Have you ever seen Crouching Holo Hidden Donna?No problema. I assumed that's what it was. Also, I secretly liked it.
Near Death and Out of Body Experiences
- Thread starter zengirl
- Start date
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Even us second-stringers get the occasional moment in the limelight. Like in Star Trek, when Ensign Jenkins actually got to fire his blaster once.
And then died.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Now that I have access to an actual keyboard...
Strawmanning.
Lack of understanding of words used.
Equivocation between lack of operational definition ("consciousness is activity X occurring in the brain") and standard definition ("consciousness is self-awareness").
Bare assertion and personal incredulity.
Flatly wrong. Likely based on a complete lack of understanding of what is actually being said by the Wikipedia article on Christof Koch:
Koch does not regard consciousness as an "extra-corporeal generic reality", which is a meaningless phrase. He regards it as an emergent property of certain systems, and theorizes that it is present in more systems than most would readily admit.
So it is either a straw man or a complete lack of reading ability. Either way, wrong.
The above is referring to me, as annnnoid seems to be unable to resist the chance to offer digs even when ostensibly ignoring me. Regardless, this is also wrong.
For those who missed it and are wondering, the statement was "anything that behaves exactly in every situation as though it is conscious is conscious". This is not contentious; this is just what "is" means.
I never claimed to have any list of behaviors, nor is the presentation of such a list required for the argument to stand. It is the equivalent of saying "anything that behaves exactly in every situation as though it is blue is blue". It's not an argument. It's a fact. It's what the words mean.
Aside from that, the fact that there is no agreed-upon list of required characteristics for consciousness is irrelevant. Not only is that list being actively worked upon by such researchers as the aforementioned Koch, the fact that the list has some blanks on it as of now does not open the door to magic, as annnnoid would have it.
Can I call 'em, or can I call 'em?
This also gets into the definition of "is" mentioned above, which is why annnnoid (and others who attempt to inject woo into such things) contest it. The example given contained a person who was, in every way, acting exactly as though he were undergoing a completely mundane neurological phenomenon, but annnnoid wants to be able to say that he was "really" experiencing something else.
In this case, the word "really" loses all meaning. There is no functional definition of the word "is" in which that man could be said to experience anything supernatural.
It's just word games.
Lack of understanding of burden of proof. Lack of understanding of fallibility.
Playing games with the definition of "valid".
Failure to understand the definition of "is". Science can necessarily "adjudicate" (another of his favorite meaningful meaningless words) everything that exists, since science is just rationality and observation combined; if something exists, it is by definition detectable and thus can be scientifically studied.
No, it is pointed out to you repeatedly because it renders those questions moot in this context.
That is a very, very easy question.
And yet you pretend that there is no answer.
This is not a fact and never has been.
Strawmanning.
Lack of understanding of words used.
Equivocation between lack of operational definition ("consciousness is activity X occurring in the brain") and standard definition ("consciousness is self-awareness").
Bare assertion and personal incredulity.
Flatly wrong. Likely based on a complete lack of understanding of what is actually being said by the Wikipedia article on Christof Koch:
Wikipedia said:
Koch does not regard consciousness as an "extra-corporeal generic reality", which is a meaningless phrase. He regards it as an emergent property of certain systems, and theorizes that it is present in more systems than most would readily admit.
So it is either a straw man or a complete lack of reading ability. Either way, wrong.
The above is referring to me, as annnnoid seems to be unable to resist the chance to offer digs even when ostensibly ignoring me. Regardless, this is also wrong.
For those who missed it and are wondering, the statement was "anything that behaves exactly in every situation as though it is conscious is conscious". This is not contentious; this is just what "is" means.
I never claimed to have any list of behaviors, nor is the presentation of such a list required for the argument to stand. It is the equivalent of saying "anything that behaves exactly in every situation as though it is blue is blue". It's not an argument. It's a fact. It's what the words mean.
Aside from that, the fact that there is no agreed-upon list of required characteristics for consciousness is irrelevant. Not only is that list being actively worked upon by such researchers as the aforementioned Koch, the fact that the list has some blanks on it as of now does not open the door to magic, as annnnoid would have it.
Can I call 'em, or can I call 'em?
This also gets into the definition of "is" mentioned above, which is why annnnoid (and others who attempt to inject woo into such things) contest it. The example given contained a person who was, in every way, acting exactly as though he were undergoing a completely mundane neurological phenomenon, but annnnoid wants to be able to say that he was "really" experiencing something else.
In this case, the word "really" loses all meaning. There is no functional definition of the word "is" in which that man could be said to experience anything supernatural.
It's just word games.
Lack of understanding of burden of proof. Lack of understanding of fallibility.
Playing games with the definition of "valid".
Failure to understand the definition of "is". Science can necessarily "adjudicate" (another of his favorite meaningful meaningless words) everything that exists, since science is just rationality and observation combined; if something exists, it is by definition detectable and thus can be scientifically studied.
No, it is pointed out to you repeatedly because it renders those questions moot in this context.
That is a very, very easy question.
And yet you pretend that there is no answer.
This is not a fact and never has been.
Donn
Philosopher
asydhouse
Master Poster
"subjective experience has evidentiary primacy" is annnoid's core position. Even the post picked out above on this page is just cover for this one thing.
He thinks that his experiences are the reality, and everything else is inadequate approaches to explaining his experience.
To me, his foundation is dissolved by the fact that two people in the same place and time can experience two different versions of the objective situation.
Does he think "reality" is in a constant unopened Schrodinger's Cat box condition? We each have a universe in our skulls?
I challenge annnoid to write a short story, or a novel, depicting the reality he believes takes precedence over the objective world we address through science. If he can work it out convincingly in a story, addressing the problems with the mentality (i.e. the integrity) of a serious sf writer, I will gain some modicum of respect for his thinking, which respect has been completely removed by reading the half-baked assertions he passes off as "arguments".
That's a serious challenge. It might illuminate his ideas' shortcomings to himself.
Take yourself seriously, annnoid. Think it through!
He thinks that his experiences are the reality, and everything else is inadequate approaches to explaining his experience.
To me, his foundation is dissolved by the fact that two people in the same place and time can experience two different versions of the objective situation.
Does he think "reality" is in a constant unopened Schrodinger's Cat box condition? We each have a universe in our skulls?
I challenge annnoid to write a short story, or a novel, depicting the reality he believes takes precedence over the objective world we address through science. If he can work it out convincingly in a story, addressing the problems with the mentality (i.e. the integrity) of a serious sf writer, I will gain some modicum of respect for his thinking, which respect has been completely removed by reading the half-baked assertions he passes off as "arguments".
That's a serious challenge. It might illuminate his ideas' shortcomings to himself.
Take yourself seriously, annnoid. Think it through!
Last edited:
I loved Ensign Jenkins. The fact they ignored the actor who played him never got an Emmy was criminal.
Belz...
Fiend God
I think it's more "I know nothing, therefore others don't, either, so anything may be true."
Excellent post all around, but this bit struck me. Are you suggesting that annnnoid has (a) not read (b) not understood or (c) misrepresented something he referenced? I am shocked.
I was unaware of Koch until this exchange but have done some quick reading, starting with the Wiki entry you linked but then moving on to the references, especially Koch's home page at the Allen Institute and a few of his numerous contributions to Scientific American.
It seems apparent that annnnoid has, indeed, (mis?)taken Koch's use of a term or two (particulary panpsychism) as an indication that Koch views consciousness as existing outside the brain. annnnoid is fairly obviously wrong. This is Koch's own summary at his home page:
"I am the Chief Scientific Officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle in the Pacific Northwest. From 1986 until 2013, I was a Professor of Biology and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena in Southern California. I think a lot about the universe and how it came to be, about the brain, how it produces consciousness and how the sentient mind emerges from the physical brain."
The Scientific American articles as well as descriptions of his books make it clear that Koch hopes for meaning in life AND that he views consciousness as a product of the physical brain.
I look forward to annnnoid's attempt to demolish Koch's SciAm articles just as he has promised to demolish the one I linked earlier.
Last edited:
Whatever else comes of this thread, discovering Christof Koch has made it worth it.
The following is an excerpt from Koch's column entitled "Ubiquitous Minds" in the Jan/Feb 2014 issue of SciAm.
Next follows an explication of panpsychism whence annnnoid's confusion likely arose. Koch discards strict materialism as an explanation for the rise of consciousness and uses the term "universalism" in regard to consciousness, allowing a careless reader to think he is suggesting that there is some sort of extra-corporeal consciousness shared by everyone.
But that's only for the careless and incomplete reader. Koch makes it clear that consciousness is both borne of the physical (but only within a particular interpretation or framework of Intelligent Information Theory) and specific to the system that gave it rise.
It is not Panpsychism that Koch espouses; it is Integrated Panpsychism.
I recommend the whole article. When I get the time, I will read more of his stuff.
ETA: Note the bit I highlighted. This is precisely the point demonstrated by my self-driving car analogy: Motion of the car my be separate from the engine but is nonetheless dependent on it. Or, as others have said in other threads: running is separate from the legs but is dependent on them.
The following is an excerpt from Koch's column entitled "Ubiquitous Minds" in the Jan/Feb 2014 issue of SciAm.
Next follows an explication of panpsychism whence annnnoid's confusion likely arose. Koch discards strict materialism as an explanation for the rise of consciousness and uses the term "universalism" in regard to consciousness, allowing a careless reader to think he is suggesting that there is some sort of extra-corporeal consciousness shared by everyone.
But that's only for the careless and incomplete reader. Koch makes it clear that consciousness is both borne of the physical (but only within a particular interpretation or framework of Intelligent Information Theory) and specific to the system that gave it rise.
It is not Panpsychism that Koch espouses; it is Integrated Panpsychism.
I recommend the whole article. When I get the time, I will read more of his stuff.
ETA: Note the bit I highlighted. This is precisely the point demonstrated by my self-driving car analogy: Motion of the car my be separate from the engine but is nonetheless dependent on it. Or, as others have said in other threads: running is separate from the legs but is dependent on them.
Last edited:
That Koch column gets even better, by which I mean it undermines annnnoid's claims (and misrepresentation of Koch) even more.
Starting with the second-to-last paragraph in the leftmost column of page 29:
It continues:
Starting with the second-to-last paragraph in the leftmost column of page 29:
That piece goes to how consciousness arises.
It continues:
Quite clearly a refutation of the idea that there is a universal consciousness.
Last edited:
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Ah; I thought I'd explained fairly clearly that it is - and in particular, the memories that he refers to:Nonpareil said:
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
I think Annnnoid skipped that post, so he wouldn't have to perfectly remember it.
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Heh! me too! especially when half the time I don't understand what people are talking about here...
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Last edited:
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
Summary:
Many of those who have been arguing the positions you (Garrette) are arguing have posted no evidence. They have constantly insisted that they have. If you want to go and find the evidence, be my guest. I am going to waste no more time on them.
Some people have posted evidence. Congratulations.
I have never suggested that science explains nothing or that anything is possible. I have repeated this frequently. Strange that there are those who continue to insist that this represents my position. Science has enormous explanatory power (but it is not the primary human epistemology) and I simply reference the facts as they can be examined.
The reference to ‘google it’ was probably more intended for Nonpareil since it was exactly that variety of ‘evidence’ that he would frequently present.
I don’t care what the rest post here. You can assume that I am only interested in the opinions of those I reply to.
Okay then. Given that paper…and however many others you are or are not aware of. What, specifically, could be determined?
The error you folks make is that you think this issue is simple, straightforward. You seem to have little appreciation for the almost incomprehensible complexity involved. Not to mention...that, in this singular case, the object of scientific inquiry is the exact same phenomenon that is conducting the inquisition (you can think about that later...eventually the implications will begin to appear).
The complexity is compounded by two massive and intractable problems.
The first is the fact that human nature (consciousness) is not understood. What it is, what constitutes ‘normative’, the all-but infinite range of variations and nuances involved.
The second is the all-but incomprehensible complexity of the brain itself. It is not for nothing that it has been described as the most complex object in the known universe.
If you read that paper you cannot help but run into these two singular issues…not just in every paragraph, but in every sentence, and almost in every single word.
I haven’t read the entire paper yet…and it’s clearly an example of the evolution and development of scanning capabilities. But they would still be utterly incapable of determining whether or not such an event were authentic or hallucinatory. Not even conditionally incapable…utterly incapable.
And it is the definitive part that is relevant. What you have to understand is that there are TWO phenomenon occurring here. One is the electro-bio-chemical neural activity. The other is the subjective experience. You. Koch refers to that very thing in his statements. What science is currently doing is adjudicating the phenomenology of the former… simply because it has absolutely no ability to deal with the latter with any degree of coherence or precision.
How do you measure meaning?
It is as Noam Chomsky once said: ‘ …everything ultimately gets reduced to human nature…where our knowledge is thin, and likely to remain so…’
Regrettably, your ‘respect’ does not even begin to be worth the time it would take me to earn it.
I’d say the ‘careless and incomplete reader’ had better start thinking on what I said earlier. Your eagerness to expose my flaws is touching, but perhaps you’d better have a look at this link before deciding whether Nonpariel (Argent in the link) is the kind of individual you want to be trusting:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6938370&postcount=2043
In reference to universal consciousness, panpsychism, whatever-sim.
…yet more silliness. Quite obviously, this is not a field in which any variety of scientific or semantic consensus has emerged (why does that sound familiar?). If you note the second sentence…the one you DIDN’T highlight, it quite clearly describes what I was referring to.
Any system that possesses some nonzero amount of integrated information experiences something. Let me repeat: any system that has even one bit of integrated information has a very minute conscious experience.
The frontiers of physics are currently in the process of grappling with theories that describe the universe in holographic, uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional (depending on who you talk to) terms where-in the basic elements are informational (quite literally… ‘bits’ of information).
Thus…we have information processing as the very heart of reality. What Koch refers to as nonzero amounts of integrated information could very well be the fundamental conditions of everything.
…thus…everything is some variety of consciousness. EXACTLY what Koch was talking about.
Quite clearly…a refutation of the refutation of the idea that there is a universal consciousness.
Belz...
Fiend God
Fixed.
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Drifting slightly off-topic, I do think it stretches the boundaries of consciousness some way beyond what most people would accept, and in doing so, makes it even less easy to grasp. It's reminiscent of Pixymisa's past musing on minimalist consciousness on these forums - I'm wondering if that's more than a coincidence...
If consciousness is proportional to a measure of the integration of information, it raises questions of precisely what qualifies as integrated information (i.e. structure & function outside of the information-theoretic calculations of Φ they propose), and what is minimal integrated information, i.e. where does minimal IIT consciousness begin? For example, is it 'like something' to be a smartphone? (I don't know the Φ for a typical smartphone, but it is a network of causally interacting parts and rich in information).
As I currently see it, IIT is a good framework, but II is a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness (i.e. conscious awareness). I think information needs to be integrated in particular kinds of ways to have/produce consciousness. But I guess it depends how you define consciousness and integrated information; there's the problem of circular definition - if consciousness is integrated information, then it's not II if it's not conscious, and it's not conscious if it's not II... ?
Last edited:
Can't bring yourself to admit that you've adjusted your claim?
Thank you, thank you. I'd also like to thank the Academy, my parents....annnnoid said:
I've never suggested you did. I honestly couldn't parse that statement in a way that made sense. That's why I called it nonsensical.annnnoid said:
Nope. Doesn't fly. It was in response to me, and the phrasing indicated you thought it led to a definition of definitive. It's a minor thing in the scheme of things, though, and I hold no one to standards of perfection.annnnoid said:
Okey dokey.annnnoid said:
You first. Are you willing now to backtrack on your claim that no technology in "any way shape or form" can determine the type of mental event that occurred?annnnoid said:
If you can't do that, we can't move on.
Depends which issue you mean, as you continue to conflate them.annnnnoid said:
Do you mean the issue that people have conscious experiences?
Do you mean the issue that the explanations vary?
Do you mean the issue over whether consciousness is separate from brain?
Do you mean the issue that even if consciousness is not separate from brain we still don't know what it really is?
You misinterpret then.annnnoid said:
Not my first mental rodeo, son.annnoid said:
I suggest you not mix the terms. Stick with consciousness.annnnoid said:
I further suggest you break it down. Its full nature is not understood. That is not the same as saying the thing itself is not (largely) understood.
Back to the car analogy. There are engines with carburetors, engines without, piston engines, Waenkel engines, gasoline engines, diesel engines, electric engines, solar engines, hybrid engines, 8 cylinder, 6 cylinder, and more.annnnoid said:
Do we not understand car engines? Are we unable to say that automobile movement is dependent upon the engine?
The sun has gone again from the sky and with it the heat. It has ever been thus, yet I cannot tell you that the heat upon which we survive is a product of the sun for I do not know its workings.annnnoid said:
Zog the Caveman
Which gets us exactly back to where you keep denying you are:annnnoid said:
Science cannot show us everything about consciousness, therefore we can assume anything.
. Neuroimaging of Auditory Hallucinationsannnnoid said:
What does meaning have to do with the question of whether consciousness is separate from brain?annnnoid said:
Human nature. Not consciousness. That conflation belongs to you. Not also the use of "likely," for which you have excoriated others' links here.annnnoid said:
My day will be full of weeping.annnnoid said:
I know Nonpareil quite well, thank you, and I knew him just as well in all his previous JREF/ISF incarnations, and I can say that I do trust him immensely.annnnoid said:
Your provision of a link demonstrating from four years ago that someone who at the time was still a teenager spoke articulately, admitted his error, and, also admittedly, spoke a bit beyond his expertise before tentatively retracting, does nothing except enhance that perception.
If only someone else here might admit when they have not sufficiently done their homework...
. No. Not in the slightest. It would have done (or at least close enough for our purposes here) had you left out the extra-corporeal bit. Koch is abundantly clear on that topic. Care to retract?annnnoid said:
Yes. And it's corporeal, not extra-corporeal.annoid quoting Koch said:
Not relevant to the question of consciousness as separate from brain. Do try to stay focused.annnnoid said:
"could very well be."? Another phrasing of the type you excoriate in others? Surely you can do better.annnnoid said:
NB: I don't actually disagree. It's simply (a) irrelevant and (b) indicative of the double standards you seem to employ.
Absolutely not. For the irrelevant bit about information being fundamental, it does not imply that all information is conscious.annnnoid said:
For the Koch bit: again, he is exceedingly clear that not "everything" is conscious, and all the consciousnesses are distinct and corporeal. This is you adding your speculations on top of what real science is showing.
Try again, sir. Reading is fundamental.annnnoid said:
I agree it stretches the definition/application of consciousness, and I am insufficiently familiar with the details of the theory (and will likely always remain so as the details probably require reading of real science as opposed to really good simplification of real science) to determine to what extent I agree.
As to the rest, I need to read more of his columns, and perhaps his book, to really comment.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230