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

[NickGaspar]

Oh, I said brains were very much involved in consciousness, but there is zero evidence that it achieves this independently (detail of this is in the above post).

You need to study Logic and the rules known as Parsimony, Burden of Proof, Demarcation, Null hypothesis/Default Position.
The moment to introduce hypothetical artifacts in an explanation is not when we reach our limits of our knowledge.
Its when the evidence suggest that to be the case and when you are able to produce a DESCRIPTIVE framework on the role of that "artifact"...not to arbitrarily hold it responsible for the property displayed by a process!!!

We have been doing that pseudo philosophical practice for ages. Our academic history is littered with a long list of failed, made up substances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... substances
Science has moved on a different paradigm where NO magical substances are assumed in our descriptions,for years now.
We DON'T find particles or energies or substances being carriers of advances properties. Advanced properties are the product of complex structure and function in Nature. This is what we verify again and again for more than 600 years in science.
The moment to change this paradigm is only after we observe non contingency between an advanced (non kinetic) property and a structure of matter.
So lets bring this discussion in the current century...shall we?

[Terrapin Station]

Oh, I said brains were very much involved in consciousness, but there is zero evidence that it achieves this independently (detail of this is in the above post).

All current evidence suggests that consciousness is only something that brains do. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

This isn't "proof" that consciousness is only something that brains do, in the sense of "we can't possibly be wrong about this," but no empirical claim--period--has proof in that sense. It is "proof" in the sense of "what the evidence suggests."

There's no reason to doubt that consciousness is only something that brains do until there is evidence otherwise.

[Atla]

If I could solve the hard problem of consciousness I would not be spending my time posting here.

Most debates here are between people who don't know how to solve the Hard problem and people who can't even grasp the problem.

[NickGaspar]

If I could solve the hard problem of consciousness I would not be spending my time posting here.

Most debates here are between people who don't know how to solve the Hard problem and people who can't even grasp the problem.

and people that make up problems that dont exist.
Anil Seth has explained that misconception extensively.

The real problem
It looks like scientists and philosophers might have made consciousness far more mysterious than it needs to be
https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem ... e-real-one

[Atla]

If I could solve the hard problem of consciousness I would not be spending my time posting here.

Most debates here are between people who don't know how to solve the Hard problem and people who can't even grasp the problem.

and people that make up problems that dont exist.
Anil Seth has explained that misconception extensively.

The real problem
It looks like scientists and philosophers might have made consciousness far more mysterious than it needs to be
https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem ... e-real-one

Right, that's a classic example of two people (Anil K Seth and you) failing to grasp the Hard problem. What he calls the "real problem" is literally what is meant by the "easy problems":

distinguishing different aspects of consciousness, and mapping their phenomenological properties (subjective first-person descriptions of what conscious experiences are like) onto underlying biological mechanisms (objective third-person descriptions)

[NickGaspar]

If I could solve the hard problem of consciousness I would not be spending my time posting here.

Most debates here are between people who don't know how to solve the Hard problem and people who can't even grasp the problem.

and people that make up problems that dont exist.
Anil Seth has explained that misconception extensively.

The real problem
It looks like scientists and philosophers might have made consciousness far more mysterious than it needs to be
https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem ... e-real-one

Right, that's a classic example of two people (Anil K Seth and you) failing to grasp the Hard problem. What he calls the "real problem" is literally what is meant by the "easy problems":

distinguishing different aspects of consciousness, and mapping their phenomenological properties (subjective first-person descriptions of what conscious experiences are like) onto underlying biological mechanisms (objective third-person descriptions)

That is only a classic example of a pseudo philosophical problem not being a real problem for our Epistemology.
"Why" teleological questions do not qualify as serious questions and don't articulate real problems.
Since you are a known magical thinker and I guess you subscribe to Chalmers pseudo philosophy you should know that all his questions on the subject start with a fallacious teleological why.

" Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience? And why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does—why an experience of red rather than green, for example? "

Science has already rejected such pseudo philosophical (begging the question fallacies) as epistemically meaningful and even Philosophy has been catching up with that acknowledgement.

Here is a philosophical essay with a reference list that can educate you on how philosophy should be done when dealing with biological phenomena.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/d ... TEXT01.pdf

[NickGaspar]

Chalmers has given a tap dance interview, after witnessing all the advances in science, where he states "Consciousness will still mystify us even if we scientifically solve it, philosopher predicts".
He is taking the direction all other religions did when Science demystified Gods and showed that we don't need magical thinking to explain natural phenomena.
I will agree with him, even when science explains every single mechanism responsible for our brain states, there were still be people trying to keep the magic in the narrative.
The same happened with "life. Even when science explained the biological mechanism behind it the conversation kept going for years by the pseudo philosophical community.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ally-hard/

I get it, people like Chalmers need to keep their job so they reach to those who can justify their salaries.

[Terrapin Station]

Chalmers has given a tap dance interview, after witnessing all the advances in science, where he states "Consciousness will still mystify us even if we scientifically solve it, philosopher predicts".
He is taking the direction all other religions did when Science demystified Gods and showed that we don't need magical thinking to explain natural phenomena.
I will agree with him, even when science explains every single mechanism responsible for our brain states, there were still be people trying to keep the magic in the narrative.
The same happened with "life. Even when science explained the biological mechanism behind it the conversation kept going for years by the pseudo philosophical community.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ally-hard/

I get it, people like Chalmers need to keep their job so they reach to those who can justify their salaries.

Good post (as are your other posts above).

[Atla]

Most debates here are between people who don't know how to solve the Hard problem and people who can't even grasp the problem.

and people that make up problems that dont exist.
Anil Seth has explained that misconception extensively.

The real problem
It looks like scientists and philosophers might have made consciousness far more mysterious than it needs to be
https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem ... e-real-one

Right, that's a classic example of two people (Anil K Seth and you) failing to grasp the Hard problem. What he calls the "real problem" is literally what is meant by the "easy problems":

distinguishing different aspects of consciousness, and mapping their phenomenological properties (subjective first-person descriptions of what conscious experiences are like) onto underlying biological mechanisms (objective third-person descriptions)

That is only a classic example of a pseudo philosophical problem not being a real problem for our Epistemology.
"Why" teleological questions do not qualify as serious questions and don't articulate real problems.
Since you are a known magical thinker and I guess you subscribe to Chalmers pseudo philosophy you should know that all his questions on the subject start with a fallacious teleological why.

" Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience? And why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does—why an experience of red rather than green, for example? "

Science has already rejected such pseudo philosophical (begging the question fallacies) as epistemically meaningful and even Philosophy has been catching up with that acknowledgement.

Here is a philosophical essay with a reference list that can educate you on how philosophy should be done when dealing with biological phenomena.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/d ... TEXT01.pdf

You are already bringing up teleology, we are already running into your comprehension issues and strawmen. (The English word "why" means something else in your quote than what you think.)
Also, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between venturing beyond pure instrumentalism and magical thinking (which makes you the magical thinker if anything).

[NickGaspar]

Chalmers has given a tap dance interview, after witnessing all the advances in science, where he states "Consciousness will still mystify us even if we scientifically solve it, philosopher predicts".
He is taking the direction all other religions did when Science demystified Gods and showed that we don't need magical thinking to explain natural phenomena.
I will agree with him, even when science explains every single mechanism responsible for our brain states, there were still be people trying to keep the magic in the narrative.
The same happened with "life. Even when science explained the biological mechanism behind it the conversation kept going for years by the pseudo philosophical community.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ally-hard/

I get it, people like Chalmers need to keep their job so they reach to those who can justify their salaries.

Good post (as are your other posts above).

Yours too...but the audience is "difficult"!

[NickGaspar]

You are already bringing up teleology, we are already running into your comprehension issues and strawmen. (The English word "why" means something else in your quote than what you think.)

-I Quoted his words...so your above statement is irrelevant and factually wrong accusation.

Also, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between venturing beyond pure instrumentalism and magical thinking

- Magical thinking ,is a documented behavior.*
People make up agents, substances that conveniently are the source of the properties of an observed phenomenon and see intention and purpose in natural processes. Superstition, supernatural claims,Imagined substances, Agency in nature are common characteristics of this type of thinking.
By bringing up"instrumentalism" proves that it is you that you can not differentiate between two completely irrelevant concepts.

I guess this is your way to avoid acknowledging the correct points made and focus is useless deepities. I know your tactics..you never attempt to dissect an argument or stay on the topic due to the fear of getting exposed. So why did you even pop up in this thread if you are not going to stick on the things said and written. Is it an echo chamber maintenance thing?

*https://aeon.co/essays/magical-thinking ... urce=1-2-2

[Atla]

You are already bringing up teleology, we are already running into your comprehension issues and strawmen. (The English word "why" means something else in your quote than what you think.)

-I Quoted his words...so your above statement is irrelevant and factually wrong accusation.

Also, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between venturing beyond pure instrumentalism and magical thinking

- Magical thinking ,is a documented behavior.*
People make up agents, substances that conveniently are the source of the properties of an observed phenomenon and see intention and purpose in natural processes. Superstition, supernatural claims,Imagined substances, Agency in nature are common characteristics of this type of thinking.
By bringing up"instrumentalism" proves that it is you that you can not differentiate between two completely irrelevant concepts.

I guess this is your way to avoid acknowledging the correct points made and focus is useless deepities. I know your tactics..you never attempt to dissect an argument or stay on the topic due to the fear of getting exposed. So why did you even pop up in this thread if you are not going to stick on the things said and written. Is it an echo chamber maintenance thing?

*https://aeon.co/essays/magical-thinking ... urce=1-2-2

Yes you quoted his words, and then massively misinterpreted them. Which is what you do with almost anything I write too btw. So much for tactics.

[NickGaspar]

You are already bringing up teleology, we are already running into your comprehension issues and strawmen. (The English word "why" means something else in your quote than what you think.)

-I Quoted his words...so your above statement is irrelevant and factually wrong accusation.

Also, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between venturing beyond pure instrumentalism and magical thinking

- Magical thinking ,is a documented behavior.*
People make up agents, substances that conveniently are the source of the properties of an observed phenomenon and see intention and purpose in natural processes. Superstition, supernatural claims,Imagined substances, Agency in nature are common characteristics of this type of thinking.
By bringing up"instrumentalism" proves that it is you that you can not differentiate between two completely irrelevant concepts.

I guess this is your way to avoid acknowledging the correct points made and focus is useless deepities. I know your tactics..you never attempt to dissect an argument or stay on the topic due to the fear of getting exposed. So why did you even pop up in this thread if you are not going to stick on the things said and written. Is it an echo chamber maintenance thing?

*https://aeon.co/essays/magical-thinking ... urce=1-2-2

Yes you quoted his words, and then massively misinterpreted them. Which is what you do with almost anything I write too btw. So much for tactics.

You wish.Those questions are clear" why" questions.
Again I quote;"" Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience? And why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does—why an experience of red rather than green, for example? ""
If you are going to argue that those are not "why" questions then you are the one who is doing all the misinterpretation.

In nature and in science there aren't any 'why' questions.
Do we ask why atomic particles are prone to decay or why a previously excited electrons emits photons? No this is how things are and you and anyone who seeks "meaning" behind natural processes should update his "theology."

[NickGaspar]

Chalmers remind me of those kids who don't stop asking "why" questions.
-"why the sky is blue mum".
-because the the wavelength absorbed by the oxygen molecules is interpreted by our brain as blue.
-"and why only the blue wavelength is absorbed, why our brain sees it as blue...why why.
-This is how the oxygen molecules and our brain do....get over it.
Again not all sentences with a question mark at the end is a serious or meaningful question.

[Atla]

You are already bringing up teleology, we are already running into your comprehension issues and strawmen. (The English word "why" means something else in your quote than what you think.)

-I Quoted his words...so your above statement is irrelevant and factually wrong accusation.

Also, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between venturing beyond pure instrumentalism and magical thinking

- Magical thinking ,is a documented behavior.*
People make up agents, substances that conveniently are the source of the properties of an observed phenomenon and see intention and purpose in natural processes. Superstition, supernatural claims,Imagined substances, Agency in nature are common characteristics of this type of thinking.
By bringing up"instrumentalism" proves that it is you that you can not differentiate between two completely irrelevant concepts.

I guess this is your way to avoid acknowledging the correct points made and focus is useless deepities. I know your tactics..you never attempt to dissect an argument or stay on the topic due to the fear of getting exposed. So why did you even pop up in this thread if you are not going to stick on the things said and written. Is it an echo chamber maintenance thing?

*https://aeon.co/essays/magical-thinking ... urce=1-2-2

Yes you quoted his words, and then massively misinterpreted them. Which is what you do with almost anything I write too btw. So much for tactics.

You wish.Those questions are clear" why" questions.
Again I quote;"" Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience? And why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does—why an experience of red rather than green, for example? ""
If you are going to argue that those are not "why" questions then you are the one who is doing all the misinterpretation.

In nature and in science there aren't any 'why' questions.
Do we ask why atomic particles are prone to decay or why a previously excited electrons emits photons? No this is how things are and you and anyone who seeks "meaning" behind natural processes should update his "theology."

Again: the English word "why" has at least two meanings, here it means "how is it so". You can't contextualize very well.