Page 10 of 14

Re: "How does this vaporous, ethereal thing, the mind, cause a neuron to emit a neurotransmitter that causes the arm to

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:15 pm
by Skepdick
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:11 pm Sorry, I shouldn't have done that. I was trying to demonstrate the consequences of believing humans aren't conscious.
So you are incapable of choosing to treat me in the same moral manner that you treat others?

Just because I have removed the label "conscious" form myself, you have choosen to treat me like lesser being?

That speaks of you - not of me. You are abdicating your freedom to choose moral action.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:11 pm It's frustrating dealing with you.
Good. I expect you to think - autopilot won't do.

"This unconscious bot has more combat experience than you do."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:17 pm
by henry quirk
Prove this.

Prove you are unconscious.

Prove you have more (or any) combat experience (and define combat experience) than Gary.

Re: "How does this vaporous, ethereal thing, the mind, cause a neuron to emit a neurotransmitter that causes the arm to

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:18 pm
by Gary Childress
Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:15 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:11 pm Sorry, I shouldn't have done that. I was trying to demonstrate the consequences of believing humans aren't conscious.
So you are incapable of choosing to treat me in the same moral manner that you treat others?

Just because I have removed the label "conscious" form myself, you have choosen to treat me like lesser being?

That speaks of you - not of me. You are abdicating your freedom to choose moral action.
You can call it "consciousness" or you can use any term you want. But it's there if you're human. It's not there if you are a machine.
Good. I expect you to think - autopilot won't do.
So you're delighted that you frustrated another human being. That doesn't sound very moral to me either.

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:19 pm
by Skepdick
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:12 pm The only proof I'll accept is you demonstrating how the matter that is you, when changed, leads to your mind (whatever that is) changing.
Same question: what demonstration would suffice for you?

henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:12 pm I'm not askin' for anything more or less than what you demand of Gary.
Yes you are. I am holding Garry accountable to his own rulebook.

You are throwing Gary's rulebook at me. I didn't sign up for those rules...
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:12 pm *demonstrate you exist
I don't know that I exist. I don't even know what existence is. It's just a word to me.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:12 pm *demonstrate you have subjective/internal experiences (that you are a self, a mind [gonna have to define self/mind and prove the existence of such a thing as defined]
I don't know that I do. It's just what I say... language. You see?

it's just words!
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:12 pm *prove that mind and matter are linked (you're gonna have to define matter and prove it exists according to definition)
I don't feel like it.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:12 pm You get my point, yeah?

You can't prove diddly.
That Philosophy is pointless? Yea! That's the point I am making!

By arguing for and against everything - i am playing the game by YOUR rules.

I don't have any rules/beliefs - I have goals.

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:21 pm
by Gary Childress
Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:19 pm I don't know that I exist. I don't even know what existence is. It's just a word to me.
What's a word? Are you sure it's a word?

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:23 pm
by Skepdick
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:21 pm What's a word? Are you sure it's a word?
"Words" is what I call them.

They could be chickens for all I know.

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:25 pm
by Gary Childress
Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:23 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:21 pm What's a word? Are you sure it's a word?
"Words" is what I call them.

They could be chickens for all I know.
There we go.

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:27 pm
by Skepdick
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:25 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:23 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:21 pm What's a word? Are you sure it's a word?
"Words" is what I call them.

They could be chickens for all I know.
There we go.
Is that your way of conceding that you could be unconscious for all you know?

You could've just said "i don't know what consciousness is - it's just an concept/idea that I identify with."

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:29 pm
by Gary Childress
Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:27 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:25 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:23 pm
"Words" is what I call them.

They could be chickens for all I know.
There we go.
Is that your way of conceding that you could be unconscious for all you know?
You can call consciousness anything you want but it's either still there or it isn't.

Re: In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:30 pm
by Gary Childress
I have an appointment to keep but I'll be back.

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:32 pm
by Skepdick
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:29 pm You can call consciousness anything you want but it's either still there or it isn't.
It's totally there!

if you are using "consciousness" to refer to chickens.

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm
by henry quirk
What demonstration would suffice for you?

Review my list of musts in my post above.


I am holding Garry accountable to his own rulebook.

I'm holdin' you accountable to yours.


I don't know that I exist. I don't even know what existence is. It's just a word to me.

Right here, Gary. This is what I'm talkin' about.

Skep, prove you don't know you exist cuz the evidence is against you.


it's just words!

Words placehold, they point to, they stand in for, otherwise: hgtesetyufesafr nuuhkophfdwslkfrwf kjt.


I don't feel like it.

Define I.


By arguing for and against everything - i am playing the game by YOUR rules.

No, just illustratin' a lack of principle and untrustworthiness.

What I've demonstrated (in two or three posts) is why you're a waste of Gary's (or anyone's) time.


I don't have any rules/beliefs - I have goals.

That right there is belief (unless you care to prove you lack belief and rules).

'nuff said

-----

Okay, Gary, demonstration complete.

Re: "Changing my mind is changing matter."

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:09 pm
by Skepdick
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm Review my list of musts in my post above.
I have. It's pretty unclear/vague what it is that you want
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm I'm holdin' you accountable to yours.
You are? You must have missed the memo - I don't have a rule-book.

ANYTHING GOES.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm Words placehold, they point to, they stand in for, otherwise: hgtesetyufesafr nuuhkophfdwslkfrwf kjt.
Yes henry, but people use the same word to point to different things...
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm Define I.
I don't need to.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm No, just illustratin' a lack of principle and untrustworthiness.
Absolutely! Lack of principles is a good thing for a pragmatist/moralist! Whatever works!

If you don't like my principles - I have others --Groucho Marx.

That you have chosen to measure my "trustworthiness" on my choice of words, and not on my actions speaks of your inability to assess people's character, not of my lack thereof.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm What I've demonstrated (in two or three posts) is why you're a waste of Gary's (or anyone's) time.
Now you are catching on! That's Philosophy is a waste of EVERYBODY's time.

Unless you agree on why you are doing the dance BEFORE you do the dance.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:43 pm That right there is belief (unless you care to prove you lack belief and rules).
Q.E.D !

I SAY that it's not a belief. Henry demonstrates his inability to calibrate his vocabulary to mine - he demonstrates that he doesn't understand how communication works.

Henry is too lazy to learn my language - why should he? Henry has his own language already, so he is just going to do the only thing he knows how to do: insist that that the conversation happens on his terms, using his language, and his definitions . Brute-force! If it doesn't work - hammer it harder!

So he says I have beliefs - it must be true. His way or the highway.

That's the stupid language (power!) game you are playing Henry. You are playing the exact stupid game you are accusing me of. And you are too ignorant to notice.

That is all Philosophy is and has ever been - re-describing the world!

Re: In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:30 pm
by Scott Mayers
Satyavan wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:06 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:32 am I don't disagree with this in principle. Motive is not relevant to a specific argument but it CAN be. I was just noticing that you were potentially biased because of such potential motive. If one is more motivated for defending some other unspoken argument, they tend to appear as advocating FOR some position with trivial supports and denying the 'normal' position.
But if one thinks that the 'normal' position supports a thesis which tells that something pops out of nothing, just by magic, which is the physicalist claim, then I will tend to doubt that 'normality'.
It is inescapable logically. What you are presuming is that an ultimate 'cause' CANNOT derive anything. But this is a digression that moves away from this topic or at least would be a subtopic digression that needs more depth by stepping back to logic and metaphysics.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:32 am You pointed out one case that is news to me and non-representative of the present average.
That is no news. Can't it be that it appears as news because of a biased selection of what is already known?
Tell that to the promoters of those who become famous discussing these topics with more popularity. It IS possible that better 'news' on the topics are being buried by competing interests. But this is irrelevant when we can only deal with what is 'popularly' discussed. This would be a digressiion into media and whether we are getting real of fake news, etc.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:32 am When you assert CLOSURE with certainty as though we all should agree as though it were obvious, it raises a red flag that makes one concerned to require more precision when speaking on the issue.
Did I assert closure? I ask for evidence that the brain is the the cause for phenomenal consciousness.
You denied any other evidence is relevant to the one particular study you selected. Trusting that one study and determining how one can even interpret its validity sufficiently seems too narrow. You asserted its conclusion as a given certanty in a way that seemed that we all agreed and why I said this. I don't mind you differing on opinion. But if we disagree to the 'givens', then we need to first establish other premises we might agree on together first. If you are wanting a type of pretended assumption (as in, "for the sake of argument" type discussion to move on in light of the pretended agreement), you need to clarify this condition so that we aren't assumed to be agreeing to any potential conclusion that might follow upon that pretense.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:32 am As to a perception of something like a particular color, these are illusive ways any mechanism of nature assigns in common by STRUCTURAL factors. But to actually understand that requires even more basic understandings.
Precisely, it needs more than structural factors. What are these?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:32 am Color is NOT the simplest type of sensation. Touch/contact is.
When it comes to the experiential quality of colors or whatever kind of qualia I wonder what determines being one more 'simple' than the other. What means that a feeling of temperature by touch is simpler than seeing redness? I can't even understand what it means in principle.
For ANYTHING in a space that recieves information, it needs SOME type of LINK between the reality out there and the thing we sense. Even if this is some magical message from another place we can't determine, we assume a MEDIUM between everything that informs. As such, the smallest such medium is the immediate contact. So 'touch' as a tangential concept is more simple because you can define it in a binary way: either something touches or it doesn't. Data that would represent this would be like a "0" and "1", or "yes/no" to the question, "is something 'touching' me at such a particular point in space and time?"

Light, on the other hand is much more complex and so would need a bigger 'structure' to express than the simple binary "yes/no" question. So sight is a more complex kind of structure when organized in the brain than touch. That is why I gave the example of the 'structure' of how the Html on this particular site defines a color by using three feilds, one for red, one for blue, and one for green. Then the complexity for each color's intensity defines the two binary numbers in two bits, which is a degree of four levels of brightness.

The structure for color by the Html here, thus expresses an example of why color is more complex of a structure on a logical level than mere touch.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:32 am For this, you should start at how anything receives the minimal inputs and ouputs. Computer Logic is necessary to start from and much of the philosophical discussions are like beginning with Application Logic in order to understand how the hardware operates. By "Application Logic", one can think of using a particular computer program, like a video game, to start from and then try to use that to figure out how computer hardware interprets and operates to make this illusion successful. [Note that color of a computer screen is a 'peripheral' device.
To the underlying computer, it interprets color as a "data structure", such as "color=#000000" means "Black" for the Html on this site. Each two bits for this example defines a mere degree of light that gets through one pixel. It doesn't care what the pixel actually means. The three conventional pixels we use are the red/green/blue pixels for monitors that are standardized. These are arbitrary to the computer but only become apparent as color when that data is combined with the structure of the hardware as well.
And HOW does it become 'apparent' as a conscious experiential quality of color IN US? The above is again the usual magic. It doesn't explain anything when it comes to how subjective qualitative sentience pops into existence. Just a miracle?
When we first become conscious, these initial interpretations of what a color is particulaly is unassigned and becomes so in a way we likely understand at that level and at that time 'consciously'. But we can't remember these events because they DEFINE the structures at that stage to tell us HOW we 'feel' these phenomena and are so absurdly simple, that we cannot notice what they mean NOW looking back. The first time we 'see' we likely don't see color but just data of simplified 'touch' data within the cones in our eyes like the ones' and zeros' of computers. It is HOW this data then gets organized, like how a quadrilateral shape is something with four sides is compared to a triangle with three sides is gets defined neutrally but creates real geometric shapes that we deem independent of our means to interpret the pure logic that defined them as having meaning.

I recommend looking at some entertaining movies on this topic, like "The Matrix" or "The Thirteenth Floor". (I prefer The Thirteenth floor on this as it delves into this to artificial intelligence questions without involving religious interpretations that The Matrix appears to involve.) It helps to understand computer logic too because this question asks whether an apparently 'non-living' thing could ever be conscious like us thinking that it too is 'alive'. How do we tell the difference? Artificial Intelligence in computing attempts to deal with this question and its study will also help us understand better what "consciousness" is.

Re: In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:21 pm
by Satyavan
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:30 pm But this is a digression that moves away from this topic or at least would be a subtopic digression that needs more depth by stepping back to logic and metaphysics.
Yes, we have gone somewhat beyond the initial topic but the point I'm trying to make is closely related to it. I don't go into each of the above details because imo they miss the point and suspect that you still did not let sink in what the real problem with consciousness in the philosophy of mind is. I mean the so called "hard problem of consciousness" which was elucidated by David Chalmers in the 1990s. The fact that all the functional aspects you describe are supposed to give rise to qualitative experiences of qualias. It is not about what neural correlate gives rise to what experience, but why correlates give rise to an experience at all? The fact that whatever complicate process in a brain with whatever molecular, neural and functional machinery is not limited to a data stream or inner representation but gives rise to a feeling, a perception of pain or pleasure, a subjective awareness of "Iness". This remains a complete and unexplained mystery and that also your description does not even begin to adress. The question is not which structure with how many unconscious layers determines how we feel. The question is why whatever structure makes us feel something at all? The problem has nothing to do with data organization, information or how data are computed, it is about the connection between that data, it's processing and the coming into existence of something that is qualitatively completely different. One can describe in the smallest detail what the H2O molecule is and what the neurobiology of touch is but that tells us nothing about the sensation of wetness unless we feel it. Mery, the color blind neurologist, knows everything about the brain but will never be able to understand what perceivung colors means unless she makes the EXPERIENCE. Why? Even if know everything about bats and their brains why can't we know what is it like to be a bat? You can endlessly talk about structures, organized data, pixel, neural networks or interpretations, but that, at best, describes a function but has nothing to do with the question of why a sensation appears in our subjective phenomenal awareness. Why are we not zombies who feel nothing by outwardly manifesting exactly the same emotional sentience? I suggest you dwell deeper into the hard problem of consciousness. Otherwise you will always understand and speak of something completely different when people talk about **phenomenal consciousness**.

Yes, I also like to use the metaphor of the film Matrix. But for a different reason. It show that we are living inside an illusion recreated inside our mind. In a certain sense it could be used to exemplify Kant's concept of transcendental idealism. However, when it comes to the hard problem of consciousness it explains nothing. There is no hint whatsoever why an AI giant computer is supposed to create conscious experience. The magic is simply there without any apparent reason.