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

[Darat]

You stated this before and when I asked for evidence you said there was an article you'd read, but wouldn't link to it. I'll say now what I said then, I've never heard of such a thing and if it were in any way a consensus it would be world news. 'Science is almost complete and there's nothing major left to discover! (OK, scientists have been saying this constantly for a thousand years, but still...)'

To the highlighted part - absolute rubbish no one is making that claim.

As to the problems with energy interactions ruling out your "Consciousness field" - I'll go and look for the links again.

That's absolutely not true. The hard problem looks at subjective experience and qualia, it says nothing about dualism.

And there you go - that's your dualism right there.

Next you'll be talking about having the "experience of red". Load of nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

In fact, whenever science looks for an explanation, it always turns out to be materialism. It never turns out to be magic.

Which makes it a pretty good bet that everything else will turn out to be materialism.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This article is specifically about telekinesis (more specifically, spoon-bending) and why it's ruled out by current scientific knowledge, but it's doing so as a framework upon which to hang the argument that this applies to all paranormal claims. There's a lecture on YouTube, in which Carroll talks about this idea with reference to the afterlife, and the whole article is about fields, so I can't see how this wouldn't apply to a "consciousness field".

 

[Cheetah]

Thanks, that was great.

It's something I have tried to explain to people before, but can never quite get all the facts straight and the arguments lined up in the heat of a verbal debate.

I think it applies 100% to a consciousness field & souls & ghosts etc.

 

[baron]

And there you go - that's your dualism right there.

Next you'll be talking about having the "experience of red". Load of nonsense.

Well thank god you realised that the hard problem of consciousness was all nonsense and its proponents gullible fools before you wasted money on any books or anything.

 

[Dancing David]

Well thank god you realised that the hard problem of consciousness was all nonsense and its proponents gullible fools before you wasted money on any books or anything.

Just for discussion:
What makes a 'qualia' different than a 'perception' ?

 

[baron]

Just for discussion:
What makes a 'qualia' different than a 'perception' ?

I'd say qualia is the experience of the perception. The perception can - and indeed has - been measured, but there is no method, even theoretically speaking, to measure qualia. Hence, some say it doesn't even exist, which I find literally incredible.

There was a recent experiment where impulses in the brain were re-engineered into images, based on pattern recognition data built up over earlier experiments, so a person could look at an object and from the electrical activity of their brain alone, an image of that object could be displayed on a monitor. This is dealing with perception. The qualia is the feeling of how that object is experienced in consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

I'd say qualia is the experience of the perception. The perception can - and indeed has - been measured, but there is no method, even theoretically speaking, to measure qualia.

That probably means it doesn't exist. Or at least that it's irrelevant. If it interacts with the physical world, it's measurable at least theoretically.

 

[baron]

That probably means it doesn't exist. Or at least that it's irrelevant. If it interacts with the physical world, it's measurable at least theoretically.

To deny qualia is to deny your experience. You can do this, of course, but I literally (in the true sense of the word) cannot envisage how this is possible.

And when I say it's not measurable even in theory, I mean that we currently have no theories of how it could be measured, not that there can never be any.

 

[Belz...]

To deny qualia is to deny your experience. You can do this, of course, but I literally (in the true sense of the word) cannot envisage how this is possible.

Not at all. The term "qualia" is a reference to "quanta" in QM to suggest that experiences have some quality that is ineffable and, dare I say, immaterial. Since experience is a process and not a thing, the concept of qualia is superfluous.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The term "qualia" is a reference to "quanta" in QM ...

No it isn't.

 

[Belz...]

No it isn't.

Is too.

 

[Darat]

Well thank god you realised that the hard problem of consciousness was all nonsense and its proponents gullible fools before you wasted money on any books or anything.

The HPC is hardly anything new but I wouldn't use gullible, as it can seem a serious idea until you start to unfold the assumptions it continues. It's really just the magic of dualism being shoved in what people thought was a gap. But there never was such a gap.

And by the way I assume you would use the same argument to indicate that we should believe in Roman Catholicism's silliness:

"Well thank god you realised that transubstantiation was all nonsense and its proponents gullible fools before you wasted money on any books or anything."​

 

[Belz...]

The HPC is hardly anything new but I wouldn't use gullible, as it can seem a serious idea until you start to unfold the assumptions it continues. It's really just the magic of dualism being shoved in what people thought was a gap.

So it's to the soul what intelligent design is to creationism, then.

 

[baron]

Not at all. The term "qualia" is a reference to "quanta" in QM to suggest that experiences have some quality that is ineffable and, dare I say, immaterial. Since experience is a process and not a thing, the concept of qualia is superfluous.

But processes aren't self aware, that's why the hard problem exists. Qualia are subjectively real and are the reason you call yourself conscious. A rock falling is a process but there is no self-awareness involved. In addition, a non-conscious process has a real-world presence and whatever reality is affected would not operate in the same way in its absence. Consciousness is different in that no model of existence can require it, predict it or describe it.

 

[Darat]

I'd say qualia is the experience of the perception. The perception can - and indeed has - been measured, but there is no method, even theoretically speaking, to measure qualia. Hence, some say it doesn't even exist, which I find literally incredible...snip....

Yeah you've asserted dualism and? The "feeling of the experience" is the experience of perception - there is no need to invoke some magical hummonuclous that is seperate from "the perception" since there is no evidence that requires such an explanation.

 

[Darat]

To deny qualia is to deny your experience. You can do this, of course, but I literally (in the true sense of the word) cannot envisage how this is possible.

And when I say it's not measurable even in theory, I mean that we currently have no theories of how it could be measured, not that there can never be any.

Thought experiment - think of a red object - are you experiencing the redness of that object?

 

[Belz...]

But processes aren't self aware

Aren't they, now? Well, I know of at least one that is.

Of course awareness feel special. It's meant to. But it doesn't mean that it is. A self-referential process of the brain. No added entities required.

Qualia are subjectively real and are the reason you call yourself conscious. A rock falling is a process but there is no self-awareness involved.

That you know of. I mean, probably not, but that doesn't mean that your self-awareness is special and has extra entities. After all, there's quite a bit of levels of consicousness in the animal world. Is there a threshold where qualia magically appear?

Consciousness is different in that no model of existence can require it, predict it or describe it.

That's hogwash; essentially a way to make consciousness outside of the realm of science. As it turns out, science has no problem with consciousness.

 

[Darat]

But processes aren't self aware, that's why the hard problem exists.

That's just an assertion.

Qualia are subjectively real and are the reason you call yourself conscious.

I do not have any experience of these qualia. If I am conscious then even if qualia exist they are not required for consciousness.

A rock falling is a process but there is no self-awareness involved. In addition, a non-conscious process has a real-world presence and whatever reality is affected would not operate in the same way in its absence. Consciousness is different in that no model of existence can require it, predict it or describe it.

All you seem to have is a series of assertions.

I could with access to the right technology switch your consciousness off and on, I could make you have the "experience" of seeing a rose and so on. All without creating a single qualia.

 

[Belz...]

I could with access to the right technology switch your consciousness off and on, I could make you have the "experience" of seeing a rose and so on. All without creating a single qualia.

You underestimate the unfalsifiability of the Hard Problem. Of course it would create qualia, since you'd experience something. Out of thin air, too!