Is your idea that, if I knew your brain's unique physical structures in all possible detail, I would be able to experience your experience? — Patterner
But physicalism can't explain the existence of the experiences in the first place. — Patterner
Why are what amounts to hugely complex physical interactions of physical particles not merely physical events? How are they also events that are not described by the knowledge of any degree of detail regarding the physical events? — Patterner
That's all any theory of consciousness is. And that's playing fast and loose with the definition of "theory". Who is making predictions with their theory, and testing them? Nobody has anything. But, imo, it's the most fascinating topic there is, so here I am :grin:It's not as if any other philosophy of mind can provide more than handwaving by way of explanation, so I'm not seeing how this amounts to more than advancing an argument from incredulity against physicalism. — wonderer1
But the question remains: Why does either stoned me or unstoned me have a subjective experience of our condition? Both experience their physically different statuses. But why aren't the physically different statuses simply physical?For example consider the case of yourself listening to music in the sensory deprivation tank, as compared to an identica! version of you with the exception of a heightened cannabinoid level in your blood. The two versions of you would have different experiences, and this is most parsimoniously explained by the difference in physical constitution of stoned you vs unstoned you. — wonderer1
But why aren't the physically different statuses simply physical? — Patterner
So then you don't think consciousness has any bearing on anything? It is epiphenomenal?To me, they would if they had exactly the same brains as us but just devoid of any "lights on" inside. My impression is that there is nothing really in biology that suggests we couldn't explain our behavior entirely in terms of the mechanics of brains, at least in principle. — Apustimelogist
↪Patterner
To me, they would if they had exactly the same brains as us but just devoid of any "lights on" inside. My impression is that there is nothing really in biology that suggests we couldn't explain our behavior entirely in terms of the mechanics of brains, at least in principle. — Apustimelogist
OK, but that seems to be a Q2 problem, a very hard problem indeed, but not the hard problem.I purely want to understand how the brain does what it does, and when it comes to experiencing "green" or whatever, it's the most unfathomable of brain processes right now. — Mijin
'AI' implies intelligence, and most would agree that significant intelligence isn't required to experience pain. So how does a frog experience it? That must be a simpler problem, but it also might be a significantly different experience compared to us.If I make an AI how can I know if it feels pain or not? And so on.
Quite right. Q2 is hard indeed. And said definition is needed.AI pain is different to human pain. I mean, probably, sure, but there's no model or deeper breakdown that that supposition is coming from.
Wrong problem again. That's Q1, and what I'm shrugging off is Q3 because I need to see an actual problem before I can answer better than with a dismissal.2) Just shrug that it couldn't be any other way e.g. About whether we can know what another person experiences.
While (almost?) everybody agrees that such knowledge cannot be had by any means, I don't think that makes it an actual problem. Certainly nobody has a solution that yields that knowledge. If it (Q1) is declared to be a problem, then nobody claims that any view would solve it.In a way, the 'hard problem' is IMO a form of a more general problem that arises when it is assumed that one can have a complete knowledge of anything by purely empirical means. — boundless
Not sure about that. One can put on one of those neuralink hats and your thoughts become public to a point. The privateness is frequently a property of, but not a necessity of consciousness.In the case of consciousness, there is the direct experience of 'privateness' of one's own experience that instead seems a 'undeniable fact' common to all instances of subjective experiences. Its presence doesn't seem to depend on the content of a given experience, but this 'privateness' seems a precondition to any experience.
What the heck is the meaning of red? This wording suggests something other than the experience of red, which is what Mary is about.In the case of Dennett, his misunderstanding is evident when he believes that Mary the colour scientist can learn the meaning of red through a purely theoretical understanding. — sime
This all sounds a lot like you're agreeing with me.In the case of Chalmer, (or perhaps we should say "the early Chalmer"), his misunderstanding is evident in his belief in a hard problem. Chalmers was correct to understand that first-person awareness isn't reducible to physical concepts, but wrong to think of this as a problem.
And this analogy is helpful, thanks.These distinct uses of the same flag (i.e uses of the same lexicon) are not reducible to each other and the resulting linguistic activities are incommmensurable yet correlated in a non-public way that varies with each language user. This dual usage of language gives rise to predicate dualism, which the hard problem mistakes for a substance or property dualism.
OK, but experience seems almost by definition first person, so my comment stands.So it seems difficult to see how any system, if it experiences at all, can experience anything but itself. That makes first-person experience not mysterious at all. — noAxioms
The mystery is how it experiences at all. — Patterner
You're attempting to ask the correct question. Few are doing that, so I appreciate this. Is it the activity that is conscious, or the system implementing the activity that is? I think the latter. 'why should ...'? Because it was a more fit arrangement than otherwise.Why should bioelectric activity traveling aling neurons, neurotransmitters jumping synapses, etc., be conscious?
Agree with all that. This relates to Q1 above, not the hard problem (Q3).Regarding 1st and 3rd person, there is no amount of information and knowledge that can make me have your experience. Even if we experience the exact same event, at the exact same time, from the exact same view (impossible for some events, though something like a sound introduced into identical sense-depravation tanks might be as good as), I cannot have your experience. Because there's something about subjective experience other than all the physical facts.
I find that impossible. It's like asking how processing can go on without the processing. The question makes sense if there's two things, the processor and the experiencer (of probably the process, but not necessarily), but not even property dualism presumes that.Why doesn’t all this information-processing go on “in the dark”, free of any inner feel?
For one, it makes finding food a lot easier than a lack of it, but then Chalmers presumes something lacking it can still somehow do that, which I find contradictory. The reasoning falls apart if it isn't circular.And in The Conscious Mind, [Chalmers] writes:
Why should there be conscious experience at all?
Different in language used to describe it. I see no evidence of actual difference in nature.Why should it be that consciousness seems to be so tightly correlated with activity that is utterly different in nature than conscious experience? — Donald Hoffman
It seems that people are talking about many different issues.
Q1: What is the subjective experience of red? More to the point, what is something else's subjective experience of red? What is that like?
Q2 How does the experience of red (or any qualia) work? This seems to be a third person question, open to science — noAxioms
First-person is a euphemism for self…
— Mww
I'm not using it that way. — noAxioms
I personally cannot find a self-consistent definition of self that doesn't contradict modern science. — noAxioms
Q2 How does the experience of red (or any qualia) work? This seems to be a third person question, open to science. — noAxioms
'The hard problem' as described by Chalmers seems to be Q3, but I don't find that one hard at all. Call it being flippant if you want, but nobody, including Chalmers, seems capable of demonstrating what the actual problem is. — noAxioms
And here we have the problem. All what we know via science can be known by any subject, not a particular one. However, 'experience(s)' have a degree of 'privateness' that has no analogy in whatever physical property we can think of. — boundless
And here we have the problem. All what we know via science can be known by any subject, not a particular one. However, 'experience(s)' have a degree of 'privateness' that has no analogy in whatever physical property we can think of.
— boundless
I'm not grasping what you see as a problem for physicalism here.
My neurons are not interconnected with your neurons, so what experience the activity of your neurons results in for you is not something neurally accessible within my brain. Thus privacy. What am I missing? — wonderer1
While (almost?) everybody agrees that such knowledge cannot be had by any means, I don't think that makes it an actual problem. Certainly nobody has a solution that yields that knowledge. If it (Q1) is declared to be a problem, then nobody claims that any view would solve it. — noAxioms
Not sure about that. One can put on one of those neuralink hats and your thoughts become public to a point. The privateness is frequently a property of, but not a necessity of consciousness. — noAxioms
My neurons are not interconnected with your neurons, so what experience the activity of your neurons results in for you is not something neurally accessible within my brain. Thus privacy. What am I missing? — wonderer1
The "first person" part is not a mystery, as you say. It's the "experience" part that is the mystery.So it seems difficult to see how any system, if it experiences at all, can experience anything but itself. That makes first-person experience not mysterious at all. — noAxioms
The mystery is how it experiences at all.
— Patterner
OK, but experience seems almost by definition first person, so my comment stands. — noAxioms
There is another, perhaps more important, issue at play here. It’s not just a matter of providing an explanation. It’s recognizing that there are a multiplicity of explanations to choose from, differing accounts each with their own strengths and weaknesses. — Joshs
Can you elaborate?Or maybe the dualism of physical and mental is illusory with regard to fundamental metaphysics. — Apustimelogist
I don't really find this that interesting in the context of the problem of consciousness. It’s almost a triviality of science that different problems, different descriptions utilize different models or explanations. Given that any plurality of explanations need to be mutually self-consistent, at least in principle, this isn't interesting. — Apustimelogist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.