On Consciousness

[Piggy]

Been away, just saw this thread.

I'm not going to get into another who-shot-John with the "Flock of Seagulls" here, but I do want to point out that the poll presents a false choice between, essentially, the soul model and the data-processing model.

Both are wrong.

 

[tensordyne]

Been away, just saw this thread.

I'm not going to get into another who-shot-John with the "Flock of Seagulls" here, but I do want to point out that the poll presents a false choice between, essentially, the soul model and the data-processing model.

Both are wrong.

Yep.

 

[annnnoid]

Been away, just saw this thread.

I'm not going to get into another who-shot-John with the "Flock of Seagulls" here, but I do want to point out that the poll presents a false choice between, essentially, the soul model and the data-processing model.

Both are wrong.

Hi Piggy. You objection is not surprising given that the poll was authored by an ardent computationlist. But it’s only JREF (the powers-that-be rarely turn their gaze this way [but who knows who hides behind what moniker!])…a murky place where dubious meaning haunts the forums like incense smoke wafting through the crypts of ancient tombs. The dead wake on its toxic fume…believing themselves risen. But revelation is nothing if not illusory, lies masquerading as truth midst the waking dream.

…sorry…I just felt I had to say that. Maybe I’ve been reading too much Pixy recently. Addling the old brain.

On another topic completely…you don’t suppose you could coax Wasp back from wherever he’s vanished to. I’m sure I was on the verge of cracking one of his points …and then he just left. Not fair.

 

[tensordyne]

Here is why Dennett is an unknowing con artist:

http://philpapers.org/rec/DERDRS.

Unfortunately, it is on SpringerLink, so it is subscription only. I hope there is someone here though with access that can review it (any philosophy academicians out there?). I emailed the author for a copy myself some time ago, which he gave me. It is on another computer I do not have access to right now. I do remember it was pretty damning as a review of Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained". Showing how Dennett uses many of the same word play tricks that Freud used.

I hate pay for subscription academic journals, it is against the whole point of science and academic study. Let me know in PM if you have access to it. I would be curious what you think of the paper as well.

Has anyone read "The Embodied Mind"? I have not yet so I am curious what anyone thinks on the matter.

 

[PixyMisa]

There is only one scientific method. There are multiple philosophies of science

It's your topic of discussion. It's irrelevant.

See PixyMisa, I didn't just say you were wrong like you did below and in other communications, I gave reasons and then the last thing I said was you are wrong.

Try reading what I already wrote. I demonstrated that you were wrong, and then you just posted the wrong again.

Again, the childish act of saying your wrong and not giving analysis why.

No. I showed exactly why you are wrong, and then you persisted with the same invalid argument. It's not my job to correct you in detail every time. You can, of course, ask a question instead of whining.

Post #1052

What about post 1052? I never said what you are claiming, I've corrected you multiple times, and yet you persist in this bizarre distortion.

Why?

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I definitely want to talk about the mechanics of the sensation of red (and every other form of perception). I am 100% for that. As far as I can tell though, certain posters do not even understand what the word sensation means (PixyMisa).

I know very well what it means. I just don't ascribe magical properties to it.

I want a map between the physical world and sensation. I want to be able to know that when a system is put into such and such an arrangement, that that causes the system to experience x. I most definitely want that.

That rather misses the point, though; it's still the Cartesian Theatre. What we need is to know the details of the process that is the experience.

I do think quite a lot of the mechanisms responsible for sensation reside in the brain.

Where does the rest of it reside? Or are you referring to the peripheral nervous system there, in which case I have no problem?

 

[Mr. Scott]

the poll presents a false choice between, essentially, the soul model and the data-processing model.

Both are wrong.

I didn't imply anything about an afterlife in the poll, did I?

Write a poll text that you would vote for.

 

[Piggy]

On another topic completely…you don’t suppose you could coax Wasp back from wherever he’s vanished to. I’m sure I was on the verge of cracking one of his points …and then he just left. Not fair.

I wish I could, but I don't know how to get in touch with him.

I don't really know why he bailed on the forum, when all he had to do was withdraw from the ------- match he'd gotten himself into.

I keep hoping he'll get over it.

I once left -- not on one of my sabbaticals into real life, but because I felt I had been profoundly hurt -- but eventually I returned. Maybe he will, too.

 

[Piggy]

I didn't imply anything about an afterlife in the poll, did I?

Write a poll text that you would vote for.

I didn't imply anything about an afterlife, either.

But the false choice you present is between a dualistic model (which is a soul model, whether that soul is mortal or immortal) and a data model.

The problem with the former should be obvious.

The problem with the latter is that there is no "data" in your brain. Unless you also want to say there's "data" in your liver, in which case the term becomes trivial.

 

[!Kaggen]

Specifically, what about that would make you believe a machine was conscious?

This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsK_XTIMc0&sns=em

 

[Piggy]

I do remember it was pretty damning as a review of Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained". Showing how Dennett uses many of the same word play tricks that Freud used.

Dennett spends much of that book railing (correctly) against the Cartesian theater, then ends up replacing it with his own version of it, in which the primitive Brain A serves as the theater for the more recently evolved Brain B homunculus.

It sounds like a pretty good argument at first, until you realize what he's done, and that he offers no explanation whatsoever for why it should be that the interaction of more primitive and more recently evolved areas of the brain should cause the body to hallucinate.

That question is simply ignored.

Which, at the end of the day, is the core problem with all philosophical approaches to consciousness.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I didn't imply anything about an afterlife, either.

But the false choice you present is between a dualistic model (which is a soul model, whether that soul is mortal or immortal) and a data model.

The problem with the former should be obvious.

The problem with the latter is that there is no "data" in your brain. Unless you also want to say there's "data" in your liver, in which case the term becomes trivial.

I figured "soul" definitely implied the afterlife, but I guess not to you.

Write a poll text that you would vote for, that hasn't a problem to you. Heck, let's see you write a set of poll choices on the topic that are free of problems.

 

[Piggy]

Write a poll text that you would vote for, that hasn't a problem to you. Heck, let's see you write a set of poll choices on the topic that are free of problems.

* Consciousness is the result of the physical activity of the brain.

How's that?

 

[PixyMisa]

* Consciousness is the result of the physical activity of the brain.

How's that?

The only problem is that it's not immediately clear how this is distinct from option 1.

 

[Piggy]

The only problem is that it's not immediately clear how this is distinct from option 1.

It certainly should be.

The absence of any reference to "data" and the lack of a claim that "general purpose computers" might be conscious stand out.

The fact that this is invisible to you speaks volumes.

But I don't intend to get into any arguments with you on this thread, Pixy. I don't think we have anything new to say to each other, just like I don't have anything new to say to the Jesus Myth folks.

If you're not at all swayed by the fact that no one doing research on consciousness agrees with you, that they in fact emphatically contradict your claims, and that your definition of consciousness is utterly useless in brain research, then I don't see how anything I say to you will have any impact at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

It certainly should be.

The absence of any reference to "data" and the lack of a claim that "general purpose computers" might be conscious stand out.

The fact that this is invisible to you speaks volumes.

It's not invisible to me at all. Nice try though.

It's just not clear. So try clarifying.

If you're not at all swayed by the fact that no one doing research on consciousness agrees with you, that they in fact emphatically contradict your claims, and that your definition of consciousness is utterly useless in brain research, then I don't see how anything I say to you will have any impact at all.

Sorry, but you're living in a dream world. My position coincides precisely with mainstream neuroscience. Yours assumes magic - magic without even a defined behaviour.

 

[Piggy]

My position coincides precisely with mainstream neuroscience.

Yeah. Right.

Despite the fact that mainstream graduate-level neuroscience textbooks openly contradict your ideas, and that your definition of consciousness is used by exactly no one in the field (because it's useless). Or the fact that you cannot provide any evidence for your claims to the contrary.

Like I said, man, there's no use in us going around about this.

You've convinced yourself. That's fine. There's nothing I can do about that.

You can continue to expound on your Godel-Escher-Bach philosophy, I won't stop you.

Maybe I can introduce some actual brain-centered information on consciousness here, but I don't expect you to get on board.

 

[PixyMisa]

Despite the fact that mainstream graduate-level neuroscience textbooks openly contradict your ideas

[citation needed]

 

[Piggy]

[citation needed]

That's been done in other threads, as you know.

So if you want a ------- match, why don't you cite someone who agrees with you?

Good night, sweet prince.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's been done in other threads, as you know.

Nope. You have never backed up any part of your position. You haven't even been able to coherently define your position. Nor have you found anything that cogently disputes my position.

Mind is brain function.
The brain is a computer.
Computation is substrate-neutral.

Therefore, computer programs can be conscious.

None of this is the subject of rational dispute.