On Consciousness

[Belz...]

Sure does.
That's why its so compelling.
I can't discount my observations, mostly because they aren't in violation of anything. If they were, I'd be more than suspicious, and probably seek medical help.

But your observations DO violate something. They posit the existence of 'something else'. In other words, you seem to be a victim of our usual impression that consciousness is 'distinct' from the world. It doesn't follow that the impression has a basis in reality, and your claim that your experience somehow convinces you is not the mark of a skeptic. What if you see a ghost ?

About the 'distinct' thing: I've numerous times been in a situation where I was fixated at nothing, basically thinking about nothing, and for a moment there is no distinction between 'me' and 'not me'. That seems to show that, unless you focus on something, the illusion of specialness vanishes.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I see at least three sides, if not more. That's why the question in the OP was unanswerable, at least for me. No choice was available that I could agree with.

Gotcha.

 

[quarky]

But your observations DO violate something. They posit the existence of 'something else'. In other words, you seem to be a victim of our usual impression that consciousness is 'distinct' from the world. It doesn't follow that the impression has a basis in reality, and your claim that your experience somehow convinces you is not the mark of a skeptic. What if you see a ghost ?

About the 'distinct' thing: I've numerous times been in a situation where I was fixated at nothing, basically thinking about nothing, and for a moment there is no distinction between 'me' and 'not me'. That seems to show that, unless you focus on something, the illusion of specialness vanishes.

I disagree.
My observations, which I can't discount, simply don't verify the "nothing else" stance of the uber-materialist.
What if I don't see a ghost?
What if I see shifting continents, or an equivalent?

Said observations have been very special.
It was never the "me" that was special. As you allude, the 'me' vanishes.
Pure joy fills in. I've got no explanation.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I see at least three sides, if not more. That's why the question in the OP was unanswerable, at least for me. No choice was available that I could agree with.

I asked a similar question with many more options to choose from at DF.

These are the results so far.

https://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=186410

 

[quarky]

There's a form of democracy that allows the voter 5 votes, which can be spread over several candidates.
Election outcomes can be radically altered with this relatively fine adjustment.

 

[Mr. Scott]

If you have a computer that attains the level of human consciousness, wouldn't it, because of its intense subjective experiences, argue for dualism?

Why? I don't.

If a simulated human brain wouldn't possibly ponder the uncomputability of its own qualia and lean towards dualist conclusions, then something's been left out, no?

 

[Mr. Scott]

I just saw this episode of "Beautiful Minds" this morning, and apparently some scientists suggest that, since we make "conscious" decisions before we are conscious of them, perhaps consciousness itself is an illusion.

Jump to 7:46



This is a cool series IMO but I can't give it the repeat viewings it deserves because the music drives me crazy.

 

[Zeuzzz]

This is a cool series IMO but I can't give it the repeat viewings it deserves because the music drives me crazy.

Lol, I just had the exact same reaction when I watched that clip! They use the same music for every episode, it's really beginning to grate on me. Really good series though.

You will probably like the episode I uploaded myself, start at 10:00 for the really interesting stuff about savants and neuroscience. They interview the same person that you linked to in your documentary.

The Einstein Effect - Savants, Science and Creativity

A fascinating look at the relationship between genius, creativity and autism, with particular focus on the phenomenon of savants; a small group of enigmatic talents with extraordinary mental abilities. With scientists now able to see billions of neurons at work in the brain, experts are now investigating whether it is in fact a defect that turns a person into a genius. Could the giant minds of the past - from Newton, to Mozart, to Albert Einstein have been autistic?

Savants number less than 100 worldwide. Some can work out five-digit multiplication in their heads, or recite thousands of books by heart. Others can play a piano melody after hearing it only once. Over half of savants are autistic; others develop these super human talents only after brain injury.

 

[Zeuzzz]

There's a form of democracy that allows the voter 5 votes, which can be spread over several candidates.
Election outcomes can be radically altered with this relatively fine adjustment.

How dare you suggest a more democratic way to perform democracy! How very very dare you. Everything is black and white, your either liberal or republican, have you not watched fox news?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Oh, and Conway's Game of Life^WP, which is a computer, and there's a video of it implemented in Conway's Game of Life. That is, the computer is built out of another instance of itself.



That video is interesting because, as it zooms out, you can see the incredible amount of activity going on behind the scenes to produce what is, from a distance, just a dot blinking on and off. And yet, the simple rules of the game can compute anything that can be computed by any computer.

This is beautiful PixyMisa, thanks! Dennett uses Game of Life to illustrate his ideas of free will in his lecture (on youtube) "Daniel Dennett - Free Will Determinism and Evolution"

Have you seen it?

 

[Soapy Sam]

If a simulated human brain wouldn't possibly ponder the uncomputability of its own qualia and lean towards dualist conclusions, then something's been left out, no?

Now that is sneaky.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Lol, I just had the exact same reaction when I watched that clip! They use the same music for every episode, it's really beginning to grate on me. Really good series though.

You will probably like the episode I uploaded myself, start at 10:00 for the really interesting stuff about savants and neuroscience. They interview the same person that you linked to in your documentary.

The Einstein Effect - Savants, Science and Creativity

Yes, saw The Einstein Effect a few days ago. Next on my list is "Daniel Tammet - The Boy With The Incredible Brain"

"...if it's true [what Tammet says he does] it blows away scientific theory"

 

[Zeuzzz]

Lol I've got that series on my channel too

Extraordinary people - Daniel Tammet - Pt1 of 3


I edited it to a more concise thirty minutes from an hour long documentary, keeping the interesting bits. Uploaded it over five years ago now.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Now that is sneaky.

But really, PixyMisa suggested that since he does not feel the temptations of dualism, a simulated brain wouldn't either. It's magical thinking to assume a successfully simulated brain could not exhibit magical thinking.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree.
My observations, which I can't discount, simply don't verify the "nothing else" stance of the uber-materialist.

Please explain how you can't discount your observations.

For instance: you are alone in your room at night. You are almost asleep. A sharp noise wakes you up. You look, and you observe movement in the darkness. You focus a bit, and see some lurking monster on the ground, staring you in the eye. You have several options:

A) Go back to sleep.
B) Scream your head off.
C) Open the damn light and check it out.

If you do C) you notice that it's just a pile of clothes, unrelated to whatever noise you think you heard. If you do A), obviously you don't care enough for it to matter. Otherwise you might think that you cannot discount your observation of the monster.

Observations can and often should be discounted, precisely because humans are not infaillible creatures. Quite the opposite, in fact. We imagine and misinterpret things all the time. Our brain is built that way, and sometimes the illusions offer a survival advantage, even. But if you want to objectively explore how the universe works (i.e. science) you have to be able to doubt yourself, first.

What if I don't see a ghost?
What if I see shifting continents, or an equivalent?

Please answer the question.

Said observations have been very special.

How they feel is irrelevant. That's my point.

 

[Zeuzzz]

How they feel is irrelevant. That's my point.

How you feel is equally irrelevant. Which a good reason to discount your posts.

That's my point.

 

[Zeuzzz]

To apply your [misguided] same line of reasoning.

 

[quarky]

Please explain how you can't discount your observations.

For instance: you are alone in your room at night. You are almost asleep. A sharp noise wakes you up. You look, and you observe movement in the darkness. You focus a bit, and see some lurking monster on the ground, staring you in the eye. You have several options:

A) Go back to sleep.
B) Scream your head off.
C) Open the damn light and check it out.

If you do C) you notice that it's just a pile of clothes, unrelated to whatever noise you think you heard. If you do A), obviously you don't care enough for it to matter. Otherwise you might think that you cannot discount your observation of the monster.

Observations can and often should be discounted, precisely because humans are not infaillible creatures. Quite the opposite, in fact. We imagine and misinterpret things all the time. Our brain is built that way, and sometimes the illusions offer a survival advantage, even. But if you want to objectively explore how the universe works (i.e. science) you have to be able to doubt yourself, first.



Please answer the question.



How they feel is irrelevant. That's my point.

None of the above.
I have no issue doubting my self, or 'self' in general.

My observations are more in the realm of objectivity. Exploratory; not seeking a biased conclusion or verification. Suppose you had witnessed a peculiar animal behavior, and you were a zoologist, involved in a study, and you saw something interesting, and it wasn't verifiable, yet, it wasn't implausible or particularly unheard of.
Do you discount it?

I have no issue discounting other observations; weird bright lights in the sky; noisy shadows in the woods; whatever. I default towards a scientific explanation. It was a weather satellite; a cow got loose; etc.

Examining consciousness is a different matter.
Which is why, again, this thread should be in R&P.

 

[quarky]

How dare you suggest a more democratic way to perform democracy! How very very dare you. Everything is black and white, your either liberal or republican, have you not watched fox news?

Sometimes, I turn off the sound-track.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Which is why, again, this thread should be in R&P.

Is this because you think science is just not ready enough to deal with consciousness? Or that, as it stands, consciousness is more a philosophy than a science?

Science needs to open its mind and be far more interdisciplinary than it is to deal with consciousness.

As I said before, I love the method, I merely dislike the human baggage that comes with it sometimes.

I'm so glad PLoS exists now!

http://www.plosone.org/home.action

PLoS ONE : accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science
www.plosone.org/SharePLoS ONE: an inclusive, peer-reviewed, open-access resource from the PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE. Reports of well-performed scientific studies from all ...