Almost nobody reads anybody's posts charitably and thoroughly as far as I have been able to tell judging by the bulk of replies. For what it's worth, I think you are one of the more charitable and thorough readers of others' posts, as well as being one of the more reasonable and thoughtful posters. I often find myself admiring and envying your patience. I'm far too prone to impatience. — Janus
Try reading my post again you pillock. — Jamal
I suggest that we don’t know that other people are conscious, insofar as it is simply part of what it means to be a person. Maybe you could describe it as an animal certainty, but it seems a stretch to describe it as a knowing. — Jamal
Your comment does not stand, because it takes me to be saying something I’m not saying, something I did not say in the post you responded to. You projected a position onto me that I do not hold. — Jamal
I think I can almost accept that I wasn’t clear enough. My criticism of the use of “I know that x” in cases of indubitable certainty is just a repeat of what Wittgenstein says in On Certainty, and I shouldn’t assume people are familiar with that. — Jamal
then he just declares that they are the same thing. Which they're not. Integrated information is integrated information. — bert1
Have you read it? Is it worth it? — T Clark
Albert Einstein couldn't conceive of the leading theories of quantum physics. As you said, that doesn't mean they are wrong. — T Clark
The whole p-zombie thing has always driven me crazy. Of course other people have internal lives that are like mine, i.e. phenomenal consciousness, experience, what it's like to be them. Doubting that is the same as Descartes doubting everything but his own existence. What possible value is there in doubting it. By the way the argument is phrased, it is impossible to tell by any objective means. It's like the multiverse - metaphysics at best, meaningless otherwise. — T Clark
I see what you mean. But when I say that Neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness, I mean that Neuroscience does not deal with the human mind and consciousness. It deals with the nervous system. Hence, Neuroscience.Saying that the brain and mind are different things is not the same as saying the brain has nothing to do with the mind or that neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness — T Clark
Yes, yes. But to understand it you'll need to have done a lot of preliminary reading on Free Energy principles and understand a little of basic neuroscience and Bayesian probability. Nothing super in-depth, but the arguments simply won't be persuasive without that grounding. — Isaac
A good reason to imagine p-zombies is that they illustrate differences between philosophical theories of consciousness very well, and are an intuitive way to think about the issue. — fdrake
I don't like them personally. But I'm trying to put on my charitable hat for this thread. — fdrake
you can stay with bert1's "Neuroscience has nothing to say about phenomenal consciousness", if you like. — Alkis Piskas
He's no more 'declaring them to be the same thing' than I'm declaring light to be the same thing as switches. — Isaac
Yes he is, actually. He says consciousness is integrated information. — bert1
I said he's no more declaring them... — Isaac
I would like to confirm you by quoting the German neuroscientist Gerhard Roth, who said: "As about consciousness, it is a great mystery even for neuroscientists." — Jacques
... there is a great deal of interesting science around identifying the neural correlates of particular experiences, which is great, but that doesn't say much about how consciousness comes about in the first place. — bert1
More precisely, until now they are unable to say anything at all about how consciousness comes about. — Jacques
A good reason to imagine p-zombies is that they illustrate differences between philosophical theories of consciousness very well, and are an intuitive way to think about the issue. Whether p-zombies exist is a sexy way to phrase the issue of whether functional/physical properties are vital for an account of phenomenal consciousness. They don't have to exist to be useful. — fdrake
In my experience, p-zombies are just more pointless, unrealistic thought experiments like the trolley problem. They seem to be made up by people with too much time on their hands. — T Clark
But I don't know how to justify someone else having "narrow" content since everything observable seems to be "wide" content, when you take others' self reports as a form of behaviour anyway. Like p-zombies can say "I see the traffic light has red, green and yellow lights" or "Ouch" without, allegedly, the qualia. A p-zombie can behave as a qualia-haver in any way, AFAIK that's part of the point. — fdrake
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.