Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

[Skepdick]

In other words no science, no number system, no classification system could have told Mary what Red LOOKS LIKE, until she saw it with her own eyes.

Non-sequitur.

What does that have to do with Mary describing the difference between 'red' and 'green'?
She could call those colors 'apply' and 'grassly'. Even if she has experienced both with her own eyes she still can't tell you anything about the difference between the two.

All that Mary can tell you is that they are different.

And I have to point out that there is no way to tell if what you see when you see red is the same as I see when I see red. Though we can agree that it is red, we are not able know that we observe the same quality.

You aren't pointing out anything I haven't already said.

We aren't agreeing that it is 'red'. We are agreeing to CALL it 'red'. We could have called it 'apply' - just the same.

[SteveKlinko]

I don't need to verify that I understand Quantum Physics. I simply understand it.

Bullshit.

Give me an algorithm/equation to solve the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen.

I think the issue you are stuck on is the fact that we cannot describe Conscious Phenomena with Language. There is no way for me to describe the Redness that I Experience with language. There is no way for me to describe my Understanding with Language. When we discover a new way of Understanding that will let us Understand Consciousness then we can talk about it. You've got to stop putting carts before horses.

No, the issue I am stuck on is that you are paying lip service to the scientific method, whereas I am asking you to apply it recursively.

You have made a claim about reality.
A claim about the state of your own epistemology.

Hypothesis 1: I understand quantum physics.
Alternative hypothesis: I don't understand quantum physics.

What would be sufficient evidence for the alternative hypothesis?

Quite literally - I am asking you to tell us how you might prove yourself wrong.

Self-skepticism 101.

Intentional or not you are just Diverting the discussion away from the point of this thread. Your question about an algorithm is irrelevant to this discussion. If you are insisting that we must Understand Understanding because if we don't do that first then we will never be able to Understand Redness then I Understand why you are pushing this, even though I don't agree with that premise. But if you are just trying to make some kind of obscure Philosophical point then you are wasting everyone's time.

I have a couple of good books that I used while studying Quantum Mechanics. I struggled through the Bracket notation and finally did mostly understand the equations. That was a couple of years ago. I don't think I can rattle off the equations now without reviewing things. But that does not matter because I still Understand the importance of the Wave Equation in the nature of the Universe. I don't have any idea what would make me think that I don't understand QM.

When it comes to Consciousness everything is still on the table. Science has no clue what Redness is. All Speculations and outright Guesses are all equally Valid directions of study. There are no Prerequisite Philosophical questions that must be answered.

[Skepdick]

Science has no clue what Redness is

Science is empiricism. Experience. When you experience 'redness' you are being a scientist. You are DOING science.

If you-the-scientist don't have an idea what answer you are looking for (by your own admission, you don't know what 'redness' is), what chance do I stand in explaining your experiences to you?

Good luck with untangling the philosophical mess you've gotten yourself into.

[Skepdick]

I struggled through the Bracket notation and finally did mostly understand the equations. That was a couple of years ago. I don't think I can rattle off the equations now without reviewing things. But that does not matter because I still Understand the importance of the Wave Equation in the nature of the Universe.

Understanding the importance of something, and understanding something in practice are not the same thing.

I also understand the importance of farming. I have no idea how to farm.

To understand something in practice means (at the very least) that you can explain it to yourself enough to apply it.
To understand something in theory means you can explain it to somebody else so that they can apply it.

You don't seem to understand the scientific epistemology. And it seems obvious to me - that I don't understand it (in theory) either.

[SteveKlinko]

Science has no clue what Redness is

Science is empiricism. Experience. When you experience 'redness' you are being a scientist. You are DOING science.

If you-the-scientist don't have an idea what answer you are looking for, what chance do I stand in explaining your experiences to you?

Good luck with untangling the linguistic and epistemic mess you've gotten yourself into.

I really don't have any idea what the answer to the question is. If I had any idea then I could not say that Science has Zero Understanding about Consciousness. And I think that is a true statement. There is no Linguistic or Epistemic issue with asking any question. You are trapped in the quicksand of Philosophical inertia. You are also trapped in a Semantics Feedback Loop. Me, I'm just asking a question. What could be a more Scientific endeavor than that?

[SteveKlinko]

I struggled through the Bracket notation and finally did mostly understand the equations. That was a couple of years ago. I don't think I can rattle off the equations now without reviewing things. But that does not matter because I still Understand the importance of the Wave Equation in the nature of the Universe.

Understanding the importance of something, and understanding something in practice are not the same thing.

I also understand the importance of farming. I have no idea how to farm.

To understand something in practice means (at the very least) that you can explain it to yourself enough to apply it.
To understand something in theory means you can explain it to somebody else so that they can apply it.

You don't seem to understand the scientific epistemology. And it seems obvious to me - that I don't understand it (in theory) either.

You don't seem to understand the simple act of asking a question. I reject your mandate that there all kinds of Philosophical hoops that you have to jump through before you can ask a simple question.

[Skepdick]

I really don't have any idea what the answer to the question is. If I had any idea then I could not say that Science has Zero Understanding about Consciousness. And I think that is a true statement.

You don't need to have an idea what the answer would be. But you do need to have an idea what the answer would DO for you.
Every scientist knows that a 'correct answer' allows for accurate prediction of some phenomena.

That's what all scientific explanations do - they predict. Which is where the element of 'expectation' comes in. I expect that an accurate solution would (at the very least) have predictive utility.

You are trapped in the quicksand of Philosophical inertia. You are also trapped in a Semantics Feedback Loop.

Which would be rather strange since I don't engage in philosophy. Except for the purpose of pointing out that all philosophy is bullshit.
I am a die-hard empiricist. Which is why I do not expect science to explain my experiences to me.

I only expect science to predict me having those experiences.

There is no Linguistic or Epistemic issue with asking any question. Me, I'm just asking a question. What could be a more Scientific endeavor than that?

It may have been true that in highschool that there are no such things as stupid questions, but in science "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" couldn't be more true.

What's the meaning of life? 42.

[Skepdick]

You don't seem to understand the simple act of asking a question. I reject your mandate that there all kinds of Philosophical hoops that you have to jump through before you can ask a simple question.

On the contrary. Asking an unanswerable question is a philosophical error. How can you understand the meaning of life when you don't even know what meaning is?

Knowing how to formulate a question such that a viable strategy exists to answer it... That's a science. It's grounded in logical decidability.

I am of the opinion that you can't tell the difference between decidable and undecidable questions...
Which is common amongst Philosophers without any scientific background.

[SteveKlinko]

I really don't have any idea what the answer to the question is. If I had any idea then I could not say that Science has Zero Understanding about Consciousness. And I think that is a true statement.

You don't need to have an idea what the answer would be. But you do need to have an idea what the answer would DO for you.
Every scientist knows that a 'correct answer' allows for accurate prediction of some phenomena.

That's what all scientific explanations do - they predict. Which is where the element of 'expectation' comes in. I expect that an accurate solution would (at the very least) have predictive utility.

You are trapped in the quicksand of Philosophical inertia. You are also trapped in a Semantics Feedback Loop.

Which would be rather strange since I don't engage in philosophy. Except for the purpose of pointing out that all philosophy is bullshit.
I am a die-hard empiricist. Which is why I do not expect science to explain my experiences to me.

I only expect science to predict me having those experiences.

There is no Linguistic or Epistemic issue with asking any question. Me, I'm just asking a question. What could be a more Scientific endeavor than that?

It may have been true that in highschool that there are no such things as stupid questions, but in science "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" couldn't be more true.

What's the meaning of life? 42.

How do I See Redness, may be a stupid question, and if it is then I deserve a Stupid answer. I'm betting that it is not a Stupid question.

[SteveKlinko]

You don't seem to understand the simple act of asking a question. I reject your mandate that there all kinds of Philosophical hoops that you have to jump through before you can ask a simple question.

On the contrary. Asking an unanswerable question is a philosophical error. How can you understand the meaning of life when you don't even know what meaning is?

Knowing how to formulate a question such that a viable strategy exists to answer it... That's a science. It's grounded in logical decidability.

I am of the opinion that you can't tell the difference between decidable and undecidable questions...
Which is common amongst Philosophers without any scientific background.

You don't know that the question is unanswerable unless you know something about Conscious Experience that nobody else knows. I think the question is decidable or else I would not ask it. What do you know about Conscious Experience that leads you to think that asking: What Conscious Experience is, is undecidable?

[Skepdick]

How do I See Redness, may be a stupid question, and if it is then I deserve a Stupid answer. I'm betting that it is not a Stupid question.

The fact that you have dismissed every single answer given so far without a shred of constructive feedback on your behalf as to why the answer is unsatisfactory to you...

That's evidence for it being a stupid question.

You have absolutely no criterion for recognising the correct answer. Even if it were to be given to you at this very moment.

[Skepdick]

You don't know that the question is unanswerable unless you know something about Conscious Experience that nobody else knows. I think the question is decidable or else I would not ask it. What do you know about Conscious Experience that leads you to think that asking: What Conscious Experience is, is undecidable?

It's unanswerable because I know something about the nature of questions and answers.

I know that "What is X" is a dead-end question.

Science doesn't answer what things ARE.
Science can only answers what things DO/how things behave.

[SteveKlinko]

I would like to add that if you never ask the question you will never get to know if it is Stupid. If it is Stupid then there has to be a chain of Logic that leads you to that conclusion.

[Dontaskme]

If I had any idea then I could not say that Science has Zero Understanding about Consciousness.

Steve, do you think that if Science could see Consciousness then maybe that might help them Understand what it is?

.

[SteveKlinko]

You don't know that the question is unanswerable unless you know something about Conscious Experience that nobody else knows. I think the question is decidable or else I would not ask it. What do you know about Conscious Experience that leads you to think that asking: What Conscious Experience is, is undecidable?

It's unanswerable because I know something about the nature of questions and answers.

I know that "What is X" is a dead-end question.

Science doesn't answer what things ARE.
Science can only answers what things DO/how things behave.

This is why I always say that Scientists are going to have to think in new ways to crack the Problem of Conscious Experience. You are putting the limits of Science into a Box that it does not need to be in. I think that ultimately when Science itself develops further, that it will in the end discover the what ARE of everything.