Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Dancing David]

As I described, qualia is one level beyond perception. A camera / computer set-up perceives, but it doesn't have conscious perception (at least not in any significant way). It can recognise red just as well as humans can (actually better), but it has no concept of redness.

I am confused, that sounds just like visual perception. The concept of redness isn't part of the perception, that is verbal cognition associated with the perception.

"It can recognise red just as well as humans can (actually better), but it has no concept of redness"

What did you mean by this ? A qualia is free standing?

I won't see your answer until Monday

 

[Belz...]

Well we hadn't detected them before they were detected, had we? Humankind has 250,000 years of history before we detected subatomic particles. 2500 years ago Leucippus predicted that atom. Does that mean that atom was magic for 2400 years, or does it mean it was just something that we were unaware of?

Could be. Could be detected. Do you need a dictionary? These things could be detected even though we didn't have the tech to do so before. They were still detectable. Your qualia are not.

If the only way such a thing as a conscious field could exist is magic, is dark matter and dark energy magic?

No. Dark matter is detectable.

I'm glad you admit scientists, and therefore science, are not infallible.

Why, before I posted this you thought I believed otherwise? Do I need to spell out everything all the time? Could you stop posting nonsense and focus on the stuff we're actually discussing, please?

No, I mean what I said. They are not detectable even in theory.

Then you're talking about magic or stuff that is outside of our universe. It's not my fault you're using the words wrong. You seem to really want to have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

I've no idea.

Then you have no idea what they are.

 

[ynot]

No worries. Blind sight gives a scientific and clear illustration of the difference between perception and conscious perception. There are numerous other cognitive conditions that are similarly relevant, Oliver Sacks is a good place to start.

To be more precise I would say "difference between subconscious perception and conscious perception". For some reason I also misread you post as claiming it was "unconscious perception".

Think I need a break from this thread to recalibrate my emotion/intellect balance.

 

[baron]

Could be. Could be detected. Do you need a dictionary? These things could be detected even though we didn't have the tech to do so before. They were still detectable. Your qualia are not.

Says who?

No. Dark matter is detectable.

Better tell CERN, they're waiting for your call.

Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter distinct from ordinary matter such as protons, neutrons, electrons, and neutrinos.

Dark matter has never been directly observed; however, its existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations.

Why, before I posted this you thought I believed otherwise? Do I need to spell out everything all the time? Could you stop posting nonsense and focus on the stuff we're actually discussing, please?

I have no idea what you're discussing, or indeed if you're discussing anything. Maybe I have an idea sub-consciously but it's doubtful.

Then you're talking about magic or stuff that is outside of our universe.

Right, so you're claiming that if no theory exists for the existence of something, it must be 'magic', or 'stuff that is outside our universe'. Ooooh-kay.

It's not my fault you're using the words wrong. You seem to really want to have your cake and eat it too on this issue.

Then you have no idea what they are.

What I have no idea of is what you're talking about. You've gone off the deep end. Your post is a car crash.

 

[baron]

I am confused, that sounds just like visual perception. The concept of redness isn't part of the perception, that is verbal cognition associated with the perception.

"It can recognise red just as well as humans can (actually better), but it has no concept of redness"

What did you mean by this ? A qualia is free standing?

I won't see your answer until Monday

Check out my post about blind sight, notably the quote from the 2008 study. That's the difference I'm talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Says who?

Says you, actually. I'm the one telling you that it's nonsense.

Better tell CERN, they're waiting for your call.

The only reason why they know dark matter exists is because they detected it in the first place, baron. Perhaps you're confusing "directly observed" with "observed", but I assure you I am not making that mistake, and neither are scientists.

I have no idea what you're discussing, or indeed if you're discussing anything.

We're discussing qualia at the moment. Not whether scientists can be wrong. Glad I could help.

Right, so you're claiming that if no theory exists for the existence of something, it must be 'magic', or 'stuff that is outside our universe'.

Rule of so. Really, you should pay more attention. Right now you're knee-jerk posting without putting the time and effort to understand what you read. You're in contrarian mode again.

What I am saying is that only things that interact with our universe, and that are thus detectable, can meaningfully be said to exist. Your qualia cannot be detected, and therefore either do not exist or are magic.

What I have no idea of is what you're talking about.

I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about.

 

[baron]

Says you, actually. I'm the one telling you that it's nonsense.

The only reason why they know dark matter exists is because they detected it in the first place, baron.

If they detected it, it would be 'matter', not a 'hypothetical type of' matter. Still, it should be easy for you to link to the evidence.

Perhaps you're confusing "directly observed" with "observed", but I assure you I am not making that mistake, and neither are scientists.

You are, the scientists are not and neither am I.

We're discussing qualia at the moment. Not whether scientists can be wrong. Glad I could help.

Rule of so. Really, you should pay more attention. Right now you're knee-jerk posting without putting the time and effort to understand what you read. You're in contrarian mode again.

What I am saying is that only things that interact with our universe, and that are thus detectable, can meaningfully be said to exist. Your qualia cannot be detected, and therefore either do not exist or are magic.

Right. An unequivocal statement. Let me repeat, "Your qualia cannot be detected, and therefore either do not exist or are magic.

Forget 'the rule of so', you clearly stated there that X cannot be detected therefore X either does not exist or is magic.

This is precisely the statement I addressed earlier, and which you accused me of making up. You just said it, and it's one of the most absurd assertions I've ever heard. It's just... I have no words.

 

[baron]

To be more precise I would say "difference between subconscious perception and conscious perception". For some reason I also misread you post as claiming it was "unconscious perception".

If you like, the point is that this person navigated the hall in a mechanical manner, perceiving the obstacles but all the while consciously seeing nothing. And that's worth stressing. It's not that they didn't believe they were seeing anything, it's that consciously they were not seeing anything, something that was proved objectively in the study by various pre-experiment brain scans.

The difference between how the subject navigated the hall and how you or I would navigate the hall is purely that of conscious awareness, and qualia is a part of that. Outwardly there is no difference in the act, it's the subjective perception that's different.

 

[Darat]

I know I have consciousness because I can experience it. I do not know others have consciousness because I cannot experience it
I think they have it but I cannot be absolutely certain. Knowing something is true and thinking something is true are not the same

How do you know what you experience is consciousness? It's a very important question, I would say it is because you have learned from observing others that there is a set of behaviours we call consciousness.

 

[Darat]

it's not accurate to ask how one knows one 'has' consciousness as consciousness is not a property or an object, one is consciousness as 'being present and being aware'

And how did you learn to call "being present and being aware" consciousness?

 

[Darat]

If your tactic is to doubt you're conscious, you might as well throw in the towel. it is the one thing I am incapable of doubting.

And when did you become aware of this knowledge, the moment of conception, saying your first word, on your 18th birthday?

 

[Darat]

In other words, it can be inferred. Nobody is saying it can't. What some of us are saying is it is impossible to know for sure whether someone is conscious, and what their subjective experiences are like.

My mental states are a black box to you. You will never know what my experiences are like. They are, in principle, unknowable to anyone but myself. My experiences are like other universes that are causally disconnected from us: they may exist, we may have good reasons to infer they exist, but we'll never know for certain.

I bet, in a million years, whatever humans have become, they'll still be arguing about this.

In principle? Why?

 

[Darat]

Indeed, it's impossible to believe consciousness isn't the most blatantly obvious thing in everybody's existence.

But since the question is asked, these people need to look up 'blindsight'.

A person with blind sight will be consciously blind, but will react to objects exactly as if they can see. So they can navigate a room and pick up a cup but they do it unconsciously. If asked how they managed to do all this whilst blind they will invent often invent an excuse or contrived account of how their movements came about. Consciously they see nothing, unconsciously they see as well as anyone else.

And what are we meant to take from that example?

 

[baron]

And what are we meant to take from that example?

Careful you don't read my four posts explaining exactly that.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

How do you know what you experience is consciousness? It's a very important question, I would say it is because you have learned from observing others that there is a set of behaviours we call consciousness.

But the aspect of consciousness we are talking about isn't a behavior. In fact, as the blindsight examples shows, the same behaviors can result from both conscious and non-conscious thought. That's the main reason some of us are sure it can't be tested for.

One wonders why consciousness exists at all. As far as we know now it provides no benefit.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And when did you become aware of this knowledge, the moment of conception, saying your first word, on your 18th birthday?

Some time around 3 if my memories can be trusted on this matter.

 

[Darat]

Careful you don't read my four posts explaining exactly that.

I did and I don't see what blindsight has to do with your qualia. It does not require qualia to explain what is happening to the person, as indeed is seen in the very quote you used.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I did and I don't see what blindsight has to do with your qualia. It does not require qualia to explain what is happening to the person, as indeed is seen in the very quote you used.

??? of course it doesn't take qualia to explain that person. That person is reporting an absence of qualia.

ETA: And let me add, that person is also demonstrating a typically conscious behavior being carried out unconsciously.

 

[Darat]

But the aspect of consciousness we are talking about isn't a behavior. In fact, as the blindsight examples shows, the same behaviors can result from both conscious and non-conscious thought. That's the main reason some of us are sure it can't be tested for.

One wonders why consciousness exists at all. As far as we know now it provides no benefit.

It is a set of complex behaviours, it something us humans do.

And no advantage? Us having this conversation is pretty much showing the advantage, it has enabled humans to modify their environment to an incredible degree. We are perpetuating a huge number of genes thanks to consciousness.

 

[Darat]

Some time around 3 if my memories can be trusted on this matter.

And how did you become aware?