newolder wrote:

pl0bs wrote:...
I am simple C complexified.

Good for you. After you've grown up passed the incoherent, "pwnage" stage of complexification maybe you'll emerge as human. Who can tell? Come back in 5 years time and we'll see how you are getting on.

Ok, see you in 5 years. Ill be waiting here and keeping myself busy in the meantime.

pl0bs wrote:

tolman wrote:'Apparent consciousness' in your mind-world would be what normal people currently call 'consciousness'.

So you decided to rebrand consciousness as "apparent consciousness". You are truly (d)evolving into a splendid philosopher.

If everyone tried to humour you and pretend there was no such thing as 'emergence', they'd simply have to come up with another name for the process by which things that people currently call properties of things* are apparently present in some things but not present in others.
And if everyone humoured you and pretended there were no such things as 'properties' beyond some fundamental ones**, they'd simply have to come up with another name for the 'property-like features' they currently call properties.

The scientific world has been humouring me by calling it "physics".

...

Are you claiming that you have actually published your non-emergence "theory" in the scientific press?

tolman wrote:If everyone tried to humour you and pretend there was no such thing as 'emergence', they'd simply have to come up with another name for the process by which things that people currently call properties of things* are apparently present in some things but not present in others.
And if everyone humoured you and pretended there were no such things as 'properties' beyond some fundamental ones**, they'd simply have to come up with another name for the 'property-like features' they currently call properties.

Again, another entirely futile exercise in renaming, as believed of clueless amateur metaphysicians who want to pretend insight while actually doing nothing of value.

Do you think that a consciousness extending beyond brains (pictured below) is just a renaming issue?


As for your theory of "apparent consciousnesses": when is a consciousness apparent?

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

tolman wrote:'Apparent consciousness' in your mind-world would be what normal people currently call 'consciousness'.

So you decided to rebrand consciousness as "apparent consciousness". You are truly (d)evolving into a splendid philosopher.

If everyone tried to humour you and pretend there was no such thing as 'emergence', they'd simply have to come up with another name for the process by which things that people currently call properties of things* are apparently present in some things but not present in others.
And if everyone humoured you and pretended there were no such things as 'properties' beyond some fundamental ones**, they'd simply have to come up with another name for the 'property-like features' they currently call properties.

The scientific world has been humouring me by calling it "physics".

...

Are you claiming that you have actually published your non-emergence "theory" in the scientific press?

No, other scientists have done so. Look up the standard model.

pl0bs wrote:Do you think that a consciousness extending beyond brains (pictured below) is just a renaming issue?

If you have already suggested 'consciousness' is effectively anywhere one might wish to claim, a primitive graphic claiming it is somewhere in particular adds nothing to that.

Once you have indulged in your futile pseudo-metaphysical renaming/redefinition exercise, assuming you could get everyone to play along you would simply have made the word 'consciousness' meaningless and left people to find some other word to describe what sane people without their heads up their arses currently call 'consciousness'.

After that, you can claim 'consciousness' is anywhere you want, (or produce pictures worth less than a dozen words for your Mummy to proudly stick on the fridge) without saying anything of the slightest importance, since you have already stripped the word of descriptive value.

"other scientists"

pl0bs wrote:

psēlaphaō wrote:If a scientist were to try to measure simple C, how would they go about doing that? If it can't be measured, why is that? Is there an equation that can be used to calculate the quantity of simple C by plugging in measured values of other things?

They cant even measure complex (human) C.

So C, in and of itself, is not something that can be studied by science - do you consider that to be a correct statement?

This is the first definition of "empirical" that I came upon: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." It seems as though we directly experience our complex C, so it appears that the existence of complex C would be something that is empirically verified even if it isn't measurable or calculated using other measured values. Perhaps you reject that kind of use of the term "empirical" but if you accept that characterization, would you say that we also directly experience simple C?

Can there be a complex coming together of fundamental particle/waves of matter like there is a complex coming together of simple C to form complex C?

pl0bs wrote:So you decided to rebrand consciousness as "apparent consciousness".

No, I'm saying that in a world where an omnipotent moron redefined 'consciousness', people would simply find another label for what they currently call consciousness.

pl0bs wrote:

If everyone tried to humour you and pretend there was no such thing as 'emergence', they'd simply have to come up with another name for the process by which things that people currently call properties of things* are apparently present in some things but not present in others.
And if everyone humoured you and pretended there were no such things as 'properties' beyond some fundamental ones**, they'd simply have to come up with another name for the 'property-like features' they currently call properties.

The scientific world has been humouring me by calling it "physics".

Bullshit - science simply doesn't pretend that the only things or properties worthy of study are fundamental particles or their simple interactions.
That's why there are all manner of scientific fields both within physics and outside physics.

However much you lie, you can't change that.

tolman wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Do you think that a consciousness extending beyond brains (pictured below) is just a renaming issue?

If you have already suggested 'consciousness' is effectively anywhere one might wish to claim, a primitive graphic claiming it is somewhere in particular adds nothing to that.

Once you have indulged in your futile pseudo-metaphysical renaming/redefinition exercise, assuming you could get everyone to play along you would simply have made the word 'consciousness' meaningless and left people to find some other word to describe what sane people without their heads up their arses currently call 'consciousness'.

After that, you can claim 'consciousness' is anywhere you want, (or produce pictures worth less than a dozen words for your Mummy to proudly stick on the fridge) without saying anything of the slightest importance, since you have already stripped the word of descriptive value.

I dont think its a renaming exercise. Having vision from both eyes as opposed to just 1 eye, is also not renaming exercise. If it were, blind people would be able to grant themselves vision by using a different word for it.

psēlaphaō wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

psēlaphaō wrote:If a scientist were to try to measure simple C, how would they go about doing that? If it can't be measured, why is that? Is there an equation that can be used to calculate the quantity of simple C by plugging in measured values of other things?

They cant even measure complex (human) C.

So C, in and of itself, is not something that can be studied by science - do you consider that to be a correct statement?

No.

This is the first definition of "empirical" that I came upon: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." It seems as though we directly experience our complex C, so it appears that the existence of complex C would be something that is empirically verified even if it isn't measurable or calculated using other measured values. Perhaps you reject that kind of use of the term "empirical" but if you accept that characterization, would you say that we also directly experience simple C?

Empiricism means "to experience", and that is what consciousness is (the totality of experiences had). We experience our own first person perspective (complex C), but cannot measure if anything else has experiences (not even other humans).

In the model from the picture it is possible to experience simpler forms of C, but one needs to have different (or no) brainfunction to achieve this.

Can there be a complex coming together of fundamental particle/waves of matter like there is a complex coming together of simple C to form complex C?

The complex coming together of particles is the brain.

pl0bs wrote:I don't think its a renaming exercise. Having vision from both eyes as opposed to just 1 eye, is also not renaming exercise. If it were, blind people would be able to grant themselves vision by using a different word for it.

The simple key to whether something is a relabelling exercise is (pretending you could be successful) to see whether people who previously used a word one way would find some other word or phrase for what they used to use the word for.

In the case of consciousness, were everyone who currently doesn't believe in consciousness existing in things like rocks to be made to believe or pretend to believe in some 'C-type' consciousness property which everything had, they would simply find some new label for the process/property/effect/illusion they currently call 'consciousness'.

Your idea wouldn't shift any paradigms, since people would still recognise what they currently call 'consciousness' as being qualitatively different from anything else.

As it is, people who feel leanings towards woo-ish nonscience can simply stick the words 'world' or 'universal' in front of 'consciousness' to let everyone know they're not talking about the same thing (or same kind of thing) as other people.

Seriously, shuffling words around and ending up with no more insight than one started with isn't proper philosophy.

tolman wrote:The simple key to whether something is a relabelling exercise is (pretending you could be successful) to see whether people who previously used a word one way would find some other word or phrase for what they used to use the word for.

In the case of consciousness, were everyone who currently doesn't believe in consciousness existing in things like rocks to be made to believe or pretend to believe in some 'C-type' consciousness property which everything had, they would simply find some new label for the process/property/effect/illusion they currently call 'consciousness'.

People used to think the earth was flat. They eventually learned it wasnt. Does this imply a round earth is simply a renaming of flat earth? You better watch out when travelling further than the horizon!

pl0bs wrote:

psēlaphaō wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

psēlaphaō wrote:If a scientist were to try to measure simple C, how would they go about doing that? If it can't be measured, why is that? Is there an equation that can be used to calculate the quantity of simple C by plugging in measured values of other things?

They cant even measure complex (human) C.

So C, in and of itself, is not something that can be studied by science - do you consider that to be a correct statement?

No.

I don't understand; how is it that something that can't be measured and you can't calculate any value for it based on measuring other things can be studied by science?

psēlaphaō wrote:This is the first definition of "empirical" that I came upon: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." It seems as though we directly experience our complex C, so it appears that the existence of complex C would be something that is empirically verified even if it isn't measurable or calculated using other measured values. Perhaps you reject that kind of use of the term "empirical" but if you accept that characterization, would you say that we also directly experience simple C?

pl0bs wrote:Empiricism means "to experience", and that is what consciousness is (the totality of experiences had). We experience our own first person perspective (complex C), but cannot measure if anything else has experiences (not even other humans).

In the model from the picture it is possible to experience simpler forms of C, but one needs to have different (or no) brainfunction to achieve this.

The notion that it is possible to experience simpler forms of C is not empirically derived. So what is the basis for this model?

pl0bs wrote:Can there be a complex coming together of fundamental particle/waves of matter like there is a complex coming together of simple C to form complex C?

pl0bs wrote:The complex coming together of particles is the brain.

What is it that makes a coming together of particles "complex" rather than just a random assortment? What is that makes the coming together of simple C "complex" rather than just a random assortment of simple C?

psēlaphaō wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

psēlaphaō wrote:

pl0bs wrote:They cant even measure complex (human) C.

So C, in and of itself, is not something that can be studied by science - do you consider that to be a correct statement?

No.

I don't understand; how is it that something that can't be measured and you can't calculate any value for it based on measuring other things can be studied by science?

Because science is much broader than just "devices that measure physical things". Verbal (anecdotal) reports also have their place in science (for example neuroscience, social sciences, etc).

In the model from the picture it is possible to experience simpler forms of C, but one needs to have different (or no) brainfunction to achieve this.

The notion that it is possible to experience simpler forms of C is not empirically derived. So what is the basis for this model?

When you say "it is not empirically derived", do you mean people have not had such experiences? If so, the literature is full of people describing how their sense of self dissolves/expands as their conscious state gets simpler.

What is it that makes a coming together of particles "complex" rather than just a random assortment? What is that makes the coming together of simple C "complex" rather than just a random assortment of simple C?

The brain is clearly not a random collection of particles: its structure is similar across the species. Maybe you are asking why the brain results in a human first person perspective, but a similar mass of particles (for example a rock), does not. I dont know, but it has to be because of the configuration of the brain/central nervous system/body. Consciousness = the totality of experiences one has, and that includes our supposed first person perspective. If we had 8 eyes all around our heads, our perspective would be different. If we had an amazing sense of smell that detects particles miles away, our perspective would be different. If we were completely blind and deaf, our perspective would be different (how would this affect our sense of being located somewhere in 3D space?).

pl0bs wrote:Maybe you are asking why the brain results in a human first person perspective, but a similar mass of particles (for example a rock), does not. I dont know, but it has to be because of the configuration of the brain/central nervous system/body.

Congratulatins pl0bs, you've just worked out that what everyone else on the planet calls "consciousness" is an emergent property.

pl0bs wrote:

tolman wrote:The simple key to whether something is a relabelling exercise is (pretending you could be successful) to see whether people who previously used a word one way would find some other word or phrase for what they used to use the word for.

In the case of consciousness, were everyone who currently doesn't believe in consciousness existing in things like rocks to be made to believe or pretend to believe in some 'C-type' consciousness property which everything had, they would simply find some new label for the process/property/effect/illusion they currently call 'consciousness'.

People used to think the earth was flat. They eventually learned it wasnt. Does this imply a round earth is simply a renaming of flat earth?

There, people learned something about a property of the Earth/World.
Had it previously been called 'the flatness' a name change would have been appropriate. But was it called anything like that?

Was there any relabelling or renaming?
Was there anyone redefinition of the form where someone tried to suggest that 'Earth', 'World', etc should be used to refer to a different thing than it previously had? People seem likely to have carried on talking about the same thing - essentially 'the place where everyone lives'.

What you have done is pointlessly tried to redefine consciousness as a pure synonym for experience, and then tried to pretend that even inanimate objects have experiences/consciousness. At least as far as non-hippies and people outside certain eastern religions go, that is a serious change regarding the kind of things experience/consciousness refer to, with no evidence that it's a thing worth doing.
You have simply asserted that all objects have C, but to do so you have to define a kind of C (simple C) which seems basically a property noted by a total lack of evidence.
You may as well have said that blocks of wood possess 'simple walking' which only turns into 'complex walking' if someone makes one into a wooden leg.

All you have done is removed the usefulness of one word by equating it with another, and seemingly then tried to solve a question of emergence by declaring that a particular property exists in everything, including things where there is absolutely no evidence of it.
Yet, obviously, all that does is change a question of "how does X arise?" to "How does X get from nonexistentsimple-X to actualcomplex-X?".
And, if anything, that modified question is actually more likely to mislead the unwary.

tolman wrote:

pl0bs wrote:People used to think the earth was flat. They eventually learned it wasnt. Does this imply a round earth is simply a renaming of flat earth?

There, people learned something about a property of the Earth/World.
Had it previously been called 'the flatness' a name change would have been appropriate. But was it called anything like that?

Was there any relabelling or renaming?
Was there anyone redefinition of the form where someone tried to suggest that 'Earth', 'World', etc should be used to refer to a different thing than it previously had? People seem likely to have carried on talking about the same thing - essentially 'the place where everyone lives'.

You forgot the bit where they think they fall off the edge. Whats next, the difference between the sun revolving around earth and earth revolving around the sun, is also just a label? The internet is also just a label and has existed all along?

What you have done is pointlessly tried to redefine consciousness as a pure synonym for experience, and then tried to pretend that even inanimate objects have experiences/consciousness. At least as far as non-hippies and people outside certain eastern religions go, that is a serious change regarding the kind of things experience/consciousness refer to, with no evidence that it's a thing worth doing.
You have simply asserted that all objects have C, but to do so you have to define a kind of C (simple C) which seems basically a property noted by a total lack of evidence.
You may as well have said that blocks of wood possess 'simple walking' which only turns into 'complex walking' if someone makes one into a wooden leg.

All you have done is removed the usefulness of one word by equating it with another, and seemingly then tried to solve a question of emergence by declaring that a particular property exists in everything, including things where there is absolutely no evidence of it.
Yet, obviously, all that does is change a question of "how does X arise?" to "How does X get from nonexistentsimple-X to actualcomplex-X?".
And, if anything, that modified question is actually more likely to mislead the unwary.

Its just that emergence doesnt happen anywhere in nature. Why make an exception for C?

Also, what constitutes as evidence of C?

OlivierK wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Maybe you are asking why the brain results in a human first person perspective, but a similar mass of particles (for example a rock), does not. I dont know, but it has to be because of the configuration of the brain/central nervous system/body.

Congratulatins pl0bs, you've just worked out that what everyone else on the planet calls "consciousness" is an emergent property.

Complex C comes from simple C. That is different from emergence where complex C just popped into existence from the void.

OlivierK wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Maybe you are asking why the brain results in a human first person perspective, but a similar mass of particles (for example a rock), does not. I dont know, but it has to be because of the configuration of the brain/central nervous system/body.

Congratulatins pl0bs, you've just worked out that what everyone else on the planet calls "consciousness" is an emergent property.

Spot on. Human first person perspective == experiencing what is like to be human. How can that be made of what is like not to be human? If it's possible it is emergence.

pl0bs wrote:Its just that emergence doesnt happen anywhere in nature.

That's your opinion, seeming based on dogma and either a stanges an pathological fear of emergence, or an extremely minority and seemingly obsessively reductionist) opinion on what 'properties'.

But, of course, as I pointed out, that latter thing is just a labelling issue as well.

You effectively assert that what people see as all manner of 'properties' aren't really 'properties', since they aren't properties of [what are currently considered] fundamental particles.
Yet all that stance would do, even if forced upon people, would be to give people reason to find another name for what they currently think of as 'properties'.
And, of course, it ignores the fact that the concept of 'properties' long precedes anyone having a clue about [current] fundamental particles.

pl0bs wrote:Why make an exception for C?

Normal people aren't making an exception for consciousness.