On Consciousness

[tensordyne]

Right. So where's the problem?

One problem is your definition of consciousness given earlier. Your consciousness definition, while being internally consistent, does not include as its primary feature the experience of sensation.

See my short note above. Admonition, not challenge.

What, am I supposed to be scared or something? OK, noted, you do not like how I think. How horrible, I know.

Nobody is "replacing" anything, just explaining it. If you have mystical hangups about the nature and value of experience that cannot withstand those explanations.... Tough.

And further, nobody here has said or implied that sensation doesn't exist. At best, you haven't bothered to pay any attention either to the original posts or to the many previous attempts to correct your misinterpretation. At worst, you are simply being dishonest.

I have no mystical hangups, that is for the comp.lit crowd with the magical idea that computation somehow gives rise to the experience of sensation. I think that consciousness has a physical basis (a guess to be sure, but a non-mystical, science based guess, thank you very much).

You do not explain the experience of sensation, you predict various phenomena associated with it. The experience of sensation just is. If you can explain it, you have replaced it with something else. In your specific case, you have replaced the consciousness idea (the experience of sensation) with self-modeling systems.

 

[Belz...]

And that is where comp.lit fails, right there above. The experience of the sensation of red is of its own kind.

Says who ? You should know by now that just saying something doesn't make it so.

It should be respected as such.

Respected ? What are you talking about ?

The pattern of letters that make up the word red is not the experience of the sensation of red. The wave-length of light, a hexcode and neurons firing at a certain frequency (even if that produces the experience of the sensation of red), all the above are not the experience of the sensation of red.

Again: how do you know this ? Aside from a wish to see your experiences as 'special', which sounds terribly like dualism to me, why would you assume this ?

For the moment let's call it p-consciousness.

Let's not.

We have enough work to do determining exactly how human consciousness works and replicating it without adding some non-existent version to make ourselves feel better and muddle the issue.

Plus, that is one weird sentence: The experience of sensation constitutes the special pattern that says "red".

Yes, it is, because language is clumsy when it comes to certain things, because language isn't scientific.

 

[tensordyne]

We are not clones; although we may have broadly similar views in some respects, we each have our own opinions. Like all forum contributors, you necessarily have a very limited knowledge of both. If you could find the strength to resist the urge to pidgeon-hole us into a distorted worldview of your own devising, and respond to what we actually post, we might communicate more effectively.

comp.lit = "broadly similar views"

I am all about communicating more effectively but I do want a term that covers the set of views I disagree with.

It is not physiologically possible. What you are experiencing is a construct, a good-enough approximation of what you 'know' is out there. The overlap of colour vision and foveal clarity at the retina is way too small for you to be directly sensing more than a tiny fraction of what you actually experience as vision at any time.

OK, if you say so, and it sounds plausible. If you experience a lot more than some tiny fraction of what is being sensed, then you are still experiencing that bit that is more, whatever, exactly, it is. The experience is the consciousness, in any event. The above are the kinds of complications that occur when studying consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

I find it troubling this loss of a separate conception for the experience of sensation

I know. That's what I've been saying, Tensor. It's like a Christian being troubled by the loss of a clear explanation for the creation of the universe or a child being troubled by the loss of the wonder of magic: if it's not real, we need to let go and move on. And this:

(troubling in a kind of anti-science way).

...is ironic.

There is no loading of language to talk about experiencing sensation, especially when talking about consciousness because that is what consciuousness is!

Not by any definition I know of, it isn't. Don't redefine words to protect your preconceived notions.

but look how unscientific is the attitude above

No. Scientific is the method, not the attitude.

PixyMisa is saying that there is no need for anyone to think about what this drug is possibly doing or showing us through experience of it because PixyMisa is already sure ahead of time there is no value in such.

NO. Pixy is saying that we already DID think AND check what the drug is doing, and it isn't what Zeuzzz is saying.

Zeuzzz has the much more scientific attitude, go look for yourself.

That's not scientific AT ALL. Personal experience doesn't give you the answers to your question specifically because it can't eliminate problems of bias, sample size, interpretation, perception, etc. If you think people's experiences with drugs is significant in the way Zeuzzz describes, then Homeopathy, Feng Shui, Reflexology, Religion (all of them) and Phrenology are all true.

There would still be a scientific case to be made for people experiencing the effects first hand.

No, there wouldn't. Seriously, you need to get some knowledge of modern science before you run off like that.

 

[PixyMisa]

One problem is your definition of consciousness given earlier. Your consciousness definition, while being internally consistent, does not include as its primary feature the experience of sensation.

As I've explained before, yes it does. You just have mystical hangups on the nature and value of experience that are preventing you from accepting that this is really all there is to it.

You're a computer; your experiences are computations.

 

[Belz...]

How do you know that jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge will cause you to plummet to your death... Unless you do it yourself?

Right. This "feel it to understand it" philosophy is such nonsense, and it illustrates Tensor's -- and many people's -- trouble in understanding science and also consciousness.

People in general place far too much weight on feelings and their "deep" meaning. If you want to know how it feels like to take drugs then, by all means, do it. But if you want to understand what it does and why, that's not the way to do it.

Otherwise, feelings are just chemical reactions in your body that usually don't even give you useful information on whatever triggered the emotion in the first place.

This is why Tensor thinks that experience is so special that it can't be described in cold terms, although it clearly has already.

 

[PixyMisa]

comp.lit = "broadly similar views"

No, it's just an increasingly dishonest strawman.

Try computational neuroscience^WP instead.

I am all about communicating more effectively but I do want a term that covers the set of views I disagree with.

Ah. Then the word you're looking for is science.

OK, if you say so, and it sounds plausible.

Seriously? "If you say so"?

MIT Introduction to Psychology. Free download of the entire lecture series, covers human visual perception in considerable depth. And it's brilliantly presented.

 

[PixyMisa]

Says who ?

Dualists.

 

[Belz...]

What I do not want is the phenomena of experience of sensation being replaced

That much is clear. You have preconceived notions of experience. This is hurting you in this debate.

There is no experience of experience of... It does not work the same way that thinking about thinking about thinking ... works. So in the list above there is only 1. and 2., as far as I can tell.

Again, you are wrong. You're simply exposing your unwillingness to challenge your perceptions, which is the most anti-science thing you can possibly have.

 

[dlorde]

I am all about communicating more effectively but I do want a term that covers the set of views I disagree with.

I'm not sympathetic; such lazy generalisations and careless pidgeon-holing are antipathetic to clarity of thought, communication, and informed discussion.

If you experience a lot more than some tiny fraction of what is being sensed, then you are still experiencing that bit that is more, whatever, exactly, it is.

 

[Dancing David]

General comment: It still looks like special pleading to me, thanks for continuing to discuss this in a situation that I would not.

 

[tensordyne]

Says who ? You should know by now that just saying something doesn't make it so.

That is why I provided arguments.

Respected ? What are you talking about ?

That is what I am talking about, you guys who buy into comp.lit ideas don't get the idea of experience of sensation. It is so weird. If you think ideas about how sensation work are the same as the experience of sensation itself, then that is wrong.

Again: how do you know this ? Aside from a wish to see your experiences as 'special', which sounds terribly like dualism to me, why would you assume this ?

Your experiencing sensation is no more special than mine or anyone else's. It is a fact of life that there is something it is like to experience red (even PixyMisa agrees!). It should be self-evident that ideas are not the same as experiences. That is how I know, I am not a moron (or brainwashed by Dennett or SRIP).

Let's not.

Let's, unless you have some verifiable problem with the definition of p-consciousness (I did not invent the term). If I can not use a term that is about the topic I wish to dicuss then whatever points I want to make have become impotent. No thanks, I will just use words as they come to me.

We have enough work to do determining exactly how human consciousness works and replicating it without adding some non-existent version to make ourselves feel better and muddle the issue.

This begs the question, how do you define consciousness?

Yes, it is, because language is clumsy when it comes to certain things, because language isn't scientific.

Fair enough, didn't steenkh make the original sentence though?

 

[tensordyne]

Right. This "feel it to understand it" philosophy is such nonsense, and it illustrates Tensor's -- and many people's -- trouble in understanding science and also consciousness.

That is BS. You could say the same about anatomy: The "see it to understand it" philosophy is such nonsense, who needs to open up a body to see what is going on in there when we already know!

People in general place far too much weight on feelings and their "deep" meaning. If you want to know how it feels like to take drugs then, by all means, do it. But if you want to understand what it does and why, that's not the way to do it.

How a drug feels like is part of the information on what it does, ergo, the above statements are ridiculous.

Otherwise, feelings are just chemical reactions in your body that usually don't even give you useful information on whatever triggered the emotion in the first place.

This is why Tensor thinks that experience is so special that it can't be described in cold terms, although it clearly has already.

Feelings, like feeling sad, happy, etc. can be broken down into a set of sensations when talking about the experience of those 'feelings'. That comes first. That is the first thing we notice about 'feelings'.

Then, when we reflect on the facts associated with the sensation, we come up with various abstract models of the sensations to predict aspects associated with those sensations. That is called science. You chaps start with the model (because others have done the work for you), ignore the sensation and call anyone who cries foul a 'feely-type'. It is Scholasticism applied to current scientific concensus and it is not scientific.

I am as cold and ruthless when it comes to what is and is not science as anyone out there. If you mistake me for otherwise it is because you are missing a concept. When I say missing, I mean it in a Theory of Mind kind of way. You get it, or you do not, dependent on whether your mind is capable of getting it. Just think reaaal hard about the following words:

Experience of Sensation.

Is the experience of sensation the same as a chair? Is it the same as the concept of a chair? Is it the same as a Scientific Model?

If the answer to the above is not all no, then you are just missing some circuitry, or are brainwashed by some ideology. That is my best guess.

 

[tensordyne]

I'm not sympathetic; such lazy generalisations and careless pidgeon-holing are antipathetic to clarity of thought, communication, and informed discussion.

Well, I am sorry you feel this way. Clarity of thought is aided by careful use of terminology. Since comp.lit has been defined as a position earlier, If your views meet them in the specific instances then I will use the term unreservedly. If something you write does not meet with the comp.lit ideas, then of course I will not use the term in that case. Asking for anything else is simply not fair and I will not abide by it.

Please let me know when I specifically pidgeon-hole your views, as that is never my intent.

 

[Belz...]

That is why I provided arguments.

Okay at the risk of appearing dense: where ?

That is what I am talking about, you guys who buy into comp.lit ideas don't get the idea of experience of sensation. It is so weird. If you think ideas about how sensation work are the same as the experience of sensation itself, then that is wrong.

1) "buy into" seems to be assuming that it is false.
2) You said "respect", but now you're not using that term, anymore.
3) You keep claiming that it is wrong but so far I see no reason to believe you.

It should be self-evident that ideas are not the same as experiences. That is how I know, I am not a moron (or brainwashed by Dennett or SRIP).

1) When someone says something is evident rather than provide evidence, you know they don't have evidence.
2) If you keep insulting people, how do you expect to have rational discussions with them ? You just called me a moron.

Let's, unless you have some verifiable problem with the definition of p-consciousness (I did not invent the term).

I have a problem: I see no reason why I should accept that it exists.

This begs the question, how do you define consciousness?

Self-awareness. Why ?

 

[dlorde]

Is the experience of sensation the same as a chair? Is it the same as the concept of a chair? Is it the same as a Scientific Model?

WTF???

One might be forgiven for thinking you're spending too much time with Punshhh...

 

[Jeff Corey]

General comment: It still looks like special pleading to me, thanks for continuing to discuss this in a situation that I would not.

David, where is Mercutio when we need him? He was good at critical analysis of the kind of sophistry seen in this thread.

 

[Belz...]

That is BS. You could say the same about anatomy: The "see it to understand it" philosophy is such nonsense, who needs to open up a body to see what is going on in there when we already know!

That is the precise opposite of what I said. Here are you mistakes: 1) I said "feel", not "see", but you know that. 2) Seeing something doesn't tell you how it works. This is why we have a methodology called science, because the previous ones, which also involved looking at stuff, didn't work.

How a drug feels like is part of the information on what it does

No it doesn't, unless you understand how feelings work.

ergo, the above statements are ridiculous

Ergo ? It doesn't even remotely follow from the previous statement.

Feelings, like feeling sad, happy, etc. can be broken down into a set of sensations when talking about the experience of those 'feelings'. That comes first. That is the first thing we notice about 'feelings'.

More relevantly: feelings can be broken down into a chain of chemical reactions in the body. I notice your comment above does not negate what you quoted.

I am as cold and ruthless when it comes to what is and is not science as anyone out there.

If you mistake me for otherwise it is because you are missing a concept.

No, it's a concept you want to keep, but that has been shown to be obsolete. Trust me, it wasn't easy for me to let go of it, either.

Experience of Sensation.

An interesting mantra.

Is the experience of sensation the same as a chair? Is it the same as the concept of a chair? Is it the same as a Scientific Model?

I don't understand your question.

If the answer to the above is not all no, then you are just missing some circuitry, or are brainwashed by some ideology. That is my best guess.

Poisoning the well is so fun !

 

[dlorde]

Clarity of thought is aided by careful use of terminology.

So stop being careless with it.

Please let me know when I specifically pidgeon-hole your views, as that is never my intent.

Just try to respond to what I write, not what you imagine I do or do not believe.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is what I am talking about, you guys who buy into comp.lit ideas don't get the idea of experience of sensation.

Sure we do. All experience is computation.

It should be self-evident that ideas are not the same as experiences.

Nope. Explain exactly how.

Let's, unless you have some verifiable problem with the definition of p-consciousness

As in p-zombies? It's logically incoherent: It rests on a dualist notion of consciousness.