Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

You're not getting much better.

Keep your eyes closed if you like.

Let's see: you're reading from a screen whose images consist of nothing but a stream of photons. From those photons, you see the words I wrote and respond to them. But you don't see photons, you demurr.
Evidence, please?

One doesn't see photons, Bill. One might see by means of photons. This distinction seems so obvious, pardon me for not treating you like a one-year old earlier. The term "to see" refers to visible experiences such as stop lights and speeding rabbits. Those are the category of seeable objects. Photons, per physics, don't fit into that category at all well, yet.

I didn't write anything about linear momentum being turned into spin.

Right. I wrote correctly that the real objects of physics amounted to three things, one of which is spin, you replied with some silly misconstructions, and here we are.

This has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. You're a second-rate crank, sir.

Thanks, I guess. It has everything to do with the notion of properly evaluating a limit in a meaningful way, what I wrote about and you keep referencing (the supposition that consciousness be evaluated in the limit as quale-content goes to zero).

You're a crank. You also failed to improve your posts as I previously described. Welcome to my ignore list, crank.

Wow, four times in one post. And this from the one who said there were no rules here.


ME

 

[davidsmith73]

It's beyond interesting. It's downright bizzare. Apparently, one experience is experienced, while another is not.

Do you not mean - one physical process is experienced while the other is not? (I'm putting my materialist hat on here). With blindsight, the issue is that information about the visual surroundings is processed and acted upon but is not experienced. In other words the physical processes involved in representing the visual field completely bypass involvement with consciousness and are processed "underneath". I would therefore say that blindsight is not going to give us any clues as to how to solve the hard problem.

What we really want to know is: are these in fact discrete events, and do the details regarding their occurrence involve 'special properties' -- this time meaning 'things not explainable by science'? Under this heading are two rather different categories: Things not yet understood, but which we anticipate understanding at some point in the future (e.g., what Popper referred to as: 'promissory materialism'), and things which, for fundamental reasons, must remain forever beyond the pale of science (are we simply expressing our frustration at this possibility when we refer to these as magic?).

I think the second category might be the more appropriate for experiences. However, its important to keep in mind that there are much more familiar assumptions that are made (perhaps not necessary) about the nature of reality that also precede the functioning of scientific knowledge, such as the existence of objective reality.

 

[davidsmith73]

No; both are experienced. Portions of the experience are inaccessible because of the brain lesions. This points to differing roles for differing portions of the brain.

I think you are confusing your terms. [meterialist hat on] In such neurological disorders such as visual neglect, we have the brain activity that gives rise to percepts on one side of the visual field and the brain activity that does not give rise to percepts on the other side .Both activities are processed and accessible to other modules such as the motor cortex in order for the patient to act upon such processed information. However only one brain activity is experienced. By definition, we assume that the patient is not conscious of one side of their visual field because they do not report experiencing it. What these disorders tell us is that consciousness can have access to unconsciously processed information. Unfortunately this can't tell us anything about the hard problem. It may be able to tell us a bit better where the correlates of conscious experience are located in the brain (eg, with the use of fMRI). [materialist hat off]

The problem is this: there is no evidence for the "magic" conclusion.

Nor is there evidence for the existence of objective reality, since it must be assumed in order for science to give us knowledge about such a reality

 

[BillHoyt]

But isn't accessibility the most fundamental requirement for what we refer to as experience? If my brain is doing things that I am not aware of (which seems to happen all the time, btw, despite my intact corpus callosum), is it doing that based on experiences which, though not globally accessible, are experiences nonetheless?

If there is nobody in the forest to hear the tree fall, did it make a sound? This is something for philosophers to puzzle over. I don't care if you or they want to artfully define things so that they don't exist. I care about reality. The reality of the tree is that we know the fall ends with a crash to the ground. We know that crash has to release energy in the form of sound waves. That is "sound" by a no-nonsense scientific definition.

The reality of "experience" is similar. Did Atilla not slaughter thousands? Did they not experience that? Did not others witness these slaughters? Are they all not now long dead? Does that mean nobody experienced Atilla's slaughters?

How about a dementia patient, who floats in and out of lucidity, one moment remembering key events in her life, the next looking with shock, horror and no recognition at her son? In that moment of horror, did she suddenly lose her experience of having had a son? The next moment, did she suddenly regain it? What about the other logical contradiction of her son having experienced his mom and the mom not having experienced her son? Do you really expect us to believe this definition of experience as completely dissociated from any physical events?

How many currently widely held conclusions were without evidence fifty or a hundred years ago? What evidence do we have that there is nothing that is fundamentally beyond our grasp?

So this gives us liberty to make crap up? And the liberty to define the crap in such a way that we declare it exempt from epistemology? This is nothing but the argument from ignorance fallacy!

And then test it. (Assuming that what is 'made up' has at least some basis in accepted fact) isn't that how science works?

"Basis in accepted fact" and "make crap up" have very little relationship. This was a pretty lame attempt to make a semantic shift.

 

[BillHoyt]

I think you are confusing your terms. [meterialist hat on] In such neurological disorders such as visual neglect, we have the brain activity that gives rise to percepts on one side of the visual field and the brain activity that does not give rise to percepts on the other side .Both activities are processed and accessible to other modules such as the motor cortex in order for the patient to act upon such processed information. However only one brain activity is experienced. By definition, we assume that the patient is not conscious of one side of their visual field because they do not report experiencing it. What these disorders tell us is that consciousness can have access to unconsciously processed information. Unfortunately this can't tell us anything about the hard problem. It may be able to tell us a bit better where the correlates of conscious experience are located in the brain (eg, with the use of fMRI). [materialist hat off]

Surely you jest here. First of all, I have to ask which part of "differing roles for differing portions of the brain" you didn't understand? Also, I have to ask what you don't understand about the research clearly pointing to differing and conflicting experiences within the brain in many cases of brain lesions.

Nor is there evidence for the existence of objective reality, since it must be assumed in order for science to give us knowledge about such a reality

Surely you can do better than this tu quoque fallacy?

 

[davidsmith73]

Surely you jest here. First of all, I have to ask which part of "differing roles for differing portions of the brain" you didn't understand? Also, I have to ask what you don't understand about the research clearly pointing to differing and conflicting experiences within the brain in many cases of brain lesions.

I understand the research just fine. By the way, we are talking about blindsight and visual neglect here. Why don't you point out where and how you think I have misunderstood? Or perhaps you know you were originally mistaken when you said that both unconsciously processed and consciously processed information is experienced in these individuals, which is clearly not the case.

Surely you can do better than this tu quoque fallacy?

Explain the fallacy

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

------------------------
If my brain is doing things that I am not aware of, is it doing that based on experiences which, though not globally accessible, are experiences nonetheless?
------------------------
If there is nobody in the forest to hear the tree fall, did it make a sound?... We know that crash has to release energy in the form of sound waves. That is "sound" by a no-nonsense scientific definition. The reality of "experience" is similar.

Ok, so that's a "Yes". Experience is not dependent upon an experiencer. Observation is not dependent upon an observer. Or, maybe observer status does sort of wink on and off; maybe it is something that can be dynamically reallocated, residing now in this sub-process, now in that one. I am curious about how such a status might be described. The subject (or target) of an attentional mechanism? (I just made that up).

So this gives us liberty to make crap up?

Yes, we are free to do that.

And the liberty to define the crap in such a way that we declare it exempt from epistemology? This is nothing but the argument from ignorance fallacy!

I understand your frustration. An unfortunate consequence of freedom is the potential for misuse. But since I am not attempting to prop up any particular argument by employing this device, I plead not guilty. Like yourself, I provisionally accept materialism's promise to deliver the details at some future time, but I think it is important to avoid the excesses of the past. Science is primarily a series of corrected errors, but the one error that it keeps making over and over is its own infatuation with itself; the arrogance that seems almost inevitably to accompany the aquisition of knowledge, a voice whispering in our ears: "almost there now" -- when we really don't have a clue where we're going, how we'll get there, how long it will take, or even if there really is a 'there' there.

"Basis in accepted fact" and "make crap up" have very little relationship.

I can't agree. Every accepted fact germinated in a field fertilized by somebody's made up crap. Time constraints alone force us to be somewhat ruthless in culling out ideas, but we should at least acknowledge that we are being ruthless.

 

[BillHoyt]

Yes, we are free to do that.

You're free to be a fundamentalist megawooweaniest, too, and to believe we must all worship the Great Cosmic Weanie. You are also free to try to convert all the rest of us to megawooweanism. You are not free to insert these beliefs into rational discussion without providing solid evidence. You are certainly free to try, but we will be free to challenge the assertions.

I understand your frustration. An unfortunate consequence of freedom is the potential for misuse. But since I am not attempting to prop up any particular argument by employing this device, I plead not guilty. Like yourself, I provisionally accept materialism's promise to deliver the details at some future time, but I think it is important to avoid the excesses of the past. Science is primarily a series of corrected errors, but the one error that it keeps making over and over is its own infatuation with itself; the arrogance that seems almost inevitably to accompany the aquisition of knowledge, a voice whispering in our ears: "almost there now" -- when we really don't have a clue where we're going, how we'll get there, how long it will take, or even if there really is a 'there' there.

There was no frustration expressed there. I pointed out the fallacious reasoning. You seem to think that the argument from ignorance is not fallacious. You cannot reason "science doesn't know about x, therefore I claim x is ..." It is fallacious, no matter how you disguise it. Science is not primarily a series of corrected errors; it is primarily a series of successes with errors corrected along the way. Your distortion of the historical record is very telling.

I can't agree. Every accepted fact germinated in a field fertilized by somebody's made up crap. Time constraints alone force us to be somewhat ruthless in culling out ideas, but we should at least acknowledge that we are being ruthless.

More distortions. I hope you realize that the easy response to any universal assertion is to simply state a single contrary example? Shooting down "every accepted fact..." is like shooting fish in a barrel. And, finally, yes, scientists and skeptics are being ruthless in cutting up ideas that don't cut the mustard. You write this, though, as if you don't know that we recognize it, acknowledge it, and actually flaut it.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


You're free to be a fundamentalist megawooweaniest
[...]
but we will be free to challenge the assertions.

I don't disagree with any of that.

You seem to think that the argument from ignorance is not fallacious.

No, I agree that it is. I would remind you first: that I made no such argument, and second: it still doesn't mean that we can know everything.

Science is not primarily a series of corrected errors; it is primarily a series of successes with errors corrected along the way.

Science is not a crystal chandelier hanging in the hall of truth, and the successes you speak of did not spring fully-formed into the world. They have no sacred status; they are themselves corrections of earlier errors (some of them rather embarassing).

Shooting down "every accepted fact..." is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I don't agree, but I wasn't proposing to do that anyway. Your haste in making such assumptions (in fact your posting style in general) does suggest frustration, born (I presume) of... shall we say 'a plethora of creative ideas'. If that is the case, I can relate to that. My backup explanation is that it comes from just plain orneriness (which I deny relating to, even if everyone who knows me does claim to see it).

And, finally, yes, scientists and skeptics are being ruthless in cutting up ideas that don't cut the mustard.

It's more than that. Many ideas are dismissed on sight, undissected. We do this not because it is the ideal way, but because it is the only practical way. But we have no perfect universal template for assessing truth value on sight; if any of what we reject contains truths which could only be found by sifting every grain, we're going to miss them. Our ruthlessness has a price.

You write this, though, as if you don't know that we recognize it, acknowledge it, and actually flaut it.

Just checking.

 

[apoger]

Experience is not dependent upon an experiencer.

Reality is not dependent upon an experiencer.

 

[hammegk]

Reality is not dependent upon an experiencer.

If so, what can be said to exist if it has no experience (awareness, perhaps) of the surrounding universe?

 

[Mr. E]

quote of BillHoyt:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is not primarily a series of corrected errors; it is primarily a series of successes with errors corrected along the way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science is not a crystal chandelier hanging in the hall of truth, and the successes you speak of did not spring fully-formed into the world. They have no sacred status; they are themselves corrections of earlier errors (some of them rather embarassing).

Science, conceived as a body of imperfect knowledge is rather different from Science as the process of acquiring knowledge. As the latter, a "series", BillHoyt is dead wrong. The perhaps not-so public record shows that many hypotheses are proposed, tested, and rejected for each great advance of scientific knowledge. This is a dilemma of consciousness that it must bridge both meanings, meaningfully. Relying on vague metaphor to do so is seldom productive of progress.


ME

 

[apoger]

If so, what can be said to exist if it has no experience (awareness, perhaps) of the surrounding universe?

If so, who can be said to propose irrelevant questions (hammegk, perhaps) of the surrounding posts?

 

[davidsmith73]

Reality is not dependent upon an experiencer.

If you make this assumption you create the hard problem of consciousness.

 

[BillHoyt]

You said: "I can probe your memory."

Goodbye, T'ai Chi. Even in a different guise, you're easy to spot as the a** you are. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[BillHoyt]

If you make this assumption you create the hard problem of consciousness.

If you make the opposing assumption, you create the harder problem of logical contradictions in the universe.

 

[BillHoyt]

I don't disagree with any of that.

No, I agree that it is. I would remind you first: that I made no such argument, and second: it still doesn't mean that we can know everything.

I'm not saying we know we can know everything. In fact, it is quite clear we can't when it comes to random processes, for example. Chaotic systems pose similar problems.

My point was that we can't make claims due to our ignorance. You began to step onto those shifting sands when you wrote: "How many currently widely held conclusions were without evidence fifty or a hundred years ago?" The rational response to that is "So what?" It is no cause for speculation-cum-assertion or speculation-cum-claim.

Science is not a crystal chandelier hanging in the hall of truth, and the successes you speak of did not spring fully-formed into the world.

Where did I write that they did?

They have no sacred status; they are themselves corrections of earlier errors (some of them rather embarassing).

You're confounding several different things here, as well as posing false dichotomies, and strawmanning what I wrote. Nothing in science has a sacred status. It is all provisional, and, yes, science proudly and boldly asserts that its processes are self-correcting.

I did not claim successful theories sprang fully formed. They are developed after the painstaking shedding of hypothesis after hypothesis. Sometimes, after the toppling of previous theories. In each and every case, however, two very important points need to be noted: 1) most of what went before was preserved, not tossed out and 2) the new knowledge was vetted through the same basic scientific processes.

It is with those two latter points that I am very comfortable in refuting your image of science not being a crystal chandelier hanging in the hall of truth. It most assuredly is. It most assuredly has earned its epistemological privilege.

I don't agree, but I wasn't proposing to do that anyway. Your haste in making such assumptions (in fact your posting style in general) does suggest frustration, born (I presume) of... shall we say 'a plethora of creative ideas'. If that is the case, I can relate to that. My backup explanation is that it comes from just plain orneriness (which I deny relating to, even if everyone who knows me does claim to see it).

I think you misunderstood my comment about shooting fish in a barrel; I was writing about how scientists shoot down one another's ideas and proposals.

It's more than that. Many ideas are dismissed on sight, undissected. We do this not because it is the ideal way, but because it is the only practical way. But we have no perfect universal template for assessing truth value on sight; if any of what we reject contains truths which could only be found by sifting every grain, we're going to miss them. Our ruthlessness has a price.

It is called Occam's razor, dynamic. And your portrayal of it missing several important points. 1) It is not done for fun. 2) It is not done without a sound basis. 3) It is done with a universal template, called, again, Occam's razor. 4) The price of the ruthlessness only seems high because you have not examined the price of wasting our time with stuff for which we have no evidence.

 

[davidsmith73]

If you make the opposing assumption, you create the harder problem of logical contradictions in the universe.

What kind of logical contradictions do you speak of?

 

[BillHoyt]

What kind of logical contradictions do you speak of?

If you assert that reality requires an experiencer, then:

o historical facts are no longer reality once the last eyewitness blinks out of existence,

o the dementia patient's "reality" is now in conflict with those around her whenever her lucidity lapses

o then comes right back around when she regains that lucidity.

With A and Not-A being simultaneously declared true, you have now created a logically impossible universe.

 

[hammegk]

If so, who can be said to propose irrelevant questions (hammegk, perhaps) of the surrounding posts?

Good, critical, thinking. If it flies past you at warp speed it must be irrelevant.