• ovdtogt
    384
    we have no means to understand them, except.....Mww

    Do you always contradict yourself in the same sentence?
  • ovdtogt
    384
    Which is better parallel then for the biological system producing actual qualia out of the electro-chemical sensory signals?Zelebg

    Why argue so convoluted. Our sensory organs transmit the signal by means of a biochemical electrical charge and our brains are able to interpret that signal in such a fashion that it provides us with knowledge about our environment. Don't have to make it more complicated than that.
  • ovdtogt
    384
    A photo-receptor cell is 'conscious' of light. A cochlear hair cells is 'conscious' of sound...etc
    — ovdtogt
    This is the mereological fallacy-
    Wayfarer

    It is a fallacy to believe only the (human) brain is conscious.
  • ovdtogt
    384
    as the signals that they process are not being interpreted by a conscious agent.Wayfarer

    For something to be able to react to a signal it must by definition be 'conscious' of it. The general public has a extreme exclusive concept of consciousness.
    An eye that can see is conscious of light.
  • Mww
    1.2k
    mathematician's played around with numbers as an abstract exercise long before they applied it to the real world (?)3017amen

    Maybe not so much numbers, for even the proverbial caveman had the idea of quantity and the ability to represent it to himself. I mean....who goes hunting with only one measly arrow? And if you’ve got two hands, why not carry two spears?

    Geometry, on the other hand, well.........

    “....A new light must have flashed on the mind of the first man (Thales, or whatever may have been his name) who demonstrated the properties of the isosceles triangle. For he found that it was not sufficient to meditate on the figure, as it lay before his eyes, or the conception of it, as it existed in his mind, and thus endeavour to get at the knowledge of its properties, but that it was necessary to produce these properties, as it were, by a positive a priori construction; and that, in order to arrive with certainty at a priori cognition, he must not attribute to the object any other properties than those which necessarily followed from that which he had himself, in accordance with his conception, placed in the object....”

    This is not to say all those produced properties arrived out of the blue. But however much trial-and-error the old geezer did, all of it without exception, was pure thought, and all could have been derived from a single example of a single triangle. What’s really amazing....sorta.....is, Thales lived around 600BC, but square roots had been known for 1000 years before that. So arriving at 1,1, sq rt 2 for one of the properties of the isosceles triangle, while seeming quite unlikely, actually wasn’t.

    So, yeah, no doubt. The abstract mathematical playground was in use long before its application to the natural empirical one.
  • Wayfarer
    8.9k
    It is a fallacy to believe only the (human) brain is conscious.ovdtogt

    An eye that can see is conscious of light.ovdtogt

    Beings are conscious, that’s why they’re called ‘beings’. ‘Eyes’ are conscious, they’re organs.

    Science relies on the assumption that we live in an ordered Universe that is subject to precise mathematical laws. Thus the laws of physics, the most fundamental of the sciences, are all expressed as mathematical equations.ovdtogt

    That attitude is a direct historical consequence of the Christianity.
  • ovdtogt
    384
    Beings are conscious, that’s why they’re called ‘beings’. ‘Eyes’ are conscious, they’re organs.Wayfarer

    Eyes are [a] be(ing) conscious of light.

    That attitude is a direct historical consequence of the Christianity.Wayfarer

    Which attitude?
  • Gnomon
    300
    "You equate "physical" and "actual", and I agree. But if a simulated electron is not physical & actual, what is it?" --Gnomon
    It's virtual. It means it is represented as information by some other physical form rather than its actual form.
    Zelebg
    I'm beginning to see a part of our communication glitch. You seem to think that a "virtual electron" --- as represented by illuminated pixels on a computer screen --- is still an electron in a different physical form. Yet, those screen pixels have none of the physical properties of an actual electron. Instead, they only have the potential to cause the metaphysical idea of an electron to be generated in the mind of the observer. The graphic symbol is merely an illusion or appearance, due to its conventional association with a real object. I'm sure you know this, but your terminology is misleading.

    The physical pixels are not the thing represented, but a coded message (information) that triggers the idea of an electron in a conscious mind. So, the physical representation on the screen (symbol) is converted into an abstract idea (eidos) in a conscious mind. Hence, a virtual electron is not, as you suggested, an electron in an alternative "physical form" in space-time, but merely a pointer to a meta-physical form in consciousness. A simulated electron is not a virtual electron, but an abstract sign directing your mind to recall the idea of an actual object that you are already familiar with. :nerd:


    Virtual : not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
    ___Google

    Symbol : a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.
    ___Google

    PS___ Your definition of "virtual" above is like saying a statue of an invisible god, is still the god, but in a different form. Early Christians ridiculed pagans for equating the powerless symbol with a powerful deity. Our God, they said, is a spirit and will never be found in a physical form. Ironically, the Christians could see the error in pagan idolatry, but not in their own equation of human Jesus with divine Jehovah : spirit in the flesh. :smile:
  • Wayfarer
    8.9k
    Eyes are [a] be(ing) conscious of light.ovdtogt

    Nonsense. You can take frog’s eyes out and place them in solution, and the photo-receptors will still respond to simulation, but ‘responding to stimuli’ doesn’t constitute ‘consciousness’. Consciousness is holistic, it manifests as the interaction of all manner of cells and organs as an orchestrated whole which is what 'being' refers to. There are 'conscious beings' but not 'conscious organs'. That is the mereological fallacy in a nutshell.

    None of what you say in this thread conveys any insight into subject, so unless you have anything useful to contribute, we’re done.
  • ovdtogt
    384
    Consciousness is holistic, it manifests as the interaction of all manner of cells and organs as an orchestrated whole which is what 'being' refers to.Wayfarer

    A 1 cell organism has also a 'being'. It is called being alive. Being alive mean being conscious.
    To assume consciousness is unique to humans is the height of arrogance and
    That attitude is a direct historical consequence of the Christianity.
    — Wayfarer
    ovdtogt

    We do not own consciousness as we are not the center of the universe.
  • Zelebg
    225

    Virtual : not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.

    What you're doing would be called intellectual dishonesty, if you knew what you’re doing. Do you understand the difference between "not physically existing" and "not physically existing as such"?

    Do you understand the information or ‘data & instructions’ that make up “software” at the time of execution is defined or contained by the dynamics and interaction of electrons and electronic components in a computer?


    Hence, a virtual electron is not, as you suggested, an electron in an alternative "physical form" in space-time, but merely a pointer to a meta-physical form in consciousness.

    Oh dear god smite him with some fiery serpents or something! You’ve used up my patience and I will be ignoring you if you fail to understand it this time.

    Pointer points FROM something to something. Do you understand the difference when that pointer of yours points from, say an actual chair in a room, and virtual chair on a computer screen?
  • Zelebg
    225
    Why argue so convoluted. Our sensory organs transmit the signal by means of a biochemical electrical charge and our brains are able to interpret that signal in such a fashion that it provides us with knowledge about our environment. Don't have to make it more complicated than that.

    I was just about to say, but you already said it yourself:
    An eye that can see is conscious of light.

    That is crazy in so many ways, beautiful!
  • frank
    3.8k
    I'm saying the concept is incoherent, and therefore as a counterfactual premise it renders the "hard problem" argument invalid.180 Proof

    So if a scientist takes up the challenge of addressing the "hard problem", you'd see that as misguided?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.