Consequently, there is no means of performing standard, traditional ontology nor investigations into the world as it is in-itself. — Bob Ross

Presently, science is trying to explain consciousness with the ontological assumption that materialism/physicalism is the case. If, in ten thousand years, that scientific project still has not given a definitive answer to the hard problem/mind-body problem, wouldn't that be strong evidence that materialism/physicalism is not true?

Yes. Your thinking parallels my own, but your solutions seem pretty unsatisfying. I'm sure you feel the same way. — T Clark

Yes.

I wonder where there will be room for humanity when it's all over. — T Clark

There will still be a need to sift through all the Ai-generated images looking for the best ones. That doesn't require a lot of skill though. If I was a professional artist, I'd be worried. Or I'd sell my paintings with a video of me making the painting included, so there's proof a human did it.

Yes, its computing solutions for equations of motion in physics. — Apustimelogist

What do you think of this, by Searle? "“The wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.”"
https://philosophynow.org/issues/124/Is_Everything_A_Computer

If no one is looking at a computer simulation of a tornado, is it still a computer simulation of a tornado? Or is just a bunch of pixels turning off and on?

"The idea that plants might be conscious is not popular, but it is definitely not untestable, unscientific, or “magicalist” (not a word)."
https://iai.tv/articles/no-theory-of-consciousness-is-scientific-auid-2610?_auid=2020

Conscious crystals can't be too far behind. I hope Shirley MacLaine lives long enough.

My whole experience (tentatively I would say consciousness) is just a stream of these things. They cannot be reduced further... they are the bottom and foundation for everything I know and perceive. — Apustimelogist

What about when you clear your mind? When I meditate, I can clear my mind for at least a short time so there is no stream of anything, yet I'm still conscious.

Take the simplest of computational networks - two states going through a logic gate, producing a new state. — Generic Snowflake

Is an abacus falling through the air, beads moving back and forth from the wind, doing any computations?

What does a solution to the hard problem look like? — Apustimelogist

Idealism.

I don't see "should" as having all that much to do with what we suppose. However, in the case a loved one of yours having a stroke in your presence, I hope it will occur to you that your loved one has a physical brain, and getting your loved one to a doctor who knows about brains is important. — wonderer1

That too is consistent with a dream. What's your next move, kick a rock? :razz:

You talk about information a lot. What theory of consciousness is your favorite?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question, but my impulse is to answer that we've seen physical brains by opening up skulls. That's why I suppose they exist. Do you suppose physical brains don't exist? — flannel jesus

I suppose that physical matter doesn't exist, let alone physical brains. It's all mental stuff. The hard problem vanishes.

The effect of general anesthesia in suppressing consciousness.

The effect of mind altering drugs.

The fact that human intuition 'looks like' the result of the way information processing occurs in neural networks.

All sorts of ways minds can be impacted by brain damage. — wonderer1

That is all consistent with idealism. Why should we suppose there exists a physical brain made of non-mental stuff? Also, do you think all instances of information processing give rise to subjective experience? Or only some? Are you a proponent of IIT?

Thinking and feeling arise as the joint firing of neurons, i.e. neurons form patterns. — Wolfgang

Why does some neuron activity result in thinking and feeling while other neural/neuron activity results in no feelings? Why are we conscious of only some brain processes? Is IIT a pseudoscience?

:up:

For most of my life, Republicans were the ones more likely to vote by mail. Dear Leader didn't like it, so of course the Republican sheeple changed their voting patterns.

But metabolism and feedback throughout the body are essential to conciousness. There are whole books on how the endocrine system effects conciousness that can make it seem like it is the main driver, the neurons ancillary dependants. This is obviously wrong too, the system is complex and there is a circular causality at work. "The Other Brain," is a great book on the massive amount of "work" that glial cells do in the brain. The neurons only take center stage, alone, because we have placed them there in our abstractions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But there is still the same explanatory problem: brain states XYZ + body + quantum effects = the pain of stubbing a toe, but brain states ABC + body + quantum effects = the experience of seeing red, while brain states DEF + body + quantum effects = nothing. What is it about these brain states that leads to different experiences (or no experiences)?

Also, are you claiming it's impossible to create a mechanical analogue of a working brain + body + quantum effects? If we did, how would we know it's conscious? What if we simulated a working brain and body and quantum effects? Would the simulation be conscious?

If the election was stolen from Trump, why is he running again? Why will his supporters bother voting for him? If the rascally Democrats could steal an election out from under Trump WHILE he was president, aren't they going to do a much better #steal now that they have the Whitehouse?

Isn't all this similar to Descartes' evil demon? Sure quaddition could be different than addition. Sure there could be an evil demon messing with us every time we think 2 and 2 are 4 (spoiler: it's really 5). But there's probably no evil demon and quaddition probably gives the same answer as addition.

Right, but all the "stuff" is just mentation, mental stuff. We're all part of one disassociated cosmic mind for him, right? So, of course if all minds disappear there is nothing, because there is nothing but mind. Saying "all minds cease to exist," is equivalent with saying "the universe ceases to exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, yes. The idealist would say that if there are no minds, nothing exists. The materialist would object to that. I don't see how bringing process into the discussion removes that point of disagreement. The idealist and materialist are still going to disagree on what would exist if there are no minds. Even if consciousness/mind are processes, the (non-panpsychist) materialist is still going to claim mindless stuff exists and would continue to exist if all minds disappeared. The modern-day materialist is going claim Jupiter still exists in a mindless universe, right? Or has materialism undergone a radical change?

You have an enlightened view. All the atheists I've interacted with roll their eyes when I talk about idealism.

Universal consciousness conceptually doesn't have those trappings. If you reject religion for similar reasons, a lot of atheists are going to consider you a like mind — flannel jesus

Until you start talking about the cosmic one mind. Then you're considered a dupe who believes in "woo".

If substance emerges from process, what would claims like Katsrupt's that the world is made up of "mental substance," even mean vis-á-vis competing claims that is is "physical substance." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think Kastrup would say the primary difference is that in his ontology there is no mind-independent stuff. If all minds disappeared, so would the universe. Materialism/physicalism claims the universe would still exist, even if there were no minds.

You're coming across as kind of a jerk. I notice that happens a lot in these consciousness discussions for some reason.

The courts didn't give him standing, they didn't hear the substance of the claims. — yebiga

"In his Nov. 21 order dismissing the case, Brann criticized the Trump campaign for seeking to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying its election results without presenting any evidence to support such a “drastic remedy.”

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote. “Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/rudy-giulianis-bogus-election-fraud-claims/

Did you believe in Sydney Powell's Kraken?

How apropos. I was just pointing out to wonderer1 in another thread how flimsy scientific theories of consciousness are. Now one of the leading ones get's called pseudoscience. Well, well.

It's not bluster to point out science's failure to explain consciousness. It's also not bluster to predict science will continue to fail to explain consciousness. You might not agree with that prediction, but there's no blustering going on. When do you think science will figure out consciousness? 10 years from now? 100? 1000?

Do you think mind/consciousness can emerge from electronic switches being turned on and off in a certain way? From moving abacus beads? Would a system of valves, pumps, and water that's functionally identical to a working brain have a mind?

How about answering my question? Do you have something more than incredulity for an argument? — wonderer1

I think science's continued failure to explain consciousness is evidence that incredulity is the right response to the idea that minds and consciousness emerge from mindless unconscious stuff. Philosophers will continue to win bets against neuroscientists.

What basis do you have to think that it is possible for a mind to exist, sans an information processing substrate for the mind to supervene upon? — wonderer1

I think the theories that involve mind emerging from a substrate are unconvincing-bordering-on-absurd. Do you think that if you wire a bunch of electric switches together and turn them off and on in some way the pain of stubbing a toe will emerge? Or the taste of of orange? Or the experience of seeing red?

I would be more sympathetic to atheism if science could explain consciousness. As it is, I think it's more likely we're aspects of a universal one-mind.

"In one phone conversation, according to handwritten notes taken by Donoghue and highlighted at Thursday’s hearing, Trump directed Rosen to “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-elections-donald-trump-campaigns-presidential-4e7e68e2ff57aadd96d09c873a43a317

You're OK with that?

We have yet to see a single bit of strong evidence for any life beyond earth. And we've been looking hard. No truly interesting signals, nothing. — petrichor

It does seem to be eerily quiet.

I'll go with Hume's argument against miracles on this. Think of it in probabilistic terms. What is more likely to be true? That someone is deceived? Or that the object in question is a literal alien spacecraft? We know that people being deceived and deceiving is a very common occurrence. But extraterrestrial intelligent beings visiting earth isn't something we have strong evidence for having ever occurred. You'd be wise to bet in any case that the more typical case is happening. — petrichor

Except extraterrestrials visiting earth wouldn't be a miracle. There's no violation of a law of nature. Why should we prima facie think alien visitation is a low probability event?

Dark splotches on a computer screen that appear to move. Amazing evidence. — jgill

If that was what it was, wouldn't NASA have figured that out?

I think now it's politically correct for authorities to remind that we don't know. Like not jumping to conclusions or so. — ssu

That they couldn't nail down a conventional explanation is a conclusion, in a way. Weren't the skeptics at first saying the UAP's were image artifacts?

What to make of the UAP phenomena?

"The NASA independent study team did not find any evidence that UAP have an extraterrestrial origin," NASA administrator Bill Nelson said during a press conference announcing the release of the study. "But we don't know what these UAP are."
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/14/nasa-uap-report-release

So, what are they/is it?

I think I'd respond by saying you're doing counting, which is neither addition nor quaddition. — Moliere

Isn't counting adding 1 to the previous number? Also, if I skip count by a number, aren't I adding that number each time?

Exactly. I was never into Wittgenstein. I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is. Something to do with private language?

I ask you to add 68+57.

You confidently say "125."

The skeptic asks, "How did you get that answer?" — frank

Draw 57 tally marks. Ask the skeptic how many there are. If the answer is "57", draw 68 more. Have the skeptic count them all. That should be a good enough answer for him.

(2) the kids are significantly more developed conscious beings than the fertilized eggs — Bob Ross

The fertilized eggs are not conscious beings at all. That's the point. Would you agree they're not persons in any way, shape, or form?

You think a zygote has the same moral status as a thirty year old woman? They're both equally persons? I know that's an incredibly awkward sentence, but let me illustrate my point:

Suppose fire breaks out at a fertility clinic where a million fertilized eggs are stored and an orphanage with ten kids present. Where do you send the town's only fire truck?

I doubt very much you would prioritize the fertility clinic over the orphanage, so isn't that suggestive that fertilized eggs are not people?

No. It is very clear that drinking is always bad for the child, and the CDC clearly reflects that: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20known%20safe,exposed%20to%20alcohol%20before%20birth. — Bob Ross

But the NIH has an article that says it's not clear at all. Do you want the government criminalizing behavior that might not be detrimental to the fetus? If government is going to outlaw something, shouldn't they be pretty sure that what they're outlawing is in fact bad?

When pregnant:

Eating some junk food should not be illegal.
Drinking should be illegal.
Smoking should be illegal. — Bob Ross

Does the following change your mind at all about alcohol and pregnancy?

"Some women will feel comfortable drinking occasionally—and they should feel reassured that there is no evidence that drinking moderately poses any risk of adverse outcome."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6353268/

ETA:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/studies-question-ban-on-alcohol-during-pregnancy-201206214929

Also, do you think that a fetus in the first month of development is a person? If not, what is being harmed if the woman drinks or smokes? Something other than a person? A potential person?