Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: Ad hominems are not necessarily insults. Do you not understand the reason why ad hominems are logical fallacies? .
Can't you even be bothered to read what I said?

No wonder you can' follow a thread!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
No, I can't be bothered. You have had nothing useful to say for some time, other than ad hominem attacks, so I tuned out.

Now please go away and let people discuss the topic. I have tried to get you to address your illogical and unsubstantiated assumptions about the subject matter enough times. It's not going to happen.
I told you to look up ad hominem, but you either did not understand what you found, or have not done so. I suggest you do so at your earliest possible convenience as you are beginning to look very silly.

As for you trying to get me to address subject matter? Very funny.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta »

Hobbes, believe what you want to believe about consciousness, I don't care. It's obvious that you cannot admit that your heartfelt beliefs are not objective truths, just like any other fundamentalist driven by emotions to believe what you wish to be. And you are seemingly just as utterly blind to your fundamentalist beliefs as any other.

You seem to care much about others perceive us. I suggest that that's a shame for you.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:Hobbes, believe what you want to believe about consciousness, I don't care. .
I don't believe anything.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:Hobbes, believe what you want to believe about consciousness, I don't care. .
I don't believe anything.
Yes you do.

You believe - without any doubt - that all subjectivity ceases when we die. Many informed observers assess this to be quite likely, but not all believe it; they admit to doubt because it's impossible to know for sure at this stage.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:Hobbes, believe what you want to believe about consciousness, I don't care. .
I don't believe anything.
Yes you do.

You believe - without any doubt - that all subjectivity ceases when we die.
.
Your words are meaningless.
Subjectivity is a relationship, between the real word and the subject through the senses. Since death involves to end of sensation it definitively involves an end of that relationship. That's what death is.
This is not a believe; this is definition.
You obviously don't have a working definition of death either.
You are just talking bollocks, as usual.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I don't believe anything.
Yes you do.

You believe - without any doubt - that all subjectivity ceases when we die.
.
Your words are meaningless.
Subjectivity is a relationship, between the real word and the subject through the senses. Since death involves to end of sensation it definitively involves an end of that relationship. That's what death is.
This is not a believe; this is definition.
You obviously don't have a working definition of death either.
You are just talking bollocks, as usual.
Your definition of subjectivity is incoherent - as though there is a real world "out there" and an unreal world "in here". It's all the "the real world". Nobody knows the extent to which consciousness is generated or received by the brain. Not even you.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: Yes you do.

You believe - without any doubt - that all subjectivity ceases when we die.
.
Your words are meaningless.
Subjectivity is a relationship, between the real word and the subject through the senses. Since death involves to end of sensation it definitively involves an end of that relationship. That's what death is.
This is not a believe; this is definition.
You obviously don't have a working definition of death either.
You are just talking bollocks, as usual.
Your definition of subjectivity is incoherent - as though there is a real world "out there" and an unreal world "in here". It's all the "the real world". Nobody knows the extent to which consciousness is generated or received by the brain. Not even you.
My definition of subjectivity is sound; it implies objective, obviously, else there would be no need for such a word.

So - since you love to use the word "subjectivity", perhaps you would like to define it for yourself? And share.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Your words are meaningless.
Subjectivity is a relationship, between the real word and the subject through the senses. Since death involves to end of sensation it definitively involves an end of that relationship. That's what death is.
This is not a believe; this is definition.
You obviously don't have a working definition of death either.
You are just talking bollocks, as usual.
Your definition of subjectivity is incoherent - as though there is a real world "out there" and an unreal world "in here". It's all the "the real world". Nobody knows the extent to which consciousness is generated or received by the brain. Not even you.
My definition of subjectivity is sound; it implies objective, obviously, else there would be no need for such a word.

So - since you love to use the word "subjectivity", perhaps you would like to define it for yourself? And share.
"The real world and the subject" does not make sense unless you are assuming that the subject is living in an unreal world.

Subjectivity is a sense of being.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: Your definition of subjectivity is incoherent - as though there is a real world "out there" and an unreal world "in here". It's all the "the real world". Nobody knows the extent to which consciousness is generated or received by the brain. Not even you.
My definition of subjectivity is sound; it implies objective, obviously, else there would be no need for such a word.

So - since you love to use the word "subjectivity", perhaps you would like to define it for yourself? And share.
"The real world and the subject" does not make sense unless you are assuming that the subject is living in an unreal world.

Subjectivity is a sense of being.
It means nothing unless it stands in opposition to the objective.

If I needed another term for consciousness, then there are a few already available without confusing it with subjectivity.
ie you are still wrong.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
My definition of subjectivity is sound; it implies objective, obviously, else there would be no need for such a word.

So - since you love to use the word "subjectivity", perhaps you would like to define it for yourself? And share.
"The real world and the subject" does not make sense unless you are assuming that the subject is living in an unreal world.

Subjectivity is a sense of being.
It means nothing unless it stands in opposition to the objective.

If I needed another term for consciousness, then there are a few already available without confusing it with subjectivity.
ie you are still wrong.
Of course the subjective and objective are complementary. I was just noting your mistaken notion that there's a real world "out there" and a non real world "in here". That's the basis of dualist thought and seems to be a perspective effect.

Let's return to the main issue - your deeply held and immovable beliefs about consciousness. A hypothetical: if society survives this century and continues progression for another million years, do you think our successors will have roughly the same conception of consciousness as today's current ideas and models?

If the answer is "probably not" (which seems by most likely), then you admit that you have made the same mistake in this thread as every generation before you - assuming the knowledge of the day to be final. It's a useful attitude for confidently getting things done, passing on genes etc, but it is not actual reality. This isn't a case for mysterianism, as you appear to suspect; it's a case for patience and humility.

No wonder so many scientists don't care for philosophy. Many confident claims based on insufficient evidence. Why not leave that kind of logical bungling to theists and new agers and try using qualifiers like "may", "could", "possible", "probable" and so forth in stating your speculative views?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: "The real world and the subject" does not make sense unless you are assuming that the subject is living in an unreal world.

Subjectivity is a sense of being.
It means nothing unless it stands in opposition to the objective.

If I needed another term for consciousness, then there are a few already available without confusing it with subjectivity.
ie you are still wrong.
Of course the subjective and objective are complementary. I was just noting your mistaken notion that there's a real world "out there" and a non real world "in here". That's the basis of dualist thought and seems to be a perspective effect.?
No that's YOUR problem. Don't forget how started using "subjective"; not me.

I think you are in a serious state of confusion here.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
It means nothing unless it stands in opposition to the objective.

If I needed another term for consciousness, then there are a few already available without confusing it with subjectivity.
ie you are still wrong.
Of course the subjective and objective are complementary. I was just noting your mistaken notion that there's a real world "out there" and a non real world "in here". That's the basis of dualist thought and seems to be a perspective effect.?
No that's YOUR problem. Don't forget how started using "subjective"; not me.

I think you are in a serious state of confusion here.
It was tangential. The problem here has always been your strict belief system which you seem incapable of acknowledging.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: Of course the subjective and objective are complementary. I was just noting your mistaken notion that there's a real world "out there" and a non real world "in here". That's the basis of dualist thought and seems to be a perspective effect.?
No that's YOUR problem. Don't forget how started using "subjective"; not me.

I think you are in a serious state of confusion here.
It was tangential. The problem here has always been your strict belief system which you seem incapable of acknowledging.
I told you you were confused. I don't believe in anything.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Greta »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No that's YOUR problem. Don't forget how started using "subjective"; not me.

I think you are in a serious state of confusion here.
It was tangential. The problem here has always been your strict belief system which you seem incapable of acknowledging.
I told you you were confused. I don't believe in anything.
You believe that all consciousness is extinguished at the point of death. You have stated this many times, despite the very early stages of serious modern consciousness studies.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: It was tangential. The problem here has always been your strict belief system which you seem incapable of acknowledging.
I told you you were confused. I don't believe in anything.
You believe that all consciousness is extinguished at the point of death. You have stated this many times, despite the very early stages of serious modern consciousness studies.
I go with evidence. I don't need belief. It's called knowledge.
Post Reply