Consciousness

[Darat]

I sincerely doubt David Chalmers posed the hard problem because he was uncomfortable with science.

When I was 15 I accepted that the mind comes from the brain. I would have rejected any notion to the contrary as magical thinking.

But Chalmers made a pretty persuasive argument.

The idea that we venture into those territories out of fear or comfort while others do not is amusing.

Time moves on in science, it doesn’t standstill.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, but there's an argument that it shouldn't be investigated at all, as it's just neurology.

I don't agree with that.

Who holds that view?

 

[p0lka]

I misread your post, then.

But, no one said that. I don't think you're disagreeing with a specific person here.

Really?
Any answer regarding the internal experience, that consists of anything like 'that's what brains do', is exactly that.
It has been said several times in this thread.

My view is that just because we know that our internal experience comes from the hardware, it does not mean that we can slap our hands together and say 'problem solved'. There are still answers to be sought.

 

[Belz...]

Really?
Any answer regarding the internal experience, that consists of anything like 'that's what brains do', is exactly that.

No it's not. It's a statement of fact. You're adding the "so we don't need to investigate further" and putting it into the mouths (or keyboards) of other posters. That's unwarranted.

 

[Minoosh]

I did not say it wasn't neurology.
I said the argument that it was 'just' neurology, therefore unworthy of investigation, is something I disagree with.

I have never heard anyone say neurology is unworthy of investigation, or that it's "just neurology." To all appearances that is a straw man. If you can find a more straightforward dismissal of the study of what brains do, cite it, maybe there can be a better discussion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My view is that just because we know that our internal experience comes from the hardware, it does not mean that we can slap our hands together and say 'problem solved'. There are still answers to be sought.

Dishonest.

There's still "answers to be sought" in all of our bodily systems, but there's no "Hard Problem of Endocrine Production." Nobody starts a thread (or pretends threads were started to talk about) everything we don't know about liver bile production.

But every unanswered hows and whys about the brain is just super-interesting.

Because there just might be a soul hiding in it. There's no souls hiding in why we have blood types (still unknown) or why we don't have penis bones like most other mammals.

 

[p0lka]

Dishonest.

There's still "answers to be sought" in all of our bodily systems, but there's no "Hard Problem of Endocrine Production." Nobody starts a thread (or pretends threads were started to talk about) everything we don't know about liver bile production.

But every unanswered hows and whys about the brain is just super-interesting.

Because there just might be a soul hiding in it. There's no souls hiding in why we have blood types (still unknown) or why we don't have penis bones like most other mammals.

Some of your comparisons eg

"This a clock. It makes a ticking sound." "Totally understand. I need no further part of that explained.""Okay this is a brain. It makes a mental process."
"OH GOD I'M SO CONFUSED! HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE! HOW CAN A PHYSICAL OBJECT JUST MAGICALLY MAKE A PROCESS! YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE AIR GAP BETWEEN OUR BRAINS PHYSICAL OBJECT AND HOW IT CREATES THE PROCESS! MATERIALISM! DUALISMS! QUUUUUUAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!" *Collapses on the ground at the existential horror of it all*

and

*Sighs* And this is what I mean.

If you tell someone the heart pumps blood they don't "Okay but I want to know how."
You are your brain. People nod and accept that but I don't think they actually "get" it.

"Must come from the brain" is a wrong because it's not going anywhere, it IS the brain. That's you. The think having the experience.

seemed to imply to me that 'that's what they do, no further answer necessary', was what you were saying?

I mean, it kind of reads that way to me..am I getting it wrong?

 

[Darat]

Really?
Any answer regarding the internal experience, that consists of anything like 'that's what brains do', is exactly that.
It has been said several times in this thread.

My view is that just because we know that our internal experience comes from the hardware, it does not mean that we can slap our hands together and say 'problem solved'. There are still answers to be sought.

No it isn’t.

There are different scales of explanation, at the “top” of the scale we 100% know that consciousness is part of what the brain does.

Over especially the last 20 years we have learned much about the various bits and pieces that make up “consciousness”, so we can manipulate consciousness and no longer is our “internal” state subjective.

But eventually it will all come down to TLOP.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Some of your comparisons eg


and

seemed to imply to me that 'that's what they do, no further answer necessary', was what you were saying?

*Sighs*

I'm saying when people play the "Whhhaaat? I'm just curious about unanswered questions about this one very specific bodily system with no ulterior motive at all..." I DON'T BELIEVE THEM!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Really?
Any answer regarding the internal experience, that consists of anything like 'that's what brains do', is exactly that.

Absolute nonsense. Total and utter garbage.

"Why does turning on a light mean I can see?"
"Oh that's because of how your eyes work."

Does not mean that there is no further detail needed nor wanted, it just means that we know that eyes work in light, just like how we know the mind is the emergent property of a functioning brain. We might not know every detail of how the brain makes the mind (yet) but we do know there is no outside force needed. That's all that statement is saying.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Does not mean that there is no further detail needed nor wanted, it just means that we know that eyes work in light, just like how we know the mind is the emergent property of a functioning brain. We might not know every detail of how the brain makes the mind (yet) but we do know there is no outside force needed. That's all that statement is saying.

This.

The whole "Oh so you're saying we know everything about X..." is a red herring, a bait question to the "Okay now spoon feed me an entire college-level Neurology 101 course..." trolling stall.

We know it's all in the brain and people couldn't be looking for an answer OUTSIDE the brain harder if they tried.

 

[Mike Helland]

This.

The whole "Oh so you're saying we know everything about X..." is a red herring, a bait question to the "Okay now spoon feed me an entire college-level Neurology 101 course..." trolling stall.

We know it's all in the brain and people couldn't be looking for an answer OUTSIDE the brain harder if they tried.

Does your smart phone "see"?

It has sensory apparatus. It has neural networks.

In Star Trek The Next Generation, they had an android named Data. Based on what you're saying, Data would have a conscious experience?

 

[Darat]

Does your smart phone "see"?

It has sensory apparatus. It has neural networks.

In Star Trek The Next Generation, they had an android named Data. Based on what you're saying, Data would have a conscious experience?

My smart phone sees, it identifies for example when I’m taking a picture of a face, or a dog or a landscape and so on.

As for science fiction - according to the fiction he was as conscious as a Klingon.

 

[Mike Helland]

My smart phone sees, it identifies for example when I’m taking a picture of a face, or a dog or a landscape and so on.

Right.

So does it have a conscious experience?

By my view, that being creates material, it does.

It's not as rich as ours.

But ours may not be as rich as others.

 

[Belz...]

Does your smart phone "see"?

Yes. A cuttlefish sees too.

In Star Trek The Next Generation, they had an android named Data. Based on what you're saying, Data would have a conscious experience?

Have you watched the second season episode "The Measure of a Man"? It covers all that.

 

[Mike Helland]

Yes. A cuttlefish sees too.

Have you watched the second season episode "The Measure of a Man"? It covers all that.

It was actually on BBC America last week.

It does not solve the hard problem of consciousness.

Which is almost as hard as ignoring you. I clicked ignore, and it hides your post, but still has a link "View post" which for some reason I do.

It's either because I can't get enough of you, or I can't get enough of myself. One of those must be true.

That said, I think Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness should actually be renamed to Chalmers' Paradox of Material Being. It's that good.

 

[Belz...]

It was actually on BBC America last week.

It does not solve the hard problem of consciousness.

What doesn't solve it? The episode? Of course it doesn't. It's a piece of fiction. But it does ADDRESS the question, which is what I said.

Which is almost as hard as ignoring you. I clicked ignore, and it hides your post, but still has a link "View post" which for some reason I do.

It's either because I can't get enough of you, or I can't get enough of myself. One of those must be true.

I'll take that as a begrudging compliment.

Now, where were you going with the cuttlefish iphone question?

 

[Mike Helland]

What doesn't solve it? The episode? Of course it doesn't. It's a piece of fiction. But it does ADDRESS the question, which is what I said.

Covers all that.

Addresses.

You're inability to even commit to your own words is why I think we might be best friends.

 

[p0lka]

Absolute nonsense. Total and utter garbage.

"Why does turning on a light mean I can see?"
"Oh that's because of how your eyes work."

Does not mean that there is no further detail needed nor wanted, it just means that we know that eyes work in light, just like how we know the mind is the emergent property of a functioning brain. We might not know every detail of how the brain makes the mind (yet) but we do know there is no outside force needed. That's all that statement is saying.

I agree with the highlighted,
Here's the bit you left out of the quote.

My view is that just because we know that our internal experience comes from the hardware, it does not mean that we can slap our hands together and say 'problem solved'. There are still answers to be sought.

check post #287 for the reason why I thought some people were taking the 'no further detail needed' point of view.

 

[Belz...]

Covers all that.

Addresses.

You're inability to even commit to your own words is why I think we might be best friends.

You are, of course, aware of the existence of synonyms, right? Did you really believe that I was claiming that a sci-fi show somehow made a scientific demonstration about the nature of consciousness? I get that you are frustrated by my comments with regards with your own evasiveness but trying to project that onto me will not work.

Are you ever going to get anywhere with your question about the iphone "eye"?