Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Atla]

When you say "I haven't seen..." do you mean that you've read some undergraduate physics textbooks and found that they don't contain what you're referring to here? Or do you mean that you haven't looked? Or neither of those two things? At this point, I'd be interested to know: have you studied physics?

I've studied physics at the university (electrical engineering), didn't finish it. You've seen textbooks that explore or at least mention possible universal implications of some sort of observer-dependent reality?
Then why is it that many physicists vehemently deny this possibility, dismiss it as woo. And just ramble something about interactions or decoherence, like those had anything to do with it?

We're talking about the chapter entitled "The Visit to Heg Ahne Poc - A Quantum Parable" yes?

I've just been briefly reading it but had to break off to do something else. First thought: it looks like the sort of parable/analogy that might occur, in various forms, in other popular accounts of QM. I'll read it again when I get some time and comment some more.

Yes that chapter. Now if you understand what it says, wouldn't you say that the universe always seems to 'manifest' in ways that are coherent what we are doing, or thinking even. So in a sense, 'subjective mental' phenomena, and the 'objective physical' outside world, seem to be one and the same kind of thing.

[Atla]

Consciousness can have at least half a dozen different meanings in science and philosophy. Trying to squeeze everything into the box of the GNW is something the likes of Dennett would do.

It's only something that people who want to successfully model consciousness like to do. In other words, it isn't your thing.

I consider myself fairly good at modeling consciousness in the GNW sense, thank you. And I pity those who convinced themselves that consciousness in this sense covers everything there is to know.

[Faustus5]

And I pity those who convinced themselves that consciousness in this sense covers everything there is to know.

Get back to us when you can point to any uncontroversial and unchallenged "facts" that this model leaves out. Good luck with that!

And better, do tell us exactly at one point in quantum physics measurements that any concept of "consciousness" plays a unique role worthy of discussion. Even better luck with that!

[Atla]

Get back to us when you can point to any uncontroversial and unchallenged "facts" that this model leaves out. Good luck with that!

We already did that with the Hard problem of consciousness thing. You also ended up asserting and denying experience at the same time, maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what a contradiction is.

And better, do tell us exactly at one point in quantum physics measurements that any concept of "consciousness" plays a unique role worthy of discussion. Even better luck with that!

Sure, after you've quoted me saying that consciousness plays a "unique role".

[Pattern-chaser]

...maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what a contradiction is.

...and maybe you would profit from considering how your audience will respond to your words? I started a "Writing style" topic in the Lounge that you might like to sample? If you insult people, they stop listening. It doesn't matter how right you are.

[Atla]

...maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what a contradiction is.

...and maybe you would profit from considering how your audience will respond to your words? I started a "Writing style" topic in the Lounge that you might like to sample? If you insult people, they stop listening. It doesn't matter how right you are.

You guys are usually the ones to start the insults from where I'm standing, and then can't handle it when I return the favor.

[Pattern-chaser]

...and maybe you would profit from considering how your audience will respond to your words? I started a "Writing style" topic in the Lounge that you might like to sample? If you insult people, they stop listening. It doesn't matter how right you are.

You guys are usually the ones to start the insults from where I'm standing, and then can't handle it when I return the favor.

Insults are personal attacks. Philosophical discourse - and debate in general - involves addressing only the argument(s) presented. The difference is pretty easy to spot.

[Atla]

You guys are usually the ones to start the insults from where I'm standing, and then can't handle it when I return the favor.

Insults are personal attacks. Philosophical discourse - and debate in general - involves addressing only the argument(s) presented. The difference is pretty easy to spot.

Right. And my position wasn't attacked so far, I only got a fairly confident, condescending remark from you that I must have read something in some book, that I must not have understood well enough, and I'm basing my wrong ideas on that. Even though, as I said, you don't even seem to be aware what the subject is, and it's impossible for me to explain it in a few posts. And my theories are based on a unification of all scientific knowledge, not just one book.

Or remember the last thread, where I was arguing for the idea that throughout history, people having to do with the autism spectrum, especially Aspies (just think Newton or Einstein for example, who are suspected to have been Aspies) may have introduced more logical thought than usual, which propelled humanity forward. And instead of attacking the (imo pretty sound) idea, you demanded that I say no more, because I'm being super disrespectful or whatever.

[Pattern-chaser]

Insults are personal attacks. Philosophical discourse - and debate in general - involves addressing only the argument(s) presented. The difference is pretty easy to spot.

Right. And my position wasn't attacked so far, I only got a fairly confident, condescending remark from you that I must have read something in some book, that I must not have understood well enough, and I'm basing my wrong ideas on that. Even though, as I said, you don't even seem to be aware what the subject is, and it's impossible for me to explain it in a few posts. And my theories are based on a unification of all scientific knowledge, not just one book.

Or remember the last thread, where I was arguing for the idea that throughout history, people having to do with the autism spectrum, especially Aspies (just think Newton or Einstein for example, who are suspected to have been Aspies) may have introduced more logical thought than usual, which propelled humanity forward. And instead of attacking the (imo pretty sound) idea, you demanded that I say no more, because I'm being super disrespectful or whatever.

This is the straw-man approach that autistic people find so difficult to understand about neurotypical communication. My remark was not condescending, but only a reaction to your continuing thread of preaching to us all how we don't understand the problem; that we are not even capable of such understanding.

I never make demands, and certainly not on public forums like this one. What would be the point? I have no means to enforce, or require compliance, with such demands. In that case, you were promoting your ignorant and damaging misunderstandings of autism, and I felt I needed to call attention to this.

[Atla]

This is the straw-man approach that autistic people find so difficult to understand about neurotypical communication. My remark was not condescending, but only a reaction to your continuing thread of preaching to us all how we don't understand the problem; that we are not even capable of such understanding.

See when you lie like this about me for no good reason, I take it as an insult, an ad hominem. Nowhere did I claim that you guys are incapable of such understanding.

I never make demands, and certainly not on public forums like this one. What would be the point? I have no means to enforce, or require compliance, with such demands. In that case, you were promoting your ignorant and damaging misunderstandings of autism, and I felt I needed to call attention to this.

Are you saying that Aspies have nothing to do with the autism spectrum, or where was the ignorant/damaging misunderstanding?

[Faustus5]

You also ended up asserting and denying experience at the same time, maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what a contradiction is.

I did no such thing. I merely rejected your goofy, evidence-free and metaphysics based conception of what experience is, which any serious and scientific model of consciousness will have zero time for.

Glad you're backing away from the New Age quantum physics/consciousness stuff, though. It is for the best, really.

[Atla]

You also ended up asserting and denying experience at the same time, maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what a contradiction is.

I did no such thing. I merely rejected your goofy, evidence-free and metaphysics based conception of what experience is, which any serious and scientific model of consciousness will have zero time for.

Glad you're backing away from the New Age quantum physics/consciousness stuff, though. It is for the best, really.

Again you are merely demonstrating your ignorance about what a scientific model of human consciousness even is. For some reason you also forgot to quote the statement I'm supposed to be backing away from. Weird how some people will go so far to show that they have no credibility.

[Atla]

I'm really just stating basic things on philosophy forums, and usually no one gets them. The possible philosophies I'm actually interested in are 5-10 steps beyond this. Oh well I'll calculate them by myself.

[Faustus5]

Again you are merely demonstrating your ignorance about what a scientific model of human consciousness even is.

And of course, you couldn't articulate or point out so much as one mistake or factual error I've made, anywhere. Not even one. So much for credibility, eh?

For some reason you also forgot to quote the statement I'm supposed to be backing away from. Weird how some people will go so far to show that they have no credibility.

Several times, I've requested that you describe the actual measurement process in quantum physics and identify precisely where and how consciousness enters into the picture. You won't. You can't. That's what backing away from a preposterous claim looks like.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm really just stating basic things on philosophy forums, and usually no one gets them. The possible philosophies I'm actually interested in are 5-10 steps beyond this. Oh well I'll calculate them by myself.

No, you don't "state" things, you refer indirectly to these things, sometimes offering us reading lists or links. But you never tell us what these things are. As for this "5-10 steps beyond this" philosophy, this is a perfect example. You give us no hint of the subject matter this philosophy considers, but only imply that we are too retarded in our philosophy to keep up with you. And maybe we are. Without some simple and clear words from you, we'll never know, will we?