Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Consciousness, the mind-body problem and physics?

Page 3 of 7 [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Dec 2010, 7:39 pm

psychohist wrote:
For example, Awesomelyglorious seems to claim not to be conscious. There are two possibilities here: either he's delusional, or he's actually not conscious. I don't see any reason to favor the possibility that he's delusional; it seems to me quite reasonable to entertain the possibility that he's actually a p-zombie, nonconscious but perfectly human.

Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

02 Dec 2010, 10:24 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.

Do you have a subjective personal experience of consciousness?

If so, then being critical towards the idea is delusional; obviously the idea describes something, if you personally have it. If not, then you are a p-zombie.

Now, it's certainly possible to be critical of the idea of a scientific theory that uses consciousness as an explanatory element. However, that's irrelevant to this thread, as it doesn't deny the existence of the subjective personal experience of consciousness, even as only a nonexplanatory epiphenomenon of the brain.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Dec 2010, 10:28 pm

psychohist wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.

Do you have a subjective personal experience of consciousness?

If so, then being critical towards the idea is delusional; obviously the idea describes something, if you personally have it. If not, then you are a p-zombie.

Now, it's certainly possible to be critical of the idea of a scientific theory that uses consciousness as an explanatory element. However, that's irrelevant to this thread, as it doesn't deny the existence of the subjective personal experience of consciousness, even as only a nonexplanatory epiphenomenon of the brain.


I can be confident that I am conscious but how can I be absolutely sure anyone else is? I take it as a very strong possibility but no more.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

02 Dec 2010, 10:32 pm

Sand wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.

Do you have a subjective personal experience of consciousness?

If so, then being critical towards the idea is delusional; obviously the idea describes something, if you personally have it. If not, then you are a p-zombie.

Now, it's certainly possible to be critical of the idea of a scientific theory that uses consciousness as an explanatory element. However, that's irrelevant to this thread, as it doesn't deny the existence of the subjective personal experience of consciousness, even as only a nonexplanatory epiphenomenon of the brain.


I can be confident that I am conscious but how can I be absolutely sure anyone else is? I take it as a very strong possibility but no more.


This fact is one of many that we can logically suppose to be true without any real evidence.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Dec 2010, 10:37 pm

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.

Do you have a subjective personal experience of consciousness?

If so, then being critical towards the idea is delusional; obviously the idea describes something, if you personally have it. If not, then you are a p-zombie.

Now, it's certainly possible to be critical of the idea of a scientific theory that uses consciousness as an explanatory element. However, that's irrelevant to this thread, as it doesn't deny the existence of the subjective personal experience of consciousness, even as only a nonexplanatory epiphenomenon of the brain.


I can be confident that I am conscious but how can I be absolutely sure anyone else is? I take it as a very strong possibility but no more.


This fact is one of many that we can logically suppose to be true without any real evidence.


I do not swallow it whole and assume absolute truth. It is merely a pragmatically useful working tool until something turns up indicating it is defective.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

02 Dec 2010, 10:58 pm

Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.

Do you have a subjective personal experience of consciousness?

If so, then being critical towards the idea is delusional; obviously the idea describes something, if you personally have it. If not, then you are a p-zombie.

Now, it's certainly possible to be critical of the idea of a scientific theory that uses consciousness as an explanatory element. However, that's irrelevant to this thread, as it doesn't deny the existence of the subjective personal experience of consciousness, even as only a nonexplanatory epiphenomenon of the brain.


I can be confident that I am conscious but how can I be absolutely sure anyone else is? I take it as a very strong possibility but no more.


This fact is one of many that we can logically suppose to be true without any real evidence.


I do not swallow it whole and assume absolute truth. It is merely a pragmatically useful working tool until something turns up indicating it is defective.


Would you like some more examples of rational beliefs that cannot be justified scientifically:

Logic and math presuppose science and therefor cannot be proven without circular argument.
The belief that the external world is real.
The belief that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.
Truly subjective ethics cannot be proven scientifically and presuppose the existence of logic and therefor attempts to prove these things fall into also eternal circular argument.
Aesthetics also cannot be justified scientifically.
Finally, science itself, presupposes itself and in order any explanation would also fall into eternal circular argument.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Banned_Magnus
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 119

02 Dec 2010, 11:12 pm

I don't think it is healthy to wonder if you are conscious.

“Wonder, connected with a principle of rational curiosity, is the source of all knowledge and discover, and it is a principle even of piety; but wonder which ends in wonder, and is satisfied with wonder, is the quality of an idiot."

Samuel Horsley



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Dec 2010, 11:24 pm

Banned_Magnus wrote:
I don't think it is healthy to wonder if you are conscious.

“Wonder, connected with a principle of rational curiosity, is the source of all knowledge and discover, and it is a principle even of piety; but wonder which ends in wonder, and is satisfied with wonder, is the quality of an idiot."

Samuel Horsley


Anybody who is totally sold on personal consciousness has a very primitive idea of how the mind functions. Consciousness is a useful utility in dealing with and organizing sense perception but it in no way engages all operations of the mind and the working nervous system. People tend to puff up the importance of consciousness as they invest it with total powers. It is merely a useful supplement to the working mind which has all sorts of hidden systems.below awareness.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,510
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Dec 2010, 11:28 pm

Banned_Magnus wrote:
I don't think it is healthy to wonder if you are conscious.

“Wonder, connected with a principle of rational curiosity, is the source of all knowledge and discover, and it is a principle even of piety; but wonder which ends in wonder, and is satisfied with wonder, is the quality of an idiot."

Samuel Horsley

It seems absurd that anyone could argue that we aren't. Its like redefining 'tree' to mean nymph and then stating that trees don't exist.



Banned_Magnus
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 119

02 Dec 2010, 11:31 pm

Yeah. I thought I was a dreamer with my head in the clouds. Who would sit around and wonder if they are conscious? lol



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Dec 2010, 11:34 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Banned_Magnus wrote:
I don't think it is healthy to wonder if you are conscious.

“Wonder, connected with a principle of rational curiosity, is the source of all knowledge and discover, and it is a principle even of piety; but wonder which ends in wonder, and is satisfied with wonder, is the quality of an idiot."

Samuel Horsley

It seems absurd that anyone could argue that we aren't. Its like redefining 'tree' to mean nymph and then stating that trees don't exist.


It's not absurd at all. People have denied consciousness to many animals and other things which react in organized ways with complex strategies to external stimuli. Even bacteria have been discovered to have extraordinary complex reactions and I would be somewhat doubtful of their consciousness. No doubt it is a radical thought but the massive general stupidity of humanity in behaving rationally to obvious difficulties and threats does not encourage the idea of sophisticated consciousness. But I accept it as a working proposition.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Dec 2010, 11:41 pm

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.

Do you have a subjective personal experience of consciousness?

If so, then being critical towards the idea is delusional; obviously the idea describes something, if you personally have it. If not, then you are a p-zombie.

Now, it's certainly possible to be critical of the idea of a scientific theory that uses consciousness as an explanatory element. However, that's irrelevant to this thread, as it doesn't deny the existence of the subjective personal experience of consciousness, even as only a nonexplanatory epiphenomenon of the brain.


I can be confident that I am conscious but how can I be absolutely sure anyone else is? I take it as a very strong possibility but no more.


This fact is one of many that we can logically suppose to be true without any real evidence.


I do not swallow it whole and assume absolute truth. It is merely a pragmatically useful working tool until something turns up indicating it is defective.


Would you like some more examples of rational beliefs that cannot be justified scientifically:

Logic and math presuppose science and therefor cannot be proven without circular argument.
The belief that the external world is real.
The belief that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.
Truly subjective ethics cannot be proven scientifically and presuppose the existence of logic and therefor attempts to prove these things fall into also eternal circular argument.
Aesthetics also cannot be justified scientifically.
Finally, science itself, presupposes itself and in order any explanation would also fall into eternal circular argument.


HOW many times have *I* said this??? lol

You are exactly right except for the first thing, which you got backwards. Science presupposes logic and math, not the other way around. Logic and math are not concerned with science. Scientific reasoning, however, does make use of logic and math.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,510
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Dec 2010, 11:44 pm

Banned_Magnus wrote:
Yeah. I thought I was a dreamer with my head in the clouds. Who would sit around and wonder if they are conscious? lol

I can see people arguing that free will can't exist, that any sense of authentic 'us' can't exist, for the most part I agree with them. To say that an 'I' experience is hallucination off of that though would be to redefine the term 'hallucination'. Its like arguing that our eyes are lying because light isn't light without eyes to see it; I suppose if someone wants to export their point of view to that of a sea urchin it may be an appropriate assumption but - it makes no sense to think that way unless you're a sea urchin, just like it would make no sense to argue that you're unconscious unless you're a 'zombie' (which is an even more interesting proposition, how would you know your not aware if you aren't there to even have such an epiphany?).



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Dec 2010, 11:52 pm

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the third option is that I am a critic towards consciousness. Some people really are critical towards the idea.

Do you have a subjective personal experience of consciousness?

If so, then being critical towards the idea is delusional; obviously the idea describes something, if you personally have it. If not, then you are a p-zombie.

Now, it's certainly possible to be critical of the idea of a scientific theory that uses consciousness as an explanatory element. However, that's irrelevant to this thread, as it doesn't deny the existence of the subjective personal experience of consciousness, even as only a nonexplanatory epiphenomenon of the brain.


I can be confident that I am conscious but how can I be absolutely sure anyone else is? I take it as a very strong possibility but no more.


This fact is one of many that we can logically suppose to be true without any real evidence.



I do not swallow it whole and assume absolute truth. It is merely a pragmatically useful working tool until something turns up indicating it is defective.


Would you like some more examples of rational beliefs that cannot be justified scientifically:

Logic and math presuppose science and therefor cannot be proven without circular argument.
The belief that the external world is real.
The belief that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.
Truly subjective ethics cannot be proven scientifically and presuppose the existence of logic and therefor attempts to prove these things fall into also eternal circular argument.
Aesthetics also cannot be justified scientifically.
Finally, science itself, presupposes itself and in order any explanation would also fall into eternal circular argument.


You have this repeatedly demonstrated a dogged persistent enthusiasm for plunging into massive miasmas of vagueness.

Logic and math are not sciences they are exercises in abstract consistency. That they find utility in science is another matter altogether.
The word real is too poorly generally designed to be thrown in without specific definitions.
The denial of a real past is a great exercise in either paranoia or humor and amusing but not useful as a working principal.
Subjective ethics is a socially erected structure and varies greatly between individuals and cultures and has little if any relation to science except as a study in sociality.
Aesthetics is also a very personal matter and has to do with pleasurable nervous stimulation which varies greatly.
Science is not based on logic but on the observation of patterns and their relationship. Logic, like mathematics, is a useful tool in discerning these relationships but science is eternally readjusting its comprehension of these relationships as new data arrives.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,510
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Dec 2010, 11:59 pm

Sand wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Banned_Magnus wrote:
I don't think it is healthy to wonder if you are conscious.

“Wonder, connected with a principle of rational curiosity, is the source of all knowledge and discover, and it is a principle even of piety; but wonder which ends in wonder, and is satisfied with wonder, is the quality of an idiot."

Samuel Horsley

It seems absurd that anyone could argue that we aren't. Its like redefining 'tree' to mean nymph and then stating that trees don't exist.


It's not absurd at all. People have denied consciousness to many animals and other things which react in organized ways with complex strategies to external stimuli. Even bacteria have been discovered to have extraordinary complex reactions and I would be somewhat doubtful of their consciousness. No doubt it is a radical thought but the massive general stupidity of humanity in behaving rationally to obvious difficulties and threats does not encourage the idea of sophisticated consciousness. But I accept it as a working proposition.

Denial's a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one. We can guess at neural capability to an extent to see what animals can or can't feel or, as we get better with this, know which animals have language to teach one another (we're finding out just how many there are - crows seem to be on that list now). As for 'I' perspective no one knows because no one knows what it is yet.

That and, it doesn't matter what humans act like. I could assume then that I and anyone else who experiences this at that rate isn't really human? It's not a proposition that particularly needs intelligence or free will. In terms of our neural complexity, any 'human' intelligent enough to read a few lines of script or say "Party on Bill!" doesn't seem to have that radically different a quantity of brain mass from someone who can prove to themselves that they have it by experiencing it first hand. Whether we act like a nest of beetles as you once put it....nothing doesn't, if it does behave on a higher level by your standards is quite likely to be maybe ten or twenty thousand years ahead of us and went through all of this just like we did.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

03 Dec 2010, 12:16 am

Sand wrote:
People have denied consciousness to many animals and other things which react in organized ways with complex strategies to external stimuli.

Not to mention plants, some of which have more complex strategies than some animals.