I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Nonpareil]

That statement is not logically true. Something must have a detectable effect to exert influence but that does not mean that it is detectable. This is not a difficult concept.

If the object itself is not detectable in any way, then there is nothing but the effect, and the object does not exist. To say otherwise is to invoke yet another garage dragon.

Of course, we don't see things like this in reality. The idea is rather nonsensical.

When was this lost?

When the corpus callosum was severed. Most of the speech processing in the brain takes place in the left (dominant) hemisphere.

 

[punshhh]

This is complete nonsense.

Not atall, you don't seem to grasp the issue. In idealism a necessary being is identified(a conceptual object), this is labelled the mind. The existence of this object is undeniable*. Idealism is simply the consideration that this "mind" is our primary existence. This is reasonable because it's reality is more justified than and at worst equal to any other thing known to have any kind of existence. Also it is reasonable to consider that all other things and knowledge is or may be secondary in some way to this necessary being. As they can only be perceived or known via the necessary being.

In the analogy this conceptual object is represented by the dragon(correct me if I'm wrong). As it is a necessary being and everything else including the garage and the world around it are only known via the necessary being. The fact that they are known indicates the existence of the dragon, as there is no other way to know them.

*the nature of the necessary being is not necessary to be known(defined) in order to acknowledge its presence and relation to other presences, because it is necessary.

I haven't.

Human definitions are subject to human frailty and may not be sufficiently up to the job to address external objects. Objects which may not be frail and could indeed by inviolable, or have other unknown qualities and relations.

You have given a nonsensical, useless, and unsupported definition of consciousness.

It is a reasonable conclusion considering the empirical evidence, having put previous definitions or understandings to one side for the time being.

No, it isn't. Because we actually know.

You keep trying to pretend that we don't, but you can't get around this. We know that consciousness comes from the brain.

Yes, I agree, the brain is a part of the body, the body produces consciousness in all its degrees.
Or can you be more specific? Which material in the body?

Because computational consciousness is the only option which is supported by the evidence.

And, in case you forgot, it is supported by literally all of the evidence.

Fine, it's a good model, but it appears to be a model of intelligence specifically. I can't see why an consciousness is required, it is simply assumed. We're back to the ghost in the machine.

 

[punshhh]

Here's another analogy: Just because you perceive a star through a telescope doesn't mean the telescope generates the star. Given what you know of the telescope, there is no reason to believe that it does, in fact, and every reason to believe that the star has independant existence.

Ok, presumably the telescope is representing the mind of the viewer. Unfortunately the issues implicit with the mind are not represented in the telescope. Ie, the mind is the only means of knowing, or seeing anything. The mind is indistinguishable from the viewer.

I agree with the problems with thinking that the telescope has created the star, this is incorrect. But in idealism it would not necessarily be the individual mind of the viewer which creates the world around them, it could be something more like the mind of God, or a universal substrate. Or something else not known with a mental primacy.

 

[wea]

That statement is not logically true. Something must have a detectable effect to exert influence but that does not mean that it is detectable. This is not a difficult concept.

I'm sorry I can't get this easy concept, but as probably Nonpareil, I also have difficulties to figure something that has a detectable effect and is not detectable itself: I've always assumed that the scientific (i.e. operational, as I see it) definition of (detection of) x = measurement of the effect(s) produced by x; and discussing materialism, what is left is ...?.
As far as consciousness definitions goes, I already reported a tentative one, suggestive for me, in post 2515: the irreducible entity a computational machine perceives itself to be, as the result of the ability to observe its own high-level workings, and the inability to observe its own low-level workings, for lack of a logic analyzer or suitable sensors (pointing to its ALUs or inside the skull, respectively). Admittadly shorter that 1500 words, still I'd like to know where it falls short according to you (and according to annnnoid).

 

[Belz...]

Ok, presumably the telescope is representing the mind of the viewer. Unfortunately the issues implicit with the mind are not represented in the telescope. Ie, the mind is the only means of knowing, or seeing anything.

The telescope is the only way to see the star.

I agree with the problems with thinking that the telescope has created the star, this is incorrect. But in idealism it would not necessarily be the individual mind of the viewer which creates the world around them, it could be something more like the mind of God, or a universal substrate.

Then it's not just incoherent, it's unevidenced.

 

[punshhh]

If the object itself is not detectable in any way, then there is nothing but the effect, and the object does not exist. To say otherwise is to invoke yet another garage dragon.

The point is that the object is not detectable in any way by a human,( as we are discussing human knowledge), rather than undetectable in any way atall.
It could both be undetectable to humanity while also being detectable to some other observer like an alien or a god. In the former case humanity would be incorrect to state it as not existing because it's existence is proved by the aliens detection of it.

Therefore things may exist(and probably do) which are undetectable to humanity.

Of course, we don't see things like this in reality. The idea is rather nonsensical.

Talk about confining thought

 

[punshhh]

That statement is not logically true. Something must have a detectable effect to exert influence but that does not mean that it is detectable. This is not a difficult concept.

Quite, he has said this before, I find it difficult to understand the presence of such a schoolboy error.

Also something which exists does not have to have a detectable effect to an observer within the system, while exerting an influence. It may only be detectable external to the system.

 

[wea]

.. schoolboy error.
Also something which exists does not have to have a detectable effect to an observer within the system, while exerting an influence. It may only be detectable external to the system.

Mysticism is a variant of materialism...

Even without paraphrasing Wittgenstein, we speak different (opposite) languages, maybe my english is too poor, I give up

ETA: go figure, as I suggested in my last post, in labs we insist to make that schoolboy error all the time, i.e. what we measure is worth investigating while fuzzy "feelings" could be hallucination, visual/perceptive artifacts etc.

 

[Nonpareil]

Not atall, you don't seem to grasp the issue. In idealism a necessary being is identified(a conceptual object), this is labelled the mind. The existence of this object is undeniable*. Idealism is simply the consideration that this "mind" is our primary existence. This is reasonable because it's reality is more justified than and at worst equal to any other thing known to have any kind of existence.

I understand this. The issue is that we also know that there is something else. We experience something.

The moment you come up with any sort of coherent definition for what this "something" is, idealism collapses.

Also it is reasonable to consider that all other things and knowledge is or may be secondary in some way to this necessary being. As they can only be perceived or known via the necessary being.

"Secondary in some way" is a meaningless phrase.

In the analogy this conceptual object is represented by the dragon(correct me if I'm wrong). As it is a necessary being

It's not.

*the nature of the necessary being is not necessary to be known(defined) in order to acknowledge its presence and relation to other presences, because it is necessary.

You don't need to know what it is in order to determine how it relates to the rest of the universe? What sort of complete crock are you spouting now?

Human definitions are subject to human frailty and may not be sufficiently up to the job to address external objects.

"Human frailty" is a meaningless phrase. Definitions can demonstrably be accurate and applied to the objects they describe.

"You can't possibly know" is an extremely silly thing to say when we demonstrably can.

It is a reasonable conclusion considering the empirical evidence

No. No, it isn't.

There isn't anything else to say. No. It is not a "reasonable conclusion considering the empirical evidence". It is completely nonsensical and outright violates the evidence in place. What you have said is exactly the opposite of what is true.

Yes, I agree, the brain is a part of the body, the body produces consciousness in all its degrees.
Or can you be more specific? Which material in the body?

I literally just answered this question.

Playing word games with the definition of "body" is not particularly compelling.

Fine, it's a good model, but it appears to be a model of intelligence specifically.

It is explicitly not.

Again, there isn't anything else to say. You're just wrong. Flat-out wrong. The evidence explicitly indicates that consciousness comes from computation in the brain.

But in idealism it would not necessarily be the individual mind of the viewer which creates the world around them, it could be something more like the mind of God, or a universal substrate. Or something else not known with a mental primacy.

Which is just a garage dragon.

I'm sorry I can't get this easy concept, but as probably Nonpareil, I also have difficulties to figure something that has a detectable effect and is not detectable itself: I've always assumed that the scientific (i.e. operational, as I see it) definition of (detection of) x = measurement of the effect(s) produced by x; and discussing materialism, what is left is ...?.
As far as consciousness definitions goes, I already reported a tentative one, suggestive for me, in post 2515: the irreducible entity a computational machine perceives itself to be, as the result of the ability to observe its own high-level workings, and the inability to observe its own low-level workings, for lack of a logic analyzer or suitable sensors (pointing to its ALUs or inside the skull, respectively). Admittadly shorter that 1500 words, still I'd like to know where it falls short according to you (and according to annnnoid).

I'm sorry, but I honestly can't tell what it is that you're asking here, so I can't offer an answer.

The point is that the object is not detectable in any way by a human,( as we are discussing human knowledge)

Well, no. We're not discussing human knowledge. You're rambling on about it, and everyone else is trying to tell you that it's irrelevant in this context, because idealism is an untenable position despite the fact that we can only experience the world through our minds.

It's still a garage dragon.

Also something which exists does not have to have a detectable effect to an observer within the system, while exerting an influence. It may only be detectable external to the system.

Odd claim. Example?

 

[dlorde]

... something which exists does not have to have a detectable effect to an observer within the system, while exerting an influence. It may only be detectable external to the system.

What is this 'system' of which you speak?

If something does not have an influence or effect within or on a system, it is not detectable from that system and does not exist with respect to that system.

 

[annnnoid]

If you're not even going to read the post I quoted for an explanation of what I'm asking and why, why are you here? Or are you just explicitly trolling now?

The post you quoted said the word is used in many different ways. That’s it. Then you suggested Barehl provide his definition.

Why should Barehl provide his definition when you have insisted that yours is the definitive one?

I never said this.

The discussion so far.

I have said (repeatedly) that there is no consensus on the definition of consciousness. You (eventually) responded with this:

There is an extremely simple and coherent definition. I just gave it. Consciousness is the capability to experience. It is the ability to feel.
[/i]

You explicitly stated that there IS an extremely simple and coherent definition… and then you provided it.

Are you saying your words represent the scientific consensus (or any kind of consensus)….or not?

You’ve also insisted that insects are conscious. Does that include this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicopomorpha_echmepterygis

It’s slightly bigger than the thickness of a human hair.

Are you claiming that you know when something is conscious… or not?

What are the specific conditions that determine whether or not an organism is conscious?

How does science empirically adjudicate the condition you refer to as ‘experience’?

How does science empirically adjudicate the condition you refer to as ‘feeling’?

IOW…how does science empirically determine when something has either experience or feeling?

Are both necessary for a determination of consciousness? Why…why not?

Since insects are conscious (according to you)…are micro-organisms conscious? What about bacteria, viruses, and protazoa? What about macro-organisms such as tapeworms? What, precisely, is the threshold for consciousness? You’re the one who keeps insisting that this whole thing is resolved…

…so prove it.

I’m going to go out on a limb and flat out guarantee that despite your insistence that you know what consciousness is and that you know what variety of phenomena are / are not conscious…

…you will not answer a single one of these questions.

Yes, bandied about because it lacks any evidence. And, something cannot be retroactively core today because it might be proven correct in the future. That's kind of impossible.

There is much that occurs at the forefront of science that is entirely theoretical. String theory comes to mind. Some very prominent physicists (John Wheeler, Anton Zeilinger) have argued for an informational ontology. That doesn’t make it remotely ‘core’, but string theory is a very popular part of physics and there is no empirical evidence to support it!

I'm sure he knows what his definition means. It may or may not be substantially similar to mine.

I can categorically assure you that he has no idea what his definition means. Try and ask him, You will get nothing and go nowhere (as you have already discovered).

Your definition isn't any more precise. Feel as in experience emotion or feel as in sense?

Those are reasonable questions. Perhaps you should ask Nonpareil as that is his definition of consciousness, not mine. I’ve been trying to get him to unpack it ever since he posted it.

Not atall, you don't seem to grasp the issue. In idealism a necessary being is identified(a conceptual object), this is labelled the mind. The existence of this object is undeniable*. Idealism is simply the consideration that this "mind" is our primary existence. This is reasonable because it's reality is more justified than and at worst equal to any other thing known to have any kind of existence. Also it is reasonable to consider that all other things and knowledge is or may be secondary in some way to this necessary being. As they can only be perceived or known via the necessary being.

Exactly…and has been pointed out ad nauseum…the only ontologies with anything like absolute status are perception and the abstract mind. We simply do not have any idea what anything else actually is (3-D holographs or 10-D strings…don’t know) and we don’t actually experience anything else (except ourself).

Not to mention…that current directions in physics are pointing to some very weird possibilities (as if the current batch isn’t weird enough). That what we currently experience as a 3 dimensional condition is actually nothing more than a projection of 2 dimension information ( http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/2014/2-D-Hologram-20140826.html ). That, at the atomic level reality does not exist until it is measured ( http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness ).

Or can you be more specific? Which material in the body?

He won’t answer cause he doesn’t know (nobody knows). According to Nonpareils very own useless definition of consciousness (experience / feeling), consciousness is NOT exclusively a function of the brain by virtue of the phenomenon known as embodied intelligence. Meaning… the entire body experiences feeling (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/646 ). Hardly the first time Nonpareil has contradicted himself.

If the object itself is not detectable in any way, then there is nothing but the effect, and the object does not exist.

Someday you will realize just how incoherent this is.

 

[tsig]

The post you quoted said the word is used in many different ways. That’s it. Then you suggested Barehl provide his definition.

Why should Barehl provide his definition when you have insisted that yours is the definitive one?




The discussion so far.

I have said (repeatedly) that there is no consensus on the definition of consciousness. You (eventually) responded with this:




You explicitly stated that there IS an extremely simple and coherent definition… and then you provided it.

Are you saying your words represent the scientific consensus (or any kind of consensus)….or not?

You’ve also insisted that insects are conscious. Does that include this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicopomorpha_echmepterygis

It’s slightly bigger than the thickness of a human hair.

Are you claiming that you know when something is conscious… or not?

What are the specific conditions that determine whether or not an organism is conscious?

How does science empirically adjudicate the condition you refer to as ‘experience’?

How does science empirically adjudicate the condition you refer to as ‘feeling’?

IOW…how does science empirically determine when something has either experience or feeling?

Are both necessary for a determination of consciousness? Why…why not?

Since insects are conscious (according to you)…are micro-organisms conscious? What about bacteria, viruses, and protazoa? What about macro-organisms such as tapeworms? What, precisely, is the threshold for consciousness? You’re the one who keeps insisting that this whole thing is resolved…

…so prove it.

I’m going to go out on a limb and flat out guarantee that despite your insistence that you know what consciousness is and that you know what variety of phenomena are / are not conscious…

…you will not answer a single one of these questions.




There is much that occurs at the forefront of science that is entirely theoretical. String theory comes to mind. Some very prominent physicists (John Wheeler, Anton Zeilinger) have argued for an informational ontology. That doesn’t make it remotely ‘core’, but string theory is a very popular part of physics and there is no empirical evidence to support it!




I can categorically assure you that he has no idea what his definition means. Try and ask him, You will get nothing and go nowhere (as you have already discovered).




Those are reasonable questions. Perhaps you should ask Nonpareil as that is his definition of consciousness, not mine. I’ve been trying to get him to unpack it ever since he posted it.




Exactly…and has been pointed out ad nauseum…the only ontologies with anything like absolute status are perception and the abstract mind. We simply do not have any idea what anything else actually is (3-D holographs or 10-D strings…don’t know) and we don’t actually experience anything else (except ourself).

Not to mention…that current directions in physics are pointing to some very weird possibilities (as if the current batch isn’t weird enough). That what we currently experience as a 3 dimensional condition is actually nothing more than a projection of 2 dimension information ( http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/2014/2-D-Hologram-20140826.html ). That, at the atomic level reality does not exist until it is measured ( http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness ).




He won’t answer cause he doesn’t know (nobody knows). According to Nonpareils very own useless definition of consciousness (experience / feeling), consciousness is NOT exclusively a function of the brain by virtue of the phenomenon known as embodied intelligence. Meaning… the entire body experiences feeling (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/646 ). Hardly the first time Nonpareil has contradicted himself.




Someday you will realize just how incoherent this is.

How do you detect a non detectable object?

 

[Belz...]

Someday you will realize just how incoherent this is.

And someday maybe you will put your money where your mouth is and explain it rather than play the "I know something you don't but I won't tell you" routine, which any observer knows means "I have no idea."

 

[annnnoid]

And someday maybe you will put your money where your mouth is and explain it rather than play the "I know something you don't but I won't tell you" routine, which any observer knows means "I have no idea."

It’s part of Nonpareils pantheon of ontological metaphysics. If you really want to waste your time exploring the absurdity of it start at post 1469 here and continue to about post 1561. This is how Aridas summarized Nonpariels argument:

And this is you failing to address the actual point being made, again.

I've invoked a number of easy examples of things that would prevent things from being detectable, actually. You've tried to hand wave them away by by basically saying "If we just ignore all the reasons why something cannot be done, it can be done!"

Either way, it's actually fairly easy to engage in speculation and come up with reasons why something might not actually be detectable without invoking magic. Frankly, I'm getting rather bored with your inability to make any valid and relevant arguments though, but let's see what else you've got.

…you're trying to sneak in a major change in the premises and then just referring back to your change as a way to try to proclaim 'victory,' without ever validly addressing the original point in the first place.

That would be you, for two reasons. 1) "Practical" limits were what was in question, from the start. 2) You're trying to conflate different kinds of theoretical limits and effectively claiming that theoretical just means ignoring reality's limitations completely.

We've been over this multiple times. This chain of logic is not true, except when you can do certain impossible things. Given that doing the impossible, is, well, impossible to do, your argument fails.

…actually, that wasn’t a summary. That was all from just one single post. Most of Aridas’ posts contain similar complaints and criticisms of Nonpareil’s arguments, most of which are variations of that claim of his. I’ve no interest in restarting that debate so if you want to know why it’s incoherent, go read all about it.

 

[Belz...]

It’s part of Nonpareils pantheon of ontological metaphysics. If you really want to waste your time exploring the absurdity of it start at post 1469

In other words, no, you will not put your money where your mouth is. You have nothing.

 

[annnnoid]

In other words, no, you will not put your money where your mouth is. You have nothing.

…amusing…as always. Nonpareil makes endless claims without a shred of supporting evidence and we never get a peep from you (any bets on whether he’s going to answer a single one of those questions?). I make a claim…and I provide a link that (if you read it) completely supports the claim…and you scream and holler.

Oh well. I think your bias is showing, but that’s hardly a surprise.

The incoherence of the statement boils down to exactly what Nonpareil pointed out, that in reality such situations do not occur. Yet…as you will discover if you read that link… Nonpareil uses this very same argument as the foundation for endless ridiculous claims. Aridas takes the time to point out the absurdity of the claims…over and over and over and over.

…but don’t take my word for it. Go look. Or do take my word for it…and don’t go look.

 

[Belz...]

…amusing…as always.

And accurate, since you continue to refuse to answer.

 

[wea]

I've invoked a number of easy examples of things that would prevent things from being detectable, actually.

…but don’t take my word for it. Go look. Or do take my word for it…and don’t go look.

Annnoid, I've gone back a couple dozen exchanges from the reference you gave and I can't find those "easy examples" (I don't think gravity leprechauns qualify ). Would you kindly point me to where Aridas named them, or list a few if you can remember any of them?

 

[annnnoid]

And accurate, since you continue to refuse to answer.

If you insist I have nothing then I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.

Annnoid, I've gone back a couple dozen exchanges from the reference you gave and I can't find those "easy examples" (I don't think gravity leprechauns qualify ). Would you kindly point me to where Aridas named them, or list a few if you can remember any of them?

Instructions on how to make a post:

- go to the thread you want to make a post in (in this case it would be this one)
- click on the ‘quote’ button in the post you want to reply to (in this case it would be this one)
- write down your question (…” dear Aridas, please point out some of the ‘easy examples’ you are referring to in this post…thank you”…)
- press: ‘Submit’
- easy peasy

 

[Belz...]

If you insist I have nothing then I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.

You're the one doing the insisting. I'm just taking you at your word.