The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:15 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I write using my rules.
So, were you taking Poodle to task for violating your rules, or the actual, accepted rules?
SteveKlinko wrote:The capitals are for emphasis.
It's much better to use the text variations for emphasis.
SteveKlinko wrote:My rules are for me. Your rules are for you. Etc.

Good Music. Thank You.

Interesting. You don't capitalize "rules," but you do capitalize "music." Then, you didn't capitalize "you" when it followed a preposition, but you did when it was the object of a verb. They must be incredibly convoluted rules, worse than the actual, accepted rules.

If the capitalization is for emphasis, then you should have written the above sentences like so:
I write using My rules.
The capitals are for Emphasis.
My rules are for Me. Your rules are for You.
Good music. Thank you.

I think you're making this up as you go along just like your dualistic mind theory, since the rules of both continually change depending on the input of others.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:29 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:As in all these kinds of studies there was no capability to measure actual Consciousness. This is because we don't know how to do that yet.
Now you're being silly. One doesn't measure concepts. Can you measure love? How about boredom? Ethics? Can emotional pain be measured? What about chicness? Creativity?
Love is not just a Concept. It is a Feeling. It is a Conscious experience. How do you Feel the Love? You need to concentrate on the Feeling itself to see that it is not just a Concept but it is some kind of actual thing that must be explained.
Silliness again. Love is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. It is not an "actual thing." You cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it. Abstract concepts cannot be measured.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Even if you measured the activity of every single neuron that fired while a person was sitting completely still looking at a red square, what would that tell you? Nothing. Why? Because the signal-to-noise ratio is far too weak. Check it out...
1. Subject is sitting still. Neurons are firing to contract his muscles to keep him upright, and to keep his autonomic functions working.
2. Subject is focusing his vision on the red square. Neurons are firing on red, square, and red square; Googling his memory banks for red, square, and red square; and taking note of every single visual image in his peripheral vision, even though he's not focusing on them.
3. Subject is not paying direct attention to sounds, smells, tastes, or touches. But his brain is, so neurons are firing to note every aural, olfactory, gustatory, and somatosensory input.
4. Subject is concentrating on the red square. Meanwhile, he is thinking a random sequence of thoughts. Did I remember to turn off the coffee maker? I need to pay my electric bill. My car could use an oil change. I hope Diane remembers to pick up the kids after soccer practice. And on and on. Neurons firing endlessly.
How do you, as the scientist, filter out all that noise to determine which neurons are responsible for red, square, red square, and every episodic memory associated with those three images?
You are measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Red experience. You are not measuring the Red experience itself.
They are one and the same. I have just delineated the "hard problem" of measuring the "red experience" scientifically.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The only thing that was measured were more Neural Correlates of Consciousness and anecdotal responses from the subject.
1. What was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that consciousness is organic in nature and lives in the brain.
2. They were not anecdotal responses from the patient, but specific tested responses.
it Even if Consciousness is Organic in nature we still need to explain the Conscious experience. The Feeling of Love itself. The Red experience. How do these experiences happen? They are not just Concepts or Ideas they are actual things that exist in the Universe, so it should be Scientific to talk about them this way. But you do have to recognize the existence of Conscious experiences as separate things that can be studied.
No, Steve, consciousness does not have to be separate from the brain in order to study it. That's where you keep making your mistake, and where you'll continue to be in error.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:But even if this does show the absolute dependency of Consciousness on Neural Activity it does not answer the Problem. It is a diversion.
A diversion? Science discovers the region of the brain where consciousness lives, and you call it a diversion? It's not a diversion; it absolutely crushes your idea of an intermind.
The Inter Mind Model allows for everything to possibly be in the Physical Brain. This is stated several times on the website. But the Hard Problem is still there. When it can be shown how Consciousness arises from Brain Activity then that aspect of the Physical Brain should be called the Inter Mind aspect of the Brain.
Now you're flip-flopping. Above, you just said, "the existence of conscious experiences as separate things." Now you're saying, "everything to possibly be in the physical brain." You're a fraud, Steve. You're a staunch dualist pretending to try and adhere to the science, while rejecting the science with everything you say. You've already been shown how the brain works to produce consciousness. No one is going to rename that area of the brain from the claustrum to the intermind, no matter how much noise you make.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Lets focus on a properly functioning Brain. When the Neural Activity is occurring what is the mechanism or process that creates the Conscious experience? That is the Hard Problem that still remains.
That problem does not remain; the experiment resolved it: the claustrum integrates information from all regions of the cortex into a unified conscious experience. Disable the claustrum, and the conscious experience is gone. Reactivate the claustrum, and the conscious experience begins again. The anatomy of the claustrum makes this possible, as Crick and Koch noted in their 2005 paper.
You are just proposing more Neural Correlates of Consciousness. How does Neural Activity in the Claustrum produce the Conscious experience? it's a big Explanatory Gap and it is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
There's no explanatory gap, Steve. And the only hard problem here is trying to get the obvious scientific explanation through your thick skull. There is no conscious experience separate from the brain. There is no intermind. Dualism is complete BS.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:53 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
placid wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Sorry I am unable to convince you that the Hard Problem is real.


Steve, what if the Hard Problem is not hard at all, what if it's an Easy solution to all our apparent problems?

Listen to this Sam Harris video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

Interesting video. I did not see how he solved the Hard Problem. He just said there are Neural Correlates of Consciousness. He did not explain how the Conscious experience happens when the NCC happen. He eventually used the old dodge of saying that Consciousness experience and therefore the "Conscious I" were all an illusion. All he did was say it was an illusion. He didn't explain how it's an illusion. That Red experience I have is not an illusion. I See it. it's something that exists in the Universe, It must be explained. Of course it's a special Kind of Problem because it seems to exist inside our Conscious Minds. But it exists nevertheless.

I don't know anything about the Transcendental Mind. I still want to know how I See Red.


Actually Steve, Sam didn't use the old dodge at all, he hit the nail square on the head by saying there is no such experience as a conscious experience. In that consciousness is not an experience. The ''Conscious I'' is an illusion because Consciousness is Nondual...in that it cannot be located to exist in the way it is thought to exist. The inter-net appears to exist inside the computer, but where is it ? ..take apart the computer and you won't find the Inter-net anywhere in there.

How can an illusion explain it is an illusion?

The Red experience is not an illusion, there is the appearance of Red without doubt it is an experience. But it's an experience arising in Consciousness. A consciousness that cannot be experienced...therefore the red experience is an illusion although appearing very real, the colour red does not actually exist in and of itself in the universe. The colour red is an illusory effect of pure invisible white light. Red can appear and disappear without a trace, so it can't be real.

I still want to know how I See Red....Steve, that which is looking at Red is unknowable simply because looking is inseparable from what's looked at. So what appears in this field of vision is actually an illusory image appearing real.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:59 pm

There's much peace in having an Absolute answer, however unprovable it is.

Sad that one would need so much of a rickety crutch to get through what's real in a real life...


(However, I like your little avatar, placid. It's looks happily nutty, really cute for someone with a pareidolia affliction. :lol:)
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29290
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:47 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:There's much peace in having an Absolute answer, however unprovable it is.

No there isn't. The peace comes from not knowing and ignoring the question by distracting yourself with obvious falsehoods. "Don't think about it!" That's what I was repeatedly told about religious beliefs when I was young. Don't ask questions.

Unfortunately, I was trained well, and I still find myself doing it when I'm reading something that I don't understand. I tell myself, "Don't stop to figure it out, just ignore it and keep going, either you'll understand it eventually or you'll forget about it, either way is good." But it's NOT good. There are entire books I can't remember anything from, because I just kept moving on when I didn't have enough information to make a decision.



...wait, what were we talking about again?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26643
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:32 am

SteveKlinko wrote: My argument is .....
You don't have an argument. You are in denial that the brain can create representations "tastes salty" for sodium chloride or "red" for specific electro-magnetic wavelengths. You wan't to pretend there is a problem by ignoring hard evidence of what the brain actually does,

I suggest you and Placid go have a lovely discussion, somewhere else on a Dualism forum :lol:

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:47 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
placid wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Sorry I am unable to convince you that the Hard Problem is real.


Steve, what if the Hard Problem is not hard at all, what if it's an Easy solution to all our apparent problems?

Listen to this Sam Harris video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

Interesting video. I did not see how he solved the Hard Problem. He just said there are Neural Correlates of Consciousness. He did not explain how the Conscious experience happens when the NCC happen. He eventually used the old dodge of saying that Consciousness experience and therefore the "Conscious I" were all an illusion. All he did was say it was an illusion. He didn't explain how it's an illusion. That Red experience I have is not an illusion. I See it. it's something that exists in the Universe, It must be explained. Of course it's a special Kind of Problem because it seems to exist inside our Conscious Minds. But it exists nevertheless.

I don't know anything about the Transcendental Mind. I still want to know how I See Red.

Sam Harris' position on consciousness seems to be that the hard problem is truly hard, that the neural correlates of consciousness are not identical to conscious experience. He then went on to talk about the self, and how it is an illusion. By illusion, he means that it is not what it seems intuitively to be, I.e., the centre of our being, the singular point of view from which all experience is the focus of, and which houses all our memories, our personality, and is the source of our actions. Sam Harris is a proponent of meditation, and the uncovering of the self as illusory through focusing on moment to moment experiences, and uncovering their true nature as not belonging to this interior homunculus, but each experience simply arising within the architecture of our physical brains, and those experiences themselves ARE the "I", the point of view, with no need for a further point of view to "have" these experiences, and of actions to arise not from the "I", as when we pay close attention to our actions, they seemingly arise as if for no particular cause related to this "I", but to the result of our wider brain, of which the "I" is not privy to they causes, nor the processes which allow them to arise.

We learn nothing new from understanding Harris' position, and get no closer to understanding how conscious experience occurs, what is clear is that he dislikes the idea of dualism, I.e., two separate and distinct substances being mind and matter, however he can not reconcile the idea that conscious experience is identical to its neural correlates.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:46 am

Dimebag wrote:Sam Harris is a proponent of meditation, and the uncovering of the self as illusory through focusing on moment to moment experiences, and uncovering their true nature as not belonging to this interior homunculus, but each experience simply arising within the architecture of our physical brains, and those experiences themselves ARE the "I", the point of view, with no need for a further point of view to "have" these experiences, and of actions to arise not from the "I", as when we pay close attention to our actions, they seemingly arise as if for no particular cause related to this "I", but to the result of our wider brain, of which the "I" is not privy to they causes, nor the processes which allow them to arise.


Looking for the causer of an effect is futile since any known experience is the apparent effect of a causeless cause. Effects are known as experienced, but the causer cannot be known. All that's known is the effects - we are the effects.

Dimebag wrote:We learn nothing new from understanding Harris' position, and get no closer to understanding how conscious experience occurs, what is clear is that he dislikes the idea of dualism, I.e., two separate and distinct substances being mind and matter, however he can not reconcile the idea that conscious experience is identical to its neural correlates.

Consciousness cannot be approached for study or to know how it occurs. To do that one would have to step outside of their consciousness to then be in a position of making that approach. But that is impossible. No one knows what consciousness is, and they don't have to know, consciousness is already this knowing as self evident. There is no person or any thing inside or outside of it. It is Nondual.

Any attempt to approach consciousness would be like trying to cross the horizon.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:09 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I write using my rules.
So, were you taking Poodle to task for violating your rules, or the actual, accepted rules?
SteveKlinko wrote:The capitals are for emphasis.
It's much better to use the text variations for emphasis.
SteveKlinko wrote:My rules are for me. Your rules are for you. Etc.

Good Music. Thank You.

Interesting. You don't capitalize "rules," but you do capitalize "music." Then, you didn't capitalize "you" when it followed a preposition, but you did when it was the object of a verb. They must be incredibly convoluted rules, worse than the actual, accepted rules.

If the capitalization is for emphasis, then you should have written the above sentences like so:
I write using My rules.
The capitals are for Emphasis.
My rules are for Me. Your rules are for You.
Good music. Thank you.

I think you're making this up as you go along just like your dualistic mind theory, since the rules of both continually change depending on the input of others.

Keep studying, You might figure out my rules someday.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:49 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:As in all these kinds of studies there was no capability to measure actual Consciousness. This is because we don't know how to do that yet.
Now you're being silly. One doesn't measure concepts. Can you measure love? How about boredom? Ethics? Can emotional pain be measured? What about chicness? Creativity?
Love is not just a Concept. It is a Feeling. It is a Conscious experience. How do you Feel the Love? You need to concentrate on the Feeling itself to see that it is not just a Concept but it is some kind of actual thing that must be explained.
Silliness again. Love is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. It is not an "actual thing." You cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it. Abstract concepts cannot be measured.

I disagree. There is a definite Conscious feeling associated with Love. Without the Conscious feeling Love is just a theoretical Concept. Pain is also a theoretical Concept but it is nothing without the actual Conscious feeling of Pain.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Even if you measured the activity of every single neuron that fired while a person was sitting completely still looking at a red square, what would that tell you? Nothing. Why? Because the signal-to-noise ratio is far too weak. Check it out...
1. Subject is sitting still. Neurons are firing to contract his muscles to keep him upright, and to keep his autonomic functions working.
2. Subject is focusing his vision on the red square. Neurons are firing on red, square, and red square; Googling his memory banks for red, square, and red square; and taking note of every single visual image in his peripheral vision, even though he's not focusing on them.
3. Subject is not paying direct attention to sounds, smells, tastes, or touches. But his brain is, so neurons are firing to note every aural, olfactory, gustatory, and somatosensory input.
4. Subject is concentrating on the red square. Meanwhile, he is thinking a random sequence of thoughts. Did I remember to turn off the coffee maker? I need to pay my electric bill. My car could use an oil change. I hope Diane remembers to pick up the kids after soccer practice. And on and on. Neurons firing endlessly.
How do you, as the scientist, filter out all that noise to determine which neurons are responsible for red, square, red square, and every episodic memory associated with those three images?
You are measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Red experience. You are not measuring the Red experience itself.
They are one and the same. I have just delineated the "hard problem" of measuring the "red experience" scientifically.

If you are going to tell me that the NCC are the same thing as the Red experience then all I can say is that you don't understand the Hard Problem. The Hard problem has nothing to do with the SNR in measuring the NCC. The Hard Problem is how do we experience Red not how do we measure the NCC.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The only thing that was measured were more Neural Correlates of Consciousness and anecdotal responses from the subject.
1. What was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that consciousness is organic in nature and lives in the brain.
2. They were not anecdotal responses from the patient, but specific tested responses.
it Even if Consciousness is Organic in nature we still need to explain the Conscious experience. The Feeling of Love itself. The Red experience. How do these experiences happen? They are not just Concepts or Ideas they are actual things that exist in the Universe, so it should be Scientific to talk about them this way. But you do have to recognize the existence of Conscious experiences as separate things that can be studied.
No, Steve, consciousness does not have to be separate from the brain in order to study it. That's where you keep making your mistake, and where you'll continue to be in error.

Even if Conscious experiences are all in the Brain they are still a separate category of things in the Brain that should be able to be studied separately.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:But even if this does show the absolute dependency of Consciousness on Neural Activity it does not answer the Problem. It is a diversion.
A diversion? Science discovers the region of the brain where consciousness lives, and you call it a diversion? It's not a diversion; it absolutely crushes your idea of an intermind.
The Inter Mind Model allows for everything to possibly be in the Physical Brain. This is stated several times on the website. But the Hard Problem is still there. When it can be shown how Consciousness arises from Brain Activity then that aspect of the Physical Brain should be called the Inter Mind aspect of the Brain.
Now you're flip-flopping. Above, you just said, "the existence of conscious experiences as separate things." Now you're saying, "everything to possibly be in the physical brain." You're a fraud, Steve. You're a staunch dualist pretending to try and adhere to the science, while rejecting the science with everything you say. You've already been shown how the brain works to produce consciousness. No one is going to rename that area of the brain from the claustrum to the intermind, no matter how much noise you make.

You must understand the Unique and Special Nature of the Conscious experience. Regardless of if it's all in the Neurons or it is really a separate new thing in Physics, it is special. If it is found to be completely in the Claustrum then there will be some aspect of the Claustrum that is responsible for the Conscious experience. That aspect of the Claustrum should be called the Inter Mind aspect of the Claustrum. I never meant to imply that the whole Clustrum should be renamed to the Inter Mind.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Lets focus on a properly functioning Brain. When the Neural Activity is occurring what is the mechanism or process that creates the Conscious experience? That is the Hard Problem that still remains.
That problem does not remain; the experiment resolved it: the claustrum integrates information from all regions of the cortex into a unified conscious experience. Disable the claustrum, and the conscious experience is gone. Reactivate the claustrum, and the conscious experience begins again. The anatomy of the claustrum makes this possible, as Crick and Koch noted in their 2005 paper.
You are just proposing more Neural Correlates of Consciousness. How does Neural Activity in the Claustrum produce the Conscious experience? it's a big Explanatory Gap and it is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
There's no explanatory gap, Steve. And the only hard problem here is trying to get the obvious scientific explanation through your thick skull. There is no conscious experience separate from the brain. There is no intermind. Dualism is complete BS.

When you reactivate the Claustrum how do the Conscious experiences happen. You can't just say that they Happen. You have to show How they Happen. The Hard Problem remains. I doubt that you really understand the Hard Problem.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:59 am

placid wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
placid wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Sorry I am unable to convince you that the Hard Problem is real.


Steve, what if the Hard Problem is not hard at all, what if it's an Easy solution to all our apparent problems?

Listen to this Sam Harris video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

Interesting video. I did not see how he solved the Hard Problem. He just said there are Neural Correlates of Consciousness. He did not explain how the Conscious experience happens when the NCC happen. He eventually used the old dodge of saying that Consciousness experience and therefore the "Conscious I" were all an illusion. All he did was say it was an illusion. He didn't explain how it's an illusion. That Red experience I have is not an illusion. I See it. it's something that exists in the Universe, It must be explained. Of course it's a special Kind of Problem because it seems to exist inside our Conscious Minds. But it exists nevertheless.

I don't know anything about the Transcendental Mind. I still want to know how I See Red.


Actually Steve, Sam didn't use the old dodge at all, he hit the nail square on the head by saying there is no such experience as a conscious experience. In that consciousness is not an experience. The ''Conscious I'' is an illusion because Consciousness is Nondual...in that it cannot be located to exist in the way it is thought to exist. The inter-net appears to exist inside the computer, but where is it ? ..take apart the computer and you won't find the Inter-net anywhere in there.

How can an illusion explain it is an illusion?

The Red experience is not an illusion, there is the appearance of Red without doubt it is an experience. But it's an experience arising in Consciousness. A consciousness that cannot be experienced...therefore the red experience is an illusion although appearing very real, the colour red does not actually exist in and of itself in the universe. The colour red is an illusory effect of pure invisible white light. Red can appear and disappear without a trace, so it can't be real.

I still want to know how I See Red....Steve, that which is looking at Red is unknowable simply because looking is inseparable from what's looked at. So what appears in this field of vision is actually an illusory image appearing real.

But saying that there is no such experience as Conscious experience he hit the old Dodge nail on the head. It's the same thing as saying that it is all just an illusion. The old Dodge says there is no such thing as Consciousness thereby stifling any further study of the phenomenon. You can't just say it doesn't exist or is an illusion. You have to Show How it doesn't exist or is an illusion.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:02 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: My argument is .....
You don't have an argument. You are in denial that the brain can create representations "tastes salty" for sodium chloride or "red" for specific electro-magnetic wavelengths. You wan't to pretend there is a problem by ignoring hard evidence of what the brain actually does,

I suggest you and Placid go have a lovely discussion, somewhere else on a Dualism forum :lol:

You can say the Brain creates Representations. Representations is a word. How do we experience those Representations? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:20 pm

The Physicalists on this thread continue to believe that the Neural Correlates of Consciousness and Consciousness itself are the same thing. But how they can measure an NCC for Red and then say that explains Red is mind boggling. They are unable to understand the Huge Explanatory Gap between the occurrence of Neural Activity for Red and the existence of the experience of Red. All they ever say is Neurons Fire, that explains it, and don't ask anymore questions. There seems to be a Naïve and Arrogant Ignorance of the basic Hard Problem of Consciousness.

If Consciousness is an Illusion or does not Exist then the Physicalists must explain that. They just say it's an Illusion or that it does not Exist and are satisfied with their words. How does Consciousness really not Exist. How are we being fooled? Furthermore, if we are being fooled then what is being fooled?

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:40 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
placid wrote:But saying that there is no such experience as Conscious experience he hit the old Dodge nail on the head. It's the same thing as saying that it is all just an illusion. The old Dodge says there is no such thing as Consciousness thereby stifling any further study of the phenomenon. You can't just say it doesn't exist or is an illusion. You have to Show How it doesn't exist or is an illusion.


Consciousness cannot not exist. Consciousness is without doubt or error. The illusion is that a person does not have Consciousness. A person is a mentally constructed thought.. of Consciousness that exists prior to the thought and is that in which the thought arises..


According to Sam Harris Neuroscientist we could be living in a Universe where consciousness goes all the way down to the Bed Rock so that there is some interior subjective dimension to an Electron or even a chunk of silicon. But it's not easy for us to get in there and see. MAYBE NOT EVEN POSSIBLE.

It would be like the content of Consciousness looking for Consciousness.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:06 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:My rules are for me. Your rules are for you. Etc.
Interesting. You don't capitalize "rules," but you do capitalize "music." Then, you didn't capitalize "you" when it followed a preposition, but you did when it was the object of a verb. They must be incredibly convoluted rules, worse than the actual, accepted rules.

If the capitalization is for emphasis, then you should have written the above sentences like so:
I write using My rules.
The capitals are for Emphasis.
My rules are for Me. Your rules are for You.
Good music. Thank you.

I think you're making this up as you go along just like your dualistic mind theory, since the rules of both continually change depending on the input of others.
Keep studying, You might figure out my rules someday.
Why would I want to waste my time? Your rules have no purpose; they're an unnecessary and annoying eccentricity. You claim the capitalization is for emphasis, yet this forum has a plethora of tools with which you can emphasize text: bold, italic, underline, color, glow, shadow, blur, fade, marquee, and combinations thereof. All are much more effective and make for better legibility than your method.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10437
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:16 pm

placid wrote:Consciousness cannot not exist. Consciousness is without doubt or error.


A meaningless assertion without a definition of existence. You might also wish to define 'consciousness' such that it is distinguishable from 'awareness'.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:18 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Silliness again. Love is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. It is not an "actual thing." You cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it. Abstract concepts cannot be measured.

I disagree. There is a definite Conscious feeling associated with Love. Without the Conscious feeling Love is just a theoretical Concept. Pain is also a theoretical Concept but it is nothing without the actual Conscious feeling of Pain.
Your statement fails to address the fact that abstract concepts cannot be measured.

SteveKlinko wrote:If you are going to tell me that the NCC are the same thing as the Red experience then all I can say is that you don't understand the Hard Problem. The Hard problem has nothing to do with the SNR in measuring the NCC. The Hard Problem is how do we experience Red not how do we measure the NCC.
There is no hard problem.

SteveKlinko wrote:Even if Conscious experiences are all in the Brain they are still a separate category of things in the Brain that should be able to be studied separately.
No, they're not. You're creating an artificial division that's not based in neuroscience, but based in your own emotional bias that consciousness is somehow "special" and "different" and "superior" to all other types of neuronal activity.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:You've already been shown how the brain works to produce consciousness. No one is going to rename that area of the brain from the claustrum to the intermind, no matter how much noise you make.
You must understand the Unique and Special Nature of the Conscious experience. Regardless of if it's all in the Neurons or it is really a separate new thing in Physics, it is special. If it is found to be completely in the Claustrum then there will be some aspect of the Claustrum that is responsible for the Conscious experience. That aspect of the Claustrum should be called the Inter Mind aspect of the Claustrum. I never meant to imply that the whole Clustrum should be renamed to the Inter Mind.
Then let me rephrase: No aspect of the claustrum will be renamed "the intermind," no matter how much noise you make. The claustrum coordinates neural activity from multiple regions of the brain. When it is disabled, the conscious experience of the patient stops. There is no "intermind." There is only the claustrum.

SteveKlinko wrote:When you reactivate the Claustrum how do the Conscious experiences happen. You can't just say that they Happen. You have to show How they Happen. The Hard Problem remains. I doubt that you really understand the Hard Problem.
For the nth time, the claustrum, because of its anatomy, is able to coordinate neural activity from nearly all regions of the brain via interconnections. Ever hear an orchestra try to play without the conductor? It sounds like crap. While each and every member of the orchestra is a talented and skilled musician, they require coordination to play a symphony together. The claustrum is the brain's conductor. Hard problem gone. Explanatory gap closed.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:41 pm

Gord wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:There's much peace in having an Absolute answer, however unprovable it is.

No there isn't. The peace comes from not knowing and ignoring the question by distracting yourself with obvious falsehoods. "Don't think about it!" That's what I was repeatedly told about religious beliefs when I was young. Don't ask questions.

Unfortunately, I was trained well, and I still find myself doing it when I'm reading something that I don't understand. I tell myself, "Don't stop to figure it out, just ignore it and keep going, either you'll understand it eventually or you'll forget about it, either way is good." But it's NOT good. There are entire books I can't remember anything from, because I just kept moving on when I didn't have enough information to make a decision.



...wait, what were we talking about again?

The Absolute. :-P

"St. John of the Cross" wrote:

He who truly arrives there

cuts free from himself;

all that he knew before

now seems worthless,

and his knowledge so soars

that he is left in unknowing

transcending all knowledge.




(Seems that "knowledge" screwed up the contributor's knowledge - that's some weird note/reference numbering s/he committed there...)
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26643
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:04 am

placid wrote: Looking for the causer of an effect is futile since any known experience is the apparent effect of a causeless cause.

You seem to forget that you sat down for three hours and deleted all your earlier posts after you claimed Adolf Hitler's genocide was an act of love. You did that. No one else. :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29290
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:34 am

Why do I keep opening this thread to read new posts....
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10083
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:10 am

This thread is also known as the never ending story. Like the book of that name, it is a fiction that goes on, and on, and on......

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:45 am

I would agree that discussion within this thread seems to have met an end, infact it has met the very end that all discussions of this nature meet, being the problems of consciousness, namely, the difficulty of physically explaining a dualistic perspective, verses the difficulty of a materialistic perspective in being able to, in principle, explain the nature of conscious experience. No ground has been made here, as is always the case, the only ground that can ever be made on understanding consciousness is through scientific enquiry, laced with a good deal of skepticism, both towards attempted explanations of consciousness which step outside the physical realm of the neuronal basis, as well as skepticism to be able to draw clonclusions about the nature of consciousness based on our current knowledge of the brain and its many complex elements, and how they interact.

It should be noted, however, that ideas should never be silenced, and the call to justify a particular perspective based on incomplete knowledge should not negate discussion on such topics. However, we should always keep in mind the difference between discussion on a topic, and knowledge on that topic, and extending our thoughts on consciousness and the brain, by extending the footprint of that knowledge to that which is currently not understood is dangerous. We can always make assumptions using this knowledge, but we need to remember they are just that, assumptions, which still remain in the realm of discussion rather than knowledge.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:This thread is also known as the never ending story. Like the book of that name, it is a fiction that goes on, and on, and on......

Except this thread is not nearly as interesting as that book. :mrgreen:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:08 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Silliness again. Love is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. It is not an "actual thing." You cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it. Abstract concepts cannot be measured.

I disagree. There is a definite Conscious feeling associated with Love. Without the Conscious feeling Love is just a theoretical Concept. Pain is also a theoretical Concept but it is nothing without the actual Conscious feeling of Pain.
Your statement fails to address the fact that abstract concepts cannot be measured.

SteveKlinko wrote:If you are going to tell me that the NCC are the same thing as the Red experience then all I can say is that you don't understand the Hard Problem. The Hard problem has nothing to do with the SNR in measuring the NCC. The Hard Problem is how do we experience Red not how do we measure the NCC.
There is no hard problem.

SteveKlinko wrote:Even if Conscious experiences are all in the Brain they are still a separate category of things in the Brain that should be able to be studied separately.
No, they're not. You're creating an artificial division that's not based in neuroscience, but based in your own emotional bias that consciousness is somehow "special" and "different" and "superior" to all other types of neuronal activity.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:You've already been shown how the brain works to produce consciousness. No one is going to rename that area of the brain from the claustrum to the intermind, no matter how much noise you make.
You must understand the Unique and Special Nature of the Conscious experience. Regardless of if it's all in the Neurons or it is really a separate new thing in Physics, it is special. If it is found to be completely in the Claustrum then there will be some aspect of the Claustrum that is responsible for the Conscious experience. That aspect of the Claustrum should be called the Inter Mind aspect of the Claustrum. I never meant to imply that the whole Clustrum should be renamed to the Inter Mind.
Then let me rephrase: No aspect of the claustrum will be renamed "the intermind," no matter how much noise you make. The claustrum coordinates neural activity from multiple regions of the brain. When it is disabled, the conscious experience of the patient stops. There is no "intermind." There is only the claustrum.

SteveKlinko wrote:When you reactivate the Claustrum how do the Conscious experiences happen. You can't just say that they Happen. You have to show How they Happen. The Hard Problem remains. I doubt that you really understand the Hard Problem.
For the nth time, the claustrum, because of its anatomy, is able to coordinate neural activity from nearly all regions of the brain via interconnections. Ever hear an orchestra try to play without the conductor? It sounds like crap. While each and every member of the orchestra is a talented and skilled musician, they require coordination to play a symphony together. The claustrum is the brain's conductor. Hard problem gone. Explanatory gap closed.

Well I gave it my best shot. Sorry I cant convince you that there really is a Hard Problem.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:21 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:Well I gave it my best shot. Sorry I cant convince you that there really is a Hard Problem.

Generally, I require a well-reasoned argument supported by factual evidence from reputable sources. :mrgreen:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:26 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Well I gave it my best shot. Sorry I cant convince you that there really is a Hard Problem.

Generally, I require a well-reasoned argument supported by factual evidence from reputable sources. :mrgreen:

if the writings of David Chalmers and Joseph Levine can't convince you then no wonder I can't.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:05 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Dimebag

Consciousness is not an emergent property. It is an adaptation, just like every other biological feature. It is a result of evolution, when that result improves survival and reproduction.

This fits nicely with my view of consciousness. My view is that consciousness is the 'self ' in mental modelling. Imagine, for example, an individual thinking about (mental modelling) the best way to seduce a female. Such seduction increases his chances of successful reproduction, and is selected for in evolution. Evolution provides him with a tool. This tool is the concept of the self. He generates a mental model of actions required to achieve the end result, where the self has the joy of sex with the chosen female. The idea of 'self ' is required to complete the mental model. And that is consciousness.

This is not so terribly different to computer models, done with transistors and wires, except that the mental model is done with neurons and includes the concept of self. There is no need at all to assume anything immaterial in the process.


even if consciousness is not an adaptation, it would still be in the brain, and generated by the brain, and nothing more. I also think it's prior to survivor or intention or will or anything, it's some complex {!#%@}, like our dreams and imagination are..
I also think the self is more than just a "concept", as depersonalization is a good proof that the self is not only a "contructed thought" as many nondualists like placid here believe, however, it still all in the brain.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:04 pm

mirror93 wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Dimebag

Consciousness is not an emergent property. It is an adaptation, just like every other biological feature. It is a result of evolution, when that result improves survival and reproduction.

This fits nicely with my view of consciousness. My view is that consciousness is the 'self ' in mental modelling. Imagine, for example, an individual thinking about (mental modelling) the best way to seduce a female. Such seduction increases his chances of successful reproduction, and is selected for in evolution. Evolution provides him with a tool. This tool is the concept of the self. He generates a mental model of actions required to achieve the end result, where the self has the joy of sex with the chosen female. The idea of 'self ' is required to complete the mental model. And that is consciousness.

This is not so terribly different to computer models, done with transistors and wires, except that the mental model is done with neurons and includes the concept of self. There is no need at all to assume anything immaterial in the process.


even if consciousness is not an adaptation, it would still be in the brain, and generated by the brain, and nothing more. I also think it's prior to survivor or intention or will or anything, it's some complex {!#%@}, like our dreams and imagination are..
I also think the self is more than just a "concept", as depersonalization is a good proof that the self is not only a "contructed thought" as many nondualists like placid here believe, however, it still all in the brain.

Saying it's all in the Brain is reasonable. Explaining how it's all in the Brain has not been accomplished. I think Science has claimed that it has to be all in the Brain for far too long. So it is also reasonable to start looking at other possibilities. I like to use the example of how is it that we experience the color Red. We know:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A conscious Red experience happens

No one can explain how we get from 1) to 2). There is an Explanatory Gap. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. If Red is to be explained by known Physics then what is it? Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? It seems to exist as a separate New kind of thing. It's some kind of Conscious thing. So what is it. If it is in the Brain then how does that happen?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:06 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Saying it's all in the Brain is reasonable. Explaining how it's all in the Brain has not been accomplished. I think Science has claimed that it has to be all in the Brain for far too long.
So, what? "Sorry, science, you've had your chance; time to give the clueless philosophers a go at it?" :roll:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:26 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Saying it's all in the Brain is reasonable. Explaining how it's all in the Brain has not been accomplished. I think Science has claimed that it has to be all in the Brain for far too long.
So, what? "Sorry, science, you've had your chance; time to give the clueless philosophers a go at it?" :roll:

You say that with a certain amount of disdain for Philosophers. The Philosophers have more clues than the Scientists have at this point. Philosophers are at least not hiding behind a false sense of thinking you know everything. Philosophers have reached a point beyond which they are unable to continue. They are clueless beyond that point but at least they admit it by proposing the Explanatory Gap and the Hard Problem.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:40 pm

Both Philosophers and Scientists can admit that there are things that they don't know but it's good to remember that both are human and are prone to bias.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10083
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Aug 27, 2017 8:26 pm

I have that disdain for philosophers.
There have been philosophers for thousands of years, and the progress they have made is essentially zero. Their thoughts may be of interest occasionally, and they represent a version of maladaptive psychology, but as contributors to human progress - bleeccch.

It was only after the realisation, about 400 years ago, that everything we consider might be true needs to be thoroughly tested in the real world by experiment or novel observation, that human progress took off. An example of useless philosophy on this forum is Jo and gorgeous on the subject of aliens coming to Earth .

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:24 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Saying it's all in the Brain is reasonable. Explaining how it's all in the Brain has not been accomplished. I think Science has claimed that it has to be all in the Brain for far too long.
So, what? "Sorry, science, you've had your chance; time to give the clueless philosophers a go at it?" :roll:

You say that with a certain amount of disdain for Philosophers.
Well-spotted, Steve. The issue with philosophers is that their philosophy is usually—not always, but usually—hidebound by their religious beliefs, political affiliations, -isms of choice, mental diseases, and/or the era in which they lived. They are not finders of truth; they are opinionated theologians without the 'god' part.

But my disdain is largely reserved for the overwhelming majority of people who have read philosophy in a vacuum, and believe they have one up on the masses when it comes to Deep Thought. If you are ignorant of a particular philosopher's historical era and location, beliefs, etc., then you have wasted your time reading his material, because you're interpreting his philosophy through your eyes, not his. Which means you don't get it.

I do set aside a healthy portion of that disdain for people who misguidedly believe that philosophy is a science, or is in any way equal to science when it comes to discovering facts about reality. A caveat: I except the disciplines of metaphysics (the 'why' to science's 'how'), logic, semantics, and epistemology.

Philosophy is endlessly fascinating to read and discuss, but its 'truths' are as ephemeral as rainbows...and about as useful. Beautiful, and even awe-inspiring at times, but not useful insofar as pragmatic knowledge is concerned. (It's a lot of fun, for example, to have a go at solipsism, but the idea is ridiculous.)

SteveKlinko wrote:The Philosophers have more clues than the Scientists have at this point.
No, they don't. Not if the nonsense you post is any indication. It utterly ignores both science and logic.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have that disdain for philosophers.
There have been philosophers for thousands of years, and the progress they have made is essentially zero. Their thoughts may be of interest occasionally, and they represent a version of maladaptive psychology, but as contributors to human progress - bleeccch.

It was only after the realisation, about 400 years ago, that everything we consider might be true needs to be thoroughly tested in the real world by experiment or novel observation, that human progress took off. An example of useless philosophy on this forum is Jo and gorgeous on the subject of aliens coming to Earth .

I'm talking about modern Philosophers, not the classics from more than 2500 years ago. Say what you want about the past but right now they have it right in that we don't know what Consciousness is even from a first principles perspective.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:37 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Saying it's all in the Brain is reasonable. Explaining how it's all in the Brain has not been accomplished. I think Science has claimed that it has to be all in the Brain for far too long.
So, what? "Sorry, science, you've had your chance; time to give the clueless philosophers a go at it?" :roll:

You say that with a certain amount of disdain for Philosophers.
Well-spotted, Steve. The issue with philosophers is that their philosophy is usually—not always, but usually—hidebound by their religious beliefs, political affiliations, -isms of choice, mental diseases, and/or the era in which they lived. They are not finders of truth; they are opinionated theologians without the 'god' part.

But my disdain is largely reserved for the overwhelming majority of people who have read philosophy in a vacuum, and believe they have one up on the masses when it comes to Deep Thought. If you are ignorant of a particular philosopher's historical era and location, beliefs, etc., then you have wasted your time reading his material, because you're interpreting his philosophy through your eyes, not his. Which means you don't get it.

I do set aside a healthy portion of that disdain for people who misguidedly believe that philosophy is a science, or is in any way equal to science when it comes to discovering facts about reality. A caveat: I except the disciplines of metaphysics (the 'why' to science's 'how'), logic, semantics, and epistemology.

Philosophy is endlessly fascinating to read and discuss, but its 'truths' are as ephemeral as rainbows...and about as useful. Beautiful, and even awe-inspiring at times, but not useful insofar as pragmatic knowledge is concerned. (It's a lot of fun, for example, to have a go at solipsism, but the idea is ridiculous.)

SteveKlinko wrote:The Philosophers have more clues than the Scientists have at this point.
No, they don't. Not if the nonsense you post is any indication. It utterly ignores both science and logic.

I think it might be time not ignore Science but to think outside the box when it comes to Consciousness. When new principles are discovered they become part of Science no matter how nonsensical they might have seemed at first.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10710
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:37 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I have that disdain for philosophers.
There have been philosophers for thousands of years, and the progress they have made is essentially zero. Their thoughts may be of interest occasionally, and they represent a version of maladaptive psychology, but as contributors to human progress - bleeccch.

It was only after the realisation, about 400 years ago, that everything we consider might be true needs to be thoroughly tested in the real world by experiment or novel observation, that human progress took off. An example of useless philosophy on this forum is Jo and gorgeous on the subject of aliens coming to Earth .

I'm talking about modern Philosophers, not the classics from more than 2500 years ago. Say what you want about the past but right now they have it right in that we don't know what Consciousness is even from a first principles perspective.

So......."we don't know what Consciousness is..........." OR==> as Lance correctly points out: "progress is essentially zero." (yeah, I know...when he's finally correct, he gets polite).

Didn't some Greek say "too much philosophy makes a man ineffectual?" ///// I've looked for the exact quote, can't find it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:50 am

SteveKlinko wrote:When new principles are discovered they become part of Science no matter how nonsensical they might have seemed at first.
Not if these new principles are unsupported by factual evidence, they're not.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:53 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Didn't some Greek say "too much philosophy makes a man ineffectual?" ///// I've looked for the exact quote, can't find it.
I've always liked, "When you hear hoofbeats, expect horses, not unicorns." (I may be paraphrasing.)
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:35 am

Has it never occurred to you, Steve, that asking what Consciousness (complete with upper case C) is could easily be identified with searching for the sound of one hand clapping?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:51 am

Poodle wrote:Has it never occurred to you, Steve, that asking what Consciousness (complete with upper case C) is could easily be identified with searching for the sound of one hand clapping?

Science does not busy itself with describing what things are in and of themselves, but rather by describing something based on smaller constituent parts and their associations with one another. And once such a part is indivisible, it exists in an abstract and indescribable form, and only in relation to other abstract forms. For example, charge, energy, spin. These are quantities which endow certain functions and relations between higher level constituents, but in and of themselves are purely abstract terms with no real substance. It could be that consciousness is something which will receive a similar level of description, only in purely abstract terms.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest