On Consciousness

[PixyMisa]

Tell that to a vinyl collector.

Well, yeah. They're wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIdDA4xdTf8&sns=em

You will finally understand a human when this video leaves you in awe.

Could you please at least pretend to be following the discussion?

 

[tensordyne]

A post I meant to finish but didn't. Just some ideas.

I have found this to be consistently true of the comp.lits.

I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary! There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact.

Comp.lit want to start with objective ideas because that is a method that has worked so well in the past for science. Think of the world 'out there' as being the real center of attraction and come up with various ideas to encompass what is observed about it. When it comes to sensation and consciousness, it is no longer about 'out there', it is about 'in here'.

I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope).

When the people in the study die, make note of how well developed the mirror neuron areas are in the various brains (or at least, observations of that kind). If the comp.lit's in the survey have less well developed mirror neuron areas than the rest of the participants, it would hopefully show them they are missing something from the conversation (I can not a priori get rid of the possibility that the mirror neurons in the comp.lit's are more developed than average as a possibility, but given their collective behavior, I find the possibility slim; however, that is the beauty of science, you can be shown to be wrong if you are intellectually honest).

Perhaps then comp.lits will listen if such was shown, but I doubt it. Like an ignorant blind child they want to tell everyone else with vision they are wrong, there is nothing going on. I would rather talk with those who have eyes that see (speaking metaphorically here, I have nothing against blind people).

 

[PixyMisa]

I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary!

Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics?

There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact.

What fact?

I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope).

I see. So rather than pointing out a problem with the argument, you launch into a rambling ad-hominem attack against people to whom you ascribe a strawman argument of your own invention.

 

[!Kaggen]

Well, yeah. They're wrong.

No, they are conscious.

Could you please at least pretend to be following the discussion?

The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case.

Ignorance isn't knowledge.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Lots of magic beans of understanding in IBM's Watson:



Like "computers understand ones and zeroes," the brain understands action potential spikes. Organize either properly and magic beans of understanding emerge.

 

[!Kaggen]

Ignorance isn't knowledge.

LOL. I think I will use this classic in my sig.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, they are conscious.

They are conscious. Also, wrong.

The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case.

If Cantor's diagonalization argument^WP doesn't fill you with a sense of wonder, I have to question whether you are truly human.

 

[Roboramma]

No, they are conscious.

It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive.

 

[Mr. Scott]

LOL. I think I will use this classic in my sig.

Thank you! I await its fulfillment.

You do understand my point, don't you?

Ignorance of the power of mathematics does not give one priveleged insight on the limits of its power.

Again, the Dunning–Kruger effect^WP.

a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority

 

[!Kaggen]

If Cantor's diagonalization argument^WP doesn't fill you with a sense of wonder, I have to question whether you are truly human.

Wonder, yes, at Cantor's ability's.

 

[!Kaggen]

Thank you! I await its fulfillment.

You do understand my point, don't you?

Ignorance of the power of mathematics does not give one priveleged insight on the limits of its power.

Again, the Dunning–Kruger effect^WP.

Assumptions, assumptions.....

 

[Mr. Scott]

Assumptions, assumptions.....

I await your corrections of my assumptions.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wonder, yes, at Cantor's ability's.

That's one aspect of it, yes. I'll classify you as provisionally human.

There's something deeper, though, that such an elegant argument can teach us something about mathematics that we never suspected.

 

[!Kaggen]

It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive.

No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic.

 

[!Kaggen]

There's something deeper, though, that such an elegant argument can teach us something about mathematics that we never suspected.

Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic.

Ah, so they're not even wrong.

Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument.

I refer you to my earlier request to at least pretend that you are following the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

In certain respects, it is like a computer. In other's it's not. I posted some differences earlier.

Yes, and your differences were irrelevant because they only apply to _some_ computers.

A computer emulating a brain isn't a brain.

Yes, and a plane imitating a bird isn't a bird, but it still flies.

 

[Belz...]

Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument.

Since you admit to not having the "hots" for math, it seems like you're ignoring it because you don't understand it.

 

[!Kaggen]

Ah, so they're not even wrong.

I'll let Roboramma answer this.

It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive.

I refer you to my earlier request to at least pretend that you are following the discussion.

The discussion is clear.
Comp.lit's are defending a modernist version of Platonism where maths is the "magic bean" answer to consciousness and skeptics are pointing out that consciousness has less to do with the "magic math bean" and more to do with empirical studies.