Philosophy Discussion Forums

stevie wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:02 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 11:02 am ... I will stipulate that the theory must address Conscious Experience and not just talk about some vague generalized Consciousness concept. I will state that there actually is no such thing as just Consciousness. It is always some kind of Conscious Experience. ...

That appears to be a reasonable approach because I am conditioned by the view that there is no consciousness without object ("object" = that which is experienced). That implies that consciousness is necessarily dualistic because where there is an object there necessarily is a subject and that the experience of self and experience of 'other than self' always arise together although not necessarily equally clear.
However being committed to scientific evidence I have to admit that what I've just said of course isn't supported by science but is only an expression of an arbitrary philosophical view which I am inclined to due to earlier conditioning not because I believe it to be true ... which leads me to conclude that due to the current state of neuroscience the topic of this thread necessarily is a quagmire of speculations and maybe the best is to not get further involved in it.

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.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:40 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑February 27th, 2022, 9:05 pm How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 28th, 2022, 10:00 am Exactly.

Consul wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 5:25 pm Having certain patterns of neuroelectrical spike trains or waves instantiated in one's brain means "being immersed in a broad suite of sensations"!

Yes, and yet the abstract distance between the two things you describe - neuro-waves and "a broad suite of sensations" - remains too huge for a human brain to cross in one jump. I do not dispute the truth of what you say, but only the accessibility of its meaning and the ramifications thereof.

That's the thing, that's not even an abstract distance. An abstract distance is between two abstract things, but the neuro-waves are abstract and the sensations are concrete (at least when contrasted to each other). It's simply a thinking error to think of a gap between them that one needs to jump. It makes no sense.

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:25 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:40 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑February 27th, 2022, 9:05 pm How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 28th, 2022, 10:00 am Exactly.

Consul wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 5:25 pm Having certain patterns of neuroelectrical spike trains or waves instantiated in one's brain means "being immersed in a broad suite of sensations"!

Yes, and yet the abstract distance between the two things you describe - neuro-waves and "a broad suite of sensations" - remains too huge for a human brain to cross in one jump. I do not dispute the truth of what you say, but only the accessibility of its meaning and the ramifications thereof.

That's the thing, that's not even an abstract distance. An abstract distance is between two abstract things, but the neuro-waves are abstract and the sensations are concrete (at least when contrasted to each other). It's simply a thinking error to think of a gap between them that one needs to jump. It makes no sense.

The Hard Problem is alive and well.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:25 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:40 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑February 27th, 2022, 9:05 pm How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 28th, 2022, 10:00 am Exactly.

Consul wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 5:25 pm Having certain patterns of neuroelectrical spike trains or waves instantiated in one's brain means "being immersed in a broad suite of sensations"!

Yes, and yet the abstract distance between the two things you describe - neuro-waves and "a broad suite of sensations" - remains too huge for a human brain to cross in one jump. I do not dispute the truth of what you say, but only the accessibility of its meaning and the ramifications thereof.

That's the thing, that's not even an abstract distance. An abstract distance is between two abstract things, but the neuro-waves are abstract and the sensations are concrete (at least when contrasted to each other). It's simply a thinking error to think of a gap between them that one needs to jump. It makes no sense.

The Hard Problem is alive and well.

Only to those who continue to insist on the double vision (or triple vision as in your theory).

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:45 am

Belindi wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 6:44 am I don't remember much of anatomy but I think whether or not an organ can be sore depends on whether or not it's supplied with feed-back nerves to the central system of nerves (mainly the brain).

If you block the feedback nerves locally you have local anaesthesia or a surgical intervention

...or MS, as I have.

Belindi wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 6:44 am Brains don't need feedback nerves to cerebral centres as they are well protected by skull and dura. I daresay brains would need feedback nerves if brains were external as are the roots of trees. I suppose there must exist diagrams of all this and I may look for them. Unless someone else already knows of such diagrams?

The central nervous system is divided into sensory and motor nerves. They have even invented the compound word 'sensorimotor' for when we wish to talk of both at the same time. The 'feedback' nerves you refer to are the sensory nerves.

Thanks, PC

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 9:58 am

stevie wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:02 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 11:02 am ... I will stipulate that the theory must address Conscious Experience and not just talk about some vague generalized Consciousness concept. I will state that there actually is no such thing as just Consciousness. It is always some kind of Conscious Experience. ...

That appears to be a reasonable approach because I am conditioned by the view that there is no consciousness without object ("object" = that which is experienced). That implies that consciousness is necessarily dualistic because where there is an object there necessarily is a subject and that the experience of self and experience of 'other than self' always arise together although not necessarily equally clear.
However being committed to scientific evidence I have to admit that what I've just said of course isn't supported by science but is only an expression of an arbitrary philosophical view which I am inclined to due to earlier conditioning not because I believe it to be true ... which leads me to conclude that due to the current state of neuroscience the topic of this thread necessarily is a quagmire of speculations and maybe the best is to not get further involved in it.

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.

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:25 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:40 am





Yes, and yet the abstract distance between the two things you describe - neuro-waves and "a broad suite of sensations" - remains too huge for a human brain to cross in one jump. I do not dispute the truth of what you say, but only the accessibility of its meaning and the ramifications thereof.

That's the thing, that's not even an abstract distance. An abstract distance is between two abstract things, but the neuro-waves are abstract and the sensations are concrete (at least when contrasted to each other). It's simply a thinking error to think of a gap between them that one needs to jump. It makes no sense.

The Hard Problem is alive and well.

Only to those who continue to insist on the double vision (or triple vision as in your theory).

There will be a Triple Vision in any theory. If you are a Physicalist you still have to Explain how the Neural Activity produces the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. Whatever the Process is that creates the Conscious Experience, be it Chemical, Electrical, Atomic, etc., will be part of the Inter Mind.

stevie wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 3:38 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 9:58 am

stevie wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:02 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 11:02 am ... I will stipulate that the theory must address Conscious Experience and not just talk about some vague generalized Consciousness concept. I will state that there actually is no such thing as just Consciousness. It is always some kind of Conscious Experience. ...

That appears to be a reasonable approach because I am conditioned by the view that there is no consciousness without object ("object" = that which is experienced). That implies that consciousness is necessarily dualistic because where there is an object there necessarily is a subject and that the experience of self and experience of 'other than self' always arise together although not necessarily equally clear.
However being committed to scientific evidence I have to admit that what I've just said of course isn't supported by science but is only an expression of an arbitrary philosophical view which I am inclined to due to earlier conditioning not because I believe it to be true ... which leads me to conclude that due to the current state of neuroscience the topic of this thread necessarily is a quagmire of speculations and maybe the best is to not get further involved in it.

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.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 8:31 am

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:25 pm
That's the thing, that's not even an abstract distance. An abstract distance is between two abstract things, but the neuro-waves are abstract and the sensations are concrete (at least when contrasted to each other). It's simply a thinking error to think of a gap between them that one needs to jump. It makes no sense.

The Hard Problem is alive and well.

Only to those who continue to insist on the double vision (or triple vision as in your theory).

There will be a Triple Vision in any theory. If you are a Physicalist you still have to Explain how the Neural Activity produces the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. Whatever the Process is that creates the Conscious Experience, be it Chemical, Electrical, Atomic, etc., will be part of the Inter Mind.

?? 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.

stevie wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 3:38 am 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 publicly.

Sometimes, we (scientists) find the evidence first, then we speculate about possible explanations, Other times, we speculate a possible explanation, and then we carry out experiments to see if there is empirical evidence to support it. Either way, we speculate, and we investigate - e.g. by experiment - and the combination results in a working and workable theory, or that theory is discarded once it is shown to be unacceptable.

Your preference for (scientific) certainty seems to prevent you from seeing how RL science works, and is practised. Speculation and confirmation.

Atla wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 9:46 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 8:31 am

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 12:55 pm
The Hard Problem is alive and well.

Only to those who continue to insist on the double vision (or triple vision as in your theory).

There will be a Triple Vision in any theory. If you are a Physicalist you still have to Explain how the Neural Activity produces the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. Whatever the Process is that creates the Conscious Experience, be it Chemical, Electrical, Atomic, etc., will be part of the Inter Mind.

?? 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.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 11:25 am

Atla wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 9:46 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 8:31 am

Atla wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:16 pm
Only to those who continue to insist on the double vision (or triple vision as in your theory).

There will be a Triple Vision in any theory. If you are a Physicalist you still have to Explain how the Neural Activity produces the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. Whatever the Process is that creates the Conscious Experience, be it Chemical, Electrical, Atomic, etc., will be part of the Inter Mind.

?? 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.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 8:37 am

stevie wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 3:38 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 9:58 am

stevie wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:02 am
That appears to be a reasonable approach because I am conditioned by the view that there is no consciousness without object ("object" = that which is experienced). That implies that consciousness is necessarily dualistic because where there is an object there necessarily is a subject and that the experience of self and experience of 'other than self' always arise together although not necessarily equally clear.
However being committed to scientific evidence I have to admit that what I've just said of course isn't supported by science but is only an expression of an arbitrary philosophical view which I am inclined to due to earlier conditioning not because I believe it to be true ... which leads me to conclude that due to the current state of neuroscience the topic of this thread necessarily is a quagmire of speculations and maybe the best is to not get further involved in it.

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).

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 11:14 am

stevie wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 3:38 am 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 publicly.

Sometimes, we (scientists) find the evidence first, then we speculate about possible explanations, Other times, we speculate a possible explanation, and then we carry out experiments to see if there is empirical evidence to support it. Either way, we speculate, and we investigate - e.g. by experiment - and the combination results in a working and workable theory, or that theory is discarded once it is shown to be unacceptable.

Your preference for (scientific) certainty seems to prevent you from seeing how RL science works, and is practised. Speculation and confirmation.

We have already covered the difference between scientific hypotheses and speculation elsewhere. You have not understood there and I am not willing to restart the topic here since I don't expect that you will understand now.

Atla wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 12:12 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 11:25 am

Atla wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 9:46 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 8:31 am
There will be a Triple Vision in any theory. If you are a Physicalist you still have to Explain how the Neural Activity produces the Conscious Experience of something like Redness. Whatever the Process is that creates the Conscious Experience, be it Chemical, Electrical, Atomic, etc., will be part of the Inter Mind.

?? 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.