What is consciousness?
Moderator:Metacrock
There have been a couple of posts on Cadre about how consciousness is supposedly not reducible to the brain, but no one seems to have any idea what conscious is then - or at least not that they want to admit to any one. I challenged BK about this on this post:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ud-of.html
... and he said I knew nothing aboutr it and declared the conversation over, then bravely deleted my later comments.
Maybe I do not know, but the fact that he could say or link to anywhere that says suggests to me that he does not either. This was an issue he felt strongly enough to post about, afterall, so why so shy about his own position?
It is Joe too:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... art-1.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... art-2.html
Clearly an important issue, but when challenged... just silence.
It kind of looks like theists are desparate for consciousness to exist outside the brain - they eed something to exist in the afterlife - but have no clue how that might actually work.
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ud-of.html
... and he said I knew nothing aboutr it and declared the conversation over, then bravely deleted my later comments.
Maybe I do not know, but the fact that he could say or link to anywhere that says suggests to me that he does not either. This was an issue he felt strongly enough to post about, afterall, so why so shy about his own position?
It is Joe too:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... art-1.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... art-2.html
Clearly an important issue, but when challenged... just silence.
It kind of looks like theists are desparate for consciousness to exist outside the brain - they eed something to exist in the afterlife - but have no clue how that might actually work.
Re: What is consciousness?
What seems interesting to me, and implicit in your argument, is the assumption that it's always better to have a constructive theory, even with holes, than to admit a gap?
Maybe it's the case that human consciousness can't ever fully explain itself? Due to that human inability to assume an angelic perspective outside ourselves and completely self-examine? Some heavyweight commentators have thought so, and that kinda makes sense.....
If some aspects of it - like qualia - seem to be permanently left out of physicalist models of consciousness, why is it better to claim "at least I've got a complete theory" as a defence than just to admit where there's holes?
Maybe it's the case that human consciousness can't ever fully explain itself? Due to that human inability to assume an angelic perspective outside ourselves and completely self-examine? Some heavyweight commentators have thought so, and that kinda makes sense.....
If some aspects of it - like qualia - seem to be permanently left out of physicalist models of consciousness, why is it better to claim "at least I've got a complete theory" as a defence than just to admit where there's holes?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
Dr Ward Blanton
Re: What is consciousness?
Of course we should admit there is a gap, and I do not think anyone is saying the problem of consciousness is solved.met wrote:What seems interesting to me, and implicit in your argument, is the assumption that it's always better to have a constructive theory, even with holes, than to admit a gap?
But if you want anyone to take your solution seriously, you have to make clear what it is.
Joe et al are big on pointing out that the emergent consciousness hypothesis cannot explain thi, that and the other, but science is goinmg to stick with it if it is the best we have at the moment, and if the other contends all fail to explanthose things, then surely it is.
Could be.Maybe it's the case that human consciousness can't ever fully explain itself? Due to that human inability to assume an angelic perspective outside ourselves and completely self-examine? Some heavyweight commentators have thought so, and that kinda makes sense.....
Who is claiming we have a complete theory?If some aspects of it - like qualia - seem to be permanently left out of physicalist models of consciousness, why is it better to claim "at least I've got a complete theory" as a defence than just to admit where there's holes?
What I am claiming is that the emergent consciousness hypothesis is the best theory we have, despite the holes in it.
So far no one even seems willing to share any other theory. I think a theory that people can state will win every time over a theory no one dare say aloud.
Re: What is consciousness?
Well, if I presented the idea that "there is no current theory that can hope to explain all aspects of consciousness and there very likely may never be" as a THEORY (and perhaps called it the "Undecidability Theory of Consciousness") would it "win"?
Does that state the case in the most accurate possible way?
Does that state the case in the most accurate possible way?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
Dr Ward Blanton
Re: What is consciousness?
I understand the irreducibility arguments for consciousness as being a defeater for physicalism, not necessarily as evidence of God. Some, like Joe and others draw theistic implications form this irreducibility as part pf a rational warrant argument, but I prefer to stick to basics. There's more to reality than just the physical.The Pixie wrote:There have been a couple of posts on Cadre about how consciousness is supposedly not reducible to the brain, but no one seems to have any idea what conscious is then - or at least not that they want to admit to any one. I challenged BK about this on this post:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ud-of.html
... and he said I knew nothing aboutr it and declared the conversation over, then bravely deleted my later comments.
Maybe I do not know, but the fact that he could say or link to anywhere that says suggests to me that he does not either. This was an issue he felt strongly enough to post about, afterall, so why so shy about his own position?
It is Joe too:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... art-1.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... art-2.html
Clearly an important issue, but when challenged... just silence.
It kind of looks like theists are desparate for consciousness to exist outside the brain - they eed something to exist in the afterlife - but have no clue how that might actually work.
Re: What is consciousness?
Okay. So how does that explain all the evidence? I think the emergent consciousness theory, incomplete though it may be, does better, but I will try to keep an open mind.met wrote:Well, if I presented the idea that "there is no current theory that can hope to explain all aspects of consciousness and there very likely may never be" as a THEORY (and perhaps called it the "Undecidability Theory of Consciousness") would it "win"?
Does that state the case in the most accurate possible way?
Re: What is consciousness?
Okay.Jim B. wrote:I understand the irreducibility arguments for consciousness as being a defeater for physicalism, not necessarily as evidence of God. Some, like Joe and others draw theistic implications form this irreducibility as part pf a rational warrant argument, but I prefer to stick to basics. There's more to reality than just the physical.
So what is your theory? What more is there?
Re: What is consciousness?
The point of the argument is a negative one. It's to block consciousness from being reduced to physical facts. I could tell you what my theory is as to what consciousness is or how it fits into other things, but what's the point of talking about that with materialists if they don't agree with the preliminary point about irreducibility?The Pixie wrote:Okay.Jim B. wrote:I understand the irreducibility arguments for consciousness as being a defeater for physicalism, not necessarily as evidence of God. Some, like Joe and others draw theistic implications form this irreducibility as part pf a rational warrant argument, but I prefer to stick to basics. There's more to reality than just the physical.
So what is your theory? What more is there?
Re: What is consciousness?
I know what the point of the argument is.Jim B. wrote:The point of the argument is a negative one. It's to block consciousness from being reduced to physical facts. I could tell you what my theory is as to what consciousness is or how it fits into other things, but what's the point of talking about that with materialists if they don't agree with the preliminary point about irreducibility?
However, if that is all you have, scientists - whether theists or naturalists - are going to stick with the emergent consciousness theory until someone presents a better one.
Why should I think your theory solves any of the problems that the emergent consciousness theory? My suspicion is thast all the problems Joe and BKgave for the naturalistic theory also apply to any other theory, and the only way other theories get around those problems is by being sufficiently vague.
Re: What is consciousness?
There's the issue of reducibility and there's the issue of emergence. If the latter, is it strong or weak emergence? All theories are vague at this point, especially the emergentist's, which says that given the right kind and degree of complexity, poof! consciousness. No idea of how it could happen or even how it could conceivably happen. Tantamount to magic. At present there's no theoretical framework to even begin to fit empirical findings within, so all we have right now is the nature of the concepts involved. It remains at the philosophical level, not the empirical level until some idea of how empirical findings could even begin to apply.The Pixie wrote:I know what the point of the argument is.Jim B. wrote:The point of the argument is a negative one. It's to block consciousness from being reduced to physical facts. I could tell you what my theory is as to what consciousness is or how it fits into other things, but what's the point of talking about that with materialists if they don't agree with the preliminary point about irreducibility?
However, if that is all you have, scientists - whether theists or naturalists - are going to stick with the emergent consciousness theory until someone presents a better one.
Why should I think your theory solves any of the problems that the emergent consciousness theory? My suspicion is thast all the problems Joe and BKgave for the naturalistic theory also apply to any other theory, and the only way other theories get around those problems is by being sufficiently vague.