consciousness sandbox

[SteveKlinko]

I can and do Experience Redness. You are playing your usual Skepdick Game when you ask "What is Causality?" I don't feel like playing today.

Obviously you experience Redness. But you also experience causality, do you not?

So if you are going to be asking the question "what causes the experience of redness?" why aren't you similarly asking the question "what causes the experience of causality?

Why are you discriminating against experiences?

As per Steveklinko’s initial question as per the hard problem of consciousness,

1) neurons fire in the brain,
2) an experience of red happens,

You say causality has to be explained between the two, I say, we need to expand on the mechanisms of 1). It’s not know if there is even any difference between 1 and 2. 1 is very vague.

My question would be, what separates neurons firing in the brain between two different sensory experiences, like the colour of red or the taste of coffee? If it’s purely neurons firing which is responsible for each different experience, then there is obviously more going on than JUST neurons firing. There is probably a LOT more going on than we know, and that is probably where the answer to how 2 emerges from 1.

Exactly.

[commonsense]

On a physical level, what happens is that a certain constellation of neural impulses means redness, is redness for that matter.

Those impulses begin when sensory nerve endings, positioned on each retina, within each ear, throughout the skin, in the nose and on the tongue, as well as throughout the internal geography of the body, are stimulated.

Whenever a nerve cell is stimulated, it propagates an electrical charge along its length. The charge crosses a synapse of biochemicals and is passed off (to another sensory nerve cell that propels the initial charge on) to the brain, where there are specialized nerve cells that form complex networks with other cells. Each network has a unique meaning.

[Skepdick]

I can and do Experience Redness. You are playing your usual Skepdick Game when you ask "What is Causality?" I don't feel like playing today.

Obviously you experience Redness. But you also experience causality, do you not?

So if you are going to be asking the question "what causes the experience of redness?" why aren't you similarly asking the question "what causes the experience of causality?

Why are you discriminating against experiences?

As per Steveklinko’s initial question as per the hard problem of consciousness,

1) neurons fire in the brain,
2) an experience of red happens,

You say causality has to be explained between the two, I say, we need to expand on the mechanisms of 1). It’s not know if there is even any difference between 1 and 2. 1 is very vague.

My question would be, what separates neurons firing in the brain between two different sensory experiences, like the colour of red or the taste of coffee? If it’s purely neurons firing which is responsible for each different experience, then there is obviously more going on than JUST neurons firing. There is probably a LOT more going on than we know, and that is probably where the answer to how 2 emerges from 1.

And you would be asking a stupid question.

How do you know that neurons fire in the brain? Isn't that like... an experience. Or something.

The very thing you are trying to explain.

So I am getting straight to the point: explain how explanations work.

[Dimebag]

Obviously you experience Redness. But you also experience causality, do you not?

So if you are going to be asking the question "what causes the experience of redness?" why aren't you similarly asking the question "what causes the experience of causality?

Why are you discriminating against experiences?

As per Steveklinko’s initial question as per the hard problem of consciousness,

1) neurons fire in the brain,
2) an experience of red happens,

You say causality has to be explained between the two, I say, we need to expand on the mechanisms of 1). It’s not know if there is even any difference between 1 and 2. 1 is very vague.

My question would be, what separates neurons firing in the brain between two different sensory experiences, like the colour of red or the taste of coffee? If it’s purely neurons firing which is responsible for each different experience, then there is obviously more going on than JUST neurons firing. There is probably a LOT more going on than we know, and that is probably where the answer to how 2 emerges from 1.

And you would be asking a stupid question.

How do you know that neurons fire in the brain? Isn't that like... an experience. Or something.

The very thing you are trying to explain.

So I am getting straight to the point: explain how explanations work.

You can explain by analogy or by mechanism. Analogy sees consistencies between different things which have similar functioning, mechanism or reductionism seeks to understand constituent parts and their behaviour.

The question is, how does subjective experience emerge from the behaviour of neural interactions? You think you know everything about neurons, you don’t. Neuroscience is constantly learning more about the sheer complexity of the brain. It seems the proteins which make up each synapse combine to form different kinds of synapses, which, have been compared to computers, each synapse is like a computer, storing information and performing operations on that information.

All that is to say, we don’t understand how consciousness could emerge from the brain, because we don’t even know the brain, let alone its functioning, let alone how it functions or what it does.

[Advocate]

[quote=Dimebag post_id=474255 time=1601761732 user_id=5396]
All that is to say, we don’t understand how consciousness could emerge from the brain, because we don’t even know the brain, let alone its functioning, let alone how it functions or what it does.
[/quote]

Let alone have a working definition of consciousness to check.

[Skepdick]

You can explain by analogy or by mechanism. Analogy sees consistencies between different things which have similar functioning, mechanism or reductionism seeks to understand constituent parts and their behaviour.

The question is, how does subjective experience emerge from the behaviour of neural interactions? You think you know everything about neurons, you don’t. Neuroscience is constantly learning more about the sheer complexity of the brain. It seems the proteins which make up each synapse combine to form different kinds of synapses, which, have been compared to computers, each synapse is like a computer, storing information and performing operations on that information.

All that is to say, we don’t understand how consciousness could emerge from the brain, because we don’t even know the brain, let alone its functioning, let alone how it functions or what it does.

1. You are trying to explain emergent behaviours with a reductionist approach. The two paradigms are incompatible.
2. You are trying to sprint (tackle complexity) when you can't even address simplicity: what is an "explanation"?

What does an "explanation" feel like? What does an "explanation" do?

[Dimebag]

You can explain by analogy or by mechanism. Analogy sees consistencies between different things which have similar functioning, mechanism or reductionism seeks to understand constituent parts and their behaviour.

The question is, how does subjective experience emerge from the behaviour of neural interactions? You think you know everything about neurons, you don’t. Neuroscience is constantly learning more about the sheer complexity of the brain. It seems the proteins which make up each synapse combine to form different kinds of synapses, which, have been compared to computers, each synapse is like a computer, storing information and performing operations on that information.

All that is to say, we don’t understand how consciousness could emerge from the brain, because we don’t even know the brain, let alone its functioning, let alone how it functions or what it does.

1. You are trying to explain emergent behaviours with a reductionist approach. The two paradigms are incompatible.
2. You are trying to sprint (tackle complexity) when you can't even address simplicity: what is an "explanation"?

What does an "explanation" feel like? What does an "explanation" do?

Explain simply means, to make clear an unknown.

What it feels like, is...... “ahhhhhhh”.

[Advocate]

1. You are trying to explain emergent behaviours with a reductionist approach. The two paradigms are incompatible.
2. You are trying to sprint (tackle complexity) when you can't even address simplicity: what is an "explanation"?

What does an "explanation" feel like? What does an "explanation" do?

1. Emergence is merely ising a different metaphor to explain something at a higher order of complexity. Literally any relationship creates emergent patterns but we don't always give them new words.
2. Totally useless. We don't need to unpack the entire English language for every question, dick.

[Skepdick]

Explain simply means, to make clear an unknown.

What it feels like, is...... “ahhhhhhh”.

So a bunch of symbols on a paper cause you to experience "ahhhhh"?

And you don't think that's the same kind of problem as "a bunch of neurons firing causing you to experience redness"?

Interesting.

[commonsense]

Explain simply means, to make clear an unknown.

What it feels like, is...... “ahhhhhhh”.

So a bunch of symbols on a paper cause you to experience "ahhhhh"?

And you don't think that's the same kind of problem as "a bunch of neurons firing causing you to experience redness"?

Interesting.

What’s more interesting is that you seem to think that it must be explained how an experience emerges from the electrical activity of neurons.

There’s no emergence aside from the emergence of one expression of an event from another expression of the same event.

In other words, the “firing of neurons in the brain” is the “experience”. Put another way, what an individual experiences is the electrical activity of a specific network of nerve cells.

In one instance, the specific set of nerve firings is what we call the experience of redness.

[Skepdick]

What’s more interesting is that you seem to think that it must be explained how an experience emerges from the electrical activity of neurons.

Well, yeah!!! I want it explained why some symbols on paper produce the experience of "aaaaah!!!!!" while others don't!

Explain "aaaaahness".

It's exactly the same request as explaining why some light produces "redness" and other light doesn't.

[commonsense]

What’s more interesting is that you seem to think that it must be explained how an experience emerges from the electrical activity of neurons.

Well, yeah!!! I want it explained why some symbols on paper produce the experience of "aaaaah!!!!!" while others don't!

Explain "aaaaahness".

It's exactly the same request as explaining why some light produces "redness" and other light doesn't.

As you know, redness was explained in my post. Why redness is produced by only one specific set of neurons was also explained. Aaaaahness and other light can be explained in the same fashion.

[Skepdick]

As you know, redness was explained in my post. Why redness is produced by only one specific set of neurons was also explained. Aaaaahness and other light can be explained in the same fashion.

But "aaahness" was supposed to be the feeling of "redness explained".

So what do you propose we call the feeling of "aaahness explained" ?

[commonsense]

As you know, redness was explained in my post. Why redness is produced by only one specific set of neurons was also explained. Aaaaahness and other light can be explained in the same fashion.

But "aaahness" was supposed to be the feeling of "redness explained".

So what do you propose we call the feeling of "aaahness explained" ?

I do not agree that the feeling of redness explained is aaahness. I have nothing further to say about aaaahness. That is a matter for Skepdick and Dimebag.

[Skepdick]

I do not agree that the feeling of redness explained is aaahness. I have nothing further to say about aaaahness. That is a matter for Skepdick and Dimebag.

It doesn't matter what you call it.

So long as you agree that the experience of "redness explained" is a different experience to "redness", you are right back where you started.

Now you need to bridge the gap between explanations and the experience thereof.