IQ

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473186 time=1601063139 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473172 time=1601060525 user_id=15238]
How could there not be? is equally as meaningful. You're still presuming there is a preferred outcome. It's the anthropic principle in different language. There is no Reason why, it just happened that way. What's left is How? in various guises I'm gradually coming to the belief that consciousness questions are Only semantic or empirical, but withholding judgement so far.
[/quote]
Looks like you didn't come up with a 'how'. What makes you think that it's just the consciousness questions that are semantic here?
[/quote]

How is emperical. I'm not a scientist but i presume it's something between the default mode network, ganglial neurons, and those other two concepts i can't remember offhand.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=473191 time=1601063646 user_id=5396]
I’m getting some real Socratic vibes here from Alta, it’s great. :lol:

The basic gist is, question your assumptions.
[/quote]

It can get nauseating to have to explain every notch on the wall of the rabbit hole, tho. There's got to be a point to start taking things for granted.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:35 pm How is emperical. I'm not a scientist but i presume it's something between the default mode network, ganglial neurons, and those other two concepts i can't remember offhand.
Right. What you presume is probably a completely wrong kind of answer to the Hard problem.

Those ganglial neurons etc. are made of the same kind of stuff as the rest of the universe, the stuff is just arranged differently. So why would this stuff give rise to experience in some rare configurations, but not in others.
Also, you keep mentioning science, neuroscience. But they are completely silent on how experience itself happens at all. No measurable evidence whatsoever.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473210 time=1601066791 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473204 time=1601066103 user_id=15238]
How is emperical. I'm not a scientist but i presume it's something between the default mode network, ganglial neurons, and those other two concepts i can't remember offhand.
[/quote]
Right. What you presume is probably a completely wrong kind of answer to the Hard problem.

Those ganglial neurons etc. are made of the same kind of stuff as the rest of the universe, the stuff is just arranged differently. So why would this stuff give rise to experience in some rare configurations, but not in others.
Also, you keep mentioning science, neuroscience. But they are completely silent on how experience itself happens at all. No measurable evidence whatsoever.
[/quote]

They're narrowing it down. We've only had science as we understand it for a few generations. Geez, don't get your panties in a bunch. I solved metaphysics so that'll help the scientists start being efficient.
Dimebag
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: IQ

Post by Dimebag »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:36 pm
Dimebag wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:54 pm I’m getting some real Socratic vibes here from Alta, it’s great. :lol:

The basic gist is, question your assumptions.
It can get nauseating to have to explain every notch on the wall of the rabbit hole, tho. There's got to be a point to start taking things for granted.
We assume that, but we don’t know how far down you can keep asking the how or why questions. It could be that every time we ask the question, we are conceptually dividing the pie of reality, when the pie is actually a whole pie which can be cut an indefinite number of times. The dividing lines are conceptual, due to the way our mind finds patterns.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=473219 time=1601069650 user_id=5396]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473205 time=1601066196 user_id=15238]
[quote=Dimebag post_id=473191 time=1601063646 user_id=5396]
I’m getting some real Socratic vibes here from Alta, it’s great. :lol:

The basic gist is, question your assumptions.
[/quote]

It can get nauseating to have to explain every notch on the wall of the rabbit hole, tho. There's got to be a point to start taking things for granted.
[/quote]
We assume that, but we don’t know how far down you can keep asking the how or why questions. It could be that every time we ask the question, we are conceptually dividing the pie of reality, when the pie is actually a whole pie which can be cut an indefinite number of times. The dividing lines are conceptual, due to the way our mind finds patterns.
[/quote]

There's a point called "good enough", and there's another point called "good enough for all intents and purposes" and i think we passed it at the last intersection.
Dimebag
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: IQ

Post by Dimebag »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:43 pm
Dimebag wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:34 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:36 pm It can get nauseating to have to explain every notch on the wall of the rabbit hole, tho. There's got to be a point to start taking things for granted.
We assume that, but we don’t know how far down you can keep asking the how or why questions. It could be that every time we ask the question, we are conceptually dividing the pie of reality, when the pie is actually a whole pie which can be cut an indefinite number of times. The dividing lines are conceptual, due to the way our mind finds patterns.
There's a point called "good enough", and there's another point called "good enough for all intents and purposes" and i think we passed it at the last intersection.
That point will never be good enough for quantum physicists which science is now grounding itself in, so it seems from a scientific perspective we are committed to this continual division and description of conceptual behaviour.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=473236 time=1601087433 user_id=5396]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473223 time=1601070239 user_id=15238]
[quote=Dimebag post_id=473219 time=1601069650 user_id=5396]

We assume that, but we don’t know how far down you can keep asking the how or why questions. It could be that every time we ask the question, we are conceptually dividing the pie of reality, when the pie is actually a whole pie which can be cut an indefinite number of times. The dividing lines are conceptual, due to the way our mind finds patterns.
[/quote]

There's a point called "good enough", and there's another point called "good enough for all intents and purposes" and i think we passed it at the last intersection.
[/quote]

That point will never be good enough for quantum physicists which science is now grounding itself in, so it seems from a scientific perspective we are committed to this continual division and description of conceptual behaviour.
[/quote]

We don't need quantum physics right now. We could solve all the world's problems easily with the science and technology we understand perfectly already, plus a little extra in the area of medicine. Our technology has exceeded our ethics for a very long time now.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:18 pm They're narrowing it down. We've only had science as we understand it for a few generations. Geez, don't get your panties in a bunch. I solved metaphysics so that'll help the scientists start being efficient.
People who are somewhat good at metaphysics know that science hasn't began to narrow this one down, even though it's a central issue in philosophy. Science has absolutely no explanation for experience itself. That's why the problem is called 'hard'.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by SteveKlinko »

Atla wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:03 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:18 pm They're narrowing it down. We've only had science as we understand it for a few generations. Geez, don't get your panties in a bunch. I solved metaphysics so that'll help the scientists start being efficient.
People who are somewhat good at metaphysics know that science hasn't began to narrow this one down, even though it's a central issue in philosophy. Science has absolutely no explanation for experience itself. That's why the problem is called 'hard'.
Yes. The Hard Problem of Consciousness should be the main target of Research in the Brain Sciences. I have come to realize that a lot of People and even supposedly smart People just don't understand the Hard Problem.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:07 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:03 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:18 pm They're narrowing it down. We've only had science as we understand it for a few generations. Geez, don't get your panties in a bunch. I solved metaphysics so that'll help the scientists start being efficient.
People who are somewhat good at metaphysics know that science hasn't began to narrow this one down, even though it's a central issue in philosophy. Science has absolutely no explanation for experience itself. That's why the problem is called 'hard'.
Yes. The Hard Problem of Consciousness should be the main target of Research in the Brain Sciences. I have come to realize that a lot of People and even supposedly smart People just don't understand the Hard Problem.
Well as you know I disagree, since probably no amount of brain science can solve this one. That job would fall to our incompetent academic philosophers.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473254 time=1601134620 user_id=15497]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=473252 time=1601132854 user_id=14793]
[quote=Atla post_id=473239 time=1601096584 user_id=15497]

People who are somewhat good at metaphysics know that science hasn't began to narrow this one down, even though it's a central issue in philosophy. Science has absolutely no explanation for experience itself. That's why the problem is called 'hard'.
[/quote]

Yes. The Hard Problem of Consciousness should be the main target of Research in the Brain Sciences. I have come to realize that a lot of People and even supposedly smart People just don't understand the Hard Problem.
[/quote]
Well as you know I disagree, since probably no amount of brain science can solve this one. That job would fall to our incompetent academic philosophers.
[/quote]

What reason have you to believe it's possible to phrase the problem in a way that isn't empirical or semantic? What would the answer look like if not one of those two categories? "Why?" isn't meaningful unless you presuppose intent. "How?" is empirical. What's left?
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:49 pm What reason have you to believe it's possible to phrase the problem in a way that isn't empirical or semantic? What would the answer look like if not one of those two categories? "Why?" isn't meaningful unless you presuppose intent. "How?" is empirical. What's left?
When I say 'why', I don't suppose some kind of intentional reason or whatever, I thought we were above such things. 'How' is good, but maybe this 'how' is a mixture of empirical and semantic.

Science can't answer the 'how'. I'm fairly confident that you can't answer the 'how' either, that's why I asked this:
Do you know why it's impossible to fully solve the Hard problem of Consciousness using your Cogito-based solution of philosophy?
Of course one can try to evade the issue by saying that 'well science will somehow figure it out eventually'.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473257 time=1601136016 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473255 time=1601135353 user_id=15238]
What reason have you to believe it's possible to phrase the problem in a way that isn't empirical or semantic? What would the answer look like if not one of those two categories? "Why?" isn't meaningful unless you presuppose intent. "How?" is empirical. What's left?
[/quote]
When I say 'why', I don't suppose some kind of intentional reason or whatever, I thought we were above such things. 'How' is good, but maybe this 'how' is a mixture of empirical and semantic.

Science can't answer the 'how'. I'm fairly confident that you can't answer the 'how' either, that's why I asked this:

[quote]Do you know why it's impossible to fully solve the Hard problem of Consciousness using your Cogito-based solution of philosophy?[/quote]

Of course one can try to evade the issue by saying that 'well science will somehow figure it out eventually'.
[/quote]

Or one can evade the issue by saying "Why doesn't mean what you think it means." without giving an alternate understanding. You constant nay-sayers make me sick. Go find another hobby. You're all fucking useless.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:43 pm Or one can evade the issue by saying "Why doesn't mean what you think it means." without giving an alternate understanding. You constant nay-sayers make me sick. Go find another hobby. You're all fucking useless.
So not only can't you solve the Hard problem, you don't even know what it is. All you did was go crazy about the word 'why', and throw around some wrong scientific guesses. Again you've demonstrated how much you suck at philosophy. :)

You idiots always crack me up. Solved metaphysics my ass.
Post Reply