Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: sudly]
    #29659525 -

Well, it's a hard problem but perhaps not an impossible problem.

Still, asymmetry of access makes it pretty hard.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29659540 -

which asymmetry is that?
thee comprehensibiity of biology and evolution?


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29659541 -

Cool Guys Don't Look At The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

The more you ignore it, the cooler you look.



Destruction and Cleansing: In a Notebook, one described meditation as a "great explosion which purifies" and a "storm, destroying and cleansing" superficiality, illusions, and psychological conditioning.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29659563 -

redgreenvines said:
which asymmetry is that?
thee comprehensibiity of biology and evolution?


The only empirical way of observing awareness directly is through one's own mind.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29659603 -

if awareness is the (active mental content) unsuppressed cortical neurons with ongoing thalamic feedback, then it should be detectable as theta wave present at each active cortical neuron.

this means that mechanico-electronic means can detect awareness (and even produce a sketchy rendering of what a person is aware of).

but what would be asymmetric for those of us who believed that "The only empirical way of observing awareness directly is through one's own mind."


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29659648 -

Because a sketch of qualia is not the qualia, third-person confirmation never directly verifies that the mechanism is or produces the subjective experience itself.

A working understanding may still not explain how physical substrate converts into subjective feel.

Working understandings often fail to explain everything, but they don't usually leave anything substantial. Again, it's a hard problem but not necessarily an impossible problem.

But, another hard problem is the failure of QM and/or classical physics to explain various mesophysical phenomena. Perhaps not impossible, but it's still hard.

I'm not suggesting that's the only issue at play. There is also the fact that everything about qualia that we can explain "water is wet" through empirical means is not the qualia itself.

"What's love got to do, got to do with it?"


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Edited by Rahz (09/02/26 07:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29659689 -

lots
the with is the important aspect of "what's love got to do with it?" in the matter of gestalts and qualia.

this muscle tension with that fresh breath feeling and this coffee scent with that shade of blue sky and this fabric with that hairy arm.

with with with
each phrase carrying part of the overall qualia (gestalt of the moment) but "with" making it stick.

I am not saying that each moment of qualia can be fully described or even fully perceived by the person in the moment of experiencing, however, the problem is not to create expansive documentation beyond the crucible of experience, but to understand what qualia is while it is how it is.

Penrose et al make it harder than it needs to be.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29660034 -

Rahz said:
Well, it's a hard problem but perhaps not an impossible problem.

Still, asymmetry of access makes it pretty hard.


Do you think there would be a hard problem if we accepted that evolution did it?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: sudly]
    #29660065 -

i.e the familiarity reflex for animals


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: sudly]
    #29660132 -

sudly said:
Rahz said:
Well, it's a hard problem but perhaps not an impossible problem.

Still, asymmetry of access makes it pretty hard.


Do you think there would be a hard problem if we accepted that evolution did it?


Most Chalmers style "hard problem" advocates fully accept evolution.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29660135 -

redgreenvines said:
i.e the familiarity reflex for animals


Does a reflex require qualia?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29660153 -

Rahz said:
sudly said:
Rahz said:
Well, it's a hard problem but perhaps not an impossible problem.

Still, asymmetry of access makes it pretty hard.


Do you think there would be a hard problem if we accepted that evolution did it?


Most Chalmers style "hard problem" advocates fully accept evolution.


Do you though?

The hard problem isn't real if the answer of why and how has an evolutionary basis.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: sudly]
    #29660200 -

I'm not sure of your logic. Do you hold the view that function accounts for phenomenology?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29660217 -

Rahz said:
redgreenvines said:
i.e the familiarity reflex for animals


Does a reflex require qualia?


qualia exists because of the familiarity reflex and sensory neural signals.
both are required

qualia requires the familiarity reflex
the reflex does not require qualia - one makes the other - it does not go backwards


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz] * 2
    #29660277 -

The hard problem begins when one denies that the evolutionary and organisational questions sometimes called the soft problems could, even in principle, answer the how and why of phenomenology. It is therefore not simply the fact that those questions remain unsolved. It is the claim that no resolution of them, including an account of their evolutionary emergence, organisation and causal operation, could answer why or how experience exists.

I do not make that denial. If experience is an evolved aspect of an organismโ€™s organised participation in the world, then its explanation belongs within the same explanatory field as the processes through which that organisation emerged and operates. Perception, memory, integration, learning and adaptive participation are therefore the real problems to solve.

They may be profoundly difficult, including because of asymmetry of access, but they are not a separate metaphysical problem. The remaining task is to develop that account, not to explain how an additional non-evolutionary property enters the picture.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29660333 -

Rahz said:
redgreenvines said:
which asymmetry is that?
thee comprehensibiity of biology and evolution?


The only empirical way of observing awareness directly is through one's own mind.


Phenomenologically, Iโ€™m not sure that awareness itself is an object of observation. What seems directly experienced are the contents of awareness; sensations, thoughts, emotions, and perceptions, while awareness is the way or condition in which those contents appear.

Although awareness itself may not be directly observed as an object, its presence, absence, or alteration can be inferred from the contents of experience and from converging behavioral, cognitive, and physiological evidence. These inferences concern the conditions and manifestations of awareness; they do not by themselves establish what awareness is.

Phenomenologically, it may be more accurate to say that conscious states are directly experienced, rather than that awareness itself is directly observed.

Metacognition may provide reflexive access to oneโ€™s own mental states, but calling this a direct observation of awareness risks circularity, since the monitoring process already presupposes the occurrence of some conscious or cognitive activity.

The phenomenological point is not that a separate self is hidden behind experience, but that no particular experience or mental process can simply be equated with awareness without further argument.

Edited by teknix (09/03/26 05:00 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29660352 -

This is a quote from the Upanishads:

You cannot see the seer of seeing;
you cannot hear the hearer of hearing;
you cannot think the thinker of thinking;
you cannot know the knower of knowing.
This is your Self, which is within everything else.

The passage seems to establish, at most, that the subject of experience is not encountered as an ordinary object. It then identifies that non-objectifiable subject with an underlying Self. That identification is a metaphysical step, not something entailed by the phenomenological observation alone.

To move from the first four lines to the final claim, the passage requires additional premises: that every act of knowing presupposes a distinct knower; that the knower cannot be reduced to the changing bodily or mental processes through which knowing occurs; that whatever cannot be objectified must nevertheless exist as an enduring subject or witness; and that this witness is identical with the Self present within everything else. Without those premises, the passage establishes only a limit on objectification, rather than the existence, independence, permanence, or universality of ฤtman. The conclusion may be coherent within an Upanishadic metaphysical framework, but it is not entailed by the phenomenological observation alone.

This is a quote from the Anattalakkhana Sutta:

"Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Mental formations are not-self. Consciousness is not-self."

The passage seems to establish, at most, that bodily and mental processes are conditioned, changing, vulnerable to suffering, and not fully subject to voluntary control. It then identifies those processes as "not-self." That identification is a philosophical and soteriological step, not something entailed by the phenomenological observation alone.

To move from the changing and uncontrollable nature of bodily and mental processes to the conclusion that they are not-self, the passage requires additional premises: that a genuine self must be permanent or stable; that it must be independent of conditions; that it must be capable of governing or controlling what it is; that whatever is impermanent, conditioned, and vulnerable to suffering cannot properly be regarded as self; and that no conception of self remains once these processes have been excluded. Without those premises, the passage establishes only that bodily and mental processes are changing, conditioned, and not fully controllable, rather than the complete absence of any possible self, subject, or awareness.

The conclusion may be coherent within a Buddhist framework of impermanence, dependent origination, and non-self, but it is not entailed by the phenomenological observation alone. Just as the Upaniแนฃadic passage moves from the non-objectifiability of the knower to an enduring Self, this Buddhist passage moves from the conditioned and uncontrollable nature of experience to the denial of self. The two traditions draw opposing metaphysical conclusions from different features of experience, but neither conclusion follows without additional premises.

Edited by teknix (09/03/26 05:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: sudly]
    #29660400 -

sudly said:
The hard problem begins when one denies that the evolutionary and organisational questions sometimes called the soft problems could, even in principle, answer the how and why of phenomenology. It is therefore not simply the fact that those questions remain unsolved. It is the claim that no resolution of them, including an account of their evolutionary emergence, organisation and causal operation, could answer why or how experience exists.

I do not make that denial. If experience is an evolved aspect of an organismโ€™s organised participation in the world, then its explanation belongs within the same explanatory field as the processes through which that organisation emerged and operates. Perception, memory, integration, learning and adaptive participation are therefore the real problems to solve.

They may be profoundly difficult, including because of asymmetry of access, but they are not a separate metaphysical problem. The remaining task is to develop that account, not to explain how an additional non-evolutionary property enters the picture.



I think the essence of the hard problem is qualia can only see qualia and mechanistic theory can only see mechanistic theory. so exploring either land you get to an edge that you can't go beyond. mechanistic theory can lead to what appears like a full mechanistic understanding of a system. qualia can be experienced as fully as possible and yet we can not feel the mechanistic source of the qualia and how it turns into qualia. There's a gap between what appears as seperate worlds with impassable epistemic boundaries.

The best evidence I can imagine for linking mechanistic evidence with qualia would be to generate qualia patterns through a mechanism and input that into a persons system and test if they can be aware of the pattern.

The problem with this is it still doesn't explain why a physical phenomena produces a particular shape of experience. Say you have magic machine that can move ions in 3d space in the same patterns as ions move in a brain, but you've eliminated the brain and just have the ions moving in the same patterns, and you can create an experience in someones mind from that, we still can't explain why that patterns creates an orange square or whatever in a persons mind

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Freedom]
    #29660406 -

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

maybe this is the beginning of a different thread.
or not.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29660432 -

redgreenvines said:
qualia exists because of the familiarity reflex and sensory neural signals.
both are required

qualia requires the familiarity reflex
the reflex does not require qualia - one makes the other - it does not go backwards


If the familiarity reflex itself requires no qualia, and sensory neural signals themselves can also occur without qualia, what is it about combining the two that produces qualia?

You've identified two necessary conditions, but that doesn't yet explain why their interaction should produce subjective experience rather than simply a more complex non-conscious neural response.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,167 3 05/03/04 08:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Starting point of a (my) philosophy.
( 1 2 all )		 Xanthas 3,657 25 04/13/06 01:20 PM
by RedNucleus
* The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 2,381 30 12/31/05 01:06 PM
by Sclorch
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 8,564 72 02/16/06 07:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* isn't functionality just a different kind of causality? Malachi 1,019 13 07/21/03 04:18 PM
by Sclorch
* A philosophy degree?
( 1 2 3 all )		 rogue_pixie 7,974 57 11/30/04 05:05 AM
by rogue_pixie
* Craven's crazy druggie philosophy Mystical_Craven 619 1 06/29/02 11:31 AM
by deepr
* Philosophy Links
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,732 36 05/25/04 09:26 AM
by Deviant

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
927 topic views. 1 members, 36 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.