Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis

[The Grand Nudger]

What question, in your opinion, is begged by representational theories? What semantic content is irreducible, in your opinion?

[Won2blv]

...
I suggest you read this article https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...ed/485558/

Let me know what you think, it's a good read

It is a good read.  

Add predictive modelling (simulation of future scenarios) to the mix of self-model and other-model and we're pretty much there.  From 'attention' to 'intention'... job done.

I recommend ignoring Qualia.  It's a red herring.

btw, I spent christmas and both of the major New Years working on my own version of Life, The Universe and Everything and have drawn similar conclusions to you.  Except my focus is The Evolution of Morality.

Looking forward to comparing notes.

Yeah you should private message me with your notes, or just start a thread I guess

[emjay]

@Khemikal. Feel free to mock me for this, but the more I read, the more I'm finding Berkeley's arguments oddly compelling... though granted not so much (yet) in the foundational First Dialogue as in the latter ones that build on it, and granted again, part of the appeal is emotional in the sense that the way he (as the character Philonous) is giving the sceptic Hylas a right bollocking, feels oddly familiar... I can almost see myself as Hylas... as a sceptic in both senses of the word... though that's probably what Berkeley was aiming for.

[The Grand Nudger]

When a person gets to put words into the mouth of their opposition, they usually end up "winning" the "argument".  

[emjay]

When a person gets to put words into the mouth of their opposition, they usually end up "winning" the "argument".  

Yeah, it definitely felt strawmanny in the First Dialogue; granted it's arguing with (presumably Locke' s) direct realism, which is not my position anyway, but even within that it seems like it could be potentially strawmanning that position as well... though I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed tbh in extracting the argument... because it's not enough for me to read it and understand it, I have to be able to summarise and explain it in an exam... but it's so big, and it's in the form of a dialogue, so I have no idea where to start really At the moment I'm just trying to put it into single letter format... ie H=Heat and plug those into simple logic statements. Do you have any recommendations of what I should do? I know I can read other people's summaries but that just doesn't feel right... I need to be able to do it myself... and from the source, not elsewhere.

Anyway, the way it seems it could be strawmanning even direct realism is in saying material substance = unperceiving substance. Unperceiving substance cannot be the subject of pain. Greatest heat is indistinguishable from intense pain. Therefore intense heat/pain are one sensation... intense heat is a particular form of pain. Therefore intense heat cannot be in material substance. But where it seems to be, though I can't put my finger on it, potentially strawmanning is in equating being the subject of pain - which by definition an unperceiving thing is not - and saying material substance therefore cannot be the subject of pain = pain cannot be in the material substance. Ie a thing's ability to cause pain is very different from it being the subject of pain. So is that a 'composition fallacy'?

But anyway in any case, it is a very well written narrative and feels just like a Benny-bollocking to read But it all rests on that first dialogue, so hopefully I can figure out how to extract the whole argument and see it entirely for what it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about the form of berkeleys foundational argument regarding objects and perception.  Time simply hasn't been kind to the premises....and in the 250 years since they were offered we have found ways to both deny the premises...and even to accept them and still arrive at a materialist conclusion.  Regardless of it's validity, the argument has become uninformative.

[emjay]

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about the form of berkeleys foundational argument regarding objects and perception.  Time simply hasn't been kind to the premises....and in the 250 years since they were offered we have found ways to both deny the premises...and even to accept them and still arrive at a materialist conclusion.  Regardless of it's validity, the argument has become uninformative.

Wow... you really do know your stuff I guess I should try and find a book on it, like I did with the Five Ways... as the best way to understand it in the context of then and now. I guess I should do that with all of them really... because unfortunately I'm a perfectionist, so I find it hard to accept a rough understanding of anything... so I end up drilling down too deep and getting lost in the extra work I create for myself. You wouldn't believe what lengths I've gone to in the hope of extracting every bit of meaning from these things... creating a nodal database to represent the hierarchical structure of arguments, mind maps, concept maps used to extract the context of particular paragraphs I didn't understand, right down to the level of grammar and sentence structure. Basically it's kind of OCDish and one of the things that makes me wonder if I am 'Aspergic'  My dad said to me 'out of all the philosophy students in the country, I bet you're the only one who's turned it into a software problem ' But I guess I just don't trust it unless I know I understand it, and I can only do that if I can reduce it to a form that totally resonates with me, so that I know there's no hidden assumptions lurking in the wings... which therefore alter the meaning... and therefore, according to the view of knowledge is context, mean that it is not understood.

Anyway, thanks for your info. You never cease to amaze me with your breadth of knowledge So a logically valid argument... if it is... can still be interpreted other ways... it's a wonder anyone can ever agree on truth So hopefully I bring what you've just said to bear in the exam - after thoroughly looking into it I mean - in the same way I think having read that book about the Five Ways goes above and beyond the requirements of the course... so would demonstrate extra-curricular understanding, which is what they want as well.

[Won2blv]

I remember when I use to have so much disdain for Khemikal back when he was Rhythm. The more I sparred with him, the more I realized that I'd rather be on his side than not.

Could someone brush me up on Berkely's Foundational argument?

[emjay]

I remember when I use to have so much disdain for Khemikal back when he was Rhythm. The more I sparred with him, the more I realized that I'd rather be on his side than not.

Could someone brush me up on Berkely's Foundational argument?

How could anyone have disdain for Rhythm? To me, he's the god of logic (teensy weensy bit of hero worship there if you didn't notice ) and a role model to me; what I aspire to be like if I am to be successful at philosophy and formal logic.

I can't really help too well with the brushing up of Berkeley's argument, because that's still a work in progress, but as a side argument, perhaps designed to appeal to emotion, the three dialogues are basically him trying to prove that though he (as Philonous) is considered to be a sceptic by most people (of the time) for putting forward idealism... throughout the course of the dialogues he's trying to turn the tables and prove that the materialist position (represented by the character of Hylas) is actually the most sceptical position (ie doubting everything and denying the nature of reality)... so the first dialogue is setting the scene and laying the foundations, but once he's got Hylas to agree that there can be no material substance, the two subsequent dialogues appear to be focusing on proving the two aspects of scepticism in Hylas... the second dialogue focusing on his denial of reality and the third, which though I haven't fully read yet I can see where it's going, looks to be focusing on his doubting everything. Whether that is just a side argument to appeal to emotion, or has any real bearing on the whole thing, I have yet to find out, but that does seem to be the narrative structure of it. As to the actual argument, as I said I'm not yet in the best position to summarise it, so I'll leave that to someone else

[Won2blv]

I remember when I use to have so much disdain for Khemikal back when he was Rhythm. The more I sparred with him, the more I realized that I'd rather be on his side than not.

Could someone brush me up on Berkely's Foundational argument?

How could anyone have disdain for Rhythm? To me, he's the god of logic (teensy weensy bit of hero worship there if you didn't notice ) and a role model to me;  what I aspire to be like if I am to be successful at philosophy and formal logic.

I was a "theist" when I joined, so maybe that helps you understand