Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Science, Math, and Philosophy Discussions regarding science, math, and/or philosophy.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Yesterday, 12:59 PM   #201
carlo
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,661
Re: Random dude on Reddit solves hard problem of conciousness

I can't speak to "consciousness" or "being conscious" as a noun but it is more akin to a verb. I don't think one can say "I see his consciousness" or "I can see my consciousness". I use the term "see" in a general multisensory ability .

"I see the tree" is a dynamic and in this "I am conscious of the tree". "I am conscious of the spoon, of the slug, of the potato pancake " .

To look for the "what of consciousness" in the same manner in which we posit the atom as the underlying current of matter is the intellectual fallacy .

I would suppose the real question is "who am I" ? If I study who "I Am" the the question of consciousness will present itself in proper manner.

I , am paraphrasing William James who states that the "tear glands contract and then we feel sadness" . The psycho spiritual activity, to James, is secondary to the material .

Of course the other is that "I feel sad and then I cry" where the psycho spiritual is causal to the physical . In essence the physical is the external expression of the psycho spiritual.
carlo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:21 PM   #202
MacOneDouble
journeyman
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 245
Re: Random dude on Reddit solves hard problem of conciousness

Quote:
Originally Posted by John21 View Post
What is mass but the tactile perception of it?
Yes, Berkeley. You can't know of an object's 'primary qualities' without knowing of its 'secondary qualities'. His conclusion being immaterialism. He was a theist and bishop so in his view God was the ultimate observer allowing things to exist if no one at all was looking but that isn't a necessary introduction.

----

Some thoughts on what has being written in this thread without any more quoting:

A few pages ago, someone proposed the idea of consciousness being fundamental; and whether the moon is there when not looked at.
Consciousness being fundamental doesn't necessarily imply that there isn't an objective reality. No one said there wasn't mind you.

Actually by the definition of fundamental, of course consciousness is just that, to us.
In the scenario where consciousness is the only thing that exists: reality is purely mind-dependent, it still leaves questions like - what is the moon??

The other thing, is that, humans not evolving to see truly is not the consensus among evolutionary biologists. The consensus is that those who saw more truly were more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

Donald Hoffman argues and demonstrates very convincingly that this is not actually the case. And it's catching on.
He thinks our senses are way off the truth, and that we learned to sense well enough so as to survive, while he believes in an objective reality.

Hoffman thinks what's going on, is, that, reality is analogous to a desktop graphical user interface. The purpose of which is to dumb down the truth so we can navigate through it more easily. He uses the example of how we don't need to know about the electronics underneath in order to send an email, or remove a file from a hard rive and so forth.

The reason he wouldn't jump in front of a train, he says, is because you don't need to take a train literally in order to take it seriously. In the sense he doesn't take a word document literally, but if he were to drag it to the trash can he could lose valuable work. The moon is an icon like the files and folders on the desktop, he says.
And so to look at an object at the microscopic level, and say that that's the true reality is analogous to looking at the pixels of the trash can and saying the same thing, regarding a computer.

The problem with this then, if anyway accurate is that it may not be possible to know objective reality for the same reason we can't know of the underlying hardware by examining the desktop icons with a magnifying glass or in terms of reality, any instrument we use, when we can't rely on ours senses. You can never find out about the hardware by examining the desktop pixels. No reason to not try.

Personally, I don't subscribe to either view. I don't know. Does it have to be either or? Well, no, you needn't have to subscribe to hardcore materialism to acknowledge the existence of atoms, for example. Or to know that a blunt object hitting you on the brain is going to alter your consciousness. Or to have your cornea re-shaped by a laser so that light falls on the retina and your eyesight improve.

The problem is that all of those things require consciousness, as Witten said.
The reason understanding consciousness is inconceivable, how being pointed out already: Where do you look to in the electrical schematic we talked about and say 'Aha'. Inconceivable.
What is an aha moment but a conscious one.

And that is the hard problem, not to be confused with the easy problems.

Last edited by MacOneDouble; Yesterday at 06:27 PM.
MacOneDouble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:46 PM   #203
VeeDDzz`
Pooh-Bah
 
VeeDDzz`'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,137
Re: Random dude on Reddit solves hard problem of conciousness

Nice post Mac. Helping with some of the confusion - to be expected with this topic.

Are there many examples of conciousness without brains? No? Maybe? Unlikely not.

This suggests the importance of brains - to conciousness.

However, this doesn't preclude the possibility that the reason for the evolution of conciousness-supporting brains IS conciousness. It supports itself. It finds a way. Perhaps.

This also doesn't preclude the possibility that conciousness has nothing to do with brains and that our observations are wrong.
VeeDDzz` is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:08 AM   #204
John21
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,167
Re: Random dude on Reddit solves hard problem of conciousness

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo View Post

"I see the tree" is a dynamic and in this "I am conscious of the tree".


“There are hues.”

Something to that effect is all we can say in a purely phenomenological sense. The idea of a conscious me here occupying some volume in three-dimensional space seeing a tree over there likewise occupying three-dimensional space is just that—an idea. With the visual realm what we’re seeing is two-dimensional, like a perpendicular flat-land. The idea of three-dimensional space along with the notion of mass/matter ("I," "the tree") occupying it is conjecture.
John21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 08:43 AM   #205
carlo
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,661
Re: Random dude on Reddit solves hard problem of conciousness

Quote:
Originally Posted by John21 View Post


“There are hues.”

Something to that effect is all we can say in a purely phenomenological sense. The idea of a conscious me here occupying some volume in three-dimensional space seeing a tree over there likewise occupying three-dimensional space is just that—an idea. With the visual realm what we’re seeing is two-dimensional, like a perpendicular flat-land. The idea of three-dimensional space along with the notion of mass/matter ("I," "the tree") occupying it is conjecture.
Cool but the development of Man and his senses does speak to 3 dimensional space. The eyes (2) are exactly those organs through which we appreciate the 3 dimensions. Lose one of the eyes and there will be problems with depth perception. the focus of the eyes to a point is exactly that ability which presents the 3rd dimension.

There is an amazing side light as look at the eyes of the horse which look out at angles , not having the ability to focus, and yet they do not run over the side of a cliff.

If you want to say 'all is maya" then you can, but you should have a replacement or some insight as to what exactly we are looking at which is another story.

In evolution there was a state of the 2 dimensions much like if not exactly like our "dream consciousness". the 2 dimensional state is relevant in strength to our dreams but we have evolved from that state to which the percepts were"dream like". this also means that in evolution the dream state has regressed to the inner man as ancient ability.

Our senses do not lie and I'd like to speak to your use of the word "idea". In our age of nominalism the "idea" is the creation of an individual but not "real", so to speak.

Of course the realists denied this and stated that the "idea" is real such that in that realm of the "idea" the concept "lion" exists within the ideal realm (realm of ideas) with the individual lions as projection of this state of being (lion state).

Plato's land of forms also speaks to this; the lion idea which includes all lions in the realm of forms, that realm to which man can enter through his thinking and thoughts.

Oh yea, the nominalist denies the "idea" lion as real but only individual lions .

Its easy to separate Man from his surrondings due to our present intellectual capabilities but know that in evolution Man is "first born" and that we "see", speaking metaphorically and realistically, is the external condensation of his progression.

According to the Brahmins "thou art that".
carlo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:13 PM   #206
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Local Group
Posts: 16,561
Re: Random dude on Reddit solves hard problem of conciousness

Well worth the read, imo: http://www.imprint.co.uk/the-role-of...consciousness/

Even skimming the text gives a hint these guys are working on the issue regarding brain vs consciousness and are making progress. From the conclusion:
Quote:
The experimental data are not incompatible with the hypothesis that a phenomenal consciousness is an organized system, which includes the functional equivalent of the TV screen, located in higher-dimensional space and connected to its brain (that contains only intermediate computational machinery) by causal relationships.
Higher dimension is mentioned!

Last edited by plaaynde; Today at 02:19 PM.
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online