proof? No. I can't prove faeries don't exist either. But unless you're going to maintain that consciousness is somehow independent of biology, or that the first embryonic neuron is conscious (in which case I would like to hear your evidence), reuctio-ad-absurdum does it - is the first neuron conscious? a fertilised egg? the unfertilised egg and sperm?

OTOH, you may have an unusual definition of consciousness - in which case, perhaps you could describe it.

 

[punshhh]

Reality.

In your case, you came here to try to convince people of your woo, and it didn't work. The folks at the JREF are actually very good skeptics when it comes to faeries in pictures.

For someone so masterful as yourself, you are leaving yourself vulnerable by wrongly describing my motives.

Reality! Look at my avatar, what you see is just a random arrangement of twigs and moss?

 

[Belz...]

They insist that consciousness (or qualia, or whatever) is fundamentally different from everything else, and requires a fundamentally different approach to understanding it.

I'm not sure that this is what they're all doing. Some of them, sure. But Piggy ? Really ?

"I don't know" would be an improvement.

I agree. Would you mind proving those links I asked for, now ?