On Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:15 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 8:32 AM Terren Suydam <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *> John - do you have any response?* >> > > If you insist. > > >> It's not hard to make progress in consciousness research, it's >>>> impossible. >>>> >>> >>> *So we should ignore experiments where you stimulate the brain and the >>> subject reports experiencing some kind of qualia,* >>> >> > We should always pay attention to all relevant *BEHAVIOR**,* including > *BEHAVIOR* such as noises produced by the mouths of other people. > > >> >*Why doesn't that represent progress? * >>> >> > It may represent progress but not progress towards understanding > consciousness. > > > *Is it because you don't trust people's reports?* > > > Trust but verify. When you and I talk about consciousness I don't even > know if we're talking about the same thing; perhaps by your meaning of the > word I am not conscious, maybe I'm conscious by my meaning of the word but > not by yours, maybe my consciousness is just a pale pitiful thing compared > to the grand glorious awareness that you have and what you mean by the > word "consciousness". Maybe comparing your consciousness to mine is like > comparing a firefly to a supernova. Or maybe it's the other way around. > Neither of us will ever know. > > * > in an FMRI has lead to some interesting facts.* >>> >> > An FMRI may help us understand how the brain works and perhaps even how > intelligence works, but I think behavior will tell us twice as much as a > squiggle on a FMRI graph can about consciousness, and that would be > exactly twice as much unless we make use of the unproven and unprovable > axiom that intelligent behavior is a sign of consciousness. > > >> *> You seem to think progress can only mean being able to prove >>> conclusively how consciousness works.* >>> >> > I don't demand that consciousness researchers do anything as ambitious as > explaining how consciousness is produced, all I ask is a proof that I am > not the only conscious entity in the universe. But they can't even do > that and never will be able to. > Consciousness is not unique here. Nothing can be proved without assuming some theory and working within it. But how do we ever prove the theory itself is right? We can't. Even mathematicians face this problem in trying to prove 2+2=4. Any such proof will rely on a theory which itself cannot be proved. But this doesn't mean we can't develop theories of consciousness and gather empirical evidence for them. If we simulate brains in computers or develop functional brain scanners that measure individual neurons, we can answer questions about what makes a philosophers of mind talk about qualia or pose or answer questions about consciousness. Whatever it is that causes the philospher's brain to ask or talk about consciousness is consciousness. Having a complete causal trace of the brain doing these behaviors will finally allow us to make such an identification. Jason > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > . > > . > >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv39t6-uC6z55HBerygGSWPBMKZKEsNiX%3D3kQ7FVyfTLTw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv39t6-uC6z55HBerygGSWPBMKZKEsNiX%3D3kQ7FVyfTLTw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUi2OYtWFn05ko_gefQ%3D1ZSfkgE2strbEGHk3zZ4%2BKsWhA%40mail.gmail.com.
