Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 29, 2011 - 05:39pm PT
|
You (and I suspect this is endemic to many philosophers) keep looking for some secret alchemy that will transmute one noun (meat) into another noun (experience) when in all likelihood both are simply attributes of the same verb.
Tis is the stonewalling on principle that I mentioned before - it does not answer the vastly different qualitative differences between consciousness the merely physical qualities found in material things. As mentioned, a new coin "shines." Luminosity and a new coin are "simply attributes of the same" person, placed or thing. A meat brain and subjective experience cannot be clumped together in the same way. The amazing thing to me is the persistent idea that if consciousness is NOT a simplistic attribute of meat, it must be "secret alchemy." Where in the world does that belief come from, or that philosophers are proponents of same. Curious . . .
If a mechanistic/materialistic/reductionistic model can entirely explain subjective experience (consciousness), then what, at this time, keeps us from building machines that could carry on this very thread by themselves, and could relate to us the subjective experience of doing same? This might shed light on the hard questions according to those proposing a strictly mechanistic model.
And Ed, when I said you "wanted" experience to be different than it is, I simply meant that you seemed to want it to be something and only something you can quantify. I know we can quantify the biology thought by some to "create' consciousness, but how do we quantify experience itself. And if we can't, how might we proceed with the on-sight if we ruled out bullsh#t, priestcraft and alchemy? I'm totally open to suggestions. Since I have no answers, I have no preferences on the route taken.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:43pm PT
|
Largo asks: If a mechanistic/materialistic/reductionistic model can entirely explain subjective experience (consciousness), then what, at this time, keeps us from building machines that could carry on this very thread by themselves, and could relate to us the subjective experience of doing same?
they already do... in the sense that we cannot distinguish machine generated reality from the actual thing itself...
...how do I know you have experiences, anyway? how could I tell you weren't a machine?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:45pm PT
|
Consciousness likely evolved out of an initial ability to self-locate in an organism's environment - a capability necessary to both predator and prey.
Largo: ...but how do we quantify experience itself?
Why is the idea of experience being a [distributed and recursive] cascade of chemical and electrial processing seeking equilibrium so difficult to accept? If 'experience' were something other, more ethereal, then how would alcohol and various substances be able to alter our "subjective experience" in a matter of minutes?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 06:50pm PT
|
So although many of us agree on a scientific or evolutionary basis for consciousness we still can not answer to the larger questions and writings in Largo's initial post.
I would disagree to some extent. Even though we are just learning the basics, one can reasonably posit 'subjective experience' is an evolved form of the recursive processing necessary for primitive, predatory self-location / awareness. The details may elude us; the idea itself is pretty simple.
|
|
malabarista
Trad climber
Portland, OR
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 07:51pm PT
|
Most people resist the idea that universe "reduces" to information. They think it somehow cheapens their existence. I don't agree with this at all. if the universe is "just information" then anything is still possible. Virtual universes within virtual universes. Anything goes, as long as it's in the code...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:21pm PT
|
I don't rule out a 'computational' model entirely, but would point out we don't have the slightest clue what [meaningful] 'computation' or a 'cognitive architecture' (i.e. a vast and very dynamic distributed network) in the brain looks like beyond some understanding of the hierarchical signals generated by various aspects of the brain.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:27pm PT
|
Largo's original post is super easy to understand.
Consciousness is super easy to understand.
All it takes is a good brain .......
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:30pm PT
|
FM:
"Every philosophical question that has a culturally dependent and translated answer."
Definitely. Language is a subtle tool. That's why I keep asking what people mean by the words.
Seems to me a room full of people each using their own personal meanings are wasting time trying to discuss.
I gave a proposed definition for existence, to wit:
"Something, anything "exists" if that object can be shown, on interaction with another object, to have been affected in any way."
At first blush this sounds restricted in a Newtonian sense to physical objects. On further thought, I think it extends even to ideas or models.
If a consideration of the concept for "experience" can by a logical process lead to an effect on another concept, say "qualia", then we might say the two exist. They can support an interaction.
But before we can construct this logical process describing the interaction, we need a commonly shared meaning for the two words.
IMO we don't have these commonly agreed upon meanings, so I feel justified in challenging whether these undefined entities exist.
They don't exist in the sense needed for a useful discussion.
All of my objections are overcome if one does not insist upon discussion being useful,i.e. showing promise of leading to a result.
In that case, philosophical discussion becomes functionally equivalent to a dance.
Two people engaging in an activity that does not actually go any place. Done only in the hopes of affecting the other person.
DMT:
When someone says something exists that they can't begin to describe , but I am some how defective because I won't carry on a discussion about this mystery - I see no reason to let the issue be framed in this way. It won't lead anywhere.
A question. The only thing that seems to be known about this, whatever, is that it is beyond science. Interesting. How is it we know it is beyond science?
Is this knowledge magically obtained?
The consciousness I described is not beyond science. Maybe our problem is that this strange thing is co-opting an english word that is used in our normal world.
Why not avoid confusion and invent a new word for the strange thing?
How about..............?
Yes, there is this thing I call my infused spirit. I can't describe what it is that infuses it but I feel raised to really high energy combined with ultimate peace when I contemplate it.
There you go.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:34pm PT
|
Consciousness is never outside the realm of science.
It's idiots who don't do the experiment say that .....
|
|
beef supreme
climber
the west
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:50pm PT
|
it's over matter.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:21pm PT
|
BES'1st writes: "Computation exists only relative to some agent or observer who imposes a computational interpretation
on some phenomenon. This is an obvious point."
not sure about this, if by "computational" you mean "algorithmic" then the DNA/RNA algorithms for protein production certainly exist without interpretation.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:21pm PT
|
Mind is the construct that humans have appointed and anointed themselves to feel superior to the rest of creation.
That's what I said earlier!! Thanks Timid T.
|
|
Patrick Oliver
Boulder climber
Fruita, Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:45pm PT
|
I couldn't agree less
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:56pm PT
|
What is Mind?
is a surprisingly useful question to get people to reveal how they think.
But I would leave questions about mind to philosophers and study the brain instead.
"Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami."
Well, sure! But that is like selling your soul to the Devil.
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 10:33pm PT
|
werner your reference to others as idiots
suggests that you've been insincere to yourself.
and that your boldy presented opinions that you attempt to mask as fact
are held feebly in your heart.
ore else,
my mind takes over when my feet get tired of journeying.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 11:48pm PT
|
The concept of "mind" interpreting itself is pretty interesting. How would it know when it was successful? I am not sure there is an end game here. Pursuit seems to be where growth takes place.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 30, 2011 - 12:15am PT
|
JSTAN WROTE:
"Something, anything "exists" if that object can be shown, on interaction with another object, to have been affected in any way."
MAKES SENSE. IF SOME THING CANNOT BE SHOWN OR INTUITED AS HAVING SOME LINK IN THE CAUSAL CHAIN, SOMEWHERE IN TIME AND SPACE, PER THINGS PHYSICAL OR OTHERWISE, THEN THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION IS MORE FOR GHOSTBUSTERS THAN CURIOUS MINDS.
At first blush this sounds restricted in a Newtonian sense to physical objects. On further thought, I think it extends even to ideas or models.
SO DO I, THOUGH I'M NOT CERTAIN QUITE HOW AT THIS POINT.
If a consideration of the concept for "experience" can by a logical process lead to an effect on another concept, say "qualia," then we might say the two exist. They can support an interaction.
But before we can construct this logical process describing the interaction, we need a commonly shared meaning for the two words.
THIS IS TRICKY BUT NECESSARY IF NOT CRUCIAL IMO. AND SAID DEFINITIONS NEEDS TO BE "NEAT," NOT WATERED DOWN WITH BELIEFS, ONCE REMOVED FROM EXPERIENCE ITSELF, ABOUT HOW SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS MECHANICALLY "CREATED."
SO FAR IN ALL MY SCATTERSHOT READING AND PERSONAL WRANGLING WITH "MIND" I AM UNSATISFIED WITH THE LANGUAGE AND ASCRIBED MEANINGS, BY AND LARGE. PERHAPS THIS IS INEVITABLE BECAUSE ANY EFFORT TO FRAME EXPERIENCE AS A CONCEPT FACES THE CONFOUNDING TASK OF TRYING TO CAST SOMETHING SUBJECTIVE AND DECIDEDLY FIRST PERSON INTO SOMETHING "OBJECTIVE" (QUANTIFIABLE BY NORMAL MEANS) AND THIRD PERSON.
TRYING TO CAST A PROCESS AS A THING IS A LITTLE LIKE CALLING A BASEBALL CARD A BALLGAME AT THE POLO GROUNDS. PERHAPS THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE, 3RD PERSON ASPECT AND A SUBJECTIVE FIRST PERSON DIMENSION TO ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT CALLING THEM THE SELFSAME THINGS SEEMS TO ONLY MUDDY THE WATERS. TO TRY AND DO SO ALWAYS FEELS INAUTHENTIC TO ME - LIKE SAYING ED IS OFF WIDTH CLIMBING, SINCE THAT'S WHAT ED DOES. OR ED IS PHOTOGRAPHY OR PHYSICS, BECAUSE ED DOES THAT TOO.
EVEN IF WE COULD PERFECTLY DESCRIBE EXPERIENCE BY AN EQUATION WITH A GOOGLEPLEX OF FIGURES, SAID EQUATION WOULD BE TO EXPERIENCE WHAT THE SHEET MUSIC FOR RHAPSODY IN BLUE IS TO THE PHILHARMONIC SONG ITSELF. BUT NOT REALLY. EVEN METAPHORS ARE NO GOOD HERE. AT LEAST MINE.
IMO we don't have these commonly agreed upon meanings, so I feel justified in challenging whether these undefined entities exist.
AS WELL YOU SHOULD.
I SAID EARLIER THAT TO ME, CONSCIOUSNESS SEEMS LIKE A PROCESS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, INVOLVING A NET OF AWARENESS - THAT SUBJECTIVELY FEELS LIKE IT HAS NO BORDERS/LIMITS - AND THAT THROUGH THIS NET FLOWS THE STUFF OR CONTENT OF EXPERIENCE.
THIS STUFF IS VARIOUSLY CALLED MANY THNGS, INCLUDING QUAL.
QUALIA REFERS TO THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE ITSELF, AS IT UNFOLDS IN THE LIFE I ACTUALLY LEAD.
IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO ME THAT ANYONE CONSCIOUS AND PROPERLY FORMED COULD FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND AWARE OF BEING ALIVE (POINT 1), THAT THEIR AWARENESS FIELD CAN STRETCH TO THE EDGES OF IMAGINATION AND NEVER STOP (POINT 2), THAT THEY NATURALLY ARE AWARE OF TAXES AND LOVE AND BULLFROGS AND THOUGHTS (POINT 3 = QUAL), AND THAT THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF BEING CONSCIOUS IS NOT A STATIC THING BUT RATHER IT UNFOLDS AND ACCRUES AND EXTENDS THROUGH TIME AND SPACE (QUALIA).
OF COURSE THIS GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE PRECEPTS OF SCIENTISM BECAUSE IT DOES NOT "ELIMINATE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF EXPERIENCE" AND DEFALT OUT OUT INTO A PLACE ONCE REMOVED FROM THE FIRST PERSON WHERE ONCE MORE WE CAN START IN WITH THE STANDARD MEASURING. AND ONCE THIS STARTS THEN COMES ALL THE RHUMBA ABOUT PRIESTCRAFT AND BULLSH#T, JUSTIFYING RETURNING BACK TO THE SAFETY OF THE PURELY MECHANICAL AND MATERIAL SHORES, AND HOW WE ARE LOST AND DOOMED TO SHIPWRECK IF WE DO SO. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, IF WE CAN CONCOCT AND AGREE UPON SOME SIMPLE DEFINITIONS OF FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVITY (CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE), AND NOT IMMEDIATELY FLEE TO MORE FREAKING MODELS/REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT,
WE CAN COVER SOME GROUND.
All of my objections are overcome if one does not insist upon discussion being useful,i.e. showing promise of leading to a result. In that case, philosophical discussion becomes functionally equivalent to a dance. Two people engaging in an activity that does not actually go any place. Done only in the hopes of affecting the other person.
WELL, IF YOU ASKED SERIOUS DANCERS, THEY ARE NOT REALLY TRYING TO GET ANYWHERE, BUT RATHER ARE TRYING TO FATHOM WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT WHERE THEY MOVE, MOMENT TO MOMENT. BUT IN PRINCIPAL I COULDN 'T AGREE MORE BECAUSE THE PATH THESE THREADS ARE TAKING IS PAINFULLY CIRCULAR AND GOES NOWHERE AT ALL. ONE CAMP INSISTS THAT IF WE AREN'T MEASURING WE'RE SIMPLY AND ONLY WANKING, AND THE OTHER CAMP IS LACKING THE CONCRETE AND IRREVOCABLE TERMS AND CONCEPTS THAT MAKE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE, WHICH WE ALL HAVE FIRST AND FOREMOST, A STRANGELY DISTANT AND EPHEMERAL CONCEPT.
THAT MUCH SAID, I BELIEVE IF WE STAY OBSESSED WITH A MECHANICAL TAKE ON HOW MIND IS "CREATED," WE WILL ESSENTIALLY BE STUDYING THE TOPO INSTEAD OF CLIMBING THE WALL. PAUL TILLICH ONCE SAID THAT THE LOGICIANS SHARPENED THE KNIFE, BUT NEVER BOTHERED CUTTING THE LOAF. TO ME, TRYING TO HANG IN THE PROCESS ITSELF, IMBEDDED IN RAW EXPERIENCE, BOUNCING WHAT WE FIND OFF EACH OTHER TO REALITY CHECK AND ARRIVING AT A COMMON LANGUAGE PER WHAT WE FIND ON THAT OVERHANGING FACE, AND GOING FROM THERE, A MOVE AT A TIME, SEEMS LIKE A FANTASTIC ADVENTURE SMACKING NOTHING OF PRIESTCRAFT OR WU WU OR "God."
All aboard . . .
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 12:39am PT
|
Largo writes regarding 4 observations:
1) ANYONE CONSCIOUS AND PROPERLY FORMED COULD NOT FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND AWARE OF BEING ALIVE;
2) THAT THEIR AWARENESS FIELD CAN STRETCH TO THE EDGES OF IMAGINATION AND NEVER STOP;
3) THAT THEY NATURALLY ARE AWARE OF TAXES AND LOVE AND BULLFROGS AND THOUGHTS (QUAL),
4) THAT THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF BEING CONSCIOUS IS NOT A STATIC THING BUT RATHER IT UNFOLDS AND ACCRUES AND EXTENDS THROUGH TIME AND SPACE (QUALIA).
is that a correct restatement of what you wrote?
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 12:45am PT
|
I know this sounds like corny yin/yang bullsh*t, but you can't have understanding without misunderstanding. Otherwise, how would you know the difference?
Being settled with the pursuit brings energy, joy and purpose. Some days are freaking hard, some days are beautiful, some days are neither. You have to be there every day to know which it will be.
There is no continual bliss. You have to be there every day to find out which it will be.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 12:52am PT
|
Mind is what my dog thinks is going on in your head.. My dog barks therefore he likes you...ARRFF!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!