Philosophy Now Forum

There is no question about consciousness that cannot be understood as semantic ( what do we use the word to refer to? ) or empirical ( neuroscience or psychology can measure it ). Prove me wrong.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:17 pm There is no question about consciousness that cannot be understood as semantic ( what do we use the word to refer to? ) or empirical ( neuroscience or psychology can measure it ). Prove me wrong.

I cannot prove you wrong unless the semantic issue is resolved. This, of course, proves that you are correct insofar as the semantic portion of your claim goes.

And I will accept, by virtue of the use of ‘or’ as conjunction, that your overall claim is correct.

But without knowing what you mean by ‘consciousness’, I am unsure whether consciousness can be empirical or not. As I’d like to pursue this aspect of consciousness, would you be willing to share how you use ‘consciousness’—I’m willing to accept your usage completely and beforehand.

[quote=commonsense post_id=473551 time=1601334761 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473474 time=1601306277 user_id=15238]
There is no question about consciousness that cannot be understood as semantic ( what do we use the word to refer to? ) or empirical ( neuroscience or psychology can measure it ). Prove me wrong.
[/quote]

I cannot prove you wrong unless the semantic issue is resolved. This, of course, proves that you are correct insofar as the semantic portion of your claim goes.

And I will accept, by virtue of the use of ‘or’ as conjunction, that your overall claim is correct.

But without knowing what you mean by ‘consciousness’, I am unsure whether consciousness can be empirical or not. As I’d like to pursue this aspect of consciousness, would you be willing to share how you use ‘consciousness’—I’m willing to accept your usage completely and beforehand.
[/quote]

My philosophical technique relies on logical necessity. I used to believe the hard problem could be meaningful but as of now i haven't been able to find a definition that isn't semantic or empirical. I have no particular definition of consciousness of my own except to say that it is one of a class of words, including awareness, perspective, and ego, that all refer to the same basic thing.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:10 am My philosophical technique relies on logical necessity. I used to believe the hard problem could be meaningful but as of now i haven't been able to find a definition that isn't semantic or empirical.

Ironic much.

What is the non-semantic, non-empirical meaning of "definition" ?
What is the non-semantic, non-empirical meaning of "logic"?

At some point you have to be honest with yourself. You don't actually have an adequate definition for every term in your vocabulary, yet that doesn’t hinder your ability to use undefined (undefinable?) terms in practice.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:17 pm There is no question about consciousness that cannot be understood as semantic ( what do we use the word to refer to? ) or empirical ( neuroscience or psychology can measure it ). Prove me wrong.

The Hard Problem is not really about vague concepts like Awareness or Consciousness in general. The Hard Problem arises from a very concrete issue in Conscious Sensory Perception. Let's talk about the Conscious Perception of the color Red. It is well known that certain Neurons in the Cortex will fire when there is something Red in the Field of View. Correlated with those Neurons firing there will be an Experience of Red in the Conscious Mind. This Experience of Red in the Mind is one of the the Qualia from Philosophy. There is no Explanation for How the Firing Neurons produce that Experience of Red in the Mind. There is an Explanatory Gap. No amount of appealing to the Semantics of the words will solve this Hard Problem. This Red Experience in the Mind cannot be measured by Science.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:48 pm This Red Experience in the Mind cannot be measured by Science.

Why do you keep lying?

"Am I experiencing Red right now?" Yes!

There. Measured/quantified using 1 Shannon.

The "hard" problem has nothing to do with measurement. It has everything to do with metaphysics. Qualitatively, what is an "explanation". What does an "explanation" feel like?

[quote=Skepdick post_id=473577 time=1601363089 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473560 time=1601341808 user_id=15238]
My philosophical technique relies on logical necessity. I used to believe the hard problem could be meaningful but as of now i haven't been able to find a definition that isn't semantic or empirical.
[/quote]
Ironic much.

What is the non-semantic, non-empirical meaning of "definition" ?
What is the non-semantic, non-empirical meaning of "logic"?

At some point you have to be honest with yourself. You don't actually have an adequate definition for every term in your vocabulary, yet that doesn’t hinder your ability to use undefined (undefinable?) terms in practice.
[/quote]

a) you just naysayed a claim i never made and said i need to be honest about it
b) the whole point of my philosophy is to find those clarifications, and i phrased this post as a question explicitly

>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.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:55 pm If it's metaphysical, it's solved. I can answer every question in metaphysics.

Oh, you can? Answer this one.

What is metametaphysics?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:13 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:48 pm This Red Experience in the Mind cannot be measured by Science.

Why do you keep lying?

"Am I experiencing Red right now?" Yes!

There. Measured/quantified using 1 Shannon.

The "hard" problem has nothing to do with measurement. It has everything to do with metaphysics. Qualitatively, what is an "explanation". What does an "explanation" feel like?

Because I know that even some Smart People don't understand the Hard Problem, I can say with certainty that I know you don't understand the Hard Problem.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:55 pm >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.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:55 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:55 pm >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"?

[quote=Skepdick post_id=473600 time=1601384665 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473599 time=1601384154 user_id=15238]
If it's metaphysical, it's solved. I can answer every question in metaphysics.
[/quote]
Oh, you can? Answer this one.

What is metametaphysics?
[/quote]

It's the structural framework of understanding metaphysics; how the pieces fit together.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:24 pm It's the structural framework of understanding metaphysics; how the pieces fit together.

And metametametaphysics?
And metametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametametametametaphysics?

Which metametametameta....physic do you think tackles the question of "What is understanding?"

[quote=Skepdick post_id=473642 time=1601393410 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473641 time=1601393071 user_id=15238]
It's the structural framework of understanding metaphysics; how the pieces fit together.
[/quote]
And metametametaphysics?
And metametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametametametaphysics?
And metametametametametametametametametametaphysics?

Which metametametameta....physic do you think tackles the question of "What is understanding?"
[/quote]

That's epistemology.