Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflineSaturdayraining
Wendigo
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 250
Loc: The Temples of Syrinx, WA Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: evilturnip]
    #11963947 - 02/04/10 09:01 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

what I did, it's called referencing. I never said I was rewriting mandik's paper. I was referencing it, and drawing conclusions.

and per your example, what im saying is not to look at every particle, but to look at an equivalent example in evolution: individual organisms (as opposed to individual neurons)

now, seeing every species and its descendants over countless millenia, instead of just saying "evolution", there is the complete picture of what the word "evolution" represents. it is more precise. Saying evolution a bit more vaguely is trivial, I think, think at any give point, there are only a certain number of species. When your talking about consciousness, you need to be much more precise, instead of saying:

Quote:

"We can't reduce subjective experience to facts about neurons."




accept that we since can't say for sure which physical systems can have a subjective experience, we can't say that subjective experience ISN'T reducible to facts about neurons. We dont't know what pattern of a response is "subjectively experienced", and which is just physics- I proposed that they are inseparable.

subjective experience is not "one-way knowable", meaning that I dont think there is only one way to consciously perceive a given experience. I am borrowing some arguments from mandik to suport that.


you changed your name, astri....evilturnip! but did it change *who you are*?


--------------------
- Saturday

I have a lot of friends in the drug culture. I try to help them out by posting on here, and sometimes they put stuff up without my permission, but I do not condone or commit any acts described.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion"
-Carl Sagan

Anyone have some Macrocybe Titans spores or samples? PM me


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineevilturnip
better life through chemicals
Male

Registered: 08/21/09
Posts: 296
Loc: New York, NY
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: Saturdayraining]
    #11964244 - 02/04/10 09:46 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Saturdayraining said:
what I did, it's called referencing. I never said I was rewriting mandik's paper. I was referencing it, and drawing conclusions.





Except what you quoted doesn't represent my position, nor does it support your conclusion.  Proposition (K) as I explained before, is, generally put, "Mary cannot know what it's like to have the experience without having the subjective experience".  The arguments attempts to (somewhat weakly), refute that claim.  Either way, still irrelevant. 

My claim is:
Subjective experience cannot be reduced to facts about neurons.

Quote:


and per your example, what im saying is not to look at every particle, but to look at an equivalent example in evolution: individual organisms (as opposed to individual neurons)

now, seeing every species and its descendants over countless millenia, instead of just saying "evolution", there is the complete picture of what the word "evolution" represents. it is more precise. Saying evolution a bit more vaguely is trivial, I think, think at any give point, there are only a certain number of species.




Ok, so let's take your example.  Assuming we got every neuron firing down.  So it's a long list of this:

Neuron #1 fires to Neuron #2 and Neuron #5 at time t
....
...
etc

Basically all the facts about neurons at every given time.  Where is the subjective qualia of red anywhere in there?

Quote:


accept that we since can't say for sure which physical systems can have a subjective experience, we can't say that subjective experience ISN'T reducible to facts about neurons. We dont't know what pattern of a response is "subjectively experienced", and which is just physics- I proposed that they are inseparable.





Well that's the whole debate! We can't say one way or another because there's an "explanatory gap".  At least I'm arguing logically for my position (see above response).  I'm not just "saying" it, I'm giving a specific mechanism by which it's impossible.  Namely, the idea of strong emergence, it's a *logical concept* I never said I had physical evidence.  I'm just saying it's *probably* the correct way to look at it because even *in the event* we had a complete picture of neuronal firings, there's no way to go from that to consciousness.

This is your argument:

1.) cite a completely irrelevant passage
2.) Claim we can't know for sure
3.) Repeat your claim over and over

Quote:


subjective experience is not "one-way knowable", meaning that I dont think there is only one way to consciously perceive a given experience. I am borrowing some arguments from mandik to suport that.





Guilty of #1

Just because subjective experience *is not* one-way knowable doesn't *imply* it can be *explained* through facts about neurons.


Edited by evilturnip (02/04/10 10:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSaturdayraining
Wendigo
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 250
Loc: The Temples of Syrinx, WA Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: evilturnip]
    #11964868 - 02/04/10 11:13 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ok, so let's take your example.  Assuming we got every neuron firing down.  So it's a long list of this:

Neuron #1 fires to Neuron #2 and Neuron #5 at time t
....
...
etc

Basically all the facts about neurons at every given time.  Where is the subjective qualia of red anywhere in there?




I see no reason to believe that the subjective qualia of red is NOT in there. if you knew all of those facts about neurons firing, you would be like mary. That is why I tried to show that mary WOULD see red, without actually experiencing the color red- all of that data  in your example is identical to "mary's room". You've already said you agreed with with Mantik's statement that an experience is not one-way knowable, knowing all the information about an experience is the same as experiencing it, but you still say the qualia of red is not in your example. how?

Quote:

Just because subjective experience *is not* one-way knowable doesn't *imply* it can be *explained* through facts about neurons.




saying that subjective experience is not one-way knowable is saying that the subjective experience is contained within the physical *facts* about those neurons. if it is not, then subjective experience is NON-physical, meaning that subjective experience IS one way knowable, since no amount of facts about the experience can be identical to the NON-physical experience.


--------------------
- Saturday

I have a lot of friends in the drug culture. I try to help them out by posting on here, and sometimes they put stuff up without my permission, but I do not condone or commit any acts described.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion"
-Carl Sagan

Anyone have some Macrocybe Titans spores or samples? PM me


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineevilturnip
better life through chemicals
Male

Registered: 08/21/09
Posts: 296
Loc: New York, NY
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: Saturdayraining]
    #11964985 - 02/04/10 11:28 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Saturdayraining said:

I see no reason to believe that the subjective qualia of red is NOT in there. if you knew all of those facts about neurons firing, you would be like mary. That is why I tried to show that mary WOULD see red, without actually experiencing the color red- all of that data  in your example is identical to "mary's room". You've already said you agreed with with Mantik's statement that an experience is not one-way knowable, knowing all the information about an experience is the same as experiencing it, but you still say the qualia of red is not in your example. how?





Nope, you misapprehended the entire paper's argument.  If, for example you have the experience of yellow, and you're trying to understand what "yellow-black" looks like, you can have an idea what it looks like by understanding how the neuronal system responds to light of various frequencies (i.e. maybe it uses a CMYK color-blending model), and how that would change your perception of color.  It says *nothing* about being able to reduce your experience to those neurons.  Just think a long time about this.

I'll submit the paper is *motivated* by a strict physicalism, but it doesn't do *anything* to advance it.  This is basically the paper's conclusion:

"One thing that knowing what it is like consists in is something that will
determine whether one is surprised or not. Fans of Jackson’s Mary must grant this, for
they are fond of explicating Jackson’s Mary’s ignorance of what it is like in terms of her
alleged surprise at seeing red for the first time. Well, Hyperbolic Mary is less surprised
than Larry on seeing chimerical colors for the first time. This shows that she must have
more phenomenal knowledge—more knowledge of what it is like to have certain
experiences—than did Larry. Mary was able to represent, in introspection, more
properties of her experiences than Larry. And her introspective capacity was augmented
by her neuroscientific concepts."

But it says *nothing* regarding the ability to *reduce* the experience to neurons.  Simply because you understand how your neuronal systems respond to light and that this *correlates* with your subjective experience *does not* imply it is *reducible* to those neurons!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 9 years, 20 hours
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: evilturnip]
    #11966662 - 02/05/10 05:58 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Im just going to jump in here and say 'subjective experience is one-way knowable'.

What makes you think you can know my experience? Sorry, you cant. You can develop an idea... but this idea can never be tested! so much for knowledge!

Our understanding of other people's experiences is made much easier by the use of words. We just live day to day as if we have a pretty good idea of another person's experience of holding an orange... but truthfully the experiences could be drastically different, and it would make no difference to our external calculations. So there really is no way of seeing through someone else's eyes

This is one of those annoying threads that goes on because the thread poster ignores the relevant points

knowing all the information about an experience is not to have the experience

dualism is not evil... it merely scares scientists


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineevilturnip
better life through chemicals
Male

Registered: 08/21/09
Posts: 296
Loc: New York, NY
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11967075 - 02/05/10 09:20 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
knowing all the information about an experience is not to have the experience

dualism is not evil... it merely scares scientists




I'll agree to the first statement.  The second statement I don't really.  One side of me wants to think in dualistic terms, but another side makes me believe subjective experience might just be a strongly emergent phenomenon.  Either way, whether you think subjective experience is "one-way knowable" or not doesn't mean you can reduce consciousness to neurons.  I just don't see any good argument for it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 9 years, 20 hours
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: evilturnip]
    #11967101 - 02/05/10 09:29 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

If you are experiencing it (vivid sentience) now then you know it is not explained by physics, even if people can isolate which physical phenomenon can be associated with it (your sentience) more than others.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSaturdayraining
Wendigo
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 250
Loc: The Temples of Syrinx, WA Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11970505 - 02/05/10 06:41 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

knowing all the information about an experience is not to have the experience

dualism is not evil... it merely scares scientists




the second one is true... dualism is not "evil"... it's just probably incorrect.

according to what you are saying, mary would never know the experience of seeing red, without seeing it. I do not think that is true- what do you think of the color-blind synthesthetics, who never "saw" the color red, but still experienced it by processing the necessary *physical information*. Why would mary not experience something similar to this?

dualism is easy to accept- we instinctually think of our mind separate from our bodies. what SCARES people is monism.

since you've apparently read through the paper so thoroughly, heres a quote:

"Upon seeing red, Mary allegedly must necessarily be surprised and thus learns
only then what it is like to see red. Since she knew all of the physical facts before coming
to know what it is like to see red, knowing what it is like must be knowing something
non-physical."


leading to the *inverse* of jackson's statement (or Mantik's statement), saying that "knowing something" IS physical.

part of his conclusion:

" Mary was able to represent, in introspection, more
properties of her experiences than Larry. And her introspective capacity was augmented
by her neuroscientific concepts."


how was she able to represent, in introspection, her experience? by drawing on the fact that the  knowledge she had of the process had identical information that the experience contained.

If subjective experience is NOT one-way knowable, then something about that experience is being recreated when another mind is knowing that experience. something physical. if it is non-physical, then how can it be recreated with physical components? or how was it even tied to the system experiencing it in the first place? if your saying consciousness is affected BY physical parts, and has an affect ON physical parts, then HOW is it NOT physical itself? its a big jump to say it is.


--------------------
- Saturday

I have a lot of friends in the drug culture. I try to help them out by posting on here, and sometimes they put stuff up without my permission, but I do not condone or commit any acts described.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion"
-Carl Sagan

Anyone have some Macrocybe Titans spores or samples? PM me


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineevilturnip
better life through chemicals
Male


Registered: 08/21/09
Posts: 296
Loc: New York, NY
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: Saturdayraining]
    #11972248 - 02/05/10 11:07 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Saturdayraining said:

since you've apparently read through the paper so thoroughly, heres a quote:

"Upon seeing red, Mary allegedly must necessarily be surprised and thus learns
only then what it is like to see red. Since she knew all of the physical facts before coming
to know what it is like to see red, knowing what it is like must be knowing something
non-physical."


leading to the *inverse* of jackson's statement (or Mantik's statement), saying that "knowing something" IS physical.





It's *Mandik*

Ok, I never said consciousness is *non-physical* I said it's physical, but can't be reduced to *neurons*

Quote:


how was she able to represent, in introspection, her experience? by drawing on the fact that the  knowledge she had of the process had identical information that the experience contained.





Incorrect.  She was able to draw on a neuronal model that *correlates* to consciousness.  It wasn't *equivalent* to consciousness.  One could predict that by showing a certain frequency of light, a neuron will respond a certain way.  This then means that the perceiving person will see a certain color (because there's a correlation here).  However, they aren't *equivalent*  I feel like I'm going in circles...  If you can't see that distinction, I don't know why I keep going

Quote:


If subjective experience is NOT one-way knowable, then something about that experience is being recreated when another mind is knowing that experience. something physical. if it is non-physical, then how can it be recreated with physical components? or how was it even tied to the system experiencing it in the first place? if your saying consciousness is affected BY physical parts, and has an affect ON physical parts, then HOW is it NOT physical itself? its a big jump to say it is.




Yes, being more than one-way knowable can entail having a neuronal model of the experience.  Except, *it's not equivalent to the experience* and Mandik never states that either!  Circles again....


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The spontaneous convergence of matter towards Intelligence and Consciousness [Re: evilturnip]
    #11975072 - 02/06/10 02:30 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Arguments like this show me why philosophy of mind needs improved neuroscientific understanding of the brain to get anywhere.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* On Artificial Intelligence Catalysis 1,502 8 04/25/02 02:41 PM
by Revelation
* Artificial Intelligence and Free Will
( 1 2 3 all )
xnevermore 3,382 41 11/25/02 02:39 AM
by Anonymous
* (TT) time travel mapping, (AI) artificial intelligence and random event generator hardware
( 1 2 all )
Tag_Number 3,514 29 11/20/04 04:07 AM
by Tag_Number
* prove your intelligence: define intelligence!
( 1 2 all )
atomikfunksoldier 2,511 30 04/26/03 04:20 PM
by atomikfunksoldier
* Artificial Life & Death
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,840 31 12/28/03 02:04 AM
by Zero7a1
* For those of you who see mushrooms as sacred
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Colonel Kurtz Ph.D 12,523 133 07/13/05 12:37 AM
by GNIOM1498
* Virtual Intelligence pattern 633 5 12/06/02 08:33 AM
by raytrace
* Intelligence SpecialEd 2,304 16 05/23/04 06:05 AM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,811 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 19 queries.