That's a shame, because what was an interesting conversation we here having seems to have fizzled out... — Isaac

Do you think the fizzling might be somewhat a consequence of excessive politesse on your part?

I suspect that as a psychology professor you have insight into the topic of the OP that you haven't brought up in the thread. (And I understand there may well be ethical standards for someone in your position, and abiding by such standards requires limiting what you say.)

Thoughts?

Semantics? — Pantagruel

Or frame of reference, which I suppose is pretty close to the same thing.

Yet Trump claimed that the only way he could lose was if the election was stolen. How could he possibly know that? He couldn't. It wasn't a belief, it was a strategy. — GRWelsh

:up:

Of course, the subject of neuroscience is the human brain, and humans are subjects, but that it not the point at issue. — Wayfarer

The point I was addressing was the falsity to your claim that, "I agree with Chalmers, on the grounds that objective physical sciences exclude the first person as a matter of principle."

It seems that went over your head, but now that I am pointing it our more explicitly, can you recognize the falsity of that statement you made? Do you recognize that you are not well qualified to speak of "the principles of science"?

The bet which was the subject of the OP was placed in 1998 between David Chalmers and Kristoff Koch as to whether a neurological account of the nature of experience would be discovered in the next 25 years. — Wayfarer

People make dumb bets. If I had been there I would happily have bet ten cases of wine on Chalmer's side. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Chalmers was right on the occasion when the bet was made.

BTW, people use "OP" here in a way that I haven't been able to clearly grasp the referent of. I think of "OP" as an acronym for "original post" referring to the initial post in a forum thread/discussion. However, some people use "OP" in ways that clearly do not fit with my understanding; your usage for example. What I consider to be the OP wasn't about the bet. It was about a "Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies"... ..."Over at Vox Future Perfect."

Have you read the original Chalmer’s paper? — Wayfarer

I haven't read this thread closely enough to know what paper you are referring to. Can you provide a non-paywalled link?

If someone reads a passage very quickly, and mixes up some words so that there is misunderstanding, can this really be called reading it? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see any good reason to look at it in black and white terms. I don't see reading as defined by not making any errors. Consider the varying interpretations people have of literature. Do you think all people who read a piece of literature have the same interpretation? Does it seem likely that lexical errors play a major role in the variance of interpretations?

If you read the article, it's all a hoax anyway, there was no such research. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I read it and found the additional text samples interesting as well. Regardless of the hoax, it is still interesting to consider what text samples like that can reveal to us about our thinking.

But physical sciences don't exclude the first person as far as I can tell.
— wonderer1

There is the presumption that their findings are observer-independent i.e. replicable by anyone, They’re ‘third person’ in that sense. It’s an implicit assumption. — Wayfarer

I suppose I should have asked where you draw a line between physical sciences and ~physical sciences, and why?

Neuroscience certainly is a physical science, and doesn't exclude the first person. Do you disagree?

I checked your link. Notice that each letter still needs to be there. Luke says reading occurs as a temporal order, I disagreed. Your link seems to support my position. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe we just experience it differently. It is clear to me that I have no need to be conscious of every letter in order to grasp the intended content. My brain yielded pattern recognized words, largely despite the 'brokenness" of many of the words. I can't say that I know what it is like for you though. I thought you might recognize that you didn't need to be conscious of every letter to understand the content.

Would you say that for you it was like solving a sort of logic puzzle to determine the following content?

am very sure that I am conscious of each letter in each word, or else I would misread the word. Are you sure that you are not conscious of each letter in each word? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd ask you to look at the following link.

https://www.sciencealert.com/word-jumble-meme-first-last-letters-cambridge-typoglycaemia

If you perceive an event unfold, like an arrow being shot at a person, if you are really fast it is possible to "intercede" in the future of that event. — Pantagruel

Right. I think that an important aspect of what our minds are 'evolutionarily for' is interceding in events in the future, so presenting a model with representations of the future to our minds is what our brains do. So us having multiple possible futures being represented in consciousness makes intuitive sense to me. However, I see that as different from consciousness being in the future.

Does that make sense?

Personally, I am exploring the idea that, while objects may have a temporal position, consciousness actually has a temporal "size." Objects are three dimensional and moving through or in time, as it were. But consciousness actually exists in the past, present and future, has actual temporal dimension. An intuition. — Pantagruel

I'm not caught up on this thread, so apologies if the thread has moved on.

I do think there is interesting scientific evidence for consciousness being 'clocked' to some extent, at brain wave frequencies. So there may be a temporal size along such lines.

I'm more skeptical that consciousness 'exists in the future'. I think our brains are continually modelling and updating their modelling of the future. This is what allows us to catch a ball flying through the air, even though our sensing of a moving ball's position is continuously time delayed. So I think it makes sense that it seems that our consciousness exists in part in the future.

...the processes of one's unconscious mind (its synthesizing of information very much included) are fully irrelevant to the issue of what is factually being consciously experienced... — javra

If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say, "La la la, I can't hear you.", then I don't have more to say. If you change your mind this article on visual cortex filling the role of the 'mind's eye' might be worth a look.

[irony]It hasn't happened yet. I'm curious to see what it would feel like.[/irony] — T Clark

Have you seen that TED Talk? If not, I get the impression that you would appreciate it.

Knowing what knowing feels like is a big part of that. — T Clark

Do you know what being wrong feel like?

When I visually imagine a table, I see the table from one singular perspective (rather than, say, from 12 different perspectives simultaneously). — javra

That depends on the circumstances. If you are visually imagining a table, due to your eyes being directed towards and focusing on an illuminated table, and you have the binocular vision typical of humans, then you are seeing the table from two different perspectives and your brain is synthesizing what you imagine to be a table seen from a singular perspective but with a depth which is due to the binocular origins of the imagining under consideration.

I agree with Chalmers, on the grounds that objective physical sciences exclude the first person as a matter of principle. — Wayfarer

But physical sciences don't exclude the first person as far as I can tell.

Can you show me somewhere, where this principle you speak of is written down?

That makes sense. Not everyone's intuition on a given subject is going to have equal weight. — Tom Storm

:up:

Some chimps know how to crack the nuts, and some chimps don't.

Of the chimps that don't, the smart ones are the one's who are watching and learning.

Yeah, I got that part. If I accept your definition I accept your conclusion because your conclusion is contained in the definition. The question is, why should I accept your definition? Something starting to exist when it did not exist prior its first moment of existence is something coming from nothing. I am not sure how the position just stated violates some core principle of logic? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I suspect Jabberwock is sleeping now. So I'll interject.

I don't think is is a matter of definition. It looks to me as if you don't have a clear mental model of what Jabberwock is proposing. Jabberwock is proposing a first state, in which something exists. "A state prior to the absolute first state" is a nonsensical construction, which you seem to be insisting on inserting into Jabberwock's model instead of grasping the model that Jabberwock is trying to convey to you.

IOW, it looks to me like you are attacking a straw man of your own creation, where you've tacked your own addition, of a state of nothingness prior to the absolute first state, onto Jabberwock's model.

Might I suggest, spending some time, on getting a better grasp on the picture Jabberwock is seeking to convey to you?

It has always surprised me how many people are not aware of their own thinking processes. Unaware that their consciousness and reason are just a small part of their mental life and that most of what we think, feel, know is not a function of those two limited processes. It's certainly something you see all the time here on the forum. So, I guess you could say you're in good company. — T Clark

I think individual variation in cognitive strengths and weaknesses plays a big role that few people are cognizant of. Most people aren't going to see a need for the sort of cognitive testing that I've had done on myself, and therefore most people likely lack an intuitive understanding of the role that variations in cognitive faculties between individuals play in the way those individuals understand things.

The first time I took a WAIS block design test, the person conducting the test commented on how much better it is giving the test to engineers. I had subjectively felt that I was performing slowly, when in fact I was doing the tasks quickly. I realized that I had previously just assumed that everyone has the same visuo-spatial abilities that I do. It is still difficult for me to imagine being without visuo-spatial abilities like mine, because those abilities play such a big role in much that I do.

I think something similar may be going on with many of the extremely language focused philosophers. Some say thinking is impossible apart from language, and maybe for them that is much moreso the case, than it is for me. However I wonder if there isn't a deficit in visuo-spatial abilities involved, with having such a point of view.

I posted a link to that passage here on TPF recently. I don't think there is a chapter in which I don't find something that moves me deeply.

Oh yeah. I've been an atheist so long that I can enjoy theological metaphors now. — plaque flag

Yeah, I love The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. I've been considering posting The Coming of the Ship at what is left of the Reasonable Faith Forums but I'm afraid doing so might come across as grandiose, instead of conveying what I want.

At the beginning of relationships, there's the moment of the first kiss, letting 'I love you' slip out, all kinds of stuff. — plaque flag

I was attracted to her before witnessing the 'magic', but wasn't considering asking her out because I knew she was going to be leaving the country in a few months. She was here on a Fullbright scholarship, and part of the terms were that she return home to Finland for two years after completing her studies. I figured I was going to be heartbroken when I decided to ask her out, and that intuition was sure as hell right, but that was the best three months of my life.

It's the book Plato at the Googleplex, Rebecca Goldstein. — Wayfarer

Ah that makes more sense. When I first clicked the link, it too me to an article on biosemiotics.

Looks interesting. I've got another of Goldstein's books on my to read pile.

You might find this title of interest. — Wayfarer

Can you post an excerpt of what in particular you see as pertinent?

I only got a bit past, "But was this only a poetic metaphor or can we really say that the genetic code is a true molecular language?", and saw that the author was likely going to give the wrong answer.

Regardless, it does bring up a couple questions. Do you think DNA is *about* something? I.e. does DNA have intentionality? Is a question of, "What is meant by intentionality?", involved in determining whether or not something is a language?

League of Legends. — Darkneos

That's interesting. I don't know League of Legends. I'm not good at games requiring super quick response times.

On the matter of expertise, and its relationship to intuition; I'd say video games provide a pretty 'thin' training set. Intuitions developed from playing a videogame don't tend to be very useful outside of video games.

Having expertise in something a lot more complex than a video game, might help you get a better grasp on the nature of intuition.

Wow. Same book and same attitude for me at the same age. I loved that dude back then. — plaque flag

:lol:

How thing have changed, eh?

I'm kind of a C.S. Lewis own goal.

Ah but part of the calculation, because she saw that he saw that you were with her -- carrot and the stick. — plaque flag

I would think so too.

I'd love to know what thoughts went through Meri's head. Would she have done the same if it had been just her and Barb there? I'd guess yes.
— wonderer1

Ah, but was there time for thoughts ? — plaque flag

Ok, I was lazy with my language. How about, "What intuitions arose?"

I wonder about trust. Barb and I had known each other for years. Meri, being a great observer of people, I'd guess she recognized Barb's trust in me while we were in the bar. I hadn't asked for her number or anything at that point though. On one hand, I think it was rather bold of her to assume I would step in. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if she 'knew' I had her covered.

I was primarily interested in the details of SGD and backprop. I whipped up software for exploring the math basically, wasn't terribly interested at that time in applications. — plaque flag

I was very interested in the applications but not so much the math. My best friend in college was still in school working on his M.S. and I looked through his copy of Parallel Distributed Processing when visiting one weekend. It changed the course of my life enormously.

About six months later (36 years ago), in a manic state that scared the shit out of me, I intuited an explanation for a lot of idiosnycratic things about myself (including social issues), in terms of hypothesized variations in low level neural interconnect structure. I only recently found out, that some years back evidence that fit my hypothesis well has been found.

I think I became a bit dissociated, with one part of my brain yelling, "This makes so much sense!" and another part of my brain yelling something like, "You don't have anywhere near the educational basis to think this hypothesis merits serious consideration!" Over three days I became pretty out of touch with reality due to this shouting match going on in my head.

It took a year for me to get over the fear of being in that mental state and reach the point that I was willing to risk allowing myself to think about such things.

In you situation, the bodies involved play a huge rule. — plaque flag

Tis true, and now I'm wondering now, what role my body being there played. I'm a big guy too, but she had only known me for a couple of hours.

I'd love to know what thoughts went through Meri's head. Would she have done the same if it had been just her and Barb there? I'd guess yes.

for those who can bear to drop the errors and move on, of course. — plaque flag

:up:

...we might also add that human intuition is the raw ingredient... — plaque flag

I would think human intuition was a huge component of the training ingredients, but I would think there was a fair bit of slow thinking thrown in as well - in reaching a diagnosis to tag each X-ray with. I'd guess that in some cases there was evidence in addition to the X-ray. E.g. biopsy results.

In any case, you bring up a good point - that the training data involves more than just the X-rays.

Is there anything that you are an expert in?

It might be harder to recognize the sense of intuition being discussed here, if one has never developed expertise in something.

5. "But of course we have the concept of equality!" --- We are adept at doing the things that having a concept of equality was supposed to explain, certainly. But if we cannot have such a concept, then the explanation must change. — Srap Tasmaner

Pattern recognition in neural nets. Pretty simple to explain recognition of equality these days.

Of course Plato wasn't in a position to understand this, and fabricated his ideas without sufficient basis for knowing what he was talking about.

Sometimes philosophy looks a bit like ancestor worship.

Isn't there a study from years ago showing that AI is better at reading x-rays than most radiologists? — Srap Tasmaner

Isn't there a study from years ago showing that AI is better at reading x-rays than most radiologists? — Srap Tasmaner

A relevant article.

The scientists used about 112,000 X-rays to train the algorithm.

A big advantage AI has over humans for tasks like this, is the ability to be trained on such a huge dataset without getting bored and quitting.

:up:

I guess I'm a melioristic-optimist as well, although I didn't know that terms before today.

:up:

The argument still commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

An aspect of this is that I would expect the courage of women to tend to show up most strongly in defense of their offspring (and perhaps children in general). I think the trope of the human 'mama bear' fits well with this. Men I would expect to be more inclined to band together with other men, in defense of the whole social group.
— wonderer1

This seems to be quite a narrow expectation of where 'courage' shows up. Especially, if we are talking about increasing social awareness of gender issues and the like. — Amity

As I said, "An aspect of this..." I was pointing out one factor (or more accurately complex of factors) out of a great many factors, that I would expect to play a role in the courage of people manifesting differently. If you want to look at an illustration of other factors see here.

Given how common lack of recognition that we are all social primates is, I see it as a significant aspect of increasing social awareness of gender issues.

Do you think that we humans having more accurate understanding of what we are is likely to improve social awareness generally?

:up:

May I ask your background? Based on our earlier discussion I can see that you are scientifically insightful.

>If it rained last night, the lawn will be wet.
>The lawn is wet.
>Thus, it must have rained last night. (proposed entailment/conclusion)

This is a logically valid argument... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ummm. Look again?

Very cool to hear about this. This kind of knowledge seems to play a huge role in life and maybe doesn't get celebrated enough by bookish types. — plaque flag

I agree. This got me thinking back to the night I met one of my girlfriends.

I was in a bar shooting pool when my friend Barb, and her friend Meri came in. I wrapped up the game of pool I was playing and went and joined them, and spent the rest of the evening talking to them. We walked out together and a big, rough looking, obviously very drunk guy walked out at the same time, taking out his car keys. I can't recall the details of what was said, but Meri very matter of factly told the guy that he was too drunk to drive, and that he needed to call a cab to drive him home. The guy went back into the bar to call a cab.

It's very much a "You have to have been there." situation, but Meri handled this guy twice her size perfectly. To me then, it was like watching magic. I would have expected to get belligerence in response if I had tried something similar, but somehow Meri intuitively recognized a means of getting compliance.

At that time Meri was working on finishing up her Ph.D. in marriage and family therapy, and undoubtedly her education played a role in her insightful handling of the situation, but things happened so quickly and smoothly that I think Meri had to have been going nearly purely on her intuitions about people, and not consciously recalling what various texts had to say.

I have huge respect for the sort of intuitions that Tom is talking about.