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

[Sy Borg]

We don't know how to measure that yet.

It is the Embarrassment of Science that we don't know how to measure Conscious Experience yet. The Embarrassment is the fact that Science does not even understand that there is something to Measure. They just obsessively look at the Neurons hoping that the Conscious Experience will magically spring from the Neural Activity. Nobody, nowhere, is even trying to Measure Conscious Experience itself.

There are quite a few embarrassments, or opportunities, depending on one's perspective - the big bang, dark energy and dark matter, abiogenesis, QM and relativity, cancer, time, and so on. As far as I can tell, emergent phenomena occurs when brains are sufficiently complex and integrated, but I am also not sure that a basic sense of being is generated by neurons, even though that is the most widely accepted hypothesis. I am not convinced of the existence of "biological machines" because an organism's senses are innate to it, while a machine's senses are a relatively abstracted addendum.

The senses are also an abstracted addendum to Biological Machines through the Millions of years of Evolution.

An addendum, yes, but not necessarily abstract because the senses are there for the sake of the organism, whereas the senses of machines are for the benefit of humans. So sensing machines are just extensions of human senses and are not complete entities in themselves.

[Belindi]

I still think that animals declaring other animals "non-conscious" based on assumptions is problematic.

Humanity has a long and ugly history of treating its own type of consciousness as a yardstick, as if it was typical. In fact, humanlike consciousness is an extreme outlier. Thus, humans are the very worst species to use as the basis of consciousness studies. A significant issue here is the use of post hoc rationalisations to describe human behaviours that are, at heart, no more complex than P. pacificus's discretionary treatment of C. elegans - just reflexes with justifications made after the fact.

It is the Conscious Experience as a thing in itself that is at issue. Any subsequent Behaviors are irrelevant to the study of the Conscious Sensory Experience if you are trying to understand the Experience itself.

Steve, by "the Experience itself" (and I note your honorific capital E) do you refer to pre-cognitive , pre-linguistic, experience ?

I am referring to Sensory Experiences like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, and etc. These are the common Experiences that Exist in the Mind. I think Pre Cognitive has something to do with seeing into the future and Pre Linguistic has something to do with communicating without Language? I would not know how to classify my Experience of Redness into any of those two categories. Except that I have had discussions with people in the past who were adamant that you cannot have a Color Experience without a name for the Color. To me that is a very weird belief. I just Experience Redness, without a need for the word Red. So maybe I can say that the Redness Experience is Pre Linguistic.

Maybe music is a more fertile area than colour, if we need to describe "the Experience itself" or "the pre-linguistic, pre-cognitive".

I'm thinking of the question : what if anything is there in music that appeals if we have never learned anything to say about music?

One answer to that question is "rhythm". Rhythm is so integral to all life including yours and mine that when we encounter rhythm in music we recognise it as part of ourselves. We can live without red but no living being can live without rhythm.

[SteveKlinko]

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Take a look at this Forum Topic on Connectism:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17727

While not intended, thanks for the reminder. I remembered that I left one of your questions in this thread unanswered, that was, how the attributes of Conscious Mind(Qualia) such as redness could spring from the Physical Mind. I think I have somewhat of a vague answer to this question:

They are essentially “how neurons are affected by the outside world in a specific way due to the specific nature of what they are made out of as well as their inner functions”.

I'll explain further because I don't want to be TOO vague either. Because of the laws of physics, materials are bound to react to some degree from outside impulses. Different materials are bound to react differently to each outside impulses, especially when it comes to cellular objects, they would react with more intensity as they have a lot of inner functions going on, as opposed to metal or wood which are just molecules combined together. Redness is when the specific frequency of the lightwave makes our neurons(out of all objects) react and activate in a certain specific way. To be more specific, it is how the neurons themselves translate that "red" frequency part of light into their own language, something they can describe only using what materials and functions they are made out of & how they are affected by this lightwave.

That is to say, redness can therefore be described as a frequency of light that is solely described by the neurons' own native materials and functions. And so this information of redness is spread throughout the neighboring neurons and is very easily understood by them, as redness is how only the neurons specifically "see" the "red" frequency of the light. How that frequency affects their materials and functions.

In a way, the creation of Qualia is akin to a process of translating a language.

Here.

Even you think your answer is Vague. It's not just Vague, it's not an Explanation. You say that the Neurons Translate the Red Light into the Redness Experience. But Science has known that for over a hundred years. You are merely just saying the Neurons do it. You gave no Explanation for How this is happening. So you really are just saying the Neurons do it, and that is that. How do the Neurons do it? That is the question.

[SteveKlinko]

It is the Embarrassment of Science that we don't know how to measure Conscious Experience yet. The Embarrassment is the fact that Science does not even understand that there is something to Measure. They just obsessively look at the Neurons hoping that the Conscious Experience will magically spring from the Neural Activity. Nobody, nowhere, is even trying to Measure Conscious Experience itself.

There are quite a few embarrassments, or opportunities, depending on one's perspective - the big bang, dark energy and dark matter, abiogenesis, QM and relativity, cancer, time, and so on. As far as I can tell, emergent phenomena occurs when brains are sufficiently complex and integrated, but I am also not sure that a basic sense of being is generated by neurons, even though that is the most widely accepted hypothesis. I am not convinced of the existence of "biological machines" because an organism's senses are innate to it, while a machine's senses are a relatively abstracted addendum.

The senses are also an abstracted addendum to Biological Machines through the Millions of years of Evolution.

An addendum, yes, but not necessarily abstract because the senses are there for the sake of the organism, whereas the senses of machines are for the benefit of humans. So sensing machines are just extensions of human senses and are not complete entities in themselves.

Odd semantical argument, but ok I give up.

[SteveKlinko]

It is the Conscious Experience as a thing in itself that is at issue. Any subsequent Behaviors are irrelevant to the study of the Conscious Sensory Experience if you are trying to understand the Experience itself.

Steve, by "the Experience itself" (and I note your honorific capital E) do you refer to pre-cognitive , pre-linguistic, experience ?

I am referring to Sensory Experiences like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, and etc. These are the common Experiences that Exist in the Mind. I think Pre Cognitive has something to do with seeing into the future and Pre Linguistic has something to do with communicating without Language? I would not know how to classify my Experience of Redness into any of those two categories. Except that I have had discussions with people in the past who were adamant that you cannot have a Color Experience without a name for the Color. To me that is a very weird belief. I just Experience Redness, without a need for the word Red. So maybe I can say that the Redness Experience is Pre Linguistic.

Maybe music is a more fertile area than colour, if we need to describe "the Experience itself" or "the pre-linguistic, pre-cognitive".

I'm thinking of the question : what if anything is there in music that appeals if we have never learned anything to say about music?

One answer to that question is "rhythm". Rhythm is so integral to all life including yours and mine that when we encounter rhythm in music we recognise it as part of ourselves. We can live without red but no living being can live without rhythm.

I am actually addicted to Music and I need a Music fix at least once a week. I listen Loud and with lots of Bass. I find that after an hour of this I get tired of the Music and literally cannot listen anymore. I wont' crave it again for a couple of days. But the craving always comes back and I need to listen again. I have lived in this cycle as far as I can remember. This addiction has caused me to buy lots of expensive equipment over the years. It is a hobby as well as an addiction. But the enjoyment I get from this is not Explainable because it is strictly a Conscious Experience enjoyment. So even though I know a language, I cannot express what I like about it. I have tried to express it, but the words are always hollow and never really describe it, so I won't even try. I cannot describe it with Language. You most likely would not get the same Experience that I do even if you listened to the same Music I do. With regard to Rhythm, it has been suggested that the only reason we want to move our limbs or whole bodies is that the Hearing areas of the Cortex are right next to the Movement areas, and there could be over flow of signals from the Hearing areas exciting the Movement centers to the Rhythm of the Music. Doesn't seem to work in the other direction though. I never Hear Sounds to the Rhythm of my legs when I'm out for a run.

[Pattern-chaser]

[W]hat we perceive is, in general, what we expect to perceive. Our perceptions are no guide to what is, as opposed to what we perceive. I'm sorry you found my comment offensive.

Interesting perspective, but even so, how could we possibly tell that what we perceive is what we perceive, instead of that what we perceive is what *is*?

If what we perceive is indeed what we perceive, then one can say the fact that the act of perceiving "is", is what allows us to perceive what we perceive in the first place. Turning this notion into something in-between "We perceive what is" and "We perceive what we perceive".

So in the long run, it's hard to tell what "is" and what "we perceive". Perhaps the only way to tell is to experience them, and not understand them.

Any thoughts?

The answer to your question is that we can't ("tell that what we perceive is what we perceive, instead of that what we perceive is what *is*"). In practical and pragmatic terms, for us humans, life is uncertain. There are no guarantees and no certainties. That's part of the joy of being a human, living a human life in the real world. All Objectivists (and the like) are in denial of this simple, empirically-verifiable fact: there are no certainties.

My attitude is this: if we can't change it or avoid it, then we must accept it. What else could we possibly do?

[Sy Borg]

There are quite a few embarrassments, or opportunities, depending on one's perspective - the big bang, dark energy and dark matter, abiogenesis, QM and relativity, cancer, time, and so on. As far as I can tell, emergent phenomena occurs when brains are sufficiently complex and integrated, but I am also not sure that a basic sense of being is generated by neurons, even though that is the most widely accepted hypothesis. I am not convinced of the existence of "biological machines" because an organism's senses are innate to it, while a machine's senses are a relatively abstracted addendum.

The senses are also an abstracted addendum to Biological Machines through the Millions of years of Evolution.

An addendum, yes, but not necessarily abstract because the senses are there for the sake of the organism, whereas the senses of machines are for the benefit of humans. So sensing machines are just extensions of human senses and are not complete entities in themselves.

Odd semantical argument, but ok I give up.

I do not accept your surrender At the risk of flogging a dead horse ...

My argument only seems odd because almost all entities are simultaneously themselves, the product of many smaller entities and part of a much larger entity. It seems paradoxical but it's just a matter of differing perspectives.

My point was just that the term "biological machines" is invalid, misleading and it has been at the root of many cruelties. When aspects of life look to us like machines, that only reveals the observer's lack of familiarity and understanding of the observed. After all, it's not easy to empathise with much simpler organisms. However, humans look like mindless ants when observed from on high, ants that automatically form long lines in the morning and late afternoon, that scurry in all directions when it rains, that flee from fire and occasionally congregate.

Bottom line: Either being alive means not being a machine, or everything is a machine (in which case, that definition loses meaning).

[Belindi]

Steve, by "the Experience itself" (and I note your honorific capital E) do you refer to pre-cognitive , pre-linguistic, experience ?

I am referring to Sensory Experiences like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, and etc. These are the common Experiences that Exist in the Mind. I think Pre Cognitive has something to do with seeing into the future and Pre Linguistic has something to do with communicating without Language? I would not know how to classify my Experience of Redness into any of those two categories. Except that I have had discussions with people in the past who were adamant that you cannot have a Color Experience without a name for the Color. To me that is a very weird belief. I just Experience Redness, without a need for the word Red. So maybe I can say that the Redness Experience is Pre Linguistic.

Maybe music is a more fertile area than colour, if we need to describe "the Experience itself" or "the pre-linguistic, pre-cognitive".

I'm thinking of the question : what if anything is there in music that appeals if we have never learned anything to say about music?

One answer to that question is "rhythm". Rhythm is so integral to all life including yours and mine that when we encounter rhythm in music we recognise it as part of ourselves. We can live without red but no living being can live without rhythm.

I am actually addicted to Music and I need a Music fix at least once a week. I listen Loud and with lots of Bass. I find that after an hour of this I get tired of the Music and literally cannot listen anymore. I wont' crave it again for a couple of days. But the craving always comes back and I need to listen again. I have lived in this cycle as far as I can remember. This addiction has caused me to buy lots of expensive equipment over the years. It is a hobby as well as an addiction. But the enjoyment I get from this is not Explainable because it is strictly a Conscious Experience enjoyment. So even though I know a language, I cannot express what I like about it. I have tried to express it, but the words are always hollow and never really describe it, so I won't even try. I cannot describe it with Language. You most likely would not get the same Experience that I do even if you listened to the same Music I do. With regard to Rhythm, it has been suggested that the only reason we want to move our limbs or whole bodies is that the Hearing areas of the Cortex are right next to the Movement areas, and there could be over flow of signals from the Hearing areas exciting the Movement centers to the Rhythm of the Music. Doesn't seem to work in the other direction though. I never Hear Sounds to the Rhythm of my legs when I'm out for a run.

Broken rhythms are rhythms too and our hearts and lungs know them intimately. I urge you to feel the wise broken rhythms of your legs when you are out running.

[SteveKlinko]

The senses are also an abstracted addendum to Biological Machines through the Millions of years of Evolution.

An addendum, yes, but not necessarily abstract because the senses are there for the sake of the organism, whereas the senses of machines are for the benefit of humans. So sensing machines are just extensions of human senses and are not complete entities in themselves.

Odd semantical argument, but ok I give up.

I do not accept your surrender At the risk of flogging a dead horse ...

My argument only seems odd because almost all entities are simultaneously themselves, the product of many smaller entities and part of a much larger entity. It seems paradoxical but it's just a matter of differing perspectives.

My point was just that the term "biological machines" is invalid, misleading and it has been at the root of many cruelties. When aspects of life look to us like machines, that only reveals the observer's lack of familiarity and understanding of the observed. After all, it's not easy to empathise with much simpler organisms. However, humans look like mindless ants when observed from on high, ants that automatically form long lines in the morning and late afternoon, that scurry in all directions when it rains, that flee from fire and occasionally congregate.

Bottom line: Either being alive means not being a machine, or everything is a machine (in which case, that definition loses meaning).

Science teaches us how we are Machines. We are Conscious Machines, but Machines nevertheless. Our Machine Self is Connected to our Conscious Self.

[SteveKlinko]

I am referring to Sensory Experiences like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, and etc. These are the common Experiences that Exist in the Mind. I think Pre Cognitive has something to do with seeing into the future and Pre Linguistic has something to do with communicating without Language? I would not know how to classify my Experience of Redness into any of those two categories. Except that I have had discussions with people in the past who were adamant that you cannot have a Color Experience without a name for the Color. To me that is a very weird belief. I just Experience Redness, without a need for the word Red. So maybe I can say that the Redness Experience is Pre Linguistic.

Maybe music is a more fertile area than colour, if we need to describe "the Experience itself" or "the pre-linguistic, pre-cognitive".

I'm thinking of the question : what if anything is there in music that appeals if we have never learned anything to say about music?

One answer to that question is "rhythm". Rhythm is so integral to all life including yours and mine that when we encounter rhythm in music we recognise it as part of ourselves. We can live without red but no living being can live without rhythm.

I am actually addicted to Music and I need a Music fix at least once a week. I listen Loud and with lots of Bass. I find that after an hour of this I get tired of the Music and literally cannot listen anymore. I wont' crave it again for a couple of days. But the craving always comes back and I need to listen again. I have lived in this cycle as far as I can remember. This addiction has caused me to buy lots of expensive equipment over the years. It is a hobby as well as an addiction. But the enjoyment I get from this is not Explainable because it is strictly a Conscious Experience enjoyment. So even though I know a language, I cannot express what I like about it. I have tried to express it, but the words are always hollow and never really describe it, so I won't even try. I cannot describe it with Language. You most likely would not get the same Experience that I do even if you listened to the same Music I do. With regard to Rhythm, it has been suggested that the only reason we want to move our limbs or whole bodies is that the Hearing areas of the Cortex are right next to the Movement areas, and there could be over flow of signals from the Hearing areas exciting the Movement centers to the Rhythm of the Music. Doesn't seem to work in the other direction though. I never Hear Sounds to the Rhythm of my legs when I'm out for a run.

Broken rhythms are rhythms too and our hearts and lungs know them intimately. I urge you to feel the wise broken rhythms of your legs when you are out running.

Yes, there is a certain sensation of Rhythm while running. That sensation originates in the Motion areas of the Cortex. Makes sense to experience Rhythm while Running, where the Motion area is highly activated, but it is unexpected that the Rhythm sensation could be activated by Sound.

[Pattern-chaser]

Science teaches us how we are Machines.

Then science teaches us incorrectly, or maybe incompletely? That we can be seen as machines is a useful metaphor/perspective, but it is not an accurate factual observation, it's a speculation-aid.

[SteveKlinko]

Science teaches us how we are Machines.

Then science teaches us incorrectly, or maybe incompletely? That we can be seen as machines is a useful metaphor/perspective, but it is not an accurate factual observation, it's a speculation-aid.

It's not a metaphor. We are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human. Consciousness is Connected to the Human and is not any part of the Physical Human Machine.

[Belindi]

Science teaches us how we are Machines.

Then science teaches us incorrectly, or maybe incompletely? That we can be seen as machines is a useful metaphor/perspective, but it is not an accurate factual observation, it's a speculation-aid.

It's not a metaphor. We are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human. Consciousness is Connected to the Human and is not any part of the Physical Human Machine.

Yes, but maybe everything you think, including (We -are- made -out -of -Physical -substances) and believe is created by your mind

[SteveKlinko]

Science teaches us how we are Machines.

Then science teaches us incorrectly, or maybe incompletely? That we can be seen as machines is a useful metaphor/perspective, but it is not an accurate factual observation, it's a speculation-aid.

It's not a metaphor. We are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human. Consciousness is Connected to the Human and is not any part of the Physical Human Machine.

Yes, but maybe everything you think, including (We -are- made -out -of -Physical -substances) and believe is created by your mind

That Idealist philosophy could be true, because any Speculation is on the table when dealing with Conscious Experience. However, I can only pursue what seems to me to be the best Path.

[Pattern-chaser]

Science teaches us how we are Machines.

Then science teaches us incorrectly, or maybe incompletely? That we can be seen as machines is a useful metaphor/perspective, but it is not an accurate factual observation, it's a speculation-aid.

It's not a metaphor. We are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human. Consciousness is Connected to the Human and is not any part of the Physical Human Machine.

Our bodies are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human because it isn't there. The mind is not physical, as we all know. But a human being is an embodied mind - or an en-minded body - so "Physical Human" is an incomplete description of a human being.