Let me try it like this. You claim that because consciousness is X, science cannot say Y about it with any degree of certainty. — Isaac
But in order to make such a claim, you have to say X about it with absolute certainty. — Isaac
In order to make a claim about how the nature of consciousness makes it difficult for science to investigate, you have to first make a claim about the nature of consciousness, the one thing you've just argued cannot be done with any certainty. — Isaac
But that's not how language and concepts work. We first experience a thing which we determine, entirely subjectively, to be separate enough from other things to have its own name. We then call that thing "self-awareness". So the question "why are we self-aware? " makes no sense at all. We are "self-aware" because 'self-aware' is the word we decided to give to the thing we are. — Isaac
Is it or is it not true that we have no way to detect consciousnesses? — khaled
how can a scientist make a theory of consciousness with only one data point? — khaled
even if the scientist assumes all humans are conscious, he cannot then make the further assumption that humans are the only thing that is conscious. — khaled
"Why do we have the property that the word 'self-aware' refers to?" — BlueBanana
it should first be proven that any living creatures are conscious before any theory of ts emergence can be claimed to have any reputability. — BlueBanana
Awareness obviously must exist before any theory.
— Wayfarer
How can awareness possibly exist before any theory, there must first be a theory as to what 'awareness' is in order for us to name it thus. — Isaac
studying someone else's consciousness meets both of your criteria. — Isaac
In order to make a claim about how the nature of consciousness makes it difficult for science to investigate, you have to first make a claim about the nature of consciousness, — Isaac
No, awareness is pre-theoretical. Animals and insects possess rudimentary awareness, and they're certainly not in possession of any kind of theory. Human cognitive capacities are plainly well in advance of theirs', but even so, awareness or consciousness is necessarily pre-theoretical, in the sense that you have to be aware/conscious to even begin to theorize. You can be a conscious, aware, sentient being without having any 'theory of consciousness' whatever. — Wayfarer
we can't stand outside ourselves and examine consciousness from an objective perspective. — Wayfarer
As a matter of interest, are you familiar with that argument? — Wayfarer
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. 'Awareness' is just a word. You cannot say animals possesses awareness without first knowing what awareness is — Isaac
Yes you can. Some things work like that. Other examples include: shape, space, time. All of these things you know before any theories about them have been developed. Some words don’t need definitions — khaled
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. — Isaac
But that's only relevant if you assume that the subjective experience we have is something other than the internal feeling associated with the phenomena we observe externally in others. Why would you assume that when there's no cause or evidence to suggest it might be? — Isaac
In order to make these claims about what science can and cannot do with consciousness, you have to know the properties of consciousness. — Isaac
Depends entirely on your definition of consciousness, — Isaac
Most neuroscientists in the field detect consciousness by patient reports of sensory stimulation — Isaac
Some prefer to use electrical signals of wakefulness — Isaac
They don't have only one data point — Isaac
If absolutely nothing else shows the same set of phenomena we have just previously determined constitute our definition of consciousness — Isaac
We don't test every single day that gravity is still working — Isaac
What evidence do you have to justify that proposition? — Isaac
Are you suggesting there's absolutely no disagreement whatsoever about what 'awareness' is? — Isaac
'Awareness' is demonstrably possessed by sentient creatures, so you can't say it's 'just a word' and dismiss it on that account. — Wayfarer
You're not going to theorise if you're unconscious, obviously. — Wayfarer
There is the first-person experience of pain, which can't be reduced to an objective description — Wayfarer
Right - you have to define it, make it an object of analysis, which we can't do — Wayfarer
And we're so immersed in that, so embedded in that framework, that we can't see what it can't see — Wayfarer
What properties does awareness have which sentient creatures demonstrate? — Isaac
What I don't understand is how, with your voodoo version of what this mysterious consciousness is, you can say that I can't theorise without it. Maybe I can. How would you go about proving I can't? — Isaac
If no such set of phenomena existed we wouldn't have a word for it would we? — Isaac
That's just not how language works, concepts don't pre-exist language, there isn't a whole set of fully formed real concepts out there which we gradually find and give names to. — Isaac
Most neuroscientists in the field detect consciousness by patient reports — Isaac
print("I am conscious")
Something is conscious if it has subjective experiences. — khaled
Are subjective experiences necessary for a report of subjective experiences to be made? — khaled
Are these electrical signals necessary for consciousness not just sufficient? — khaled
They don't have only one data point — Isaac
Yes they do. That’s why solipsism is uncounterable. — khaled
They don't have only one data point. That's only the case if you define consciousness as being the feeling you have. — Isaac
What are these phenomena? — khaled
how can we detect subjective experiences. Reports of subjective experiences hardly constitute evidence for actual subjective experience do they? — khaled
All we can say about consciousness is: we have found a way in which consciousness arises in humans — khaled
Poke them, and they respond. — Wayfarer
What is the alternative? That things pop into existence when words are invented for them? No, what symbols refer to exist before symbols for them are made up. — BlueBanana
Behold: a conscious AI.
print("I am conscious") — BlueBanana
But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons — SteveKlinko
In response I said "That is not true." In order to justify that statement, all I have to show is that "science" has theories, hypotheses, and speculation about it. I propose all I have to do is show that at least one reputable scientist has. The book I read is "The Feeling of What happens," by Antonio Damasio. Whether or not he is correct in what he thinks, he is a reputable scientist with theories, hypotheses, and speculations. It is my understanding he is not the only one. Again, I am not qualified to give a scientific review of the book, but Damasio's ideas seemed plausible. — T Clark
Yes. That is exactly the alternative. The world is seamless sea of atoms (or waves, whatever) along what lines it is carved up into individual things is entirely arbitrary human invention. — Isaac
But the ability to print the words 'I am conscious' isn't one of the things we ask patients to report, so why would that be indicative. I've already explained, we ask them to report the logging to memory of responses to sensory stimuli. — Isaac
So responding to being poked is what awareness is. Everything which responds to being poked is aware. — Isaac
The world is seamless sea of atoms (or waves, whatever) along what lines it is carved up into individual things is entirely arbitrary human invention. — Isaac
What are 'subjective experiences'? — Isaac
Yes, if you define consciousness as the property indicated by these electrical signals. — Isaac
Please don't respond to partial paragraphs out of context, it's complicated enough as it is to keep everyone's line of argument in mind. I said they don't only have one data point...if... The 'if' is important. — Isaac
this thing we've found arises in humans in this way - we'll call that consciousness — Isaac
Anything similar we find elsewhere at some later date, we'll call something else — Isaac
There is no 'tree' outside my house prior to me defining it. There is an entirely seamless continuum of atoms. I decide that some of them together are a 'tree'. — Isaac
Damasio says things like "A feeling arises when the organism becomes aware of the changes it is experiencing as a result of external or internal stimuli". — SteveKlinko
That's no Explanation for the Feeling itself. If we ask the question: "How does Neural Activity produce the Experience of Redness?, Damasio has no answer. — SteveKlinko
They don't have only one data point. That's only the case if you define consciousness as being the feeling you have. If you define consciousness as the term for the collection of phenomena we see displayed in others, then we have more than one data point. — Isaac
Yes. That is exactly the alternative. The world is seamless sea of atoms (or waves, whatever) along what lines it is carved up into individual things is entirely arbitrary human invention. — Isaac
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.
— Coben
Apparently you and I have different understandings of what it means to justify something. Here are some from the web:
to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable
to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded
to show or prove that it is reasonable or necessary.
It seems clear to me that justification doesn't have to mean absolute certainty. That's not possible. There will always be uncertainty. I would go further. I think the level of justification required varies from situation to situation based on the consequences of being wrong. If people will die if I get things wrong, I need much stronger justification than I will if I'll fail to convince someone on a philosophical forum. — T Clark
he is asking you for more information about your position and instead of going into that, you 'turn it around'. That's not really relevant. It is as if his response to this request would somehow fill in for his request. But since you both could have faulty positions on the issue or faulty reasoning it is beside the point in the context of his questioning.I guess I would turn it around. What is the evidence that mental processes come from anywhere other than biological processes?
— T Clark
Again, picking on me behind my back. Boo hoo. And again, misrepresenting what I said. Everybody hates me except Isaac. I didn't say anything about the consensus of science. — T Clark
It's odd that you welcome someone's input who is defending your position?As I've claimed, I believe I am justified in saying there is credible scientific work being done to establish a biological basis for mental processes. I can understand that philosophy may have a role in judging whether the conclusions of that work are adequately justified. Other than that, what role does philosophy have in the process?
And now you are entering this particular exchange and making it seem like that's a stopping point.
— Coben
Oddly enough, I welcome Isaac's input. — T Clark
Yes, I know. I hope I didn't come off as a victim, but rather as someone critical of what he seemed to be suggesting.Just because he suggests we may be at a stopping point, that doesn't mean you have to stop.
His question is not odd after reading that. It makes sense to ask you. Your response makes it seem like he was asking for you to walk him through cognitive science in relation to consciousness. He wasn't. He wanted to know what you based your conclusion about theories on.They have developed theories about how mental processes in general and consciousness specifically develop from biological processes.
That was not what he asked for. He asked to see those theories. This is a request to see the theories - writing by experts that convinced you - or research - that you did read in your limited reading. He's asking to see what your sources are. — 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.