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

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29661118 -

in that case it is a hard problem
i.e.
when the solution of it eludes while being clearly presented.

I had thought that, if memory function could be explained realistically, then people would be able to see that both perception and memory formation taking place at the same time together in a physical substrate (eg the brain) removes the hard problem.

I thought that if I showed that active neurons in any moment of experience were interlinked so that the experience could be re-experienced in a familiar setting then people would recognize what is happening to themselves 6 times per second at least.

apparently the granularity of associative memory matching real life consciousness (@ 6hz) in a way that works for a lifetime in the biological structure of the brain and body, and the good sense it makes for the evolution of the basic sense of familiarity in eukaryotic organisms does not communicate well.

is there a gap in understanding or readiness to understand?

At one time the earth was flat
then the sun revolved around the earth
now we know these are obvious untruths though to most people it makes no difference


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661157 -

Well, your model describes a plausible mechanism for consciousness, but the identity between that mechanism and experience is still something being proposed.

There is presently no mathematical derivation by which phenomenal experience follows independently from the physical mechanism. There is mathematics that infers a globe Earth, and it's also predictive enough to dispel a flat Earth.

That's why I suggest the practical answer is that one can accept consciousness without needing a proof, even if doing so is "flat Earthish".

Consciousness can reasonably be treated as a philosophical primitive. Whether it's mysterious or not is largely a product of mood.

If treating the evidence as sufficient gives you a working position, I have no problem with it. It's no less defensible than "it just is." You may argue that it's more defensible, but that relies on an assumption that the mechanism is the experience, which hasn't been derived in the way we expect a scientific conclusion to be, which is why the term "hard" is used.

Is there no mystery in that?

Is it mysterious that reality exists at all? I don't advocate for confusion, but it could be a sense of wonder. I also don't advocate for a perpetual sense of wonder, but it can be a nice place to visit.


--------------------
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]
    #29661169 -

The JavaScript presents the math and defines the types of neurons involved
but if you do not accept that it's ok.
many people have skipped that form of literacy jumping into AI which may not even be literacy.
This is isolating for me, but I derived it in isolation so that is no real disappointment.
I still have trouble with e=mc2 but I accept it, and I understand and have enjoyed visualizing atomic chain reactions which may not necessarily have anything to do with that simple equation.
I am good with visualizing theory that actually works, and got the highest grades in organic chemistry with zero on my lab work (never attended labs for smell and danger - so perfect on the exam). In that class I was answering questions by describing how geometrically shaped charge drives chemical reactions.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661194 -

redgreenvines said:
Freedom said:
redgreenvines said:
well in one case we are talking about the arrangement of parts (anatomy) and in the other case the parts are engaged (electric charges are interacting in the anatomy)

the gap is between dreamless sleep (or death) and waking experience - & dreaming



ok press play and watch the anatomy jiggle around, there is still a gap between jiggling anatomy and experience. Do you not see that?


those events are 1/6th of a second and they don't jiggle they spark or flash, and each links to over 100,000 other electric events at the same time, it is like being there but 1/6th of a second after whatever happened together, and also similar stuff from the past. it can feel very multidimensional.

being present is just a shade after the fact, but that is where we are at.


the tongue in cheek jiggling analogy isn't the gap I'm referring too.

there are many sensors that have algorithms to detect contrast or change. Does a motion sensor have an experience? If awareness is identical to detecting change why does it produce experience? Do you not see the gap in your mechanism?

The properties of molecules can be predicted from the properties of atoms and subatomic particles. The properties of lipid membranes and enzyme complexes  can be predicted from the properties of molecules. We understand how cholesterol lowers the freezing point of plant cell walls and helps them survive through winter.

My claim is that there is a gap when it comes to experience. not that there is an experiencer, not that experience is in some magical other plain. just that there isn't even a theory of how to bridge the mechanistic gap from the creation of a brain to the creation of an experience

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661199 -

I can appreciate your neural modeling, but does consciousness follow from the model, or is the identification of the model with consciousness still an inference?


--------------------
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]
    #29661207 -

Turns out im not the only one that calls it a gap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Freedom]
    #29661219 -

There reasonably is a gap. But I'm not a dualist because I don't know that I should be. I lean toward non-dualism but that doesn't make the gap trivial.

I do have physicalist thoughts, but not in a disrespectful way that discounts experience as illusion. I think/feel much closer to monism, but that also doesn't imply atman or a non-material soul (to me).


--------------------
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]
    #29661222 -

This is how i see it:

Quote:
Those who use its existence to support dualism have often assumed that an epistemic gap—particularly if it is a definite limit on our cognitive abilities—necessarily entails a metaphysical gap.[10]

Joseph Levine and others[clarification needed] opt to either remain silent on the matter or argue that no such metaphysical conclusion should be drawn.[1] He agrees that conceivability (as used in the Zombie and inverted spectrum arguments) is flawed as a means of establishing metaphysical realities; but argues that even if we come to the metaphysical conclusion that qualia are physical, they still present an explanatory problem.

    "While I think this materialist response is right in the end, it does not suffice to put the mind-body problem to rest. Even if conceivability considerations do not establish that the mind is in fact distinct from the body, or that mental properties are metaphysically irreducible to physical properties, still they do demonstrate that we lack an explanation of the mental in terms of the physical."


Edited by Freedom (09/04/26 11:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Freedom]
    #29661229 -

Freedom said:
... there are many sensors that have algorithms to detect contrast or change. Does a motion sensor have an experience? If awareness is identical to detecting change why does it produce experience? Do you not see the gap in your mechanism? ...


during the process in the brain several things are happening at the same time (not just change detection)-
1. change detection in the six layer cortical columns favors the activation of neurons that are not registering an ignor-able ongoing pattern.
2. those cortical neurons which are not suppressed are allowed to be active (in thalamo-cortical feedback) and they participate in forming new associative memory patterns 6 times per second and
3. those same active cortical neurons work together to reactivate memory patterns that had similar neurons active during their formation.

-  we can be aware of what is going into memory and what is being reactivated from memory itemized in the 3 points above.

a motion sensor camera without a continuously forming memory and without continuing familiarity based memory reactivation, is just part of an alarm system or a video recording system.

we are not simply motion sensors grazing and waiting for a tiger to chase us into consciousness.

I have not extensively demonstrated how change detection is achieved in all the different ways that are implemented in the brain, that is the easiest part but also it is a huge volume of work including sound and phoneme detection trajectory detection, body position shifts etc.
I have only focused on the general case of memory pattern formation from experience and reactivation of experienced memory patterns in the brain.
I think that understanding this aspect of consciousness -where acquiring gestalt experience merges with familiarity based reactions- is the essence of qualia.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661232 -

thats why i called it "jiggling" we can call it a black box. whatever. say we know all the physical mechanisms in the brain and correlate them with experience

there is still a gap

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29661243 -

Rahz said:
I can appreciate your neural modeling, but does consciousness follow from the model, or is the identification of the model with consciousness still an inference?


consciousness evolves over time as the capacity for navigating by a reliable familiarity reflex.

initially this is inferred to have come about by enhancing chemotaxis, and enhancing phototaxis, reflexes mitigated by memory in worm like creatures wriggling about half a billion years ago.
now we navigate by familiarity reflexes using tools, and traditions, and while journeying through media meant for enjoyment as well as media meant as support for our labors.

even while puzzling through this review of philosophers and their well cultivated conundra, we are very advanced versions of that worm reacting to what is familiar and continuing to build our inner sense of things.

is it an inference or a realistic description of what we can see, in the residue of what has been left behind, in the fossil records, anatomy, microscopy, and in the reams of eeg traces.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Freedom]
    #29661244 -

Freedom said:
thats why i called it "jiggling" we can call it a black box. whatever. say we know all the physical mechanisms in the brain and correlate them with experience

there is still a gap


abiding in the gap,
I review your black box,
jiggling in the wind


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661260 -

i saw i couldn't explain it as a kid and it rocked my world. that mystery has been a prime motivator and influence on my life.

something interesting about it is i encounter people who appear not to be able to see what I'm talking about. Alternatively, I may simply be deluded. If you understand what I am pointing at and you can see how I've missed something, can you you explain it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Freedom]
    #29661266 -

keep on asking the question
as you approach the gap
I think really
nobody can gift it to you.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661269 -

It is a realistic description of what we can see, but not why there is seeing.

I think we are just going around in circles at this point.


--------------------
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]
    #29661276 -

"why there is seeing?"
is that like asking god "why me?"


anyway, as I see it
there isn't seeing separate from being
which is to say, our experiences and our memories of experiences are all gestalts,
so no "pure" seeing, but instead millions of instances of seeing with body presence feelings of all kinds and hearing and tasting and thinking and smelling and...


so do not ask god "why is there seeing?"
as yourself, "what am I experiencing while seeing?"
or "what am I aware of?"
or
"what are active mental contents now?"


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661280 -

i don't see any reason to ask about it anymore, except when there is another who may have a different perspective

if you have to say one is primary I would say experience is, as all the ideas about the brain only happen as experience, we never see an actual brain, if there is one it paints a picture of itself and the world but never sees directly

but i don't see a need to arbitrarily decide that one side of the gap is primary

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Freedom]
    #29661292 -

there is also a temporal gap of 1/6 sec. min between awareness and events being experienced.
so more than one gap in this domain of questioning.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29661294 -

I never said there was "pure" seeing. I'm not sure what that would mean in this context.

I'm asking why there is anything it is like to experience that gestalt, and you're saying, "that's what the gestalt is." It's no more empirical than what I suggested earlier "It just is".

If the gestalt is supposed to explain phenomenal experience simply because experience appears at that level, then "gestalt" isn't doing more explanatory work than "emergent property" saying a property emerges.

In other cases, an emergence can be predicted through the parts, but awareness isn't derived from the models. :shrug:


--------------------
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]
    #29661298 -

i think there is an epistemic gap between those who see the gap and those who don't

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

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

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 10:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Starting point of a (my) philosophy.
( 1 2 all )		 Xanthas 3,657 25 04/13/06 03:20 PM
by RedNucleus
* The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 2,382 30 12/31/05 03:06 PM
by Sclorch
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 8,567 72 02/16/06 09:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* isn't functionality just a different kind of causality? Malachi 1,019 13 07/21/03 06:18 PM
by Sclorch
* A philosophy degree?
( 1 2 3 all )		 rogue_pixie 7,974 57 11/30/04 07:05 AM
by rogue_pixie
* Craven's crazy druggie philosophy Mystical_Craven 619 1 06/29/02 01:31 PM
by deepr
* Philosophy Links
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,733 36 05/25/04 11:26 AM
by Deviant

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
929 topic views. 1 members, 43 guests and 18 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 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.