Are You Conscious?

[westprog]

Unless the rest of the world slows down proportionally.

Oops -- there is that whole "general relativity" thing again! Just because general relativity is an accepted scientific fact doesn't mean we have to account for it! Sorry, sorry, I won't bring up reality any more, I know it destroys your pet theories.

Well, yes. Your MP3 player playing at the wrong speed? Just approach the event horizon of a black hole and look! It's fixed!

Turn the volume up a bit to allow for the vacuum and it's fine.

How about the parallel worlds theory of quantum events? Your MP3 player's broken? Ah, but there's a parallel reality where it isn't broken.

There's really no arguing against this kind of thing. General relativity proves what? Well, my pet theories are wrong, anyway, somehow, whatever my theories are exactly, or however the mutability of time and space proves that an MP3 player can't be broken whatever speed it plays at.

 

[westprog]

As for our own consciousness, introspection has never been a good source of knowledge.

Introspection is our only evidence for the existence of consciousness - either in ourselves or others.

And yet atoms, as discovered, weren't like they used to think they were. Plus, atoms are a thing, while consciousness is a process. You can't detect "running".

Firstly we don't know if consciousness is a thing or a process, or both, or neither. But in any case, we now have to consider atoms as being processes as well as things.

 

[westprog]

Yes westprog, particle physics and general relativity have nothing to do with the physical world. You are absolutely correct.

And there it is - the nonsensical paraphrase. I claim that general relativity has nothing to do with one particular point in one particular discussion. Rocketdodger translates that as "general relativity ha(s) nothing to do with the physical world".

Isn't it reasonably clear that that is a dishonest point?

However, let's be generous about it. How does general relativity impact on the discussion about a human hand reaching to catch a ball? Exactly what additional insight to we gain by thinking about this event in general relativistic terms? As opposed, that is, to the more old-fashioned Newtonian view of things, where we consider time as a fixed scale, and gravity as a force rather than a warping of space-time.

 

[Dancing David]

…as for my false congruency. It was also (I thought rather obviously) hyperbole. It also illustrates what is (and not just in my opinion) a very substantial issue.

that is assertion, not a very good form of discussion or argument.

That the answer to the question ‘what is consciousness’ is not just a scientific description of us.

Special pleading.

The answer to the question ‘what is consciousness’ is us (we aren’t after all, studying a sack of potatoes). You are not asking an objective scientific question when you peer into the heart of the question of consciousness.

Another assertion.

You are asking your thought to describe itself, and not just metaphorically.

No you are asking, "define consciousness.", none of this kantian metaspace muddle. How would you define another object as conscious for starters.

There is something very fundamental that is not known about consciousness and it is directly and specifically related to our ability to know it (how and why would extend this post far beyond tolerable limits).

What exactly do you think you tried to say there.


What is not known, do you think?

That is not a scientific issue….it is a metaphysical issue….and beyond that. This is the equivalent of the hard problem (or my understanding of it).

More special pleading.

 

[rocketdodger]

However, let's be generous about it. How does general relativity impact on the discussion about a human hand reaching to catch a ball? Exactly what additional insight to we gain by thinking about this event in general relativistic terms? As opposed, that is, to the more old-fashioned Newtonian view of things, where we consider time as a fixed scale, and gravity as a force rather than a warping of space-time.

The insight gained is this:

The only values consistent across different reference frames are relative values between measurements taken in the same reference frame.

This is sort of the fundamental idea behind ... "relativity," ... hence the name...

And since I know you need more help, here:

This means that the "time" it takes a ball to reach the catcher's hand is different depending on which reference frame the process is observed from. This means that there is nothing absolutely special about any given "time" value. The only important observation is whether or not the hand reaches the proper location BEFORE the ball arrives. And this notion of BEFORE is time independent, since the order of events in a reference frame is always the same, regardless of the frame from which they are observed

 

[rocketdodger]

And there it is - the nonsensical paraphrase. I claim that general relativity has nothing to do with one particular point in one particular discussion. Rocketdodger translates that as "general relativity ha(s) nothing to do with the physical world".

Isn't it reasonably clear that that is a dishonest point?

No.

Because general relativity is a feature of the universe as we know it.

This means that any model one has must function correctly under the constraints of general relativity if it is to be reasonably accurate (read: realistic).

So for you to say that general relativity has nothing to do with how actual computation in the real world is "time dependent" -- because scenarios invoking general relativity destroy your model's accuracy, as demonstrated in numerous posts by myself and others -- is equivalent to an admission that you don't think general relativity should affect one's notions if it disagrees with them.

 

[rocketdodger]

General relativity proves what? Well, my pet theories are wrong, anyway, somehow, whatever my theories are exactly, or however the mutability of time and space proves that an MP3 player can't be broken whatever speed it plays at.

It proves that the phrase "playing at the wrong speed" only has meaning in a relative sense.

The wrong speed according to what?

The wrong speed according to the other events in the same reference frame that are relevant -- the timings in the rest of the hardware and the timings in the neural activity of a listener.

And all of those relative values are reducible to pure mathematical set ordering. Time is nothing but a measure of steps -- if you don't agree, then you might want to argue with the entire scientific community that defines time according to the number of oscillations of particles.

EDIT -- In fact, I challenge you to think of a way to define the value of "second" such that there isn't ever a need to reference a discrete number of steps in some process in order to make use of the value in reality. Go ahead westprog, just try it.

 

[Belz...]

Introspection is our only evidence for the existence of consciousness - either in ourselves or others.

1) That changes nothing to the fact that introspection is not a useful source of data.

2) Wrong.

Firstly we don't know if consciousness is a thing or a process, or both, or neither.

We're reasonably sure it's a process. Or would you care to tell me what you think consciousness is made of ?

But in any case, we now have to consider atoms as being processes as well as things.

You're correct, but I'm sure you can distinguish between an atom and the movement of an atom: thing vs process.

 

[AlBell]

Why not stick to wall-clock time as current humans understand it, and live their lives by it?

 

[rocketdodger]

Why not stick to wall-clock time as current humans understand it, and live their lives by it?

I am -- I am just bringing up the fact that "wall-clock time" isn't as simple as some people apparently want it to be.

 

[AlBell]

Why not stick to wall-clock time as current humans understand it, and live their lives by it?

I am -- I am just bringing up the fact that "wall-clock time" isn't as simple as some people apparently want it to be.

The only fact there is you are wrong. It is that simple for purposes of this discussion.

 

[annnnoid]

I make assertions. Yup. If you disagree with them I don’t mind being told why.

….as for some of them….I shouldn’t think they require embellishment. If we ask ‘what is consciousness’ and I say ‘the answer is very personal’ (as in not conventional objective science) it can hardly be regarded as ‘special pleading’. We are, after all, describing the most fundamental details of who and what you and I are. Like I said, we’re not exactly studying a sack of potatoes. As many of the contributors to this forum have pointed out (I think you may have as well, I don’t know), the only way to know what’s going on in me (or you) is by self-report. Hardly objective science I’d say.

By what logic do you conclude that you can describe another object as ‘conscious’ when you are incapable of describing your own?

…and by what logic do you conclude that describing an exterior consciousness will provide you with a better description of one (a ‘consciousness’) than describing your own…with which you have immediate, direct, unencumbered, and intimate access.

…as for how I would define another object as conscious, I wouldn’t. Period. I would conclude that you are conscious, but I would not conclude that I know what that means. I only conclude that it means something quite substantial.

…as for what is not known? Very specifically, we don’t know why (or how) we don’t know how to recognize what we don’t know. We know something is there that ‘is’ us (if for no other reason than the simple fact that we know it [self-report….remember])….but when we look, we don’t see it.

It’s sort of like a black hole. Nothing escapes….and often the only way to determine one exists is by its effect on what surrounds it. So it is with us. Something ‘explains’ us (obviously, because we exist)…but there is nothing we know of that does (thus we can conclusively say that the only way to know what is happening in you is by self report). The only way to find out what’s in there, is to go look (in our case, it’s the equivalent of diving into the rabbit hole). That is, for you to go look. This is not just metaphysics, it is quantum metaphysics.

There is no science for this (so I just plead and make assertions, and maybe eventually they’ll exist as something more substantial). There is psychology, and philosophy, and cog sci and this and that but when it comes to you….it’s self report. Period. As I said, it is very specifically asking the thought to describe itself, because ‘we’ obviously don’t know how (to describe it). It is far more than Kantian. If you want to call it something, I would call it the holy grail of philosophy. Pretty vague, but that is the state of our understanding of us. A million miles of philosophy and at the end of the day the philosopher still doesn’t know why he’s looking for whatever it is that he’s looking for, he just knows he’s looking for something….and if it is in any way whatsoever implicated by the ‘million miles of philosophy’, the something must be pretty big.

Special pleading and assertions…I know. Comment if you like.

Belz…you say introspection is not a useful source of data? What other means do you have to know yourself, and thus decide everything you have to decide every moment of every day that you are alive? If it’s not a useful source of data, then your entire life is in trouble. Maybe that is not exactly what you mean, but when it comes to consciousness, self-report is all we’ve got.

 

[rocketdodger]

The only fact there is you are wrong. It is that simple for purposes of this discussion.

lol, sure.

How about you go into a little detail about why "it is that simple," eh?

 

[Dancing David]

I make assertions. Yup. If you disagree with them I don’t mind being told why.

Still they are asssertions of your POV.

….as for some of them….I shouldn’t think they require embellishment.

Of course you don't want to examine them, they are your personal bias.

If we ask ‘what is consciousness’ and I say ‘the answer is very personal’ (as in not conventional objective science) it can hardly be regarded as ‘special pleading’.

So you don't know why you think you are conscious, now that is interesting.

We are, after all, describing the most fundamental details of who and what you and I are.

Really? 'I' am an body.

Like I said, we’re not exactly studying a sack of potatoes.

uh huh, sure.

As many of the contributors to this forum have pointed out (I think you may have as well, I don’t know), the only way to know what’s going on in me (or you) is by self-report. Hardly objective science I’d say.

Sure, uh huh, then how do you know why you think you are conscious ?

What leads you to believe you are conscious?

By what logic do you conclude that you can describe another object as ‘conscious’ when you are incapable of describing your own?

You did not ask me to to describe why I believe that i experience the events confabulated with consciousness, now did you.

Big assumption there bub.

…and by what logic do you conclude that describing an exterior consciousness will provide you with a better description of one (a ‘consciousness’) than describing your own…with which you have immediate, direct, unencumbered, and intimate access.

Lets see if you can't describe one, then you can't describe the other?

…as for how I would define another object as conscious, I wouldn’t. Period. I would conclude that you are conscious, but I would not conclude that I know what that means. I only conclude that it means something quite substantial.

Then you might as well not use the word, eh? If it is just personal idiom and has no meaning in conversation.

…as for what is not known? Very specifically, we don’t know why (or how) we don’t know how to recognize what we don’t know.

Nice dodge.
try again, what do you think is not known.

Except for the fact that you don't knwo why you think you are conscious.

We know something is there that ‘is’ us (if for no other reason than the simple fact that we know it [self-report….remember])….but when we look, we don’t see it.

I have a body, the body has apparent events. The rest is conjecture. (Or it appears there is a body at any rate.)

It’s sort of like a black hole. Nothing escapes….and often the only way to determine one exists is by its effect on what surrounds it. So it is with us. Something ‘explains’ us (obviously, because we exist)…but there is nothing we know of that does (thus we can conclusively say that the only way to know what is happening in you is by self report).

You are really hung up on your own concept aren't you.

If you can't define your own experience of consciousness, then you are just saying youa re conscious, but you have nothing to base it upon.

Fabulous.

The only way to find out what’s in there, is to go look (in our case, it’s the equivalent of diving into the rabbit hole). That is, for you to go look. This is not just metaphysics, it is quantum metaphysics.

Uh huh, and so why is it any different than anything else in the world?

There is no science for this (so I just plead and make assertions, and maybe eventually they’ll exist as something more substantial).

just because you do not want to apply science does not mean it can't, but then you have made up some arbitrary distinction about science as well.

Press your eyeball on the side, do you see the lines and patterns?
Yes or no?

There is psychology, and philosophy, and cog sci and this and that but when it comes to you….it’s self report. Period.

So you don't trust yourself, taht is interesting.
Self report is a tool, its validity is a seperate issue.

As I said, it is very specifically asking the thought to describe itself, because ‘we’ obviously don’t know how (to describe it).

And that is the kantian garbage. Toughts are labels, duh. Or at least verbal cogition is.

It is far more than Kantian. If you want to call it something, I would call it the holy grail of philosophy.

OOOOH, and that means so much.

So does angels and dedmons.

Pretty vague, but that is the state of our understanding of us.

No, that is your mischaracterization. Go ahead.

A million miles of philosophy and at the end of the day the philosopher still doesn’t know why he’s looking for whatever it is that he’s looking for, he just knows he’s looking for something….and if it is in any way whatsoever implicated by the ‘million miles of philosophy’, the something must be pretty big.

It is to laugh.

Special pleading and assertions…I know. Comment if you like.

Belz…you say introspection is not a useful source of data? What other means do you have to know yourself, and thus decide everything you have to decide every moment of every day that you are alive? If it’s not a useful source of data, then your entire life is in trouble. Maybe that is not exactly what you mean, but when it comes to consciousness, self-report is all we’ve got.

So you can't say why you are conscious but you want to talk about it?

MU?

 

[Dancing David]

The only fact there is you are wrong. It is that simple for purposes of this discussion.

Really?

 

[AkuManiMani]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure exactly how that will be done

The problem is that we infer consciousness in others from behaviour. So unless we can tell how that behaviour stems from some physical process, we may be stuck with that criterion. As for our own consciousness, introspection has never been a good source of knowledge.

As westprog pointed out, introspection is how we know we are conscious and the contents of our consciousness. Without introspection we wouldn't even have self-reports. Introspection just means looking "inward".

Like qualia, it was once thought that atoms were undetectable, in principle, and that they were nothing but a philosophical concept irrelevant to science. It took decades of theoretical work and empirical investigation before they were finally detected and their properties understood.

And yet atoms, as discovered, weren't like they used to think they were. Plus, atoms are a thing, while consciousness is a process. You can't detect "running".

In a sense, consciousness is a "thing". We don't just have consciousness, or do consciousness; we are consciousness. Absent consciousness, we do not exist as subjects. Regardless of whether one wants to think of consciousness as a "thing" or a "processes" we know for certain that it is physically salient and real.

Keep in mind that atoms are themselves physical processes; they're essentially stable patterns of field oscillations. Also, we each directly experience our own minds from the "inside" so we can atleast study the subjective aspects of consciousness; with atoms we didn't have the luxury of being able to study them before their scientific discovery. As we're already intimately familiar with the internal subjective dimension of consciousness the challenge for science is to identify consciousness from the external objective frame of reference. As of now, all science has to go on are general behaviors and functions associated with consciousness, but we've yet to objectively pin down the physical thing in itself.

 

[AkuManiMani]

But in any case, we now have to consider atoms as being processes as well as things.

You're correct, but I'm sure you can distinguish between an atom and the movement of an atom: thing vs process.

The movement of an atom is just the uncertainty of it's position, and vis versa. There is no real distinction between an atom and the movement of an atom. Atoms, and all other physical objects, are essentially fluctuating waves of potentiality; i.e. energy.

 

[AlBell]

The only fact there is you are wrong. It is that simple for purposes of this discussion.

Really?

Glad I could amuse you.

Thread title: Are You Conscious?

Either apply Occam, or over-complicate as you will. Or do you not live at wallclock time?

 

[rocketdodger]

Glad I could amuse you.

Thread title: Are You Conscious?

Either apply Occam, or over-complicate as you will. Or do you not live at wallclock time?

The discussion hasn't been about the question "are you conscious" since the second or third post of the thread.

Might want to keep up ...

 

[AlBell]

Glad I could amuse you.

Thread title: Are You Conscious?

Either apply Occam, or over-complicate as you will. Or do you not live at wallclock time?

The discussion hasn't been about the question "are you conscious" since the second or third post of the thread.

Might want to keep up ...

Despite many attempts at obfuscation, the thread topic hasn't changed.

"Real time" continues, and we and our consciousness continue with it.