Re: Is consciousness real?
Robert Ettinger wrote (in the FOR Deutsch List): > [...] >And yet again: There is no reason that we cannot (eventually) describe >subjective conditions in objective terms, and transfer feelings (qualia) >from >one person to another. It's not a question of self-reference or anything to >do with logical paradoxes--it's just biophysics. I partially agree with you. I believe you can "transfer qualia", and also that it is first (practically) biophysics. But, and *this* is linked to Cantor-Godel-Turing sort of diagonalisations (mathematical self-references) developped by many people like Benaceraff, Reinhardt, Wang, and myself too, although I believe you can transfer a quale, I don't believe you can transfer a quale *and* at the same time prove (to a third person) that the right quale has been transfered. I mean there will be a bet, there. To sum up you can transfer a quale (or even duplicate yourself) but not provably so. This is an important nuance IMO. With sufficiently precise form of the computationalist hypothesis you can prove that nuance. More correctly: you can prove that comp entails that nuance. This is done in http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal, (french thesis, short english paper) where you will find references. Short summary: I extract from the computationalist hypothesis (existence of a level such that I survive a substitution at that level) a "consciousness" theory from which I derive an explanation where the parallel worlds come from.(The worst is that I am serious :-)) Bruno
Re: Is consciousness real?
Ha ha Yeah I've been working on the same format of ideas as you mentioned. It's really fascinating. It's almost like there this is certain truth and it's literally right in front of our noses, but in addition it is very easy to miss this interesting truth. Martin Marcel. - Original Message - From: James Higgo (co.uk) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:58 PM Subject: Re: Is consciousness real? > That's quite a surprise: someone who understands what I said! > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:09 PM > Subject: Re: Is consciousness real? > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:08 PM > > Subject: Re: Is consciousness real? > > > > > > > James Higgo writes: > > > > Consciousness - a flow of related thoughts in time - does not exist, > any > > > > more than time itself exists. All that exists of 'you' is this very > > present > > > > thought. > > > > > > > > This simple view solves all known paradoxes of consciousness, fits > with > > what > > > > we know of the world, and is, incidentally, in concord with Buddhist > > > > philosophy. You can even be happy if you believe it; believing it > forces > > you > > > > to live in the present. > > > > > > This solves all the problems, does it? What about the question of > > > whether something, say an animal or a fetus, is conscious or not? > > > Should I treat conscious and unconscious entities the same? > > > > > > And if consciousness doesn't exist, does that mean suffering doesn't > > > exist either? Should we not care about slavery, torture and other > > > institutions that cause human suffering? > > > > > > I think you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. > > > > > > Hal > > > > > > Hal, > > Go back and re-read -EXACTLY- what James is saying. > > > > >All that exists of 'you' is this very present thought. > > > > Re-read it, look at it, contemplate it, meditate on it, think upon it, > dwell > > on it ...then tell me if this statement is true or false. > > > > Take care > > Martin. > > > > BTW ---IF you see the validity of this statement, you will move into an > > entirely different "universe" then you will ever have experienced in your > > life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Is consciousness real?
Jamikes wrote: > ... >They all make a living on ["consciousness"]. And: >Poor old Descartes (I esteem his genius to >the highest level) would have >made quite different conclusions had he had a >freshman's cours of the >2000/2001 schoolyear in physiology and >biology. (Pineal gland?) Either he would have remain sort of idol-deistic and then he would have substitute pineal gland by microtubul ... Or he would have follow its mechanist path, and ... ... would be sort of many-worlder :-) Now that I know that you belief in experiences like suffering, I know you belief in consciousness which I take minimaly as what is common in all experiences like suffering, enjoying, fearing, flying, ... What is called today "the problem of consciousness" is just a renaming of Descartes' "mind-body problem". I am not sanguin about the word "consciousness", nor on any words ... The mind-body problem is a very concrete one. I mean, with the developpement of technology, you can imagine some doctor proposing you an artificial digital brain. You can forget the word "consciousness" or even "mind". But your life, in the most intime way you can apprehend it, could depend on answering OK, or NOT OK, to the doctor. We cannot know the answer but we can reason from hypothesis and world conceptions. Bruno
Re: Is consciousness real?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:08 PM Subject: Re: Is consciousness real? > James Higgo writes: > > Consciousness - a flow of related thoughts in time - does not exist, any > > more than time itself exists. All that exists of 'you' is this very present > > thought. > > > > This simple view solves all known paradoxes of consciousness, fits with what > > we know of the world, and is, incidentally, in concord with Buddhist > > philosophy. You can even be happy if you believe it; believing it forces you > > to live in the present. > > This solves all the problems, does it? What about the question of > whether something, say an animal or a fetus, is conscious or not? > Should I treat conscious and unconscious entities the same? > > And if consciousness doesn't exist, does that mean suffering doesn't > exist either? Should we not care about slavery, torture and other > institutions that cause human suffering? > > I think you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. > > Hal Hal, Go back and re-read -EXACTLY- what James is saying. >All that exists of 'you' is this very present thought. Re-read it, look at it, contemplate it, meditate on it, think upon it, dwell on it ...then tell me if this statement is true or false. Take care Martin. BTW ---IF you see the validity of this statement, you will move into an entirely different "universe" then you will ever have experienced in your life.
Re: Is consciousness real?
Johnn Mikes wrote: >Consciousness is a historical noumenon of no content, an imaginary 'thing' >that does not exist. Consciousness is what makes pain painfull. It makes also conscience possible, and it makes the human right sensefull. If you have had one moment of joy or pain, I take it that you belief in consciousness, and that you are playing with words when you say it does not exists. (Although I agree it exists only in some second order sense, and I agree it is terribly difficult, if not impossible, to define). Like Descartes I believe that consciousness is a sort of fixed point of doubt (like consistency for sound machines is a fixed point of the non-provability predicate). But perhaps, John, you are not conscious, in which case I am loosing my time telling you that. Honestly I guess you are conscious, and I guess you want just provocate us. Consciousness is as real as suffering. You don't believe in suffering ? Bruno
