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

[LarryS]

It managed to bring us to the moon and produce the very machine you're using to post your nonsense. Perhaps you should have a bit more respect for it.

You are confusing materialism with the ability to measure, compute and etc.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But all the while subconsciously seeing everything. The information bypasses the visual cortex, but it still goes into the brain subconsciously and can be recalled (as I understand it).

Correct.

Are you saying that they navigated the hall by some means other than by information that their brain received (regardless they aren’t conscious they received it)? If so what is that means?

No. He's not saying that. The information was perceived by their brains. That's what the evidence shows. But no consciousness was involved. That's why it's cited as an example of non-conscious information processing.

Please name the scientific discipline which uses qualia in its theories.

Psychology, Consciousness.

How is consciousness not something humans do? Like running?

I would have thought all humans do it. But some humans such as yourself deny it and I have no basis to disregard their opinions.

It's different from running in that running is objective behavior that can be seen anyone whereas your private thoughts are private thoughts.

No I didn't, I am a p-zombie if qualia exist, which is a quite different thing.

I believe you believe this.

I believe my dog and newly acquired kitten are conscious just to a different degree than I am, can't see why we wont eventually be able to create other entities that display some of the behaviours of consciouness .

Since you've denied being conscious I would say that I assume they are conscious to a greater degree than you claim for yourself. I'm sure that if I met you and your pets I would have no reason to assume any of you were not conscious despite your claims about yourself. I'll let your pets make their own case.

Having no conscious experience of seeing doesn't mean having no subconscious experience of seeing. No philosophically theoretical "qualia" required.

Uh, no. They report that they lost the experience of qualia.

If qualia exist what
practical function do they perform?

None, that I can discern. Current research opens the possibility that they might be an inefficient solution to the problem they are meant to solve.

What problem do they solve? What do they add to anything?

They might not be a "addition".

What’s the difference between qualia existing and not existing?

Existing and not existing.

 

[ynot]

But all the while subconsciously seeing everything. The information bypasses the visual cortex, but it still goes into the brain subconsciously and can be recalled (as I understand it). But subconsciously receiving and seeing everything?

Correct.

Let’s see if you stick with that agreement . . .

Are you saying that they navigated the hall by some means other than by information that their brain received (regardless they aren’t conscious they received it)? If so what is that means?

No. He's not saying that. The information was perceived by their brains. That's what the evidence shows.

Why “perceived”? You have agreed above that it was subconsciously received (seen) and processed as if the brain was normal.

But no consciousness was involved.

You have agreed above that subconscious was involved (a form of consciousness).

That's why it's cited as an example of non-conscious information processing.

Non-conscious means the lack of any consciousness (including subconscious). How can a non-conscious (essentially dead) brain process information at all?. A rock is non-conscious. Could a rock navigate a hall using qualia?

Sorry but you seem to have contradicted your initial agreement.

 

[ynot]

Uh, no. They report that they lost the experience of qualia.

The visual cortex produces qualia?

I thought they reported the loss of conscious sight.

 

[David Mo]

Just to clarify. You learnt what the humans you observed considered to be fair and so developed your notion of fairness.

What David Mo meant by "non-observational concepts" is not that you cannot observe someone acting in a way that people would generally consider to be fair or unfair, but that you cannot observe "fair" and pin it down.
IOW you cannot observe an act and declare it fair or unfair without making a judgement call, you cannot do it and be objective.

Thank you.

There are two different problems: how we form a concept and how we verify it.

One thing is how Newton came up with the law of gravity - the famous apple, if I may use this silly story as example - and a different one how he demonstrated the theory of gravity.

The first problem is psychological. Indeed, a concept such as duty arises from the observation of concrete behaviours that are described by other people as "good". Then he is internalized. But what I was setting out is how we can justify the concept of duty. Unlike scientific concepts - such as the law of gravity - I cannot justify it in experience. I cannot say that my duty consists of what some have told me is my duty. I cannot say that my duty is dictated by my nature. Or that my duty is written in heaven. Nothing that I can observe can justify my concept of duty. Of course, observation can change the way I apply the concept, but it cannot justify the concept itself. If I change that concept it will be because of another concept of duty that I consider better or stronger. In that second sense of the word, moral duty is not observational.

 

[Pixel42]

No. He's not saying that. The information was perceived by their brains. That's what the evidence shows. But no consciousness was involved. That's why it's cited as an example of non-conscious information processing.

Other examples include the ideomotor effect, sight reading music and driving home whilst thinking of something else entirely.

The more I find out about consciousness the more it seems like the not very important tip of a very large iceberg.

I had a weird brain glitch last year, an attack of Transient Global Amnesia that lasted most of a day. Was I conscious during that time, I wonder? I have no way of knowing.

 

[Cheetah]

But what I was setting out is how we can justify the concept of duty. Unlike scientific concepts - such as the law of gravity - I cannot justify it in experience. I cannot say that my duty consists of what some have told me is my duty. I cannot say that my duty is dictated by my nature. Or that my duty is written in heaven. Nothing that I can observe can justify my concept of duty.

Don't you think the very reason you even have a concept of "duty" is because of your nature as a social animal and therefore somewhat dictated by it?

 

[Cheetah]

Aren't qualia just what you experience when neurons in you brain fire a certain way?

The input signals of perceiving something with whichever sense or senses causes a firing pattern in certain neurons in certain areas and therefore a certain sensation.
That pattern is integrated in the network iow "memorized".
Recalling the memory triggers and recreates the firing pattern of the input signal and therefore the same sensation.

Is that "sensation" that can be measured by scanning neurons in a brain a "quali"?

 

[The Norseman]

Wondering how brains produce conscious experience is a "malformed question"? Is that really your claim?

Figures you ignore my point to focus on an irrelevancy, I'm sure just to dodge.

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.

Why is that important to know? What scientific theories rest on the answer?

I know I do because I am a biological life form with sense organs and an independent functioning brain Everything I know or experience is processed by it. Without it I could not know or experience anything

Aren't you just assuming this part? How did you prove it, even to yourself?

Psychology, Consciousness.

Don't you mean 'psychology?' If you have any papers published by psychologists that discuss a topic with the presupposition of qualia, then I'd like to read them.

 

[IanS]

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.

Well I already said it was not a trick question, it was not a "tactic". So you are barking up a non-existent tree there.

But I notice you made no attempt to answer that question. So ... do you actually know what you mean when you say you have "conscious experience" of anything? ...

... what are you "experiencing" ... just describe what happens.

 

[IanS]

I know I do because I am a biological life form with sense organs and an independent functioning brain
Everything I know or experience is processed by it. Without it I could not know or experience anything

Well if you have a "functioning brain" and you are a "biological life form", then that immediately rules out any solipsism. In which case there would be no need for anyone to doubt reality. So that's the complete opposite of the few here who are claiming such things as "everything occurs within consciousness".

Of course I could go further (actually just repeating the original question) and ask you what you actually mean by saying that you "know" of any such experiences"... I could ask you what you mean by saying you "experience" any such thing ... but in your case it's unnecessary to get you to describe that "experience", because you just agreed that your brain etc. does all exist ... whereas Larry and others here (the people I am asking), claim that their brain and body does not exist!

 

[IanS]

Anyway - just to re-emphasie that point - so far nobody here seems willing to attempt describing what they are "experiencing" when they say they have "conscious" thoughts ...

... it's a very simple question for those who are proposing anything like solipsism, i.e. saying that we are not detecting a real world, and that science therefore has not detected and explained a reality of the world around us. For those who say anything like that -

- Q. why can't you even do something so simple as to describe what you mean when you say that you have a "conscious experience" of anything?? ...

... I'm just asking you to describe what you mean by that "conscious experience". What is that "experience"?

 

[baron]

Anyway - just to re-emphasie that point - so far nobody here seems willing to attempt describing what they are "experiencing" when they say they have "conscious" thoughts ...

Aside from the several pages I spent describing just that, and where several others have done the same. That aside, yeah, nobody has described anything.

 

[Darat]

Is this question regarding the 'learning', 'calling' or the 'you'?

Ah the "whichness of why" dodge.

 

[Darat]

.. snip..


I would have thought all humans do it. But some humans such as yourself deny it and I have no basis to disregard their opinions.

It's different from running in that running is objective behavior that can be seen anyone whereas your private thoughts are private thoughts.

I believe you believe this.



Since you've denied being conscious I would say that I assume they are conscious to a greater degree than you claim for yourself. I'm sure that if I met you and your pets I would have no reason to assume any of you were not conscious despite your claims about yourself. I'll let your pets make their own case.
... snip..

Why are you persistently lying about what I've said?

 

[Belz...]

You are confusing materialism with the ability to measure, compute and etc.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that materialism allows these things because it presupposes that the reality we observe exists, etc.

Psychology, Consciousness.

Link please. And "consciousness" isn't a science.

You are the second poster to claim that psychology uses "qualia" as a concept. However "psychology" is a field of medecine. Didn't you mean "neuroscience"? In either case I'd like to see evidence that they do.

 

[David Mo]

Don't you think the very reason you even have a concept of "duty" is because of your nature as a social animal and therefore somewhat dictated by it?

I don't know about that. It is a possibility. But I don't think this is useful to justify it. There are many natural things that must be controlled, modified or overcome in order to carry out a moral life project. See agressiveness. If we are first cousins of chimpanzees we carry a high degree of intra- specific aggressiveness in our genes. Our moral obligation would be to master that aggressiveness and control it so that it is not harmful. This is a problem that has always troubled philosophers who believed in natural aggressiveness. It is a moral and also antropological problem. Should we control agressiveness? is a moral problem. How can we control agressiveness? is an antropological problem.

 

[baron]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that materialism allows these things because it presupposes that the reality we observe exists, etc.



Link please. And "consciousness" isn't a science.

You are the second poster to claim that psychology uses "qualia" as a concept. However "psychology" is a field of medecine. Didn't you mean "neuroscience"? In either case I'd like to see evidence that they do.

Your problem is that you're sitting there with no knowledge of the subject, throwing out challenges and demands for 'links' in order to score points, as opposed to engaging with the subject. Have you even read any books on psychology, neuroscience, etc? For example, if you had read Oliver Sacks you would know that he goes on at length about 'qualitative experience' (qualia) as a concept, and bemoans that it does not attract the level of study it deserves. Many other scientists, such as neuroscientist Christof Koch, have written about qualia (indeed, Koch believes that consciousness itself is a fundamental property of the universe, no doubt he'd be ridiculed by you on these boards).

 

[IanS]

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'

Larry - what do you mean when you say that you "experience" something called "consciousness"? What sort of experience is that?

Do you mean that you visualise scenes and events? And/or that you sense certain "smells" or "sounds" etc?

Is that what is manifest as your "experience"?

Lets narrow this down a bit and try get to the nitty-gritty of what is really being claimed here - take as an example the visual effect, because that's by far the most familiar and obvious thing - when you say you have a "conscious experience", do you mean (as one example) that you can "see" things? Is that part of what you are reporting as your "conscious experience"?

 

[baron]

Re qualia and how internal experience is generated: Reading at the moment some thoughts by physicist Roy Bishop that echo the post I wrote earlier (the long one that everybody ignored), in which I say that you either get it or you don't.

This isn't rocket science. No math is involved, and minimal science. But what is involved in 'getting it' is a complete break from how one thought vision worked ever since early childhood...

..This is a big mental leap, which for most people seems impossibly difficult to make...

..Even amongst scientists, most of whom have never thought much about vision, my guess is that few than 10 percent 'get it', possibly far fewer. The percentage is surely larger amongst perceptual psychologists and physiologists. In my own case, I had a Ph.D in physics before I appreciated where my visual world resided, before I realised that colours and brightness are sensations served up by the brain."

The problem is that the people who don't 'get it' will swear blind that they do. They won't think about it further because they believe there's nothing else to know about it. They believe that because they're academically familiar with the visual and perceptual process that they automatically 'get it'. This is why they don't believe in qualia and that that's why, when I wrote that long post, the only response I got back was effectively, "Yeah, we know all that."

You may know it, but you don't 'get it'.