I touched on this issue in another thread. In philosophy, the accepted belief is the causal theory of perception -- which means the CNS, and which means they accept the duality of existence and consciousness: the physical brain and the mind that perceives of time. Without the temporal perception, we would be like the enteric nervous system -- able to perform a function, but without self-awareness, no time perception, no self.I was expecting a philosophical not a biological answer (eg a definition of what memory means to some philosophers). — GrahamJ
No, that's not correct. The ENS could function without the input from the CNS. It doesn't record information, as we know information. It's not through memory. I don't know how to explain it.I knew about the enteric nervous system (though I'd forgotten the name). If it records some information, and later uses that information to make a decision, I would call that memory, or even a 'mental record'. — GrahamJ
It means retrieving the information from memory. Mind you, bodily functions such as hunger is not memory based, nor the bowel movement ( I will explain it for those uninitiated, upon request). — L'éléphant
Yes please. — GrahamJ
I agree. Nonetheless, those narrow-minded people, like you said, would make it like he was advancing an argument.He's not advancing a wild argument that is indefensible but more like he grew up knowing one thing and seeing another needs to adjust. Spending 70 years of your life knowing one thing and then having to change course is hard but he's not making any wild claims. — Darkneos
Two women replied, calling me misogynistic and demeaning, and referring to me as "puffing on a corncob pipe through withered lips" and avoiding the civil and women's rights movements in the 1960s. To which I replied I was on campus and had demonstrated against George Wallace as he stood in the doorway to the admissions office at the U of Alabama, denying entrance to a black man, and that, actually, I had joined the women's lib movement during that decade. — jgill
Oh, I responded incorrectly, Tom. I meant to say, that foundationalism is itself a theory, a school of thought, if you will, which has a logical system of statements pointing towards their view. But to answer your question, yes, the postmodern tried to do away with the foundationalist notion of grounds. I actually disagree with them since they, too, were trying to ground their assumptions on some structure of society/government.There is no irrefragable piece of knowledge that founds any thought system - not even the cogito. If this approach involves an act of performative self-refutation, or engenders a regress problem, that only seems to further suggest the inability to obtain a foundational justification. Thoughts? — Tom Storm
If you mean if foundationalism as a theory is on the same level of argument as presuppositions (statements expressing premises), no.Is there a difference for you between presuppositions and foundationalism? — Tom Storm
Yes.But to have an organized anti-system is to have a system, right? — Tom Storm
This would be a fair response against foundationalism -- but it also means that it hasn't undermined foundationalism.Which is why I usually say I hold that human thought is paradoxical and that much of what we call reality is human projection based on our limited perspective. From this 'dimly lit' vantage point I generally hold that I (or any of us) don't have enough information or wisdom to make reliable judgements about the nature of reality. — Tom Storm
A rehash of what's already been written about phenomenal experience in philosophy, except with fancy words and invention or creative license, which unfortunately is unwarranted since he was actually talking about biological and physiological activities. We have scientific records, no need to invent things.If you disagree that the article proposes a solution to the hard problem, then what would you say the article is about? — Luke
A mental record, in other words, a temporal perception, which has already been written about a thousand times by the likes of Descartes, Hume, A. Shimony, etc.Let’s imagine, however, that as the animal’s life becomes more complex, it reaches a stage where it would benefit from retaining some kind of ‘mental record’ of what’s affecting it: a representation of the stimulus that can serve as a basis for planning and decision-making.
What are these attractors? He explains it in this passage:I believe the upshot – in the line of animals that led to humans and others that experience things as we do – has been the creation of a very special kind of attractor, which the subject reads as a sensation with the unaccountable feel of phenomenal qualia.
It means retrieving the information from memory. Mind you, bodily functions such as hunger is not memory based, nor the bowel movement ( I will explain it for those uninitiated, upon request).And, I suggest, this development is game-changing. Crucially, it means the activity can be drawn out in time, so as to create the ‘thick moment’ of sensation (see Figure 2c above). But, more than that, the activity can be channelled and stabilised, so as to create a mathematically complex attractor state – a dynamic pattern of activity that recreates itself.
"Nicholas Humphrey's Seeing and Somethingness -- His Personal Account of What Goes On In Our Brain If or When We Have Sensations For Those Who Have Not Studied Or Read Or Understood Neuroscience".What discussion title would you have used instead? — Luke
Foundationalism isn't problematic to me. If it's challenged, then I'd ask, on what grounds is foundationalism in error or false? No matter what their reasoning is against foundationalism, it is bound to be grounded on something else. Then they're left holding the bag.We only back off of it when it gets problematic for us. — frank
I don't care about perfection. I care about optimization -- for example at work, if I'm optimized (and I have benchmarks as a guide), then I'm content. In anything I do, if the requirement is perfection, I'd like to know what would it take. If I have to give my life, then I move on and switch to another activity.If you were told that no matter how hard you tried, you will never ever reach perfection, that flaw is proverbially "a neccesary evil", that perfection and imperfection are a mutually dependent dynamic.
How would it make you feel? — Benj96
Yeah, this notion gets under fire often because it's cloaked in appeal to ad populum. But how else could one talk about a moral view without mentioning that most people also hold the same view? Most people do not want themselves or their families murdered, is this appeal to popularity?But at the same time, morality does seem to revolve around what most people think is appropriate behaviour - community standards, etc. What — Tom Storm
That's a mislabeled response from me. When I said "no", I meant that you are correct in your explanation of the article, but I disagree with the article.? — Luke
Yes, I doubt it, and yes you did.Do you doubt that the article offers a proposed solution to the hard problem? Have I created bias by announcing that that's what the article is about? — Luke
Have they agreed? Sorry if I missed a post here that agreed that the article proposes a solution. I read some who praised the article as a good article or exciting.Furthermore, I doubt that anyone would honestly disagree that the article proposes a solution to the hard problem. — Luke
No.He is talking about the evolution of phenomenal consciousness - when it first appeared on the scene. Upon its inception you'll come to believe in your own singular significance because you are now phenomenally conscious; you now have personhood. This is not born of some fantasy or desire for individuality, or of wanting your individual pains and colours to be unique, but merely finding that you have them for the first time. — Luke
A's statement is more than an appeal to emotion to B. Notice A's shift from a cultural/societal statement to a factual (biology) claim. You can't argue against facts. See below:The second statement of A seems more of a response to the appeal to emotion of B and not necessarily a retreat of any sort. — NOS4A2
In the trans women example, the axiomatic basis on one side would seem to be that biological truth trumps cultural fiction. — apokrisis
I agree.B is where the fallacy is. — NOS4A2
"The experts", as technocrats were referred to, were seen as the ones that could save the government and society from degradation. But the way they were conceived to govern was not through representation by the general public, instead they themselves would set the agenda, the planning of the government, and make decision for the good of the nation. The student activism exhibited sentiments that repeated around the world -- they were anti-war and anti-exploitation of the people. They were also pro-technocrats.But the puzzling thing is that he saw the chaos of the student activism as contributing to that technocracy. — Jamal
Read John Locke and JS Mill.But i'm premature in my study so what really defines political philosophy?. — LancelotFreeman
The intelligentsia and technocrats butted heads. Adorno, Habermas, Mancuse are part of the intelligentsia. The intellectuals were supposed to be the analysts of what's going on in politics and society. 'The government should be a representation by the common people, not a rule by the elites, etc.'What is particularly fascinating and at first glance puzzling about this is that he identifies the wild, empty, and irrational pseudo-activity of the students with the increasing “technocratization of the university”. What could he have meant? — Jamal
Not to be dismissive of the article myself either. Roughly I agree with you -- the "proposed solution" that the article offers is not the problem (the inquiry) that the ongoing philosophical movement of consciousness is facing.I haven't worked out my approach to the problem. It's on my list of chestnuts that I would like to get my head around one day. But I would start by making sure that the problem isn't in the way it is formulated. My suspicion is that it is not capable of solution — Ludwig V
I find the underlined cringe-worthy as an analysis of a philosopher. We've always had awareness of the plurality of existence and our own existence. In fact, to refer to "us" presupposes already that I am counting "myself", and vice versa. When philosophers say that the "self" came later after the awareness of others like ourselves, it doesn't mean that we were not aware of our private sensations and perceptions apart from others' private sensations and perceptions. It means that philosophically, or metaphysically, we did not first deliberate on what a "self" is. It was Descartes who first formalized (you can correct me on this) the duality of mind and body. But as common observers of our environment, the early humans and modern humans had it. They got it.Whenever it happened, it’s bound to have been a psychological and social watershed. With this marvellous new phenomenon at the core of your being, you’ll start to matter to yourself in a new and deeper way. You’ll come to believe, as never before, in your own singular significance. What’s more, it will not just be you. For you’ll soon realise that other members of your species possess conscious selves like yours. You’ll be led to respect their individual worth as well.
Again, semantic invention. Except that it didn't happen this way.To cap this, you’ll soon discover that when, by a leap of imagination you put yourself in your fellow creature’s place, you can model, in your self, what they are feeling. In short, phenomenal consciousness will become your ticket to living in what I’ve called ‘the society of selves’.
I get it. That was my point. But I was trying to point out to you that human errors are errors peculiar to humans. Which is what makes it interesting to me. Just as a computer could be made perfect, humans organically develop and along the way this development picks up natural selections, mutations, and accidents, which make for an exciting phenomenon.AGI will make errors and correct and learn from them hundred of thousands to millions of times faster than human brains can. — 180 Proof
*Sigh*. Okay. I'm not interested in continuing. Thanks.First of all neuroscience isn't the source of consciousness. — Benj96
Academics, thinkers, activists and philosophers love anonymity as they can focus on ideas... — Benj96
And I say to that, have faith in the rationality of your audience. The test of time will reveal that the victors are the former. If someone is throwing you under the bus, your virtue will do the work for you to prove that the under-the-bus thrower is being malicious, and it should prove that you're not the first of their victims.Sadly though, it is also a way to be malicious and get away with it. As we often see in the comments section of youtube, instagram etc. Cowards, catfish, trolls and people who know what theyre doing is wrong also love anonymity. — Benj96
If ever an AGI is created, it still would not be sentient, as humans are sentient. Or in our usual term, conscious. The measure of consciousness involves also our fundamental propensity to inaccuracy or errors due to the fact that our perceptual qualities have been developed naturally, and overtime; involving actual experiences with objects. It's a lived experience, not created in the laboratory or simulation.This, however, would not be an intrinsic, or fundamental, feature or property of AGI itself, and therefore, it wouldn't (need to) be sentient – certainly not as we conceive of sentience today. — 180 Proof
I find this comment puzzling. The true source being the neuroscience. Let's not re-invent the wheel. We have at our disposal a discipline that devoted countless hours to study and explain... the brain.The true source being the human brain according to you? A rather large assumption to make I believe. — Benj96
I don't have a problem contemplating the basics. What I'm saying is, there's our source already. Trying to be creative is another thing -- which I think what you've been trying to do.My suggestion (trying not to sound condescending or. dismissive here) is to really open your mind up to at least contemplating (for funzies) how consciousness could be more basic (time and space perception from matter experiencing energetic impulses/catalytic processes). — Benj96
No. That's just you talking human talk. What does "in time" mean to you? Explain that first. Then try to analyze, for example, the retrieval of information by a computer. The human mind cannot retrieve all words simultaneously from a written text and not get a jumbled mess of information.A computer does what it does IN time. Anything mathematical is an event that happens in time. — universeness
In a manner of speaking, we perceive time as past or present. We also perceive time in terms of duration -- how long or how short.I've no idea what you mean by "perceive time" or "temporal mind". — 180 Proof
Until they can perceive time, i.e. they develop a temporal mind, they're stuck with a built-in clock calibrated to coincide with the time zones. Math and/or computing is non-temporal. This is the sad reality.Biological computing, combined with genetic engineering may make great advances in the future, especially with AI's help. — universeness
Humans have perception of time, internally -- pulse and heartbeats, as examples. This is our starting point of the temporal nature of the mind. Consciousness develops because of the temporal and spatial nature of the brain itself. It is very common to describe the mind as "mental" (and the brain as physical/material). Yet, while we are correct about the brain, to say that the mind is mental is nonsensical. We are not saying anything new there!My issue is that I know I have vivid mental states like dreams which I have every night that have phenomenal content. Including dreams about dead people and places I lived as a child and fictional scenarios.
But my eyes are closed and I am receiving no input from the external world. The number one candidate at the moment for where the dream is occurring is entirely in the brain. — Andrew4Handel
On the contrary, I've stated a demonstrable biological fact (re: cell biology). Feel free to refute it with more than mere speculation. — 180 Proof
↪180 Proof
you have proven nothing. some people think that even individual living cells may have some form of sentience in which case a nervous system is not even necessary. But even if a nervous system is necessary does that mean insects or clams are sentient? — lorenzo sleakes
↪lorenzo sleakes
:roll: — 180 Proof
No. It just means that the spinal cord and the brain sustained a major trauma (losing a limb) that threw the system into disorder. We never said that the system is perfect -- brains aren't perfect.There are phantoms pains. People experience pain in a missing limb. This what suggest pain is all in the brain. — Andrew4Handel
I'll ask you the same as I ask everyone who asks this question...
Why does any of this constitute or necessitate subjective awareness. or consciousness, or the capacity to experience?" — bert1
... What would an answer look like? Give me an example answer. It's doesn't have to be the right answer, just an example of what sort of thing would satisfy you. — Isaac
The potential problem here is that if there is such a thing as first person consciousness, and if first person consciousness is essentially private, then by necessity there can’t be any sort of public, scientific evidence of or explanation for it. — Michael
So, why can't brains do all their stuff without consciousness? — bert1
The pain is in your foot -- but neurons communicate with each other to send to your brain the message that your foot hurts. Your brain doesn't "hurt", it's the acuity of the pain receptors that's responsible for exciting the spinal cord.But when I have a pain in my foot I experience that is in my foot extended out yet that is also a sensation supposed to be experienced in the head. — Andrew4Handel
I understand your annoyance. But jgill's objection makes sense. Without some numbers behind your hypothesis, it remains a metaphorical device. And Physics is useless as a metaphor. Really we shouldn't even reduce consciousness to a metaphor -- as contentious as it is already.I think the single most useless thing one can do is to convince themselves they're not allowed to reformulate or change how they use concepts from "other disciplines" which refer to the "same subject of study" - reality jist for the sake of someone saying "but thats physics you can't do that!". — Benj96
So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. This means distance must be able to expand/contract and time must be able to dilate/contract from net zero (0)when energy is just energy, to some positive integers when energy converts to mass (ie the emergence of the space-time dimension).
Sound familiar? For me it sounds like relativity.
Thought and memory can then be rectified with one another relativistically. And so the hard problem dissolves.
But it means space and time relationships must change for this to happen. — Benj96
No. It's not like that. I can speak about it. Tranquil, yes. But the day to day things you want to do, you do it without anxiety or worry. You sleep better at night. You have more energy.What would a life without any wants look like? Is this like purely tranquil sitting and never getting up? — schopenhauer1
I am experiencing another death in my world.Heidegger famously wrote, “If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself.” — Tom Storm
It would no longer be called "death" but a passing to another realm.In this scenario would death in the living world still be bad and something to avoid like it is now where as far as we know your consciousness ceases to exist when your mortal body expires? — Captain Homicide
The tone reminds me of negative theology, let us get to “Reality” by saying what it is not. But we never can get there, and they come up with equally empty slogans like if only we can get a “view from no where” or if we only can get “outside ourselves”. — Richard B
No, it's not nonsense. There is something else that needs to be added to the explanation. I've said this before already, and no one seems to care to include it as a corollary to whatever it is we claim about reality so that we don't run into that kind of issue. And that something else is the hypotheses we keep making about the world that stand the test of time and save us from perishing. If the world population now in the 8 billion does not work as evidence for you, then I don't know what would.Yep, pure nonsense! — Richard B