Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

...can't solve the mystery of consciousness.

Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:35:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wish The Grauniad would get a decent philosophy editor. I've not got time to wade all the way through that, but there's a few fairly fundamental issues with what I've read of it:

1) There's a very good reason why pain exists and it hardly takes a genius to work out its purpose.
2) It doesn't seem to be physical? Wrong. It most certainly does seem to be physical. There's literally no evidence to suggest it isn't and tons to suggest it is.
3) It can't be observed? I'm not so sure on that. It's a matter of perspective; it looks different from the outside.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.

It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:15:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.


yeah...I'm guessing you didn't actually get the point of the article The question is why do these braim processes come accompanied with the subjectibve feeling of the "ouchiness" of pain. Why does it HURT? Nothing seems to necessitate that it does. Tissue damage avoidance could be done equally well by just simple responses to stimuli like we see in, say, tardigrades (or replace with any other organism or animal that we think plausibly doesn't feel pain but still avoids tissue damage). Why ded the firing of C fibers come with the feeling of "pain" and not itchiness? What is about C fibers firing that makes them painful but not itch?. Why couldn't different processes in a normally function human be accompanined by pain and not just the C fibers? Etc.

And if you actually got that last point from the article, then I KNOW you didn't get the point.

How much philosophy of mind have you read?
It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.


No one has disputed that. What are you arguing against?

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

Nope. Please read it again. Carefully.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:27:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:15:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.


yeah...I'm guessing you didn't actually get the point of the article The question is why do these braim processes come accompanied with the subjectibve feeling of the "ouchiness" of pain. Why does it HURT? Nothing seems to necessitate that it does. Tissue damage avoidance could be done equally well by just simple responses to stimuli like we see in, say, tardigrades (or replace with any other organism or animal that we think plausibly doesn't feel pain but still avoids tissue damage). Why ded the firing of C fibers come with the feeling of "pain" and not itchiness? What is about C fibers firing that makes them painful but not itch?. Why couldn't different processes in a normally function human be accompanined by pain and not just the C fibers? Etc.

And if you actually got that last point from the article, then I KNOW you didn't get the point.

How much philosophy of mind have you read?
It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.


No one has disputed that. What are you arguing against?

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

Nope. Please read it again. Carefully.

It's 'ouchy' to insure we do something about it. We cannot regenerate damaged or diseased parts so we have a mechanism to insure we pay attention when it happens. It's not perfect, pain having the capability to render us unconscious, but it is quite effective. When you stub your toe your only thought in that second is to relieve the pain.

As for the rest, we have opposing opinions and I feel arguing would prove fruitless. Have a good ay.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:34:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I get it, pcp.
http://www.debate.org...

Honestly, I see consciousness as the same infinitely recursive insensibility as must be the universe itself.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:41:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheists get so touchy when you insinuate that there's something mysterious going on, don't they?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:43:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.

It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

The location of the mind remains as elusive as ever.

http://www.newscientist.com...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 2:21:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:35:32 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
I wish The Grauniad would get a decent philosophy editor. I've not got time to wade all the way through that, but there's a few fairly fundamental issues with what I've read of it:

LOL, they need a better editor so they can have better articles for you to not read?

1) There's a very good reason why pain exists and it hardly takes a genius to work out its purpose.
2) It doesn't seem to be physical? Wrong. It most certainly does seem to be physical. There's literally no evidence to suggest it isn't and tons to suggest it is.
3) It can't be observed? I'm not so sure on that. It's a matter of perspective; it looks different from the outside.

These aren't the "fairly fundamental issues", apparently you don't even know the difference between the easy problems and the Hard Problem, that is what is fundamental...You claim to like Wittgenstein, so allow me to paraphrase:

Whereof one cannot comprehend, thereof one must be silent (or you will look like an idiot).
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 2:34:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.

It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

The only criticism I had of the article is that they dumbed it down to far, but I guess not far enough, obviously the Hard Problem is just too hard for some people.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 2:39:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:27:32 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:15:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.


yeah...I'm guessing you didn't actually get the point of the article The question is why do these braim processes come accompanied with the subjectibve feeling of the "ouchiness" of pain. Why does it HURT? Nothing seems to necessitate that it does. Tissue damage avoidance could be done equally well by just simple responses to stimuli like we see in, say, tardigrades (or replace with any other organism or animal that we think plausibly doesn't feel pain but still avoids tissue damage). Why ded the firing of C fibers come with the feeling of "pain" and not itchiness? What is about C fibers firing that makes them painful but not itch?. Why couldn't different processes in a normally function human be accompanined by pain and not just the C fibers? Etc.

And if you actually got that last point from the article, then I KNOW you didn't get the point.

How much philosophy of mind have you read?
It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.


No one has disputed that. What are you arguing against?

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

Nope. Please read it again. Carefully.

It's 'ouchy' to insure we do something about it.

Oh, I see, so you attribute purposeful behavior to matter?

We cannot regenerate damaged or diseased parts so we have a mechanism to insure we pay attention when it happens. It's not perfect, pain having the capability to render us unconscious, but it is quite effective. When you stub your toe your only thought in that second is to relieve the pain.

Pay attention? What is that? Why is that?

As for the rest, we have opposing opinions and I feel arguing would prove fruitless. Have a good ay.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 2:53:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:39:16 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

It rains to make the grass grow, Sidewalker. Obviously.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:53:30 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:39:16 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

It rains to make the grass grow, Sidewalker. Obviously.

And Evolution said, "Let there be pain," and there was pain. Evolution saw that the pain was good, and he separated the pain from the comfort.

)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:04:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:27:32 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:15:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.


yeah...I'm guessing you didn't actually get the point of the article The question is why do these braim processes come accompanied with the subjectibve feeling of the "ouchiness" of pain. Why does it HURT? Nothing seems to necessitate that it does. Tissue damage avoidance could be done equally well by just simple responses to stimuli like we see in, say, tardigrades (or replace with any other organism or animal that we think plausibly doesn't feel pain but still avoids tissue damage). Why ded the firing of C fibers come with the feeling of "pain" and not itchiness? What is about C fibers firing that makes them painful but not itch?. Why couldn't different processes in a normally function human be accompanined by pain and not just the C fibers? Etc.

And if you actually got that last point from the article, then I KNOW you didn't get the point.

How much philosophy of mind have you read?
It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.


No one has disputed that. What are you arguing against?

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

Nope. Please read it again. Carefully.

It's 'ouchy' to insure we do something about it. We cannot regenerate damaged or diseased parts so we have a mechanism to insure we pay attention when it happens. It's not perfect, pain having the capability to render us unconscious, but it is quite effective. When you stub your toe your only thought in that second is to relieve the pain.

As for the rest, we have opposing opinions and I feel arguing would prove fruitless. Have a good ay.

It need not be "ouchy" in order to insure we do something about it.

As it says inthe article:

When I stubbed my toe on the leg of the dining table this morning, as any student of the brain could tell you, nerve fibres called "C-fibres" shot a message to my spinal cord, sending neurotransmitters to the part of my brain called the thalamus, which activated (among other things) my limbic system. Fine. But how come all that was accompanied by an agonising flash of pain? And what is pain, anyway?

The first part seems perfectly sufficient to insure we do something about it. The question is WHY does that process come with the FEELING of ouchiness? HOW does that process generate the FEELING of ouchiness when nothing in the process seems able to produce the feeling of "something it is like" to be in pain? You can give a complete description of the process but you still haven't explained what it is like to be in pain....and that is the problem.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 8:36:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Really, walls of text eye bleed to explain why it hurts my thumb when I smash it with a hammer? The worst part is, they came up with no conclusive answer. LOL
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 2:56:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:21:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
LOL, they need a better editor so they can have better articles for you to not read?

As a regular reader of The Guardian, it's more that I'm fed up with the terrible standard of content when it comes to philosophy.

These aren't the "fairly fundamental issues", apparently you don't even know the difference between the easy problems and the Hard Problem, that is what is fundamental...You claim to like Wittgenstein, so allow me to paraphrase:

I see reading comprehension still takes a backseat to misplaced arrogance, in your personal priority list. I was simply pointing out a few basic blunders in the article. I thought that was pretty clear.

Whereof one cannot comprehend, thereof one must be silent (or you will look like an idiot).

You do indeed. Referencing the most known line from his best known work hardly convinces me you have anything of worth to say on the matter. But the idea you are better informed or qualified in the field than me has always amused me greatly. You should perhaps think more on one of his favourite sayings:

You can't sh*t higher than your arse.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:57:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:39:16 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:27:32 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:15:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.


yeah...I'm guessing you didn't actually get the point of the article The question is why do these braim processes come accompanied with the subjectibve feeling of the "ouchiness" of pain. Why does it HURT? Nothing seems to necessitate that it does. Tissue damage avoidance could be done equally well by just simple responses to stimuli like we see in, say, tardigrades (or replace with any other organism or animal that we think plausibly doesn't feel pain but still avoids tissue damage). Why ded the firing of C fibers come with the feeling of "pain" and not itchiness? What is about C fibers firing that makes them painful but not itch?. Why couldn't different processes in a normally function human be accompanined by pain and not just the C fibers? Etc.

And if you actually got that last point from the article, then I KNOW you didn't get the point.

How much philosophy of mind have you read?
It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.


No one has disputed that. What are you arguing against?

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

Nope. Please read it again. Carefully.

It's 'ouchy' to insure we do something about it.

Oh, I see, so you attribute purposeful behavior to matter?

No, it's why the system developed, it was an advantage to our ancestors to immediately see to injuries so they did not become worse. Natural selection is very merciless and any population that did not realize it was injured and allowed those injuries to get worse didn't survive long.

We cannot regenerate damaged or diseased parts so we have a mechanism to insure we pay attention when it happens. It's not perfect, pain having the capability to render us unconscious, but it is quite effective. When you stub your toe your only thought in that second is to relieve the pain.

Pay attention? What is that? Why is that?

Are you really so unintelligent? I think not. I think you are simply unwilling to admit that when it hurts, the first thing you want to do is make it stop. That's a survival trait that our primitive ancestors developed along with a nervous system and a limbic system. I am certain you know this and are just trying to make a specious point.

As for the rest, we have opposing opinions and I feel arguing would prove fruitless. Have a good ay.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 12:11:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:21:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/22/2015 7:35:32 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
I wish The Grauniad would get a decent philosophy editor. I've not got time to wade all the way through that, but there's a few fairly fundamental issues with what I've read of it:

LOL, they need a better editor so they can have better articles for you to not read?

+1
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 4:48:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 12:11:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:21:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/22/2015 7:35:32 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
I wish The Grauniad would get a decent philosophy editor. I've not got time to wade all the way through that, but there's a few fairly fundamental issues with what I've read of it:

LOL, they need a better editor so they can have better articles for you to not read?

+1

Obviously stating that I read it regularly was unclear somehow.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 6:29:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 4:48:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 1/24/2015 12:11:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:21:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/22/2015 7:35:32 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
I wish The Grauniad would get a decent philosophy editor. I've not got time to wade all the way through that, but there's a few fairly fundamental issues with what I've read of it:

LOL, they need a better editor so they can have better articles for you to not read?

+1

Obviously stating that I read it regularly was unclear somehow.

Obviously stating that you have a strong opinion about an article you haven't read was unintelligent somehow.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 6:37:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 6:29:03 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/24/2015 4:48:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 1/24/2015 12:11:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:21:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/22/2015 7:35:32 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
I wish The Grauniad would get a decent philosophy editor. I've not got time to wade all the way through that, but there's a few fairly fundamental issues with what I've read of it:

LOL, they need a better editor so they can have better articles for you to not read?

+1

Obviously stating that I read it regularly was unclear somehow.

Obviously stating that you have a strong opinion about an article you haven't read was unintelligent somehow.

Your reading comprehension really is dire. I clearly said I was commenting on a. few issues in what I had read. The rest of the article was not going to change those issues. But if you'd rather make rhetorical strawmen swipes instead of address the points I raised, that's up to you and entirely understandable. Critical thinking and an honest approach to contentful debate have never been your forte.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 8:51:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:57:04 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:39:16 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:27:32 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:15:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:51:38 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:51:41 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Good article.

What a load of garbage. We are quite familiar with pain and it serves a purpose. It warns us of damage to our bodies so we can take steps to repair it. People with diseases such as leprosy or diabetes can lose sensation in parts of their bodies making them very susceptible to small injuries that become infected and grow into huge problems.


yeah...I'm guessing you didn't actually get the point of the article The question is why do these braim processes come accompanied with the subjectibve feeling of the "ouchiness" of pain. Why does it HURT? Nothing seems to necessitate that it does. Tissue damage avoidance could be done equally well by just simple responses to stimuli like we see in, say, tardigrades (or replace with any other organism or animal that we think plausibly doesn't feel pain but still avoids tissue damage). Why ded the firing of C fibers come with the feeling of "pain" and not itchiness? What is about C fibers firing that makes them painful but not itch?. Why couldn't different processes in a normally function human be accompanined by pain and not just the C fibers? Etc.

And if you actually got that last point from the article, then I KNOW you didn't get the point.

How much philosophy of mind have you read?
It is true that we cannot pinpoint the process that gives rise to consciousness but it's readily apparent that it is in the brain. Damage to the brain, drugs, exhaustion, any of these things can affect our consciousness because they affect the organ that it arises from.


No one has disputed that. What are you arguing against?

The rest of this article is pure sophistry meant to make consciousness seem like some immaterial miracle that only some kind of deity could produce. Propaganda, nothing more.

Nope. Please read it again. Carefully.

It's 'ouchy' to insure we do something about it.

Oh, I see, so you attribute purposeful behavior to matter?

No, it's why the system developed, it was an advantage to our ancestors to immediately see to injuries so they did not become worse. Natural selection is very merciless and any population that did not realize it was injured and allowed those injuries to get worse didn't survive long.

Ah yes, the "evolutionary advantage of the gaps" explains the reasoning ability of evolution, good one LOL.

We cannot regenerate damaged or diseased parts so we have a mechanism to insure we pay attention when it happens. It's not perfect, pain having the capability to render us unconscious, but it is quite effective. When you stub your toe your only thought in that second is to relieve the pain.

Pay attention? What is that? Why is that?

Are you really so unintelligent?

Well, I"m not so stupid that I don't even understand what the Hard Problem of consciousness is. All the article which has you so bunged up is saying is that there is an explanatory gap between physical processes and consciousness, the existence of consciousness is not derivable from physical laws. What I don't understand is why you find that simple fact so threatening to your completely faith-based belief system.

I think not. I think you are simply unwilling to admit that when it hurts, the first thing you want to do is make it stop.

Nope, I'm perfectly willing to admit that, the problem is you are unwilling to understand what that means despite the fact that it actually elucidates the Hard Problem. You are correct about two things, the fact that it hurts, which demonstrates that I am a conscious being that is having a subjective experience, and the fact that there is something I want to do about it, which demonstrates that as a conscious being, I am a purposeful causal agent with desires or intentions, including the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of intents, values and purposes, and intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical state of your naive argument.

That's a survival trait that our primitive ancestors developed along with a nervous system and a limbic system. I am certain you know this and are just trying to make a specious point.

I do know this, and I also know that you are just playing the old shell game, trying to deny the unexplained and perhaps unexplainable mystery of the Hard Problem, with a specious effort to endow the process of evolution with the same unexplained mystery. Attributing desire or intention to "evolution" and claiming it has the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state is simply absurd and unscientific.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 10:06:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So what are the choices of a theory of consciousness? Consciousness can be:

1) Solopsist (I am the only conscious being)
2) Common sense (People are conscious, animals are semi-conscious, rocks are unconscious)
3) Panpsychic (Consciousness is omnipresent, most likely highest in humans and lowest in rocks but still scarcely present).

I have spent time trying to believe all of these possibilities. Lately I have gravitated towards panpsychic theories because the origin of life remains so elusive, despite advanced scientific efforts to create it. I believe that the reason why we still can't make even one germ is because consciousness exists in all life, and it is something we cannot create artificially. Consciousness is some fundamental aspect of the universe we cannot manipulate, at least not yet. It makes sense to me that it probably exists everywhere, perhaps as a property of matter or energy.

One possible other way of looking at consciousness:

4) Consciousness as a process. I suppose this goes along with the classical viewpoint, something with a brain acts in a way that creates consciousness, as opposed to consciousness being a constituent ingredient in making life. This theory would support computers attaining consciousness with sufficient processes to create it, but somehow this doesn't seem likely to me... I just don't see computers ever attaining consciousness, I look at consciousness more as an element than a process. Computers, no matter the processes they achieve, will never attain consciousness. I realize I'm not presenting evidence, that's just my opinion.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 1:53:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me suggest a way it might be possible to square the circle of the mind/body problem.

To my mind the nub of the problem is that consciousness seems to have aspects (or elements/qualities call them what you like) that defy implmentation by a physical process or algorithm. An example is the 'subjectivity' of consciousness. For example, it's easy to make a machine that can react to temperature (e.g. thermostats etc), but no one knows how to make a machine that feels hot or cold the subjective way you and I do.

Physicalists often claim it is just a question of making a machine sufficiently inter-and intra-connected, or more self-referential or 'more complex' and consciousness will 'emrge', but in reality, nobody has much of a clue what is needed to make a machine conscious and appeals to emergence are really admissions of complete bafflement how it might work.

Now I am a physicalist, but I have doubts that the 'mysterious aspects' of consciousness can be implemented using any real process or algorithm. not matter how complex it is. But does that matter?

Recall a time you perceived = for example - a red car. Let's suppose it was this morning. The fact you perceived a red car at that time does not guarantee there was a red car. You may have been dreaming, or halucinating. But the fact you perceived a red car this morning guarantees that at that time your brain contained a pattern of neural activity that encoded 'There us a red car there', That is the case even if you were dreaming of halucinating. If the car was really red but (for some reason) it gets encoded as being blue in your brain you will perceive a blue car.

The point is that your perception of X doesn't guarantee the existence or reality of X, but it does absolutely guarantee the existence of a neural reperesentation encoding X somewere in your brain.

Brains that 'self-represent' are an asset in the survival game. We might that to result in the evolution of brains that accurately represent themselves and their action, but that doesn't follow.

What will really evolve are brains that represent themelves in a way that is good for survival purposes, which may not be an accurate representation at all. Another point is there is no way a brain can know how brains actually work, expecially not how they will work after they has evolved while they are evolving!

The point (if there is a point) is that consciousness does not have to implement all the mysterious qualities it seems to have - it only as to support the representation of such qualities.

It is quite possible to represent the physically impossible. Fast-than-light transport is a physical impossibility, but you can easily form a neural representation of ftl travel - you do whenever you read 'faster than light'. So the fact we perceive consciousness as seemingly impossible doesn't mean consciousness is really like that. All we know is how consciousness 'models' itself, not how consciousness really is. Consciousness only has to be able to represent its fancy features, not implement them.