• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness

Darat said:
There is research into it. I only found out my lack because a news report on research to it. It was quite a revelation for me, for all my life I’d assumed people were being poetic talking about what they saw with their mind’s eye. There were clues - techniques like a “memory palace” for how to remember things never made sense to me but I suspect like most people do I assumed everyone was like me.
Click to expand...


That must have been kind of unsettling. I mean, imagining that's how it is for everyone, and suddenly finding out one day that it isn't.

Did you study the research at any depth at all, or did you speak to doctors / experts about this subsequently? Would you know the nature of that research, and the results they came out with? You do know enough to know it isn't to do with memory. Would you know if this research might speak to what we're talking about now: that is, what kind of specific neurobiological processes might be associated with this?

("This" being this experience, that most have, but that those with aphantasia lack? Whether that "this" might amount to qualia is obviously the next question to try to answer. But of course, if the answer to the first question itself is a negative, then the second question is moot, as far as this particular sidebar.)
 
Chanakya said:
That must have been kind of unsettling. I mean, imagining that's how it is for everyone, and suddenly finding out one day that it isn't.

Did you study the research at any depth at all, or did you speak to doctors / experts about this subsequently? Would you know the nature of that research, and the results they came out with? You do know enough to know it isn't to do with memory. Would you know if this research might speak to what we're talking about now: that is, what kind of specific neurobiological processes might be associated with this?

("This" being this experience, that most have, but that those with aphantasia lack? Whether that "this" might amount to qualia is obviously the next question to try to answer. But of course, if the answer to the first question itself is a negative, then the second question is moot, as far as this particular sidebar.)
Click to expand...

Aphantasia has to do with what you see when your eyes are closed (or lack thereof).

P-zombies and the hard problem of consciousness are not about that.

If anything, having aphantasia, as I suppose I do, means you're probably more literal than those without it.

When I close my eyes I see black but changing values of gray in it.
 
Last edited:
Scorpion said:
I said I had a series of electric shocks of over a hundred volts passed through my brain, and since the brain works on less than half a volt such a large shock should have completely wiped my memory permanently. But it didn't. My memories returned within a week.

Therefore memories are not stored electrically.

That is my experience, and it is absolutely true.
Click to expand...

Absolutely categorically false. You are simply stating that you cannot understand how the ECT would not have wiped your memories therefore memory isn't electricity. This is just an appeal to ignorance. YOU don't understand it therefore no one does.

Stop making bad faith arguments and stop ignoring people's questions.
 
This is all some grade-A gibberish.

"A mind can't be a process because there's no unit of measurement for it" is almost Jabba quality.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Wow, shocker, Mike Helland is wrong about what others are saying. News at 11.
Click to expand...

If I were to place 5 rocks in front of us, and everyone agreed there were 5 rocks, except for you, because you're a maverick, I would conclude you're wrong, and there are 5 rocks.

In that circumstance... what I am doing.

Let's say you place 5 rocks in front of me. And all your friends say there are 5 rocks. If I said there some other number of rocks, I would be objectively wrong.

Agreed?
 
Mike Helland said:
If I were to place 5 rocks in front of us, and everyone agreed there were 5 rocks, except for you, because you're a maverick, I would conclude you're wrong, and there are 5 rocks.

In that circumstance... what I am doing.

Let's say you place 5 rocks in front of me. And all your friends say there are 5 rocks. If I said there some other number of rocks, I would be objectively wrong.

Agreed?
Click to expand...

Why does any of this have to do with anything?

If you're going to gish gallop, do it away from the discussion.
 
Mike Helland said:
If I were to place 5 rocks in front of us, and everyone agreed there were 5 rocks, except for you, because you're a maverick, I would conclude you're wrong, and there are 5 rocks.

In that circumstance... what I am doing.

Let's say you place 5 rocks in front of me. And all your friends say there are 5 rocks. If I said there some other number of rocks, I would be objectively wrong.

Agreed?
Click to expand...
Yes. So?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Why does any of this have to do with anything?

If you're going to gish gallop, do it away from the discussion.
Click to expand...

"5" is objective.

It's not some subjective opinion.

Same goes for the meter.

With out 5 and meter being objective, there would be no objective truths involving 5 and meter, or any other numbers or units.

"5" and "meter" are objective.
 
Mike Helland said:
If I were to place 5 rocks in front of us, and everyone agreed there were 5 rocks, except for you, because you're a maverick, I would conclude you're wrong, and there are 5 rocks.

In that circumstance... what I am doing.

Let's say you place 5 rocks in front of me. And all your friends say there are 5 rocks. If I said there some other number of rocks, I would be objectively wrong.

Agreed?
Click to expand...

Stop playing games. "There are five rocks" is what's objective here. The number 5 itself being objective is a nonsensical concept.

"5" and "meter" are objective.
Click to expand...

Again, that's nonsensical.

Can we get back on topic, now?
 
Oh jesus is he trying to say the number 5 is objective rather than there being 5 rocks?
 
No he's just trying to make the discussion impossibly inefficient and declare himself the winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom