If I explain what's in my backyard, isn't that most likely a good explanation of what's in my yard, or do you need to test it. — Sam26
What if your life somehow depended on guessing correctly that there is a tree in my yard? Would you just take my word for it if I said there wasn't, and that answer would get you killed? Wouldn't you want to verify my answer? — RogueAI
But my life doesn't depend on guessing correctly, if it did then things would be much different in terms of what we know. — Sam26
I was pointing out that in certain circumstances, just telling someone what's in your back yard doesn't cut it as a good explanation. As the stakes go up, the need for verification increases. — RogueAI
Of course there are exceptions where we need to verify someone's account of things, but my point is, that there are many instance of knowing that don't involve the perspective of science. I'm saying that sometimes I have verification apart from science or experiment. — Sam26
Totally different! Numbers are created by Man. Consciousness is not. Numbers are mathematical objects used to count, measure, etc. Consciousness is a state.I now think that asking why consciousness exists is like asking why does the number 2 exists. — Flaw
Totally different! We are asking how, calculate etc., using our mind. Conscious experience means that we are aware of that.our conscious experience is like asking how when we put 1 + 1 in the calculator, it creates* the number 2. — Flaw
I cannot be sure what the subject is after some point in your description of your topic. For one thing, I cannot see anything referring to "Solution to the hard problem of consciousness", which is the title of your topic. What kind of solution are you referring to or aiming at?What is everyone's thought on this subject? — Flaw
This is not true. Numbers are not created by man. As you saw in my original post, "create" means to bring into existence. If man did not exist, the abstract concept of numbers would still exist, just not the word. Also to point out that numbers as a mathematical object is different than consciousness as a state doesn't change anything. Both can be viewed as mathematical objects in which operations or events can be performed. In fact, in computers, numbers, states, and even rasterized images all come in the same form (bits).Totally different! Numbers are created by Man. Consciousness is not. Numbers are mathematical objects used to count, measure, etc. Consciousness is a state. — Alkis Piskas
I was trying to make an analogy with A) a calculator adding 1 + 1 to get 2 and B) physical material creating consciousness. I am sure nobody believes that the number 2 gets "created" when we add 1 + 1 in a calculator. It seems obvious. However some people believe that physical material can "create" consciousness. My argument is that both numbers and consciousness are abstract.Totally different! We are asking how, calculate etc., using our mind. Conscious experience means that we are aware of that. — Alkis Piskas
There isn't any "solution" proposed in my post. It was really meant to be click-bait. Rather the approach that I take to the "hard problem of consciousness" is that our understanding of consciousness might be lacking something. The question on how the physical can "create" consciousness is absurd to me. It is like asking how when we put 1 + 1 in a physical calculator, we "create" the number 2. Because we know that's now how "creation" and "existence" works.I cannot see anything referring to "Solution to the hard problem of consciousness", which is the title of your topic. What kind of solution are you referring to or aiming at — Alkis Piskas
Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being.This is not true. Numbers are not created by man. As you saw in my original post, "create" means to bring into existence. If man did not exist, the abstract concept of numbers would still exist, just not the word. — Flaw
I do. And I believe other people do too. Number 2 is created (produced, calculated) by the calculator, which has been programmed by us to do that. Then it is created a second time, as it is displayed on a LED or other display.nobody believes that the number 2 gets "created" when we add 1 + 1 in a calculator — Flaw
Well, you succedded. I took the bait! :grin:There isn't any "solution" proposed in my post. It was really meant to be click-bait. — Flaw
True.I hope that clarifies my argument — Flaw
Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being. — Alkis Piskas
Yeah, that's my mistake.BTW, do not abuse the words "nobody" and "everyone" so easily — Alkis Piskas
I don't disagree with this at all, depending on how we define "create" and "2". I am guessing my usage of create is just different - bringing something into existence that did not exist before.Number 2 is created (produced, calculated) by the calculator, which has been programmed by us to do that. Then it is created a second time, as it is displayed on a LED or other display — Alkis Piskas
Agreed, but when the number 2 is displayed on an LED, it is no longer a concept of "2". This is by definition.Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being — Alkis Piskas
True.Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being.
— Alkis Piskas
True, but the referents of those concepts may well exist without us. — Kenosha Kid
Not true. The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. It's us who do. There are three trees in a garden, but the garden does not know about that. It doesn't even know it is a "garden" with trees. If we cut one of them, there will remain two trees. The garden will not say, "Oh my, they have cut one of my trees! Now I have only two!". Well, except maybe in poetry and storytelling! :smile:The universe seems to count (conservation laws, quantum field theory) without a concept of mathematics. — Kenosha Kid
True, except one thing, if we want to be precise: Mathematics do not refer to quantities or anything else. It's created and used by us to refer to these things. :smile:Mathematics, even in its basic counting-on-fingers variety, was developed to describe features of our environment. It's generalised and abstract now, but in application still refers to quantities of actual things that exist — Kenosha Kid
The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. It's us who do. — Alkis Piskas
Not true. The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. — Alkis Piskas
This is the way I also use the word myself. :smile:I am guessing my usage of create is just different - bringing something into existence that did not exist before. — Flaw
Right. It's an object (consisting of pixels on the LED). Only that the part of the calculator (machine) that does the computing does not even know that the number "2" is displayed, There's another part of the calculator that gets the result of the calculation and displays it on the LED. Moreover, the result "2" means aboslutely nothing to either the computing or the displaying parts of the machine. They are just constructed (H/W) and instructed (S/W and F/W) to do their jobs! :grin:when the number 2 is displayed on an LED, it is no longer a concept of "2". This is by definition. — Flaw
Thank you too!So thanks for sharing. — Flaw
If he's right that the physical universe doesn't count (and I think that's true), then presumably brains can't count (I also agree). — RogueAI
I suppose you are referring to computer simulations ... I also suppose that such a simulation is "playing" right now w/o anyone watching (observing) it. Well, for one thing the simulation does not exist (by itself, as such), anyway. What exists is a computer "playing" a simulation and w/o knowing it plays a simulation. It is us who call it a "simulation". As TV can "play a program" w/o anyone watching. It is us you call it a programDo you think simulations can exist without anyone observing them? — RogueAI
suppose you are referring to computer simulations ... I also suppose that such a simulation is "playing" right now w/o anyone watching (observing) it. Well, for one thing the simulation does not exist (by itself, as such), anyway. What exists is a computer "playing" a simulation and w/o knowing it plays a simulation. It is us who call it a "simulation". As TV can "play a program" w/o anyone watching. It is us you call it a program
But this is too obvious.So you maybe mean something else? — Alkis Piskas
Well, nature has no mind and conscience so that it can know anything. So I can't see how else this "knows" can be interpreted. If you remove this feature and just say that the nature is "constrained by forces, etc.", then yes, it works for me. :smile:Nature "knows" how much energy and momentum to give a body after collision. (Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.) — Kenosha Kid
Well, nature has no mind and conscience so that it can know anything. So I can't see how else this "knows" can be interpreted. If you remove this feature and just say that the nature is "constrained by forces, etc.", then yes, it works for me. :smile: — Alkis Piskas
It "knows" kind of like a computer would know, but without a programmer (that we know of, unless you're a creationist). — Kenosha Kid
If I explain what's in my backyard, isn't that most likely a good explanation of what's in my yard, or do you need to test it. There are plenty of good explanation we use everyday that don't need testing. This gets back to the notion that somehow if science can't do experiments to confirm one's claim, then it can't be knowable, or it's somehow not real knowledge. — Sam26
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.