Because in my view, states of consciousness are just brain states — Kenosha Kid
with faux surprise — Kenosha Kid
State what it is. — Kenosha Kid
cannot or will not say what it is they are talking about, — Kenosha Kid
you cannot say what 'it' is — Kenosha Kid
Then how do you know that you are conscious? Its important to know how you know that you are conscious, or any other fact for that matter. Do you know that there are eggs in the fridge in the same way that you know that you are conscious?I was not doing some reductio ad absurdum here. I was implying that this point of contention is useless. No one cares whether or not water is wet and it doesn't help in whatever discussion you decide to have about water. In the same way I don't think "are you aware of being conscious" is important. — khaled
No. I was simply reiterating your explanation and showing you how your distinction between first and third person is nonsensical. So, no. I still don't know what you mean by first person experience. It sounds redundant.is just a different location of the first person experience.
— Harry Hindu
Oh so you understand what it means now all of a sudden? You just used it to form a correct sentence. Congratulations! — khaled
Then how do you know that you are conscious? — Harry Hindu
Do you know that there are eggs in the fridge in the same way that you know that you are conscious? — Harry Hindu
Water isn't wet. Wet is a relationship between water and something else. — Harry Hindu
It sounds redundant. — Harry Hindu
How do you know that you are experiencing something?I know that I am experiencing something. I later call this ability to experience something "consciousness". — khaled
You cannot be wrong that eggs are in the fridge if you experience them in the fridge? If your aren't wrong that you have experiences and you have experiences of eggs in the fridge, then how can you say that you can be wrong about eggs in the fridge, but not about having experience of eggs in the fridge?No because I cannot be wrong about the fact that I'm experiencing something. — khaled
Exactly. You need something else that isn't water to be in contact with water. Contact is a type of relationship between water and something else. You haven't said anything different than what I just said.Or I could define "wet" as "in contact with water" in whichcase water would be wet unless it is just one molecule. Again, this is pointless. — khaled
First-person experiences. If all experiences are first person then it is redundant to even use first person as a qualifier to describe experiences.What sounds redundant? — khaled
How do you know that you are experiencing something? — Harry Hindu
You cannot be wrong that eggs are in the fridge if you experience them in the fridge? — Harry Hindu
You need something else that isn't water — Harry Hindu
If all experiences are first person then it is redundant to even use first person as a qualifier to describe experiences. — Harry Hindu
But assuming complete knowledge of the componenets the structure is just simplification and adds no predictive powers. So if "consciousness" is a structure it has to arise out of some prooperty or other of its componenets. — khaled
Very important distinction here: are they brain states or are they caused by brain states. Because for me it is the latter (note: I am not saying they are only caused by brain states). I cannot understand how it can be the former. So the experience of the color red is a 600nm wavelength entering your eye? — khaled
The ability to have an experience. I know this doesn't explain any more than the previous "definition". But that's because this can't be simplified. — khaled
I would just like to point out that that doesn't make it meaningless. If I asked you to describe what "shape" is for instance you would also struggle. Because the concept is so basic any attempt at defining is going to require more complicated concepts which only make sense assuming you already know what "shape" means. — khaled
How do you know that you are experiencing something? — Harry Hindu
This is circular. What is an experiencer? Are you referring to a homunculus?Because there is an experiencer (me) who is aware (conscious) of these experiences. And that is the definition of "having an experience" — khaled
...but now you are saying that you can be aware (conscious) of experiences. How is an experience different from awareness/consciousness?Saying "aware that you are conscious" is like saying "wet water" — khaled
"Experience" is just a word. You've been trained to refer to this event as an "experience". But what is it that we are referring to really? Telling me that it's an "experience" just tells me what scribble I can use to refer to this event, but what is this event? Is it the only event (solipsism)? Is it an event among many others (realism)? If the latter, how does this event relate to, and interact with, the other events? You might say that all this is unimportant and that we can use a computer without knowing how it works, but you still have to know what a computer is to use it. The amount of detail that you know about the computer is relative to what you want to do with it, and I troubleshoot them so I know more than just how to use them. That is the level of detail I want when it comes to "experiences" and "consciousness" because then we can learn how to fix them and maybe even improve them.Your question implies that it is possible to have an experience but think you're not having an experience. Can you give an example of that? — khaled
No, I didn't. Go back and read what I said. I said that it is a relationship between water and something else. It's not my fault that you aren't paying attention.No. You decided to define it as "isn't water". I decided to include water. Anyways I won't bother with this pointless line anymore. — khaled
I don't "experience eggs in the fridge". That's word salad no offence. I see eggs in the fridge. I cannot be wrong that I am seeing eggs in the fridge (Assuming I'm not blind of course). But I can be wrong about whether or not there are eggs in the fridge (could have been an elaborately placed cutout so as to make it seem like there are eggs there). — khaled
No, because I thought that seeing is a type of experience, but you are saying that it isn't. Care to clarify?Sure. Let's just say "experiences" then. Do you get what that means? — khaled
Categorical error: seeing a mechanical representation, an altogether empirical enterprise, is very far removed from the a priori originating cause it. — Mww
Good methods for precisely this taken to mean methods for the scientific study of consciousness. — Mww
I don’t know what to do with that. Sorry. — Mww
I noticed once an item of dogma from one of the Hindu religious sects: 'life comes from life'. To my knowledge, this supposition has not yet been overturned by an empirical observation. — Wayfarer
primacy of awareness — javra
How would you define this? — Olivier5
Comes from latin informare: give form to, and also educate — Olivier5
So your attempt here, to remove the essence of "sign" from the sign, and say that "a sign intrinsically refers to nothing" is self-contradicting — Metaphysician Undercover
The intent of the author then becomes the most important factor in meaning, validating "what is meant by", so that the premise of infinite possibility, and your assumption that it is "completely up to a community of speakers to agree as to the semantics of any utterance", is falsified. — Metaphysician Undercover
Oh go on, answer it! Pleeeeeeease? — Kenosha Kid
Okay, so very different from phenomenology’s primacy of perception. I got confused.My own definition of awareness’s primacy: The tenet that everything which can and does exist (i.e., everything that can and does stand-out in any way) is either directly or indirectly contingent on the presence of awareness ... This tenet of awareness’s primacy thereby results in a stance of idealism. — javra
My own definition of awareness’s primacy: The tenet that everything which can and does exist (i.e., everything that can and does stand-out in any way) is either directly or indirectly contingent on the presence of awareness - with some existents (like the objectivity of space, time, and matter) being contingent on all cooccurring instantiations of awareness — javra
Yes, or a signal standing out from the noise. — Olivier5
I was also going to remind of the formal duality that has been established between information and entropy. As signal vs noise, order vs chaos, message vs meaninglessness, we can see why information and entropy stand in relationship as the two faces of the same coin, the two dichotomous extremes of the one opposition. — apokrisis
I was also going to remind of the formal duality that has been established between information and entropy. As signal vs noise, order vs chaos, message vs meaninglessness, we can see why information and entropy stand in relationship as the two faces of the same coin, the two dichotomous extremes of the one opposition. — apokrisis
If you can explain in a few words, it’d be appreciated. — Olivier5
He (it must be a he) regularly gets asked to put his stuff in more laymen's terms, but he never does. — bert1
And if you say I have tried frequently enough, and you have failed to understand just as often, well where is the issue likely to be? — apokrisis
Anyway, I'm not trying to baffle you. But it is a whole system of thought I am saying you would need to learn rather than some particular theory that ought to make more sense from a simple cause and effect perspective. — apokrisis
What we want is not a stating of the obvious that we experience dark and light, but the distinction between "experiencing dark and light" and "detecting dark and light". What can we point as a property in our experiences that goes beyond "this is light" or "this is dark". — Kenosha Kid
symbols vs matter — apokrisis
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.