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 19th February 2019, 10:03 AM   #81
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, you're the expert.
I'm not an expert in your baseless claims. Are you going to explain what 'almost solipsism' entails or have you given up on that one?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's no reason to espouse ant belief that strikes your fancy.
What's no reason? My lack of empirical evidence? Obviously that's not a reason, how could it be?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Oh, I adopted one: you're wrong.
Yep, exactly what I said:

You never have a debating opinion of your own that isn't based on someone else's being rubbish


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Is "my headache is gone" subjective or objective?
Subjective.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 10:09 AM   #82
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Are you going to explain what 'almost solipsism' entails or have you given up on that one?
It means the exact same thing as "almost on the second floor". I have a high level of confidence that you understand exactly what I mean.

Quote:
What's no reason? My lack of empirical evidence? Obviously that's not a reason, how could it be?
Right, so you have no reason to believe in that theory. Belief in the complete absence of evidence is not reasonable.

Quote:
Yep, exactly what I said:

You never have a debating opinion of your own that isn't based on someone else's being rubbish
That's a lie. You interact with me on enough threads to know better than what you posted here.

Quote:
Subjective.
Ok so we can't know whether clinical trials work, then.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 10:49 AM   #83
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It means the exact same thing as "almost on the second floor". I have a high level of confidence that you understand exactly what I mean.
I don't. I am either a solipsist or not a solipsist. If you maintain I'm somewhere in between I don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Right, so you have no reason to believe in that theory. Belief in the complete absence of evidence is not reasonable.
I said empirical evidence. The evidence for my consciousness is my own experience, which despite being entirely subjective is sufficient for me to draw conclusions.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's a lie. You interact with me on enough threads to know better than what you posted here.
You just admitted it. You said that your debating position was simply that I was wrong.

"Oh, I adopted one [a debating position]: you're wrong."

I also remember the last topic when this happened where I refused to post evidence of my claims until you had adopted a debating position. You declined to do so then, too.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ok so we can't know whether clinical trials work, then.
If those trials are for subjectively reported experience, such as headaches, then correct, we can't know, but what we can do is trust the subjects' reports and believe they are not deliberately lying. If the trials are for outcomes that can objectively measured, such as treatments for cancer, then we can know.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 11:13 AM   #84
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't. I am either a solipsist or not a solipsist.
Yeah, ok try it this way: if you're eating, you're either full or not full, but you can still be a single spoonfull away from being full. You're not full, but you're close.

I don't see how this confuses you.

Quote:
I said empirical evidence.
The only kind that matters.

Quote:
You just admitted it. You said that your debating position was simply that I was wrong.
In this particular debate. That does not support your larger claim. Just click on my name, click "statistics", and read some of my posts in other threads.

Quote:
If those trials are for subjectively reported experience, such as headaches, then correct, we can't know, but what we can do is trust the subjects' reports and believe they are not deliberately lying.
So why not trust their report on consciousness, then? Are clinical trials not science?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 11:36 AM   #85
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I hadn't read this article thus far. Just did.

Perhaps it is me, but try as I might, I couldn't tease out from the article any definition of this phi. Calling something phi is great, but how do they actually define it, and how exactly do they actually measure it?
It's not just you. As best as I understand it, there is an objective measure of how interconnected a system is - but based on this definition, protons could be conscious. At least according to Wired.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
As presented in the article (or at least, as I understood it), this part seems wholly circular to me. Proves nothing, says nothing, just presents an out-and-out speculation in jargon-laced terms.
Which is implied in the Scientific American article. Maybe Wired thinks it's too hip to admit we it/"they" don't understand something.

Which is why I posted an SI article, not a Wired article.

A huge red flag (pun intended) was when I read an article generated by an interview that my consciousness friend gave to some esoteric journal. The interview supposedly took place in a certain Mexican restaurant that featured bullfighting posters. The interviewee was supposed to be like a bullfighter, waving a red flag at a raging bull (The AI community, or "emergent property" community).

Problem is, the conversation had not occurred at the restaurant with the bullfighting posters. The writer and the author had met at a different restaurant, which does not have bullfighting posters, but they liked the metaphor. So for convenience's sake, they set the interview, fictionally, at a restaurant with a bullfighting theme.

I was aghast. I told my friend that (as a journalist) I could never do that; I had too much respect for the truth. I'm not sure he even understood what I was talking about.

Last edited by Minoosh; 19th February 2019 at 12:33 PM. Reason: a pronoun issue, which I've turned into a noun/verb agreement issue
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 19th February 2019, 12:04 PM   #86
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,319
Baron how are you defining “consciousness“?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th February 2019, 12:28 PM   #87
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah, ok try it this way: if you're eating, you're either full or not full, but you can still be a single spoonfull away from being full. You're not full, but you're close.

I don't see how this confuses you.
It doesn't. I can easily describe what 'partially full' is; it's when the stomach has some food in it but the person is not yet satiated.

Now, 'almost solipsistic'; your turn.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The only kind that matters.
Not to me.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So why not trust their report on consciousness, then?
I do, as I've already said. I believe people when they state they are conscious. I trust them. What I don't believe is that they have provided me with empirical evidence. Had they done so I would have no need for trust, I would go purely off the evidence.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Baron how are you defining “consciousness“?
Primarily, experience of qualia.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 12:33 PM   #88
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,319
Originally Posted by baron View Post
... Snip.. .







Primarily, experience of qualia.
And the definition you use for qualia (have to ask beacuse I've seen it defined in many different ways here over the years)?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th February 2019, 12:35 PM   #89
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It doesn't.
Good, then we can move on.

Quote:
I do, as I've already said. I believe people when they state they are conscious. I trust them. What I don't believe is that they have provided me with empirical evidence.
You just said that empirical evidence is not the only kind that matters.

But let's move on again: what would you consider empirical evidence of consciousness?

Quote:
Primarily, experience of qualia.
No wonder you think it doesn't exist. It's like saying that volcanoes are fake news because you define them as mountains inhabited by Hephaestos.

How about you use a more, ahem, realistic definition?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 12:40 PM   #90
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And the definition you use for qualia (have to ask beacuse I've seen it defined in many different ways here over the years)?
Basically the experience of existing as opposed to simply existing.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 12:41 PM   #91
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Basically the experience of existing as opposed to simply existing.
Sounds like you added a step. Why not call that consciousness?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 12:43 PM   #92
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Good, then we can move on.
We can't because whilst I answered your question you failed to answer mine.

How do you define 'almost solipsistic'?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You just said that empirical evidence is not the only kind that matters.
I did indeed, more than once.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But let's move on again: what would you consider empirical evidence of consciousness?
Detection of the conscious field.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No wonder you think it doesn't exist. It's like saying that volcanoes are fake news because you define them as mountains inhabited by Hephaestos.

How about you use a more, ahem, realistic definition?
What don't I think exists? What are you talking about?
baron 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 19th February 2019, 12:45 PM   #93
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
We can't because whilst I answered your question you failed to answer mine.

How do you define 'almost solipsistic'?
Dude, I've answered that two or three times already. You said you weren't confused, and yet here you are.

Quote:
Detection of the conscious field.
Who says it's a field?

Quote:
What don't I think exists?
Consciousness. You said there's no empirical evidence of it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 12:59 PM   #94
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Dude, I've answered that two or three times already. You said you weren't confused, and yet here you are.
You haven't answered it. If you can't answer, just say so. What constitutes 'almost solipsism'?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Who says it's a field?
I do.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Consciousness. You said there's no empirical evidence of it.
And yet I also say it exists. How about them apples?
baron 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 19th February 2019, 01:02 PM   #95
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
You haven't answered it.
If you're going to lie, make sure I can't easily gather the evidence for your lie in under a minute:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What does being one step removed from the second floor involve? Either you're on the second floor or you're not. Right?
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And yet you're still one step away from the second floor.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It means the exact same thing as "almost on the second floor".
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah, ok try it this way: if you're eating, you're either full or not full, but you can still be a single spoonfull away from being full. You're not full, but you're close.


Quote:
I do.
Baron, you can't hold other people's theories to the standards that would prove YOUR theory. I asked you what you would consider evidence of the existence of consciousness, not evidence for YOUR theory.

Quote:
And yet I also say it exists. How about them apples?
Them apples are in your mind. You can't check mate me with nonsense.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 01:18 PM   #96
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If you're going to lie, make sure I can't easily gather the evidence for your lie in under a minute:
Stop farting around talking about buildings and food, like you're Talking Heads or something, and answer the question.

What constitutes being 'almost solipsistic'?

You have asked me dozens of questions, all of which I have answered. I have asked you one and you refuse to give a sensible response.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

Baron, you can't hold other people's theories to the standards that would prove YOUR theory. I asked you what you would consider evidence of the existence of consciousness, not evidence for YOUR theory.
I've answered that three times. My own experience is all the evidence I need to believe in consciousness. It's impossible for me to be any clearer.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Them apples are in your mind. You can't check mate me with nonsense.
You appear to be confused that I can believe in something for which I have no empirical evidence. This is a truly bizarre stance.

Do you believe you are conscious?

I assume you'll say yes. So did you come to that conclusion from reading a peer-reviewed paper on consciousness, or did you do so because you feel that you are conscious?

If the former, please cite the specific paper.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 01:22 PM   #97
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Stop farting around talking about buildings and food, like you're Talking Heads or something, and answer the question.
Well I can't help it if you don't understand what "you're almost at X" means, so I'm trying to dumb it down for you. It's hard to make it clearer than "your philosophy is really close to solipsism in that you're denying the possibility of knowledge", but there you have it.

Quote:
I've answered that three times. My own experience is all the evidence I need to believe in consciousness.
So you do have evidence of consciousness? How is that not empirical, since we pretty much all have this experience?

Quote:
You appear to be confused that I can believe in something for which I have no empirical evidence.
No, just like people believe in fairies and laylines, I have no problem understand that you can believe in nonsense.

Quote:
Do you believe you are conscious?
Yeah but I'm not the one saying there's no evidence for it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 01:44 PM   #98
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well I can't help it if you don't understand what "you're almost at X" means, so I'm trying to dumb it down for you. It's hard to make it clearer than "your philosophy is really close to solipsism in that you're denying the possibility of knowledge", but there you have it.
I'll take that, on the fifth time of asking, as an official 'I am unable to answer the question'.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So you do have evidence of consciousness?
Yet again, yes. I have subjective evidence that I find sufficient.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How is that not empirical, since we pretty much all have this experience?
It's not empirical because it cannot be assessed by anybody but me. Your assertion that everybody has the same experience is also subjective, and therefore can't be used to make the case for empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, just like people believe in fairies and laylines, I have no problem understand that you can believe in nonsense.
So let's follow this through.

I say that I believe in consciousness solely on the basis of my subjective experience.

You say yeah, just like people believe in fairies and other nonsense.

I ask you whether you believe you are conscious.

You say yes.

I asked you how you came to believe this, whether it was your own subjective experience or a peer reviewed paper.

You ignore this question.

And why?

Because you know you screwed up, just like with your 'almost solipsism'. You can't say you believe you are conscious on the basis of your subjective experience because you've just likened that to believing in fairies and nonsense.

But you can't say you believe you're conscious on the basis of scientific evidence because, utter absurdity aside, I'd ask you again to provide the relevant papers and you wouldn't be able to.

The only option left would be to start waffling about other people's experience and how you imagine it's the same as your own, but that doesn't wash either because it would be the same as telling me that if you were the only human on earth, you would have no idea your were conscious.

Debate-wise, you've been stuffed like a nominally conscious turkey at Christmas. I good you bid evening.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 01:57 PM   #99
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 363
I've been reading this thread and find it hard to believe that someone could think that there is "no evidence" for consciousness. Has anyone read any scientific articles on this in the past few years?

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard...-consciousness
Crawtator 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 19th February 2019, 02:02 PM   #100
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Read some articles! That's a great idea. I wish I'd thought of that, all I did was sit on my arse, pick my nose and imagine I knew it all. Thanks!

Some people will simply never get it. Is it an inability to appreciate the nuance inherent in this topic, or just an ignorance of the field in general? I suspect the latter but who knows? I really should know better than to engage.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 02:12 PM   #101
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't. I am either a solipsist or not a solipsist. If you maintain I'm somewhere in between I don't know what you're talking about.
My consciousness-theory guy was probably not technically a solipsist, but he was pretty much a narcissist. Which made me suspicious of his motives. He didn't want to think of his consciousness coming to an end and I felt some of his theories (which attracted lots of New Age folks) depended on motivated reasoning, for wanting to believe that he was at least potentially immortal.

I didn't feel that way about all of his cohort, though.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
I said empirical evidence. The evidence for my consciousness is my own experience, which despite being entirely subjective is sufficient for me to draw conclusions.
Which does sound to some people like a species of woo. After all, it's what theists tend to say about their beliefs, only to be similarly knocked down and told their evidence is not compelling.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
If those trials are for subjectively reported experience, such as headaches, then correct, we can't know, but what we can do is trust the subjects' reports and believe they are not deliberately lying.
But I think the theory is that p zombies might try to fool us, so we can't rely on self-reporting.

Last edited by Minoosh; 19th February 2019 at 02:42 PM.
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 19th February 2019, 02:18 PM   #102
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I'll take that, on the fifth time of asking, as an official 'I am unable to answer the question'.
Then you are blatantly dishonest. How can you take an obvious, repeated answer to your question as not answering your question is beyond my understanding. Do you think you're fooling anybody?

YOUR THEORY DENIES THE POSSIBLITY OF KNOWLEDGE. THAT'S HOW IT'S AN INCH AWAY FROM SOLIPSISM.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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



Last edited by Belz...; 19th February 2019 at 02:21 PM.
Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 02:19 PM   #103
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Some people will simply never get it.
Yes, how can all those neurologists and eggheads claim to study consciousness when baron's got all that figured out: they've got no empirical evidence at all!

It's such a shame that science isn't following your lead.

Classic case of Dunning-Kruger.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 02:21 PM   #104
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Read some articles! That's a great idea. I wish I'd thought of that, all I did was sit on my arse, pick my nose and imagine I knew it all. Thanks!

Some people will simply never get it. Is it an inability to appreciate the nuance inherent in this topic, or just an ignorance of the field in general? I suspect the latter but who knows? I really should know better than to engage.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
But this is not empirical evidence. We see someone behaving in a certain way and we say they're conspicuously performing an action on the basis that when we perform that action we feel as though we're conscious. This might be classed as evidence, but it's 100% subjective evidence.

Take an experiment where brain activity is measured. A specific pattern of activity is identified as occurring when the subject is conscious. And that's fine, but that identification can only be made because somewhere down the line a person has actually sat in a chair and effectively said, "I am doing X consciously" whilst a similar pattern was observed on the monitors. Again, entirely subjective, because unless we accept a theory along the lines of what I propose, we can imagine a non-conscious mechanical entity saying exactly the same thing.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
And that's a great example of argument from ignorance. Instead of developing a theory for consciousness that describes what it is and under what conditions it occurs, we are told that humans are conscious, because we feel like we are, and you know, some animals are similar to humans so I guess we can say they're conscious too. That doesn't sound very scientific to me, and the reason is because it's not.

Science has come up with some arbitrary tests for consciousness, such as a subject recognising themselves in a mirror. To my mind this is entirely futile and shows a naive misunderstanding about what is being studied.



You can't redefine what subjective means simply because you don't like its implications. What I wrote is perfectly correct. Your only reference point for assuming that when a person performs a certain action they are conscious is that when you perform that action you feel you are conscious. This is the definition of subjectivity. And no amount of experimentation on your brain states or behaviour will alter this fact, because at every stage it relies on your subjective reporting to decide which of your behaviours are conscious and which are not.



Medical trials don't rely on the subjects' conscious reporting. That's why they can be done on pigs or rats.
The article I linked to specifically points to medical evidence of an objective source of consciousness in the brain, although poorly understood. For you to say over and over that the only evidence of consciousness is subjective is plain wrong. I'll link you more articles, in case you need more objective studies. However, your derision at my attempt to give some objective evidence suggests you neither want to read any of them or care what they have to say since it goes against your "aether-like" consciousness theory.
Crawtator 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 19th February 2019, 02:24 PM   #105
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
My consciousness-theory guy was probably not technically a solipsist, but we was pretty much a narcissist. Which made me suspicious of his motives. He didn't want to think of his consciousness coming to an end and I felt some of his theories (which attracted lots of New Age folks) depended on motivated reasoning, for wanting to believe that he was at least potentially immortal.
Well, that's a strong motivation.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Which does sound to some people like a species of woo. After all, it's what theists tend to say about their beliefs, only to be similarly knocked down and told their evidence is not compelling.
If you define woo as something for which there is no empirical evidence the consciousness is definitely woo. As is the conscious field. The difference is that traditionally woo is communicated to us and we have the option to believe or not to believe. With consciousness, most of us accept that we can rely on our subjective experience.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
But I think the theory is that p zombies might try to fool us, so we can't rely on self-reporting.
They can't really fool us, though. They might fool us into parting with 28p for a canister of useless headache pills but that's about all. We have nothing to lose by giving them a go.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 02:34 PM   #106
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
The article I linked to specifically points to medical evidence of an objective source of consciousness in the brain...

I'm not being drawn back in, but to comment on this yes, that's correct. But that is not the same as objective evidence for consciousness. Consciousness is assumed to exist in order for this experiment to be undertaken! The experiment does not provide evidence of consciousness, nor could it, it simply seeks to locate its source. That you misunderstand this illustrates exactly what I'm saying.

I wasn't being facetious when I say people don't get it. That's why it's called the Hard Problem, because there is no theory on how it can be functionally tackled. Some scientists / philosophers don't get it to such an extent they deny the hard problem even exists. They literally deny the evidence of their own senses. It's pointless to argue with such people. To me their viewpoints are incomprehensible.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 02:36 PM   #107
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Consciousness is assumed to exist in order for this experiment to be undertaken!
The same is true for stars, water and air.

Quote:
I wasn't being facetious when I say people don't get it. That's why it's called the Hard Problem, because there is no theory on how it can be functionally tackled.
That right there shows that you're not as learned about consciousness or the science around it as you profess to be.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 02:41 PM   #108
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The same is true for stars, water and air.
Um..?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That right there shows that you're not as learned about consciousness or the science around it as you profess to be.
And you're about to explain how I'm wrong. I'll be interested to read your account.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 02:45 PM   #109
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Um..?
You have to assume that they exist before experiments can be undertaken.

You lose track of conversations very quickly.

Quote:
And you're about to explain how I'm wrong. I'll be interested to read your account.
Considering that you've managed to interpret several obvious explanations as a lack of explanation, I seriously doubt that you're interested in anything that doesn't agree with you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 02:54 PM   #110
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You have to assume that they exist before experiments can be undertaken.
An experiment to provide evidence for the existence of stars must assume stars exist prior to its undertaking...

Riiiiight.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Considering that you've managed to interpret several obvious explanations as a lack of explanation, I seriously doubt that you're interested in anything that doesn't agree with you.
That's another, 'I'm unable to answer your question'.

You've not done very well on that front. I've only asked you three questions and you've failed completely to answer two of them.

Anyhow, this is not what I would call intellectually challenging (I'm being kind here) so I'll leave you to it.
baron 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 19th February 2019, 03:07 PM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by baron View Post
An experiment to provide evidence for the existence of stars must assume stars exist prior to its undertaking...

Riiiiight.
Are you seriously arguing for the reverse? Of course you have to assume that they exist before trying to explain them. There's no need to explain what you don't think exists.

You'd have to be a caricature of yourself to argue against such a trivial and obvious principle.

Quote:
That's another, 'I'm unable to answer your question'.
Please stop lying. I've even reposted my answers. This sort of denial is used by grade school students. Another caricature.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 03:09 PM   #112
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Baron: You can't answer my question.
Belz...: Here's my answer: X
Baron: I guess you can't answer it.
Belz...: <links to previous answer>
Baron: I'll take that as a retraction.
Belz...: What are you talking about? I just linked back to the answer.
Baron: That's another, 'I'm unable to answer your question'.

Please stop, baron. You're just making yourself look foolish.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 03:12 PM   #113
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Basically the experience of existing as opposed to simply existing.
How is that different from a perception?
__________________
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 19th February 2019, 03:24 PM   #114
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
The article I linked to specifically points to medical evidence of an objective source of consciousness in the brain, although poorly understood. For you to say over and over that the only evidence of consciousness is subjective is plain wrong. I'll link you more articles, in case you need more objective studies. However, your derision at my attempt to give some objective evidence suggests you neither want to read any of them or care what they have to say since it goes against your "aether-like" consciousness theory.
Would you agree that dark matter and dark energy are aether-like? Furthermore, would you agree DE & DM is espoused by the majority of cosmologists?
ServiceSoon 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 19th February 2019, 03:43 PM   #115
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I wasn't being facetious when I say people don't get it. That's why it's called the Hard Problem, because there is no theory on how it can be functionally tackled.
That lack of functional tackle-ability is convenient for people who make careers out of attending conferences and presenting papers in glamorous venues around the planet. In general, these are not the guys doing empirical research in dingy basement neurosciences lab in Cleveland or Buffalo. Fun guys, but they tend to be philosophers and theoreticians who I suspect get pretty lavish funding from wealthy New Age sorts.

Whatever "real" scientists are studying at a macro, empirical level - and that includes things much smaller than neurons - does not actually exclude the possibility that other things are going on at the quantum level. The more science-y presentations focused on why it wasn't as impossible as naysayers claim.
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 19th February 2019, 03:47 PM   #116
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,858
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
The article I linked to specifically points to medical evidence of an objective source of consciousness in the brain, although poorly understood. For you to say over and over that the only evidence of consciousness is subjective is plain wrong. I'll link you more articles, in case you need more objective studies. However, your derision at my attempt to give some objective evidence suggests you neither want to read any of them or care what they have to say since it goes against your "aether-like" consciousness theory.

The article you cited makes a distinction between arousal (wakefulness) and awareness. Awareness is the subject in this thread. The article you linked didn't actually present any evidence of awareness. Neither subjective or objective. It said absolutely nothing about how awareness was being measured.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 19th February 2019, 03:47 PM   #117
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
How is that different from a perception?
I think because perception is measurable while experience isn't.

A self-driving car can perceive lots of stuff, but we still don't know what it feels like to be a self-driving car.
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 19th February 2019, 05:44 PM   #118
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,405
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes, how can all those neurologists and eggheads claim to study consciousness when baron's got all that figured out: they've got no empirical evidence at all!
Not that he needs the help, but I don't think baron ever claimed to have it "all figured out." I believe you are talking past each other, maybe deliberately, in which case I feel like I've stumbled into a lovers' spat.

baron said, when we strive to locate consciousness in the brain, we are assuming it exists.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
Consciousness is assumed to exist in order for this experiment to be undertaken!
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The same is true for stars, water and air.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You have to assume that they exist before experiments can be undertaken.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
An experiment to provide evidence for the existence of stars must assume stars exist prior to its undertaking...

Riiiiight.
baron's paraphrases makes Belz look like he's employing circular logic. It's possible baron really did read it this way but ... I have my doubts.

Jeez, this was a tough post to put together. But: talking past each other. I think baron is doing a pretty good job of defending "proto-consciousness field theory" and I've been a skeptic, nay, a cynic on the subject for at least 15 years.
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 19th February 2019, 05:47 PM   #119
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Not that he needs the help, but I don't think baron ever claimed to have it "all figured out."
No, that's what _I'm_ saying. The people who are actually researching consciousness seem to think that they have empirical evidence that it exists, but baron knows better than they.

Quote:
I believe you are talking past each other, maybe deliberately
If it's deliberate, it's not on my end. I think it's quite clear that baron's talking nonsense.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 19th February 2019, 06:26 PM   #120
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,405
Does finding out where in the brain consciousness comes from tell us what consciousness is?

When you slit someone's belly with a knife and they don't react we can, IMO, agree that the patient is "unconscious." Yet there is credible evidence that people can still hear things. They don't remember the context, but they still hear things and remember them.

Awake under anesthesia: We tend to think that being anesthetized is like falling asleep. Kate Cole-Adams concludes that the truth is stranger—it’s more like having your mind disassembled, then put together again.
>long anecdote snipped<

I realize The New Yorker isn't a scholarly journal, but experiments are described confirming the phenomenon. This would seem to indicate that people can hear and remember idle surgical suite chat even while unconscious, which sounds kind of weird.

It's probably also neither here nor there when it comes to the subject matter of the thread, but we're still learning about the nature of unconsciousness, which is one approach to studying consciousness.
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
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 03:33 PM.
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.