Consciousness & Space-Time

[Angrboda]

(bolding added)

Why don't you start with the preliminary of demonstrating that consciousness is something to which the verb "to be" even applies. Consciousness neither is nor isn't in two places because it has no such "being" that it requires "a place" to be (aside from in the cognitions of the machine).

Maybe there'sa subtlety that went right over my head here... but aren't you answering your own speculation by what you said in brackets? You believe that our conscience/awareness arises from the material brain. Correct? If so, then where is the place within it where everything comes together to produce the awareness I experience? It comes from material things, so naturally I'd be able to spot the materials that are the conscience, no? If so, then it is true to say that the "I" can simultaneously be in two places at once, since "I" occupy a volume in space?

It doesn't "arise," and it doesn't come together anywhere (this is what Dennett refers to as "the illusion of the Cartesian theater"). The idea that there is a "something" that is "somewhere" that is "experiencing" (having qualia) is a false belief. It is assigning ontological properties to something that doesn't have those properties. You are thinking of consciousness as having specific properties and existing in certain ways; much like a God that cannot exist, you're looking for the existence of a consciousness that, in the way you describe it, is just a fiction. Asking where in the brain consciousness is located is akin to asking where in the brain a perfect circle exists, such that your brain can use it for reference; or where in your brain the scientific method exists, so that you can compare it to other methods; or where in your brain your belief that "there is no whale within three inches of you" is located, even though you didn't have that belief a moment ago; these aren't "things" that need to be explained in terms of "where" because they are nothing more than mental constructs. I think you're right though, you simply don't get it. I find that few people do "get it" as most have trouble disconnecting their prior metaphysical and ontological assumptions about the subject. It's hard enough to explain first person, and some people's minds just aren't going to "get it," so I'm giving up at this point, as your complete failure to even recognize that their was something "to get" leaves me discouraged at the prospects. I should have known better than to even try.


Enjoy your conversation.

[FallentoReason]

Ummmm... ouch? I'm sorry I'm not an expert on the subject from day one..?

[pocaracas]

Don't feel bad.... a lot of people don't get much of what apo writes!
I do my best and still, sometimes, it just goes way over my head.

[FallentoReason]

It's not about reading comprehension though. According to her professional psychological analysis of me, I'm simply someone who "just won't get it". Being born thick wasn't my choice, geez.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I pointed out that the evidence for this infallible dimension of consciousness could not come from consciousness' own opinion of itself, but he ignored that objection and suggested that consciousness could not be mistake about, say, the brute fact that it is "experiencing" pain.

First, you have merely stated that infallible evidence cannot come from consciousness itself. That itself is a judgement of consciousness that could be fallible. Your statement cannot be proven one way or the other, it's an assertion, nothing more.

Second, the "brute fact" of sensation is different from opinions formed about why we have sensations, etc. You have moved the goal post to an area you feel safe defending. Sensation is a form of primal knowledge.

The contra-factual is that sensations are not knowledge. If that is the case them you have no content with which to build knowledge and thus no knowledge could be had, including the belief that sensations are not primal knowledge. However, since knowledge is possible, then the idea that sensations are primal knowledge is an indispensable axiom.

---

...Being born thick wasn't my choice, geez.

Don't be concerned, its not your fault. A true sign of intelligence and mastery of a subject is the ability to explain things clearly to laymen.

[Angrboda]

I pointed out that the evidence for this infallible dimension of consciousness could not come from consciousness' own opinion of itself, but he ignored that objection and suggested that consciousness could not be mistake about, say, the brute fact that it is "experiencing" pain.

First, you have merely stated that infallible evidence cannot come from consciousness itself. That itself is a judgement of consciousness that could be fallible. Your statement cannot be proven one way or the other, it's an assertion, nothing more.

No Chad, it's the observation that appealing to consciousness itself as the evidence for its infallibility is circular and thus begs the question. It's simple logic, which you want to suspend because it's inconvenient to you.

Second, the "brute fact" of sensation is different from opinions formed about why we have sensations, etc. You have moved the goal post to an area you feel safe defending. Sensation is a form of primal knowledge.

A what? Now you're just inventing terms to cover over the fact that, in your view, it's sufficient to say, "Golly, it seems true to me, therefore it must be true." We've discussed this before. If it's knowledge, then jstrodel's direct experience of God is "primal knowledge", and therefore my experience of my god is "primal knowledge" and therefore true, and so we have knowledge of multiple things that can't all be simultaneously true. That doesn't sound like knowledge to me. So you say, well I'm not talking about that aspect of consciousness, but only this aspect over here. And I have to ask which aspect of consciousness you are appealing to in order to determine which aspect of consciousness is infallible? At which point you begin begging the question.

Simply because you want to believe something because doing so is indispensable to your theology does not make it "primal knowledge," it just makes you guilty of wishful thinking.

The contra-factual is that sensations are not knowledge. If that is the case them you have no content with which to build knowledge and thus no knowledge could be had, including the belief that sensations are not primal knowledge. However, since knowledge is possible, then the idea that sensations are primal knowledge is an indispensable axiom.

Sensation isn't knowledge. You are simply repeating a variant of the argument from reason, that if human reason is fallible, then no knowledge is possible. (See, for example, Wikipedia: Argument From Reason, Acts 17: Argument From Reason, or A Brief Philosophical History of CS Lewis’ Anti-Naturalistic Argument from Reason) This is a common tactic of creationists and presuppositionalists, and the only reason it is put forward is to argue for some supernatural beastie. In the case of presuppositionalists, it's god; in your case, it's supernatural consciousness.

---

...Being born thick wasn't my choice, geez.

Don't be concerned, its not your fault. A true sign of intelligence and mastery of a subject is the ability to explain things clearly to laymen.

Why don't we also include that a true sign of intelligence and mastery is not to use fallacious reasoning such as denying the antecedent (apophenia wasn't able to explain things clearly to a layman, therefore apophenia has no intelligence or mastery of the subject). Really, Chad, if you're simply going to ad hominem and impugn my intelligence, try not to make simple logic errors in the process.

[Whateverist]

Is it possible for your conscience to be in two places at once and separated in the time dimension?

Yes it is possible for your consciousness to be on two things at once, and more. I'm not as comfortable talking about it "being in two places at once" since I have no idea how or where the brain accomplishes its many tasks, and I doubt that really matters for this question anyway.

The brain is doing many things most of the time, not just two things. I have no problem imagining the brain simultaneously taking note of new stimuli and beginning to process their significance at the same time that it continues to ruminate on some earlier input. Conscious attention is not as good at multi-tasking. But the unconscious is vast and conscious attention is just one of the balls it has in the air at any one time.

I think the conflict you should worry about are those which arise on account of our insistence on seeing consciousness as unitary. It isn't, it's complex.

If you answered "no" to my question above, then where does the conscience reside if it can't exist in a place that occupies a volume?

Space and sequence are a couple of the categories our consciousness creates to make sense of our experience. I'm not saying they're not real, I'm just saying they're the real that our mode of consciousness is attuned to. I'm in no position to speculate on what is actual or what the limits may be for what is possible. Any speculation I engage in will necessarily align with what is possible for my consciousness.

I didn't answer "no" to your question above but I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about where consciousness resides except to say the brain seems to be the culprit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

… appealing to consciousness itself as the evidence for its infallibility is circular and thus begs the question. It's simple logic, which you want to suspend because it's inconvenient to you.

Appealing to consciousness as a reliable guide to ALL its thoughts and beliefs about consciousness is indeed circular. Everyone knows we can believe things that are not true. That was never my postion.

Your question to me was if there were some things about which consciousness cannot be wrong. I replied that indeed some conscious knowledge cannot possibly be wrong. You know when you are in pain. Pain is not an illusion. It is undeniably real to the person experiencing it. Do you actually believe that you can be in pain without knowing it? Anyone can see the absurdity of that belief.

You asserted that: [all] beliefs about consciousness are fallible. Universal fallibility is a belief about consciousness: therefore beliefs about universal fallibility are fallible. That means your statement is an opinion, not a proven fact.

…in your view, it's sufficient to say, "Golly, it seems true to me, therefore it must be true."

When is comes to raw sensations yes. Views and ideas derived from those raw sensations are another matter. So you are mischaracterizing my ideas.

…which aspect of consciousness you are appealing to in order to determine which aspect of consciousness is infallible? At which point you begin begging the question…Sensation isn't knowledge. You are simply repeating a variant of the argument from reason, that if human reason is fallible, then no knowledge is possible.

You cannot beg the question with an axiom. Rational thinking starts with what is known and proceeds toward what is not yet known. You must begin with something known to be true, or better yet, something that must be true. Please tell be what you know that must be true. Otherwise, you ideas are not truly grounded in reason.

…This is a common tactic of creationists and presuppositionalists, and the only reason it is put forward is to argue for some supernatural beastie. In the case of presuppositionalists, it's god; in your case, it's supernatural consciousness.

Supernatural is simply what we call something that has no yet been incorporated into a natural model of reality. Earlier models give way to those that better account for all the features of reality that need to be explained. My only contention is that any approach to consciousness that ignores the subjective aspect of reality is woefully incomplete.

I didn't mean that you are not intelligent. I believe you are. You should be capable of presenting your ideas more clearly without the condescending and world weary tone.

[downbeatplumb]

I replied that indeed some conscious knowledge cannot possibly be wrong. You know when you are in pain. Pain is not an illusion. It is undeniably real to the person experiencing it. Do you actually believe that you can be in pain without knowing it? Anyone can see the absurdity of that belief.

Can you feel pain without knowing it?

Well yes you can, there have been times when I have injured myself and only noticed the pain when I stopped doing what I was doing, adrenaline can mask pain as can some drugs.

There has even been times when I have found that I have been in pain for a little while and not noticed straight away.

I have even woken up with the same headache I had the day before. When I was asleep was I aware of the pain no, was I in pain yes.

[Angrboda]

This looks like a good place to drop this in here.

Anton–Babinski syndrome is a rare symptom of brain damage occurring in the occipital lobe. Those who suffer from it are "cortically blind", but affirm, often quite adamantly and in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, that they are capable of seeing. Failing to accept being blind gets dismissed by the sufferer through confabulation. It is named after Gabriel Anton and Joseph Babinski.

Obviously, the Anton-Babinski sufferer is not actually blind, and the doctors are mistaken, because she has "primal knowledge" that she is seeing things.