On 7/26/2021 11:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 1:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data
point to work with, and there are an infinite number of ways
to draw a line through a single point.
/> Really? /
Yes really.
/> Do you really reject the theory that other people are conscious
in a way similar to you? /
No. As I've said more than once, I accept the theory that other people
are conscious but not for any scientific reason, not because it fits
the facts better than any other consciousness theory, but simply
because I could not function if I really thought I was the only
conscious being in the universe. The consciousness gurus want to
understand at the most fundamental level how consciousness works in
the same way that they understand how Newtonian physics works, and
that just ain't going to happen; they've made zero progress during the
last thousand years and I expect they'll make just as much in the next
thousand. Consciousness research is a bore, intelligence research is
where it's at.
/> There are certainly similarities of intelligence, including the
ways in which we a tricked by illusions and priming by words. I
think the "hard problem of consciousness" is made hard by this
kind insistence on incorrigible personal subjectivity which if it
were applied consistently would make all science impossible:/
That doesn't make any sense. Yes, if you're scientifically studying
objective realitylike physics or biology then personal subjectivityis
of no help and just gets in the way, but if you're studying personal
subjectivity then ... well ... you've got to study personal
subjectivity, and there is no way to do that objectively or
scientifically.
>///"Well I seem to have heard Bob say that the needle pointed to
2.23 but how do I know he meant the same thing that I do when I
see the needle point to 2.23."/
If I'm studying consciousness then I don't care what Bob says and I
don't care what Bob does, I only care what Bob feels, and there is no
way to do that scientificallywithout making unproven and unprovable
assumptions.
/> With sufficiently bizarre ancillary assumptions. You
apparently agree with Bruno that a blow to the head doesn't
eliminate consciousness thru a effect on your brain; it's merely a
discontinuity in the stream of experiences called "John K Clark"
and his brain is merely a construct of this stream. /
I don't agree with that, or maybe I do, I'm not sure becauseI don't
know what it means.I think John K Clark is the way matter behaves when
it is organized in a johnkclarkian way.
/> Do you think you could be conscious in the way you are without
language?/
Certainly not. My consciousness wouldn't be the same as it is nowif I
knew no language, and my consciousness would be different if mynative
language was Spanish rather than English too, or if I had been born in
Sweden rather than the USA.
/> Empiricists just look of a good enough theory./
That's the problem,ALL consciousness theories are good enough, they
all fit the facts equally well, choosing one is entirely a matter of
taste.
So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or is immortal
soul stuff are equally good theories? Both consistent with the fact
that alcohol affects consciousness...assuming it affects soul stuff?
And there is no arguing in matters of taste. And because objective
empiricism is of no help in understanding the fundamental nature of
consciousness, the field has not advanced one nanometer in the last
thousand years.
Now you're trying to move the goal post. Bruno says, with equal
justification, there's been no advancement in understanding the
/*fundamental*/ nature of matter in the last thousand years. Sure we've
got a lot of effective theories, but what is matter /*really*/? And
that's exactly my complaint about the "hard problem of consciousness".
If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a machine
that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what that brain was
consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then
people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it fundamentally?"
Brent
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
nn22
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZygSj5veYrEfgXSLoji6LhuVAb01i8R7zQ2Hhe4H8wA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZygSj5veYrEfgXSLoji6LhuVAb01i8R7zQ2Hhe4H8wA%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/996098bd-0740-4444-5632-60180466f0dd%40verizon.net.
