Consider that I've ripped a paragraph out of a systematic philosophy. — plaque flag

I hope I didn't give the impression of disrespect. Is he not saying that we judge our acts by reasons for and against?

The producer is so different from the product it seems impossible that they are the same kind of thing. But maybe that's my failing. — bert1

An orchestra produces a Beethoven symphony. Do you find that equally impossible? Is an orchestra the same kind of thing as a symphony?

What I would like is an argument, or observation, or evidence, that shows the emergence of consciousness from human bodies is conceptually possible. — bert1

OK...

Consciousness is the label we give to the re-telling of recent mental events with a first-person protagonist. It evolved to give a coherent meta-model to various predictive processing streams so that responses could be coordinated better in the longer term which provides a competitive advantage worth the calorie cost of doing to in large bodies living in complex environments (usually social ones). It doesn't 'feel like' anything, we use the term 'feels like' in conversations such as these as it's something we've learned to say in these circumstances from a particular position (those taking that position use the term, it's like a badge or token of membership of that group). Our linguistic response to consciousness within social hierarchies is not the same as actual consciousness.

How was that? Not "do you agree with that?", I mean in what way do you find that not even conceptually possible?

I'm not talking about you being sure that you exist (though being self-aware is a pretty low bar to say you're not a sheep, or a puppet, or a dupe, or a "ghost of your former self". You "exist"?; if you are here but it wouldn't matter if it were someone else just as much as you, do "you" really exist? — Antony Nickles

You just contradicted yourself from start to finish. Not talking about being sure I exist and ending with do you really exist.

The difficulty is discerning "self identity" or "human consciousness", "goat consciousness" "dog consciousness etc" from fundamental consciousness (the "I am" sensation). Don't conflate the 2.

You just contradicted yourself from start to finish. Not talking about being sure I exist and ending with do you really exist. — Benj96

You're right; and that was churlish. I was going to delete it.

The difficulty is discerning "self identity" or "human consciousness", "goat consciousness" "dog consciousness etc" from fundamental consciousness (the "I am" sensation). Don't conflate the 2. — Benj96

My point is that philosophy imagines that consciousness is a thing in order to make our part in the world more under our control than it is, more certain. It makes us seem like a given entity, the cause of action and the meaning behind speech. What would be an issue if you pictured a world without "consciousness"? We are aware of (part of) ourselves. We can talk to ourselves. We can focus on sensations. There is more, but why does it have to be consciousness? What are we missing without it?

"[T]ranslational or philosophical efforts to favor or purge a particular signification of pharmakon [and to identify it as either "cure" or "poison"] actually do interpretive violence to what would otherwise remain undecidable." — plaque flag

Ah, "pharmakon" is close to my heart, since I love psychedelics. (although they are mostly not poisonous except perhaps in massive doses). I seemed to remember it was Paracelsus who said "The dose makes the poison"? I looked it up and he also said: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."

I was trying to, but how can I know ? What was I referring to ? Is my orange your orange ? If this stuff is private and immaterial and transconceptual, all I have is my hunch that I referred to it and your agreement. But is that evidence or just us both being trained by the same circus? — plaque flag

What could it mean to say that the word 'orange' in this sentence "I saw an orange after-image" didn't refer to the orange after-image I saw? What would the lack of reference there look like?

This is actually quite relevant. A certain kind of philosopher might anchor the author's meaning to some immaterial intention present as they were written. Then hopefully the same immaterial intention is recovered by the reader. No one could ever check. But I think there's an ordinary sense of idea transmission that's fine, like passing along a tool (something like an equivalence class of utterances with roughly the same fitness for the same tasks.) — plaque flag

Yes, no one could ever check; only the author would know whether the intention to refer gad been there. But even in the case above, just taking the sentence alone without specifying that it was uttered, so that it wasn't in a context where the utterance is intended to refer to a particular experience of the utterer's, the word "orange" still logically refers to the colour of some fictional orange afterimage.

How does one end up feeling understood ? Deciding someone else 'gets' an idea ? — plaque flag

We take them at their word that they have understood. We might ask them to explain the idea to us and if their explanation matches our understanding, then it should seem obvious they have most likely understood.

consciousness is a thing in order to make our part in the world more under our control than it is, more certain. It — Antony Nickles

That is part of its role yes. Being aware of (having knowledge) or being aware how to (having a skill) certainly means you have the option for more control over the environment around you. However being able to take control and actually taking control are two separate things.

This is a choice within consciousness.
For example I could take control of tidying my room or I can go "oh well" and leave it to gain entropy. I have the awareness and thus capability to do so. But I don't have to.

That's free will

People also have the choice to use their awareness to delude, misguide, uneducate others and then manipulate them, to gain power while disempowering others. They obviously shouldn't. It's immoral to reduce the autonomy of another human being. But unfortunately it happens.

Hence the importance of philosophy, contemplation or meditation. All time to reflect and sharpen the senses/awareness (ones power/ability) and re-establish or ensure good will/good intentions towards others (rectify mistakes/ take responsibility etc).

I hope I didn't give the impression of disrespect. Is he not saying that we judge our acts by reasons for and against? — Antony Nickles

I didn't take you as disrespectful. I say that no, that's not what he's getting at.

What could it mean to say that the word 'orange' in this sentence "I saw an orange after-image" didn't refer to the orange after-image I saw? What would the lack of reference there look like? — Janus

If 'orange' is understood to refer to a quale, then to whose quale is it supposed to refer ? Is it not typical, before one reads about inverted spectrums, to assume that everyone's orange is the same ? But the strong theory of quale ( true hardproblem immateriality) invalidates that assumption. One has no data whatever in such a case, for all one can get at is words whose references is in doubt.

A person might then say that 'orange' refers to my quale. And then you get it and link it to yours. So it has two references that might be the same, one can never tell.

For context, I tend to like Dennett on the qualia issue. I'm skeptical about this concept.

But 'orange' has a use in our language. It's like money. People can have different feelings about it, but we can look at the way it's traded in the context of other actions.

being able to take control and actually taking control are two separate things. This is a choice within consciousness. — Benj96

That you can chose to focus on doing something, or make a decision to do it, does not mean you always focus or always make a decision (you don't "intend" what you mean, but you can choose your words carefully); you making things happen (or not) is not how our motions are deemed to be actions. Your "will" is not a thing either; you are free to pick your words if you like, you are then fated to them (the implications of having said them).

ust taking the sentence alone without specifying that it was uttered, so that it wasn't in a context where the utterance is intended to refer to a particular experience of the utterer's, the word "orange" still logically refers to the colour of some fictional orange afterimage. — Janus

One can interpret things that way. I don't think it's obvious.

We might ask them to explain the idea to us and if their explanation matches our understanding, — Janus

Yes. And we can just watch interactions. On this forum, I can tell (I am convinced) that other people grasp Wittgenstein's later work the way I do. And we read one philosopher about another too, which possibly changes, all at the same time, what we think about the author, the philosopher being commented upon, and ourselves.

Ah, "pharmakon" is close to my heart, since I love psychedelics. (although they are mostly not poisonous except perhaps in massive doses). I seemed to remember it was Paracelsus who said "The dose makes the poison"? I looked it up and he also said: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison." — Janus

The dose makes the poison. That's good.

Psychedelics have sometimes made me feel the terror of having been poisoned, but the total experience has always been positive. It's been a long time though. I don't even want THC these days. It'd probably be fine, maybe fun, but I don't bother to seek it out.

Your "will" is not a thing either; you are free to pick your words if you like, you are then fated to them (the implications of having said them). — Antony Nickles

If my will is not a thing then how could I be free to pick my words? Again contradiction.

Sure, you're correct, the judgement/interpretation of the words I say are up to other people, that's outside my control. That is the fate aspect you speak of.

There is interplay between free-will, fate and the degree of control (conscious awareness between 2 individuals). What of it?

Consciousness is a phenomenon of the brain, which needs interaction with the environment to awaken its dispositional knowledge, which, if absent, doesn't lead anywhere. — Manuel

Consciousness is the complex product of this organism-environment system indeed. Problems arise when abstracting from this systemic nature, whether as a phenomenon of the brain, as you describe it, or as some kind of subjectively idealized reason. Neuroscience is no more - or less - relevant to consciousness than any other science; it is part of its presentation.

Correct, why questions are a slippery slope for...getting back in bed with Aristotelian teleology and enabling the pollution of our epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar

'Why' questions aren't always about teleology. They just ask for an explanation of some kind. We're not going to be able to have a conversation if every time I ask "why such and such" you say I'm looking for a teleological (or even just evolutionary) explanation. What I'm asking for in this thread is an explanation in terms of physical processes. Similar to the question I'd ask of a mechanic with my car "Why won't my car start?" I'm not looking for the answer "Because it's sulking and doesn't want to drive through a puddle and get its tyres all wet." Nor am I looking for the answer "Because the designer of the car designed it to stop working after 100,000 miles so you have to buy a new one." I'm looking for an answer in terms of the structure and function of the car. It's odd that you impute this intention to seek teleological answers to Chalmers as well.

'Why' questions aren't always about teleology. — bert1

"aren't always" is the key word. Obviously I am addressing those which are injecting intention or purpose in Nature.

We're not going to be able to have a conversation if every time I ask "why such and such" you say I'm looking for a teleological (or even just evolutionary) explanation. — bert1

The problem is NOT just with your questions but your previous answers which allow me to guess your intention behind those questions.
I admit maybe I am wrong, but after 40 years of discussions I might say may heuristics are pretty accurate. That of course doesn't mean I am not willing to get your clarifications. I am all for it.

. What I'm asking for in this thread is an explanation in terms of physical processes. Similar to the question I'd ask of a mechanic with my car "Why won't my car start?" — bert1

-Ok but you need to understand the fallacy of your question.....when you hold responsible of Science not being able to experience YOUR experience thus concluding it has nothing to say about the processes responsible for the phenomenon.
ITs like accusing a tuna sandwich for poor swimming skills...that's not what tuna sandwiches are for.!

I'm looking for an answer in terms of the structure and function of the car. It's odd that you impute this intention to seek teleological answers to Chalmers as well. — bert1

Chalmer's questions have the same problem with your statement.
Once again lets analyze his questions one by one. Please help me here.

1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
Can you explain the use of the term "ever"?

2. why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
Can you translate it to a how question?


3.why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
What does he even means....does he want all red experiences to show up like green. And the Greens. Where is his how questions exactly?

Please do your best.

If my will is not a thing then how could I be free to pick my words? Again contradiction. — Benj96

I feel like we are rushing past the distinction I am making. I can choose my words, and there is a part of that where I am free (and partly I am constrained); all I am saying is that that is a matter of how freedom is judged to work, not that our choices come from a “will” pictured as a thing, a power or casual object, thus knowable with specific certainty. And the original point being that we picture consciousness in the same way in order to meet our criteria of a knowable predictable generalized special “thing” that makes me “me” amongst everyone. The facts that we are self aware and can choose our words is not generalizable to every act nor to extrapolating that there is something behind it all.

What of it? — Benj96

Yes, you might not care about what I am talking about, which is fine, but I’m not sure you understand the point that putting our requirement for certainty first creates these frameworks, rather than looking at the specific criteria of each act.

It's supposed to be a gross play on 'black flag.' — plaque flag

"Black flag" can mean a number of things. Are you aware it is a brand of bug spray in the US?

Self Reliance. — Antony Nickles

A quote from "Self Reliance" gets a thumbs up from me.

The self is not a thing like an object. — Antony Nickles

The point of what I wrote in the post you quoted is that, yes, the self is a thing just like any other thing. It comes into existence just like every other thing, by being thought of, conceptualized, by a person. When it comes to how language creates truth, some quote Wittgenstein, I quote Lao Tzu:

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 1 - Stephen Mitchell version

Anyway, what I was trying to say is that the idea of "consciousness" as something specific, knowable in a "we-can-find-out-about-it" way, as if looking further (perhaps with science!) we could see it (me), as if it has agency or causality, this idea is created so that we can have surety, not about consciousness (its existence), or our self-awareness, but so we can be certain about what others are going to do, about our understanding of ourselves. — Antony Nickles

As I noted previously, we could say the same thing about any thing.

We don't have to prove we have a self by being responsible for what we say, because we have "consciousness" which handles intention and meaning and judgment, etc. for us. — Antony Nickles

I don't think consciousness handles intention and judgement, it just attaches meaning, labels, to them using language.

No I didn’t read 13 oages of posts. I read the OP … was dumb and ill-informed. If someone else pointed this out good for them.

Consciousness is the label we give to the re-telling of recent mental events with a first-person protagonist. — Isaac

This is a good way of putting it.

It evolved to give a coherent meta-model to various predictive processing streams so that responses could be coordinated better in the longer term — Isaac

I think assigning a specific evolutionary purpose to consciousness is unjustified.

we use the term 'feels like' in conversations such as these as it's something we've learned to say in these circumstances from a particular position — Isaac

Again - This is true of all words.

My point is that philosophy imagines that consciousness is a thing in order to make our part in the world more under our control than it is, more certain. It makes us seem like a given entity, the cause of action and the meaning behind speech. What would be an issue if you pictured a world without "consciousness"? We are aware of (part of) ourselves. We can talk to ourselves. We can focus on sensations. There is more, but why does it have to be consciousness? What are we missing without it? — Antony Nickles

My response to this is the same as my response to @Isaac. This is how all things become things, by us imagining them as such, naming them.

I didn’t read 13 oages of posts. — I like sushi

If you won't even scan through them to see where the conversation stands and what's been said before, you shouldn't post. No, that's not a requirement of the forum, but it's how you get people to take you seriously.

The problem is NOT just with your questions but your previous answers which allow me to guess your intention behind those questions. — Nickolasgaspar

Please no guessing! It's hard enough when we try and respond to what people actually say. If we start talking to what we think are people's hidden motives it'll be absolute chaos.

Well - in a sense yes. We wouldn't have a brain if there was no gravity, nor electromagnetism, nor proteins or anything else which emerges from physics, as almost everything does.

But we look at the relevant organ to study the phenomenon. From that, we can focus on the cognitive aspects, the neurological aspects or even the phenomenological aspects, many ways to treat this topic as you say.

But I think it makes more sense to study brain behavior than looking at what physics does. So, some approaches are slightly more relevant than others.

"Black flag" can mean a number of things. Are you aware it is a brand of bug spray in the US? — T Clark

Oh yes. And the rock band. And pirates. I'm a poison-drenched zombie pirate bot with sad breath.

A quote from "Self Reliance" gets a thumbs up from me. — T Clark

Me too !

It's hard enough when we try and respond to what people actually say. — bert1

For what it's worth, you are not alone. Rather than address what was actually said he accuses you of saying or meaning or thinking something else and argues with an imaginary interlocutor.

When you address his specific claims, claims he cannot support, he simply ignores it.

There is no need of guessing in Chalmers's question on the hard problem
1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
-the term ever reveals the nature of this why question.

2. why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
-This is just silly question. Why a previously excited electron "generates" a specific new particle? Specific experiences arise with specific stimuli...thats all. Brains interpret stimuli differently

3.why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
-Because if all optical stimuli were green our ancestors wouldn't be able to distinguish fresh tender leaves from the rest of the foliage. Because different light waves carry different energy. Different energies are interpreted differently by our brains.