ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags physics

Reply
Old 6th March 2019, 06:37 AM   #721
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,924
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
My problem with the consciousness field is that it does not actually explain anything.
My entire problem with consciousness is that it doesn't explain anything.

It's a Woo Word that is basically a God of the Gaps. It's essentially defined as "Any part of human mental processing that science can't explain to me to my satisfaction in a way I'll accept."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 10:59 AM   #722
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,637
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
My entire problem with consciousness is that it doesn't explain anything.

It's a Woo Word that is basically a God of the Gaps. It's essentially defined as "Any part of human mental processing that science can't explain to me to my satisfaction in a way I'll accept."
Consciousness and perception have nice definitions in biology, neurology and psychology.

However as used by some people in this thread you are totally correct!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 11:04 AM   #723
carlosy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Except that colour does exist, no matter how you choose to define it.
Depends on what you mean by "exist".

Color is just a subjectively experienced value attributed to specific wavelength. Color does not exist, when no species in the universe has a receiver and a processor to process incoming wavelength. Color exists subjectively.

But wavelength does exist, even without any species at all.

The universe works perfectly fine without color. But it won't without wavelength.
carlosy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 11:37 AM   #724
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
Depends on what you mean by "exist".

Color is just a subjectively experienced value attributed to specific wavelength. Color does not exist, when no species in the universe has a receiver and a processor to process incoming wavelength. Color exists subjectively.

But wavelength does exist, even without any species at all.

The universe works perfectly fine without color. But it won't without wavelength.
Please don't start that. They are one and the same. Pretending that they're not is just adding some ghostly quality of colour that isn't in the material world.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 11:44 AM   #725
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,914
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Please don't start that. They are one and the same. Pretending that they're not is just adding some ghostly quality of colour that isn't in the material world.

If wavelength and color are one and the same, which wavelength is pink?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 12:04 PM   #726
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
If wavelength and color are one and the same, which wavelength is pink?
A tacky wavelength.

Are we really going to nitpick this? The point is that the entire process is physical and mundane, and the words we use to represent various parts of this process don't change that nature.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 12:25 PM   #727
carlosy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 151
Color is just a subjective attribute, really, nothing more, nothing less.

Color is not objective, because different species may see specific wavelength completely differently. You can't even proove that all humans experience/see the same thing when we agree to a specific color (react to a specific wavelength).

Wasn't there a whole book about the idea of inverted color sprectrum experience between individual humans?

If no one can see the moon, it still exists. Because its physical attributes still have impact on the environment - mass, gravity, em-radiation etc.
Species without eyes would still be able to determine its objective physical values. But color would be meaningless, or better said - nonexistent.

Color to wavelength is the same as if we would name words to specific weights. Like 10 kg = Zack and 20 kg = Zick, if we would have an organ that could receive a very specific spectrum of gravity and our brains would be able to process this information into a specific subjective experience.
carlosy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 12:55 PM   #728
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
Color is just a subjective attribute, really, nothing more, nothing less.
Then what is it made of, or how does it work?

No, colour is a real thing, even if it's only a brain process.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:07 PM   #729
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,595
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, I hope you can, because imagining a field in which random patterns appear deterministically would cause issues with me!
I have no issue with that. If it is a certainty that some unpredictable random pattern will appear, then the inevitable random pattern appears deterministically.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:09 PM   #730
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I have no issue with that. If it is a certainty that some unpredictable random pattern will appear, then the inevitable random pattern appears deterministically.
Or, you could say that, if you look at enough random stuff, it averages out and becomes quite predictable, in the long run.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:11 PM   #731
carlosy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 151
Ok, next try:

What is the taste of saltiness made of?
One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.

What is acerb made of?
What is an A-sharp made of?
What is color made of?

The experience is real, but still subjective. If the subject dies, the experience is gone.

Acerb, A-sharp, colors... it all depends on the subject.
But molecules defining salt, vibrating air and wavelength will persist, even without any subjects.
carlosy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:13 PM   #732
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,924
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Please don't start that. They are one and the same. Pretending that they're not is just adding some ghostly quality of colour that isn't in the material world.
"Sure it's in 625Ė740 nm wavelength... but it doesn't have the soul of red. It's red... but not qualia red."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:14 PM   #733
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,924
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
Ok, next try:

What is the taste of saltiness made of?
One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.

What is acerb made of?
What is an A-sharp made of?
What is color made of?

The experience is real, but still subjective. If the subject dies, the experience is gone.

Acerb, A-sharp, colors... it all depends on the subject.
But molecules defining salt, vibrating air and wavelength will persist, even without any subjects.
Right. Obviously salt has a soul that science just can't account for.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:18 PM   #734
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
Ok, next try:

What is the taste of saltiness made of?
One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.
But what does that even mean? "Subjective" doesn't remove experience outside of reality. It just means that it depends on the observer.

When light of a certain wavelength hits your retina it causes a reaction in your eye, optic nerve and brain, and we call that red. There's no reason to detach "redness" from the rest of the process.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 02:27 PM   #735
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,914
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
A tacky wavelength.

Are we really going to nitpick this? The point is that the entire process is physical and mundane, and the words we use to represent various parts of this process don't change that nature.

The words we use are models of that nature. Different words can represent different models, and no model is necessarily (nor needs to be) the true nature pf the thing it models.

Wavelength/frequency is a one-dimensional model, referring to points on the spectrum of pure hues. But those colors are only seen from certain sources that produce single photons or monochromatic light. As you no doubt already know, but didn't want to directly acknowledge, pink is not any wavelength.

Visible light can in principle have any mixture of photons of different frequencies. If we want to characterize a specific unique color, then, it might seem we would need a very large number of data points, amounting to the information in a complete intensity spectrum across the visible range of frequencies.

But in fact, most of our useful color models have not one, and not a huge number, but three dimensions. That's indirectly related, in a somewhat complex way, to the physiological mechanisms of how we sense color. Those mechanisms are objectively real, so we have a good basis to believe the resulting subjective experience of color matches three-dimensional color models for people who have normally functioning color vision. A specific experienced shade of pink is neither a specific frequency, nor a specific spectrum, but a point in an abstract model. Pink isn't physical; it's computational.

And color gets more complicated still. Contextual subjective color perception veers very far away from wavelengths. If frequency or even a specific mix of frequency relates directly to the experience of color, what's going on here?

Many art students take at least a full semester course in color theory, exploring color models and their applications in art and design. The color frequency spectrum of light will usually be covered in the first lecture, and the rest of the course builds from there.

Saying color is the same thing as frequency is like saying language is the same thing as the letters of the alphabet. It's not nitpicking to point out otherwise.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 03:16 PM   #736
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,637
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
Color is just a subjective attribute, really, nothing more, nothing less.
Color is a perception created in the visual cortex follow sensation
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 03:18 PM   #737
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,637
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.
Three different perceptions created following three separate sensations
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 06:10 PM   #738
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Three different perceptions created following three separate sensations
I would think a taste for salt be would be basically hardwired. Animals seek it out if given a ready source (salt licks). It makes sense to me that we would be programmed to seek electrolytic balance. We might experience it as a craving for salt, as other animals do, apparently. We experience it as "taste," a case where our sensory input dovetails with a more basic chemical need.

I'm interested in how we overlap with "other" animals, seeing as how we are animals ourselves.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:26 AM   #739
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,227
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
And color gets more complicated still. Contextual subjective color perception veers very far away from wavelengths. If frequency or even a specific mix of frequency relates directly to the experience of color, what's going on here?
You can even use "colour fatigue" to see "impossible colours" by staring at one particular colour for a long period of time and then suddenly looking at something else. You can see hyperbolic colours with more than 100% saturation, stygian colours which are simultaneously coloured and black, and self-luminous colours which are simultaneously coloured and brighter than white.

There have even been experiments with showing different colours to different eyes simultaneously (or two colours to a single eye) where people have been able to see colours that don't exist in the colourspace, such as a yellowy-blue (not green) and a greeny-red (not yellow).
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 7th March 2019 at 03:30 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:28 AM   #740
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It's not nitpicking to point out otherwise.
I appreciate your effort, but yes it is, unless one is using words in a deliberately obfuscating way. We all know what we mean when we use the word "colour".

...wow, that was a lot of 'w's in one sentence.

...anyway, we all know what it means, and we also know of attempts to make it sounds more... qualia-ish.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 7th March 2019 at 03:29 AM.
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 05:50 AM   #741
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,574
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
We all know what we mean when we use the word "colour".
Your own posts prove otherwise. You do not understand what others mean when they use the word, apparently because you are unfamiliar with the scientific understanding of color perception.

You started this when you wrote:
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Except that colour does exist, no matter how you choose to define it.

carlosy responded quite reasonably:
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
Color is just a subjectively experienced value attributed to specific wavelength. Color does not exist, when no species in the universe has a receiver and a processor to process incoming wavelength. Color exists subjectively.

But wavelength does exist, even without any species at all.

The universe works perfectly fine without color. But it won't without wavelength.

Instead of accepting carlosy's succinct and accurate statement, you asserted that color and wavelength are the same thing:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Please don't start that. They are one and the same. Pretending that they're not is just adding some ghostly quality of colour that isn't in the material world.

carlosy, Myriad, Dancing David, and Squeegee Beckenheim corrected your pseudoscientific understanding of color. In the face of all that clear evidence that your understanding of the word "color" is at odds with the scientific understanding of the relationships between color and wavelength, you said all of us "know what we mean when we use the word "colour"."

You are being ridiculous.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 05:56 AM   #742
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You are being ridiculous.
I explained exactly what I meant by them being the same. And that point is that "redness" has no special quality. It's just neural reaction to photons of a certain wavelength hitting the retina. "Color" is a concept that encompasses more than just the neural reaction. That doesn't mean that this reaction and the light itself are one and the same, but that they are encompassed by the concept of redness.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 06:09 AM   #743
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,560
Please note that even though colour and wavelength is not the same, colour could be a certain neuron-firing pattern in the brain. No need to discuss qualia - unless believe that colours ire more than neuron-firing patterns.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 06:23 AM   #744
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Please note that even though colour and wavelength is not the same, colour could be a certain neuron-firing pattern in the brain. No need to discuss qualia - unless believe that colours ire more than neuron-firing patterns.
You're not wrong, but my point was simply, and perhaps poorly explained, that the word and concept of colour are used for both.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 06:28 AM   #745
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,924
Okay seriously "Words describe the thing but aren't the thing" is.... what language is. Bringing it up as if nobody knows that doesn't serve a purpose.

If I'm hiking through the wood trying to find the clearing on a map leaning over my shoulder constantly reminding me "You do know that the clearing isn't actually on the map right?" over and over accomplishes nothing.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:34 AM   #746
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I explained exactly what I meant by them being the same. And that point is that "redness" has no special quality. It's just neural reaction to photons of a certain wavelength hitting the retina. "Color" is a concept that encompasses more than just the neural reaction. That doesn't mean that this reaction and the light itself are one and the same, but that they are encompassed by the concept of redness.
Here's the issue (at least as I see it). There is the world, and there's the model of the world that the brain creates. Under the viewpoint that consciousness is just the workings of the brain, our experience of colour is that model. I think this viewpoint is entirely consistent, and it's the one that I hold, but it's still clear in this viewpoint that there is a difference between the model and the reality that it models. Even under this viewpoint it's fair to say that without brains there would be no such thing as the experience of redness, because that experience is defined as a particular state of the brain.

I don't think that last sentence is in dispute by either side here, or least I don't think that it should be.

Now, someone else might come in and say that that's fine, but there's nothing about the physical laws that tell us what the experience or redness should be like. As Robin has pointed out many times in the thread, we can't use our understanding of physics (or chemistry, etc.) to model the interactions of the brain in such a way as to predict the experience of redness. Whereas we could take a model of a clock and from that predict that it would make a ticking sound.

The response to this is that it's such a complex system that we can't model it in enough detail to do so, but there's every reason to think that if we could we would predict the emergence of an experience of redness.

However, the issue here is that it's hard to see how anything like can could come out of the model. What would it even mean for an experience of redness to emerge from the model? Certainly we could have a model from which brainstates that we already identify with an experience of redness will arise. But we have to already have done that identifying in order to get that connection between the physical system and the subjective experience.

The "consciousness field" idea is that the potential for a complex system like a brain to have an experience emerge from it's particular state is already there in the basic fundamental building blocks. "Field" here is really meant to be analgous with charge, for instance, in that an electron (say) can have charge as an inherent property that doesn't need further explanation, it's just a fact of the matter that electrons have charge, and under this idea they would also have "proto consciousness". This proto-consciousness is clearly not the same as consciousness of complex systems like brains because what exactly would an electron be conscious of? But those holding this view would see it as a necessity that the fundamental building blocks had this potential as a basic property.

You'll note that this is still a materialistic viewpoint, just one that posits some properties to matter beyond those we have strong confirmation of from physical theories (and the driving force here is philosophers not physicists). I think the idea is currently too vague to be particularly convincing, but I also don't think it's obvious rubbish.

While the solution to the hard problem may simply be that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from a particular type of information processing (and my personal view is that that will turn out to be the solution), I think anyone who thinks it's not an actual problem is kidding themselves.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 08:33 AM   #747
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,560
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
However, the issue here is that it's hard to see how anything like can could come out of the model. What would it even mean for an experience of redness to emerge from the model? Certainly we could have a model from which brainstates that we already identify with an experience of redness will arise. But we have to already have done that identifying in order to get that connection between the physical system and the subjective experience.
An argument that is often heard is that a computer brain will never be able to experience "redness", and I think that is only true if the definition of "redness" is that it needs to be the exact same neuron arrangement and firing pattern as in a human brain (some even think that only brains made out of biological matters can have this experience). However, I think that "redness" is whatever state - or sequence of states - that a conscious system gets in when exposed to a visual input of red wavelengths. Accordingly, a theoretical AI that is conscious needs not have the same construction as a brain, and can still experience "redness", even though obviously this experience of "redness" is not identical as that of a human being. But then, I am not even sure that different human individuals have the same experience of "redness".

Quote:
The "consciousness field" idea is that the potential for a complex system like a brain to have an experience emerge from it's particular state is already there in the basic fundamental building blocks. "Field" here is really meant to be analgous with charge, for instance, in that an electron (say) can have charge as an inherent property that doesn't need further explanation, it's just a fact of the matter that electrons have charge, and under this idea they would also have "proto consciousness". This proto-consciousness is clearly not the same as consciousness of complex systems like brains because what exactly would an electron be conscious of? But those holding this view would see it as a necessity that the fundamental building blocks had this potential as a basic property.
I agree, but I think your interpretation is too kind. The "consciousness field" proponents are deliberately vague about what the properties of the field are, as I said in an earlier post.

Quote:
You'll note that this is still a materialistic viewpoint, just one that posits some properties to matter beyond those we have strong confirmation of from physical theories (and the driving force here is philosophers not physicists).
I disagree. I believe that it is an attempt to couch a non-materialistic viewpoint in materialistic terms in order to make it sound sciency. There is no definition of the field or the forces involved, no attempt at explaining what the field does (except mediate "consciousness"), and there is no attempt at explaining why only brains have consciousness, or how brains interact with the field.

There is currently no existing AI consciousness, but if it was created, the "consciousness field" proponents would need to explain how a computer program interacts with this field. I think that the proponents will claim that the non-existence of artificial consciousness is the best argument they have. It is also an argument of "consciousness of the gap".
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 08:47 AM   #748
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,159
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Here's the issue (at least as I see it). There is the world, and there's the model of the world that the brain creates. Under the viewpoint that consciousness is just the workings of the brain, our experience of colour is that model.
Sure, and I understand that, but here's the question: how much of a model is it, and how much of an accurate representation is it? One way or another I don't think you can separate the world from the model. Regardless, when we say "red" we are refering both to the real-world light at wavelength X, and to the response/model of the brain to the signal caused by that light.

Quote:
However, the issue here is that it's hard to see how anything like can could come out of the model. What would it even mean for an experience of redness to emerge from the model?
Personally I think we assign much special qualities to "experience" that will turn out not to be special at all. Maybe the question above doesn't even make sense, like the phrase "before the universe".

Quote:
The "consciousness field" idea is that the potential for a complex system like a brain to have an experience emerge from it's particular state is already there in the basic fundamental building blocks.
But that's no different than competing theories. It just displaces that potential out of the brain/processing itself.

Quote:
While the solution to the hard problem may simply be that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from a particular type of information processing (and my personal view is that that will turn out to be the solution), I think anyone who thinks it's not an actual problem is kidding themselves.
There's a difference between understanding that our knowledge is incomplete, and calling it a "hard problem" as if there's something terribly special about it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 06:46 PM   #749
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,595
I'm pretty sure that the original underlying motive for hypothesizing a consciousness field is not to account for consciousness, but to account for the behavior of the universe.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 12th March 2019 at 06:47 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.