Anyone interested in consciousness must read David chalmers

[TimeAsylums]

Seems to me that Cog and TimeAsylums do not find the 'problem of consciousness' a problem at all and that it's not an interesting question.

Because...it isn't

 

[Cherry Cola]

I find it a problem, but I would not say that it is really about consciousness in the way we typically mean it.

I stand by schopenhauers position here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)#Schopenhauer

Meaning that "will" is what causes all form of motion, hence, the issue lies not so much in understanding what it is but why it is and how it came to be, ie who moved the original mover or what is the origin of the universe.

I think its not going to yield much trying to answer the problem of consciousness directly because you need to answer some pretty damn big questions before you've a shot at doing that.

Someone threadban that fucking ENTP.

 

[Ribald]

A great debate: Kurzweil vs. Searle on the Chinese Room... (excerpt):

Searle is best known for his “Chinese Room” analogy and has presented various formulations of it over twenty years (see below). His descriptions illustrate a failure to understand the essence of either brain processes or the nonbiological processes that could replicate them. Searle starts with the assumption that the “man” in the room doesn’t understand anything because, after all, “he is just a computer,” thereby illuminating Searle’s own bias. Searle then concludes—no surprise—that the computer doesn’t understand. Searle combines this tautology with a basic contradiction: The computer doesn’t understand Chinese, yet (according to Searle) can convincingly answer questions in Chinese. But if an entity—biological or otherwise—really doesn’t understand human language, it will quickly be unmasked by a competent interlocutor. In addition, for the program to convincingly respond, it would have to be as complex as a human brain. The observers would long be dead while the man in the room spends millions of years following a program billions of pages long.

Most importantly, the man is acting only as the central processing unit, a small part of a system. While the man may not see it, the understanding is distributed across the entire pattern of the program itself and the billions of notes he would have to make to follow the program. I understand English, but none of my neurons do. My understanding is represented in vast patterns of neurotransmitter strengths, synaptic clefts, and interneuronal connections. Searle appears not to understand the significance of distributed patterns of information and their emergent properties.

Searle writes: “It is out of the question . . . to suppose that . . . the computer is conscious.” Given this assumption, Searle’s conclusions to the same effect are hardly a surprise. Searle would have us believe that you can’t be conscious if you don’t possess some specific (albeit unspecified) biological process. No entities based on functionally equivalent processes need apply. This biology-centric view of consciousness is likely to go the way of other human-centric beliefs. In my view, we cannot penetrate the ultimate reality of subjective experience with objective measurement, which is why many classical methods, including Searle’s materialist approach, quickly hit a wall.

I favor Kurzweil here. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon, and functional equivalents to biological consciousness are possible. Could be wrong, but it sure makes a lot of sense.

Full article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/chapter-6-locked-in-his-chinese-room-response-to-john-searle

 

[Cognisant]

Schopenhauer wasn't talking about particles, rather I refer to him all the time regarding his assertion that we can will what we want but not want what we will, for example a homosexual can want to be heterosexual (will what he wants) but can't change it because it's something that occurs on a level beneath his consciousness (his will is subject to innate wants). In studies in pessimism Schopenahuer greatly objected to this, declaring the natural state of the world to be one of suffering as (and this is why he's nicknamed the western Buddhist) all desire is suffering and no desire can ever be entirely satisfied, he saw every living thing as merely matter propelled by the desire to ease its suffering, insofar as it was alive.

By "all things" he was generally referring to people and animals.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pwItrhEZo

 

[Cognisant]

Upon review, okay well Schopenahuer does describe the world has having some manner of innate will, still by this I think he's referring to the world's and the universe's ever increasing complexity rather than particles themselves having consciousness, or perhaps more accurately he is in fact referring to evolution by natural selection and how it has created a miserable state of ever increasing competition, even among humans nature's tyranny drives men and women against their own and in against each other in different ways.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think Schoppie's innate will is describing this which is analogous to Crowley's True Will and that the discovery of the 5th force occurs at the omega point (technological singularity negated).

 

[EyeSeeCold]

x2



boring indeed

leave the magical thinkers be

His criticisms of what we have discussed so far consisted of

1. Ad hominems
2. 0 criticisms of the actual theory, simply stating that the entirety is [boring], [magical thinking]

hypocritical much?

 

[TimeAsylums]

hypocritical much?

the criticism of "magical thinking" (irrationalism and mysticism) is an actual critique, it's not an ad hominem in saying the persons line of reasoning is irrational. Calling something "irrational" isn't an ad hominem, it's saying that this line of reasoning is not rational or logical.


/"boring" is an opinion and non-factual, ergo not a critique



so...nope, not even close :P

/try harder

 

[Cherry Cola]

Schopenhauer wasn't talking about particles, rather I refer to him all the time regarding his assertion that we can will what we want but not want what we will, for example a homosexual can want to be heterosexual (will what he wants) but can't change it because it's something that occurs on a level beneath his consciousness (his will is subject to innate wants). In studies in pessimism Schopenahuer greatly objected to this, declaring the natural state of the world to be one of suffering as (and this is why he's nicknamed the western Buddhist) all desire is suffering and no desire can ever be entirely satisfied, he saw every living thing as merely matter propelled by the desire to ease its suffering, insofar as it was alive.

By "all things" he was generally referring to people and animals.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pwItrhEZo

"All ostensible mind can be attributed to matter, but all matter can likewise be attributed to mind" Schop.

Schopenhauer is another philosopher who propogated ideas of panpsychism. His will permeates everything:

"Schopenhauer's philosophy holds that all nature, including man, is the expression of an insatiable will to life. It is through the will that mankind finds all their suffering. Desire for more is what causes this suffering."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation)

It's also funny how when I discussed free will with you not so long ago you claimed I was arguing semantics for saying that there can be will without any actual decision making going on (http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=19037&page=2)

But now you rather refer to schopenahauer all the time whose central concept is a will but does not allow for free will.. right....

 

[kantor1003]

Thanks for sharing. It wasn`t that long ago since I had the pleasure of seeing him in person, though I didn`t know a lot about him at the time. I haven`t read this before, but I was somewhat acquainted with parts of it through other sources. It certainly deserves a second and a third reading.

The subject of phenomenological experience or, as Chalmers put it, simply experience, has been a heated topic ever since Nagel`s paper "what is it like to be a bat" and I think it`s a pretty damn interesting subject. I agree with Chalmers in recognizing it as the hard problem of consciousness and that there is an explanation gap between neuroscience (or, broadly, physics) and qualitative experience. But I`m not, at least at first glance, sure that Chalmers have found the solution in treating conscious experience as a primitive, though I`ve got to admit that I`m intrigued by the view. The biggest problem I have with it is that one must acknowledge a dualism of some kind (even if Chalmers variety seems to me fairly innocent (which, ironically, might make it even more dangerous)). Namely that there is something more to consciousness than what can be known by empirical investigation of the neural complex alone. Apparently, we need to have a fundamental, nonreductionist notion of (phenomenological) experience and discover psychophysical principles that bridges (phenomenological) experience with the physical/functional descriptions given by neuroscience. I`m not in any position to evaluate such an undertaking, but, for what it`s worth, I`m not all that convinced that it would fare any better in our collective effort at uncovering the nature of consciousness than a neuroscience that doesn`t recognize phenomenological experience as some special kind of phenomena that escapes empirical research. After all, as he himself admits, it seems unavoidable that a large part of the overall method of discovering the psychophysical principles would consist of us having to be speculative arm-chair phenomenologists. Having said that, in examining consciousness it`s very likely that it`s unavoidable for us having to rely on at least some amount of introspection, and to use it in tandem with the study of brain states.

I`m interested in getting a clearer sense of Chalmers dualism (which I probably will acquire upon further reading). I`m sure he would agree that every quale is dependent upon having a physical realizer and that he believes in psycho-neural/physical supervenience (that there is no change in the qualitative character of an experience without there being a corresponding change in the brain), but what about the nature of the quale`s themselves? It seems to me that he has got to say that they aren`t physical. That they, in some sense, are non-physical properties. If not, why can`t neuroscience ever figure out what this mess we call consciousness (or experience) is?

 

[Cherry Cola]

You don't need particle physics for a molecular process, qualia isn't subatomic it's just data, memories in your brain aren't stored in the same way as a computer hard drive stores them but it's just data, our minds may seem incredibly profound and mysterious to us but that's just bias as a result of being unable to perceive our own mechanistic nature.

Red looks red because it just does, there is no essential redness and what you see as red is only data integrated into your awareness at a conscious level, subconsciously your visual field isn't the single video screen you perceive, it's an assortment of inputs from a massive array of cells in your retina which your visual cortex has to make sense of.

Y'know when you look at something and you see a face or whatever that upon closer inspection isn't really there, it would be easy to explain that as spying into the spirit realm or whatever but really it's just an error, one that demonstrates how what you think you're seeing isn't actually the raw input from your eyes, what you see is what your visual cortex thinks you're looking at, effectively we've all got terminator vision and it's so seamlessly integrated we can barely notice it.


I dismiss MBTI all the time

You don't know at what level qualia emerges if that's what it does at all, there is no way to make a claim about what is and isn't needed without resorting to (slight pause) magical thinking. That memories in our brains aren't stored like data in computer has nothing to do with the matter.

To say that red isn't red when in fact plenty of people experience red is a pretty obvious display of ontological selectivism. As if though red was any less real than anything else, as if though the impression of a face was not in fact an impression of a face because upon closer inspection it was no longer. And Red looks Red just because it does? Hardly, red looks the way it does because of what it is associated with and what it is associated with is transcultural ie innate in our species.

What then is real? You shoot down subjective experiences a lot. But you don't really seem to consider the fact that everything can be said to be a subjective experience. There is no thing which exists in itself by virtue only of its own being. And if there is we could not say because we are observers, and what we see goes through a subjective lens. There is no subject that does not depend upon an observer.

You cannot be blamed for intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the matter of mysticism that's true. But you can when it comes to other things anyway.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

the criticism of "magical thinking" (irrationalism and mysticism) is an actual critique, it's not an ad hominem in saying the persons line of reasoning is irrational. Calling something "irrational" isn't an ad hominem, it's saying that this line of reasoning is not rational or logical.


/"boring" is an opinion and non-factual, ergo not a critique



so...nope, not even close :P

/try harder

Criticism of a idea/theory would include reasoning and support(examples), criticism is not dismissal by labeling i.e. your pigeonholing into magical thinking.

Don't get all upset about people not legitimately looking into your ideas and then turn around and do the same shit to others.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Criticism of a idea/theory would include reasoning and support(examples), criticism is not dismissal by labeling i.e. your pigeonholing into magical thinking.

Don't get all upset about people not legitimately looking into your ideas and then turn around and do the same shit to others.

Ooh, you're right, I didn't offer any actual reasoning and criticism at all, oh wait except

Once again, argumentum ad ignorantiam ?

(to which higs did respond and attempt to correct)

Therefore, I asserted that a fallacy in her reasoning/logic existed, to which she addressed that she misspoke (to which Cog addressed the following point)

ergo...an actual criticism of reasoning! Legitimate reasoning for calling something "irrational" is certainly valid if said reasoning contained a fallacy

and

Metaphysical speculation rejected.

(to which remain unaddressed)





try harder m8

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ooh, you're right, I didn't offer any actual reasoning and criticism at all, oh wait except


(to which higs did respond and attempt to correct)

Therefore, I asserted that a fallacy in her reasoning/logic existed, to which she addressed that she misspoke (to which Cog addressed the following point)

ergo...an actual criticism of reasoning! Legitimate reasoning for calling something "irrational" is certainly valid if said reasoning contained a fallacy

and

(to which remain unaddressed)





try harder m8

It's labeling still, without explaining your reasoning or connecting the fallacy to the OP's words. keep trying to save face m8

If you don't give a damn about being a hypocrite / insincere troll I'm okay with that and can leave it alone, just as long as I know.

No disrespect to OP for going meta and not actually discussing the topic.

 

[TimeAsylums]

It's labeling still, without explaining your reasoning or connecting the fallacy to the OP's words.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=428632&postcount=34

I am saying that there is an unexplained gap between how the mechanistic phenomenon gives rise to such a rich inner experience,

we can only assume the explanation is non-physical.

Once again, argumentum ad ignorantiam ?

Do tell me how THIS^ does not DIRECTLY address higs.
I directly quoted the words that I linked the fallacy to, I even highlighted it

keep trying to save face

that's my line you started this @ESC, you can't escape that easily

Everyone wants to rub elbows with TA.

Better luck next time, @ESC.

 

[Black Rose]

The real mystery is why you identify qualia at all with "you".

Over time we experience feelings emotions sensations and they last less than 45 milliseconds. These are called frames. Televisions have frames also but the coherency on what is on the screen is only understood by weaving them together over time. The brain has no center so why say the "I" where my foot itches is the same "I" that sees green when the parts of the brain that process them are not together. It feels like a unity over time and across space. And so when the qualia arises a group of neurons are activated with positive or negative ions. These ions are in a formation similar to how the marks of print in a ritual are drawn in a formation (metaphorically). Arrange atoms in one configuration and you summon a qualia. Waves of energy not attached to the atoms but pass through them into other atoms infusing the incantation(atomic arrangement) with life. Then the qualia's link together with an identity. A higher arrangement in space and time sort of like synesthesia.

Now in quantum physics entanglement is forever and there are ways as I think to link across space and time with the quantum into an identity. But with the A.I. they must rely on incantations (atomic arrangement) of classical mechanics. What may be lost in the moment is stored in the many worlds branches of wave collapse microtubules. When the body is gone the history is stored and the forever parts(entanglements) continue in the zero point field. A frame is linked to other frames so you cannot die if you have more frames and in between each frame can last trillions of years without notice. The body currently generates those frames but they are not attached to the body like energy is not attached to atoms. They need new entanglements to continue and not the same atoms as they are transferable.

Why red is red I still don't know? But your identity is where they reside.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Do tell me how THIS^ does not DIRECTLY address higs.
I directly quoted the words that I linked the fallacy to, I even highlighted it

I acknowledge the valid fallacy but in context it was cherry picking. Your initial dismissal/pigeonholing of magical thinking and boringness was before higs even made a fallacy, so you effectively were presumptive in the thread topic's merit.

that's my line you started this @ESC, you can't escape that easily

Everyone wants to rub elbows with TA.

Better luck next time, @ESC.

Let your compensatory narcissism interpret situations in whatever way you need to feel emotionally intact, this is just a game to you right? When you're done being delusional you will see my main concern is the integrity of the forum, of which you are certainly not the only person to infringe upon.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Cog: i'll give you 100 words to summarize what it is you think you're trying to explain to people and in what way it brings anything new to the table and why you think it's a valid response to the hard problem of consciousness.

TA: should have gone with my initial judgment on you.......

 

[TimeAsylums]

I acknowledge the valid fallacy but in context it was cherry picking. Your initial dismissal/pigeonholing of magical thinking and boringness was before higs even made a fallacy, so you effectively were presumptive in the thread topic's merit.

1. who's cherry picking now? The single sentence that the fallacy is applied to is CENTRAL to the argument itself. Addressing this central point is NOT cherry picking, bc Chalmers (OP) is interested IN metaphysics. I didn't cherry pick some inane, obscure statement, I chose the central statement, one that is necessary for the rest to be true.

we can only assume the explanation is non-physical.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

How many times do I have to make the exact same quote for you every time you shift your argument around, ESC? Let's keep a tally: III



2. I was more then aware of Chalmers before this thread, and VERY critical of metaphysics well before that. So your assumption that I pigeonholed panpsychism to mysticism was presumptive is incorrect. Oh, wait, how could you possibly call me presumptive if you have no idea of my current/previous knowledge on metaphysics? Maybe you're a mind reader...or maybe you're being presumptive to assume about my knowledge on metaphysics...damn.


Again you bring up "boring," which is again, simply an opinion, not a fact. lol.
So, since you want to bring it up again, let's start a tally: II. OH WAIT! All TimeAsylums' said was "boring" ONCE, and somehow ESC thinks he can cherry pick and blow that up into an entire argument TWICE?

When you're done being delusional you will see my main concern is the integrity of the forum, of which you are certainly not the only person to infringe upon.

You can delude yourself into thinking whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.
You know what's more important than the integrity of the forum right now? (besides everything ever), you being wrong. I wonder how many people value "integrity," here

the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"
synonyms: honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness

But this is an argument for another day

back to the argument at hand,



Keep cherry picking, you're running out of arguments, every time I have effectively retarded your argument(s), you switch and shift your argument around. E.g., your judgement of my character is becoming longer than your argument itself LOL. Maybe spend more time on the actual argument at hand than on worrying about "integrity," and "character," @ESC, oh wait, you can't because

my main concern is the integrity of the forum

My main concern is that you're wrong. Do tell me if this argument is about my ethics and character or whether it's about my statements in the thread being wrong/incorrect. I'm infinitely more concerned with the latter.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Now that you are defending your own person you are suddenly very willing to write more than 2 incoherent sentences. Edit: So willing in fact that you made a thread about it lol. Such intellectual priorities indeed.

In any case you should not speak of cherry-picking seeing as you've ignored everything being said except for the cannon fodder statements higs made.

 

[kora]

Now that you are defending your own person you are suddenly very willing to write more than 2 incoherent sentences.

In any case you should not speak of cherry-picking seeing as you've ignored everything being said except for the cannon fodder statements higs made.

Which was then retracted, TA address the post in which I clearly state my line of thought plz. (Post 33 onwards)

Also explain on what grounds you reject metaphysics.

 

[redbaron]

Higs, thanks for posting. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think what you're talking about is ultimately a convergence between metaphysics and physics? Personally I think this is misguided, but I also think that one who values science should often be careful of not turning that value of science, into the devaluement of things that are not (metaphysics).

Though I do also think it's not good to label a lack of understanding of a given concept as a, "failure", it's simply not known. I mean, before we discovered how to make cars, it wasn't a, "failure" on behalf of inventors or scientists - we just hadn't put the pieces together.

As a side note, I find that quite ironically the most dogmatic proponents of science are actually people who misunderstand science. When one digs really deep into scientific understanding, one realises that science is predicated upon the suspension of one's disbelief and embracing the seemingly absurd.

Personally, I don't care if people want to attach some kind of metaphysical concept to consciousness - we have no real idea of what concsciousness is so at this point it's all fair game. I think too that there's definite benefit to understanding metaphysical concepts and ideas, in order to gain insight into things. With a little mental flexibility, it's actually quite efficient and enjoyable.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The thing is mental and physical or material and spiritual are all metaphysical labels, they attempt to say something about what it is to exist, they assign a substance. With panpsychism you can get rid of this problem by putting everything under one label since there is then no other label with which to contrast the label becomes meaningless and doesn't say anything about the nature or substance of being, hence it is not metaphysical anymore. Ie if everything is mental or material neither term means anything for they encompass all phenomena, the only reason why I would rather subscribe to panpsychism than materialism is because materialism would rather deny than integrate qualia and consciousness. This can be seen in Cognisants statements where he claims that there is no redness as if though the sense of redness was essentially any less objective than something like wavelenght x. Materialists distinguish qualia and see it as a lesser form of existence than the "actaual material world" in doing so they too more or less make a metaphysical claim since they distinguish between the phenomenal and the physical which requires saying something on the nature of being.

Edit: Materialism like its very close relative physicalism are supposed to be forms of ontological monism. But that is clearly not the case with Cogs materialism, he implicitly contrasts phenomenological phenomena (such as redness) with material things. Lots of materialists do this, as do physicalists. Hence they too make use of metaphysical statements.
What is spiritual, material or physical? All these terms suggest something about the nature of being (that it is spiritual/material/physical) without being able to say what and why. IMO it doesn't really matter which of the terms are used so long as only one is.



Chalmers doesn't seem to reason that way though, he still seems to distinguish between the physical and the phenomenal so I don't agree with his form of panpsychism, because he is still a substance dualist in disguise. Nevertheless I consider his position to be a step above the denial of materialism.

 

[kora]

^ this is a good post, everyone read that.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I guess the difference between panpsychism and materialism/physicalism is sort of like that is says:

these two are the same

more than it says:

everything is this

Which invites discussing rather than bypassing the fact that picturing conscious experience as physical or material is extremely counterintuitive and hard to do for most people. What it also implies is that if the physical/material and phenomenal are the same then neither are probably what one would think.

Indeed, we experience the external world through the lense of our senses and our cognition, all of it, so there already it is obvious that there is no distinguishing between the two.

I think the reason why uniting mind and matter is such a difficult thing to do mentally is because it was important for survival that the two were kept firmly separated. Is it really so strange that two particles in interaction are able to interact with one another because they are aware of each other in the same way that humans are able to interact with the external world because they are aware of it? How else would they?

Which materialists and physicalists typically wont even consider despite the fact that they are supposedly ontological monists.

 

[Cognisant]

Your beliefs serve to console you, you think you're special, that death is not the end, that your life is meaningful and perhaps somehow important, it's all a comforting lie that lets you accept your mediocrity, to be content with your irrelevance.

Go ahead believe the physical world is just a state of mind, get high and feel transcendent.

Excuse me, I have things to do.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes such as performing yet another a cop-out because you're in above your head which is evident from the fact that your attempt at dismissal completely misses the mark yet again. I think none of the above and you have to completely misunderstand what I've written if you even read all of it to conclude what you did.

I don't believe any of those things. You are a basal unoriginal thinker who spends too much energy acting macho and too little on the subject matter. It is indeed intellectual cowardice.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Your beliefs serve to console you, you think you're special, that death is not the end, that your life is meaningful and perhaps somehow important, it's all a comforting lie that lets you accept your mediocrity, to be content with your irrelevance.

Go ahead believe the physical world is just a state of mind, get high and feel transcendent.

Excuse me, I have things to do.

The only accuracy in that post...

 

[Jennywocky]

Ouch.

 

[Cognisant]

Indeed harsh words on the internet, omg the feelz.
Why are you people soo mean?

*cries*

 

[Cherry Cola]

Because I can afford it seeing as my content/insult ratio is still far better than yours. Moreover, because it is completely possible to disagree with me on a rational basis without making a bunch of faulty assumptions about me and my stance by misinterpreting what I've written completely. And because you still act like a dick even when you're doing this, the sum of it all being repulsive enough that I think I am quite justified in using harsh words.

I wish you defenestration into a pool a of oblivion.

 

[Cognisant]

You're irrational, who fucking cares what you think?

I tried and I tried harder per your request, now I'm done, you obviously don't want to consider what I'm saying and now you can write whatever bitchy reply you like after this and it doesn't matter, because I know that regardless of what you say we can all see what a fool you are.

Conscious particles, poppycock I say, POPPYCOCK!!!

 

[~~~]

Call it magic, call it true
I call it magic when logic won’t do
And logic just got broken, broken into two
Still I call it magic, when a reductive approach just won’t do

And I don't, and I don't, and I don't, and I don't
No I don't, it's true
I don't, no, I don't, no, I don't, no, I don't
Want consciousness to be too easy too

 

[Ribald]

An interesting read about the current debate... there is a very important conference coming up on the topic in late April. Everyone who's anyone in the consciousness seems to be signed up.

 

[Cherry Cola]

This video proposes pretty much everything I said without using the word panpsychism so perhaps it might be better suited for the likes of TA and Cog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3wmrW3E9nE

^Sound quality is quite shity but the lecture itself makes for a great summary and explanation of the matter of consciousness. Though it does not concern itself with consciousness it involves a bridging of the gap between nature and culture which is the same thing anyway.