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

[SteveKlinko]

If you do not have the fire in your bones to pursue the Quest, then that is Ok. Speculation is all we have. Not just any random Speculation, there must be some sort of reasoning that produces the Speculation.

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

Remember: This is not a Science Forum, nor is it even a general Philosophy Forum. It is specifically a Metaphysics Forum. Metaphysics is where New Ideas are proposed, tested, and debated.

You ignored that this is also the "epistemology" forum and epistemology is " the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge" (Wiki) and that science is a discipline of acquiring knowledge through relying primarily on sense perception which is independent of beliefs. So scientific knowledge and its acquisition is an aspect of "epistemology".
As far as "metaphysics" is concerned (from my perspective) metaphysics is utterly speculative conceptual fabrication and relies primarily on thought not on sense perception and therefore depends on beliefs.
The impact of scientific knowledge on human life is obvious (evident) while the impact of metaphysics on human life is hidden as beliefs are hidden (non-evident).

So what are you arguing about Speculation for then?

[Atla]

?? In physicalism the process is part of the physical. Physicalism is a double vision that pretends not to be a double vision, but triple it isn't either way.

If everything is in the Neurons you still have the Physical part which is Neural Activity and you still have the Conscious Experience part which is not known what it is. There must be some sort of Physical Process that takes the Neural Activity and produces the Conscious Experience. When the that Physical Process is discovered then that will be part of the Inter Mind. There are still three distinct stages even in the Physicalist view. If you are going to just say that the Conscious Experience IS the Neural Activity and there is no other Explanations needed, then that is unacceptable by any measure of rigorous Science.

???????????????????
Neural activity IS a physical process in physicalism. I've never seen the idea before that there are three distinct stages in physicalism.

That would mean that there is an Explanatory Gap even in Physicalism. Physicalists think they can just say the Neural Activity IS the Conscious Experience and that solves the Hard Problem. That's not a Logical statement and it is not a Scientific statement. It is more a Belief than anything. I would be all to happy if some Physicalist could show me how the Neural Activity creates the Conscious Experience. All I ever get is Diversion and Obfuscation.

Yes, again, of course there is an explanatory gap in physicalism, it's a double vision. If neural activity IS the conscious experience, then that identity needs a proper philosophical explanation, which explanation is still consistent with known science.

But that does not lead to the even worse idea that neural activity creates conscious experience, now that is indeed unscientific.

Inter Mind is: taking a misguided double vision, misunderstanding it to be A causing B, and then adding C between A and B as an explanation. It's three mistakes in a row.

[stevie]

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

Remember: This is not a Science Forum, nor is it even a general Philosophy Forum. It is specifically a Metaphysics Forum. Metaphysics is where New Ideas are proposed, tested, and debated.

You ignored that this is also the "epistemology" forum and epistemology is " the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge" (Wiki) and that science is a discipline of acquiring knowledge through relying primarily on sense perception which is independent of beliefs. So scientific knowledge and its acquisition is an aspect of "epistemology".
As far as "metaphysics" is concerned (from my perspective) metaphysics is utterly speculative conceptual fabrication and relies primarily on thought not on sense perception and therefore depends on beliefs.
The impact of scientific knowledge on human life is obvious (evident) while the impact of metaphysics on human life is hidden as beliefs are hidden (non-evident).

So what are you arguing about Speculation for then?

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

[Atla]

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

Everything, including scientific evidence appears in conscious experience, and therefore presupposes conscious experience. And probably everything scientific evidence is about, is also the world of conscious experience.

[stevie]

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

Everything, including scientific evidence appears in conscious experience, and therefore presupposes conscious experience. And probably everything scientific evidence is about, is also the world of conscious experience.

Yes.

[Atla]

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

Everything, including scientific evidence appears in conscious experience, and therefore presupposes conscious experience. And probably everything scientific evidence is about, is also the world of conscious experience.

Yes.

However there is zero scientific evidence for conscious experience, so does it exist?

[stevie]

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

Everything, including scientific evidence appears in conscious experience, and therefore presupposes conscious experience. And probably everything scientific evidence is about, is also the world of conscious experience.

Yes.

However there is zero scientific evidence for conscious experience, so does it exist?

Depends. If one interviews individuals one may take their verbal expressions as evidence for conscious experience. There is scientific evidence of the sounds of speaking to individuals and there is scientific evidence of the sounds of individuals verbally responding.

[stevie]

... so does it exist?

"exist" - both in the affirmative and in the negative - of course is a metaphysical speculation because appearances of sounds and the like just appear without the necessity of judging "exists" or "does not exist". So what is evident is the appearance and what is non-evident is "existence".

[SteveKlinko]

If everything is in the Neurons you still have the Physical part which is Neural Activity and you still have the Conscious Experience part which is not known what it is. There must be some sort of Physical Process that takes the Neural Activity and produces the Conscious Experience. When the that Physical Process is discovered then that will be part of the Inter Mind. There are still three distinct stages even in the Physicalist view. If you are going to just say that the Conscious Experience IS the Neural Activity and there is no other Explanations needed, then that is unacceptable by any measure of rigorous Science.

???????????????????
Neural activity IS a physical process in physicalism. I've never seen the idea before that there are three distinct stages in physicalism.

That would mean that there is an Explanatory Gap even in Physicalism. Physicalists think they can just say the Neural Activity IS the Conscious Experience and that solves the Hard Problem. That's not a Logical statement and it is not a Scientific statement. It is more a Belief than anything. I would be all to happy if some Physicalist could show me how the Neural Activity creates the Conscious Experience. All I ever get is Diversion and Obfuscation.

Yes, again, of course there is an explanatory gap in physicalism, it's a double vision. If neural activity IS the conscious experience, then that identity needs a proper philosophical explanation, which explanation is still consistent with known science.

But that does not lead to the even worse idea that neural activity creates conscious experience, now that is indeed unscientific.

Inter Mind is: taking a misguided double vision, misunderstanding it to be A causing B, and then adding C between A and B as an explanation. It's three mistakes in a row.

It is completely Sensible to say that Neural Activity causes the Conscious Experience. If it does not, then the proper Explanation will show why the Inter Mind is misguided. But there is no proper Explanation, so we should stick with what we know and what is Sensible. We should especially not make assumptions like that Neural Activity doesn't cause Conscious Experience. From a Systems Engineering and Signal Processing process flow point of view your Assumption is misguided. The Conscious Experience most certainly does seem like a further stage after the Neural Processing. It is just not Sensible to say they are the same thing.

[SteveKlinko]

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

So let's get on topic. What do you think about the Theories of Consciousness that I have listed? How do any of these Explain any kind of Conscious Experience?

[stevie]

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.

So let's get on topic. What do you think about the Theories of Consciousness that I have listed? How do any of these Explain any kind of Conscious Experience?

If you refer to the opening post then "the Theories of Consciousness" you have listed are not scientific "theories" because scientific theories are experimentally validated hypotheses. So the theories you have listed are mere speculations. However that does not mean that one or another of your theories might be an inspiration for my "more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory)" in terms of self knowledge/awareness.

[stevie]

However that does not mean that one or another of your theories might be an inspiration for my "more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory)" in terms of self knowledge/awareness.

Sorry. Correction is needed:

However that does not mean that one or another of your theories cannot be an inspiration for my "more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory)" in terms of self knowledge/awareness.

[Atla]

Everything, including scientific evidence appears in conscious experience, and therefore presupposes conscious experience. And probably everything scientific evidence is about, is also the world of conscious experience.

Yes.

However there is zero scientific evidence for conscious experience, so does it exist?

Depends. If one interviews individuals one may take their verbal expressions as evidence for conscious experience. There is scientific evidence of the sounds of speaking to individuals and there is scientific evidence of the sounds of individuals verbally responding.

Yeah just no measured scientific evidence for conscious experience itself.

[Atla]

It is completely Sensible to say that Neural Activity causes the Conscious Experience. If it does not, then the proper Explanation will show why the Inter Mind is misguided. But there is no proper Explanation, so we should stick with what we know and what is Sensible. We should especially not make assumptions like that Neural Activity doesn't cause Conscious Experience. From a Systems Engineering and Signal Processing process flow point of view your Assumption is misguided. The Conscious Experience most certainly does seem like a further stage after the Neural Processing. It is just not Sensible to say they are the same thing.

It's not completely sensible, it's profoundly insane. And you won't be able to show otherwise.

[stevie]

Yes.

However there is zero scientific evidence for conscious experience, so does it exist?

Depends. If one interviews individuals one may take their verbal expressions as evidence for conscious experience. There is scientific evidence of the sounds of speaking to individuals and there is scientific evidence of the sounds of individuals verbally responding.

Yeah just no measured scientific evidence for conscious experience itself.

Of course. That's the state of current neuroscience. That is why I have written:

From my perspective it is thus: Either there is scientific evidence or there is none. If there is none then there is nothing to talk about publically. If nevertheless one is interested in the topic then for what purpose/goal? Just for the purpose/goal of conceptual fabrications? Or for the purpose/goal of self knowledge/awareness? As to the former I can't see any use of mere conceptual fabrications. As to the latter: if self knowledge/awareness is the purpose/goal then I suggest a more or less playful approach by means of meditative techniques and scientific principles (hypothesis -> validating experiment -> valid theory) but refrain from talking publically about it since all 'insights' are by nature not publically accessible but exlusively accessible to oneself.