Consciousness

[ryan]

Blue is something happening in the brain.

I see now. Thanks for the explanation.

LOL!

Bilby, this isn't like questioning how something works that is not fully modelled yet. Do you know what it is about the brain that brings the philosophers out of the woodwork? Do you know why philosophers do not have the same concern over something like a hurricane or a cell?

 

[untermensche]

Do you mean the physiology of the physical correlate of the experience blue, or do you actually mean the physiology of just the experience of blue?

You need both the experience (blue) and that which experiences it (consciousness).

I don't know what else you need.

 

[ryan]

Do you mean the physiology of the physical correlate of the experience blue, or do you actually mean the physiology of just the experience of blue?

You need both the experience (blue) and that which experiences it (consciousness).

I don't know what else you need.

The materialists will pounce on any ambiguity, and they will define it in a way that helps their position.

As for your position that takes on a representational theory of consciousness, is the experience blue that you refer to something that is only a physical activity in the brain that can be observed objectively?

 

[untermensche]

You need both the experience (blue) and that which experiences it (consciousness).

I don't know what else you need.

The materialists will pounce on any ambiguity, and they will define it in a way that helps their position.

As for your position that takes on a representational theory of consciousness, is the experience blue that you refer to something that is only a physical activity in the brain that can be observed objectively?

Some physical activities cannot be observed.

We don't observe gravity. We observe it's effects.

 

[ryan]

The materialists will pounce on any ambiguity, and they will define it in a way that helps their position.

As for your position that takes on a representational theory of consciousness, is the experience blue that you refer to something that is only a physical activity in the brain that can be observed objectively?

Some physical activities cannot be observed.

We don't observe gravity. We observe it's effects.

(Unless gravitons exist, then they are quantified like every other particle.) But right, we don't really observe anything; we observe the effects, thus the relevance of ontology and the philosophy of science in general.

But what if we do find the experience of blue? Let's say it is activity B in the brain. In other words, god gives us the answer and says that blue is exactly activity B. Now let's say it is physical like gravity for example as you mention, and our instruments can detect this activity B, and we would know its physical effects on matter. But what about its property of subjective experience? Isn't that another inherent property to activity B? Don't we just start the hard problem all over again?

 

[untermensche]

Some physical activities cannot be observed.

We don't observe gravity. We observe it's effects.

(Unless gravitons exist, then they are quantified like every other particle.) But right, we don't really observe anything; we observe the effects, thus the relevance of ontology and the philosophy of science in general.

But what if we do find the experience of blue? Let's say it is activity B in the brain. In other words, god gives us the answer and says that blue is exactly activity B. Now if it is physical like gravity for example as you mention, and our instruments can detect this activity B, we would know its physical effects on matter. But what about its property of subjective experience? Isn't that another inherent property to activity B? Don't we just start the hard problem all over again?

You would think that finding blue would tell you a lot about that which experiences it.

 

[ryan]

(Unless gravitons exist, then they are quantified like every other particle.) But right, we don't really observe anything; we observe the effects, thus the relevance of ontology and the philosophy of science in general.

But what if we do find the experience of blue? Let's say it is activity B in the brain. In other words, god gives us the answer and says that blue is exactly activity B. Now if it is physical like gravity for example as you mention, and our instruments can detect this activity B, we would know its physical effects on matter. But what about its property of subjective experience? Isn't that another inherent property to activity B? Don't we just start the hard problem all over again?

You would think that finding blue would tell you a lot about that which experiences it.

But chances are, blue would just be another ordinary cog in the clock. What could this blue mechanism, presumably made from the same particles as everything else, possibly tell us about being it or being conscious of it?

 

[untermensche]

You would think that finding blue would tell you a lot about that which experiences it.

But chances are, blue would just be another ordinary cog in the clock. What could this blue mechanism, presumably made from the same particles as everything else, possibly tell us about being it or being conscious of it?

Because this is what consciousness interacts with.

 

[ryan]

But chances are, blue would just be another ordinary cog in the clock. What could this blue mechanism, presumably made from the same particles as everything else, possibly tell us about being it or being conscious of it?

Because this is what consciousness interacts with.

But the "how" question would be just as mysterious as it is today. How would an intrinsic property of subjectivity come from matter without that property?

 

[bilby]

I see now. Thanks for the explanation.

LOL!

Bilby, this isn't like questioning how something works that is not fully modelled yet.

No, it's not LIKE that - it IS that. Exactly that.

Do you know what it is about the brain that brings the philosophers out of the woodwork? Do you know why philosophers do not have the same concern over something like a hurricane or a cell?

Yes - it's because they don't know shit about meteorology or cell biology, but have the delusional belief that because they own a brain, they are able to speak authoritatively about how one works. Oddly, despite being made of particles, many of them don't to claim to know Quantum Field Theory by default; Hell, they don't even claim that owning a car makes them a skilled mechanic. But they have no problem waxing lyrical about brains despite knowing fuck all about neurology.

 

[untermensche]

Because this is what consciousness interacts with.

But the "how" question would be just as mysterious as it is today. How would an intrinsic property of subjectivity come from matter without that property?

It is more complicated than that.

The same exact stimulus that creates blue under one set of circumstances will create a different shade of blue under different circumstances. In terms of color the brain tries to create the greatest ability to distinguish between items in the visual field. It does not just respond passively.

 

[untermensche]

LOL!

Bilby, this isn't like questioning how something works that is not fully modelled yet.

No, it's not LIKE that - it IS that. Exactly that.

No it is not.

We know how a rain cloud forms. We know how a hurricane forms. We understand the forces involved.

There are too many factors to predict a hurricane too far into the future, but we know a lot about hurricanes.

But on the other hand.

We know absolutely nothing about how experience is created. We do not have the first inkling what it is.

It is nothing like the weather.

 

[DBT]

But chances are, blue would just be another ordinary cog in the clock. What could this blue mechanism, presumably made from the same particles as everything else, possibly tell us about being it or being conscious of it?

Because this is what consciousness interacts with.

Your remark still implies an autonomous or indepent consciousness. There is not a scrap or a hint of evidence that consciousness does anything more or less than what the brain is doing in relation to its own conscious activity. It is the brain that interacts with light, interpreting wavelength as colour and pressure waves as sound....

We don't observe gravity. We observe it's effects.

Just as we observe the effects of brain activity in the form of our own conscious experience and evident in the behaviour of others.

 

[bilby]

No, it's not LIKE that - it IS that. Exactly that.

No it is not.

We know how a rain cloud forms. We know how a hurricane forms. We understand the forces involved.

There are too many factors to predict a hurricane too far into the future, but we know a lot about hurricanes.

But on the other hand.

We know absolutely nothing about how experience is created. We do not have the first inkling what it is.

It is nothing like the weather.

What YOU don't know is NOT a good guide to what is or is not unknown.

 

[untermensche]

No it is not.

We know how a rain cloud forms. We know how a hurricane forms. We understand the forces involved.

There are too many factors to predict a hurricane too far into the future, but we know a lot about hurricanes.

But on the other hand.

We know absolutely nothing about how experience is created. We do not have the first inkling what it is.

It is nothing like the weather.

What YOU don't know is NOT a good guide to what is or is not unknown.

You had your chance peewee.

And what we got was this:

Blue is something happening in the brain.

You claiming to know something here is a funny joke.

 

[ryan]

LOL!

Bilby, this isn't like questioning how something works that is not fully modelled yet.

No, it's not LIKE that - it IS that. Exactly that.

Do you know what it is about the brain that brings the philosophers out of the woodwork? Do you know why philosophers do not have the same concern over something like a hurricane or a cell?

Yes - it's because they don't know shit about meteorology or cell biology, but have the delusional belief that because they own a brain, they are able to speak authoritatively about how one works. Oddly, despite being made of particles, many of them don't to claim to know Quantum Field Theory by default; Hell, they don't even claim that owning a car makes them a skilled mechanic. But they have no problem waxing lyrical about brains despite knowing fuck all about neurology.

Wrong, that is not why the brain in particular is under this kind of ontological investigation, while things as complex or more complex are not.

There is objective existence that science seems have a good enough grasp on, and there is something that it is like to be only one small part of this objective existence that science doesn't have a grasp on. To be something or not be something makes makes no difference to science, but each individual knows from his/her own consciousness that there really is a difference.

 

[untermensche]

Because this is what consciousness interacts with.

Your remark still implies an autonomous or indepent consciousness. There is not a scrap or a hint of evidence that consciousness does anything more or less than what the brain is doing in relation to its own conscious activity. It is the brain that interacts with light, interpreting wavelength as colour and pressure waves as sound....

Translation: "If it is a harder problem than I can imagine at the present moment it is impossible."

Just as we observe the effects of brain activity in the form of our own conscious experience and evident in the behaviour of others.

What you are observing from me are the choices my mind makes based on my lifetime of experience.

When a person has a stroke and cannot move a limb the physical therapist does not say that all is lost.

They use the "will" of the patient to get other parts of the brain to assume lost function.

People walk after strokes all the time. The use their "will" to get their brain to make their leg move again. Not as good as before but it moves. Because what you believe is religion, not science.

 

[ryan]

LOL!

Bilby, this isn't like questioning how something works that is not fully modelled yet.

No, it's not LIKE that - it IS that. Exactly that.

When the brain becomes fully modelled, the questions of "how" consciouness comes from unconsciois parts and "what" consciousness is will still need to be answered.

 

[ryan]

But the "how" question would be just as mysterious as it is today. How would an intrinsic property of subjectivity come from matter without that property?

It is more complicated than that.

The same exact stimulus that creates blue under one set of circumstances will create a different shade of blue under different circumstances. In terms of color the brain tries to create the greatest ability to distinguish between items in the visual field. It does not just respond passively.

Materialists will just say that something in the brain would probably cause anything unexplained. I would have to agree.

I do know that Wang et al have found random QM mathematical correlations to decision-making which is what one would observe for a somewhat free will for subjective decisions requiring a level of focus of attention and awareness.

 

[untermensche]

When the brain becomes fully modelled, the questions of "how" consciouness comes from unconsciois parts and "what" consciousness is will still need to be answered.

At what level do you model the brain?

People have been trying to model it on the cellular scale for a while and nothing about how consciousness emerges is understood.

There is no way to model it on the quantum scale. It is far too complicated.

And there is nothing known about the quantum scale that results in the ability to experience anyway.

Is there a scale below the quantum scale?