Do you really have no idea what someone is talking about when they ask "are you conscious"? You're not able to grok that sentence? — RogueAI

I have an idea what someone might mean, but then that idea falls apart when subjected to logic and reason. The same goes for the word, "god". People use the word without a clear understanding of what it is that they are talking about. We need a definition in order to understand what each other are talking about so that we are not talking past each other.

You can't tell, you can only assume. Since we're all built the same way, there's been no problem assuming we're all conscious, but when computers get more sophisticated, and people start claiming things other than brains are conscious, the impossibility of verifying external consciousnesses is going to become a big problem. — RogueAI

Only because we've learned to associate consciousness with behaviors and haven't come up with an explanation of consciousness that allows us to detect consciousness more directly.

Can you unpack "view from nowhere"? Do you mean a god's eye view of your internal mental states? — RogueAI

Yes, something like that.

Suppose we have an unconscious machine that knows all the physical facts about our universe. From that information, could it figure out that this thing called "consciousness" exists? — RogueAI

I don't know what "physical" means, much less a physical fact. How about just facts, or information? I think it would be easier to figure out what consciousness is without the false dichotomy of "physical" and "mental".

Nothing. Consciousness, mind, and ideas are all there is. Idealism makes everything so much easier. — RogueAI

I'm not so sure. Are you saying that my feet are conscious like my brain? Are you saying that molecules, as well as the atoms they are composed of, and then the quarks that the atoms are composed of, have points of view? What is a point of view, if not a structure of information?

As I said to Judaka, this is a very outdated way of looking at science. Phenomenology is an important matter in modern physics. When someone says "a photon is a click in a photo detector," they are not talking about photons as they appear to the photon detector but how we experience the photon detector's behaviour. All scientific measurement is really a human measurement of a measuring instrument. This isn't problematic: it's been a couple of hundred years since scientists thought they had direct access to objective reality. — Kenosha Kid

Strange. If you don't have "direct access" to "objective" reality then are you saying that you have indirect access to your own experiences? Are your experiences part of "objective" reality? It seems to me that you have "direct" access to some part of reality - namely your own mind - or else how can you ever claim that you have experiences with any certainty, much less that they are even about something else that isn't an experience. How does that even happen?

And if we can't adequately explain the part of reality that we have direct access to, or how it relates with the rest of reality, then how can you assert that we know so much about what we access indirectly?

Vision isn't your only sense. You have the power to smell and taste. Using all if your senses it is simple to differentiate water from vodka.
— Harry Hindu

That would be my way to discern water from vodka. It's a terrible way to discern water from ethylene glycol.

Worth thinking about what smelling and tasting the unknown clear liquid entails. These are extremely sensitive chemical analysers that can usually uniquely identify most naturally occurring things. — Kenosha Kid

:roll:
You completely missed the point.

If you can't discern the difference between water and vodka visually, but can only do so by smell or taste, then is the world is as it appears visually, or as it smells or tastes? If we could ask a bat or a dog, what would they say? Does a brain exist how we see it, smell it, or taste it? I think we are confusing the way it appears to a particular sense with the way it actually is. This reminds me of how we have a difficult time discerning the difference of light being particles or waves. Maybe it depends on the sense (measuring device) being used.

But science doesn't proceed prima facile, it proceeds on the basis of evidence. If the model that has electricity and magnetism as two sides of the same coin is better at predicting results of experiments than the one that holds them as two distinct phenomena, proceed with the former. — Kenosha Kid

But the evidence only appears a certain way depending on what sensory device you are using to observe the evidence. I think that we are forgetting that any time we mention evidence, we are mentioning some conscious experience of some evidence, not evidence as it exists apart from our experience of it, or the way it appears to some sensory apparatus.

As I said above, "a clear liquid" does not discern water from vodka, and might leave me in the pitiful situation of having accidentally drunk water. — Kenosha Kid

Vision isn't your only sense. You have the power to smell and taste. Using all if your senses it is simple to differentiate water from vodka.

So what is consciousness like when not be observed by any sensory apparatus ie. when it's not being measured?

Are you conscious? Is your significant(s) other conscious? To not draw this out, I'll answer for you: yes, and yes.

Now, did we need a precise definition of consciousness to answer those questions? No. Did those questions and answers make sense to you and me? Yes. I know what you mean when you say you're conscious and vice-versa. — RogueAI

Are you fibberfab? Is your significant other fibberfab? How can you answer those questions without knowing what fibberfab is or is not?

You can say that you are conscious, but what makes you conscious? How can you tell if others are conscious when you can't observe their consciousness, only their actions? Are actions conscious? If not then what is conscious and how can you tell?

Also, establishing the need for a scientific definition of consciousness is not the same as defining it. — Kenosha Kid

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, the scientific definition can't contradict other definitions, or else scientists and laymen would be talking about different things.

We can talk about water as it appears from consciousness as a clear liquid, or as a combination of hydrogen and oxygen molecules as it appears from a view from nowhere. We're talking about the same thing but from different perspectives, but not contradicting ones.

Can we do the same thing with consciousness? Can you talk about how consciousness appears from consciousness and as it appears from a view from nowhere? Your consciousness appears as a physical brain that drives various actions from my conscious perspective, which is not how my consciousness appears to me so how do I know if you or I are actually conscious or not? What is concsciousness like from a view from nowhere?

Not so with physical states and mental states. They are obviously ontologically different things.
— RogueAI
If so, then how do 'mental states' interact with 'physical states' without a shared (causal) ontology? — 180 Proof

The problem here is the dualistic assumption that there two incompatible states.

What is the difference between physical and mental? We know mind exists and only know brains exist by way of the mind. So which came first in the causal process? It seems to me that brains are the form the information/knowledge of other minds takes in our own mind. Brains are how our minds model other minds.

Why is my mind and not my brain observable from my end, but only my brain and not my mind observable from your end?

I love the place except for ungrateful cunts. — Benkei

I love the place except for the dicks with delusions of grandeur that believe that us cunts should be grateful to them.

Did you read the links I gave? I'm not completely sure about this but to be fair to irrationalism, rationalism hasn't much to show for its roughly 2 millennia old reign. In some circles, that would be considered a monumental failure, no? — TheMadFool

Again, I'm asking for specifics. It seems that irrationality has been the dominant form of thought for most of human existence. In what areas has rationality failed where irrationality has succeded? Rationality includes the idea that you might not be right, and that you can only be right after making all possible mistakes. Have we made all possible mistakes? If not, then how has rationality failed?

Just the tip of the iceberg of threads on philosophical "progress." — TheMadFool

What about scientific progress? Has the progress of ethics been based on irrationality (racism) or rationality (inclusiveness - and understanding that we are all human beings of equal worth)?

I guess some philosophers simply gave up on rationality in utter frustration and wanted to try something new à la alternative medicine which has a similar reason for its popularity which is failure of allopathic treatment regimes and that "something new" is irrationalism. — TheMadFool

Seems to me that these "philosophers" are just impatient and want to declare that they have the answers without having had to work at it.

What needs to be explained is how the passage of time seems to change depending on our mental state. Is the passage of time a mental state, or independent of mental states? What is the difference between change and time?

Those are very interesting questions and something I have wondered in an attempt to understand ideas like panpsychism.

I like to think of consciousness as a form of integrated information. Frame-of-reference is information as location relative to another location. When information about location relative to another location is not part of the system, can the system be defined as being conscious?

Well, that's the catch isn't it? Rationalism recommends irrationalism, if not everywhere, at least in some areas where millennia of rational inquiry has nothing to show for it. Just saying. — TheMadFool

What areas are you talking about, specifically? Why would rationalism/irrationalism work in some areas and not others? What makes these areas different in why one works and the other doesn't?

My focus was on the over-abundance of religious and political discussions on this forum - both of which are rife with irrationality and emotional outbursts, not unlike what you see all over FB and Twitter.

Try defending Irrationalism without using rationality.

What is even more ironic are those that use rationality in religious discussions abandon it in political discussionsand vice versa.

Define, "power", as it seems like we are now talking past each other.

Actually it is, from a legal standpoint, although the rights are not identical to an actual person. In any case, the president’s or CEO’s can be individualists, can’t they? — praxis

Then from a "legal standpoint" of corporations being individuals, these groups would engage in competition? Do you even remember what you said from one post to the next?

CEO's are individuals that have acquired their power not through their work alone. Kind of like how the children of politicians acquired their power through no work of their own. End dynastic politics.

Not even close. To be "Libertarian" today is to be essentially a corporatist. The term is almost the opposite of what it once meant -- as is true for most political terminology in the United States.

"Government should leave us alone" and "support free markets." That's at the core of neoliberalism through and through. Translation: Big Government is bad, so reduce it. It's no solution, it's the problem. What IS the solution? Private business -- privatize everything, take it out of the public ("Big Government") sphere and put it into the hands of private power, which is unaccountable to the public.

No honest business person believes in free markets. It's a fantasy. They value socialism and big government more than anyone -- they simply believe the government should serve them. Subsidies, bailouts, tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

Capitalism cannot survive without state intervention. Never has in any developed country. — Xtrix

Groups hijack certain terms to make them more appealing to others. Just look at how the terms, "liberal" and "progressive" have been hijacked by the left as sheep's clothes for their authoritarianism and maintaining the status quo.

It's up to us level-headed folk to educate these numbskulls what the terms really do mean. I mean, all you have to do is look up the word, "Libertarian" in the dictionary and see that is makes no mention of corporatist. You can even look up the synonym for corporatist and still see no reference to Libertarianism. So it seems that you aren't even close.

Count yourself as one of the lucky ones.

Any philosophy forum that doesn't incorporate logic is a failed philosophy forum. When you can't differentiate the content of your site with what we see on FB and Twitter, what's the point?

The lack of organization comes from the fact that both political parties are inconsistent and hypocritical. They adopt opposing view points. The left asserts that they are all about "choice" in one domain, but then deny choice in other domains. This is because both parties have both liberal and authoritarian tendencies. What about a party that has only liberal tendencies? Well, that would be the Libertarian party.

So individualist are in favor of antitrust laws? I thought y’all was all about FREEDOM!! — praxis

What does freedom entail to the individualist? How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion

The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, among other things.

A state that protects those essential freedoms, and nothing else. — Tzeentch

This is almost right. We seem to have forgotten that a company or corporation is not an individual and therefore doesn't possess rights as an individual.

Freedom is threatened when one individual or group possess to much power. Corporate monopolies are just as much a threat to individual rights as government monopolies.

I said there may be the implication that an individualist wants to secure their power by eliminating the competition — praxis

That isn't what you said. EIther way, it doesn't follow.

Actually if there's any implication along this line it's that the Individualist wants to desimate the competition in order to secure their position of power. — praxis

All you are doing now is repeating yourself without providing any evidence for what you are saying. All you have to do is read your own words here and in other threads, and look at history to understand that groups are just as competitive as individuals.

Groups are not only competitive against each other, but against individuals. Just go back and read your statements about racial injustice, sexism, transphobia, etc. You are simply ignoring the fact that just as there are multiple individuals, there are multiple groups, and as such they can either compete or cooperate with other individuals or groups.

But why was there an over-abundance of government control? What made Communists believe that they could design a system that could overcome the dysfunctionality that always manifests in group behavior? — synthesis

The over-abundance of government control was necessary because you have to forcibly take property and rights from legitimate owners and individuals to disperse among the population and limit opposing ideas.

Religion usurps the political, the ultimate authority being God, not the government. The American Founding Fathers well-understood this necessity. God is used as an ideal giver of moral guidance because if you allow government (people) to assume the same role, then you are depending on the frailty of man-made morality (motivated by our unlimited desires). Gather more than two ambitious human beings in the same room and you will find only the creativity of their rationalizations outdoing the deviousness of the plots and plans to enslave the rest. — synthesis

Which god are we talking about - the one who's punishment for thinking differently is to be cast into fire for eternity? Doesn't sound like a moral god to me.

Man thinks way too highly of his limited intellect. Although his cognitive shortcomings are obvious in all spheres, nowhere is it more glaringly obvious then in the political where lying, cheating, and stealing are on full display. — synthesis

In no other sphere other than religion does man think so highly of his intellect as if he knows the true nature of god and what it intends, much less whether one even exists or not.

People should be begging for a higher power to knock man off his poorly constructed pedestal and rightly take his place back on the ground along with the rest of the species who seems to fair considerably better as they appear to not over-think it in the least. — synthesis

I don't know which men you are talking about other than the religious and political elite, which in those cases, yes, they need to be knocked off their poorly constructed pedestals.

Just thinking out loud here, but reading this thread, and thinking about individualism, it strikes me as, somehow, inherently masculine. When I think of women reading and thinking about this, I envision a lot of eye-rolling. :roll: — James Riley

Sexist. :roll:

They are free, and in fact every eligible citizen receives a free sticker just for participating. Why lottery? In attempt to remove the incentive for power seeking. There’s no point of investing in power seeking if power is randomly given. — praxis

I can understand the benefits of a lottery system as a means of dispersing power and the limiting the incentive for seeking it, but we have to know who created the lottery system and administers it so that it can't be manipulated to a particular group's or individual's benefit.

I tried to describe the difference as succinctly as possible. You apparently disagree, offering the rationale that everyone both competes and cooperates.

Maybe it has to do with competition vs cooperation as it relates specifically to power distribution in society. The individualist wants to win the game and the collectivist wants to play the game indefinitely and where ‘everyone’s a winner!’, essentially. In real life this plays out as collectivists supporting collective power, such as workers unions, and individualists supporting capital free enterprise and its concentrations of power. — praxis

I already showed how groups compete against other groups. It seems to me that you are implying that there should be only one group and no competition, which is no different than everyone thinking the same way and the existence of only one party with no dissent or competing ideas. Just think about your argument and how that might equate to one race, country, religion, etc. eliminating all competition from other groups. Isn't that what we saw in Germany in the mid 20th century? Diversity of groups is just as important as a diversity of individuals.

After reading this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/28/first-time-ever-there-are-fewer-registered-republicans-than-independents/%3foutputType=amp

It seems that more Republicans are willing to abandon the group when they can't beat the theocrats, or at least steer the party away from those authoritarian tendencies that control the party, as opposed to Democrats. But then what would you expect from a mostly collectivist mentality? Collectivists inherently look to the group to make the decisions because making decisions is hard and then there's the personal responsibility that goes along with it that can be scary enough to prevent any decision on personal level being made. And because they inherently believe that popularity and numbers equates to truth, they are emotionally attached to the idea that others should think the same way, or else their emotional state is at risk.

In my hypothetical society autocrats are appointed by lottery. Kinda rando but eminently egalitarian. — praxis

Why by lottery and not by free elections? Who created and is administering this lottery?

If they live in society they really have no choice but to be mostly cooperative. — praxis

Tell that to the people who resist an run from police because they've been told society and its enforcers are racists.

Tell that to the growing number of no-political-party-affiliation voters.

Not sure how saying that someone may want to behave in a particular way means they can only behave in that way. — praxis

You're the one that used a single word to describe individualists, as if the two terms were essentially conflated, when you only need to take a second to see how that is just as much a property of collectives as it is individuals.

Cooperation does require compatible values and goals, no getting around that. I imagine the same holds true for individualists who cooperate with each other. — praxis

Exactly. So at this point we seem to be saying the same thing.

What can I do to address my own cultural bias?
First of all identify what your culture is and how you were brought up.
Then seperate them into two groups of needs and not needed (wants) for your wellbeing/ survival.
Now question yourself as to why those things are put in those two groups from an unbiased perspective or reflection of self.
You may very well discover hidden biases that are some of your habits/judgements.

If you feel up to it you can share what you found, or if you think there is a flaw in this post let me know. — Tiberiusmoon

This is a fairly accurate description of how I became an atheist after being raised as a Christian in a mostly Christian community/country.

I think the first step in the process is the willingness to understand that you might be wrong and that to search for the truth wherever it leads, despite any emotional attachments you have to your beliefs and biases. The next step was to study the other cultures/religions to understand what they believe and why. I see logic as the path to truth and since none of the religions practiced logic, religion was placed in the "not needed" category.

The same goes for politics. I was once a Democrat and then a Republican. Now I'm an independent that has no need for political parties which I also have learned abandon the use of logic. I have now grouped both politics and religions into the "Group-think" category as something that I just don't need for my wel-being or survival.

The issue is that many people look at being part of a culture, religion or political party, which entails not questioning what the group says or does, as necessary for their well-being and survival. Some people need to be told how to live their lives or to tell others how to live theirs for their own well-being.

Of course I agree.

In my mind the collectivist rhetoric only serves to disguise the authoritarian impulse. What’s feigned to be done for the whole is always done for one portion of it at the expense of another. That the anti-individualist creed is a veritable rogue’s gallery of tinpot dictators and authoritarians from all brands of ideologies makes this evident. Even though it is fallacious of me to dismiss the anti-individualist argument because of the company they keep, I no less pity them for having to stand on the sunken shoulders of these types of giants. — NOS4A2

I couldn't agree more. After all, who's ideas is the collective promoting? If you have to push your ideas onto another individual, then you're not allowing the individual to think for themselves. Another individual must make the effort to show another how their ideas are good for others and not just for themselves. Most of the collectivists don't seem to care about making that case. They just want you to submit to their will.

That doesn’t make sense because an autocrat can be a responsible autocrat that acts cooperatively with society for the benefit of all, or more likely act irresponsibly and take advantage of their position for personal gain, perhaps even going so far as to deliberately impoverish the citizenry to better secure their autocracy.

To me it seems that the basic whole point, as you say, is that the individualist wants to compete and the collectivist wants to cooperate. Some think that competition is the natural way and others think that, because we have the capacity of reason, there may be a better way. — praxis

That's strange that you don't see the autocrat as someone that competed to get to the top of society. Individualism doesn't necessarily include the idea of competition. Individuals are free to work with others if they so choose, and can often accomplish a great deal in groups, but at the end of they day they are all still individuals that retain their own thoughts and the freedom to choose to participate in a group or not. Sports teams are groups that also compete against other groups, so I don't why you would think that competition is soley the characteristic of individualists.

Collectivists seem intent on limiting individual thought and imposing the thought of one individual on the rest. I think of an ant colony, or Star Trek's Borg when I think of collectivism, and both of those compete with other species for resources on Earth or in the galaxy.

i get all that, but look at what takes place (institutionally) in the absence of a higher moral structure. Communism (as predicted by many) ended-up being a massive catastrophe for many reasons, but perhaps the most important was the fact that the Communists believe that their own intellect was better suited to "figure it out" than would be a religious moral basis.

You don't have to be religious or political to understand the need to have such guidance in place, just as you do not have to have your own children to understand that the parents need to be in authority.

Religion and Politics simply give man a chance...what he does with the opportunity is another matter altogether. Without these foundations, we know the outcome is assuredly poor. — synthesis

Communism didn't fail because there was a lack of religion. It failed because of an over-abundance of government control that inhibited individuality and incentive and progress - where there are a select few that think their intellect is superior and better suited to figure it out for everyone.

Who is to say that one knows better than the other how to live the other's life?

I can see your point about parents and children, but newborns an children up to about 5 or 6 depend on and look to their parents for answers and are scared when they are without their parents. As they get older, then begin to assume that they know better than their parents. As a parent, I didn't use a heavy hand when they acted selfilshly, rather I simply acted like anyone else in society would act when they misbehaved. When they learn that their actions have consequences on others and others will defend their own rights, like my house, computer, internet service, etc. and take that away when they seem to abuse and take advantage of what others own, then they learn to better control their actions. When a neighbor borrows your lawnmower and never returns it or breaks it, you expect to be reimbursed, or never loan them anything again. It's about learning that you aren't the only individual in existence and you have to learn to navigate the social dynamic, and respect others as well as expect the same respect for yourself.

There is no reason to be a-religious any more than there is to be a-political. Religion is has been around as long as it has for good reason. The same goes for the political nature of social man.

The most important aspect of religion is that it can provide a moral beacon, as man, left to his own devices, will often choose the low road. — synthesis

That isn't true. I see plenty of religious people doing immoral things. The reason is because Big Brother as a god's punishment or consequences for actions are not immediate or exaclty knowable. The punishment and consequences from Big Brother as government is more substantive and knowable. Politics evolved from religion as a more efficient means of controlling the population for authoritarians ruling. So-called democracies that have popped up in more recent times are still controlled by an elite ruling class that divides it citizens against each other using a new type of religion - political parties.

Religions may well disappear of their own accord some day. But in the meantime the road to peace seems to be to separate them and keep them apart. That was the solution with the partition of India and it worked quite well. So, separation seems to be a sound principle on which to build a practicable road to peace. The same principle is applied in marital conflict, boxing matches and military conflict. — Apollodorus

So who is the designated referee that will send in their own troops to evict people from their homes in an effort to make peace?

What I find interesting is that there are populations that are willing to abandon their homes for economic hardship or being oppressed and migrate to another country, but when religion comes into play, people are willing to stay and continue to expose themselves to economic hardships and oppression. This is partly because practicing religion includes in part practicing being a victim.

Right, that's what I'm saying. You don't consider the concept of marriage whatsoever or the state's role in defining it in that case, you are just given two sides to choose created from two separate political platforms and taught that one person within the debate will come out as the victor. — thewonder

Agreed. But what i'm also saying is that this is an example of how the system of higher education is failing us and exacerbates the division and prevents compromise. Indoctrinatingg young adults to see the world as only black and white is part of the problem.

Religion appears to be a major factor in the current tensions. — Apollodorus

There can be no peace without justice. — Apollodorus

If religion is the major factor, then there can only be peace without religion. Religion, like politics, is just another way to divide us and see each as different, as more or less of a human being.

The recent conflict started when Israelis tried to evict Palestinians from their homes, which the Arabs did to the Jews several decades ago just after Israel became a state. Your solutions are all about evicting people from where they live, or re-arranging borders, which just going to cause more problems.

The only solutions are to wait until one side annihilates the other or we wait several generations until religion is abandonded and relegated to myth like all the other religions before it.

Sure, an individual in a weak socioeconomic position is entirely free to fuck-off and die, for instance. — praxis

Or free to make something better for themselves. Anyone trying to prevent that isn't a freedom-loving individualist, rather a freedom-is-only-for-me authoritarian. So your complaints are never about a fault in the idea of individualism, rather about the faults of the idea of authoritarianism. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Do you think Streetlight is a happy person? — Joshs

I don't think StreetlightX is person. It's a clearly an internet bot as it never really understands what it's talking about.

Yet, Western Europe isn't as racially diverse as Israel or America, so my point stands.

As for Israel vs. the Palestinians, Israelis and Arabs are the same race. Religion is the cause for the violence, not racism. But that is what we expect: racists are focused on race, even when race isn't a factor.

You have to wonder why people risk their lives to come to America and not Australia or France.

China is insanely racist. Like Israel, it too runs concentration camps. — StreetlightX

Maybe you both need to educate yourselves before speaking about things you don't know. According to this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/%3foutputType=amp

Israel is on the more diverse end than China.

And look at Western Europe and Australia compared to the U.S. Looking at this map one would think that the Americans on this forum should be educating Australians and Western Europeans on diversity rather than the other way around.

Ohhhhh, I thought the whole point was freedom or personal liberty. Boy did I have it all wrong — praxis

Not all wrong - half wrong. Freedom and personal liberty for not just one individual, but all individuals. Seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp to me.

Indeed I do. Which is why when countries exclude members of their population - or engage in ethnic cleansing to 'purify' that population - they do not 'run themselves'. They are made to run along exclusionary lines which make them - wait for it - racist. — StreetlightX

By this definition, the more diverse a country's population, the less racist it is. So China must be the most racist country by a multitude of factors above any other country. Someone should tweet LeBron James to let him know.