Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atla]

I explicitly, directly wrote down the main issue at least four times. Woosh.

Maybe you people think that being stuck in a 19th century worldview is a virtue. After all, our professional philosophers didn't make it further either.

[Pattern-chaser]

I explicitly, directly wrote down the main issue at least four times. Woosh.

Please offer a link to one of these times. I will gladly read what I missed....

[Atla]

Please offer a link to one of these times. I will gladly read what I missed....

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16848&start=855#p371189

Here it was stated 3 times, why do you guys keep ignoring it. I'm still awaiting your reply how your working theory covers this btw.

I'll stick with my working theory for now; it fits the evidence presented so far...

Also, that few pages long chapter from that book also contains the best demonstration (through an example) that I've seen yet, for this issue.

As I said, this aspect of the measurement problem probably shows that mental content and the outside physical world are of the same kind, in other words it's probably a proof for the nondual philosophical paradigm. Which is maybe the least weird thing about the measurement problem, and can be understood after a major philosophical overhaul, but that's what you asked proof for.

[Atla]

And of course, you couldn't articulate or point out so much as one mistake or factual error I've made, anywhere. Not even one. So much for credibility, eh?

Your mistake continues to be epic, failing to address or even grasp the Hard problem. The GNW deals with how human consciousness is structured (easy problems), but says nothing about what consciousness is anyway. You were told this repeatedly.

I've seen people who went nuts because of people like you. They finally cracked, and concluded that P-zombies must be real, and they are everywhere.

Several times, I've requested that you describe the actual measurement process in quantum physics and identify precisely where and how consciousness enters into the picture. You won't. You can't. That's what backing away from a preposterous claim looks like.

Yeah this has nothing to do with anything I wrote. It's not a process. Consciousness doesn't 'enter the picture' at a 'where' and 'how' like that, what are you talking about.

[Atla]

'Physics encounters consciousness' is a metaphor. It means that human consciousness (for example the things we know, the decisions we make, and everything else too in human consciousness) are an inextricable part of the known universe. And under the right circumstances can even take or appear to take an active role in 'shaping' the known universe. How the known universe 'manifests' from multiple or perhaps an infinite number of possibilities, where the possible different manifestations also happen to be irreconcilable with each other.

Ironically it's exactly the nondualist paradigm which doesn't require a "unique role" for human consciousness in any of this. So I'm like advocating the opposite of what I'm accused of. It's the accuser who is unaware what his own position entails, in the light of modern scientific evidence.

[Faustus5]

Your mistake continues to be epic, failing to address or even grasp the Hard problem.

And your mistake is that you continually beg the question and completely ignore that the very existence and coherence of the "hard problem" has been disputed since the moment Chalmers introduced the term.. Like members of a cult, you "hard problem" faithful have no capacity to comprehend that others approach the subject of consciousness with completely different tools and assumptions than you do.

So contrary to your laughable criticisms, my understanding of how scientific models work is perfectly fine. What you need to understand is that scientific models have no place for the metaphysical dreams of philosophers.

The GNW deals with how human consciousness is structured (easy problems), but says nothing about what consciousness is anyway. You were told this repeatedly.

The GNW model says exactly what consciousness is. It simply has no room for your metaphysics-based "understanding" of consciousness. You were told this repeatedly.

It's not a process. Consciousness doesn't 'enter the picture' at a 'where' and 'how' like that, what are you talking about.

Good, then I will continue to hold that the mainstream consensus of quantum physics, in which it has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness in any sense of the term, is correct.

[Faustus5]

So I'm like advocating the opposite of what I'm accused of. It's the accuser who is unaware what his own position entails, in the light of modern scientific evidence.

What specific scientific evidence, and how specifically does it have anything--anything at all!--to do with human consciousness?

If what you are suggesting isn't complete nonsense, you wouldn't have so much trouble being specific about what you are claiming.

[Pattern-chaser]

Please offer a link to one of these times. I will gladly read what I missed....

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16848&start=855#p371189

Here it was stated 3 times, why do you guys keep ignoring it.

OK, let's have a look.

So explain, please, about the parts that Wikipedia misses. Educate us, instead of asserting our ignorance.

the issue of this perfect correlation/connection/whatever we want to call it, between mental content such as human choices, and states of the outside physical world, where the states can be irreconcilable with each other.

Depending on which measurement you decide to perform, the universe will always behave accordingly (hence the perfect connection), but these different behaviours are irreconcilable.

How does your theory resolve/dismiss this issue? That in a sense the universe appears to 'manifest' in perfect accordance with what you are doing, so you can 'decide' to make the universe be this way of that, even though those ways are mutually exclusive?

The anomaly of wave-particle duality was already well-known and well-pondered in 1970, when my physics teacher explained it to me. The understanding I was given was that ... we don't (yet?) fully understand how the universe works. Is your frustration merely impatience that we haven't figured it out yet?

As I said, this aspect of the measurement problem probably shows that mental content and the outside physical world are of the same kind, in other words it's probably a proof for the nondual philosophical paradigm.

The kindest thing I can say about this is that it's highly speculative. Wave-particle duality proves nondual philosophy? It's difficult to see how.

So is this really what you've been telling us is ignored by, and unknown to, physicists and/or philosophers? It is neither. It simply remains unsolved, so far.

[Pattern-chaser]

'Physics encounters consciousness' is a metaphor. It means that human consciousness (for example the things we know, the decisions we make, and everything else too in human consciousness) are an inextricable part of the known universe. And under the right circumstances can even take or appear to take an active role in 'shaping' the known universe.

When we look for particles, we find particles. When we look for waves, we find waves. We find what we look for. In addition, it seems that the QM probability function only collapses following observation by a conscious observer. This seems strange to us, admittedly, but I don't think it is a justification for believing that these conscious observers actually shape the known universe.

You seem to be focussing on phenomena that we don't understand, and leaping to explanatory conclusions without evidence or other foundation. Your thoughts are hypotheses, I think, not justified conclusions. So far, humanity has not succeeded in explaining these things, but you talk of "modern scientific evidence" as though we have, but it's been ignored. Not so, to the best of my knowledge. If you have information I haven't heard about, present it, please. I'm always happy to learn something new.

[Robert66]

'scientific models have no place for the metaphysical dreams of philosophers.'

So rigidly bound - facts inside, dreams outside. Why should any subject matter be off-limits to scientific enquiry?

'human consciousness ... under the right circumstances can even take or appear to take an active role in 'shaping' the known universe.'

Yeah, well ... under the right circumstances (viewing angle) a cloud can look like a donkey.

[Atla]

And your mistake is that you continually beg the question and completely ignore that the very existence and coherence of the "hard problem" has been disputed since the moment Chalmers introduced the term.. Like members of a cult, you "hard problem" faithful have no capacity to comprehend that others approach the subject of consciousness with completely different tools and assumptions than you do.

So contrary to your laughable criticisms, my understanding of how scientific models work is perfectly fine. What you need to understand is that scientific models have no place for the metaphysical dreams of philosophers.

It's your objections that are laughable. The shape of the Earth is also 'disputed', does that mean that therefore the issue isn't settled at all? For anyone with some semblance of intellect, the shape of the Earth is NOT flat, and the Hard problem IS an existing, coherent problem.

It is you who seems to totally lack the capacity to comprehend what kind of issues can be addressed with GNW tools, and what kind of issues can't be addressed. You also fail to comprehend that YOU are stuck in a most ridiculous metaphysical dream, and the Hard problem is pointing that out.

The GNW model says exactly what consciousness is. It simply has no room for your metaphysics-based "understanding" of consciousness. You were told this repeatedly.

No, it says how human consciousnes is shaped. It can't address what consciousness is, because that is currently unknown. That is the hard problem, get your facts straight.

Good, then I will continue to hold that the mainstream consensus of quantum physics, in which it has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness in any sense of the term, is correct.

That is not the mainstream consensus, you continue to repeat your ignorance. The mainstream consensus is to stick to instrumentalism, and avoid taking philosophical stances at all.
For the minority who do not avoid it, the majority take the position that the measurement problem is unresolved. Based on your popularity contest we can't say for sure that consciousness isn't involved in any sense.

What specific scientific evidence, and how specifically does it have anything--anything at all!--to do with human consciousness?

If what you are suggesting isn't complete nonsense, you wouldn't have so much trouble being specific about what you are claiming.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16848&start=855#p371189

Here I wrote it down 3 timnes. You can also read that chapter I linked I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
It's not complete nonsense, but something that seems to happen 100% of the time. Your beliefs are outdated nonsense.

And there is zero reason to believe that it has to do with human consciousness specifically.

You need to grow up at this point.

[Atla]

The anomaly of wave-particle duality was already well-known and well-pondered in 1970, when my physics teacher explained it to me. The understanding I was given was that ... we don't (yet?) fully understand how the universe works. Is your frustration merely impatience that we haven't figured it out yet?

The kindest thing I can say about this is that it's highly speculative. Wave-particle duality proves nondual philosophy? It's difficult to see how.

So is this really what you've been telling us is ignored by, and unknown to, physicists and/or philosophers? It is neither. It simply remains unsolved, so far.

When we look for particles, we find particles. When we look for waves, we find waves. We find what we look for. In addition, it seems that the QM probability function only collapses following observation by a conscious observer. This seems strange to us, admittedly, but I don't think it is a justification for believing that these conscious observers actually shape the known universe.

You seem to be focussing on phenomena that we don't understand, and leaping to explanatory conclusions without evidence or other foundation. Your thoughts are hypotheses, I think, not justified conclusions. So far, humanity has not succeeded in explaining these things, but you talk of "modern scientific evidence" as though we have, but it's been ignored. Not so, to the best of my knowledge. If you have information I haven't heard about, present it, please. I'm always happy to learn something new.

You seem to be incapable of addressing the actual point I keep making. Do we always find what we look for, expect? Yes. Are those different possibilities irreconcilable? Yes. In other word how the known universe 'manifests' to us, how it gets shaped from our perspective, does have a perfect connection/correlation/whatever we want to call it, with our mental content.

Yes it's mysterious and unresolved how all that happens and what it means etc., but the above part is an already established fact whether people like it or not. So the above part has pretty much proven the nondual paradigm. (Unless we happen to be stuck in some kind of stupid brain-in-a-vat scenario, or this is all a simulation etc.)

[Sy Borg]

Neither of your views are "laughable". You are presenting models originally devised by influential thinkers. We naturally gravitate to positions closest to our personal assessments.

The GNW model says exactly what consciousness is. It simply has no room for your metaphysics-based "understanding" of consciousness. You were told this repeatedly.

No, it says how human consciousness is shaped. It can't address what consciousness is, because that is currently unknown. That is the hard problem ...

The debate about what consciousness is and how it emerged is a philosophy forum staple. As far as I can tell, simply being alive and awake means being conscious, and if the organism has a brain, then the brain shapes those raw sensations. This is not the "official" position of most neuroscientists, many of whom have long been certain that the brain is the only possible generator of consciousness and that brainless organisms feel nothing at all.

I personally find that view presumptive. Neuroscientists have been claiming that the brain is the sole generator of consciousness for a long time without, to be honest, having much of a clue how the brain might generate consciousness. At least both scientists and philosophers would agree that brains are responsible for the aspects of consciousness that we value. So, if there is some kind of minimal consciousness in a vegetative state, none of us want it. Coma is a very different state to deep sleep, but we imagine coma to be a permanent deep sleep, but that is also an assumption, perhaps based on hope.

[Atla]

Neither of your views are "laughable". You are presenting models originally devised by influential thinkers. We naturally gravitate to positions closest to our personal assessments.

No, it says how human consciousness is shaped. It can't address what consciousness is, because that is currently unknown. That is the hard problem ...

The debate about what consciousness is and how it emerged is a philosophy forum staple. As far as I can tell, simply being alive and awake means being conscious, and if the organism has a brain, then the brain shapes those raw sensations. This is not the "official" position of most neuroscientists, many of whom have long been certain that the brain is the only possible generator of consciousness and that brainless organisms feel nothing at all.

I personally find that view presumptive. Neuroscientists have been claiming that the brain is the sole generator of consciousness for a long time without, to be honest, having much of a clue how the brain might generate consciousness. At least both scientists and philosophers would agree that brains are responsible for the aspects of consciousness that we value. So, if there is some kind of minimal consciousness in a vegetative state, none of us want it. Coma is a very different state to deep sleep, but we imagine coma to be a permanent deep sleep, but that is also an assumption, perhaps based on hope.

I continue to think that what you say somewhat misses the point too, it tends to validate Faustus's / Dennett's confusion. Yeah it's entirely possible (and as you know I share this view) that a model of human consciousness can't be complete without incorporating things like the 'gut-brain', and metabolism, and the spinal nerves etc., perhaps even the heart with its electric fields etc. and all the electric fields of all the organs, and perhaps electric fields of the surrounding etc. and so on.

However I think it's also true that the 'head-brain' covers at least 90% of the issue of human consciousness, and this has been thoroughly proven to be the case via neuroscience in the last 100 years.

Yes the above are different competing models for human consciousness. They are still the Easy problems however. How a sense of being for humans comes to be is still the territory of the Easy problems.

The Hard problem is something else, why is there consciousness at all. There is no reason to believe that it has anything to do with being alive, or that it is generated. If it's not generated but universal, then there isn't really a model for it, because there isn't anything that could be modeled. (I read somewhere btw that nowadays a few prominent neuroscientists claim that consciousness may be universal, guess times are changing a bit.)

[Sy Borg]

The Hard problem is something else, why is there consciousness at all. There is no reason to believe that it has anything to do with being alive, or that it is generated. If it's not generated but universal, then there isn't really a model for it, because there isn't anything that could be modeled. (I read somewhere btw that nowadays a few prominent neuroscientists claim that consciousness may be universal, guess times are changing a bit.)

It depends on what we mean by consciousness. You are no doubt aware of Kaku's "physicist version" of panpsychism, attributing a unit of consciousness to each sense and response, though his examples appear not to consider the internal senses and responses of the body systems you mentioned above.

By the same token, we can consider panvitalism, which again depends on definitions. So a rock is no more alive than it is conscious, but it can be thought of as part of larger living systems, just as calcium carbonate molecules in our bones are no more alive than rocks but they are part of a living entity.

Where does a life or consciousness start or stop? Reality seems to consist of things and their emanations, a division that becomes notoriously hard to parse on the quantum scale, hence subatomic "wavicles". At what point are things and their impacts on environment separate? Eg. Are the atmosphere and magnetospheres part of the Earth or its products? If so, are the hydrosphere and biosphere also just a products of the Earth, or part of it?

These are questions that are perhaps more of interest to philosophers than scientists. There's less scientists can do with such questions in their work than more focussed and practical questions such as "How much will the atmosphere heat up in the future?" and "How will climate change affect hydrological cycles?".

I wonder if emergences are misunderstood? As far as I can tell, emergences are thought to create completely novel phenomena, but I would say it's more a matter of rapid major change of pre-existing phenomena. So the first microbe would have been very similar to the last non living bundle of complex chemicals that preceded it. A newly ignited star might now have nuclear reactions within but the protostar before the ignition was no weakling - still a humongous, extremely hot object in space.

So the first "conscious" organism would differ only slightly from the most complex reflexive organism that preceded it. So it seems with all emergences.