What do they say?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:36 pmHmmm.
Go and read Thomas Nagel or Jaegwon Kim, and then say again "There's no hard problem of consciousness." If you did that, it would only tell everyone you can't understand the problem....but that it still certainly exists.
There is no hard problem of consciousness
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
Well, you're going to have to read them, aren't you? They're substantial, and they make far too many good points for me to summarize for you in these spaces. But I warn you...you're going to find out there's a genuine hard problem of consciousness...and not just one, but a bunch.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:45 pmWhat do they say?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:36 pmHmmm.
Go and read Thomas Nagel or Jaegwon Kim, and then say again "There's no hard problem of consciousness." If you did that, it would only tell everyone you can't understand the problem....but that it still certainly exists.
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
Can you make one of their points so we can discuss it in here? By the way, did you understand my argument?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:57 pmWell, you're going to have to read them, aren't you? They're substantial, and they make far too many good points for me to summarize for you in these spaces. But I warn you...you're going to find out there's a genuine hard problem of consciousness...and not just one, but a bunch.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:45 pmWhat do they say?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:36 pm
Hmmm.
Go and read Thomas Nagel or Jaegwon Kim, and then say again "There's no hard problem of consciousness." If you did that, it would only tell everyone you can't understand the problem....but that it still certainly exists.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
I think you'd need some of the background in the issues they supply. Their arguments, especially Kim's, are quite sophisticated, and I won't do them justice in brief. One thing for sure, though: you're going to see that there IS a hard problem of consciousness.
Well, I understood your OP very clearly, and could see instantly it was wrong. And then I looked at your argument, but found it ambiguous. So I don't quite know how to interpret what you're trying to say. For example, you assert that consciousness is a property of the mind, but we need materials to make that work. Well, what does "need" imply? You mean, if there were no materials, we couldn't think? But if that's so, then consciousness depends on materials, and isn't just a property of the mind. Or is the mind "materials" as you see it? In which case, why call it "mind" at all?By the way, did you understand my argument?
It's all so capable of opposite interpretations that It's hard to figure out what you want to say there.
Anyway, the term "hard problem of consciousness" pertains to a particular problem, not merely to all things one can think about counsciousness that might seem "hard" to figure out. Here's a summary of the real "Hard Problem of Consciousness": https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/. So it's not just that understanding consciousness isn't "hard" -- it's really, really difficult, and this is one of they key philosophical problems.
Once you can understand that, then you can imagine, therefore, what anybody who knows what "The Hard Problem" actually is would think of somebody who said blithely, "Oh, it's no problem."
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
Can you give a link to their argument?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:39 pmI think you'd need some of the background in the issues they supply. Their arguments, especially Kim's, are quite sophisticated, and I won't do them justice in brief. One thing for sure, though: you're going to see that there IS a hard problem of consciousness.
Well, I understood your OP very clearly, and could see instantly it was wrong. And then I looked at your argument, but found it ambiguous. So I don't quite know how to interpret what you're trying to say. For example, you assert that consciousness is a property of the mind, but we need materials to make that work. Well, what does "need" imply? You mean, if there were no materials, we couldn't think? But if that's so, then consciousness depends on materials, and isn't just a property of the mind. Or is the mind "materials" as you see it? In which case, why call it "mind" at all?By the way, did you understand my argument?
[/quote]
How could you see that my OP is wrong if it is ambiguous to you? I can explain it in more depth if you are interested.
I read many books regarding consciousness.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:39 pm It's all so capable of opposite interpretations that It's hard to figure out what you want to say there.
Anyway, the term "hard problem of consciousness" pertains to a particular problem, not merely to all things one can think about counsciousness that might seem "hard" to figure out. Here's a summary of the real "Hard Problem of Consciousness": https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/. So it's not just that understanding consciousness isn't "hard" -- it's really, really difficult, and this is one of they key philosophical problems.
Once you can understand that, then you can imagine, therefore, what anybody who knows what "The Hard Problem" actually is would think of somebody who said blithely, "Oh, it's no problem."
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
What do yo mean by "hard"?
Is it NP-hard or are you using the word "hard" in some poorly-defined way?
Is it NP-hard or are you using the word "hard" in some poorly-defined way?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
You didn't read carefully. I'll say it again.
I said I understood the OP, but it's clearly wrong.
I said I didn't understand your explanation, your argument under it in the first post, because it was too ambiguous.
Then it would be helpful if you were conscious when you read them. If you did, and afterward you think there's no "hard problem of consciousness," then you didn't pay any attention to what you read....or the books were really, really bad.I read many books regarding consciousness.
Seriously, though...did you look at the site I sent you about The Hard Problem? You should. It's an academic, peer-reviewed site, but worded very simply, so it's both careful and understandable in what it says.
Go have a look.
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
I repeat myself: What do you mean by "hard" ?
The word "hard" describes a quality. The concern with qualia is the concern of consciousness.
So if people keep insisting that red/redness requires an explanation, then surely hard/hardness requires an explanation too?
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
I didn't invent the world hard. That is the invention of David Chalmers. By that, he means that the problem of how consciousness can arise from matter is impossible to answer.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:14 pmI repeat myself: What do you mean by "hard" ?
The word "hard" describes a quality. The concern with qualia is the concern of consciousness.
So if people keep insisting that red/redness requires an explanation, then surely hard/hardness requires an explanation too?
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
So is it the hard, or the impossible problem?
Because if it's impossible - then that's a very good reason to abandon it and focus our attention elsewhere.
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
Impossible. The point that I am raising is that this problem arises from the fact that we assign consciousness to matter. People are confused.
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
Well, it way worse than that. We assign "consciousness" to ourselves without knowing what it is.
And then we assign "materiality" to the everything (ourselves included) without knowing what that is either.
We assign meaning to everything.
But that's a problem/limit inherent to all language. Even Mathematics.
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
True.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:35 pmWell, it way worse than that. We assign "consciousness" to ourselves without knowing what it is.
And then we assign "materiality" to the everything (ourselves included) without knowing what that is either.
We assign meaning to everything.
But that's a problem/limit inherent to all language. Even Mathematics.
Re: There is no hard problem of consciousness
It is correct to say there IS a hard problem of consciousness.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:39 pmOne thing for sure, though: you're going to see that there IS a hard problem of consciousness.
This problem is a hard nut to crack, because knowledge of any such claim requires a knower, and while knowledge is KNOWN, the known know nothing. It is not known who or what knows, only what is known. It's a conceptual problem, for concepts are known NOT by no conceptually known thing.
No doubt a huge dilemma for the one who questions, for how could one thing exist...in truth,no such questioner ever arises, except in this conception. Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality.