|
On August 31 2013 06:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote:On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote:edit: when I got here this thread was doublereed beating up on some poor kid in over his head trying to make points about the clinamen and stuff. Doublereed was going [robot voice]: 'nothing to see here. There is no problem. Everything is understood. The authorities have matters well under control. There is absolutely nothing deeply mysterious about the mind-body problem. I am a compatibilist. There are some molecules and they bump into each other. Ask a chemist.' I thought that was just scandalous. Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you?
And why are we to equate those things with consciousness?
Also, Tokinho, I still have no idea what you are saying, but bringing up 9/11 denial in this thread of all places is pathetic and stupid.
|
On August 30 2013 23:49 sam!zdat wrote:
your first sentence completely begs the question you realize
you have denied that there is a deep mystery about consciousness. That's what I've been arguing. I think it's preposterous to claim that there is not
Its not preposterous to claim that we understand how the mind works to great detail, we understand senses, and we understand how senses are transduced. we understand how the signals that are transduced are processed creating perception. We understand that we can choose to go against our senses to create consciousness. I think you don't really care to understand this process. I think you have a poor definition of consciousness. The fact the you don't understand doesn't mean that others don't.
|
On August 30 2013 05:27 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 04:13 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2013 03:54 sam!zdat wrote:On August 30 2013 03:47 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2013 03:40 sam!zdat wrote:On August 30 2013 03:40 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2013 03:37 farvacola wrote:
He isn't saying that arrangement is unimportant, he's saying that gesticulating towards a poorly defined "arrangement" a la emergent consciousness as though it ends the debate on how consciousness works is silly. Nobody is saying it ends the debate on how consciousness works. In fact, that's how you progress in the debate, by looking at the the details of the arrangement and its workings. what do you think "matter" is? Until I learn of a better definition, I would have to say any substance with mass and which occupies space. ok. we can leave aside what "mass" and "space" are. does it feel like something to be it? Has your ego been so bruised you feel the need to smugly retreat behind simplistic questions you're getting from a few papers you've had to read for your undergrad classes (Nagel and the likes) in an attempt to stonewall me, or are you actually interested in having a conversation? you don't seem to see what to me is an obvious problem, and you keep giving me tautologies and question-beggings masquerading as answers. I felt it was time to take a step back. sorry to gadfly you, but i feel you are just being dogmatic and not taking the problem seriously. if nobody's given a satisfactory answer to simplistic questions, I feel that it is necessary either to keep asking the questions or explain why the question is bad. I can't make the question go away, so I feel I must keep asking it. don't take out your frustration at your inability to answer the question with attacks on my ego and what you perceive (incorrectly) to be the sophomoric status of my philosophical credentials. Show nested quote +
To answer your question succinctly, only the material aggregates which have physical arrangements (for example, organs) allowing them to reflexively (I use this in reference to the common understanding of "feeling") experience reality "feel like something to be" what they are. This does not mean that any such individual material aggregate will be able to experience exactly what it feels like to be another such individual material aggregate.
great what's your theory of how this works. what is "reflexivity" and what is your account of how reflexivity gives rise to consciousness? is this reflexivity a sufficient condition for consciousness? surely not. the economy exhibits reflexivity (I understand this to mean "reacts to its own outputs as inputs" but perhaps you mean something else). is the economy conscious? metaphysical speculations about "hidden hands" aside (and as much as this terrifying idea appeals to me in a certain poetic sense), I doubt it. Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 04:13 kwizach wrote:
and we have made some notable progress but have not found an exhaustive answer yet. i don't believe you've made any progress at all! anyway, I am going to pack up my computer for my upcoming move and I will not discuss this via my phone keyboard. I urge all of you to really ponder the issue and take very seriously the question of whether or not what you present as an explanation is actually just a restatement of the question. Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 04:01 DoubleReed wrote:fine but explain how that happens I'm sorry, but you can talk to chemists and they can explain how different arrangements of atoms affect molecules drastically. And it's not a magical thing, it's just the fact this molecule fits with that one or that atom has another electron or something. "consciousness explained"!
You have real issues believing that stuff you can do something about actually exists.
|
On August 31 2013 06:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote:On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote:edit: when I got here this thread was doublereed beating up on some poor kid in over his head trying to make points about the clinamen and stuff. Doublereed was going [robot voice]: 'nothing to see here. There is no problem. Everything is understood. The authorities have matters well under control. There is absolutely nothing deeply mysterious about the mind-body problem. I am a compatibilist. There are some molecules and they bump into each other. Ask a chemist.' I thought that was just scandalous. Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you? And why are we to equate those things with consciousness? Also, Tokinho, I still have no idea what you are saying, but bringing up 9/11 denial in this thread of all places is pathetic and stupid.
Because there's nothing to suggest that consciousness is magical and unique.
And we've already made this mistake before. Look up Vitalism Theory.
|
On August 31 2013 00:00 sam!zdat wrote:
should I? Convince me that it's strictly analogous and that qualia present no additional mytery and I will agree that these forms of emergence are equivalent to the kind of emergence we talk about when we talk about the mind body problem. I doubt you can do that, but I'd like to see you try
Convince you that there is no additional mystery. hahaha.
So let me get this straight. you want me to convince you that you don't understand how physical objects work and that there is this unexplained uninteractible essence you believe, that is a mystery to you. Yes. I can convince you that you believe in things that you cannot do anything about nor interact with and that is a mental problem for you. You need to actually learn about perception and the emphasis of the real world is focus on the real world.
Whether you want to believe in dragons or not doesn't make them real. I'm sorry that sane people believe that what we want to do is to worry about things we deal with.
|
On August 31 2013 06:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:34 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 06:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote:On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote:edit: when I got here this thread was doublereed beating up on some poor kid in over his head trying to make points about the clinamen and stuff. Doublereed was going [robot voice]: 'nothing to see here. There is no problem. Everything is understood. The authorities have matters well under control. There is absolutely nothing deeply mysterious about the mind-body problem. I am a compatibilist. There are some molecules and they bump into each other. Ask a chemist.' I thought that was just scandalous. Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you? And why are we to equate those things with consciousness? Also, Tokinho, I still have no idea what you are saying, but bringing up 9/11 denial in this thread of all places is pathetic and stupid. Because there's nothing to suggest that consciousness is magical and unique. And we've already made this mistake before. Look up Vitalism Theory.
So they're equitable because they are equitable? I'm afraid that's not very compelling. Last I checked, none of those things have consciousness, so it is incumbent on you to show why that difference is of middling consequence.
Also Tokinho, there's an edit function, use it. You're making this thread unreadable with your spam.
|
On August 31 2013 06:43 tokinho wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 00:00 sam!zdat wrote:
should I? Convince me that it's strictly analogous and that qualia present no additional mytery and I will agree that these forms of emergence are equivalent to the kind of emergence we talk about when we talk about the mind body problem. I doubt you can do that, but I'd like to see you try Convince you that there is no additional mystery. hahaha. So let me get this straight. you want me to convince you that you don't understand how physical objects work and that there is this unexplained uninteractible essence you believe, that is a mystery to you. Yes. I can convince you that you believe in things that you cannot do anything about nor interact with and that is a mental problem for you. You need to actually learn about perception and the emphasis of the real world is focus on the real world. Whether you want to believe in dragons or not doesn't make them real. I'm sorry that sane people believe that what we want to do is to worry about things we deal with.
If the consciousness is so straight forward as you make it seem, then where is it physically? Most people would say, consciousness = brain but we just don't know enough about the brain to understand it yet. I say they could potentially be fundamentally different, because I see the color Red, but that red does not exist outside of me perceiving it.
|
On August 30 2013 02:32 sam!zdat wrote:
it's not fine, based on our current understanding of what "physical explanations" are. saying it's fine is just a dogma because you have Faith in Science. I don't necessarily disagree, but there you have it. we have to account for our deep dissonance about feeling it's incomplete. that's what I was saying. so partly you are just restating what I already said and throwing in some tautologies along with it.
I'm glad you feel its incomplete. you believe that that we cannot have consciousness arise from simpler parts. But please elaborate what is exactly incomplete given that I gave you all of the sources of how it arises, what are the mechanisms of it, and how we can manipulate it.
Your real problem is that you feel its incomplete, but rather than a feeling, i suggest that its not about your gut feeling. you have the gamblers problem. You flip a coin and get three heads and are confused that the fourth one is heads and imply that there is some higher cause of this, but its feasible.
I "feel" like wranting so here goes.
1. Events in the real world for the most part are independent of previous outcomes
2. Society places emphasis outcomes as the results of dependent events
Lets take for example religion as a societal entity.
Several edicts come from religion.
1. If you in general are nice to people, in general it makes your life easier. "God blesses good"
2. Many edicts are based off of single events which complicate life. For example, a person who is killed or maimed can no longer contribute to society as well on the whole.
3. Sexual ludeness. the biggest reason not to sleep around is it can cause pandemics of disease, which weakens society as a whole.
4. Territorial blessings- In general when you move territoriality, you cause many new problems, and most times society thrives by being static while trading rather than gaining territory.
These events all are religious edicts which result from independent events.
The reality is that these are often broken tho.
The people who are nice and work hard, generally have more problems to deal with, which leads to a perception-
"why do bad things happen to good people"
Sometimes you have to kill people to increase your chances of survival.
Sometimes You are unhappy with a partner sexually so you have to find a new one.
Sometimes things go bad in terms of land, getting oil destroying soil, fires, wars, diseases, famine and you have to move.
Religion has a tendency to go to far to one extreme saying that there is something that makes these dependent relationships be inexcusable to address with independent events.
To say that you dependent nature keeps us from understanding independence resulting in a dependent nature is just ludicrous.
|
On August 31 2013 06:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:34 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 06:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote:On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote:edit: when I got here this thread was doublereed beating up on some poor kid in over his head trying to make points about the clinamen and stuff. Doublereed was going [robot voice]: 'nothing to see here. There is no problem. Everything is understood. The authorities have matters well under control. There is absolutely nothing deeply mysterious about the mind-body problem. I am a compatibilist. There are some molecules and they bump into each other. Ask a chemist.' I thought that was just scandalous. Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you? And why are we to equate those things with consciousness? Also, Tokinho, I still have no idea what you are saying, but bringing up 9/11 denial in this thread of all places is pathetic and stupid. Because there's nothing to suggest that consciousness is magical and unique. And we've already made this mistake before. Look up Vitalism Theory. So they're equitable because they are equitable? I'm afraid that's not very compelling. Last I checked, none of those things have consciousness, so it is incumbent on you to show why that difference is of middling consequence. Also Tokinho, there's an edit function, use it. You're making this thread unreadable with your spam.
So what you're saying is that while nothing else is ever magic, THIS ONE THING IS MAGIC and that should be the default assumption. I have to explain to you why it's not magic.
And yes, saying that something is inherently impossible to understand and is inexplicable is no different than MAGIC!
|
On August 31 2013 06:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:43 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 06:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:34 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 06:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote:On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote:edit: when I got here this thread was doublereed beating up on some poor kid in over his head trying to make points about the clinamen and stuff. Doublereed was going [robot voice]: 'nothing to see here. There is no problem. Everything is understood. The authorities have matters well under control. There is absolutely nothing deeply mysterious about the mind-body problem. I am a compatibilist. There are some molecules and they bump into each other. Ask a chemist.' I thought that was just scandalous. Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you? And why are we to equate those things with consciousness? Also, Tokinho, I still have no idea what you are saying, but bringing up 9/11 denial in this thread of all places is pathetic and stupid. Because there's nothing to suggest that consciousness is magical and unique. And we've already made this mistake before. Look up Vitalism Theory. So they're equitable because they are equitable? I'm afraid that's not very compelling. Last I checked, none of those things have consciousness, so it is incumbent on you to show why that difference is of middling consequence. Also Tokinho, there's an edit function, use it. You're making this thread unreadable with your spam. So what you're saying is that while nothing else is ever magic, THIS ONE THING IS MAGIC and that should be the default assumption. I have to explain to you why it's not magic. And yes, saying that something is inherently impossible to understand and is inexplicable is no different than MAGIC!
That's not what I nor Sam are suggesting, as it is only you that maintains that mystery is the same as impossibility. And no, I never said nothing else is mysterious; again, you're the only one making that jump.
Humans have consciousness, something we have not observed anywhere else. Why are we to ignore this?
|
Shouldn't the default position be we don't know?
Sam made a really good point earlier. Just because certain things are more than the sum of their parts doesn't mean we can assume that consciousness is the exact same deal, and that it is analogous to a computer. I don't think its reasonable to assume that all complex-seeming phenomenon are all emergent properties of basic matter, especially if they are as unique as consciousness. It could very well be something different altogether.
There is still a lot that science doesn't know. Its true that nearly everything we see and otherwise sense can be modelled on physical laws. But science only gives us certainty about things that are measurable in a laboratory, that can be peer-reviewed (i.e. something physical), that can be analyzed under a microscope or some other type of instrument. It is fairly significant to assume that all of what is possible can and does fit within the box of science - that everything which is possible must have been detectable by now through one of our instruments.
I think its entirely possible that a whole other world could exist that defies our current knowledge. Scientists already speculate about the existence of 11 dimensions folded into our reality, so small that we can't detect them. There could be many strange "things" underpinning consciousness?
I think there is always a world of possibility. And because of that we can't just assume that the mind is like a computer, and that this is the *only* reasonable possibility. Intelligence may very well be some deeply complex quantum process for all we know, which is non-local and exists partially in other dimensions, which may have rules that we actually can't conceive of because our brains are too limited.
|
Sounds good to me, radscorpion.
|
On August 31 2013 06:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote:On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote:edit: when I got here this thread was doublereed beating up on some poor kid in over his head trying to make points about the clinamen and stuff. Doublereed was going [robot voice]: 'nothing to see here. There is no problem. Everything is understood. The authorities have matters well under control. There is absolutely nothing deeply mysterious about the mind-body problem. I am a compatibilist. There are some molecules and they bump into each other. Ask a chemist.' I thought that was just scandalous. Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you? And why are we to equate those things with consciousness? Also, Tokinho, I still have no idea what you are saying, but bringing up 9/11 denial in this thread of all places is pathetic and stupid.
No i actually think you got the exact jist of it. That is just as much as i feel about him bringing up tinker toys. Its pathetic and stupid.
We clearly understand how consciousness arises from smaller parts,
|
On August 31 2013 07:08 radscorpion9 wrote:
Shouldn't the default position be we don't know?
Sam made a really good point earlier. Just because certain things are more than the sum of their parts doesn't mean we can assume that consciousness is the exact same deal, and that it is analogous to a computer. I don't think its reasonable to assume that all complex-seeming phenomenon are all emergent properties of basic matter, especially if they are as unique as consciousness. It could very well be something different altogether.
There is still a lot that science doesn't know. Its true that nearly everything we see and otherwise sense can be modelled on physical laws. But science only gives us certainty about things that are measurable in a laboratory, that can be peer-reviewed (i.e. something physical), that can be analyzed under a microscope or some other type of instrument. It is fairly significant to assume that all of what is possible can and does fit within the box of science - that everything which is possible must have been detectable by now through one of our instruments.
I think its entirely possible that a whole other world could exist that defies our current knowledge. Scientists already speculate about the existence of 11 dimensions folded into our reality, so small that we can't detect them. There could be many strange "things" underpinning consciousness?
I think there is always a world of possibility. And because of that we can't just assume that the mind is like a computer, and that this is the *only* reasonable possibility. Intelligence may very well be some deeply complex quantum process for all we know, which is non-local and exists partially in other dimensions, which may have rules that we actually can't conceive of because our brains are too limited.
we are like the bacteria in our gut
edit: completely agree btw, best answer is we don't know
|
On August 31 2013 07:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:43 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 06:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:34 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 06:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote:On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote:edit: when I got here this thread was doublereed beating up on some poor kid in over his head trying to make points about the clinamen and stuff. Doublereed was going [robot voice]: 'nothing to see here. There is no problem. Everything is understood. The authorities have matters well under control. There is absolutely nothing deeply mysterious about the mind-body problem. I am a compatibilist. There are some molecules and they bump into each other. Ask a chemist.' I thought that was just scandalous. Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you? And why are we to equate those things with consciousness? Also, Tokinho, I still have no idea what you are saying, but bringing up 9/11 denial in this thread of all places is pathetic and stupid. Because there's nothing to suggest that consciousness is magical and unique. And we've already made this mistake before. Look up Vitalism Theory. So they're equitable because they are equitable? I'm afraid that's not very compelling. Last I checked, none of those things have consciousness, so it is incumbent on you to show why that difference is of middling consequence. Also Tokinho, there's an edit function, use it. You're making this thread unreadable with your spam. So what you're saying is that while nothing else is ever magic, THIS ONE THING IS MAGIC and that should be the default assumption. I have to explain to you why it's not magic. And yes, saying that something is inherently impossible to understand and is inexplicable is no different than MAGIC! That's not what I nor Sam are suggesting, as it is only you that maintains that mystery is the same as impossibility. And no, I never said nothing else is mysterious; again, you're the only one making that jump. Humans have consciousness, something we have not observed anywhere else. Why are we to ignore this?
What do you mean, we haven't observed it anywhere else? Would you say that chimpanzees, for example, are not conscious at all?
edit: phrased my second question differently.
|
You know what I meant. Though perhaps Chimpansocrates' Cogito is worth investigation.
|
chimpansocrates, whut? :'D
|
Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to combine Descartes and chimpanzee 
|
On August 31 2013 07:08 radscorpion9 wrote:
Shouldn't the default position be we don't know?
Sam made a really good point earlier. Just because certain things are more than the sum of their parts doesn't mean we can assume that consciousness is the exact same deal, and that it is analogous to a computer. I don't think its reasonable to assume that all complex-seeming phenomenon are all emergent properties of basic matter, especially if they are as unique as consciousness. It could very well be something different altogether.
There is still a lot that science doesn't know. Its true that nearly everything we see and otherwise sense can be modelled on physical laws. But science only gives us certainty about things that are measurable in a laboratory, that can be peer-reviewed (i.e. something physical), that can be analyzed under a microscope or some other type of instrument. It is fairly significant to assume that all of what is possible can and does fit within the box of science - that everything which is possible must have been detectable by now through one of our instruments.
I think its entirely possible that a whole other world could exist that defies our current knowledge. Scientists already speculate about the existence of 11 dimensions folded into our reality, so small that we can't detect them. There could be many strange "things" underpinning consciousness?
I think there is always a world of possibility. And because of that we can't just assume that the mind is like a computer, and that this is the *only* reasonable possibility. Intelligence may very well be some deeply complex quantum process for all we know, which is non-local and exists partially in other dimensions, which may have rules that we actually can't conceive of because our brains are too limited.
The default position should only be "we don't know" if the question being asked is "how exactly does the brain function?"
If the question is "Is the mind just chemistry and electricity?" (i.e. explained by natural phenomenon) then the answer should be "We have absolutely zero scientific reason to suppose otherwise."
I feel like the people who disagree with the original question of the thread are doing an awful lot of dancing around trying to get "not natural/super-natural/mysterious" to mean something other than "magical". Chemistry is really just a macro version of physics, and if there's some other physical phenomenon which guides how our brain works it would also just be physics and would therefore be equally unimpressive to the people trying to make out our brain to be more than it really is.
And on that point, why do people feel the need to try to make something so incredible as our brain more interesting? Our brains are the result of billions of years of evolution and are quite probably the most intricate and complex things in the known universe. Personally, the idea that our universe can produce such things with natural forces is an amazing one, and trying to cast this shroud of "mysterious"-ness around our brains and implying that we can't possibly understand it is short-sighted and unimaginative. It's not a more interesting explanation, it's less. Unless of course you find reading "<insert phenomenon here> happens because <insert supernatural being> did it" a more interesting explanation than, you know, the real one.
|
You ought to reread what he said, because nowhere does he rule out our better understanding of the mind at a later date. In fact, no one has said that.
Is the mind and how cognition works mysterious? I'm not sure knowing that chemistry and physical assembly are likely at play rules out a yes to that question. Scratch that, I'm certain it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
