Goddammit man, I just explained why there's a "hard problem." — Terrapin Station

You tried, but I think there's a hard problem without the quotes, and that's why I'm explaining it to you.

That's fine that you think that, but that you do is a combo of the reasons I explained. Including that you are confused in thinking that it's a category error. That was part of my explanation.

That's fine that you think that, but that you do is a combo of the reasons I explained. Including that you are confused in thinking that it's a category error. That was part of my explanation. — Terrapin Station

Since you're not suffering any confusions on the matter, can you:

1. Explain why only certain brain states are conscious?
2. Say whether a machine like Data would be conscious?
3. Draw a line on which animals are conscious?
4. Say whether a perfect simulation of your brain would be conscious?

Explain why only certain brain states are conscious? — Marchesk

I can. but we're going to go over (so that we agree on) what explanations are and what they can and can't do first, so that you don't just say, "That's not an explanation" afterwards. Are you prepared to do this?

Remember that the second part of why there's a so-called "hard problem" is " bad analysis of what explanations are and what they can and can't do in the first place"

Okay, go for it.

Sure, so let's start with how you'd characterize explanations in general. What are they? What do they do?

How do you "reach an understanding"? — Harry Hindu

By learning, but not by use. You can't use something until you have it there to be used.

Define it for me.

I feel like invoking @Banno at this point. Definition of explanation?

So, first let's make clear then that you apparently don't even have a view about just what counts or doesn't count as an explanation in general, including why it counts or doesn't count, yet you're offering criticism on the grounds of whether something is an explanation.

If we're going to criticize something on the grounds of whether it's an explanation, we'd better have some idea of what counts/doesn't count as an explanation and why.

One conventional dictionary definition of "explanation" is "a statement or account that makes something clear." Does that seem good, or would you say it's problematic for some reason or another?

explanation is like pornography. You know one when you see it. The dictionary definition you gave is very generic and simple. Say for example I asked for an explanation of water. There are simple explanations one would give a child, and there is chemistry, which explains the properties of water. The second one is what I would expect for consciousness.

Summoned, I am here.

No need to play Socrates. You already know how to use the word; setting out a definition will only lead showing off.

Hence

Explain why only certain brain states are conscious? — Marchesk

leads to

...you apparently don't even have a view about just what counts or doesn't count as an explanation in general, including why it counts or doesn't count, yet you're offering criticism on the grounds of whether something is an explanation. — Terrapin Station

when it should have led to a story about the difference between being awake and asleep.

when it should have led to a story about the difference between being awake and asleep. — Banno

This doesn't inspire confidence in me that using the language game approach can solve philosophical problems.

However, I was reminded of it when trying to think of what explanation means, and not having a good answer come to mind without consulting a dictionary. Or at least, not one which didn't lead to murky waters.

A purported explanation should make what it purports to explain clear, otherwise it is no more than a purported explanation. @Terrapin Station is being slippery in order to evade admitting that he cannot give an explanation. I have seen him employing this tactic many times.

↪Terrapin Station explanation is like pornography. You know one when you see it. The dictionary definition you gave is very generic and simple. Say for example I asked for an explanation of water. There are simple explanations one would give a child, and there is chemistry, which explains the properties of water. The second one is what I would expect for consciousness. — Marchesk

Unfortunately, "you know it when you see it" won't cut it for something highly disputatious where we're trying to avoid biases/prejudices that folks have.

I didn't suggest the dictionary definition that I did because I thought it was good or that it would work for our purposes.

Re chemistry, you say it "explains the properties." How, exactly? Figuring that out will help us figure out what explanations are, what they can do, how they can do it, etc. We need to figure that out if we're going to forward philosophical critiques based on whether something is an explanation. Simply intuitively saying "I don't feel this is an explanation" sets up a non-winnable situation if someone is not intuitively inclined to believe that consciousness is physical.

when it should have led to a story about the difference between being awake and asleep. — Banno

So explanations of how automobile engines work, for example, or how to make toast, etc. have something to do with the difference between being awake and being asleep?

A purported explanation should make what it purports to explain clear, otherwise it is no more than a purported explanation. Terrapin Station is being slippery in order to evade admitting that he cannot give an explanation. I have seen him employing this tactic many times. — Janus

What I'm rather doing is highlighting what the real problem is when it comes to the "hard problem." A real problem that no one wants to address.

Dream on, turtle man...

What I'm rather doing is highlighting what the real problem is when it comes to the "hard problem." A real problem that no one wants to address. — Terrapin Station

Well then, just spell out the real problem. Give your analysis of what an explanation is. I can't think of a non-controversial or overly simple definition.

Shit or get off the pot Terrapin. Socrates would be murdered here just as in Greece for being an annoying shithead.

Well then, just spell out the real problem. — Marchesk

I did. That's what started this tangent.

Give your analysis of what an explanation is. — Marchesk

I didn't give one. But my analysis would stress the subjectivity of counting/not counting as an explanation. However, I'm not hinging any argument on whether there's an explanation for something. You (and others who accept the "hard problem" at face value) are hinging an argument on that. Hence you should have some plausible demarcation criteria--demarcation criteria that do not stress subjectivity in the way that my analysis would--for what counts as an explanation, why, etc. (it would need to differ from mine in that way otherwise we're really just saying something about relative psychological dispositions, etc.--that's what my analysis would be about, because that's what I believe is really going on when it comes to explanations when there might be an objection that something descriptive "isn't really an explanation").

Shit or get off the pot Terrapin. Socrates would be murdered here just as in Greece for being an annoying shithead. — bert1

You're certainly safe for William Tell purposes.

An explanation of the consciousness in my book would explain how certain brain states are conscious and others are not. It would tell us whether a machine would be conscious. We would understand how the philosophical zombie argument goes wrong. We would know what a bat experiences when it uses sonar, at least in the same way Mary knows what blue is while she's still confined to the black & white room.

And there wouldn't be any need for further philosophical debate on the matter. There would be a consensus and it would be resolved. There would be no more mystery. It would be like the sun rising and setting, in that we understand what gives rise to the experience of the sun moving through the sky, and there's no debate.

For the record, you seem to be arguing in good faith and earnestly, Terrapin seems to be constantly just jerking you around and not addressing the questions at hand. In fact, he doesn't even address his own "prerequisite" questions that are supposedly going to "dissolve" the mystery. This is most likely because he doesn't have any good arguments, so it's just a long trolling holding pattern. I'd like to actually see some arguments from him for once, but I suspect he's bereft.

Sorry Terrapin. I've just had to deal with some child protection social workers and was in a bad mood.

An explanation of the consciousness in my book would explain how certain brain states are conscious and others are not. It would tell us whether a machine would be conscious. We would understand how the philosophical zombie argument goes wrong. We would know what a bat experiences when it uses sonar, at least in the same way Mary knows what blue is while she's still confined to the black & white room. — Marchesk

You're missing the point that this isn't just about explanations of consciousness. If we're critiquing something in terms of whether there's an explanation, then we'd better have a general account of what explanations are, what they can and can't do, how they do it, etc.

The question is: How is Neural Activity Mapped to the Conscious Experience? There is a huge Explanatory Gap involved in any kind of Mapping or measurement of Neural Correlates. — SteveKlinko
There is, but better mapping/measurements could lead us to clues and reduce the explanatory gap. Assuming this is impossible is assuming that our a priori arguments for the hard problem are bullet proof. And history isn't kind to that sort of certainty. — Marchesk

Maybe more mapping will inspire clues to look in new directions. But the mapping in and of itself does not bring us closer to bridging the Explanatory Gap. Lets say Science has mapped every Neuron to some sort of Conscious Experience. How does that get rid of the Gap? We have known for a Hundred years that there are mappings from Neural Activity to Conscious Experience. But the magnitude of the Gap remained about the same over those Hundred years.

But you don't have to map everything to understand the Gap Problem. Just take one example of Conscious Experience and study it. I like to study the Gap between the Mapping of Neural Activity for Red and the Experience of Redness. There is a huge Explanatory Gap in between the Neural Activity and the Experience in this case. No amount of other kinds of Mapping closes this particular Gap to any degree. If Science can solve just one particular Gap it will solve all the other Gaps in one giant leap of discovery.

However, I was reminded of it when trying to think of what explanation means, and not having a good answer come to mind without consulting a dictionary. Or at least, not one which didn't lead to murky waters. — Marchesk

Yes, too much reliance on definition can do that to you. Not everything can be precisely defined. ... Not everything should be precisely defined.

Some things are intrinsically vague. Or at least the terms we use to describe them are. We all know well enough what an explanation is. There is no need to be more precise than this:

One conventional dictionary definition of "explanation" is "a statement or account that makes something clear." — Terrapin Station

Isn't that more than sufficient for our needs? If not, what does it lack? :chin:

Isn't that more than sufficient for our needs? If not, what does it lack? — Pattern-chaser

What's to stop anyone from effectively arbitrarily saying that something is or isn't an explanation in that case? And if that's what we're doing, how would whether there's an explanation for something serve as a hinge for philosophical or scientific claims?

What's to stop anyone from effectively arbitrarily saying that something is or isn't an explanation in that case? — Terrapin Station

Awkwardness?

Awkwardness? — Pattern-chaser

That doesn't seem to be working. ;-)