proto-consciousness field theory

[baron]

Well, you're the expert.

I'm not an expert in your baseless claims. Are you going to explain what 'almost solipsism' entails or have you given up on that one?

That's no reason to espouse ant belief that strikes your fancy.

What's no reason? My lack of empirical evidence? Obviously that's not a reason, how could it be?

Oh, I adopted one: you're wrong.

Yep, exactly what I said:

You never have a debating opinion of your own that isn't based on someone else's being rubbish

Is "my headache is gone" subjective or objective?

Subjective.

 

[Belz...]

Are you going to explain what 'almost solipsism' entails or have you given up on that one?

It means the exact same thing as "almost on the second floor". I have a high level of confidence that you understand exactly what I mean.

What's no reason? My lack of empirical evidence? Obviously that's not a reason, how could it be?

Right, so you have no reason to believe in that theory. Belief in the complete absence of evidence is not reasonable.

Yep, exactly what I said:

You never have a debating opinion of your own that isn't based on someone else's being rubbish

That's a lie. You interact with me on enough threads to know better than what you posted here.

Subjective.

Ok so we can't know whether clinical trials work, then.

 

[baron]

It means the exact same thing as "almost on the second floor". I have a high level of confidence that you understand exactly what I mean.

I don't. I am either a solipsist or not a solipsist. If you maintain I'm somewhere in between I don't know what you're talking about.

Right, so you have no reason to believe in that theory. Belief in the complete absence of evidence is not reasonable.

I said empirical evidence. The evidence for my consciousness is my own experience, which despite being entirely subjective is sufficient for me to draw conclusions.

That's a lie. You interact with me on enough threads to know better than what you posted here.

You just admitted it. You said that your debating position was simply that I was wrong.

"Oh, I adopted one [a debating position]: you're wrong."

I also remember the last topic when this happened where I refused to post evidence of my claims until you had adopted a debating position. You declined to do so then, too.

Ok so we can't know whether clinical trials work, then.

If those trials are for subjectively reported experience, such as headaches, then correct, we can't know, but what we can do is trust the subjects' reports and believe they are not deliberately lying. If the trials are for outcomes that can objectively measured, such as treatments for cancer, then we can know.

 

[Belz...]

I don't. I am either a solipsist or not a solipsist.

Yeah, ok try it this way: if you're eating, you're either full or not full, but you can still be a single spoonfull away from being full. You're not full, but you're close.

I don't see how this confuses you.

I said empirical evidence.

The only kind that matters.

You just admitted it. You said that your debating position was simply that I was wrong.

In this particular debate. That does not support your larger claim. Just click on my name, click "statistics", and read some of my posts in other threads.

If those trials are for subjectively reported experience, such as headaches, then correct, we can't know, but what we can do is trust the subjects' reports and believe they are not deliberately lying.

So why not trust their report on consciousness, then? Are clinical trials not science?

 

[Minoosh]

I hadn't read this article thus far. Just did.

Perhaps it is me, but try as I might, I couldn't tease out from the article any definition of this phi. Calling something phi is great, but how do they actually define it, and how exactly do they actually measure it?

It's not just you. As best as I understand it, there is an objective measure of how interconnected a system is - but based on this definition, protons could be conscious. At least according to Wired.

As presented in the article (or at least, as I understood it), this part seems wholly circular to me. Proves nothing, says nothing, just presents an out-and-out speculation in jargon-laced terms.

Which is implied in the Scientific American article. Maybe Wired thinks it's too hip to admit we it/"they" don't understand something.

Which is why I posted an SI article, not a Wired article.

A huge red flag (pun intended) was when I read an article generated by an interview that my consciousness friend gave to some esoteric journal. The interview supposedly took place in a certain Mexican restaurant that featured bullfighting posters. The interviewee was supposed to be like a bullfighter, waving a red flag at a raging bull (The AI community, or "emergent property" community).

Problem is, the conversation had not occurred at the restaurant with the bullfighting posters. The writer and the author had met at a different restaurant, which does not have bullfighting posters, but they liked the metaphor. So for convenience's sake, they set the interview, fictionally, at a restaurant with a bullfighting theme.

I was aghast. I told my friend that (as a journalist) I could never do that; I had too much respect for the truth. I'm not sure he even understood what I was talking about.

 

[Darat]

Baron how are you defining “consciousness“?

 

[baron]

Yeah, ok try it this way: if you're eating, you're either full or not full, but you can still be a single spoonfull away from being full. You're not full, but you're close.

I don't see how this confuses you.

It doesn't. I can easily describe what 'partially full' is; it's when the stomach has some food in it but the person is not yet satiated.

Now, 'almost solipsistic'; your turn.

The only kind that matters.

Not to me.

So why not trust their report on consciousness, then?

I do, as I've already said. I believe people when they state they are conscious. I trust them. What I don't believe is that they have provided me with empirical evidence. Had they done so I would have no need for trust, I would go purely off the evidence.

Baron how are you defining “consciousness“?

Primarily, experience of qualia.

 

[Darat]

... Snip.. .







Primarily, experience of qualia.

And the definition you use for qualia (have to ask beacuse I've seen it defined in many different ways here over the years)?

 

[Belz...]

It doesn't.

Good, then we can move on.

I do, as I've already said. I believe people when they state they are conscious. I trust them. What I don't believe is that they have provided me with empirical evidence.

You just said that empirical evidence is not the only kind that matters.

But let's move on again: what would you consider empirical evidence of consciousness?

Primarily, experience of qualia.

No wonder you think it doesn't exist. It's like saying that volcanoes are fake news because you define them as mountains inhabited by Hephaestos.

How about you use a more, ahem, realistic definition?

 

[baron]

And the definition you use for qualia (have to ask beacuse I've seen it defined in many different ways here over the years)?

Basically the experience of existing as opposed to simply existing.

 

[Belz...]

Basically the experience of existing as opposed to simply existing.

Sounds like you added a step. Why not call that consciousness?

 

[baron]

Good, then we can move on.

We can't because whilst I answered your question you failed to answer mine.

How do you define 'almost solipsistic'?

You just said that empirical evidence is not the only kind that matters.

I did indeed, more than once.

But let's move on again: what would you consider empirical evidence of consciousness?

Detection of the conscious field.

No wonder you think it doesn't exist. It's like saying that volcanoes are fake news because you define them as mountains inhabited by Hephaestos.

How about you use a more, ahem, realistic definition?

What don't I think exists? What are you talking about?

 

[Belz...]

We can't because whilst I answered your question you failed to answer mine.

How do you define 'almost solipsistic'?

Dude, I've answered that two or three times already. You said you weren't confused, and yet here you are.

Detection of the conscious field.

Who says it's a field?

What don't I think exists?

Consciousness. You said there's no empirical evidence of it.

 

[baron]

Dude, I've answered that two or three times already. You said you weren't confused, and yet here you are.

You haven't answered it. If you can't answer, just say so. What constitutes 'almost solipsism'?

Who says it's a field?

I do.

Consciousness. You said there's no empirical evidence of it.

And yet I also say it exists. How about them apples?

 

[Belz...]

You haven't answered it.

If you're going to lie, make sure I can't easily gather the evidence for your lie in under a minute:

What does being one step removed from the second floor involve? Either you're on the second floor or you're not. Right?

And yet you're still one step away from the second floor.

It means the exact same thing as "almost on the second floor".

Yeah, ok try it this way: if you're eating, you're either full or not full, but you can still be a single spoonfull away from being full. You're not full, but you're close.

I do.

Baron, you can't hold other people's theories to the standards that would prove YOUR theory. I asked you what you would consider evidence of the existence of consciousness, not evidence for YOUR theory.

And yet I also say it exists. How about them apples?

Them apples are in your mind. You can't check mate me with nonsense.

 

[baron]

If you're going to lie, make sure I can't easily gather the evidence for your lie in under a minute:

Stop farting around talking about buildings and food, like you're Talking Heads or something, and answer the question.

What constitutes being 'almost solipsistic'?

You have asked me dozens of questions, all of which I have answered. I have asked you one and you refuse to give a sensible response.

Baron, you can't hold other people's theories to the standards that would prove YOUR theory. I asked you what you would consider evidence of the existence of consciousness, not evidence for YOUR theory.

I've answered that three times. My own experience is all the evidence I need to believe in consciousness. It's impossible for me to be any clearer.

Them apples are in your mind. You can't check mate me with nonsense.

You appear to be confused that I can believe in something for which I have no empirical evidence. This is a truly bizarre stance.

Do you believe you are conscious?

I assume you'll say yes. So did you come to that conclusion from reading a peer-reviewed paper on consciousness, or did you do so because you feel that you are conscious?

If the former, please cite the specific paper.

 

[Belz...]

Stop farting around talking about buildings and food, like you're Talking Heads or something, and answer the question.

Well I can't help it if you don't understand what "you're almost at X" means, so I'm trying to dumb it down for you. It's hard to make it clearer than "your philosophy is really close to solipsism in that you're denying the possibility of knowledge", but there you have it.

I've answered that three times. My own experience is all the evidence I need to believe in consciousness.

So you do have evidence of consciousness? How is that not empirical, since we pretty much all have this experience?

You appear to be confused that I can believe in something for which I have no empirical evidence.

No, just like people believe in fairies and laylines, I have no problem understand that you can believe in nonsense.

Do you believe you are conscious?

Yeah but I'm not the one saying there's no evidence for it.

 

[baron]

Well I can't help it if you don't understand what "you're almost at X" means, so I'm trying to dumb it down for you. It's hard to make it clearer than "your philosophy is really close to solipsism in that you're denying the possibility of knowledge", but there you have it.

I'll take that, on the fifth time of asking, as an official 'I am unable to answer the question'.

So you do have evidence of consciousness?

Yet again, yes. I have subjective evidence that I find sufficient.

How is that not empirical, since we pretty much all have this experience?

It's not empirical because it cannot be assessed by anybody but me. Your assertion that everybody has the same experience is also subjective, and therefore can't be used to make the case for empirical evidence.

No, just like people believe in fairies and laylines, I have no problem understand that you can believe in nonsense.

So let's follow this through.

I say that I believe in consciousness solely on the basis of my subjective experience.

You say yeah, just like people believe in fairies and other nonsense.

I ask you whether you believe you are conscious.

You say yes.

I asked you how you came to believe this, whether it was your own subjective experience or a peer reviewed paper.

You ignore this question.

And why?

Because you know you screwed up, just like with your 'almost solipsism'. You can't say you believe you are conscious on the basis of your subjective experience because you've just likened that to believing in fairies and nonsense.

But you can't say you believe you're conscious on the basis of scientific evidence because, utter absurdity aside, I'd ask you again to provide the relevant papers and you wouldn't be able to.

The only option left would be to start waffling about other people's experience and how you imagine it's the same as your own, but that doesn't wash either because it would be the same as telling me that if you were the only human on earth, you would have no idea your were conscious.

Debate-wise, you've been stuffed like a nominally conscious turkey at Christmas. I good you bid evening.

 

[Crawtator]

I've been reading this thread and find it hard to believe that someone could think that there is "no evidence" for consciousness. Has anyone read any scientific articles on this in the past few years?

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvar...pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

 

[baron]

Read some articles! That's a great idea. I wish I'd thought of that, all I did was sit on my arse, pick my nose and imagine I knew it all. Thanks!

Some people will simply never get it. Is it an inability to appreciate the nuance inherent in this topic, or just an ignorance of the field in general? I suspect the latter but who knows? I really should know better than to engage.