Furthermore, suppose it is just P1 that is required? What is it about P1 that allows something to come into being that just doesn't seem to fit with cosmology and physics. In other words, can you reconcile how physics (in its ultimate form) could essentially explain everything and yet not predict consciousness?
Our current understanding of physics is incomplete and cannot predict many emergent phenomenon. From my reading, Chalmer's thinks that consciousness is a special case because it can not be directly observed by a third party. Is that why Chalmers thinks consciousness is a special case? Maybe you're right. Please elaborate. |
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, suppose it is just P1 that is required? What is it about P1 that allows something to come into being that just doesn't seem to fit with cosmology and physics. In other words, can you reconcile how physics (in its ultimate form) could essentially explain everything and yet not predict consciousness?
|
|
|
|
I have admittedly only read two of chalmer's summary papers. But neither addressed my point (unless I misunderstood his characterizations of reductionists) why is there something, rather than nothing? That's actually a question independent of consciousness, although, as you're interpreting it, can also be used to address why consciousness exists. This is the main point I gathered. He believes there is no reason to think consciousness necessarily arises from a complex system (ie a brain). Well, we have a sample of n=1 system as complex as a human brain that can communicate consciousness in a way we understand, and this system displays consciousness. From this data we can gather that physical processes can lead to consciousness, but say nothing about the likelihood of this. He proposes that these physical processes may not always lead to consciousness, but this is based off no data. It is entirely plausible that a system like the brain always results in consciousness.
Again, you're simplifying observations made by Chalmers, and then answering questions with answers that you think are satisfactory. Consider this: Which physical processes give rise to consciousness, and whatever they are, let's call them P1. Does P1 alone give rise to consciousness, or does it require P1 + P2 to give rise to consciousness? So, it would help to know what P1 is exactly, and it would help to know if there is a P2 that is also required. Sort of Philosophy of Mind's Dark Energy, so to speak. |
|
|
|
This is observable fact, and all of the "Hard Questions" are ultimately different approaches to determining why the distribution of energy is non-uniform. Some theories rely on the idea (chalmers) that information is as/more fundamental than distribution of energy.
This is simply not true. Consider both the Hard Problem and the following "Hard Question": why is there something, rather than nothing? A uniform distribution of energy, either within a finite space, or infinite, would seem to be something, rather than nothing. With regard to the Hard Problem, it is not the question as to what information is. Sadly, you're again committing the same errors you've committed in the past. That is to say, you're mining papers for nuggets of information to give what you believe is an understanding of a topic. Those topics would be Chalmer's view on consciousness, and climate change and how man influences it in different ways, and how climate change affects life on Earth. Did I mention that you should read some books? Try these: The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory by David Chalmers The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson The Dominant Animal by Paul Ehrlich |
|
|
|
Star Trek transporters:
The transporters are designed to only use the energy from the vaporization to prevent the creation of multiple replicates. Of course this fails when you see people being transported from locations without transports, an external source of energy would be needed to accomplish this feat... but you could still design it to only have access to enough energy to replicate one person. I guess things could go wrong, especially when transporting more than one person, but whatever... it's star trek. The biology technobabble drives me crazy, they could have just paid a biologist some small amount of money to consult rather than have the characters spout nonsense to millions of people. I guess it wasn't worth it since most people just don't care either way.
Energy input is irrelevant. One could just as well discuss the teleporters in the lab of Jeff Goldblum's character in The Fly. The point is, given a perfectly good transporter (not one which mixes your DNA with a fly's DNA), would you use the transporter? As for the rest of what you said, in time... Yep if they got the error down to less than what occurs in an hour it would be worth it. Maybe even a day or a couple months of error. Star trek never explored this but the error could make you smarter, it is more likely accelerate the slow dying process though. But look at how many people play the lottery... So you would submit yourself to being killed? I'm assuming then that you equate teleportation to that of waking up in the morning, or more accurately, the idea that every moment of your life is like being killed and reborn, where your current state is only related to your prior state because you have the memory of the prior state. |
|
|
|
My understanding of Chalmers is based on reading this and this. Your exposure to Chalmers is limited. Let's call this fact A. Basically, I disagree with him because he does not really consider why we accept other fundamental concepts (instead he accepts them without requiring an explanation of "why")...
See fact A, above. Why would you assume this? ... and he ignores that the ineffability of experience may be due to the serial structure of language rather than that consciousness arises due to fundamental aspects of our universe (more degrees of freedom in response to changes in surroundings -> higher consciousness). From this we can gather that limitations on communication make it impossible to describe your experiances to an entity that is either more or less conscious than you. If every "conscious" entity is different in some way, then consciousness is indeed ineffable.
Conscious experience does not defy description. It is in fact quite easy to relate one's experience to another. Do not confuse sharing of experience with understanding the causal relationships which give rise to consciousness. |
|
|
|
Star Trek transporters:
The transporters are designed to only use the energy from the vaporization to prevent the creation of multiple replicates. Of course this fails when you see people being transported from locations without transports, an external source of energy would be needed to accomplish this feat... but you could still design it to only have access to enough energy to replicate one person. I guess things could go wrong, especially when transporting more than one person, but whatever... it's star trek. The biology technobabble drives me crazy, they could have just paid a biologist some small amount of money to consult rather than have the characters spout nonsense to millions of people. I guess it wasn't worth it since most people just don't care either way.
Energy input is irrelevant. One could just as well discuss the teleporters in the lab of Jeff Goldblum's character in The Fly. The point is, given a perfectly good transporter (not one which mixes your DNA with a fly's DNA), would you use the transporter? As for the rest of what you said, in time... |
|
|
|
|
I must not be in on the 'know' or something, as I don't get how this is interesting.
- Either it's a joke, and boring.
- Or it's real, and who cares, because it doesn't affect anybody, because it has no bite.
- Or it's real, and who cares, because I'm sure your average coffee server never got the memo.
Summary: bunch of anti-government people on a libertarian forum either have their inside jokes, or they go around and get all up in arms over non events.
|
|
|
|
This is what is wrong with your methods. You apply the same methodology to your understanding of climate change. Stop looking for passages relevant to what you are looking for. You're not going to prove anything to anyone, least of all yourself, by applying selective choice to your assimilation of knowledge.
Reading Chalmers (or books on climate change) is not an endeavor engaged in for the purpose of answering some specific and most likely ill defined question that you have posed to yourself. Instead, it's about gaining an invisible companion for ten or so hours, as he or she tells you stories and shares with you their thought processes, in a complete argument which is greater than the sum of the parts. Well at least we are both consistent.  I think your way of understanding is faulty, you think mine is. To each their own I guess. I would say that you are also applying selective choice in assimilating knowledge. It is a necessary problem due to having a limited time on this earth. The real choice is how to spend it. I choose to focus on how data/arguments fit in my schema and accommodate when the schema no longer works, you seem to assess complete arguments and assimilate them into your schema according to "what satisfies you". Both of us probably dabble in the other (I know I do). And you are right, Chalmer's would only have so much patience with me. I am the same with others with regards to "alkaline diets" and "sub-clinical candidiasis," etc. That is why it is best to figure out the exact source of disagreement ASAP. If it is based on trusting authority or consensus, then most likely we will be wasting our time arguing about logical sounding narratives and ambiguous/misunderstood definitions. I probably will read chalmers one day though. Fair enough. The only real problem I have with the above is this: That is why it is best to figure out the exact source of disagreement ASAP. If it is based on trusting authority or consensus, then most likely we will be wasting our time arguing about logical sounding narratives and ambiguous/misunderstood definitions.
Complex concepts (ecosystems, climate change, philosophy of mind, etc.) are topics which are understood through illustration of numerous subtopics, examples and explanations which are best absorbed by fully reading a treatise articulated by an expert within the field. Your mining of such texts for particular phrases really leaves you no wiser. Once you've read the following, you'll be in a better position to understand and dissect the information. I recommend the following books: The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory - David Chalmers Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness - Daniel Dennett The Future of Life - Edward O. Wilson The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth - Tim Flannery The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment - Paul Ehrlich |
|
|
|
Rather than searching through his work for the passages relevant to what I have said, it would be easier (for me) if you addressed them directly.
This is what is wrong with your methods. You apply the same methodology to your understanding of climate change. Stop looking for passages relevant to what you are looking for. You're not going to prove anything to anyone, least of all yourself, by applying selective choice to your assimilation of knowledge. Reading Chalmers (or books on climate change) is not an endeavor engaged in for the purpose of answering some specific and most likely ill defined question that you have posed to yourself. Instead, it's about gaining an invisible companion for ten or so hours, as he or she tells you stories and shares with you their thought processes, in a complete argument which is greater than the sum of the parts. If I was talking to Chalmer's would he tell me to just read his books?
He would only have so much patience with you, and be more than right when he says he has limited time, given that you just made that claim yourself. Respect others. Your claim about limited time is a little hypocritical. If his response to my specific claims would be so complex as to require a book-length response, then I have to say it is probably convoluted. If you simply don't feel like putting forth the effort to explain it, then ok.
I enjoy discussion. But that discussion becomes more enjoyable when the other party finally realizes that there is a treasure trove of wonderful information out there that deserves to be consumed in whole, rather than in snippets. Furthermore, technical articles on the subject become more useful and meaningful (and I mean snippets and phrases as well) when one has read whole primers on the subject first. On biodiversity, read: Edward O. Wilson John Terborgh Dave Foreman On climate change, read: Tim Flannery Paul Ehrlich On consciousness, read: David Chalmers John Searle Douglas Hofstadter Daniel Dennett |
|
|
|
That is not evidence, it is a list of systems with large numbers of degrees of freedom. I am interested in the ideas of others, but learn best when I am able to ask questions. You are here and seem to have taken the time to understand these philosophers, they are not accessible to me.
I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted when you think that I should help you understand these difficult topics when at the same time you dispute and nitpick what I say. I'll say it again. Read Chalmers. He's not just some random book author on the subject. And that's a major understatement. |
|
|
|
3. The timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. Do these phenomena explain consciousness?[/b]
-You are making the assumption that the timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. We need to address why this assumption was made.
Without addressing anything else you have said at this point in time, let's clarify: Without regard to the method of information transmission, is it strictly the timing and structure of the information flow independent of the physical process which facilitates it which gives rise to conscious experience? Is there any evidence that the timing and structure of the information flow is independent of physical processes? How does this evidence compare to the evidence that it is dependent? We're back to panpsychism, Chinese populations, economies, silicon neurons, Turing machines, and Chinese Rooms. I think your synopsis and analysis of the problem and suggestions for methods are premature given your general lack of knowledge regarding discussion on the subject, notably the concepts listed in the first sentence of this paragraph. Read Chalmers, Searle, Hofstadter, and others. |
|
|
|
A summary of the book: What is consciousness? How do physical processes in the brain give rise to the self-aware mind and to feelings as profoundly varied as love or hate, aesthetic pleasure or spiritual yearning? These questions today are among the most hotly debated issues among scientists and philosophers, and we have seen in recent years superb volumes by such eminent figures as Francis Crick, Daniel C. Dennett, Gerald Edelman, and Roger Penrose, all firing volleys in what has come to be called the consciousness wars. Now, in The Conscious Mind, philosopher David J. Chalmers offers a cogent analysis of this heated debate as he unveils a major new theory of consciousness, one that rejects the prevailing reductionist trend of science, while offering provocative insights into the relationship between mind and brain.
Writing in a rigorous, thought-provoking style, the author takes us on a far-reaching tour through the philosophical ramifications of consciousness. Chalmers convincingly reveals how contemporary cognitive science and neurobiology have failed to explain how and why mental events emerge from physiological occurrences in the brain. He proposes instead that conscious experience must be understood in an entirely new light--as an irreducible entity (similar to such physical properties as time, mass, and space) that exists at a fundamental level and cannot be understood as the sum of its parts. And after suggesting some intriguing possibilities about the structure and laws of conscious experience, he details how his unique reinterpretation of the mind could be the focus of a new science. Throughout the book, Chalmers provides fascinating thought experiments that trenchantly illustrate his ideas. For example, in exploring the notion that consciousness could be experienced by machines as well as humans, Chalmers asks us to imagine a thinking brain in which neurons are slowly replaced by silicon chips that precisely duplicate their functions--as the neurons are replaced, will consciousness gradually fade away? The book also features thoughtful discussions of how the author's theories might be practically applied to subjects as diverse as artificial intelligence and the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
All of us have pondered the nature and meaning of consciousness. Engaging and penetrating, The Conscious Mind adds a fresh new perspective to the subject that is sure to spark debate about our understanding of the mind for years to come.
|
|
|
|
3. The timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. Do these phenomena explain consciousness?[/b]
-You are making the assumption that the timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. We need to address why this assumption was made.
Without addressing anything else you have said at this point in time, let's clarify: Without regard to the method of information transmission, is it strictly the timing and structure of the information flow independent of the physical process which facilitates it which gives rise to conscious experience? |
|
|
|
Although you could assume that it's your right to use violence against an intruder to your dwelling, it's not the same situation when you have invited them as a guest, knowing in advance what they would demand. If I invite my leech of a brother-in-law to stay in my basement for 2 weeks knowing full well that he'll want to stay there for 9 months, I have the right to evict him, even if he'll die because of it. You have that right because either the state upholds said law, or, within the context of no state, you have that right because you're confident you can overpower him and keep him out. In the former, you are under the umbrella of laws in which eviction is legal, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether the destruction of a fetus is legal or fair. In the latter, it's pointless to compare them, as it's mostly just a matter of how you personally choose to behave. |
|
|
|
I am somewhat familiar with philosophical zombies and turing machines. I just learn best by asking questions... So, with regards to experience: Would you say "experience is the result of physical processes"?
That is the 64 million dollar question. The short answer is: yes. The long answer: 1. Can we say that experience is strictly the result of physical processes, or is it the result of physical processes and some other component/layer/plane of the Universe that we don't know about? 2. Can we say that all physical processes give rise to experience, or only some types. i.e. is calcium a required component? 3. Is experience not tied to physical processes at all, but the timing of information transmission and in certain amounts at certain frequencies? More information about what is happening physically inside the brain is unlikely to yield satisfying answers. More information will tell us how better to correlate physical brain processes to experience (i.e. consciousness, qualia and experience), but it will not answer the big question without a revolutionary theory, in my opinion. Is consciousness a fundamental property of the Universe - something which exists and is ready to manifest when the proper physical structure and events occur? If so, what is that fundamental property? |
|
|
|
Any Turing machine (serial) could replicate all of the above, to any degree desired. Memory is the only limitation. Sorry for the multiple posts... Anyway, please explain this further. Turing machines (and the concept of Turing completeness) are fundamental concepts within the fields of computer science and mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completenessQualia refers to the accompanied experience of the way things seem which correlates to different processes occurring within the brain - typically a distributed activation of a subset of the brain's neurons. Also, are you claiming that experience is not a physical process? If so, then this is the ambiguous definition we now need to argue about. Physical processes are just that: tires rolling down the road, lightning strikes, soil erosion, breathing, photons hitting cells in you eyes, neurons firing. It is not appropriate to discuss consciousness within the context of those processes. Accept them for what they are: physical processes. Qualia is the experience you seem to have inside your mind - the constant streaming movie and awareness of your life that you are witness to. Do not confuse the experience of seeing red with the physical process of your brain processing the event precipitated by photons of the red wavelength hitting your eyes. Qualia is the experience which accompanies the physical process inside your brain. It is not the physical processes that are happening within your brain. I cannot stress enough the importance of becoming familiar with the concept of Philosophical Zombies at this point. |
|
|
|
You think that predator-prey relationship is necessary for life on Earth.
Yes, as life has evolved, not as it might have evolved given different conditions billions of years ago. If you disagree, feel free to explain. You think people who torture animals are sick.
Yes. They are either mentally sick, or just plain mean fuckers. Do you disagree? Your conclusion is, killing of animals can't be wrong (or not an ethical question at all) because it's a natural necessity, but torturing of animals is bad because it is a gateway to antisocial behavior.
Incorrect. Killing of animals can be wrong. Consider the mean fucker who kills animals for fun. Is this too difficult for you? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
