Consciousness

[ryan]

If structure implies particles, then there is a redundancy. Either particles exist or structures exist. One of them has to get thrown out where the redundancy overlaps. For a particular object, you can say structure exists OR particles with certain relative positions exist, but you can't say both are there. It will double something that shouldn't be doubled.

Since we might have the most efficient and specific ontological description of the physical universe possible, I don't know why you don't want to see its brilliant simplicity that took thousands of years to build.

you seem to have totally screwed up what "exists" means.

Of course the basic buliding blocks are particles in space. Stop bitching about something nobody argues against.

But to say that the pattern "oxygen patter" doesnt exist is just silly. Particled forms patterns, that is objectively true and is totally independent of brains.

The particles that represent the mental construction oxygen patterns exist outside of the brain, but the whole of which does not. Scientifically speaking, we have only "whole" particles of space and "whole" particles in the Standard model. That is 18 things; give them any symbol you like as long as they match each particle one-to-one individually.

 

[ryan]

There is no physical distinction between a whole tree and everything that makes up that tree. So why would I give the wholeness of a tree any more ontological meaning scientifically?

You act as if the field of biology does not even exist.

Whole organism based on the expression of a single genome is a biological reality and not questioned by any serious thinker.

Hmmm, you have some to learn about ontology. We have passed the shallows of scientific realism and are far into philosophy at this point. Trust me on this.

What stops us from clearly distinguishing it from a different tree?

the imperfect memory of the mental image

Now you are really grasping at straws.

The camera and recordings have long ago replaced the human memory.

What stops us from clearly distinguishing between trees is what you asked. Well, I know for me it is my memory. If I see one tree that looks like another, chances are that I won't remember what the differences are. I do not have a photographic memory.

 

[untermensche]

You act as if the field of biology does not even exist.

Whole organism based on the expression of a single genome is a biological reality and not questioned by any serious thinker.

Hmmm, you have some to learn about ontology. We have passed the shallows of scientific realism and are far into philosophy at this point. Trust me on this.

Nonsense.

Science IS modern ontology.

There is no superior explanation of "reality".

The only question is: What is actually science and what is merely opinion?

What stops us from clearly distinguishing between trees is what you asked. Well, I know for me it is my memory. If I see one tree that looks like another, chances are that I won't remember what the differences are. I do not have a photographic memory.

You are allowed to look at both trees at the same time.

 

[ryan]

Hmmm, you have some to learn about ontology. We have passed the shallows of scientific realism and are far into philosophy at this point. Trust me on this.

Nonsense.

Science IS modern ontology.

There is no superior explanation of "reality".

The only question is: What is actually science and what is merely opinion?

As I learn more and more about philosophy and the philosophy of science, I am starting to see how very little many people on this thread know regarding these topics. Believe me when I tell you that you have much to learn regarding these subjects. Hopefully you will find out for yourself.

When we hit the frontiers of science, we can do philosophy. Being on this forum, we have no choice. But philosophy is not totally useless. Atomism is a very old philosophy way before the scientific method was created and thus way before the elementary particles were found and proposed by science. So who knows, some of these philosophies might turn out to be true.

What stops us from clearly distinguishing between trees is what you asked. Well, I know for me it is my memory. If I see one tree that looks like another, chances are that I won't remember what the differences are. I do not have a photographic memory.

You are allowed to look at both trees at the same time.

Okay, but what are you getting at?

 

[untermensche]

Believe me when I tell you that you have much to learn regarding these subjects. Hopefully you will find out for yourself.

What horse shit.

You have nothing here. No magic secrets.

But philosophy is not totally useless.

In terms of describing "reality" it has been completely supplanted by science.

"Philosophy" whatever one thinks that is, probably has many uses.

But you can't describe the universe from your couch by thinking real hard.

Okay, but what are you getting at?

That all is not some indistinguishable blob without boundaries or discrete entities.

 

[ryan]

What horse shit.

You have nothing here. No magic secrets.

You can't see what I am saying because you don't understand it. A constant theme with you is that you seem to reject things that you don't know about. While I keep learning, you seem to just stay stuck in your static domain of knowledge. It's not just you, there are others that I am in discussions with. Not Pyramidhead though, he seems to understand this stuff already.

But philosophy is not totally useless.

In terms of describing "reality" it has been completely supplanted by science.

"Philosophy" whatever one thinks that is, probably has many uses.

But you can't describe the universe from your couch by thinking real hard.

Welcome to philosophy.

Okay, but what are you getting at?

That all is not some indistinguishable blob without boundaries or discrete entities.

Oh boy, trust me that there is a very large population of people I know of that would never even step foot in this forum because it is so primal to them. They certainly wouldn't attempt to explain contemporary philosophies of science and consciousness to you or the others with your attitude.

I took a first-year university course about 3 years ago, and it hardly scratches the surface of what philosophy is and some of the contemporary philosophies of science. I fear people with only with the typical "first-year understanding" may think they know enough to really engage into the topics we are starting to.

 

[untermensche]

A constant theme with you is that you seem to reject things that you don't know about.

More nonsense.

I make no claims to have some great understanding of things.

I freely speculate and accept no authority however.

But you are making it seem like this is some big mystery.

I fear people with only with the typical "first-year understanding" may think they know enough to really engage into the topics we are starting to.

Where do I puke?

If you can't make ideas clear to others in a concise manner you do not understand them.

What transcends any "year" of knowledge is to know something so well you can explain it to most in simple jargon-free language.

Clinging to jargon is a sign of a lack of understanding.

 

[ryan]

More nonsense.

I make no claims to have some great understanding of things.

I freely speculate and accept no authority however.

But you are making it seem like this is some big mystery.

I fear people with only with the typical "first-year understanding" may think they know enough to really engage into the topics we are starting to.

Where do I puke?

If you can't make ideas clear to others in a concise manner you do not understand them.

What transcends any "year" of knowledge is to know something so well you can explain it to most in simple jargon-free language.

Clinging to jargon is a sign of a lack of understanding.

If you said, "In terms of describing "reality" it has been completely supplanted by science." to a well learned philosopher, he would look at you as if you were a child and would walk away. That is how arrogant that sounds.

If your position was scientific realism/logical empiricism/logical positivism/etc. then fine. But to just outright say what you did is mind-blowing.

 

[untermensche]

If you said, "In terms of describing "reality" it has been completely supplanted by science." to a well learned philosopher, he would look at you as if you were a child and would walk away. That is how arrogant that sounds.

That is pretending to make a point but not actually making one. And the arrogance of "learned philosopher" as if you speak for one, is nauseating.

You have failed to provide anything that describes "reality" better than science.

Actually if we dispense with science all we are left with is opinion.

 

[DBT]

Please don't just post links to articles with quotes that you haven't related to your own proposition,

If you look on posts #601 and #608 you will see that it supports what I saying.

What did I quote that didn't support what I was saying?

Several things;
1 - some of the propositions to be found within any article are not necessarily supported by evidence, which may be speculative in nature. As are your own propositions

2 - some of the propositions/speculations found within these articles may well relate to your propositions/speculations, but neither the propositions/speculations present within the articles or your own speculations are necessarily valid (supported by evidence) beyond speculation.

3 - what you have is perfectly fine as speculation, but what you have is not a solution for ''the hard problem'' in any way, shape or form.

4 - all of the available evidence supports brain agency. Brain state always equates to mind state (allowing for a degree of neural plasticity, which itself is an attribute of the brain).

5 - hence there is no evidence based case for quantum consciousness, universal mind or non material consciousness.

 

[DBT]

Worked hard? I didn't realize doing a search is hard work.

As I've already pointed out why quantum consciousness, universal consciousness and other non brain agency 'solutions' to the 'hard problem' are not justified. The evidence doesn't support it.

Where did I mention a "universal consciousness"? Panpsychism is a philosophical theory, so it must be justified.

Philosophical theories are not necessarily supported by evidence or science.

Panpsychism is philosophy, not science.

 

[ryan]

If you said, "In terms of describing "reality" it has been completely supplanted by science." to a well learned philosopher, he would look at you as if you were a child and would walk away. That is how arrogant that sounds.

That is pretending to make a point but not actually making one. And the arrogance of "learned philosopher" as if you speak for one, is nauseating.

You have failed to provide anything that describes "reality" better than science.

Actually if we dispense with science all we are left with is opinion.

This is just depressing.

 

[untermensche]

That is pretending to make a point but not actually making one. And the arrogance of "learned philosopher" as if you speak for one, is nauseating.

You have failed to provide anything that describes "reality" better than science.

Actually if we dispense with science all we are left with is opinion.

This is just depressing.

That can be said about anything. Therefore it is meaningless.

You have nothing.

If you did you would say something instead of this.

Armchair speculation does not produce any knowledge of the world.

Don't huff and puff and waste time with nonsense.

Give us this "knowledge".

 

[ryan]

Where did I mention a "universal consciousness"? Panpsychism is a philosophical theory, so it must be justified.

Several things;
1 - some of the propositions to be found within any article are not necessarily supported by evidence, which may be speculative in nature. As are your own propositions

2 - some of the propositions/speculations found within these articles may well relate to your propositions/speculations, but neither the propositions/speculations present within the articles or your own speculations are necessarily valid (supported by evidence) beyond speculation.

3 - what you have is perfectly fine as speculation, but what you have is not a solution for ''the hard problem'' in any way, shape or form.

4 - all of the available evidence supports brain agency. Brain state always equates to mind state (allowing for a degree of neural plasticity, which itself is an attribute of the brain).

5 - hence there is no evidence based case for quantum consciousness, universal mind or non material consciousness.

Think about the quote from Arizona State "Can subjective experience be explained in physical terms" from what they list as problems for the consciousness . I posted this on post #608.

The binding problem is a problem for just a sensible physical explanation of the correlation between brain activity and consciousness, never mind all of the other larger problems.

At the frontiers of science there is philosophy. Science has yet to make any strong explanations regarding the hard problem. You seemed to have this certainty that there isn't really a big problem.

Philosophical theories are not necessarily supported by evidence or science.

Panpsychism is philosophy, not science.

Of course, that's what I said in the last post. And that's philosophy for you. Sometimes it leads to good things for science; sometimes it doesn't.

Before you respond DBT, would you be willing to watch a 15 minute video of a pretty interesting explanation of the problems of the consciousness

 

[DBT]

Several things;
1 - some of the propositions to be found within any article are not necessarily supported by evidence, which may be speculative in nature. As are your own propositions

2 - some of the propositions/speculations found within these articles may well relate to your propositions/speculations, but neither the propositions/speculations present within the articles or your own speculations are necessarily valid (supported by evidence) beyond speculation.

3 - what you have is perfectly fine as speculation, but what you have is not a solution for ''the hard problem'' in any way, shape or form.

4 - all of the available evidence supports brain agency. Brain state always equates to mind state (allowing for a degree of neural plasticity, which itself is an attribute of the brain).

5 - hence there is no evidence based case for quantum consciousness, universal mind or non material consciousness.

Think about the quote from Arizona State "Can subjective experience be explained in physical terms" from what they list as problems for the consciousness . I posted this on post #608.

I am familiar with this subject matter. The list of questions is not new.

I have been dealing with these very questions in all our interactions through numerous threads.

I think that you are avoiding the issue of providing a evidence supported argument for your assertions by continually referring to questions agency when there is no evidence of agency other than the brain.

Using our lack of understanding of how the brain (relating to your articles and their questions) to imply that consciousness/mind exists outside the brain.

Something which is unfounded.

If you have an evidenced based argument for Panpsychism and its variations, please present your argument.

Please don't give links and references to already familiar questions and videos without explaining how and why you believe these support your propositions.

This is repetitive enough as it is.

The binding problem is a problem for just a sensible physical explanation of the correlation between brain activity and consciousness, never mind all of the other larger problems.

Not at all. Virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness...which is quite clearly related to the brain and its activity, for which I have offered numerous studies, examples, explanations and descriptions, sight being directly related to information transmitted via the eyes to related brain structures, propagation, memory integration enabling recognition etc, etc, etc.....all brain related attributes and functions with no external agency in evidence.

 

[ryan]

This is just depressing.

That can be said about anything. Therefore it is meaningless.

You have nothing.

If you did you would say something instead of this.

Armchair speculation does not produce any knowledge of the world.

Don't huff and puff and waste time with nonsense.

Give us this "knowledge".

I have.

 

[another1]

I don't understand why you can't just say pantheism. How is this panpsychism special? You can pop a tic-tac and pick up a chick by rambling about panpsychism? My only concern is sounding cooler, and I think the word pantheism is way cooler. Not even the slightest clue what the hell either of those words truly mean - but I'm certain I can sound like I know, if I can just get the right patterns down. It is all in how you say it, huh.

So which is it? Pantheism or panpsychism? The definitions for both seem a little airy-fairy, indistinguishable and stupid, but heh. Which word will make me sound smarter when I talk about things that no one is capable of grasping?

 

[ryan]

Think about the quote from Arizona State "Can subjective experience be explained in physical terms" from what they list as problems for the consciousness . I posted this on post #608.

I am familiar with this subject matter.

No you absolutely are not. You didn't know that answering the "what" question is of huge importance. You didn't even seem to know there was a problem with explaining the consciousness until recently.

Using our lack of understanding of how the brain (relating to your articles and their questions) to imply that consciousness/mind exists outside the brain.

Have you heard of Integrated Information theory? That is a popular theory that suggests that the consciousness is in another dimension, a qualia dimension, a q-space. This is closely related to panpsychism in that inanimate objects may also have consciousness.

Something which is unfounded.

Pretty much, but like it or not, these ideas are where neurological explanations of the consciousness are at.

If you have an evidenced based argument for Panpsychism and its variations, please present your argument.

I never claimed there was evidence. I am trying to tell you that philosophies like panpsychism are where they are at with explaining problems of the consciousness.

The binding problem is a problem for just a sensible physical explanation of the correlation between brain activity and consciousness, never mind all of the other larger problems.

Not at all. Virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness...

What you are saying here is dead wrong. It is clear you don't understand where they are with explaining the problems of the consciousness.

...which is quite clearly related to the brain and its activity, for which I have offered numerous studies, examples, explanations and descriptions, sight being directly related to information transmitted via the eyes to related brain structures, propagation, memory integration enabling recognition etc, etc, etc.....all brain related attributes and functions with no external agency in evidence.

When was I talking about an external agency or any agency for that matter?

 

[ryan]

I don't understand why you can't just say pantheism. How is this panpsychism special? You can pop a tic-tac and pick up a chick by rambling about panpsychism? My only concern is sounding cooler, and I think the word pantheism is way cooler. Not even the slightest clue what the hell either of those words truly mean - but I'm certain I can sound like I know, if I can just get the right patterns down. It is all in how you say it, huh.

So which is it? Pantheism or panpsychism? The definitions for both seem a little airy-fairy, indistinguishable and stupid, but heh. Which word will make me sound smarter when I talk about things that no one is capable of grasping?

This post is a perfect example about some of the attitudes in this thread: I don't know about it or understand it; therefor, it's stupid and wrong. I wonder how someone that admittedly doesn't know or understand about a concept could have the audacity to say that it's stupid. What a terrible way of thinking.

This post should be the standard of how not to think. It should be put at the beginning of a spectrum of ignorance, no, it's actually worse than ignorance; it should be at the beginning of the spectrum of an ignorant mindset. If anyone ever shows signs of ignorance, people should point them to this post I have quoted by another1 and warn them that they are not far away from a purely ignorant mindset.

Maybe if you learn something about it, it will seem less "stupid".

 

[another1]

I'm trying to learn bout panpsychism, ryan. Bingo figuring out that people are satirical on message boards. You're funny when you feel insulted.

Now. Tell me what panpsychism means in your life. Excellent opportunity to belittle someone here. Don't miss out. Articulate your own frustration and confusion with something you couldn't possibly understand, by insulting someone who is satirizing in a way that may be over your head or just poorly executed 90% of the time.

Just define panpsychism and then define pantheism. Then tell me how your life is any different, having learned the difference - if there even is one. "I don't know about it or understand it; therefor, it's stupid and wrong"? What you mean is that you don't understand what you're explaining, and it makes you feel stupid and wrong. You're human and that is Okay. I'm interested to know how you define this stuff, thank you. Go on?