[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 9 KB, 228x251, 1320184871071.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991511 No.3991511 [Reply] [Original]

What does /shi/ think of Daniel Dennett's position on the hard problem of consciousness?

>> No.3991516

>>3991511
I know Dennet is an authority etcetera, but his "there is no hard problem" answer is just absurd.

>> No.3991519

>consciousness
>a hard problem

>> No.3991520

In denial. I'll accept that consciousness is much more limited than it seems but to say that there is no subjective experience is crazy.

>> No.3991531

>>3991520
Whoa, I hadn't considered it.
Could he really be in denial? I mean, I'm a materialist as well, but when I read him I almost feel as if he needs to attack the concept because it's vaguely "soul like" sounding.

>> No.3991545
File: 58 KB, 760x571, 1318446001491.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991545

Clearly bullshit.
He probably perceives the problem of the qualia is a threat to the entire reductionist philosophy so it's safer to pretend it doesn't exist.

PS: I'm a materialist as well, I just think faulty logic should not be tollerated.

>> No.3991552

there is no hard problem

>> No.3991555

>>3991552
This is a claim.
An explanation should follow.

>> No.3991560
File: 22 KB, 358x311, 00000787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991560

>>3991552
Explain how subjective experience arise then.
The nobel committy would be enthusiast.

>> No.3991565

"Why should physical processing give rise to any inner life at all?"
>why should a hydrogen atom have an electron? Who cares, it's just the nature of the brain to record and look at its own experiences.

"How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
>because they have the circuits in their brain to be subjects of experience.

"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
>BECAUSE OF YOUR FUCKING BRAIN. You evolved to be able to react to external phenomenon because it let you have sex more easilly.

"Why do qualia exist?"
>because some dumb fuckers who thought they were smart asked dumb questions to themselves.

"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
>everyone's experience is different because they have different sensory information at a given time, a different brain to process it with, and different sensors to feed that information to the brain.

"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"
>We are. You only think there aren't because your brain is able to self-analyze.

>> No.3991573

>>3991565
Either you really don't understand the question or you are trolling.


"Why do qualia exist?"
>because some dumb fuckers who thought they were smart asked dumb questions to themselves.

I'll go with the "you don't understand".

>> No.3991578

>>3991573
No, actually, I'm being serious.

The only reason qualia exist is because people ask the questions which are either unanswerable or nonsensical.

The answer to any question regarding any quale is "Who the fuck cares?"

>> No.3991583

>>3991565
OP here.
No offense, but your answers are...
well, they are not answers.
You are more reinstating the problem than anything else, which leads me to believe you don't understand what said problem is in first place.

Saying "conscious experiences arise because that's how your brain works" isn't much of an answer.

I'll try to explain it like this:
Is there such thing as "red" in the universe?
Off course we can see red, it's a lenghtwave of light, but two different ways - still the conscious experience exists nowhere but in our consciousness.

So how does your brain translates sensory imput into conscious experiences?

>> No.3991586

>>3991578
That's a little like declaring you've won a game by not playing.

>> No.3991588

>>3991586
The only way to win at philosophy is to ask the right questions.

The only right question:

"Who the fuck cares? Let's do science instead."

>> No.3991589

I stopped watching his lectures after he pulled the brick analogy in his talk about determinism and free will.

This bland ignorance clearly gave me a headache.

>> No.3991597

Just saying "lolnope" don't hold it. I'm more of a Searle guy; Dennet is making a categorization error and thinks that just because something is ontological subjective, so can't it be epidemiological objective. And that scares Dennet,

I won't bother defending my position, because it doesn't matter if you're with or against Searle's philosophy of the mind, someone's getting mad either way. But I'm convinced that neuroscience is a better way to go if we want to understand consciousness than computer science.

>>3991565

retards, retards everywhere, or at least in just this post.

>> No.3991599

>>Who cares, it's just the nature of the brain to record and look at its own experiences.

"it's just the nature of the brain" is the sciencey equivalent of "it's magic!".
I don't know would be a more honest answer.

> "How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
>because they have the circuits in their brain to be
subjects of experience.

...and how does such experience arise?
because that's kinda the point here.

>>3991589
Elaborate?

>> No.3991602 [DELETED] 
File: 17 KB, 203x300, 1297197683659.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991602

>>3991588
yeah, consciousness is something only philosophers bitch about.

http://www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw

>> No.3991603

>>3991545
>implying qualia is real
>implying qualia is more than sensory experience

>> No.3991604

>>3991583
>So how does your brain translates sensory imput into conscious experiences?

I'd say conscious experience is but a side product of brain processing the input.

>> No.3991610

>>3991604
...but once again, this is no answer.
How does such subproduct arise?

Changing the definition of something is not the same as explaining it.

>> No.3991611

>>3991565
>Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"
>We are. You only think there aren't because your brain is able to self-analyze.

If I remember highschool philosophy correctly p-zombies should be unable to self analyze. They are just preprogramed with correct reaction to every possible stimulus their could recieve in a way that makes it impossible to tell them from regular people.

>> No.3991614

>>3991603
Qualias ARE sensory experiences, nobody claimed anything different.

the question is how do they come to be.

>> No.3991617

>>3991604
>I'd say conscious experience is but a side product of brain processing the input.

Hardly a side product, conscious experience is simply very-high level abstraction combined with goal-oriented decision making.

>> No.3991620

>>3991611
the idea that there might be "living dolls" like that always gave me the creeps.

>> No.3991623

>>3991599

He claimed that having a brick fly at you and dodging is still an action of free will after proposing that every (un)conscious thought and action is a result of biochemical and physical processes and without describing an interaction on the cellular or even smaller level that would allow for such an abstract model like 'free will'.

His reasoning was simpy that you could still decide to dodge or stand there and that there's no such a thing as determinism in that example.

>> No.3991625 [DELETED] 

1. Christopher Hitchens
2. Sam Harris
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9000. Richard Dawkins
9001. Daniel Dannett

>> No.3991631

1. Christopher Hitchens
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8999. Sam Harris
9000. Richard Dawkins
9001. Daniel Dennett

>> No.3991635

>>3991625

> Sam Harris

Sam Harris is to philosophy what Call of Duty is to gaming; hugely popular for the broad masses yet shit for anyone with a tiny bit of experience within the field.

>> No.3991637

>>3991614
>the question is how do they come to be.
Pre-processing of the data feeds into abstractions. The problem is that reducing the colour red to language is a bitch due to limitations of language, not because qualia is something super-special, but of course the faults of language is used as an argument to elevate qualia to god-like magic status in the eyes of philosophers/lesser men.

>> No.3991638

>>3991635
I readdressed it. :)

>> No.3991644

>>3991620
It's impossible to create such thing. Anything capable of emulating human like inteligence should be complex enough to be conscious... or at least that's my bet. I am no philosopher or scientist, I want to draw comicbooks in the future...

>> No.3991647

>>3991623
Oh, the whole determinism with side dish of freewill thing...

>> No.3991655

>>3991637
>>feeds into abstractions

Christ... this is still a nonanswer, you might as well be saying "and then a miracle happens!".

>> No.3991656

>>3991637
Continuation:
This divide is particularly big because the examples used to illustrate qualia is typically vision-based. vision is a parllell data-feed system unlike hearing which is serial, language is based on hearing and is also a serial system. And using one to describe the other is a rather ugly task to attempt.

>> No.3991663

>>3991644
Point is, we don't know what consciousness is.
We might create a robot able to identify colors right now, but what about one able to eperience them?

>> No.3991674

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism#Qualia

WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING
Is Dennet retarded? I mean either I missed something big or he's deliberately trying to avoid the point of the problem.

>> No.3991680

>>3991663
Well I belive (because I don't really know and to my knowledge nobody does) that consciousness is inherent quality of complex enough systems capable of "self analysis".

>> No.3991685

>>3991656
...we are not really talking about how to communicate what we perceive, only ""how come we can perceive this?"

If the term qualia bothers you so much we can say "subjective experiences".

>> No.3991706

>>3991680
>>inherent quality
Interesting. This said "Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged. "

I still don't understand how subjective experiences arise.

>> No.3991726

>>3991663
>We might create a robot able to identify colors right now, but what about one able to experience them?

The initial step of a colour as presented to the human brain, is a series of spikes from a cone. Actually from three cones(or two, or four, if you're off nonstandard genotype). What you eventually see as a colour is a ultra-high level abstraction after brutal amounts of post-processing of the initial signal, evolved to be as it is as it apparently is a good abstraction of the enormous parallell bandwidth the human eye gives us in sensory information.

With some "unknown" neuroscience we could rewire touch and pain to be "visual" too.

And you know. Arguing about the visual experience of pain is the same as arguing about the visual experience of red. It's adding unnecessary complexity.

>> No.3991746

>>3991726
It is still ot an answer. You are describing a hypothetical process by which abstraction arises, handwaving the fact we don't know how such process could arise.

Yes, there is most likely a neurological explanation of qualia, but you are merely saying "it happens because the brain does it".

>> No.3991751

I watched his lecture at Edinburgh.

I don't understand how he could be so wrong about consciousness. Compatablism is utter bullshit.

I enjoyed the old guy though, "If you would say that it is a fabrication, and that it is an illusion, then how do you say that it is not a fabrication, of our own senses to which a fabrication of the reality, which you would say is an illusion..."

>> No.3991753

>>3991726
>>new paradigm
>>substitute "and then a miracle happens" with "and then abstraction happens"

>> No.3991769

>>3991726
Even if we could emulate the process by which experience of perception happens, this is not the same as understanding how. The "from sensory imput to subjective sensation" is the chasm to pass here.

I may be addying unnecessary complexity, but my perception is rather that Dennet is trying to shush away a bothersome sore spot in his worldview.

>> No.3991776

>>3991746
>Yes, there is most likely a neurological explanation of qualia

My point is that the explanation for qualia is that it does not exist. It's a bullshit contradictory term full of holes. It's like say, God in that you can always handwave away anything said about this hypotetical superpower.

The fac that examples of qualia is always ass-backwards convoluted doesn't help. Let me illustrate, there's this thing called Qaargh, that means the subjective combined experience of all persons in a city being born and living a full life to death, summarized. And because it's impossible to capture it in words it means some arbitrary conclusion leaning towards magic or some synonym to magic.

>> No.3991790

>>3991776
>>examples of qualia is always ass-backwards convoluted

the color red.
Here, not very convoluted.

I told you, if the term qualia bothers you let's use "subjective experience".

>> No.3991807
File: 65 KB, 640x427, 1302652241200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991807

Daniel Dennett really rustles my jimmies.

On some things he's incredibly incisive and poignant, and on other things he does nothing but perpetuate the negative image of philosophy.

He will always play second fiddle to Steven Pinker.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_09_27_newsweek.html

>> No.3991812

I'm reading now Dennet's objection to the qualia.

Before, I thought he was wrong. Now I think he's beyond that.

>> No.3991825

>>3991790
>the color red.
>Here, not very convoluted.
What colour is gamma rays?
Equally non-convoluted.

>> No.3991832

>>3991706
Ah, good old Pratchett, you are for my ears what sacher torte is to my tongue...
This little paragraph illustrate the problem fairly well:
There are no "molecules of red" so to speak - where does our ability to create a subjective representation of colors come from? How does it arise?

Dennet seems not to understand the real question or to be trying to ignore it.

>> No.3991849

>>3991825
We can't perceive gamma rays, I know. You are trying to make a point but I just don't get it. The fact we have trouble putting in words subjective experiences does not mean they don't exist (this seems to be what you are saying).

>> No.3991881

>>3991832
Obviously there are no molecules of red. There are wavelengths of red however. In our evolutionary past it was beneficial for the brain to develop a personal sensation of the colour red.

>> No.3991910

>>3991631
>putting Harris above anyone or anything
Dude, you just went full disagreeable.

>> No.3991911

>>3991832
>where does our ability to create a subjective representation of colors come from?
Cone cells having three different photopigments, colours being what they are to separate and sort objects, the need for contrasting them against each other. This never-fucking-ending insistance on using colours complicate the picture a lot.

If you atleast had the good grace of using rod-vision which is monochrome, but oh yeah here's no fucking words for the intensities seen with rods due to faults of the english language.

If you actually weren't just aiming to create an arugment for dualism to masturbate over you'd find a minimalist experience such as what's the experience of hearing a sine wave at x Hz.
Or maybe you're just entirely fucking ignorant to the the anatomy and physiology of the human body and couldn't tell the difference between a spinal reflex and the entire visual apparatus.

>> No.3991920

Personally, I'm not convinced the problem is solvable -- at least not conclusively. What we need to do is discover the rules of the form "If X happens, then there is a subjective experience Y." The problem is that my only data about Y is my own present subjective experience. I have no way of testing whether the processes in the brain of a bat or a robot give rise to subjective experiences, because I'm not a bat or a robot. I can only guess based on the similarities between those processes and the ones in my own brain. Understanding the detailed workings of the brain, improving our knowledge of X, will allow us to make better guesses, but doesn't solve the fundamental problem is that we each have only one data point for Y. I expect that once we understand the brain, we'll be in about the same situation we have in physics with solving the measurement problem: several competing hypotheses, with no way to test which is right. And philosophers will continue to argue about it indefinitely.

>> No.3991953

>>3991589
>>3991623
I'd appreciate a link.

>> No.3991954

>>3991911
I'll try one last time: the problem is not the phisiological mechanism that allows us to perceive and differentiate colors, rather how we manage to represent them into our mind.

Also, I'm not a dualist, I'm merely saying Dennet's explanation is shitty.

>> No.3991959

>>3991832
redness is a property of physical matter.

where does a molecule keep its "wetness". it doesnt wetness is a property of the ordering of molecules.

you wouldnt suggest that wetness is a spiritual quality in the same way that you suggest that redness is would you?

>> No.3991965

>>3991959
Once again, I'm no dualist.
I'm merely saying "tere is no hard problem" is a pathetic copout.


>>redness is a property of physical matter.

GGGGOOOOOD WHAT THE FUCK AM I READIGHHAAAAAAAA!!!

>> No.3991971

>>3991959
>redness is a property of physical matter
well we know *that* isn't true, at best you can says its a property of photons
but even that much isn't true because psychologists like fucking with perception and have found that you can make people see objects as colors that don't correspond to the light they're relecting

>> No.3991974

>>redness is a property of physical matter.

I... wow.
Just...
I'll... I'll need to throw up a little if you will excuse me.

>> No.3991977

>>well we know *that* isn't true, at best you can says its a property of photons

Leave.
Please.

>> No.3991985

I honestly don't understand the problem. Or rather, I don't understand what people mean by "subjective representation" of external stimuli, and how/why this would differ from any other purely physiological process.

>> No.3991990

>>3991971
I'm not trying to offend you or to diminish you, but how old are you? Are you the same guy of >>3991565 ?

Because if the answer is yes, you really didn't understand the nature of the discussion.
Again, I'm not trying to insult you.

>> No.3991993

>>3991953

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSgVgrC-6Y

>> No.3991996

>>3991993
Thank you.

>> No.3991999

>>3991985
I'll try to explain: there is no such thing as, say, red.
Red is the way our brain rapresnt a given wavelenght our eyes perceive.
How do we then represent the concept "red" in our mind?

Oh, fuck it, watch >>3991602
he probably explains it better than me.

>> No.3992000

>>3991977
Me neither. They ask from where the experience of "redness" comes from. The answer given is that it's a way for the brain to construct an image of the world that allows for differentiation of wavelengths of light. Then they say that's an inadequate answer and repeat the question.

>> No.3992002

>>3992000
Here.

Meant to quote
>>3991985

Don't know how the fuck that happened.

>> No.3992003

>>3991999
Thanks, I'll watch the video.

>> No.3992008

i don't think it's really thought through. his theory doesn't explain shit. surely you could describe the obvious missing the point entirely, but that's not really worth discussing.

>> No.3992011
File: 76 KB, 370x500, 1302545339130.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3992011

>>3991911
>>If you actually weren't just aiming to create an arugment for dualism to masturbate over you'd find a minimalist experience such as what's the experience of hearing a sine wave at x Hz.

The opinion of a well known dualist on the matter.
.youtube.com /watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw

Look, if your answer was so poignant you would already be retiring your nobel.
Nearly nobody is a dualist here, certainly not me.
And nobody has said anything that could make you desume they were: the bottomline is, we still don't have an explanation and Dennet is apparently giving rather crappy opinions on the matter.

>> No.3992020

>>3991971
yea, i know that
but perception of redness isn't redness

if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it still makes the crashy sound it would have if someone had been there.

how can we know that? record audio of a tree falling unwitnessed and one falling witnessed, can a random sample tell the difference? no, then no difference.

if we pick any single definition of redness we find that redness is a property of physical matter.

is it what is see what i look at red fabric?
if so, then it is a property of the fabric
ah, but douse the lights, where has your redness gone now?

is redness behavior of the photon that leaves the fabric and hits my eye?
if so, then it is a property of the photon
ah, but what if we change the perception system

is redness what happens when a certain kind of electric impulse leaves my eye and enters my brain?
if so, then it is a physical property of the system that the tissues that connect my eyes and brain.
ah, but what if...

this is called shifting the goal post
if we agree on a definition of redness then what counts as redness doesnt change.

how you can know that this is a losing battle is that you only propose changes in physical systems. if redness changed as a result of non-physical changes then you might be on to something.

this only seems reasonable because our use of language is so loose and casual. if it took you a paragraph to describe redness to me there would be less of a problem here.

>> No.3992023

>>3992000
That's kind of the impression I got as well, to be honest, but as I said, I may simply be missing their point of objection. To me, it seems like this "subjective interpretation" is simply a mysticized description of our brain processing information by purely physiological means.

But this is not intended as a counter argument or anything. I genuinely don't know shit about any of this. At this point, I'm simply a bit confused about the nature of the problem.

>> No.3992026

>>3992000
You really don't understand the issue.
I'm not trying to put you down, but you merely answer to strawmen of your own creation.
The problem is not how our brain perceives X but how we are able to represent it consciously. Saying it's an abstraction only raises further questions.
If the answer was as obvious as you say it wouldn't still be one of the most debated argument in science and philosophy.

Learn some humilty kid and try to actually understand the issue.

>> No.3992043

>>3992008
You mean Dennet, some anon or Dawkins?

>> No.3992046

>>3991954
>the problem is not the phisiological mechanism that allows us to perceive and differentiate colors, rather how we manage to represent them into our mind.

You cannot, for gods fucking sake, declare physiology entirely irrelevant. Becuase the perception of colour for a person lacking a visual cortex is entirely fucking absent. So if physiology is irrelevant then I can simply say that there's no such thing as seeing, or colour or qualia at all. A ultra-minimalistic visual cortex could only determinate if you see high-intensity light or not, less than that and the subjective experience of vision would not be. The subjective experience, in this case colour, is a product of the visual cortex that is either exported or kept maintained as an "in-house" representation.

As for most things we pass off as "subjective experience" it's dependent on cooperation between multiple brain centers. If we blast the right brain area(brocas or wernickes, my physiology is very rusty, whatever) you could see the colour red, and you'd know it's red, but you couldn't communicate it, the word wouldn't be found, if the other area you could say "it's red" but you'd not know what the meaning of what you said was. There's a lot of automatic brain process that run passively and then hand you a script to execute, hell your own will actually precedes your conscious awareness of it.

cont...

>> No.3992050

cont...


If we engage in hypotethic surgery and chop away my visual cortex, auditory cortex, speech center, cut afferent spinal pathways(physical touch etc) we end up destroying qualia of various kinds yet the actual total disappearance of consciouesness would be very hard to pinpoint, and what usually is pointed out as qualia is only sensory feeds and i'm pretty sure you'd agree that we could be conscious even in the absence of touch, smell, taste and hearing, although quite locked in.

A very large segment of our understanding of consciousness and the mind comes from practical neuroscience, observing damaged patients. Not from sitting on high horses debating sweeping concepts such as qualia, which most likely is a broken "catch-all" word of very little practical significance.

>> No.3992057

>>3992026
I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread. We are able to represent it consciously because that is a very useful thing for our brain to be able to do. It was a strong evolutionary advantage to have the ability to consciously represent external sensations.

If you're asking for the actual mechanics behind the translation of perception to conscious representation then I'll admit that nobody really knows. But it strikes me as more logical to assume that it's simply a subject for advanced neuroscience that we aren't quite at the level of yet. I'd also be interested in the further questions raised by saying it's an abstraction other than the "how" question of the mechanics behind it.

I thought I would point this out too:
>I'm not trying to put you down
>Learn some humilty kid

>> No.3992058

>>3992046
Oh shit, I give up.
I'm not a fucking dualist.
Physiology is not irrelevant, it is everything, but saying it happens because the brain does it IS NOT A FUCKING ANSWER.
I'm sorry, but you really don't seem to understand the problem.

>> No.3992065

>>3992058

>but saying it happens because the brain does it IS NOT A FUCKING ANSWER

Then find an answer and win yourself some reputation.

As of now, we can only speculate on what's the most plausible scenario.

>> No.3992069

>>3992057
>I'm not trying to put you down
>Learn some humilty kid

Yeah, I was worried you would have interpreted this as discordant signals.

The point is, you have made no effort to understand what all of us are talking about.
You keep spewing phisiological explanation of how perception works which are really not the point of the discussion.

>> No.3992070

>>3992026
>The problem is not how our brain perceives X but how we are able to represent it consciously.

We are able to represent it consciously as a result of how the brain percives X. What you're doing is creating some semantical trap or paradox.

But okay, the brain doesn't matter, so i'm a nematode with 4 neurons. I'm about as conscious as a tendon reflex. Therefore qualia doesn't exist and you're a gigantic flaming faggot that only knows how to ignore arguments and regurgitate your pretentious philosophy bullshit.

Summary:
>You(being a faggot)How can god keep earth in orbit
>Me(or that other guy that bothered to reply)God doesn't keep earth in orbit, it's a result of the workings of the force of gravity.
>You(still being a faggot)I don't care how gravity works, I wanted to know how God do it.

TL;DR the answer is very simple, the problem is that you're an incorrectible flaming moron.

>> No.3992077

>>3992069
> phisiological
case in point regarding the argument that you're a retard.

>> No.3992078

>>3992070
>>the answer is very simple, the problem is that you're an incorrectible flaming moron.

oookay, first of all I'm not a theist/dualist or anything else, so your god comparison is kinda out.
Second, if the problem is so simple and you have such a clear answer, you really should make it known. It's not as if it's one of the most controversial arguments in modern science and philosophy.

PS: I was serious before, how old are you?

>> No.3992087

>>3992077
Hell yeah, a spelling error in a tongue that is not my own, that really puts down my entire argument!

>> No.3992090

>>3992070

>You(being a faggot)How can god keep earth in orbit
>Me(or that other guy that bothered to reply)God doesn't keep earth in orbit, it's a result of the workings of the force of gravity.
>You(still being a faggot)I don't care how gravity works, I wanted to know how God do it.

A more correct example would be:
A: how does the earth orbit the sun?
B: It goes around it
A: Uhhh...

>> No.3992097

Saying the hard problem is bogus is a perfectly valid response. Stringing syllables together doesn't mean you're asking a meaningful question. "How does magic work?" will always draw blank stares. Subjective experience can be explained by CASUALTY, like everything else in the universe and therefor falls entirely into purview of the easy problem.

>> No.3992104

>>3992070
Jesus... you are truly retarded...
where did he say the brain doesn't matter?
He clearly means the nature of the discussion is not the biological mechanism that allows us to perceive cholors, but the one that allows us to translate them into conscious sensations. If the question was "how does the eye work" OP would have simply looked it up on wikipedia.

Don't try to transform this into some shitty religion vs edgy teen atheist argument, please...

>> No.3992109

>>3992090
Why does the shun shine?

Well you see space-time...

Aw don't give me any of that crap! Just admit that you don't know!

Uh..

>> No.3992112

>>3992078

>How does x work?
>Going by the most recent scientific conclusions, Y does Z which leads to X.
>But how can you be so sure of that?
>As I said, we're constantly trying to improve our scientific understanding of said matter.
>But your take is just a theory, a geuss.
>Yes, that's why we're constantly trying to reevaluate it based on developing knowledge.
>But your explanation is too simple, X has been argued over FOR SUCH A LONG TIME!
>How bout making a theory for yourself?
>HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE OF YOURSELF?
>...
>Dude, how old are you?
>...
>Seriously, I wanna know your age.
>....

>> No.3992117

>>3992097
Listen.
Nobody is trying to propose a nonmaterial explanation.

Nobody.

The point is that no valid explanation has been given so far.

Nobody is talking about magic, god, souls, dualism or whatever the little strawman you built inside your mind is.

Okay?

We all agree conscious experience is subject to causality.

But this is really

not

the

point.

>> No.3992122

>>3992112
>>How does x work?
>>Y works like this, this and this.

>> No.3992123

>>3992078
>PS: I was serious before, how old are you?
25

If you were 15 it would be a redeeming point to your obvious density, but chances are you're 35 and think your age automatically makes you intelligent while it's obvious that idiots comes in all ages.

Do you think a good argument is you saying "no, that's wrong" repeatedly to the opponents without giving any counterpoint or fleshing out the question? Because if you don't, why is that the only thing you've been doing this whole thread. Also, posting under two names to try to get points for majority argument doesn't make you less of a faggot.

>> No.3992124

>>3992122
>>3992117
congratulations you've just solved the hard problem, now get back to work

>> No.3992129

>>3992112
Kid, I'll try again:
this thing is being debated by the smartest people in the planet.

I know you think you had some incredible intuition, but if you think about it, it is much more likely you really didn't understand the question. Which is what everyone has been telling you for the past hour.

If you are so convinced, by all means, write a paper and have it peer reviewed.

I'll be hearing about you on the news.

Also, after that "redness is a property of electrons", I wouldn't try to sound so cocky about my scientific knowledge.

>> No.3992140

>>3992117
Then what IS the point. It may just be me, but I don't even know what you're asking anymore. Are you asking about the mechanics behind the translation of objective sensory input into subjective personal experience? If you are then the answer is simply that we don't know. We probably will know sometime soon, within the next century is my best guess, but for right now we don't really understand it. If that's not what you're asking then could you restate it clearly because evidently I'm lost.

>> No.3992142

God did it.

some day, some of you will come to that conclusion. i hope. because you sound like a bunch of fools right now.

>> No.3992144

>>3992123
26, actually.
the fact that two or more people can disagree with you is all that scary?

>> No.3992145

>>3992117

Ok here's the deal...

You ready?

I seriously hope you are, it might cause some severe trauma.

I've warned you.

we
don't
exactly
know
yet

2 choices now:
- award it too some spooky, unknown shit (hello, monotheistic religions)
- try to use a plausible scenario by using recent scientific researches and if you need more FUCKING DO SCIENCE

>> No.3992149

>>3992117
>But this is really not the point.
What is the point then? you've been awfully fucking worthless at explaining it.

You want a definite intuitive algorithm that generates subjective consciousness that you can test?

Or you want us to just say "yup, Qualia sure exists!" and leave it at that?

Or have you in your infinite ignorance and boundless stupidity not considered what you want other than appearing as some radical pro-mysticism teenager trying to convert us to your cult of ill-defined arguments?

>> No.3992152

>>3992142
If you look up, a video where Richard Dawkins expresses exaclty the same questions as me is linked.

>> No.3992160

>>3992149
Look, qualia is just an expression.
Let's fucking drop it.

the problem is, we are creating in our brain something that does not have a material correspondent.
There is no "red molecule".
And no, redness is no quality of any electron.
Seriously, I died a little reading that.
Our brain perceives something, then it translatesinto something that exists nowhere else if not in our brain.

this is the hard problem - clear enough?

>> No.3992162

"How do brain processes lead to subjective experience?" isn't the best way to put the question. "How" is too vague and leads to misunderstandings. The right way to put the question is "Under what conditions do brain processes lead to subjective experience?" Or better, "which brain processes are subjective experience, or are its immediate cause?" Once we answer that asking "how" is a bit silly; the answer would be "it's a general principle, like the laws of gravitation." (Yes, I know we don't know the fundamental laws of gravitation, but that's beside the point.) But answering the "which" question is still a hard problem. The reason it's a hard problem is that we only have one subjective experience to study -- our own.

>> No.3992166

Sure is qualia of the gaps in here.

>> No.3992167

>>3992144
>the fact that two or more people can disagree with you is all that scary?
No, but I feel insulted of being the same species as your witless kind that disagree because you hold the concept of qualia as some moral-guidance beacon instead of realizing it's a bullshit concept that is annhilated the second you take a closer look.

Then again I guess I should've seen it coming, Qualia, God and Goverment-system/ideologies are the Zealots favourites.

>> No.3992172

>>3992152
why listen to one fool over the other, more published fool?

God did it.

that's reality.

deal with it.

>> No.3992173

>>3992166
lol'd

>> No.3992179

>>3992162
Look, you have bben interpreting the question in the wrong way:
I'm not interested in the way our body does it - because yes, it's our body that does it, for some reason you seem to think I'm a dualist of some kind - at the moment we have no idea, so it's useless speculation. The question is, how does our brain generates something that has no correspective in reality. I don't know how to express this better.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how random namecalling strenghten your argument but hey, you are the genius who solved the hard problem.

>> No.3992181

>>3992172

God could make rocks think. You have added nothing to the conversation.

>> No.3992190

>>3992162
but we take other peoples account of their own experience at face value all te time

>> No.3992191

>>3992181
exactly

you can add nothing to what God did

i'm glad we can come to an understanding on this issue

>> No.3992198

>>3992179
via the process of imagination

is this seriously so difficult a concept?

>> No.3992199

>>3992191

You understand nothing.

>> No.3992203

>>3992179

Let me redirect you to >>3992145

But who gives a shit until we've found an answer based on facts instead of your naysayer attitude.

We can do it. Every person's anatomy is different. Due to that, it's plausible that every person's experience is different unless you want to introduce some unworldly concept. Deal with it.

>> No.3992204

>>3992198
...you are trolling me, right?

Please, tell me you are.
I'm not even kidding.

>> No.3992205

>>3992199
i only understand in part

but that seems to be a mountain of knowledge, relatively speaking

>> No.3992206

>>3992204
i don't know who you are

>> No.3992211

>>3992179
So what you're asking is how the brain has developed a unique way of interpreting the world through the senses? That's even more simple. The brain evolved consciousness and the ability to have subjective, conscious experience because it was very advantageous to do so. The brain constructs it's own image of the world because a creature that is capable of doing so will be more likely to survive than one that does not.

>> No.3992212

>>3992211
nope

God did it

>> No.3992215

>>3992211
>>because it was very advantageous to do so

Goddamit, because is not how.
Look, either I can't express my question or you cannot understand it.

>> No.3992217

>>3992212
>>3992191
>>3992172

I start to like this guy.

God be with you, dear fella.

>> No.3992218

>>3992215
what evidence do you have that God did not do it?

>> No.3992220

Subjective experiences aka qualias don't exist, we ARE in fact philosophical zombies... so the question is almost as stupid as "what is the meaning of life" or the concept of free will.

>> No.3992224

>>3992190
Because we know they are similar to us, and assume that the same principles that lead to us being conscious lead to them being conscious. There would be much more debate about the experiences of a sentient computer. And what about things that can't communicate their experiences? Does your dog have a subjective experience? Does a rock?

>> No.3992229

>>3992217
He is, thank you very much. and because He is, it is easy to discern truth from foolishness

i highly recommend Him

>> No.3992231

>>3992224
yes
no

>> No.3992232

>>3992229
But... *how* did God do it?

>> No.3992234

>>3992215
The how has already been answered above. It is a physiological process which we do not completely understand.

>> No.3992240

>>3992215
I understand it was an evolutionary process that lead to this
I understand why it would be advantageous.
What I don't understand is how the brain can represent something that does not exist in reality - I use the example of colors. The problem, at the momen, is not one of biology. For now we do not know the biological explantion, and that's it, I know this - the problem is how can redness exist if red does not exist outside from our consciousness.

>> No.3992241

>>3992232
why ask me? why not ask Him?

wouldn't that make more sense that getting high and wondering how many universes might be contained in your toenail?

>> No.3992245

>>3992240
your premise is fault
"evolution" did not bring you about

God did

>> No.3992249

>>3992240

We're seriously dealing with a mastertroll here.

>> No.3992254

>>3992249
i know, right? how hard is it to accept that God did it, when in fact, God did it, and said He did it, and proved He did it?

guy must be a troll

>> No.3992257

>>3992254

God does not need proof.

>> No.3992273

>>3992249
look, it's okay if you disagree, but this is a very debated issue, don't try to make it look as if anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

>> No.3992281

>>3992273

You're an utter idiot for ignoring every single comment that addressed your exact, puny problem.

And I prefer to go for the troll-route in such a case.

>> No.3992288

>>3992240
Consciousness is a very unique thing. The fact that it can create something unique does not surprise me in the least. The fact is, is that redness is simply the pattern of neural signals that the brain uses to associate a certain wavelength of light to a certain experience in it's construction of the world around it. I really don't see how the such a question has any meaning beyond this. Consciousness is a relatively new and unique aspect of the universe. But it is still ultimately materialistic in origin.

>> No.3992289

>>3992240
Qualia do exist in reality; they're in our minds. Point to qualia in the brain? This gets into metaphysics of whether qualia are brain processes or whether they are e.g. caused by brain processes, but presumably there's a neural computation that either is or causes the sensation of redness. What you would then ask is how, given all the laws of physics that don't reference redness, and a certain firing of neurons, you would deduce that redness was present. The answer is that you can't. You need to introduce a new law of nature -- some principle that says that in certain situations there is redness. We can then ask exactly what that principle is. That is a hard problem.

>> No.3992297

>>3992281
Such a demonstration of intellectual superiority.
Wait, was it you who accused me of samefagging?
because that would be rather ironic.

>> No.3992324

>>3992288
>>The fact that it can create something unique does not surprise me in the least.

Here is where I'm baffled instead - we are creating a concept out of nothing? This is basically where I have no answer to give.


>>3992289
>>You need to introduce a new law of nature -- some principle that says that in certain situations there is redness. We can then ask exactly what that principle is. That is a hard problem.

I think that's Hameroff, Shroedinger and Dyson's position. I guess that would require some quasi dualistic explanation though, I can't imagine an alternative.

>> No.3992356

>>3992288
I'm aware the argument I'm going to use is rather shitty, so bear with me.
See, if the brain can generate by itself a concept such as red, how come we cannot generate a color that doesn't exist?
I guess we should try the "child raised in a black and white room experiment" with some modification to find out if a child can know a "normal color" before being exposed to it. But even then we would have no effective way of verifying it.

>> No.3992368

>>3992297

I'd rather see it as an expression of sadness over an extent of ignorance that almost perishes anything I've seen in life so far.

>>3992288
>>3992234
>>3992203
>>3992145
>>3992149

I'll condense it into a single sentence for your mind that seems to be incapable of interpreting such a concept:

Nobody knows yet.

What we do know is where the brain comes from (materialistic description) and in simplified schemes how it processes things.

Combine this with the fact that almost everything we've researched so far has proven to not be some magical (you could also say spiritual, not bound to natural laws) shit and you'll easily get to the conclusion that we just need better science.
You can still make up your own deity and account it for that but please spare me.

>> No.3992375

>>3992324
>we are creating a concept out of nothing
Not nothing. We create it out of the interaction of signals in our brains. The "flavour" of the sensation is indeed something completely unique and new. But it's just a method for the brain to allow differentiation between certain sensations in our conscious projection of the world. The brain needed something to be able to convey the idea of redness to the consciousness and so we get "qualias".

I will admit that it is completely fucking amazing that it does this though.

>> No.3992376

>>3992240
>how can redness exist if red does not exist outside from our consciousness

It can't. Photons of a given wavelangth can.

>> No.3992377

>>3992324
the alternative, and correct position, is that God did it

you're kind of obtuse

>> No.3992382

>>3992356

>implying we aren't making up concepts that don't exist like... every minute in our lives

>> No.3992386

>>3992375
yes

God is amazing, and everything He does is amazing

i can see why you would want to spend an eternity talking to Him about everything He did, and how He did it, and watch Him do infinitely more things after this universe is destroyed

>> No.3992393

>>3992368
I think I pointed out I'm not religious.
And a video showing Dawkins of all people expressing the same perplexities as me has been posted, so it's not really something exclusive to religious people.

So, can we stop with the "magic" strawman?

Also, chill.
Jesus christ, was your family killed by qualia or something?

>> No.3992401

>>3992324

>>3992289 here,
You certainly don't need two substances. You could argue that you need two classes of properties; one class including statements like "water has a density of 1 g/cm^3" and the other including statements like "Joe is experiencing the color red." But I think such a classification is artificial; all it does is separate properties we don't understand (such as redness) from properties we do (such as density).

>> No.3992409

>>3992382
For my life, I cannot think of one.
Everything we think is a combination of preexisting elements - try thinking up a new color.

>> No.3992415

>>3992393

I did - nowhere - accuse you of being religious, I just offered you the two possible routes you could go without making yourself look like a moron.

>> No.3992443

>>3992375
>>The brain needed something to be able to convey the idea of redness to the consciousness and so we get "qualias".

I would expect that to be in, I don't know, binary?
The fact our brain has to make up something without a correspective in nature is what amazes me.

>> No.3992448

>>3992356
The brain can't generate another new colour because it's not good at that. We can imagine mixtures of colours and such but to imagine a completely new colour is completely beyond our experience. Remember that colour is just the interpretation of different wavelengths of light. I'm sure that other animals with large ranges of sight can see other, new colours. We, however, are limited to certain wavelengths because those are the ones that are useful to us. Our imagination simply isn't powerful enough to create new flavours, especially is we can't associate them with a sensation we can detect.

>> No.3992454

>>3992409

You're mixing up sensory based concepts and thought concepts here.

Mathematics is an abstract concept that has no materalistic or sensory background and just happens to sufficiently represent parts of our physical world (the use it was inherently created for)

>> No.3992461

>>3992415
look, if this discussion troubles you so much why do you keep posting?

I'm an idiot, unworthy of your genius being bestowed upon me. there are other idiots like me who are apparently feeding my delusions by (oh, the humanity!) speaking in a civil manner.

You should just leave us to our misery.

We don't deserve you.

>> No.3992474

>>3992448
That's what I mean by "new" concept.
We can just recombinate data our senses feed us.
Creating some radical new concept is impossible.

if you have some example of what you mean by new, maybe we can understand each other's argument better.

>> No.3992503

>>3992461

The fact that you're shooting down attempts to give you a scientific answer with strawmen like 'but it's still being discussed!' or 'but why does it work EXACTLY?' indeed induces the urge in me to call you an idiot.

It's the same like asking why gravity exists. It has certain answers that all get negligible when the depth of your question gets too deep.
And that's the case for every single question in life.

>> No.3992505

By the way, to everyone who might know:
I think Dennet offered a counterargument to the philosophical zombie argument - so he believes there is consciousness without conscious experience?

I'm not sure, mind you, this could be completely off the mark.

>> No.3992506

>>3992474
mohammad is a prophet of God
God isn't real
God doesn't love you
Caesar is god

these are all things men have imagined that are not true

but it's kind of cute watching you think that imaginations are somehow so difficult to understand, and that only you, and those like you, who make the simple so very, very complex, are facing reality

when in fact you are blind, naked, and pitiful

>> No.3992518

>>3992505
the other funny thing is to watch you cling to one philosopher after the next, not knowing that philosophy is based on tearing down prior philosophers, and proving how wrong they were

oh, but this new one, this guy, he's got the answers. he's different. he's right.

lulz

>> No.3992533

>>3992503
I'll try one last time:
you don't understand the question.
It is beyond my current abilities to explain it any better, and god knows I tried.
This discussion seems to be causing a lot of distress to you, which in return has caused you to beahave like the average /b/tard.
Others have, with my great pleasure, taken place to the discussion and unlike you, they seem to get OP's question - they expressed different positions without insulting eachother.

Either you are too smart or too stupid.

Either way, you are in the wrong place.

>> No.3992550

Well it's been an interesting discussion. I was glad to have been in it. Before this I wasn't even aware that this was a problem in philosophy, even though I still think it doesn't really have much meaning behind it.

>> No.3992556

>>3992518
the funny thing is, dennet is the philosopher quoted in OP post - I only knew him for his argument on the qualia and for the one on determinism+freewill.
Considering I disagree with him on both instances, I hardly expect him to provide any answer.
I'm not making a statement, I'm asking a question about an apparent contradiction.

>> No.3992568

>>3992556
and i have to point out that you yourself have provided none, either

>> No.3992577

To continue
>>3992289
>>3992401
a little, the principle doesn't have to be a dynamical law. I'm not saying we have to add extra redness particles to the Standard Model. It can be an interpretation principle. The argument
>What you would then ask is how, given all the laws of physics that don't reference redness, and a certain firing of neurons, you would deduce that redness was present. The answer is that you can't.
follows just as validly if we were talking about "distance" instead of "redness." You can write down equations and proofs about geometry all day long, but it doesn't mean anything in reality until somebody tells you how the distance you encounter in abstract geometry relates to the distance you've seen in real life.

>> No.3992581

>>3992550
Same here. I mean, I do recognize the problem, but I think it ultimately boils down to an issue of limited means of measurement.

>> No.3992587

>>3992550
Are you the guy who has been throwing insults around for 3/4 of the thread?
If no, thanks for your contribution.
If yes, you mean I've spent the last hour hearing you bitch and you never even read anything on the matter?
And you acted like a nun being molested everytime someone tried to explain you didn't understand the question?

>> No.3992593

>>3992533

You're certainly wrong. I understand the question you're raising very well and that's the sole reason why your behavior baffles me THIS much.

You're currently asking the impossible, and everything beyond the fact-based explanations are simply concepts that can either swing into the scientific or spiritual direction.

The way you're leading this discussion here is one of the many reasons that made me quit previous meetings with sophisticated people such as professors: People are trying to make a point, you simply neglect it and ask the same question over without either making a counterpoint or a constructive point yourself.

>> No.3992594

new color: x-ray

it's a really cool, shimmering color, that you can only see on DMT or shrooms, but it's totally new and real

trust me, i'm a /sci/entist

>> No.3992601

>>3992568
I never claimed I did.
If I had, I wouldn't be here posting on 4chan, I would be keeping a conference at Harvard.

>> No.3992602

>>3992587
you can't even tell where the /butthurt begins, and the /ragequit ends, can you

>> No.3992621

Trust me guise, its a soul, and you should be happy about that.

>> No.3992649

Anyway, I'm glad we could at least agree on the existence of contra-causal free will.

>> No.3992655

>>3992602
Honestly no, I'm no telepath.

>>3992593
have you ever considered that maybe you are the problem?
I mean, I may be as stupid as you say but I didn't go around swinging insults becauses someone disagrees with me. Have you considered, for a split second, that maybe you really are wrong?
Others have answered and managed to do so without sounding like attention starved jerks.

Also, the whole trolling thing... seriously? If you don't care about an issue you can simply leave, nobody will award you any point for disturbing a thread you dislike.

>> No.3992719
File: 29 KB, 500x236, greater-internet-fuckwad-theory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3992719

An always useful reminder people:

>> No.3992740

>>3992655

Way to not even address the things I mentioned right in the post you quoted.

You are - once again - avoiding the unpleasant layouts and diving deeply into deconstructive clichés.
Using the same fruitless thing (that's also been assaulted multiple times) over and over again without any self-reflection serves no benefit at all.

It's nagging without a basis. And I despise it.

>> No.3992747

>>3992601
no offense, but you don't even have answers suitable for 4chan

>> No.3992759

>>3992655
ceterus paribus, the tripfag is always wrong

learn your lesson, and move on

>> No.3992786

>>3992740
And you show your moral and mental superiority through trolling and samefagging?
Yous started with a tirade on the workings of the eye and the brain, completely missing the point - on top of that, you just went on insulting anyone who disagreed with you. What are you so angry about? You want to talk about it?

Also, I wouuld add a third position, that of Hameroff and Dyson, although I don't consider it much better than a spiritual one for the time being.

>> No.3992793

>>3992747
>>3992740
>>3992759
Samefagging again?
You can tell by the close succession of the posts, one after the other with one minute of difference, what are the odds?

>> No.3992796

>>3992786
yes, yes, we are fearfully and wonderfully made

that was written about 4000 years ago

do you have anything new to add to the conversation?

no?

then be still, and know that He is God

>> No.3992805

>>3992796
>>I did - nowhere - accuse you of being religious
>>spreads religious jokes for the whole thread

>> No.3992806
File: 13 KB, 633x758, thatfeelguy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3992806

>Qualia is a term used in philosophy to refer to subjective conscious experiences as 'raw feels'. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache

>raw feels
>raw feels
>that raw feel

>> No.3992812

>>3992786

Your fear of samefagging is both delusional and amusing.

You asked. People answered that the specific causes aren't known yet but pointed out up to what degree they can provide scientific facts. You just went on that they didn't understand the question (which is wrong, most did, in fact, understand it) and asked the same thing over.

YOU didn't understand the answer you were getting and kept on behaving like a spoiled child.

So much for the ad hominem,

>> No.3992822

>>3992812
Uhm, you kinda admitted samefagging by saying you considered trolling an adequate response and accused me of samefagging - were you being paranoid back then?

>> No.3992840

>>3992822

And another thing you failed to understand. I prefer to see the people who're behaving in an utterly moronic way as trolls.

Take it as a blind faith or hope that no person on this planet could make up such a high pile of bullshit.

>> No.3992843

>/sci/ proving how easily trolled it is by faked stupid yet again.

You guys better shape up, my god.

>> No.3992861

I think it's dark quantum pretrubpuberance.

>> No.3992862

>>3992840
...?

You said you were trolling with the religious crap.
Don't dodge the issue please.

>> No.3992863

>>3992843

>I was just pretending to be a retard

Hahaha

>> No.3992866

>>3992805
you have an odd way of conflating all of your detractors

we are legion

>> No.3992867

>>3992862

You're either mistaking me again for someone else or you're having some serious issues.

>> No.3992873

>>3992867
hivemind

^5

>> No.3992877

>>3992867
maybe.
The problem with anonymous.
Aould you consider for a second that, regardless of wether I'm right or wrong, the problem you have to deal with people could be caused by the way you react rather than by their stupidity?

>> No.3992887

a distinction between mind and body only ever comes from arguments from ignorance. as in
>the brain is complicated and we don't understand it

to

>the mind must be separate because humans are special and wonderful individuals created in the image of god

>> No.3992896

>>3992877
>asks nigger rapper

>> No.3992907

>>3992877

Imagine a group of people, collectively walking towards a shared goal. Some might stumble or go into the wrong direction, but others will always help them out and give them a further push towards that constructive aim. There's a person standing right in the middle of the road. People try to encourage him, pull him along, if only for another step. But this person wouldn't move or even make a sound. Just standing there. Stagnant.
Suddenly someone comes around with a baseball bat to clear the road of that unsightly mess.

>> No.3992908

>>3992887
what is the distinction between those two statements?

why do you imply they don't go hand-in-glove?

>> No.3992914

>>3992907
and then, another person shows you that there is a better way, a narrow path, that you didn't see before, but standing on it, you can see that the broad road leads to death and destruction

even without the baseball bat

that's what it's like

>> No.3992918

>>3992914

You're mistaking the road for a single path. It's a metaphor for a process. The goal might be unreachable, but the journey is what counts.

>> No.3992921

>>3992907
Internet vigilante in action!
So you are not going to consider, even for a second, that wether you are right or wrong your behaviour could be counterproductive?


>>Suddenly someone comes around with a baseball bat to clear the road of that unsightly mess.

That someone is called a sociopath.
you can just ignore those you disagree with, you know that right?

>> No.3992935

>>3992908
I think he was describing a "spectrum of ignorance", if you will. The difference between the two examples is that one is a clear argument from positive religious faith, whereas the other is just an attempt to create some dualist wiggle room, without making any distinct, positive claims.

He wasn't implying that they are mutually exclusive, though, at least not to my understanding.

>> No.3992940

>>3992921

There's nothing to agree or disagree over with you. You aren't making a point.

There isn't even 'right' or 'wrong' in here, just the common will to develop your own point by discussing things in a constructive matter.

Doing nothing, you won't ever progress anywhere.

>> No.3992951

>>3992908

The first is a simple observation. It is complex and we haven't encountered a theory yet that sufficiently satisfies our questions.

The second one is a claim that comes out of it.

>> No.3992973

>>3992940
I'll state my point one last time. Try to act like a civil person and I'll try harder to get your point.
The brain generates something that has no correspective in reality - namely, personal experiences.
For the sake of the arguments, we'll use colors.
There is no such thing as "red" outside our mind - and we know that depending on our brain and eyes the way we perceive colors differently from one another.

Up to now, the three explanations possible are:
1) It's a byproduct of the brain we still cannot explain (obvious to me, but it doesn't give me a real answer)
2) it's a radical new property of matter or of the universe we don't know of (Hameroff and Dyson's view)
3) It's magic

Giving me explanations on how our eyes perceives colors doesn't add much to the discussion.

>> No.3993001

>>3992907
Fuck yeah, let's teach lurkers the ways of 4chan!

>> No.3993017

>>3992973
>>2) it's a radical new property of matter or of the universe we don't know of (Hameroff and Dyson's view)

Uh?

>> No.3993026

>>3992918
it's a broad path; very wide. many people find it

it leads to death

>> No.3993036

>>3992935
perhaps you can explain this to me, then

when it comes to the subject of "God", aren't we all arguing out of ignorance, either in part, or in whole?

so therefore, is arguing out of ignorance really a logical fallacy, or merely a statement of fact?

>> No.3993040

>>3992973
there is no spoon

>> No.3993042

>>3992973

Oh, it's not like me and about 6 or 7 other peers have continuously tried to get that exact same thing across. But when we tried to get further into one of the mentioned points, you just kept on throwing your useless polemic around to mow everything in your range down.

You could merge 1 and 2 into one point as 'fuck, we need better science' as well.

>> No.3993044

>>3993017
I don't know much about it, read infinite in all directions for Dyson.
As for Hameroff, it's about Orch-or, about which I know even less.

>> No.3993049

The answer to the hard problem? Why do we perceive red as the color "Red"?

A. Red is a wavelength of light that is biologically differentiated by the eyes and interpreted as Red by the brain in relation to other wavelengths of light

B. The reason the interpretation of red gives us the sensation of "Red" is almost certainly because of the interrelationship of various systems of neurons and the bounds of which they evolved originally.


That's all there is to it. We can't yet answer in perfectly reductive fashion because we don't yet have perfect knowledge of the human brain. It takes only basic deductive reasoning to presume it's a product of the biological process.

To think otherwise is simply an argument from ignorance and a resignation to metaphysical arguments, it's worth noting that the breadth of what is and is not considered qualia has decreased steadily since modern physiology came into practice.

>> No.3993062

>>3993049
yes, yes, you must be the qualia of the gaps guy. kudos

but God did it.

>> No.3993072

>>3993042
Actually, I can see a ton of throaway comment with little adherence to the subject, some comment against your position and some for it.

>> No.3993084

>>3993072
>i see, said the blind man, and he picked up his hammer and saw

>> No.3993114

>>3993049
By qualia I mean subjective experience - quite frankly I'm not aware of any other interpretation.
What leaves me confused is the poddibility for the brain to create something that has no correpsective in reality.
Yes, we perceive red, yes, we do it through our brain, but but what amazes me is the fact that "red" doesn't exist outside from our conscious mind. Add to this the fact we cannot "create" new colors out of nothing.

I understand the biological mechanism that give us the possibility to perceive color, but the ability to transform it into something abstract baffles me.

>> No.3993124

>>3993084
So you see no comment in disagreemnt with you aside from mine?

Really?

>> No.3993141

>>3993124
i'm on my own here

i'm the christfag telling you that God did it

the other guy is the guy that took you to the woodshed

try to pay attention, and keep up

>> No.3993164

>>3993036
Sorry about the late response. I wasn't following the thread.

>when it comes to the subject of "God", aren't we all arguing out of ignorance, either in part, or in whole?
Well, not necessarily. Of course none of us can ever actually have any kind of absolute knowledge of God, but that doesn't mean all hypotheses related to him are automatically arguments from ignorance. It entirely depends on the context, on the claims that are being made and, as always, on the kind of "God" that's being proposed.

>> No.3993186

>>3993164
for purposes of this thread, we shall consider God to be a Creator God, omnipotent, with a desire to create beings with which to fellowship, and eventually, become like Him.

i.e., the real God as He has revealed Himself in His Word

>> No.3993219

>>3993186
>omnipotent
This pretty much puts him outside the realm of science and rationalism. An omnipotent God is an unfalsifiable, incomprehensible God.

>> No.3993272

>>3993219
then should we spend our time on "rationalism" and "science", or on developing a relationship with an omnipotent Creator?

>> No.3993304

>>3993272
Well, rationalism and science are practical tools I can use to get a better understanding of the world around me. An incomprehensible supernatural force, whose existence I can never be sure of and whose intentions are likely to remain a mystery to me forever, just doesn't seem all that appealing by comparison.

>> No.3993314

>>3993304
can't agree with you on the incomprehensible God, the unknowable intentions, or the benefits of knowing something about this rock prior to death

shame, really

i suppose the question is, is revealed truth somehow less appealing, or less "true", than truth found in the pursuit of truth, by the sweat of a man's brow?

i can see where the former is "easier" than the latter, but is "easier" a disqualifier for knowing the truth? i don't think so. i think once you know the dull ring of truth, finding out other things, even things about this rock, become clearer

>> No.3993355

there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w

>> No.3993379

>>3993314
>can't agree with you on the incomprehensible God, the unknowable intentions
The thing about the value of knowledge obtained in this life surely is up for debate, but I don't see how the God you described earlier could possibly not be incomprehensible to us. Omnipotence implies agency outside of logic. An omnipotent God could create paradoxes, things that are their own opposite, etc., like the proverbial square circle, or something that's both, existent and non-existent at the same time. These concepts simply are beyond our comprehension, at least in any meaningful sense of the word.

>i suppose the question is, is revealed truth somehow less appealing, or less "true", than truth found in the pursuit of truth, by the sweat of a man's brow?
I don't think so, no. But that wasn't really my point anyway. I don't prefer rational thought to faith, because of some "work ethic", but because faith doesn't actually give me any satisfactory answers. It just expects me to stop asking.

>> No.3993777

>>3993114

It's definitely a fascinating concept— the idea that we no nothing of the world other than impressions we draw from our senses. The best visualization I've heard is that we have never seen or apprehended reality at all, but merely constructed a very precise and accurate corollary to it.


Nevertheless, I tend to think the solution to the "Red" problem is relatively simple. If we presume a materialistic perspective (not too much of a leap imo), then it's logical that both our brain and extant world are both material, or both in the same reality (ie. we need draw no distinction between them) to that end, whilst the sensation "Red" doesn't exist in the extant world, it clearly exists in some fashion, and can most likely be described as the complex physical property of the interaction of a large system of neurons. And thus it is something that exists in reality, just not in the common, trivial sense we think but as the product of a complicated chain of reactions.

This doesn't seem at all implausible to me, after all, if we hadn't created them ourselves, we'd probably have thought the complex images and interactions created by computers to be an inexplicable and irreducible property of the computer, rather than the physical property of the reaction of billions of Off/On switches.

>> No.3994126

>>3993777
It's creepy somehow, almost as if reality is a skeleton and we have the illusion it's covered with flesh.