Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:13 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:12 pm
Maybe... But who knows how many layers Deep it actually is. You have to begin somewhere and this is where I am, at this point in time.
You have put the cart before the horse.

Before you theorize about "Redness in minds" you need to establish a sound theory of mind. Perhaps this paper on epistemology will help?

The Raft and the Pyramid.

When you are busy de-constructing your own understanding of your mind, you can't fix all of your foundations all at once. You need to stand on some corner of your "raft" while you are busy using it.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:55 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:13 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:12 pm
Maybe... But who knows how many layers Deep it actually is. You have to begin somewhere and this is where I am, at this point in time.
You have put the cart before the horse.

Before you theorize about "Redness in minds" you need to establish a sound theory of mind. Perhaps this paper on epistemology will help?

The Raft and the Pyramid.

When you are busy de-constructing your own understanding of your mind, you can't fix all of your foundations all at once. You need to stand on some corner of your "raft" while you are busy using it.
I reject your mandate that I must understand some particular Mind concept first. If the Mind concept in your link is wrong I will have wasted time using it and will never understand Redness. I'm betting that when I understand Redness, I will then understand the true concept of Mind. Redness first, and the more complicated Mind concept later.

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:31 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:55 pm
I reject your mandate that I must understand some particular Mind concept first.
That's hardly what I mandated. You don't need to understand any particular Mind-concept, but you do need a theory of Mind.
A high-fidelity reductionist model of what the Mind is. How it works, how it behaves etc.

Do you have one?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:55 pm
If the Mind concept in your link is wrong I will have wasted time using it and will never understand Redness.
What I am linking you to is not about "Mind", it's about epistemology.

You've already wasted 20 years of your life getting nowhere on this problem.
You've wasted hours defending your obviously-faulty ideas on this forum.

Yet you can't be bothered to take 20 minutes to read a paper?

Perhaps you don't want to understand anything?
Perhaps you just want to philosophize about it without getting anywhere?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:55 pm
I'm betting that when I understand Redness, I will then understand the true concept of Mind. Redness first, and the more complicated Mind concept later.
The way you are going about it, I am betting you are going to be dead before you understand either.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:23 am

Skepdick wrote:
When you are busy de constructing your own understanding of your mind you cannot fix all of your foundations all at once
You could scrap the entire model and start building a new foundation from completely different first principles or axioms
But models of the mind are hard to verify objectively because using the mind to study the mind is not ideal scientifically
All models are provisional because of induction but ones of the mind are more so due to such an unavoidable restriction

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:49 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:23 am
You could scrap the entire model and start building a new foundation from completely different first principles or axioms
In the Raft metaphor of your episteme, the principles/axioms you keep are the corner of the raft upon which you are standing in order to rebuild the rest of the raft.

A similar metaphor often used is rebuilding an airplane in flight.

You can't scrap the entire airplane all at once or you will crash.
You can't scrap the entire raft all at once or you will sink.

You need to retain a minimal set of ideas at all times in order to bootstrap yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:23 am
But models of the mind are hard to verify objectively because using the mind to study the mind is not ideal scientifically
All models are provisional because of induction but ones of the mind are more so due to such an unavoidable restriction
That depends on how you conceptualize science. For me - science must be useful, first and foremost. And what could be more useful than a framework to think/talk about and model your own mind?

Is it "true"? I don't know. Nobody knows what truth is. I am after utility.

As far as "know thyself" goes - I have a conceptual model of my own mind. That's useful.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:42 am

I read some of that link you posted which is interesting even though it is written in dry academic language

I think knowledge has to have a propositional base to it because the very fact one is labelling it means one must know what it is
One will therefore have a pre determined definition and one could therefore say that a definition by default is also a propostion

Also being able to distinguish between non knowledge and knowledge would also be propositional
As one would need to know the difference between subjective opinion and objective knowledge

However all subjective opinions are also objectively true in the sense that it is a fact that the one holding the opinion thinks it is true
So it is still objectively true even if the opinion itself is demonstrably false and so sometimes it can get a bit fuzzy - hence fuzzy logic

I do not think that infinite regress applies to knowledge because knowledge is only a finite quantity
Potential knowledge can be infinite but potential and actual knowledge are entirely different things
These two types do not overlap because specific knowledge can only be one or the other but not both

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:25 pm

Also empirical knowledge is fallible by default regardless of whether or not it is also propositional
The assumption that propositional knowledge is fallible because it is propostional is actually false
Empirical knowledge is fallible because of induction

Mathematical knowledge by contrast is not fallible because it is deductive
Mathematical knowledge is also propostional but is absolutely true as well

Mathematics is a more rigorous discipline than science hence the distinction
Also the entire foundation of mathematics is actually build upon proposition

SteveKlinko
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:43 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:31 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:55 pm
I reject your mandate that I must understand some particular Mind concept first.
That's hardly what I mandated. You don't need to understand any particular Mind-concept, but you do need a theory of Mind.
A high-fidelity reductionist model of what the Mind is. How it works, how it behaves etc.

Do you have one?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:55 pm
If the Mind concept in your link is wrong I will have wasted time using it and will never understand Redness.
What I am linking you to is not about "Mind", it's about epistemology.

You've already wasted 20 years of your life getting nowhere on this problem.
You've wasted hours defending your obviously-faulty ideas on this forum.

Yet you can't be bothered to take 20 minutes to read a paper?

Perhaps you don't want to understand anything?
Perhaps you just want to philosophize about it without getting anywhere?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:55 pm
I'm betting that when I understand Redness, I will then understand the true concept of Mind. Redness first, and the more complicated Mind concept later.
The way you are going about it, I am betting you are going to be dead before you understand either.
I fully expect that you and me and maybe even everyone alive today will be dead before the mystery of Consciousness is understood. But I keep going because it is a fascinating and seemingly unsolvable Reverse Engineering problem that I can't resist thinking about. But it isn't just me that is unable to figure it out. Science has been trying to figure out this mystery since the correlation between Neural Activity and Conscious Experience was discovered over a hundred years ago. All your Prerequisites to actually studying Consciousness are a Diversion, and Obfuscation from the issue at hand which is: What actually is that Redness Experience of the color Red? Think about the Redness. It is an Existent Phenomenon of the Universe that we live in. Think about all the Colors. Think about your own Experience of the Visual Light Scene that is always embedded in the front of your face. What is that? Think more Deeply about these things and you will see the pointlessness of your prerequisites.

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Skepdick » Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:21 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:43 pm
But it isn't just me that is unable to figure it out.
The fundamental problem lies in the fact that you don't understand what the above sentence means.

What does it mean to "figure something out"? Have you figured out electrons?

Your problem may be even worse than epistemic. Your problem may be semantic.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:21 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:43 pm
But it isn't just me that is unable to figure it out.
The fundamental problem lies in the fact that you don't understand what the above sentence means.

What does it mean to "figure something out"? Have you figured out electrons?

Your problem may be even worse than epistemic. Your problem may be semantic.
You are drowning in your own diversionary Gobbledygook. Let me throw you a Life Preserver and remind you that the problem is in the question: How does an Experience of Redness happen as a result of Neural Activity? Furthermore what exactly is that Experience of Redness?

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Skepdick » Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:36 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
You are drowning in your own diversionary Gobbledygook. Let me throw you a Life Preserver and remind you that the problem is in the question:
You've been working on this for 20 years and haven't made an in ch of progress. Keep it - you need it more than me.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
How does an Experience of Redness happen as a result of Neural Activity?
It's pretty obvious that the question isn't the problem. The problem is that you have set your mind up in a way that no answer could ever satisfy you.
Because you aren't casting your doubt on the fidelity of the explanation, you are casting your doubt on the causal arrows connecting concepts.

You can always ask a "How?" question about a causal relationship.

Example: Gravity causes apples to fall to the ground.
How?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
Furthermore what exactly is that Experience of Redness?
This is an ontological question.

To ask an ontological question, signals doubt as to the nature of your very own "experience of redness".
That's a pretty weird line of skepticism. Do you or do you not experience redness?

Anyway. You have finally convinced me. You are pursuing sophistry, not understanding.
Go find somebody else to run around in circles with.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6808
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:10 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
Furthermore what exactly is that Experience of Redness?
It's an experience of Redness.

You cannot go any further than that conclusion.

The experience of colour is born of no colour, it's an appearance of the colourless, aka an hallucinatory illusion of the mind.

There is no knowledge of what is the mind because it's invisible oddly enough.

.

f12hte
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:14 pm

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by f12hte » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:50 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:10 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
Furthermore what exactly is that Experience of Redness?
It's an experience of Redness.

You cannot go any further than that conclusion.
Each new experience of 'redness' is built out of all of our previous experiences of redness. It's subjective. I swear, ladies see all different colors of red, e.g. scarlet vermilion crimson.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:36 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
You are drowning in your own diversionary Gobbledygook. Let me throw you a Life Preserver and remind you that the problem is in the question:
You've been working on this for 20 years and haven't made an in ch of progress. Keep it - you need it more than me.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
How does an Experience of Redness happen as a result of Neural Activity?
It's pretty obvious that the question isn't the problem. The problem is that you have set your mind up in a way that no answer could ever satisfy you.
Because you aren't casting your doubt on the fidelity of the explanation, you are casting your doubt on the causal arrows connecting concepts.

You can always ask a "How?" question about a causal relationship.

Example: Gravity causes apples to fall to the ground.
How?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm
Furthermore what exactly is that Experience of Redness?
This is an ontological question.

To ask an ontological question, signals doubt as to the nature of your very own "experience of redness".
That's a pretty weird line of skepticism. Do you or do you not experience redness?

Anyway. You have finally convinced me. You are pursuing sophistry, not understanding.
Go find somebody else to run around in circles with.
You are missing the fine points of the question. By asking how Neural Activity produces Redness I am implicitly asking the Deeper question of What is Redness in the first place. Your analogy misses the point because we already know what an Apple is and what the Ground is. However we don't even know What Redness is in the first place.

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Skepdick » Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:06 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm
You are missing the fine points of the question. By asking how Neural Activity produces Redness I am implicitly asking the Deeper question of What is Redness in the first place. Your analogy misses the point because we already know what an Apple is and what the Ground is. However we don't even know What Redness is in the first place.
You aren't asking a "deeper" question. You are asking a meaningless question. A question that is not grounded on any foundation.

It's causing you to fall into circular reasoning. It's not your fault. Philosophy makes you stupid.

It's far too easy to argue, and far too difficult to learn to spot your own cognitive errors.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests