I can't see any reason to start looking for magic. — T Clark
I certainly don't know for sure, although the only way everything could be conscious is if we drastically change the meaning of the word "conscious." — T Clark
As I said, I don't think the hard problem of consciousness is hard. I don't even think it's a problem — T Clark
I don't even think it's a problem. — T Clark
Alright then. Why are you conscious. Please give me the theory of consciousness that will explain whether anything is conscious or not definitively — khaled
Consciousness is a mental process, one among many. — T Clark
Mental processes are manifestations of biological processes — T Clark
They have developed theories about how mental processes in general and consciousness specifically develop from biological processes. — T Clark
After four or more levels of neurons (Damasio?), consciousness forms. — PoeticUniverse
You don't know that. — khaled
I would like to see those theories. — khaled
Like for example: that biological processes are necessary for mental ones. — khaled
If he presents the hypothesis that they do then he needs to demonstrate that, but he was asking you for evidence of your hypothesis.I guess I would turn it around. What is the evidence that mental processes come from anywhere other than biological processes? — T Clark
If you know you're not the right person to show him your conclusions are correct, what's makes you think your conclusions are correct yourself.I would like to see those theories.
— khaled
I'm not the right one to have a detailed discussion of the state of cognitive science. If you want to know more, you'll have to do some research. — T Clark
It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden. — T Clark
I guess I would turn it around. What is the evidence that mental processes come from anywhere other than biological processes? — T Clark
If he presents the hypothesis that they do then he needs to demonstrate that, but he was asking you for evidence of your hypothesis. — Coben
If he presents the hypothesis that they do then he needs to demonstrate that, but he was asking you for evidence of your hypothesis. — Coben
If you know you're not the right person to show him your conclusions are correct, what's makes you think your conclusions are correct yourself.
Now don't get me wrong, basing conclusions on intuition is something we all do, but I think that needs to be up front. — Coben
It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden. — T Clark
But that's a separate issue. It's as if you don't need to justify since he hasn't. If he has asserted it comes from other processes or sources, sure, he needs to justify that. But that doesn't take away your onus. Now you both need to justify.Unless I have misunderstood him, he does believe that mental processes come from other than merely biological processes. If that's true, he should provide the evidence. If I'm wrong about what he believes, let him tell us so. — T Clark
You don't know that.
— khaled
It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden. — T Clark
The conclusions are intuitive, even if they are in reaction to some evidence you have read, and interpreted the way you have.That's more than intuition and less than specific evidence. It's the best I can do right now and I'm comfortable standing behind it. — T Clark
Which, then, does not entail you have some position to demonstate. You are skeptical about his position.↪T Clark
Unless I have misunderstood him, he does believe that mental processes come from other than merely biological processes.
— T Clark
I don't. I contend with saying I have no idea what they come from. — khaled
All I said was that we know that biological processes are sufficient for consciousness, — khaled
from that we can't claim that they're necessary for it. In order to show they're necessary you'd need to first find every instance of mental processes in the universe (impossible because as I said you can't detect mental processes in anyone but yourself) and then show that all of them require biological reactions (which isn't guaranteed even assuming you managed to do the initial impossible task somehow) — khaled
What evidence do you have that anyone other than yourself has mental processes at all? None. That's the point. We can't "detect" mental processes in anyone but ourselves. — khaled
The conclusions are intuitive, even if they are in reaction to some evidence you have read, and interpreted the way you have. — Coben
Which, then, does not entail you have some position to demonstate. You are skeptical about his position. — Coben
I wasn't aware that you had said that. I must have misunderstood — T Clark
There's lots of talk of non-biological mental processes, e.g. artificial intelligence. I didn't think that's what we were discussing — T Clark
That is completely untrue. I have all sorts of evidence of mental processes in other people. I talk to them and they describe their experiences. I see them solve problems. I watch their behavior and recognize patterns that are consistent with my own behavior when I have specific experiences, e.g. I see mother's hold and touch their babies and I understand that as evidence that they love their children as I love mine. They say "look at the red light," and, when I look up, the light is red. — T Clark
Is it not true though?
P1: When these neurons turn off I stop being conscious
C1: these neurons are sufficient for me being conscious (logical)
C2: these neurons are necessary for me being conscious (not logical)
You're claiming C2 and I'm claiming it doesn't follow from the evidence — khaled
It was. The original "hard problem" I posed was "How does consciousness arise?". You answered with "through biological processes" and now I'm showing that that's a sufficient not necessary condition and therefore doesn't satisfy as an answer to the hard problem. — khaled
NONE Of this couldn't have been done by a very advanced chat bot. Mental processes are not actually necessary for anything you're describing here. — khaled
believe that biological processes are sufficient to explain human mental processes. Nothing else is required. — T Clark
I think you have your logic backwards. I'm just talking about people now. I'm not talking about other ways that consciousness might arise — T Clark
So, the world is full of very advanced chatbots. Is that correct? I started a new Tai Chi class today with about 15 people I'd never met before. They were all robots. Is that correct. My mother was a robot? My wife is a robot. Everybody but me is a robot. Do you expect me to take this seriously? — T Clark
I think you have your logic backwards. I'm just talking about people now. I'm not talking about other ways that consciousness might arise
— T Clark
I am. The question was "Why does consciousness arise?" Not "what is necessary for consciousness in humans". The former is the actual hard problem. — khaled
Why does consciousness arise? — khaled
There are no answers to why questions, at least not in science — T Clark
As for how do mental processes arise, I believe it is through the action of biological processes in the brain and elsewhere in the body. — T Clark
If he has asserted it comes from other processes or sources, sure, he needs to justify that. But that doesn't take away your onus. Now you both need to justify. — Coben
Is it not true though?
P1: When these neurons turn off I stop being conscious
C1: these neurons are sufficient for me being conscious (logical)
C2: these neurons are necessary for me being conscious (not logical)
You're claiming C2 and I'm claiming it doesn't follow from the evidence — khaled
To take your ball example. If the only situations in which we had ever seen a ball move were those where it is dropped from a high altitude — Isaac
The evidence does not make "much more sense in light of the evidence". It may do to you, but the making of sense and the garnering of evidence is not a logical matter — Isaac
You are here applying a binomial distinction to a continuous variable. Justification is not a property of propositions, it is a state of mind of those hearing them. The fact that T Clark finds the existence of scientific conclusions about consciousness to be sufficient to justify his position and Khaled doesn't, does not make T Clark's position unjustified, simply not justified to Khaled's satisfaction. — Isaac
Consider a person who believed the entire scientific community were lizardmen from Mars and lied continuously. We could present such a person with absolutely unequivocal scientific evidence of some proposition and yet they would remain unconvinced. Does that make our position unjustified? — Isaac
Given the very complex nature of most modern scientific investigations, and the fact that we cannot all become experts in every field, it is a perfectly rational justification to say that scientists have concluded such and such and rest your case there. — Isaac
It's a philosophy forum. We are discussing ideas and from perspectives that sometimes scientists are not the only ones equiped to look at, and often also do not have the philosophical tools to see their own assumptions. Up into the 70s in consensus science it was taboo to talk about animals as having consciousness, intentions, emotions, and so on. While lay people like pet owners and animal trainers knew animals had these things. There were paradigmatic limitations within science then. It was actually professionally dangerous to start talking about animals as experiencers. Nevertheless rational non-scientists could mount arguments- which are now part of scientific consensus-about animals that were at that time and before taboo in science.If we are to discuss matters whose conditions rely on scientific facts, we either simply trust that what a critical mass of scientists say is at least plausible, no matter how confusing their conclusions may seem to us, or we become experts in that field ourselves. I don't see any alternative. — Isaac
He told Khaled that if he wanted answers he would need to talk to someone else. Which means that he cannot justify his own conclusions to himself. — Coben
he tried to make it sound like the science was out there and some other person could justify it for Khaled. But this included a self-estimation that he himself could not justify it. — Coben
until I find scientists presenting what consciousness is and the mechanism for its appearance, I don't see why I should take another lay person's conclusion that we know the source ofconsciousness and that it is limited to X or caused by X and that science shows this. — Coben
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.