consciousness sandbox

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=473667 time=1601406372 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473651 time=1601397708 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=473650 time=1601397130 user_id=17350]
So...how do you know that you are conscious?
[/quote]

It's because i understand how words work. They refer to things. Whatever this is, it's what the word refers to. Checkmate. GTFO.
[/quote]

I agree. Whatever it is, I call it consciousness and I recognize it (whenever I am conscious of it).
[/quote]

That's why it's synonymous with awareness. Consciousness is, in at least one ordinary definition, that same momentary experience. Include the temporal aspect, the continuity of that experience, and you get self. Perspective is a geometric metaphor for the same thing. Ego is self but with a layer of salience on top, and so forth. There are many definitions for each of these words but they all center on one extremely specific thing - experience itself.

[Advocate]

[quote=Advocate post_id=473675 time=1601408655 user_id=15238]
I agree. Whatever it is, I call it consciousness and I recognize it (whenever I am conscious of it).
[/quote]

That's why it's synonymous with awareness. Consciousness is, in at least one ordinary definition, that same momentary experience. Include the temporal aspect, the continuity of that experience, and you get self. Perspective is a geometric metaphor for the same thing. Ego is self but with a layer of salience on top, and so forth. There are many definitions for each of these words but they all center on one extremely specific thing - experience itself.
[/quote]

[Advocate]

>I agree. Whatever it is, I call it consciousness and I recognize it (whenever I am conscious of it).

That's why it's synonymous with awareness. Consciousness is, in at least one ordinary definition, that same momentary experience. Include the temporal aspect, the continuity of that experience, and you get self. Perspective is a geometric metaphor for the same thing. Ego is self but with a layer of salience on top, and so forth. There are many definitions for each of these words but they all center on one extremely specific thing - experience itself.

[Skepdick]

Consciousness is, in at least one ordinary definition, that same momentary experience.

Great! So as soon as you tell us what "experience" is then you've solved consciousness.

[commonsense]

Skep, I can’t describe what consciousness or experience is, but I know them when I’m exposed to them.

What I just said is akin to saying that I know good art when I see it; I just can’t say it (I.e. can’t say what good art is). This is a common adage in the vernacular.

Even if that commoner has poor criteria for what makes art good, if he uses the same criteria each time he evaluates a piece of art, then he is attaching “good art” to the same indescribable (to him) thing each time.

[Skepdick]

Skep, I can’t describe what consciousness or experience is, but I know them when I’m exposed to them.

Well, that's already a starting place! You are saying "when" you are exposed to them, so there is a modality there.

So maybe give some examples when you are, and when you aren't exposed to experience.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=473681 time=1601410420 user_id=14610]
Skep, I can’t describe what consciousness or experience is, but I know them when I’m exposed to them.

What I just said is akin to saying that I know good art when I see it; I just can’t say it (I.e. can’t say what good art is). This is a common adage in the vernacular.

Even if that commoner has poor criteria for what makes art good, if he uses the same criteria each time he evaluates a piece of art, then he is attaching “good art” to the same indescribable (to him) thing each time.
[/quote]

What is art to them? All non-material things are subject to three contingencies; salient, perspective, and priority. Account for them and you'll have your solution. Everything is subjective, not arbitrary.

salience - I care about certain visual styles more or less according to associations I've experienced in the past (as etched into my neurons). This salience is the most arbitrary part of the equation, stuff like emotions fits here.

perspective - From my perspective it makes sense to consider art as not one thing. There's at least the kinds; that you hang on your refrigerator, and the kind that takes decades of training is a different thing entirely. In the latter sense, not something just anyone can do. Then there's modern art, don't get me started.

priority - According to my priorities, those differences are salient but the entire topic of art isn't, so perspective and priority don't matter much. <shrug> I care to the extent it's helpful to clarify some practical problem.

That's what art is to me.

[commonsense]

Skep, I can’t describe what consciousness or experience is, but I know them when I’m exposed to them.

Well, that's already a starting place! You are saying "when" you are exposed to them, so there is a modality there.

So maybe give some examples when you are, and when you aren't exposed to experience.

I was looking at my dog a moment before typing this. I think that was an experience.

I’m typing now. I think this is an experience.

I’m thirsty. I think I am having an experience of, or that I am conscious of, thirst.

I just don’t know how to describe what these experiences are in a way that could explain what I’m thinking.

[commonsense]

Skep, I can’t describe what consciousness or experience is, but I know them when I’m exposed to them.

What I just said is akin to saying that I know good art when I see it; I just can’t say it (I.e. can’t say what good art is). This is a common adage in the vernacular.

Even if that commoner has poor criteria for what makes art good, if he uses the same criteria each time he evaluates a piece of art, then he is attaching “good art” to the same indescribable (to him) thing each time.

What is art to them? All non-material things are subject to three contingencies; salient, perspective, and priority. Account for them and you'll have your solution. Everything is subjective, not arbitrary.

salience - I care about certain visual styles more or less according to associations I've experienced in the past (as etched into my neurons). This salience is the most arbitrary part of the equation, stuff like emotions fits here.

perspective - From my perspective it makes sense to consider art as not one thing. There's at least the kinds; that you hang on your refrigerator, and the kind that takes decades of training is a different thing entirely. In the latter sense, not something just anyone can do. Then there's modern art, don't get me started.

priority - According to my priorities, those differences are salient but the entire topic of art isn't, so perspective and priority don't matter much. <shrug> I care to the extent it's helpful to clarify some practical problem.

That's what art is to me.

I must confess that, to me, art can be anything that is pleasing to look at. Good art is more pleasing to look at than ordinary art or bad art.

[SteveKlinko]

>The "hard" problem has nothing to do with x. It has everything to do with y.

For every one philosoper polled, two answers were received for what the hard problem of consciousness is. If it's metaphysical, it's solved. I can answer every question in metaphysics.

Let's see. I'll state it this way, Given:

1) Neurons Fire for Red in the Brain.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens in the Mind.

How does 1 produce 2?
Is this a Metaphysical Mystery or a Scientific Mystery?
From what you say it must be a Scientific Mystery because it is definitely unsolved.

You are very confused. We've established this over and over.

The metaphysical problem with the above is "What is causality?".
Do you experience "causality" like you experience "redness"?

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.

[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?

[commonsense]

..why aren't you similarly asking the question "what causes the experience of causality?

Is what causes causality a fair question?

[Skepdick]

Is what causes causality a fair question?

Of course it is.

Causality-the-meaningful-concept (state of mind) is an experience.

"What causes causality to be meaningful?" is the symbol-grounding problem

[commonsense]

Is what causes causality a fair question?

Of course it is.

Causality-the-meaningful-concept (state of mind) is an experience.

"What causes causality to be meaningful?" is the symbol-grounding problem

Thanks. I suspected as much but just couldn’t work it out.

[Dimebag]

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.