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

[Belz...]

Your problem is that you're sitting there with no knowledge of the subject

First of all, says the guy who brought up dark matter and didn't know the first thing about it.

Second, you're wrong. I know quite a bit about qualia because this isn't my first rodeo about it. But I'm no expert.

Third, even if you were right, so what? The point of discussions like this is that when someone introduces an idea or theory that others are not familiar with, they provide evidence to bolster their claim so that everyone's on the same footing. But here you are making claims, and now scoffing at the idea of supporting them. I asked you to name the scientific discipline that dealt with qualia. You gave a lazy and vague answer. Now I'm asking you to take it further, and you are refusing. It gives everyone the impression that you, in fact, know that you can't support it.

When you asked me to post something about dark matter I did. I didn't scoff at the very idea of supporting my claims. I even quoted your own words back to you because you claimed to have forgotten even though it was only two posts back, giving you a lot of benefit of the doubt. So why can't you do the same? You made a claim, and I'm asking you to back it up. If you won't, then I'll just conclude that you can't, and that your claim is worthless and false.

Your move.

 

[baron]

First of all, says the guy who brought up dark matter and didn't know the first thing about it.

Second, you're wrong. I know quite a bit about qualia because this isn't my first rodeo about it. But I'm no expert.

Third, even if you were right, so what? The point of discussions like this is that when someone introduces an idea or theory that others are not familiar with, they provide evidence to bolster their claim so that everyone's on the same footing. But here you are making claims, and now scoffing at the idea of supporting them. I asked you to name the scientific discipline that dealt with qualia. You gave a lazy and vague answer. Now I'm asking you to take it further, and you are refusing. It gives everyone the impression that you, in fact, know that you can't support it.

When you asked me to post something about dark matter I did. I didn't scoff at the very idea of supporting my claims. I even quoted your own words back to you because you claimed to have forgotten even though it was only two posts back, giving you a lot of benefit of the doubt. So why can't you do the same? You made a claim, and I'm asking you to back it up. If you won't, then I'll just conclude that you can't, and that your claim is worthless and false.

Your move.

Why did you snip out the tiny critical portion of my post and ignore the bulk of it where I answered your question and gave specific information for discussion?

Edited by jsfisher: 

...snip... Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Belz...]

Why did you snip out the tiny critical portion of my post and ignore the bulk of it where I answered your question and gave specific information for discussion?

Because nothing in your post answered my request. Either provide links or your claim is refuted.

Last chance.

 

[baron]

Because nothing in your post answered my request. Either provide links or your claim is refuted.

Last chance.

Then ignore my answer and 'refute' my 'claim' (whatever you imagine it is). I won't be party to you ruining yet another thread by personalising the argument and sending the thread off-topic.

 

[Belz...]

Then ignore my answer and 'refute' my 'claim' (whatever you imagine it is).

Very well. Your claim is refuted due to your inability and unwillingness to support it. Qualia do not exist.

I won't be party to you ruining yet another thread by personalising the argument and sending the thread off-topic.

What are you talking about? Qualia are absolutely on-topic.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

@ynot,

You seem to make a bunch of semantic arguments.

Why “perceived”?

"perceived" might be a poor choice of words. Dictionary says it means "to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses". So the case we have in mind meets three out of three of those when his brain was uninjured and two out of three when it is injured.

But, FFS, this is just a semantic argument. Choice of words doesn't change the facts of the example

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

No, again this is semantic argument combined with a misrepresentation of the example cited. It was not processed as if his brain was normal. In these cases people exhibit a behavior, avoiding obstacles, that appears conscious but they tell you the obstacles aren't there. That's not normal. (ETA: And the links provided actually describe the brain as damaged, also not normal)

And you're making a distinction between subconscious and non-conscious that is warranted. And, again, that's just semantics. It doesn't the facts.

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

No, I didn't. You're twisting my words by equivocating. And your twisting of my words doesn't the facts of the example. Sheez.

Non-conscious means the lack of any consciousness (including subconscious).

No. Read this.. Nonconscious and unconscious are both proper words I could have used.

The visual cortex produces qualia?
I thought they reported the loss of conscious sight.

Uh. Yeah. Why do you ask. Of course they reported the loss of conscious sight. That's why the example is being discussed and has been mentioned many times now. Not sure why that needs to be clarified now. Yes, they report the loss of conscious sight.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

Wow. Not a way I'd like to learn about this subject.

Have to agree about "not very important". Someone upthread mentioned that some of us invent qualia to feel special. Evidence suggests it may be less than special as I mentioned before. The conscious brain is less in control than most of feel.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

Possibly. How do you know though? The blindsight example proves, to me at least, that it's physical. But is in the neurons? A particular process? Does the blindsight example give us enough information to produce an artificial intelligence that we can prove is conscious?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Don't you mean 'psychology?'

Isn't that what I said?

If you have any papers published by psychologists that discuss a topic with the presupposition of qualia, then I'd like to read them.

Start with the citations at the wiki article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

I'm not. Why don't you just clarify what you said.

ETA: I can also stop using you as an example which might be simpler if you'd prefer that. Since you brought yourself up as an example I assumed you'd be OK with using you as an example.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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 ...

What's wrong with the blindsight example that's been cited? (ETA: and looking back I see it has been described, but the blindsight example seems to be the best example since it involves the reports of people who had it and lost it to some degree).

 

[Cheetah]

Possibly. How do you know though?

Because the same neurons fire in a similar way when experiencing something to when you imagine the same experience.
When you experience something a pattern of neural activity is generated based on the input signal from your senses. You have the experience.

When you relive the experience in your mind, the activity seems to be initiated by small number of neurons (maybe in the hippocampus) that provide the input signal for sparking a similar pattern in the same neurons. You experience the memory.

The blindsight example proves, to me at least, that it's physical. But is in the neurons? A particular process? Does the blindsight example give us enough information to produce an artificial intelligence that we can prove is conscious?

When a person focuses their attention on something, say solving a problem, other input from their senses not pertaining to the problem is tuned down and filtered out from their consciousness, therefore giving full conscious attention to it.
A person with blindsight is blind in exactly the same way you are blind driving home thinking of other stuff. You cannot remember seeing anything, although you brain was processing everything as normal and got you home safe. A person with blindsight lacks the ability to consciously focus their attention on their sight. It is probably a structural problem in the brain.

 

[baron]

A person with blindsight is blind in exactly the same way you are blind driving home thinking of other stuff. You cannot remember seeing anything, although you brain was processing everything as normal and got you home safe.

That is not true. The phenomenon is completely different. The person in question was actually blind, using the traditional definition, not just distracted or forgetful. Prior to the exercise of walking down the corridor, objects were introduced into his field of vision and measurement of his brain activity during this time shows that he did not see them. The fact he could then navigate objects showed that he was processing visual input without any conscious experience. Furthermore, he himself could not accept this and instead of admitting that yes, it looked like he could see even though he consciously could not, he fabricated reasons for why he had moved the way he did. His conscious reasoning did not allow for the possibility that he could act without volition.

The reverse condition has also been studied, where people are actually blind but believe they can see perfectly well (I forget the term for this). They walk around knocking stuff over and bumping into things and when asked why they can't, say, pick up a cup, they invent an excuse such as, "Oh, I didn't want to," or "I was distracted."

 

[IanS]

What's wrong with the blindsight example that's been cited? (ETA: and looking back I see it has been described, but the blindsight example seems to be the best example since it involves the reports of people who had it and lost it to some degree).

What about "blindsight"? Is that an example of what people in this thread say they are experiencing when they say they can be "certain" of what they experience as any sort of "conscious awareness" of their own?

I am asking people here who claim that science does not detect "reality", and who say that "everything happens in their own consciousness", or if they make any statement like that where they are disputing that science detects and describes "reality", asking them what they personally "experience" when they talk about their own "conscious awareness"? ...

... I am asking them to describe whatever things they "experience" as their "consciousness".

 

[baron]

Nothing beats refusing to read the thread then demanding other people explain what is already there in black and white.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What about "blindsight"? Is that an example of what people in this thread say they are experiencing when they say they can be "certain" of what they experience as any sort of "conscious awareness" of their own?

I can't tell if you're serious or not, so pardon if this comes across as patronizing: It's not an example of what people say they are experiencing, it's an example of that experience being lost.

I don't appear to be your target audience for the question you are asking so I'll bow out now.

 

[Cheetah]

That is not true. The phenomenon is completely different. The person in question was actually blind, using the traditional definition, not just distracted or forgetful. Prior to the exercise of walking down the corridor, objects were introduced into his field of vision and measurement of his brain activity during this time shows that he did not see them. The fact he could then navigate objects showed that he was processing visual input without any conscious experience.

Why the first two sentences?
That is precisely what I said.
Again a case you reading the opposite of what was written.

 

[IanS]

I can't tell if you're serious or not, so pardon if this comes across as patronizing: It's not an example of what people say they are experiencing, it's an example of that experience being lost.

I don't appear to be your target audience for the question you are asking so I'll bow out now.

Well I can't tell if you understand the question or not!

I am not asking about what anyone claims as "experience being lost" ... I am asking people here (those who deny reality) to describe what they say they are experiencing as their own "conscious awareness" ... for example, are they talking about "seeing" things as some sort of mental imagery? (they are apparently excluding really seeing any such things, because they are claiming that no such things actually exist to be seen).

 

[baron]

Why the first two sentences?
That is precisely what I said.
Again a case you reading the opposite of what was written.

I suggest you read the study, and a few others too, because you are failing to understand what is written. Unless you believe that a person driving along a road actually goes blind and cannot consciously see anything whatsoever, then your analogy is false and bears no relation to what is being talked about. We all know information can be processed unconsciously, it happens to all of us all of the time. If this is what blind sight was then it wouldn't be remarkable. It isn't, therefore it is.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing beats refusing to read the thread then demanding other people explain what is already there in black and white.

Especially when the thread is devoid of evidence for the claims of these other people.