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

[Atla]

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.

My point is you seem to have pulled the rug from under your feet. If everything including scientific evidence appears in conscious experience, but also there is no scientific evidence for conscious experience, then we are left with nothing. So we can't talk publicly about anything.

Also, this is a philosophy site, philosophy is mostly speculation.

[stevie]

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.

My point is you seem to have pulled the rug from under your feet. If everything including scientific evidence appears in conscious experience, but also there is no scientific evidence for conscious experience, then we are left with nothing. So we can't talk publicly about anything.

...

Yes, you are right ultimately. Nevertheless if public talk is requested by humans then that talk should be aligned with the evident which does not depend on beliefs. And that evident is sense perception. And science is primarily based on sense perception not on beliefs. Therefore 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.

[Atla]

Yes, you are right ultimately. Nevertheless if public talk is requested by humans then that talk should be aligned with the evident which does not depend on beliefs. And that evident is sense perception. And science is primarily based on sense perception not on beliefs. Therefore 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.

Well on philosophy forums we can publicly debate which philosophies/"conceptual fabrications" are more likely to be correct, what is more likely to be true. I don't see why that should necessarily have a use.

[stevie]

Yes, you are right ultimately. Nevertheless if public talk is requested by humans then that talk should be aligned with the evident which does not depend on beliefs. And that evident is sense perception. And science is primarily based on sense perception not on beliefs. Therefore 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.

Well on philosophy forums we can publicly debate which philosophies/"conceptual fabrications" are more likely to be correct, what is more likely to be true. I don't see why that should necessarily have a use.

Depends. The conceptual fabrication "I throw a stone and the stone will fall to the ground." is likely to be considered as "correct". If it is considered to be "truth" depends on the view of the observer. I don't see why "truth" should be of any relevance if appearances comply with expections on a basis of sense perception.

[Consul]

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.

Identities can explain correlations, but can identities be explained?

Why are Clark Kent and Superman always in the same room? Because they are one and the same person.
Why are Clark Kent and Superman one and the same person? Because………

[Atla]

Yes, you are right ultimately. Nevertheless if public talk is requested by humans then that talk should be aligned with the evident which does not depend on beliefs. And that evident is sense perception. And science is primarily based on sense perception not on beliefs. Therefore 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.

Well on philosophy forums we can publicly debate which philosophies/"conceptual fabrications" are more likely to be correct, what is more likely to be true. I don't see why that should necessarily have a use.

Depends. The conceptual fabrication "I throw a stone and the stone will fall to the ground." is likely to be considered as "correct". If it is considered to be "truth" depends on the view of the observer. I don't see why "truth" should be of any relevance if appearances comply with expections on a basis of sense perception.

I'm talking about philosophical views. For example which one is more likely to be correct, substance dualism or some sort of monism.

[stevie]

Yes, you are right ultimately. Nevertheless if public talk is requested by humans then that talk should be aligned with the evident which does not depend on beliefs. And that evident is sense perception. And science is primarily based on sense perception not on beliefs. Therefore I have written:

Well on philosophy forums we can publicly debate which philosophies/"conceptual fabrications" are more likely to be correct, what is more likely to be true. I don't see why that should necessarily have a use.

Depends. The conceptual fabrication "I throw a stone and the stone will fall to the ground." is likely to be considered as "correct". If it is considered to be "truth" depends on the view of the observer. I don't see why "truth" should be of any relevance if appearances comply with expections on a basis of sense perception.

I'm talking about philosophical views. For example which one is more likely to be correct, substance dualism or some sort of monism.

Views are just views.

[Atla]

Well on philosophy forums we can publicly debate which philosophies/"conceptual fabrications" are more likely to be correct, what is more likely to be true. I don't see why that should necessarily have a use.

Depends. The conceptual fabrication "I throw a stone and the stone will fall to the ground." is likely to be considered as "correct". If it is considered to be "truth" depends on the view of the observer. I don't see why "truth" should be of any relevance if appearances comply with expections on a basis of sense perception.

I'm talking about philosophical views. For example which one is more likely to be correct, substance dualism or some sort of monism.

Views are just views.

That's why philosophy is philosophy and not science? For example we can interpret what science found in infinitely many ways.

[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?

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.

Very good. Have fun.

[SteveKlinko]

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.

That is an aspect of the Hard Problem: Science has no way to Measure Conscious Experience directly. It is always implied by the Neural Activity that is Correlated with the Conscious Experience.

[SteveKlinko]

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.

In due time.

[Consul]

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.

I doubt it's more sensible to endorse property dualism and to say that experiential properties (qualia) are emergent properties which are irreducibly different from (complexes of) neural properties.

Problem #1: The "attachment problem"

"[T]he notion of these unique properties is a mysterious one. We are to think of the central nervous system as somehow stippled over with a changing pattern of these special properties. ...Just how do these properties attach to the brain? I, at any rate, can form no clear conception of such properties and their attachment."

(Armstrong, D. M. A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968. p. 48)

Problem #1: Qualia dualism can hardly avoid epiphenomenalism.

"To believe in the [irreducibility of the (my add.)] phenomenal aspect of the world, but deny that it is epiphenomenal, is to bet against the truth of physics."

(Lewis, David. "What Experience Teaches." 1988. In Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, 262-290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p. 283)

[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.

In due time.

Time won't turn the hard problem into a scientific problem. Never was never will be.

[Sy Borg]

We all have opinions, but bouncing them off each other just leads us further into assertion and further from facts, such as:

1. Changes to the brain profoundly influence the nature of consciousness. Certainly the quality of consciousness that humans value depends on the brain.

2. However, the hard problem remains unsolved. Some believe that qualia is an epistemic error rather than an ontic phenomenon, despite there being no evidence to back up that claim. Others think conscious experience - that which we value more than anything - cannot be so easily dismissed as illusory.

3. At this stage, the lion's share of research into the hard problem and related issues is in neuroscience. Given that neurological diseases cost the better part of a trillion dollars annually in just the US, it's understandable that many, many billions would go into that field rather than explore more esoteric ideas.

With these basics re-established, we can expect a brain-centric bias in consciousness studies, and for the focus to always be on higher functions rather than experience itself. Thus, at this stage, all pundits are guessing. No one knows. More evidence is needed.

I hold hope that research into the basic sense of being - rather than just human-centric higher brain functions - will be increasingly funded as AI units work their way out of the uncanny valley and start to sow doubts as to their sentience.

[Belindi]

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.

In due time.

Time won't turn the hard problem into a scientific problem. Never was never will be.

For sure time won't solve the problem, but extending qualia to life forms other than the intelligent animal will do so. Bees' qualia , judging from their language, are collective. From what the biologists are learning about soil ecology we reasonably guess that the qualia of trees, saprophytes, and fungi are as collective as in the Garden of Eden.