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

[Consul]

Consciousness has been linked to QM right from the start.

"Was the world wave function waiting for millions of years until a single-celled creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer—with a Ph.D.?"

(Bell, J. S. "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 117)

[SteveKlinko]

Consciousness has been linked to QM right from the start.

"Was the world wave function waiting for millions of years until a single-celled creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer—with a Ph.D.?"

(Bell, J. S. "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 117)

You are just messing with me, but that could actually be a good question.

[Atla]

Bell was half joking. While these two are possible options, there are other far more complicated and more general (not life-centric) possible options here as well, which he didn't mention, which may be much more likely to be correct. Or maybe they're all wrong. And there's no reason to think that any of these options require an IM anyway.

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

[SteveKlinko]

Bell was half joking. While these two are possible options, there are other far more complicated and more general (not life-centric) possible options here as well, which he didn't mention, which may be much more likely to be correct. Or maybe they're all wrong. And there's no reason to think that any of these options require an IM anyway.

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

Yes, when you realize that the PM and the CM are not the same thing the existence of an IM becomes obvious. But even if they are the same thing the functionality of an IM must still exist somewhere. Remember:

The IMM is Neutral with regard to what the IM and the CM actually are. This will be resolved by future Research and Discovery. Remember, the IMM is a Framework and is not itself a Theory. All Theories must show what an IM would be within the Theory. The IM is the interconnecting Processing stage where the Neural Activity is converted to Conscious Experience. It could be the case that the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM or an aspect of the CM or an aspect of both. If the Physicalists/Materialists are right then the IM and the CM are both aspects of the PM. The important thing is that this IM functionality must exist somewhere, somehow, in any theory of Consciousness. If a Theory cannot Explain how the Neural Activity in the PM produces the Conscious Experience in the CM then the Theory is not a Theory about Conscious Experience and therefore it is not a Theory about Consciousness.

[Atla]

Bell was half joking. While these two are possible options, there are other far more complicated and more general (not life-centric) possible options here as well, which he didn't mention, which may be much more likely to be correct. Or maybe they're all wrong. And there's no reason to think that any of these options require an IM anyway.

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

Yes, when you realize that the PM and the CM are not the same thing the existence of an IM becomes obvious. But even if they are the same thing the functionality of an IM must still exist somewhere. Remember:

The IMM is Neutral with regard to what the IM and the CM actually are. This will be resolved by future Research and Discovery. Remember, the IMM is a Framework and is not itself a Theory. All Theories must show what an IM would be within the Theory. The IM is the interconnecting Processing stage where the Neural Activity is converted to Conscious Experience. It could be the case that the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM or an aspect of the CM or an aspect of both. If the Physicalists/Materialists are right then the IM and the CM are both aspects of the PM. The important thing is that this IM functionality must exist somewhere, somehow, in any theory of Consciousness. If a Theory cannot Explain how the Neural Activity in the PM produces the Conscious Experience in the CM then the Theory is not a Theory about Conscious Experience and therefore it is not a Theory about Consciousness.

PM and CM are one and the same thing without the need for an IM. Nothing is being converted, the idea that neural activity in the PM produces conscious experience in the CM is probably wrong.

[SteveKlinko]

Bell was half joking. While these two are possible options, there are other far more complicated and more general (not life-centric) possible options here as well, which he didn't mention, which may be much more likely to be correct. Or maybe they're all wrong. And there's no reason to think that any of these options require an IM anyway.

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

Yes, when you realize that the PM and the CM are not the same thing the existence of an IM becomes obvious. But even if they are the same thing the functionality of an IM must still exist somewhere. Remember:

The IMM is Neutral with regard to what the IM and the CM actually are. This will be resolved by future Research and Discovery. Remember, the IMM is a Framework and is not itself a Theory. All Theories must show what an IM would be within the Theory. The IM is the interconnecting Processing stage where the Neural Activity is converted to Conscious Experience. It could be the case that the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM or an aspect of the CM or an aspect of both. If the Physicalists/Materialists are right then the IM and the CM are both aspects of the PM. The important thing is that this IM functionality must exist somewhere, somehow, in any theory of Consciousness. If a Theory cannot Explain how the Neural Activity in the PM produces the Conscious Experience in the CM then the Theory is not a Theory about Conscious Experience and therefore it is not a Theory about Consciousness.

PM and CM are one and the same thing without the need for an IM. Nothing is being converted, the idea that neural activity in the PM produces conscious experience in the CM is probably wrong.

Your Speculation is as good as anybody else's. But of course I think otherwise. Looks like an Impasse to me.

[Atla]

Bell was half joking. While these two are possible options, there are other far more complicated and more general (not life-centric) possible options here as well, which he didn't mention, which may be much more likely to be correct. Or maybe they're all wrong. And there's no reason to think that any of these options require an IM anyway.

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

Yes, when you realize that the PM and the CM are not the same thing the existence of an IM becomes obvious. But even if they are the same thing the functionality of an IM must still exist somewhere. Remember:

The IMM is Neutral with regard to what the IM and the CM actually are. This will be resolved by future Research and Discovery. Remember, the IMM is a Framework and is not itself a Theory. All Theories must show what an IM would be within the Theory. The IM is the interconnecting Processing stage where the Neural Activity is converted to Conscious Experience. It could be the case that the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM or an aspect of the CM or an aspect of both. If the Physicalists/Materialists are right then the IM and the CM are both aspects of the PM. The important thing is that this IM functionality must exist somewhere, somehow, in any theory of Consciousness. If a Theory cannot Explain how the Neural Activity in the PM produces the Conscious Experience in the CM then the Theory is not a Theory about Conscious Experience and therefore it is not a Theory about Consciousness.

PM and CM are one and the same thing without the need for an IM. Nothing is being converted, the idea that neural activity in the PM produces conscious experience in the CM is probably wrong.

Your Speculation is as good as anybody else's. But of course I think otherwise. Looks like an Impasse to me.

Well then I'll think there are 674 kinds of Inter Minds betwen 132 kinds of CMs and 74 kinds of PMs. My speculation is just as good as yours.

[SteveKlinko]

Yes, when you realize that the PM and the CM are not the same thing the existence of an IM becomes obvious. But even if they are the same thing the functionality of an IM must still exist somewhere. Remember:

The IMM is Neutral with regard to what the IM and the CM actually are. This will be resolved by future Research and Discovery. Remember, the IMM is a Framework and is not itself a Theory. All Theories must show what an IM would be within the Theory. The IM is the interconnecting Processing stage where the Neural Activity is converted to Conscious Experience. It could be the case that the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM or an aspect of the CM or an aspect of both. If the Physicalists/Materialists are right then the IM and the CM are both aspects of the PM. The important thing is that this IM functionality must exist somewhere, somehow, in any theory of Consciousness. If a Theory cannot Explain how the Neural Activity in the PM produces the Conscious Experience in the CM then the Theory is not a Theory about Conscious Experience and therefore it is not a Theory about Consciousness.

PM and CM are one and the same thing without the need for an IM. Nothing is being converted, the idea that neural activity in the PM produces conscious experience in the CM is probably wrong.

Your Speculation is as good as anybody else's. But of course I think otherwise. Looks like an Impasse to me.

Well then I'll think there are 674 kinds of Inter Minds betwen 132 kinds of CMs and 74 kinds of PMs. My speculation is just as good as yours.

If you can Logically show that there are 674 kinds of Inter Mind, then that would be a new Insight. At least you admit to the existence of an Inter Mind concept.

[Atla]

PM and CM are one and the same thing without the need for an IM. Nothing is being converted, the idea that neural activity in the PM produces conscious experience in the CM is probably wrong.

Your Speculation is as good as anybody else's. But of course I think otherwise. Looks like an Impasse to me.

Well then I'll think there are 674 kinds of Inter Minds betwen 132 kinds of CMs and 74 kinds of PMs. My speculation is just as good as yours.

If you can Logically show that there are 674 kinds of Inter Mind, then that would be a new Insight. At least you admit to the existence of an Inter Mind concept.

You posited 3 components, I posited 880, we can put both speculations into logical frameworks. Are they equally likely to be correct?

[SteveKlinko]

Your Speculation is as good as anybody else's. But of course I think otherwise. Looks like an Impasse to me.

Well then I'll think there are 674 kinds of Inter Minds betwen 132 kinds of CMs and 74 kinds of PMs. My speculation is just as good as yours.

If you can Logically show that there are 674 kinds of Inter Mind, then that would be a new Insight. At least you admit to the existence of an Inter Mind concept.

You posited 3 components, I posited 880, we can put both speculations into logical frameworks. Are they equally likely to be correct?

The magnitude of the Scientific Ignorance would demand that all possibilities are on the table. If you want to pursue 880 components then that is your choice, and you could be right. But for me, I only recognize and will pursue the 3 components. Science is doing pretty good on the PM, so I really only have the IM and the CM components to work on.

[Atla]

Well then I'll think there are 674 kinds of Inter Minds betwen 132 kinds of CMs and 74 kinds of PMs. My speculation is just as good as yours.

If you can Logically show that there are 674 kinds of Inter Mind, then that would be a new Insight. At least you admit to the existence of an Inter Mind concept.

You posited 3 components, I posited 880, we can put both speculations into logical frameworks. Are they equally likely to be correct?

The magnitude of the Scientific Ignorance would demand that all possibilities are on the table. If you want to pursue 880 components then that is your choice, and you could be right. But for me, I only recognize and will pursue the 3 components. Science is doing pretty good on the PM, so I really only have the IM and the CM components to work on.

Then again, if people actually used the razor to compare speculations, then philosophy would be a less diverse and I had less oportunity to gloat.

[SteveKlinko]

If you can Logically show that there are 674 kinds of Inter Mind, then that would be a new Insight. At least you admit to the existence of an Inter Mind concept.

You posited 3 components, I posited 880, we can put both speculations into logical frameworks. Are they equally likely to be correct?

The magnitude of the Scientific Ignorance would demand that all possibilities are on the table. If you want to pursue 880 components then that is your choice, and you could be right. But for me, I only recognize and will pursue the 3 components. Science is doing pretty good on the PM, so I really only have the IM and the CM components to work on.

Then again, if people actually used the razor to compare speculations, then philosophy would be a less diverse and I had less oportunity to gloat.

The Razor is not any kind of Scientific principle. The Razor is actually Folk Science. If the simplest explanation would always be the true explanation, then you would always be forced to say God did it, and that is that.

[Atla]

You posited 3 components, I posited 880, we can put both speculations into logical frameworks. Are they equally likely to be correct?

The magnitude of the Scientific Ignorance would demand that all possibilities are on the table. If you want to pursue 880 components then that is your choice, and you could be right. But for me, I only recognize and will pursue the 3 components. Science is doing pretty good on the PM, so I really only have the IM and the CM components to work on.

Then again, if people actually used the razor to compare speculations, then philosophy would be a less diverse and I had less oportunity to gloat.

The Razor is not any kind of Scientific principle. The Razor is actually Folk Science. If the simplest explanation would always be the true explanation, then you would always be forced to say God did it, and that is that.

That's not the razor.

[SteveKlinko]

The magnitude of the Scientific Ignorance would demand that all possibilities are on the table. If you want to pursue 880 components then that is your choice, and you could be right. But for me, I only recognize and will pursue the 3 components. Science is doing pretty good on the PM, so I really only have the IM and the CM components to work on.

Then again, if people actually used the razor to compare speculations, then philosophy would be a less diverse and I had less oportunity to gloat.

The Razor is not any kind of Scientific principle. The Razor is actually Folk Science. If the simplest explanation would always be the true explanation, then you would always be forced to say God did it, and that is that.

That's not the razor.

What's your Razor?

[Consul]

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

Right, especially as, unlike brains, immaterial souls and "interminds" are unobservable and unexaminable in principle.