Another Consciousness Topic

SpeedOfSound · **#501** by **SpeedOfSound** » Apr 16, 2010 1:54 pm

philosophy/post-materialistic-naturalism-t5131-90.html#p135964

Hope this hasn't gone too far afield. I think these things always end up coming down to how we justify our two divergent world-views and bats and p-zombies are always on the tip our tongues.

Just one more thing.
what does it
feel
like
to be
a bat.

Before I will settle for any of this bullshit about making this feeling thing a premise that is accepted for future discourse I want these separate lines justified.

In particular feels, like, and to be. Why these words and what is behind them? "We all know what these things are" is not justification to base a philosophy on. Why do know what they are? Why are we so god damned sure that everyone else will? Why do we think bats might feel? Why does it seem ridiculous to think that a PC might feel like something?

Cito di Pense · **#502** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2010 1:57 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:Anything that can do what we do with multimodal sensory association, memory, and hierarchical representations is going to be conscious just like us. There is nothing extra that needs be added.

OK, but how could it signal you in such a way as to convince you it was "conscious"? Or else it really is only a philosophical question. That's why Searle's thought experiment is so significant.

If somebody declared that there was a brain scan diagnostic of it, what would you consider good enough supporting data?

Fancy terminology about "multimodal or hierarchical this and that" may be presuming language. It's your show, here. I'll play your own words back at you, for an extra dose of irony:

Why these words and what is behind them? "We all know what these things are" is not justification to base a philosophy on. Why do know what they are? Why are we so god damned sure that everyone else will?

Do we really need everyone to agree on what the word "conscious" signifies? I have no horse in this stew.

Luis Dias · **#503** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:01 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Anything that can do what we do with multimodal sensory association, memory, and hierarchical representations is going to be conscious just like us. There is nothing extra that needs be added.

OK, but how could it signal you in such a way as to convince you it was "conscious"? Or else it really is only a philosophical question. That's why Searle's thought experiment is so significant.

What experiment? From what I've read on Searle, I think the guy is a woo air head. The "Chinese Room" experiment is so bad it's not even funny. It's bad from its story telling, its psychological innuendos, its ex rectum assertions and conclusions, etc.,etc. Then again, I never had much respect for Searle. The first moment I came across with that name, he was advocating that C was hiding behind quantum indeterminacy, as a way to escape towards "true" free will. Bah, let me puke one more time.

SpeedOfSound · **#504** by **SpeedOfSound** » Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Anything that can do what we do with multimodal sensory association, memory, and hierarchical representations is going to be conscious just like us. There is nothing extra that needs be added.

OK, but how could it signal you in such a way as to convince you it was "conscious"?

There is a simple answer and it's simplicity is often missed.

In the same way that you are signaling me.

But of course if we built a computer like the brain it would not be able to signal anything at all. Same problem we all had when we were belched into this world. I do not believe that fetuses are conscious. Newborns maybe. Just barely.

On my fancy words there is something significant in that. I just gave you a couple. To actually discuss how a thing knows it's conscious and can tell others would require a volume filled with such words describing systems and it would make the roof of you house sag.

All you get is a glimpse and I stuff as many words in the glimpse as I can so that I can hopefully convey the size of the issues.

Luis Dias · **#505** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:08 pm

So it's just a lot of trouble to get the scale of the trouble right?

Hmmm. Ok. It's your time anyway. :lol:

Cito di Pense · **#506** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2010 2:09 pm

Luis Dias wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Anything that can do what we do with multimodal sensory association, memory, and hierarchical representations is going to be conscious just like us. There is nothing extra that needs be added.

OK, but how could it signal you in such a way as to convince you it was "conscious"? Or else it really is only a philosophical question. That's why Searle's thought experiment is so significant.

What experiment? From what I've read on Searle, I think the guy is a woo air head. The "Chinese Room" experiment is so bad it's not even funny. It's bad from its story telling, its psychological innuendos, its ex rectum assertions and conclusions, etc.,etc. Then again, I never had much respect for Searle. The first moment I came across with that name, he was advocating that C was hiding behind quantum indeterminacy, as a way to escape towards "true" free will. Bah, let me puke one more time.

I don't take it seriously as a "diagnostic tool" either, but it's an interesting thought experiment that asks you to consider how significant language is in sorting out this concept. I would be happy to entertain any alternatives. The use of language is not, in fact, diagnostic by itself, which is what we can take away from the CR question. But it prompts me to ask what else we need to consider. The clinicians have something to tell us, the brain scanners have something to tell us.

In the end, however, what is at stake when we pin down the definition of this word? All I have learned is that the semantic weight of "consciousnessness" varies depending on what planet you're from.

My personal criteria are pretty high. I think that a conscious being should be able to pray for rain, at least facetiously. :naughty2:

SpeedOfSound · **#507** by **SpeedOfSound** » Apr 16, 2010 2:10 pm

Luis Dias wrote:So it's just a lot of trouble to get the scale of the trouble right?

Hmmm. Ok. It's your time anyway.

It's our time. Kick some holes in my bullshit.

Cito di Pense · **#508** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2010 2:12 pm

Addendum, of course to allow that there is faux facetiousness and real facetiousness. The latter would be "facetiousnessness".

Luis Dias · **#509** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:14 pm

So you're saying that C is basically a supervisor, correcting things as he pleases? A little man inside the bigger man?

Well, I don't have a clue of what C is. I have no model, every model that I see says different interesting little stories, some of which resonate, others not so much, but they all are extremely lacking. Sometimes I wonder about what "is" the past, present and future, death and stuff, but I quit that very quickly, or I'll just go insane.

Luis Dias · **#510** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:14 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:Addendum, of course to allow that there is faux facetiousness and real facetiousness. The latter would be "facetiousnessness".

We are all being pedantic in here. But please do tell how you really feel about Searle.

Cito di Pense · **#511** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2010 2:19 pm

Luis Dias wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Addendum, of course to allow that there is faux facetiousness and real facetiousness. The latter would be "facetiousnessness".

We are all being pedantic in here. But please do tell how you really feel about Searle.

Luis Dias · **#512** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:20 pm

Oh, Searle is a pipeglasseswhitecat. Quite interesting. Never saw it that way, really.

Cito di Pense · **#513** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2010 2:22 pm

Luis Dias wrote:Oh, Searle is a pipeglasseswhitecat. Quite interesting. Never saw it that way, really.

Nono. "Pedantry" is "pipeglasseswhitecat". Maybe "consciousness" is the same thing as "duplicity".

Luis Dias · **#514** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:27 pm

I don't see the difference in both sentences.

Cito di Pense · **#515** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2010 2:33 pm

Luis Dias wrote:I don't see the difference in both sentences.

Hey, I'm feeling depressed and anxious today, myselfself, but I'm presently in UTC-7, and so it is still a long time before my next sleep cycle. Must have coffee, possibly with something stronger.

Luis Dias · **#516** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:38 pm

Have a better day, Surendra!

SpeedOfSound · **#517** by **SpeedOfSound** » Apr 16, 2010 2:42 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Luis Dias wrote:I don't see the difference in both sentences.

Hey, I'm feeling depressed and anxious today, myselfself, but I'm presently in UTC-7, and so it is still a long time before my next sleep cycle. Must have coffee, possibly with something stronger.

I suggest you find a green place and sit lotus style, hands turned up, and draw from the cosmic forcicles of nature.

Or take a nap.

pl0bs · **#518** by **pl0bs** » Apr 16, 2010 2:44 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Can anyone give an example of a supernatural thing that is known to exist?

Known by who?

Do you mean "has been proven to exist"?
Yubs.

Then for you, "supernatural" means "not scientifically provable."

I'm going away for the weekend, don't know if I'll get a chance to post....see you all later.

Thanks for letting me know, but i already explained my view of what supernatural is. The question was directed at others. Btw i did not agree to "scientifically proven".

Cito di Pense · **#519** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2010 2:46 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Or take a nap.

You mean, "find someone with whom to take a nap".

Luis Dias · **#520** by **Luis Dias** » Apr 16, 2010 2:50 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Or take a nap.

You mean, "find someone with whom to take a nap".

That's easy. It will just cost you some bucks.

Another Consciousness Topic

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Re: Post-materialistic Naturalism

Who is online