Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 4:34 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 21, 2022 at 11:11 am)GrandizerII Wrote:
(January 21, 2022 at 10:13 am)polymath257 Wrote: Why not? It is logically consistent.

I don't hold to solipsism as true because of a worldview I hold with its presuppositions and assumptions based on my learning (including my understanding of the current science), observation and intuition. However, sure, there is a very remote possibility that I could be the only one with a mind, but I just don't see it as plausible.

And I don't see zombies as plausible.

Quote:
Quote:How do you know that you are actually 'experiencing' something?

Because I am experiencing something. The experience itself is what lends me that knowledge.

Even if you want to argue, as the illusionist does, that it only seems that I'm experiencing, that response itself still acknowledges that I'm experiencing something. Because what else would it mean to say "it seems like I'm experiencing"?

No, what I am trying to get is why you think than a robot does NOT experience anything. Why a zombie does not experience anything even though it *tells* you that it is, i responds in exactly the same way as a conscious being, etc. There is no difference.

Quote:
Quote:No, but like other things, it might well be once we understand it. We don't understand consciousness well right now. It certainly seems logically possible that it is *really* a certain property of circuitry and we just have to figure that out. You know, like we had to figure out that air is a mixture of gases.

Air is the mixture of gases, and that's all air is. It's not something else other than the mixture but linked to the mixture, or it's not the mixture plus something else. It is exactly that (in this physical universe at least; I'm not concerned here about other metaphysically possible universes/worlds in which air is something else).

Good. So the question is whether consciousness is anything but brain operation, just from a different perspective.

Quote:With consciousness, we have neurons firing which is all very physical and accessible from a third-person perspective, but we also have first-person perspective of stuff that vividly occurs to us in a way that is not susceptible to scientific observation. So it does feel like they have to be two distinct things qualitatively, and therefore without any good reason to suggest otherwise, the hard problem stands.

I disagree that it is not accessible to scientific investigation. Simply let the person report what they are experiencing. Then compare that to the neural activities

The reports seem to be the way to get hard data on what a person is experiencing. And, over time, we can even learn whether or not they are telling telling the truth.
Quote:Note the hard problem doesn't make the statement that consciousness is not basically the neural activity, though (I mean, it may end up being that case after all), but what it says is that, given what we currently know and observe, it seems like there is quite a challenge from a physicalist/materialist POV to determine how third-person-observable physical processes give rise to first-person qualities that do not feel physical, with things-being-experienced looking colorful, emitting loud noises and pleasant smells, and inducing certain feels and pains, and so on ... in a way that's very vivid or, as you or someone else described them, as "shiny".

And that challenge goes beyond just "oh, we'll figure it out eventually, just a matter of time and resources"; it's to the point we just can't conceive of any plausible way this could happen without having to give up some aspect of physicalism/materialism.

While I think that if we get a correspondence between brain states and personal reports, we *have* the necessary link between the two. I have trouble figuring out what else you are wanting.

And, once again, you use the *metaphor* of vividness or shininess. What is it a metaphor *about*? Clearly, we can have neurons report on 'vividness' or 'shininess', but that is clearly NOT what you are wanting. But what, precisely, *are* you wanting?
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
See this image:

[Image: 7265599_orig.jpg]

Pretend you're the person seeing this scene from the angle of the person who took this picture. See the colors on those boats? The various shapes and structures? The leafy trees? The dirty-looking river?

You're experiencing this scene with all its vividness (details like colors and such).

Where are the neurons in all this? Or the activity of such? If you were to pick one pixel of this scene (I don't mean the image on this screen, but the actual scene irl) and zoom downwards to the cellular level, will you eventually see any underlying neurons?

As for zombies, this above is an example of what they're lacking.

As for robots, they might experience qualia. I never said it's not possible for them.
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 20, 2022 at 1:45 am)emjay Wrote: First thing's first, no offence mate, but I don't think I can handle this conversation twice over, so if it's okay with you, can we keep this interlude brief? These sorts of conversations take a lot out of me, and I didn't realise how hard it would be to explain what to me is a perfectly simple and intuitive concept.

No problem. I would have to factor in your tiredness, your inability to full express difficult concepts and maybe you have other things to do.
So, far the conversation is interesting.

(January 20, 2022 at 11:37 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: I don't see anything incoherent about it, so it's not logically impossible. After all, consciousness is not one and the same with the arrangement of atoms.

There is a small problem there and it has nothing to do with logic. It has more to do with what exists and what doesn’t exist.

I explained it to people in another thread. I will do it here since I love explaining this:
1. Let’s say I have a CD of Win XP. The CD is made of polycarbonate plastic with its aluminium layer, with its pits.
Is the CD Win XP? Or is the CD polycarbonate plastic with its aluminium layer.
What if I melt down the CD. Where did Win XP go?
Does Win XP still exist or did I destroy it? Did it obey the law of conservation of information?

All the atoms are still there. Law of conservation of matter.

In other words, software is not a physical thing.

2.  Let’s say I have a book about Mickey Mouse.
The book contains a lot of pages with words.
The words are printed (printing machine ink).
What if I melt down the book. Where did the story about Mickey Mouse go?

Can the story exist without the paper and ink? If yes, where is the story and what is it doing?

All the atoms are still there. Law of conservation of matter.

3. I melt you down. What happens to your consciousness?
If it still exists, where are you and what are you doing?

All the atoms are still there. Law of conservation of matter.

Quote:What does it mean for my experiences to be insufficent? If it's out there in my face, it's an experience I'm having. And that's all that takes to know I'm having an experience. Sure, I could be vividly seeing more stuff than I am right now, but I'm still vividly seeing stuff.



How do you think of consciousness? For you, is it a binary thing. You either have conscious or not?

Or maybe you think of it as something gradual. So, right now, you are at level 1 and you experience the flavor of glucose and you love it. Then, you want twice as much glucose and you are at level 2 and you are experience a lot more. Then, you gain the ability to taste salt and you are at level 20. Then, you have the ability to feel temperature and now you are at level 50.

Quote:Even if consciousness is based on a certain circuit or program, it's clearly not the same as that circuit or program. They're qualitatively two different things. Consciousness is not an abstract label we're applying to circuitry.

So, if we have an electric current in a circuit and I connect an ammeter, the meter measures a current of 5 A.
The 5 A is not the electrons going through the wire. 5 A is a representation.
So yes, 5 A and the electrons going through the wire are 2 different things.

Consciousness must be something that you are applying to something.
If your goal is to find consciousness, then you have to know what you are looking for.
If you aren’t looking for a circuit, then what are you looking for?
(Note: I’m not saying that all circuits have consciousness.)



Quote:As far as the adding is concerned, this is the work of the hardware in your example.

No one's saying that the ability to add is inexplicable. So I'm not sure this is a good example.

You seem to think consciousness is a label we apply to the activity of specific circuitry, in the same way you can point to specific circuitry and say "that's addition". That's not the case.

Well, I suppose that the consciousness can do addition. Do you think that consciousness can perform addition operations? Or is that ability only reserved to the hardware side?

I think that is one of the main questions:
Which jobs that the consciousness do? Which jobs are handled by the brain?:
1. Storing memories of your childhood (brain or consciousness?)
2. Waking up in the morning (brain or consciousness?)
3. Taking the signal coming from the optic nerves and processing it, segmenting components, identifying objects (brain or consciousness?)
4. Feeling that the self exists (brain or consciousness?)
5. Feeling love (brain or consciousness?)
6. Appreciating beautiful poetry (brain or consciousness?)

Is there a location where the consciousness is plugged into the brain? Can it be disengaged?

Sometimes, I ask these questions to christians:
1. When does the jewish god plug in the soul? When the zygote forms? When the first neuron appears?
2. Where exactly is the soul plugged in? The arm? The hair? The brain? The heart? All organs?
3. Why do we need a brain? What’s up with all the nerves forming a network and going to the brain? Why are the eyes and ears connected to the brain?
4. What’s up with the very large number of neurons in the brain? The human brain has a total is 69 to 86 billion neurons.
Do you really need that many neurons to contract your muscles?
What’s with all the interconnections between the neurons?
What’s up with the heart? It seems to not be under the control of the brain. It has its own central, called the sinus node.
Why can’t each muscle in our body have its own central?
Why are lungs under the control of the brain?
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 21, 2022 at 3:03 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: See this image:

[Image: 7265599_orig.jpg]

Pretend you're the person seeing this scene from the angle of the person who took this picture. See the colors on those boats? The various shapes and structures? The leafy trees? The dirty-looking river?

You're experiencing this scene with all its vividness (details like colors and such).soul
And a robot with an appropriate optical aparatus would also detect the colors, shapes, and structures. It would also be able to process the scene from a (computed) other point of view.

Quote:Where are the neurons in all this? Or the activity of such? If you were to pick one pixel of this scene (I don't mean the image on this screen, but the actual scene irl) and zoom downwards to the cellular level, will you eventually see any underlying neurons?

If you 'zoom in' on a digital picture, you do not get the detector, you get the information from that detector. That doesn't mean the picture wasn't produced from the activity of the detectors.

To be able to 'see' corresponds to activity in the visual cortex of your brain. The 'pixels' come from the different receptors in the eye, so there is a limit to which you can 'zoom' that is dictated by the structure of the eye. So, yes, you *do* get the information from individual receptors in the eye when you zoom in enough. These receptors link to neurons to send the information to the brain.

This is very similar to the way you get a single pixel corresponding to a single detector in a digital camera.

So, yes, in that sense you *do* get photoreceptors (in the eye) when you zoom in.

Quote:As for zombies, this above is an example of what they're lacking.

It seems to me that a zombie could do all of these things just as easily as anyone else with a brain.
Quote:As for robots, they might experience qualia. I never said it's not possible for them.

in which case, I am even more confused.
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
Where are the neurons in all this? 

That is exactly what we've been successful at determining thusfar with fmri mapping.  Which regions of neurons are doing x, however x is produced.

There's a tiny miracle to explain if we're deadset on contending that we're not talking about things neurons are doing, but some other nonphysical whatsit. Why consciousness seems heritable, and why brain altering compounds (or procedures) also appear to alter consciousness.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 19, 2022 at 12:42 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote:
(January 17, 2022 at 11:39 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: [Image: q54sO25.png]

Science can handle the possibility that correlations are false. If the correlation between drownings and phenomenon x becomes apparent, the next step is to formulate a new hypothesis that can be falsified and continue testing.

For example: more people swim in the summer. Also more ice cream trucks rolling around in the summer. Let's see if "it being summer" (or something else) doesn't better explain the supposed correlation.

If poly is taking up the mantle of Humean skepticism, then I think your criticisms are apt. But I don't think these criticisms are good criticisms of science in general. If only one experiment could be done ever, then yes... a false correlation is devastating to gnosis. But science can take hundreds of cracks at a problem. So one bad result doesn't seem like an issue to me.

What in the world is this?
I am impressed.
You actually collected the data from 1999 to 2009?
Or is there some kind of gigantic database of all the facts that ever existed and you can have it generate a graph like that?
Did you fake this graph?

Nicolas Cage, in 2009, appeared in Astro boy, G-Force, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, Knowing. That's 4.
Nicolas Cage, in 2005, appeared in The Weather Man, The Lord of warz. That's 2.
Nicolas Cage, in 2003, appeared in Matchstick Men, That's 1.
So, those data points in your graph are correct.

Man, you should have typed in Ice Cream Trucks. Did you type in Nicolas Cage by accident?

I didn't make this chart. It's from the internet. My logic professor showed it to me years ago, and I thought it was funny.
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 21, 2022 at 8:57 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(January 19, 2022 at 12:42 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: What in the world is this?
I am impressed.
You actually collected the data from 1999 to 2009?
Or is there some kind of gigantic database of all the facts that ever existed and you can have it generate a graph like that?
Did you fake this graph?

Nicolas Cage, in 2009, appeared in Astro boy, G-Force, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, Knowing. That's 4.
Nicolas Cage, in 2005, appeared in The Weather Man, The Lord of warz. That's 2.
Nicolas Cage, in 2003, appeared in Matchstick Men, That's 1.
So, those data points in your graph are correct.

Man, you should have typed in Ice Cream Trucks. Did you type in Nicolas Cage by accident?

I didn't make this chart. It's from the internet. My logic professor showed it to me years ago, and I thought it was funny.

It's actually a good example of how to lie with graphs as well.

Notice that the scales for 'Deaths' starts at 80 and not 0. Next, the curvy lines through the data points emphasizes the variations in a way that heightens the perceived correlation.

But, who knows, maybe people with pools shouldn't watch Nicholas Cage movies. Smile
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 18, 2022 at 11:12 am)HappySkeptic Wrote: Functionalism is the correct view, but it may also be true that one can't create human-like consciousness without hardware that mimics some of the functionality of a real neural network.  That isn't because I'm waffling on functionalism - it is because the function may be highly dependent on neural structure.

I am a fan of the work of Gerald Edelman, who believed that biological intelligence self-evolves from the structures of neuronal groups.  If this is true, the nature of our intelligent conscious experience may be difficult to replicate without building a similar self-evolving AI.

Functionalism is quite popular among philosophers. Maybe not THE most popular theory, but close. The problem with functionalism is it tests our intuitions in a way that's unsettling. If information feedback causes consciousness, then it would seem that ANY information feedback system would lead to a conscious entity. Like, are the back of our toilets "slightly conscious"? That's a rudimentary information feedback system.

Also trees. I remember a guy in my metaphysics class who was a die-hard functionalist. He would argue that trees are conscious in a sense because of the adaption to environmental factors... he even took it down to cellular biology with trees. I mean, he made a good case. He was incredibly intelligent and knew his biology better than I did. But I still think his conclusions and his willingness to reduce consciousness so easily were hasty... even if correct.

The toilet question and the tree question really make me take a second look at biological naturalism. It isn't haunted by these pesky absurd scenarios. But it, of course, has its own problems. I'm not saying I AM a biological naturalist. Just that I think it's a plausible theory. Functionalism is plausible too. Don't get me wrong. But unanswered questions remain.

(January 21, 2022 at 9:22 pm)polymath257 Wrote: But, who knows, maybe people with pools shouldn't watch Nicholas Cage movies. Smile

They shouldn't swim in pools during years where Cage has been prolific. They can watch all the Nick Cage they want, really. Wink

-- nice analysis of the graph, btw.
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 21, 2022 at 3:19 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote:
(January 20, 2022 at 11:37 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: I don't see anything incoherent about it, so it's not logically impossible. After all, consciousness is not one and the same with the arrangement of atoms.

There is a small problem there and it has nothing to do with logic. It has more to do with what exists and what doesn’t exist.

I explained it to people in another thread. I will do it here since I love explaining this:
1. Let’s say I have a CD of Win XP. The CD is made of polycarbonate plastic with its aluminium layer, with its pits.
Is the CD Win XP? Or is the CD polycarbonate plastic with its aluminium layer.
What if I melt down the CD. Where did Win XP go?
Does Win XP still exist or did I destroy it? Did it obey the law of conservation of information?

All the atoms are still there. Law of conservation of matter.

In other words, software is not a physical thing.

When you load the contents of that CD into a computer, physical processes occur whereby eventually the OS UI for XP is then displayed on the screen. Now what part exactly is Windows XP does not ultimately matter. However you define Windows XP, whether in an abstract sense or by equating it to the UI on the screen or even the contents of the CD, there is no "hard problem" here.

Quote:2.  Let’s say I have a book about Mickey Mouse.
The book contains a lot of pages with words.
The words are printed (printing machine ink).
What if I melt down the book. Where did the story about Mickey Mouse go?

Can the story exist without the paper and ink? If yes, where is the story and what is it doing?

All the atoms are still there. Law of conservation of matter.

Simplistically speaking, the story exactly as depicted in the book went along with the book. But that's because we are applying the label "story" to the contents of that book (the collection of words and expressions that help us to understand the settings, the plot, and such). And once again, there is no "hard problem" here.

Quote:3. I melt you down. What happens to your consciousness?
If it still exists, where are you and what are you doing?

All the atoms are still there. Law of conservation of matter.

Depends on what the exact relationship between brain and consciousness is. I would say that it most probably fades away with the brain.

But not sure now what the exact point you were trying to make here?

Seems like you were trying to make the case that consciousness is like Windows XP and story in the previous two illustrations? But I don't agree that those two analogies hold, for reasons I already stated earlier.

Quote:
Quote:What does it mean for my experiences to be insufficent? If it's out there in my face, it's an experience I'm having. And that's all that takes to know I'm having an experience. Sure, I could be vividly seeing more stuff than I am right now, but I'm still vividly seeing stuff.

How do you think of consciousness? For you, is it a binary thing. You either have conscious or not?

Or maybe you think of it as something gradual. So, right now, you are at level 1 and you experience the flavor of glucose and you love it. Then, you want twice as much glucose and you are at level 2 and you are experience a lot more. Then, you gain the ability to taste salt and you are at level 20. Then, you have the ability to feel temperature and now you are at level 50.

What do you mean by "experience the flavor" (at level 1)? I just want to be clear we're not conflating first-person perspective kind of experience with experience in the third-person sense. Am I, at level 1, experiencing the flavor in a first-person perspective?

As to your question, I would say gradual, but so long as we're clear that we're not conflating different senses of consciousness.

Quote:
Quote:Even if consciousness is based on a certain circuit or program, it's clearly not the same as that circuit or program. They're qualitatively two different things. Consciousness is not an abstract label we're applying to circuitry.

So, if we have an electric current in a circuit and I connect an ammeter, the meter measures a current of 5 A.
The 5 A is not the electrons going through the wire. 5 A is a representation.
So yes, 5 A and the electrons going through the wire are 2 different things.

Great, so it's just a label of measurement we apply to the activity of the electrons. No hard problem.

Quote:Consciousness must be something that you are applying to something.
If your goal is to find consciousness, then you have to know what you are looking for.
If you aren’t looking for a circuit, then what are you looking for?
(Note: I’m not saying that all circuits have consciousness.)

You already see it (as you alluded to in prior post). That's consciousness. Also, take care not to beg the question in favor of scientism.

Quote:
Quote:As far as the adding is concerned, this is the work of the hardware in your example.

No one's saying that the ability to add is inexplicable. So I'm not sure this is a good example.

You seem to think consciousness is a label we apply to the activity of specific circuitry, in the same way you can point to specific circuitry and say "that's addition". That's not the case.

Well, I suppose that the consciousness can do addition. Do you think that consciousness can perform addition operations? Or is that ability only reserved to the hardware side?

Well, it doesn't seem like consciousness is required for addition.

Quote:I think that is one of the main questions:
Which jobs that the consciousness do? Which jobs are handled by the brain?:
1. Storing memories of your childhood (brain or consciousness?)
2. Waking up in the morning (brain or consciousness?)
3. Taking the signal coming from the optic nerves and processing it, segmenting components, identifying objects (brain or consciousness?)
4. Feeling that the self exists (brain or consciousness?)
5. Feeling love (brain or consciousness?)
6. Appreciating beautiful poetry (brain or consciousness?)

I would say that with the exception of 4 (though I'm not too sure and need to think about this better), none of these items require consciousness. But it depends on what you mean by such things as "feeling love" and "appreciating". After all, a chat bot can easily be programmed to feel, or at least act like they're feeling. But it's a very superficial sense of the word that is qualitatively different from the phenomenal sense. Expressing words of love is different from the "I can feel my heart beating really fast" kind of love.

Quote:Is there a location where the consciousness is plugged into the brain? Can it be disengaged?

We don't know the full picture. That's the challenge. What is going on exactly when we experience the things that we do in a way that it seems difficult (maybe almost impossible, if not impossible) to directly code into a typical computer program?

(January 21, 2022 at 4:39 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And a robot with an appropriate optical aparatus would also detect the colors, shapes, and structures. It would also be able to process the scene from a (computed) other point of view.

Words cause a lot of confusion, especially when it comes to debating the topic of consciousness.

What do you mean by "detect" and "point of view" here? Do you mean in a first-person kind of sense? If so, sure, I'll grant that it's possible. But the hard problem is still there.

Quote:If you 'zoom in' on a digital picture, you do not get the detector, you get the information from that detector. That doesn't mean the picture wasn't produced from the activity of the detectors.

To be able to 'see' corresponds to activity in the visual cortex of your brain. The 'pixels' come from the different receptors in the eye, so there is a limit to which you can 'zoom' that is dictated by the structure of the eye. So, yes, you *do* get the information from individual receptors in the eye when you zoom in enough. These receptors link to neurons to send the information to the brain.

This is very similar to the way you get a single pixel corresponding to a single detector in a digital camera.

So, yes, in that sense you *do* get photoreceptors (in the eye) when you zoom in.

Ok, I'm confused.

Let's go back to the air analogy you brought up earlier.

Air is a mixture of gases. You zoom in and you get to see individual particles comprising the various gas molecules.

In the case of the image "in the brain", if you zoom in enough, you're saying you end up seeing photoreceptors. So therefore, when you say consciousness is the activity of the neurons, you do not mean that in the same sense as air being the mixture of gases or temperature being the average kinetic energy of molecules. You mean it in the sense that it is a product of the activity of the neurons but it is something else. Is that correct?

If so, let's go with that. How do you get the first-person projection "in your brain" happening as a result of the activity of the neurons?


Quote:
Quote:As for zombies, this above is an example of what they're lacking.

It seems to me that a zombie could do all of these things just as easily as anyone else with a brain.

By definition, per the thought experiment, it cannot.


Quote:
Quote:As for robots, they might experience qualia. I never said it's not possible for them.

in which case, I am even more confused.

What is stopping advanced robots from experiencing qualia? It is not by definition that robots lack such experiences.
Reply
RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
(January 21, 2022 at 9:40 pm)GrandizerII Wrote:
Quote:I think that is one of the main questions:
Which jobs that the consciousness do? Which jobs are handled by the brain?:
1. Storing memories of your childhood (brain or consciousness?)
2. Waking up in the morning (brain or consciousness?)
3. Taking the signal coming from the optic nerves and processing it, segmenting components, identifying objects (brain or consciousness?)
4. Feeling that the self exists (brain or consciousness?)
5. Feeling love (brain or consciousness?)
6. Appreciating beautiful poetry (brain or consciousness?)

I would say that with the exception of 4 (though I'm not too sure and need to think about this better), none of these items require consciousness. But it depends on what you mean by such things as "feeling love" and "appreciating". After all, a chat bot can easily be programmed to feel, or at least act like they're feeling. But it's a very superficial sense of the word that is qualitatively different from the phenomenal sense. Expressing words of love is different from the "I can feel my heart beating really fast" kind of love.  

And if the circuitry is detecting and processing the 'feeling of love', then it *is* the feeling of love in the first person.

Quote:
Quote:Is there a location where the consciousness is plugged into the brain? Can it be disengaged?

We don't know the full picture. That's the challenge. What is going on exactly when we experience the things that we do in a way that it seems difficult (maybe almost impossible, if not impossible) to directly code into a typical computer program?

I really don't see what's supposed to be impossible about this. It happens to one individual, so it is first person for that individual and third person for others.

Quote:
(January 21, 2022 at 4:39 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And a robot with an appropriate optical aparatus would also detect the colors, shapes, and structures. It would also be able to process the scene from a (computed) other point of view.

Words cause a lot of confusion, especially when it comes to debating the topic of consciousness.

What do you mean by "detect" and "point of view" here? Do you mean in a first-person kind of sense? If so, sure, I'll grant that it's possible. But the hard problem is still there.

Where is the hard problem. Yes, it is first person from the point of view of the circuitry that detects things. I really don't see the issue.

Quote:
Quote:If you 'zoom in' on a digital picture, you do not get the detector, you get the information from that detector. That doesn't mean the picture wasn't produced from the activity of the detectors.

To be able to 'see' corresponds to activity in the visual cortex of your brain. The 'pixels' come from the different receptors in the eye, so there is a limit to which you can 'zoom' that is dictated by the structure of the eye. So, yes, you *do* get the information from individual receptors in the eye when you zoom in enough. These receptors link to neurons to send the information to the brain.

This is very similar to the way you get a single pixel corresponding to a single detector in a digital camera.

So, yes, in that sense you *do* get photoreceptors (in the eye) when you zoom in.

Ok, I'm confused.

Let's go back to the air analogy you brought up earlier.

Air is a mixture of gases. You zoom in and you get to see individual particles comprising the various gas molecules.

In the case of the image "in the brain", if you zoom in enough, you're saying you end up seeing photoreceptors.

No, I see the information from a single receptor. Just like if you zoom in on a digital picture, you get the information from a single detector.

Quote: So therefore, when you say consciousness is the activity of the neurons, you do not mean that in the same sense as air being the mixture of gases or temperature being the average kinetic energy of molecules. You mean it in the sense that it is a product of the activity of the neurons but it is something else. Is that correct?

I was pointing out that it is *logically possible* for air not to be a mixture. You seem to be focused on logical possibility as the standard.

The better analogy is that of temperature. There is no logical requirement that what we measure as temperature is the result of molecular motion. But, in fact, it is the *product* of molecular motion. Talking about temperature and talking about molecular motion are the *same thing* in our universe, just from different perspectives.

Analogously, the activity of neurons and consciousness is simply the same thing in this universe, but from different perspectives (that from the outside and that internally).
Quote:If so, let's go with that. How do you get the first-person projection "in your brain" happening as a result of the activity of the neurons?

It is first person in the brain because it is happening to that brain and not another (where it would be third person).

Quote:
Quote:It seems to me that a zombie could do all of these things just as easily as anyone else with a brain.

By definition, per the thought experiment, it cannot.

And the question is whether that thought experiment makes any sense at all. And, from what I have said, it seems less and less reasonable to think zombies are possible in this universe. And that means that consciousness is a physical phenomenon.

Quote:in which case, I am even more confused.

What is stopping advanced robots from experiencing qualia? It is not by definition that robots lack such experiences.[/quote]

And what is preventing the brains of supposed zombies from experiencing consciousness? The question is whether it is even possible to have the complex interactions that come from having a brain identical to a conscious human and still not have consciousness. From what I have seen, there is no way to prevent it and every reason to think it is necessary in this universe.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why are Christians so full of hate? I_am_not_mafia 183 16893 October 18, 2018 at 7:50 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Tell All Book Says Pat Robertson Full of Shit Minimalist 12 3521 September 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm
Last Post: Atheist73
  No Surprise, Here. Xtians Are Full of Shit. Minimalist 5 1186 August 4, 2017 at 12:31 am
Last Post: ComradeMeow
  Orthodox Christianity is Best Christianity! Annoyingbutnicetheist 30 6746 January 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Heaven is full of tapeworms Brakeman 15 4505 August 13, 2015 at 10:23 am
Last Post: orangebox21
  This holy water thing is full of shit! Esquilax 35 12069 March 20, 2015 at 6:55 pm
Last Post: Ravenshire
  Christianity vs Gnostic Christianity themonkeyman 12 8459 December 26, 2013 at 11:00 am
Last Post: pineapplebunnybounce
  Russian antisuicide forum which is full of shit feeling 6 2348 December 18, 2013 at 4:17 am
Last Post: feeling
  Moderate Christianity - Even More Illogical Than Fundamentalist Christianity? Xavier 22 18218 November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am
Last Post: Jacob(smooth)
  My debate in Christian Forums in full swing greneknight 99 38325 September 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Last Post: System of Solace



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)