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

[Atla]

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.

That assumes that qualia are connected to life, which would again be a scientific problem. Qualia have nothing to do with life and it will never be a scientific problem.

[GrayArea]

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.

I think that Neural Activity causes the Conscious Experience, but also...vice versa. They're simply interconnected.

It may sound off-putting at first, but hear me out.

First of all, my assumption is that you agree that the only way the materials that compose our physical body—such as our neuron cells—can move and be active is because each of its components communicate in their own language which is laws of physics which activates one another.

So moving on, the basic idea that I want to propose is that if our standard definition of Conscious Experience is pretty much what controls this whole movement/activation of materials while also being aware of it, then it should theoretically be equal to the dialectic system of language, which laws of physics operate on. As in, the very reason why the laws of physics can be used as a language.

Other than that instance...Conscious Experience, to me, is pointless to bring up when it comes to discussing consciousness, because its role has already been fulfilled through us being what we are.

[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.

I think that Neural Activity causes the Conscious Experience, but also...vice versa. They're simply interconnected.

It may sound off-putting at first, but hear me out.

First of all, my assumption is that you agree that the only way the materials that compose our physical body—such as our neuron cells—can move and be active is because each of its components communicate in their own language which is laws of physics which activates one another.

So moving on, the basic idea that I want to propose is that if our standard definition of Conscious Experience is pretty much what controls this whole movement/activation of materials while also being aware of it, then it should theoretically be equal to the dialectic system of language, which laws of physics operate on. As in, the very reason why the laws of physics can be used as a language.

Other than that instance...Conscious Experience, to me, is pointless to bring up when it comes to discussing consciousness, because its role has already been fulfilled through us being what we are.

I see no reason to think that the movement of all things in the universe isn't a given. (Whether or not everything is genuinely moving or only apparently moving, is beside the point here.)

We derive the laws of physics from what is given. Everything is already moving by itself, no additional activation or control seems to be needed.

And if with neural activity and conscious experience we've described the same thing twice, as the case seems to be, then that one thing can't be two things that are interconnected.

[Belindi]

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.

That assumes that qualia are connected to life, which would again be a scientific problem. Qualia have nothing to do with life and it will never be a scientific problem.

So do you think that dead bodies, or lamp shades experience qualia?

[Atla]

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.

That assumes that qualia are connected to life, which would again be a scientific problem. Qualia have nothing to do with life and it will never be a scientific problem.

So do you think that dead bodies, or lamp shades experience qualia?

In a sense yes in a sense no. Qualia isn't "experienced" by things. The world of things and the world of qualia is one and the same thing described twice.

[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.

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)

We are at an Impasse. To me, the Phenomena of Conscious Experience are so Categorically different from the Neural Activity that supposedly produces them, that it is more Sensible to think that they are something different than the Neural Activity. How are you ever going to find Redness in the Neurons? Do you really think it will be a lesser problem to find Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste in the Neurons? I think it will be easier to just admit that these Conscious Experiences are such existentially different Phenomena from anything Science knows about Neurons that they cannot be in the Neurons. It is much simpler to admit that they exist in some abstract Conscious Space that the Brain is Connected with. Quantum Mechanical principle are the best bet to understanding how the Connection is accomplished.

[GrayArea]

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.

I think that Neural Activity causes the Conscious Experience, but also...vice versa. They're simply interconnected.

It may sound off-putting at first, but hear me out.

First of all, my assumption is that you agree that the only way the materials that compose our physical body—such as our neuron cells—can move and be active is because each of its components communicate in their own language which is laws of physics which activates one another.

So moving on, the basic idea that I want to propose is that if our standard definition of Conscious Experience is pretty much what controls this whole movement/activation of materials while also being aware of it, then it should theoretically be equal to the dialectic system of language, which laws of physics operate on. As in, the very reason why the laws of physics can be used as a language.

Other than that instance...Conscious Experience, to me, is pointless to bring up when it comes to discussing consciousness, because its role has already been fulfilled through us being what we are.

I see no reason to think that the movement of all things in the universe isn't a given. (Whether or not everything is genuinely moving or only apparently moving, is beside the point here.)

We derive the laws of physics from what is given. Everything is already moving by itself, no additional activation or control seems to be needed.

The movement of all things in the universe is a given, only because what makes them happen is a given. In this case, the laws of physics. Yes, we derive the laws of physics from what is given, but that can also mean that we simply discover the fact that what is given to us(events) is controlled by the laws of physics. Patterns of events or what makes them happen, so to speak.

Adding on, there is no additional activation or controlling of reality when it comes to consciousness. Perhaps I may have been a bit confusing with my wording here, but what I tried to convey in my previous response was that Conscious Experience is simply a "part" of the communication between the consequences of the laws of physics which govern the Neural Experience.
That when I said [Additional] "activation", I meant it as a part of the consequences of the laws of physics, where neuron cells would be activated through electrochemical reactions which follow the laws of physics, causing it to send signals to each other. Not "something required to activate/control" the laws of physics.

Moving on, here you said that:
"And if with neural activity and conscious experience we've described the same thing twice, as the case seems to be, then that one thing can't be two things that are interconnected."

Yes, it is possible for that one unified idea of consciousness to be two things that are interconnected (Neural Experience and Conscious Experience), because it was already solidified to be a description for both of them. As in, because it was already defined as both of those two things that are interconnected.

The only role of Conscious Experience here is allowing us to talk about what creates Conscious Experience, not to be used as one of the key ideas regarding that topic. The key lies in the Neural Experience, which we perceive through 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.

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

I disagree. Science is just about explaining the World. Conscious Experience exists in the World so Science must ultimately Explain it. There is no reason why Conscious Space cannot eventually be a standard understandable component of Science. As long as there is a Hard Problem, Science will be incomplete.

[Atla]

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

I think that Neural Activity causes the Conscious Experience, but also...vice versa. They're simply interconnected.

It may sound off-putting at first, but hear me out.

First of all, my assumption is that you agree that the only way the materials that compose our physical body—such as our neuron cells—can move and be active is because each of its components communicate in their own language which is laws of physics which activates one another.

So moving on, the basic idea that I want to propose is that if our standard definition of Conscious Experience is pretty much what controls this whole movement/activation of materials while also being aware of it, then it should theoretically be equal to the dialectic system of language, which laws of physics operate on. As in, the very reason why the laws of physics can be used as a language.

Other than that instance...Conscious Experience, to me, is pointless to bring up when it comes to discussing consciousness, because its role has already been fulfilled through us being what we are.

I see no reason to think that the movement of all things in the universe isn't a given. (Whether or not everything is genuinely moving or only apparently moving, is beside the point here.)

We derive the laws of physics from what is given. Everything is already moving by itself, no additional activation or control seems to be needed.

The movement of all things in the universe is a given, only because what makes them happen is a given. In this case, the laws of physics. Yes, we derive the laws of physics from what is given, but that can also mean that we simply discover the fact that what is given to us(events) is controlled by the laws of physics. Patterns of events or what makes them happen, so to speak.

Adding on, there is no additional activation or controlling of reality when it comes to consciousness. Perhaps I may have been a bit confusing with my wording here, but what I tried to convey in my previous response was that Conscious Experience is simply a "part" of the communication between the consequences of the laws of physics which govern the Neural Experience.
That when I said [Additional] "activation", I meant it as a part of the consequences of the laws of physics, where neuron cells would be activated through electrochemical reactions which follow the laws of physics, causing it to send signals to each other. Not "something required to activate/control" the laws of physics.

Moving on, here you said that:
"And if with neural activity and conscious experience we've described the same thing twice, as the case seems to be, then that one thing can't be two things that are interconnected."

Yes, it is possible for that one unified idea of consciousness to be two things that are interconnected (Neural Experience and Conscious Experience), because it was already solidified to be a description for both of them. As in, because it was already defined as both of those two things that are interconnected.

The only role of Conscious Experience here is allowing us to talk about what creates Conscious Experience, not to be used as one of the key ideas regarding that topic. The key lies in the Neural Experience, which we perceive through Conscious Experience.

And maybe God is pushing stuff around, unnecessary speculation without evidence, Occam's razor cuts it out. Until then it's a probably a mistake to reify the laws of physics and use them as agents.

[SteveKlinko]

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.

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

[Atla]

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

I disagree. Science is just about explaining the World. Conscious Experience exists in the World so Science must ultimately Explain it. There is no reason why Conscious Space cannot eventually be a standard understandable component of Science. As long as there is a Hard Problem, Science will be incomplete.

Yes science can address things that exist "in" the world, and the one exception to that is conscious experience. Something can't exist "in" itself.

[Consul]

We are at an Impasse. To me, the Phenomena of Conscious Experience are so Categorically different from the Neural Activity that supposedly produces them, that it is more Sensible to think that they are something different than the Neural Activity. How are you ever going to find Redness in the Neurons? Do you really think it will be a lesser problem to find Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste in the Neurons? I think it will be easier to just admit that these Conscious Experiences are such existentially different Phenomena from anything Science knows about Neurons that they cannot be in the Neurons. It is much simpler to admit that they exist in some abstract Conscious Space that the Brain is Connected with. Quantum Mechanical principle are the best bet to understanding how the Connection is accomplished.

What exactly makes you believe that "the Phenomena of Conscious Experience are so Categorically different from the Neural Activity"?

"To find Redness in the Neurons" is certainly not to find red neurons, but to find the nonred neural elements of redness that collectively constitute it (as we experience it).

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"Was also in der inneren Wahrnehmung als Vorstellung, Gefühl, Gedanke von bestimmtem Gehalt und bestimmter Färbung auftritt, das würde, wenn wir uns in demselben Moment zugleich als organischen Körper und in unserer physischen Structur vollkommen durchsichtig vor Augen haben könnten, als eine Coordination molarer und molecularer Bewegungen der Centraltheile in Nervenzellen und Nervenfasern entgegentreten und umgekehrt."
———
"So what appears in inner perception as an image, feeling, or thought with a certain content and a certain tone, that would, if we could view ourselves in the same moment perfectly transparently both as an organic body and in our physical structure, be encountered as a coordination of molar and molecular motions of the central parts in nerve cells and nerve fibers, and vice versa."
[© my transl. from German]

(Jodl, Friedrich. Lehrbuch der Psychologie. [Textbook of Psychology.] Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1896. p. 57)
<QUOTE

[SteveKlinko]

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

I disagree. Science is just about explaining the World. Conscious Experience exists in the World so Science must ultimately Explain it. There is no reason why Conscious Space cannot eventually be a standard understandable component of Science. As long as there is a Hard Problem, Science will be incomplete.

Yes science can address things that exist "in" the world, and the one exception to that is conscious experience. Something can't exist "in" itself.

Don't quite get: Something can't exist "in" itself.

[SteveKlinko]

We are at an Impasse. To me, the Phenomena of Conscious Experience are so Categorically different from the Neural Activity that supposedly produces them, that it is more Sensible to think that they are something different than the Neural Activity. How are you ever going to find Redness in the Neurons? Do you really think it will be a lesser problem to find Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste in the Neurons? I think it will be easier to just admit that these Conscious Experiences are such existentially different Phenomena from anything Science knows about Neurons that they cannot be in the Neurons. It is much simpler to admit that they exist in some abstract Conscious Space that the Brain is Connected with. Quantum Mechanical principle are the best bet to understanding how the Connection is accomplished.

What exactly makes you believe that "the Phenomena of Conscious Experience are so Categorically different from the Neural Activity"?

"To find Redness in the Neurons" is certainly not to find red neurons, but to find the nonred neural elements of redness that collectively constitute it (as we experience it).

So then some Magical Collective of Neurons constitutes Redness. How?