Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 8004
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:46 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:48 pm If you see a Wall and run towards it and into it you will realize that your Visual system was showing you a pretty good Representation of the Wall.
Not on your view.
Not on your misunderstanding/misrepresentation of his view.
Skepdick
Posts: 8004
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:20 pm It's not that it would be a(n external) simulation. Under your view you have ZERO grounds for saying ANYTHING is external to you. Simulation or not.
You can draw any arbitrary line and call anything on the other side of it "external".

That's how all distinctions/categorisation/classification works you know.

Visual percepts: external.
Auditory percepts: external.
Imaginary percepts: internal.
Thought experimental percepts: internal
Taste percepts: internal
Hunger percepts: internal
Heat percepts: internal and external
Pain percepts: internal and external


Just because I have "ZERO grounds" for saying something it doesn't mean I am not allowed to say it if I want to. When I want to. For whatever reason I want to.

Language is for self-expression - I will use it as I damn well please despite your objection; or perhaps precisely because of your objections.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:19 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:48 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:16 pm
But if all you are actually conscious of is your own mind, how do know it correlates with anything, or that there is even anything for it to correlate to. I do not see how your view cannot evade becoming solipsism.
If you see a Wall and run towards it and into it you will realize that your Visual system was showing you a pretty good Representation of the Wall.
You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Unless, of course, that, "wall," actually exists and has the nature it has, whether I see or feel it or not. Then my seeing and feeling it are actually experiences of the wall. What is going on, in that case, would be my perceptual system making available to my consciousness what actually exists to be perceived.

It seems to me, that perception is not only a, "pretty good," representation of the wall, but a perfect one and the more I examine the wall the more I discover it is exactly what it looks like, feels like, and, if I hit it and it makes as sound, sounds like.
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:19 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:48 pm
If you see a Wall and run towards it and into it you will realize that your Visual system was showing you a pretty good Representation of the Wall.
You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Unless, of course, that, "wall," actually exists and has the nature it has, whether I see or feel it or not. Then my seeing and feeling it are actually experiences of the wall. What is going on, in that case, would be my perceptual system making available to my consciousness what actually exists to be perceived.

It seems to me, that perception is not only a, "pretty good," representation of the wall, but a perfect one and the more I examine the wall the more I discover it is exactly what it looks like, feels like, and, if I hit it and it makes as sound, sounds like.
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
Under your view, there's absolutely no way to correlate it to anything else in order to say, "pretty good," "perfect," "no resemblance at all," or anything like that.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:19 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:48 pm
If you see a Wall and run towards it and into it you will realize that your Visual system was showing you a pretty good Representation of the Wall.
You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Unless, of course, that, "wall," actually exists and has the nature it has, whether I see or feel it or not. Then my seeing and feeling it are actually experiences of the wall. What is going on, in that case, would be my perceptual system making available to my consciousness what actually exists to be perceived.

It seems to me, that perception is not only a, "pretty good," representation of the wall, but a perfect one and the more I examine the wall the more I discover it is exactly what it looks like, feels like, and, if I hit it and it makes as sound, sounds like.
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
If what I perceive is not exactly what I perceive it to be, if it is not exactly what I see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, what means or faculty do you have that enables you to know there is some existence that, if "perfectly," perceived, would be different from the one I actually perceive. What is the source of this mystic knowledge of the, "really real," existence that cannot be perceived, "perfectly?"

All this nonsense goes back to Plato's mystical nonsense about, "ideal forms," that supposed perceived reality is only a representations of some ineffable "real" existents somewhere. No one ever bothered to ask Plato how he knew there were such, "ideal forms." He didn't. Like all mystics, he just made them up to explain his absurd epistemology.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 1:35 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:19 pm
You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Unless, of course, that, "wall," actually exists and has the nature it has, whether I see or feel it or not. Then my seeing and feeling it are actually experiences of the wall. What is going on, in that case, would be my perceptual system making available to my consciousness what actually exists to be perceived.

It seems to me, that perception is not only a, "pretty good," representation of the wall, but a perfect one and the more I examine the wall the more I discover it is exactly what it looks like, feels like, and, if I hit it and it makes as sound, sounds like.
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
Under your view, there's absolutely no way to correlate it to anything else in order to say, "pretty good," "perfect," "no resemblance at all," or anything like that.
Yes! If one denies the only evidence available (what one is actually conscious of) is valid, there is no evidence at all. It's, "what I perceive is wrong, but I have nothing to compare it to."
SteveKlinko
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 1:35 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:19 pm
You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Unless, of course, that, "wall," actually exists and has the nature it has, whether I see or feel it or not. Then my seeing and feeling it are actually experiences of the wall. What is going on, in that case, would be my perceptual system making available to my consciousness what actually exists to be perceived.

It seems to me, that perception is not only a, "pretty good," representation of the wall, but a perfect one and the more I examine the wall the more I discover it is exactly what it looks like, feels like, and, if I hit it and it makes as sound, sounds like.
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
Under your view, there's absolutely no way to correlate it to anything else in order to say, "pretty good," "perfect," "no resemblance at all," or anything like that.
I have to admit I don't understand what you don't understand about all this. Everything is Correlated with everything as far as my Sensory experiences are concerned. It might all be a Simulation but it is a very Correlated and consistent Simulation. I say our senses give us a pretty good Representation, but you say "no resemblance at all". This is going from just being Incoherent to just plain Goofy.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 2:44 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:19 pm
You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Unless, of course, that, "wall," actually exists and has the nature it has, whether I see or feel it or not. Then my seeing and feeling it are actually experiences of the wall. What is going on, in that case, would be my perceptual system making available to my consciousness what actually exists to be perceived.

It seems to me, that perception is not only a, "pretty good," representation of the wall, but a perfect one and the more I examine the wall the more I discover it is exactly what it looks like, feels like, and, if I hit it and it makes as sound, sounds like.
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
If what I perceive is not exactly what I perceive it to be, if it is not exactly what I see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, what means or faculty do you have that enables you to know there is some existence that, if "perfectly," perceived, would be different from the one I actually perceive. What is the source of this mystic knowledge of the, "really real," existence that cannot be perceived, "perfectly?"

All this nonsense goes back to Plato's mystical nonsense about, "ideal forms," that supposed perceived reality is only a representations of some ineffable "real" existents somewhere. No one ever bothered to ask Plato how he knew there were such, "ideal forms." He didn't. Like all mystics, he just made them up to explain his absurd epistemology.
You are really going off the rails with that Ideal Forms stuff. Let's take this discussion back to 21st Century understanding of things. What we do is Detect the External World, we never Observe it Directly. We know this from Science. There is no Visual Experience until there is Neural Activity. The Neural Activity is the Detection Signal that is generated by our Sensory apparatus. But we cannot know what our Neural Activity is doing Directly. Instead, when Neurons fire, our Brain\Mind Processing produces the Representation, Hallucination, or Conscious Visual Experience (whichever you like) that our Conscious Minds Experience. We cannot sense our Neural Activity as such, there is another Processing step that produces the Visual Experience.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 1:35 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
Under your view, there's absolutely no way to correlate it to anything else in order to say, "pretty good," "perfect," "no resemblance at all," or anything like that.
I have to admit I don't understand what you don't understand about all this. Everything is Correlated with everything as far as my Sensory experiences are concerned. It might all be a Simulation but it is a very Correlated and consistent Simulation. I say our senses give us a pretty good Representation, but you say "no resemblance at all". This is going from just being Incoherent to just plain Goofy.
And it's weird just how dense you're being about what you're saying. I can only guess that you're not really saying what you appear to be saying. Or there's at least some sort of weird cognitive dissonance between different beliefs going on here, maybe due to not really analyzing how the beliefs relate to each other (hence me leading you to water and trying to coax you to drink).

You say your senses give you a "pretty good representation." Right. We know you say that.

The problem is that given your view about what's going on re your conscious experiences, you have absolutely no way to correlate anything.

You're welcome to explain how you would begin correlating anything in order to judge that it's a "pretty good representation."

Say that we're talking about running into a wall as you mentioned earlier--or pick another example if you think you can justify it better. How would a correlation between your mental experience as your mental experience and anything else work? What would the first step be for making a correlation?
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Tue May 04, 2021 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:10 pm You are really going off the rails with that Ideal Forms stuff. Let's take this discussion back to 21st Century understanding of things. What we do is Detect the External World, we never Observe it Directly. We know this from Science.
How? How would science know this (given the assumption that we only experience our own mind). Tell me what the first step would be.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:30 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 1:35 pm

Under your view, there's absolutely no way to correlate it to anything else in order to say, "pretty good," "perfect," "no resemblance at all," or anything like that.
I have to admit I don't understand what you don't understand about all this. Everything is Correlated with everything as far as my Sensory experiences are concerned. It might all be a Simulation but it is a very Correlated and consistent Simulation. I say our senses give us a pretty good Representation, but you say "no resemblance at all". This is going from just being Incoherent to just plain Goofy.
And it's weird just how dense you're being about what you're saying. I can only guess that you're not really saying what you appear to be saying. Or there's at least some sort of weird cognitive dissonance between different beliefs going on here, maybe due to not really analyzing how the beliefs relate to each other (hence me leading you to water and trying to coax you to drink).

You say your senses give you a "pretty good representation." Right. We know you say that.

The problem is that given your view about what's going on re your conscious experiences, you have absolutely no way to correlate anything.

You're welcome to explain how you would begin correlating anything in order to judge that it's a "pretty good representation."

Say that we're talking about running into a wall as you mentioned earlier--or pick another example if you think you can justify it better. How would a correlation between your mental experience as your mental experience and anything else work? What would the first step be for making a correlation?
All the Senses are Correlated with each other. If you see a Wall and then decide to run into it because you can't really believe what you are Seeing, you will find that at the moment of impacting your face into the Wall you will Experience a really uncomfortable Experience. That's called Pain. Also you will Sense that your motion has been abruptly stopped by the Wall. Hmmm, you remark to yourself that you can't go through the Wall. Also at the Moment of impacting your face you would have had an Auditory Experience of a banging or crunching quality as your nose gets broken and flattened on the Wall. Then as you look down at your shirt there will have appeared splotches of Redness of the blood from your broken nose. I truly believe that after this you will have realized that the Visual Experience of the Wall may have been a pretty good representation of what was out there. Next time you will trust your Visual Experience and you will not run into this Wall. You will now know that, although what you are Experiencing is a Representation of the Wall, it is a pretty good Representation. You will probably try to run into other Walls, if you think this Wall is just a special case, and you will find that you get the same results. A Correlation starts being created in your Representational Mind, and eventually you will not want to run into Walls anymore because you will find that there are no fake Walls being Represented to you. They are all real Walls. Your Representational System is letting you move around in the World with running into Walls.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:32 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:10 pm You are really going off the rails with that Ideal Forms stuff. Let's take this discussion back to 21st Century understanding of things. What we do is Detect the External World, we never Observe it Directly. We know this from Science.
How? How would science know this (given the assumption that we only experience our own mind). Tell me what the first step would be.
The Big Bang happens and a new Universe is created. This Universe consists of Matter, Energy, and Space. After billions of years of complicated interactions and processes the Matter, Energy, and Space produce a planet with Conscious Life Forms (CLFs). In the course of their evolution the CLFs will need to See each other in order to live and interact with each other. But what does it really mean to See? A CLF is first of all a Physical Thing. There is no magic power that just lets a CLF See another CLF. A CLF can only Detect another CLF through some sensing mechanism which must be made out of Physical material and which uses Physical processes. There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection.

So a CLF might understand that it does not ever really See another CLF, but it will still insist that it Sees the reflected Light. The CLF would be mistaken if it thinks it Sees even the reflected Light. All it can do is Detect the reflected Light. Its sensing mechanism can only produce Physical reactions, like Neural Activity, that are correlated with the reflected Light. If the reflected Light is Red the sensing mechanism will fire Neurons that only fire for Red inputs. The CLF might be able to sense that the Red Neurons are firing. So every time these Neurons fire it can report that it is seeing Red. This CLF is only sensing particular Neurons firing and is not experiencing Red like we do.

A CLF like us Sees Red as a Conscious Experience and is not aware of any Neural Activity. This Conscious Red Experience (the Experience of Redness) is how we Detect Red Light from the external Physical World. Unfortunately the Experience of Redness, at least for now, can not be found in the Brain or explained by Brain Activity. Further investigation shows the Experience of Redness cannot be found in any kind of Matter, Energy, or Space so we must conclude that it is something different than any of these things. Redness is in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known and existent Scientific Category of Phenomena.

No matter how much we might want a Physical Explanation, it just does not exist. So for now, we have to admit that there is no Physical Process or Explanation from Science that can be applied to help us understand the Experience of Redness in the Mind. It is hoped that Science will be able to better understand Conscious Phenomena someday and that a whole new branch of Science will be created that is dedicated to the study of Conscious Phenomena.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:10 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 2:44 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
The Representation is pretty good but not perfect.
If what I perceive is not exactly what I perceive it to be, if it is not exactly what I see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, what means or faculty do you have that enables you to know there is some existence that, if "perfectly," perceived, would be different from the one I actually perceive. What is the source of this mystic knowledge of the, "really real," existence that cannot be perceived, "perfectly?"

All this nonsense goes back to Plato's mystical nonsense about, "ideal forms," that supposed perceived reality is only a representations of some ineffable "real" existents somewhere. No one ever bothered to ask Plato how he knew there were such, "ideal forms." He didn't. Like all mystics, he just made them up to explain his absurd epistemology.
You are really going off the rails with that Ideal Forms stuff. Let's take this discussion back to 21st Century understanding of things. What we do is Detect the External World, we never Observe it Directly. We know this from Science. There is no Visual Experience until there is Neural Activity. The Neural Activity is the Detection Signal that is generated by our Sensory apparatus. But we cannot know what our Neural Activity is doing Directly. Instead, when Neurons fire, our Brain\Mind Processing produces the Representation, Hallucination, or Conscious Visual Experience (whichever you like) that our Conscious Minds Experience. We cannot sense our Neural Activity as such, there is another Processing step that produces the Visual Experience.
No. Just like Plato, the pseudo-psychologists have just made this stuff up.

No science has ever described conscious experience. It can describe the behavior of the neurological system, and, based on the testimony of those who have the conscious experience of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting, find some correlation between so neurological activity the the experiences described by those having them. What science never describes is how the chemical, electrical and physical behavior of nerves and ganglions ever results in the actual conscious experience itself. What we know is, the neurological system provides consciousness with whatever is required, to be conscious of whatever is impinging on the organs of the neurological system, and if that is damaged or otherwise affected, our conscious perception is affected, which only means, our conscious perception of the world is contextually perfect, perceiving things in their exact total metaphysical context, because an apple seen with normal eyes is not the same total metaphysical context as an apple seen with an eye with cataracts, or nerve damage, or head trauma.

There is no scientific description of any conscious experience, that is, of the consciousness itself, which is why the strict physicalist must deny its existence.

[By strict physicalist I mean the view that the physical properties of material (natural) existence studied by the physical sciences are all the properties that are possible. The problem with the strict physicalist view is it denies the obvious evidence of three natural properties the physical sciences cannot study--life, consciousness, and "mind."]
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 5:49 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:30 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 3:00 pm
I have to admit I don't understand what you don't understand about all this. Everything is Correlated with everything as far as my Sensory experiences are concerned. It might all be a Simulation but it is a very Correlated and consistent Simulation. I say our senses give us a pretty good Representation, but you say "no resemblance at all". This is going from just being Incoherent to just plain Goofy.
And it's weird just how dense you're being about what you're saying. I can only guess that you're not really saying what you appear to be saying. Or there's at least some sort of weird cognitive dissonance between different beliefs going on here, maybe due to not really analyzing how the beliefs relate to each other (hence me leading you to water and trying to coax you to drink).

You say your senses give you a "pretty good representation." Right. We know you say that.

The problem is that given your view about what's going on re your conscious experiences, you have absolutely no way to correlate anything.

You're welcome to explain how you would begin correlating anything in order to judge that it's a "pretty good representation."

Say that we're talking about running into a wall as you mentioned earlier--or pick another example if you think you can justify it better. How would a correlation between your mental experience as your mental experience and anything else work? What would the first step be for making a correlation?
All the Senses are Correlated with each other. If you see a Wall and then decide to run into it because you can't really believe what you are Seeing, you will find that at the moment of impacting your face into the Wall you will Experience a really uncomfortable Experience. That's called Pain. Also you will Sense that your motion has been abruptly stopped by the Wall. Hmmm, you remark to yourself that you can't go through the Wall. Also at the Moment of impacting your face you would have had an Auditory Experience of a banging or crunching quality as your nose gets broken and flattened on the Wall. Then as you look down at your shirt there will have appeared splotches of Redness of the blood from your broken nose. I truly believe that after this you will have realized that the Visual Experience of the Wall may have been a pretty good representation of what was out there. Next time you will trust your Visual Experience and you will not run into this Wall. You will now know that, although what you are Experiencing is a Representation of the Wall, it is a pretty good Representation. You will probably try to run into other Walls, if you think this Wall is just a special case, and you will find that you get the same results. A Correlation starts being created in your Representational Mind, and eventually you will not want to run into Walls anymore because you will find that there are no fake Walls being Represented to you. They are all real Walls. Your Representational System is letting you move around in the World with running into Walls.
Since we all have all those exact kinds of experiences in dreams, hitting a wall, being abruptly stopped, bleeding from a broken nose, etc., why should such experience assure one there is an external reality. I still do not see how your view can avoid being solipsistic.

Just out of curiosity. would you be disappointed if you discovered the world, as you directly perceive it, is reality exactly as it is?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 5:54 pm No matter how much we might want a Physical Explanation, it just does not exist. So for now, we have to admit that there is no Physical Process or Explanation from Science that can be applied to help us understand the Experience of Redness in the Mind. It is hoped that Science will be able to better understand Conscious Phenomena someday and that a whole new branch of Science will be created that is dedicated to the study of Conscious Phenomena.
This much we agree on, "No matter how much we might want a Physical Explanation, it just does not exist. So for now, we have to admit that there is no Physical Process or Explanation from Science that can be applied to help us understand the Experience ...." but it is, an " Experience of Redness in the Mind," it is simply the conscious awareness of attribute red of an external existent. If the, "red entity," did not exist, it would not be possible to have that experience.

There will never be a physical explanation of consciousness, because it is not physical and has no physical properties for the physical sciences to study. Just like life, which we know exists, else there would be no living organisms, but only exists as a property or attribute of physical entities, it cannot itself be studied by the physical sciences because it has no physical properties. The physical aspects of an organism can be studied by the physical sciences, but hot the life property. The physical properties of an organism are the same, whether the organism is alive or not.
Post Reply