Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BTW: I cannot yet say exactly what the "new units of measurement" will need to be, but I can speculate this far: I suspect the new units will need to be holistically conceived dynamic patterns that are discovered at the level of neuroscience (the physical correlates of consciousness), but these patterns won't be just the usual physical units of measure defined over time. The newness of the concepts will stem from the fact that the units of measure will need to be defined in terms of the qualitative responses of subjects who undergo testing the process of finding the neural correlates. These qualitative responses - built in to the foundational definitions of the new concepts - are what will track back to fundamental physics.
that's right. "if" your brain state is "Xq" then your quali will be "Yq" +/- some reasonable error.
"holisristically conceived" = graph that matches observation. IE = Happy
yes, they will get back to physics but when back tracking quali may look different or even disappear. Like 'running" again, when you stop ... or take the legs apart ... there is no "running" seen.
They are still "out there" to be intercepted by ET's lightyears away. IOW they are in the unified field . . . not the TV station and not the TV set. The patterns that were transmitted may be captured on tape or DVR or DVD and can be played back . . . pretty much what our brains do with the consciousness we produce. That is why we live a "delayed broadcast" of our actual reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The analogy won't be exact, because that would have us producing mental patterns which we then project to be picked up by telepaths. Surely the analogy is that electricity exists all through the cosmos, sure, but it is the putting together into a meaningful image that takes place in the studio.
In the same way, though I haven't anything more than a vague groping idea of how, I am inclined to think that meaningful mental patterns (which I am sure are known to be electrical impulses) related to sensory information are produced in the mind.
Gaylen's point about conversion made me wonder why. I actually don't see why why the electrical particles that make up input, transmitted information, mental processing and the messages that get sent out, need to be converted to some other Thing in order to provide sensory experience (if that is the same thing as Qualia) It would certainly seem more productive to investigate how thought patterns can function as sensory experience than to look for something else.
I really do see the mind experiment of another world with critters that lack sensory experience as proving anything about consciousness in this worls of ours any more that a world where a race of critters lacked hair, arms or body oudour. To say that this is logically possible and that isn't stuck me as pretty arbitrary.
I remain to be convinced otherwise.
The "energy composite" that is your "electrical pattern" underlying our conscious awareness exists as a "resonant neural field" phenomenon. Like the EM radiation that comprises the content of the TV program . . . the "resonant neural field" composite comprises the content of our consciousness (probably as dark energy/matter radiation instead of EM radiation). Both phenomena exist within the unified field and NOT in the "material" that produced them.
The "energy composite" that is your "electrical pattern" underlying our conscious awareness exists as a "resonant neural field" phenomenon. Like the EM radiation that comprises the content of the TV program . . . the "resonant neural field" composite comprises the content of our consciousness (probably as dark energy/matter radiation instead of EM radiation). Both phenomena exist within the unified field and NOT in the "material" that produced them.
Yes, of course. I should have realized that was how the analogy went. I supposed that I am obliged to say, (in order to remove all doubt) that I am unconvinced of your theory of conscious consciousness through the medium (probably) of dark matter.
Of course if and when we get to grips with it, who knows what we might find out about dark matter, though disproving consciousness in it would probably be hard and would leave your synthesis at least undisproved for a good long time.
The "energy composite" that is your "electrical pattern" underlying our conscious awareness exists as a "resonant neural field" phenomenon. Like the EM radiation that comprises the content of the TV program . . . the "resonant neural field" composite comprises the content of our consciousness (probably as dark energy/matter radiation instead of EM radiation). Both phenomena exist within the unified field and NOT in the "material" that produced them.
And there you go back to your "appeal to dark matter" argument - where when you have no evidence you wave your hands and vaguely cite dark matter or dark energy. When asked to back up your claims - you explicitly refer to evidence you simply do not have.
We have _no idea_ what dark matter or energy are. We call them "matter" and "energy" arbitrarily for little reason. Some scientists do not use either of those terms and use instead "Dark Gravity". Still others refuse to use any label that references things we already do know about and measure like energy, gravity or matter.
We simply have no idea what it is _at all_ yet you wave your hands around these buzz words to make a case for the baseless contentions you want to make about the nature of consciousness.
Unified is explained. Sure its merky and there are other valid stances today. But we need to stay in the valid alternatives. Weather we understand it or not is another thing. That's where honesty comes in. Of course the forum setting is the worst place for that thing "honest" to exist. Agenda's and good writers are bountiful. Where a poster can just yell out "so you say" and all the little midgets pile on as if it makes the points more valid. Or the famous tactic when the limits of understanding are past "you spelled "it" wrong". Then MP's show up again. MP = miget pile.
Gray did a good, very good, job explaining herself. She passes the Phd for me. As she learns more about things she will adjust her theory to match observation. Then I will agree with her more (right now I agree with the base idea). Now, all she has the pieces scattered about, they just have to fit now without using a hammer. And it can be done quickly if done gently.
Unified is explained. Sure its merky and there are other valid stances today. But we need to stay in the valid alternatives. Weather we understand it or not is another thing. That's where honesty comes in. Of course the forum setting is the worst place for that thing "honest" to exist. Agenda's and good writers are bountiful. Where a poster can just yell out "so you say" and all the little midgets pile on as if it makes the points more valid. Or the famous tactic when the limits of understanding are past "you spelled "it" wrong". Then MP's show up again. MP = miget pile.
Gray did a good, very good, job explaining herself. She passes the Phd for me. As she learns more about things she will adjust her theory to match observation. Then I will agree with her more (right now I agree with the base idea). Now, all she has the pieces scattered about, they just have to fit now without using a hammer. And it can be done quickly if done gently.
Ohh sht....sorry A, I didn't see your post and went and erased mine on the way to doing something else, will be reading along later. Sometimes it can appear too critical and thought maybe things could be re worded re Mystics entry.
Last edited by Sophronius; 11-27-2014 at 12:01 PM..
Sorry. I certainly had the impression at the start of this 'hard question' debate a long time ago that Chalmer's dualism was what you were convinced of....
I suspect you've probably been misunderstanding Chalmers. His central idea is that reductive materialism is rooted in conceptual confusion and cannot be correct. He discusses various alternatives (idealism, panpsychism, non-reductive physicalism, substance dualism, and various sorts of property dualism), and he ends up with a slight preference for the idea that some sort of property dualism is most likely to be true. I think that his ideas and mine are fairly close, although, I have to admit, Chalmers himself didn't seem to see the similarities when I met him a few years ago at a conference. He ended up suggesting that I should go hang out with Galen Strawson and the panpsychists (which is exactly what I did end up doing, since Strawson was at the conference too). But I don't really see myself as a panpsychist. Maybe I was moreso back then, but my ideas have evolved a lot since then. Anyway, neither of us favors substance dualism, but even property dualism freaks people out - which is something I find odd. But I know there are a lot of difficult concepts to deal with.
You are probably quite right (and Mystic, too) this is over my head and I do misunderstand. yet the same relevant-to -topic point is there. Unless this is in some way proving that consciousness is so removed from the nuts and bolts of matter and is so ineffably spiritual that we could never get it onto a floppy disk and slot it into a machine and:
that this implies that a model for the universe, its nature, workings, origins and substance being best explained by the physical working of natural laws of matter (including energy, which is made of particles) is wrong and that the materialist default is invalid and something More (aka "God") is to be accorded the position of an a priori assumption in the religion debate (and it would be dishonest to pretend that, for me, this discussion is really about anything else)
then the whole subject, fascinating though it is (and I am not being sarcastic) is somewhat academic and I should better direct my efforts to street -fighting with the minions of organized religion.
If, however it is (as I suggested) saying something in philosophical terms that is making some comment on or objection to the idea that consciousness in the real world (pardon me ) is to be sought in the matter, neural pathways and electrical impulses of the mind and not in dark matter, aether or revelation from the mind of God, then it all seems to not sequitur very convincingly and in practical terms sounds as dead wrong as Zeno's arrow.
I suspect you've probably been misunderstanding Chalmers. His central idea is that reductive materialism is rooted in conceptual confusion and cannot be correct. He discusses various alternatives (idealism, panpsychism, non-reductive physicalism, substance dualism, and various sorts of property dualism), and he ends up with a slight preference for the idea that some sort of property dualism is most likely to be true. I think that his ideas and mine are fairly close, although, I have to admit, Chalmers himself didn't seem to see the similarities when I met him a few years ago at a conference. He ended up suggesting that I should go hang out with Galen Strawson and the panpsychists (which is exactly what I did end up doing, since Strawson was at the conference too). But I don't really see myself as a panpsychist. Maybe I was moreso back then, but my ideas have evolved a lot since then. Anyway, neither of us favors substance dualism, but even property dualism freaks people out - which is something I find odd. But I know there are a lot of difficult concepts to deal with.
have I no idea why one would label themselves any of these philosophies. How about labeling oneself as deciding how things work based on what is known or works best under the conditions they are under. Or my personal favorite, one that picks a possible solution that fits most of the conditions possible based on real observations
I haven't seen one real tough philosophical agreement yet, in 30 years. I seen people make them convoluted to fit some warped world views, but none that aren't easily seen through. What freaks me out is how philosophers can root a belief some deep that they ignore what the real data is revealing. or make speculations based in or anchored with what they don't know.
Chalmers "reductive reasoning rooted in confusion" is a joke. Who would ever take a guy that far off serously?
Unless this is in some way proving that consciousness is so removed from the nuts and bolts of matter and is so ineffably spiritual that we could never get it onto a floppy disk and slot it into a machine and...
As I've said before, I believe that we will be building conscious machines in the future (perhaps even the fairly near future - maybe even within the 2030 timeframe suggested by those who speculate about the "Singularity"), but if my proposal about the nature of consciousness is correct, it will not be possible to "give" consciousness to machine - consciousness is not the sort of thing that can be programmed into a machine; it is not the sort of thing that can be saved on a disk or downloaded from the internet. If I am right, consciousness is the sort of thing that needs to evolve and/or be "grown" from some appropriate physical "seeds". In other words, to build a conscious machine will mean designing an appropriate system that is capable of self-organizing into an embodied, goal-oriented system that behaves in accordance with values that depend on the goals that are inherent within the system.
This does not mean that we could not also design bigger, faster, fancier computers that give intelligent responses to inputs - but these fancy computers (basically just super-fancy input/output machines) will not be conscious, and they will probably never exhibit the sort of intellectual width, depth, and creativity that can be achieved by conscious machines. Of course this will remain to be seen. It is possible that simulated intelligence will be able to match the power conscious intelligence, but I suspect that it won't. But, in any case, I suspect that someday there will be a blending of incredible non-conscious and conscious machines - probably in a transhuman future where the line between "human" and "machine" becomes so blurred that it becomes irrelevant, except that the human/machine hybrids will, presumably, be of the conscious variety.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) is to be sought in the matter, neural pathways and electrical impulses of the mind and not in dark matter, aether or revelation from the mind of God, then it all seems to not sequitur very convincingly and in practical terms sounds as dead wrong as Zeno's arrow.
