the easy problem of consciousness
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
Consciousness is not even a problem, it's only a problem when you show up to your own show. There's just no room in here for two. That's the only problem Immanuel Can't.
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
[quote=Dontaskme post_id=476899 time=1603612622 user_id=12017]
Consciousness is not even a problem, it's only a problem when you show up to your own show. There's just no room in here for two. That's the only problem Immanuel Can't.
[/quote]
Are you familiar with the idea of Tulpas?
Consciousness is not even a problem, it's only a problem when you show up to your own show. There's just no room in here for two. That's the only problem Immanuel Can't.
[/quote]
Are you familiar with the idea of Tulpas?
-
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
- Contact:
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
Knowing which Neurons fire for the Taste experience is definitely the Easy Problem. Explaining how those firing Neurons produce the Conscious Experience of Taste in the Mind is the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem is also called the Explanatory Gap.Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:27 pm Asking how the brain is capable of creating the experience of consciousness is not materially different from asking how the tongue produces saltiness. The pattern of nerve firings IS the thing that's being referenced, not a separate entity made of separate stuff.
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=476935 time=1603637103 user_id=14793]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476783 time=1603553244 user_id=15238]
Asking how the brain is capable of creating the experience of consciousness is not materially different from asking how the tongue produces saltiness. The pattern of nerve firings IS the thing that's being referenced, not a separate entity made of separate stuff.
[/quote]
Knowing which Neurons fire for the Taste experience is definitely the Easy Problem. Explaining how those firing Neurons produce the Conscious Experience of Taste in the Mind is the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem is also called the Explanatory Gap.
[/quote]
I've seen a lot of variations on what the hard problem supposedly is, but never a one that allows a foothold for finding a solution, which means they're insufficient. If the question is really "how?" then it's everything to do with neuroscience and nothing to do with philosophy. If it's why, you've got to presuppose intent. What's left? Where is consciousness? (neuroscience), who? (philosophy of self, not of consciousness), what? (semantic), An explanatory gap is literally nothing but a subject that science and logic haven't yet answered. Since this appears to be a scientific enterprise of empirical measurement, where comes the philosophy? Is there anything logically necessary about how we use the word consciousness to refer to our own experience? I can't find it...
[quote=Advocate post_id=476783 time=1603553244 user_id=15238]
Asking how the brain is capable of creating the experience of consciousness is not materially different from asking how the tongue produces saltiness. The pattern of nerve firings IS the thing that's being referenced, not a separate entity made of separate stuff.
[/quote]
Knowing which Neurons fire for the Taste experience is definitely the Easy Problem. Explaining how those firing Neurons produce the Conscious Experience of Taste in the Mind is the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem is also called the Explanatory Gap.
[/quote]
I've seen a lot of variations on what the hard problem supposedly is, but never a one that allows a foothold for finding a solution, which means they're insufficient. If the question is really "how?" then it's everything to do with neuroscience and nothing to do with philosophy. If it's why, you've got to presuppose intent. What's left? Where is consciousness? (neuroscience), who? (philosophy of self, not of consciousness), what? (semantic), An explanatory gap is literally nothing but a subject that science and logic haven't yet answered. Since this appears to be a scientific enterprise of empirical measurement, where comes the philosophy? Is there anything logically necessary about how we use the word consciousness to refer to our own experience? I can't find it...
-
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
- Contact:
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
The Hard Problem is a Problem for Science and for Philosophy. Nobody knows what is going on with Consciousness. All your questions above are the essence of the Hard Problem. How, Why, Where? Figure out any one of these and you will open doors to all the other questions. But I still think the How question is the most important to Science and the Why question might be more solvable by Philosophy. I think Science and Philosophy can both work on the Where question. But one thing for sure is that there is a Huge Explanatory Gap at this point in time.Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:52 pmI've seen a lot of variations on what the hard problem supposedly is, but never a one that allows a foothold for finding a solution, which means they're insufficient. If the question is really "how?" then it's everything to do with neuroscience and nothing to do with philosophy. If it's why, you've got to presuppose intent. What's left? Where is consciousness? (neuroscience), who? (philosophy of self, not of consciousness), what? (semantic), An explanatory gap is literally nothing but a subject that science and logic haven't yet answered. Since this appears to be a scientific enterprise of empirical measurement, where comes the philosophy? Is there anything logically necessary about how we use the word consciousness to refer to our own experience? I can't find it...SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:45 pmKnowing which Neurons fire for the Taste experience is definitely the Easy Problem. Explaining how those firing Neurons produce the Conscious Experience of Taste in the Mind is the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem is also called the Explanatory Gap.Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:27 pm Asking how the brain is capable of creating the experience of consciousness is not materially different from asking how the tongue produces saltiness. The pattern of nerve firings IS the thing that's being referenced, not a separate entity made of separate stuff.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
What evidence do you have that firing neurons produce anything other than their own behavior, or that, "conscious experience," must be produced by something else? Do you believe everything is contingent--that nothing, "just is?" Doesn't that result in an endless regress?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:45 pmKnowing which Neurons fire for the Taste experience is definitely the Easy Problem. Explaining how those firing Neurons produce the Conscious Experience of Taste in the Mind is the Hard Problem.
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
Material has physical properties. These properties may be perceived by the mind depending on what our sensory system is exposed to and how our brain is influenced by our sensory system.Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:27 pm Asking how the brain is capable of creating the experience of consciousness is not materially different from asking how the tongue produces saltiness. The pattern of nerve firings IS the thing that's being referenced, not a separate entity made of separate stuff.
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
No, I've never heard of the Tulpas idea.
So I googled it, now I know but it's context is meaningless to this one here. I know nothing about anything, I'm only a passing witness, and all I see is not worth repeating. I'm like wtf is this hell hole.
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
That's because there is nobody to know that nobody knows what is going on with Consciousness.
But one thing for sure is that there is a Huge Explanatory Gap at this point in time.
-
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
- Contact:
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
It is a fact of Brain Science that specific Neurons Firing result in specific Conscious experiences. Science does not know How this happens. Science can measure the Correlation (the Neural Correlates of Consciousness) between Neurons Firing and Conscious Experience.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:13 pmWhat evidence do you have that firing neurons produce anything other than their own behavior, or that, "conscious experience," must be produced by something else? Do you believe everything is contingent--that nothing, "just is?" Doesn't that result in an endless regress?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:45 pmKnowing which Neurons fire for the Taste experience is definitely the Easy Problem. Explaining how those firing Neurons produce the Conscious Experience of Taste in the Mind is the Hard Problem.
-
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
- Contact:
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
Immanuel Can, do you claim consciousness, or mind, is identical to brain, an epiphenomenon of brain, necessarily emerges from brain, or is a substance not necessarily related to brain substance?
If, as you seem to believe, consciousness necessarily emerges from brain does this event confer on individuals special powers of origination?
If you claim so, are you succumbing to confirmation bias?
If, as you seem to believe, consciousness necessarily emerges from brain does this event confer on individuals special powers of origination?
If you claim so, are you succumbing to confirmation bias?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
There is a science of neurology, (now renamed "neuroscience,") which is the study of the physiological system of the brain and nervous systems. There is no such science as psychology, or the bastard pseudoscience neuropsychology, because consciousnes cannot be studied scientifically.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:52 pm It is a fact of Brain Science that specific Neurons Firing result in specific Conscious experiences. Science does not know How this happens. Science can measure the Correlation (the Neural Correlates of Consciousness) between Neurons Firing and Conscious Experience.
One cannot take a fresh consciousness and lay it on a dissecting table to examine it. In fact, there is no way to examine consciousness at all. Whenever someone tells the lie, "there are correlations between neurons firing and conscious experience," no such correlation has ever been observed.
All one ever has is the testimony of someone who claims to have a certain conscious experience while some obscure brain activity is observed occurring. The problem is, there is no way to determine if the testimony is true or not, and so long as what is claimed to be, "science," just depends on what someone claims, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=477116 time=1603726666 user_id=16196]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=477087 time=1603713164 user_id=14793]
It is a fact of Brain Science that specific Neurons Firing result in specific Conscious experiences. Science does not know How this happens. Science can measure the Correlation (the Neural Correlates of Consciousness) between Neurons Firing and Conscious Experience.
[/quote]
There is a science of neurology, (now renamed "neuroscience,") which is the study of the physiological system of the brain and nervous systems. There is no such science as psychology, or the bastard pseudoscience neuropsychology, because consciousnes cannot be studied scientifically.
One cannot take a fresh consciousness and lay it on a dissecting table to examine it. In fact, there is no way to examine consciousness at all. Whenever someone tells the lie, "there are correlations between neurons firing and conscious experience," no such correlation has ever been observed.
All one ever has is the testimony of someone who claims to have a certain conscious experience while some obscure brain activity is observed occurring. The problem is, there is no way to determine if the testimony is true or not, and so long as what is claimed to be, "science," just depends on what someone claims, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
[/quote]
Science is rigor, not certainty.
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=477087 time=1603713164 user_id=14793]
It is a fact of Brain Science that specific Neurons Firing result in specific Conscious experiences. Science does not know How this happens. Science can measure the Correlation (the Neural Correlates of Consciousness) between Neurons Firing and Conscious Experience.
[/quote]
There is a science of neurology, (now renamed "neuroscience,") which is the study of the physiological system of the brain and nervous systems. There is no such science as psychology, or the bastard pseudoscience neuropsychology, because consciousnes cannot be studied scientifically.
One cannot take a fresh consciousness and lay it on a dissecting table to examine it. In fact, there is no way to examine consciousness at all. Whenever someone tells the lie, "there are correlations between neurons firing and conscious experience," no such correlation has ever been observed.
All one ever has is the testimony of someone who claims to have a certain conscious experience while some obscure brain activity is observed occurring. The problem is, there is no way to determine if the testimony is true or not, and so long as what is claimed to be, "science," just depends on what someone claims, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
[/quote]
Science is rigor, not certainty.
Re: the easy problem of consciousness
And thank the lord for that, the burden has been taken off you in that regard. It's not for you to know, you are already known. You are known by being aka via the direct experience of being consciousness. In essence, you are the knowing that cannot be known.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:55 pm
At least I for sure don't know what is going on with Consciousness.
The mind does not like this redundancy for what can the mind do with nothing.