• Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    So does the function ever in fact happen “in the dark”? Is there any reason to believe that?apokrisis

    I am a panpsychist. I don't think any functions happen in the dark. But for the emrgentist, yes, because all functions prior to the modelling relation that you suggest entails consciousness do happen in the dark. You are an emergentist. You think the vast majority of functions happen in the dark. But some don't. That fact is a curiosity that requires explanation. Yet you find there is no burden of proof on the emergentist, or more particularly, your brand of emergentist.

    There are good reasons for thinking that all that brain activity couldn’t do anything else but generate experience.apokrisis

    Great! The problem of consciousness is solved. What are the reasons you refer to?
  • The Internet is destroying democracy
    We ought to wean ourselves from curated information or we will never learn.NOS4A2

    There is no un-curated information
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    According to them. But it sure seems like that from the outside, including in Chalmers' case.Kenosha Kid

    Sure I understand that might be what it looks like.
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    There's nothing weird about that. Neurons aren't firing in a vacuum: the central nervous system is an integrated system. Biology can only do what it can do. If it does something, then clearly it can do it.Kenosha Kid

    Oh, sure, that's a very good point. We are conscious, we know that, and we know what we experience depends on brain function, so we know that there is something it is like to be functioning brain, right? That's enough, no? There's no need to explain that in order to show it happens, we already know it happens. It's therefore up to the person who questions that fact to explain themselves first. Have I understood your point?

    Why does the response to a red ball feel like me _seeing_ a red ball and not a blue ball or hearing a red ball or feeling a red ball...? Well, it has to integrate somehow and biology only has so many tricks up it's sleeves. For a bat, a the sound of the ball might be something it sees. For a racoon, touch is something it might see.

    Those are interesting questions too, but different. "How does a brain generate conscious experience at all?" a different question from "Why do particular functions feel the way they do?"
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    The explanatory gap is itself an invalid preconception of what the answer must be, based on a prejudice against the notion that minds can be functions of lowly, base, physical stuff.Kenosha Kid

    It's not that.

    It really doesn't matter what model of consciousness physics ends up with, consciousness is by definition "not that".

    That may well be true. Separating definition from theory is really important. Functionlists, I allege, nearly always end up having to redefine 'consciousness' by fiat so that it is something that is amenable to functional explanation. I have no particular objection to functionalist theories of various functions! But as far as consciousness goes, I never hear an answer to the question "Why can't that function happen in the dark?" which does not involve a redefinition: "But that's just what I mean by consciousness". In which case I say "Well, OK, that's great for your definition, but that doesn't touch the hard problem then." Apo weirdly has tried to just reverse the burden of proof and to ask "why shouldn't it feel like something" without having first said why it must. And the video he linked to of course doesn't do that.
  • Consciousness, Mathematics, Fundamental laws and properties
    You are doubting something before you have even understood what you claim to doubt. So until you can supply some grounds to substantiate your doubt….apokrisis

    Please say something that looks like you're making a case as to why the modelling must feel like something, why it can't happen in the dark. Use the word 'therefore' or something. You don't have to, I don't want to give you homework you don't want to do. I'm just saying what kind of thing would interest me enough to take a look. I'm genuinely interested in non-panpsychist theories of consciousness, but I don't have time to spend hours researching things that I suspect are totally irrelevant to the problem.
  • Consciousness, Mathematics, Fundamental laws and properties
    I don't think you actually understand what I mean and blame my "lack of clarity" (so far you're the only one, bert) for your failure to understand me.180 Proof

    I read the words you wrote. That should be enough no? What else do you want me to do?
  • Consciousness, Mathematics, Fundamental laws and properties
    Do you understand the Bayesian/semiotic approach to modelling well enough to justify such a doubt?

    If not, your proclaimed doubt is “happening in the dark”.

    I might take the trouble to look into it if I think it's worth it. I don't see any reason to. You haven't given a prima facie reason why the modelling must feel like something. You've asserted it and said the burden of proof is on the doubter, which is rhetorical nonsense.
  • Consciousness, Mathematics, Fundamental laws and properties
    It's grammar. I don't think you're actually saying what you mean. You might be making a perfectly good point, but you haven't made it clear.
  • Consciousness, Mathematics, Fundamental laws and properties
    it should be easy enough to see that the brain - in modelling its environment in terms of its embodied self-interest - ought to feel like something.apokrisis

    This is the crux of it. Why should it feel like something? Why can't the modelling happen in the dark?
  • Consciousness, Mathematics, Fundamental laws and properties
    "Different" but not unrelated: noun, verb, and preposition, respectively.180 Proof

    Eh? All three are nouns
  • A single Monism
    What seems to be the problem?Olivier5

    It's unlikely you'll get a conversation.

    I'm a monist but it's perfectly obvious, as you have pointed out, that the first challenge that a monist has to answer is: What is the explanation of the manifest duality that I see? This may be easily dealt with, or it may not. But it is a serious question, and not to be dismissed as an argument from incredulity, even if the challenge is framed using language like "I don't see how..."
  • Play: What is it? How to do it?
    I think play is living in the moment.James Riley

    Yes, that might be another way of expressing the same concept. Goal-directedness is always thinking of a future state. And to achieve anything, one needs to do the right things one thing after another, serially, seriously.
  • Play: What is it? How to do it?
    Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good?
  • In defense of a minimal state
    I actually think the idea of a legal system that contained only rights is an interesting concept.

    There are ways to structure democracies that mitigate against the power hungry. For example, have like a jury service system for candidates. You're called up, you're trained for the role, you develop policies in consultation with experts, then people vote.

    And screen for narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths.
  • In defense of a minimal state
    Bartricks, I suspect one reason people don't engage with you very much on your own terms is because they forsee hours of weary unproductive uncharitable tedium. I could be wrong. You openly disdain us, and then want us to engage with you. I find your posts somewhat interesting, but I can't be arsed with you. You're too much hassle, and not popular enough on the forum for me to feel a duty to rebut your musings.
  • Is dilution the solution to pollution?
    This OP badly needs an example
  • Why are there just two parties competing in political America?
    One issue: there's no representation for some positions. Lets say you are in favour of huge reduction in the US military in favour of programmes of social welfare. And lets say you are in favour of electoral reform. And in favour of a universal basic income. Who should you vote for?
  • Why are there just two parties competing in political America?
    Very low. :) My ironometer clearly wasn't working this morning.
  • Why are there just two parties competing in political America?
    There are only two parties in American democracy for the simple reason that those who created it realized, much to our benefit, that given any issue, only two voices matter - those for and those against. Vote abstention is possible and practiced even in a 2-party system. In short, we have all the advantages of a democracy with none of the downsides of a multi-party democracy which, to my reckoning, adds another layer of complexity confusion to politics. :grin:TheMadFool

    Do you really think that?
  • Why are there just two parties competing in political America?
    What Oliver5 said. It's a mechanical result of the first part the post system. You vote for the people who have the best chance of defeating who you don't like, because who you do like is too small ever to win. The result is two parties. UK is basically the same.

    People vote republican because they don't want the democrats. People for democrat because they don't want the republicans. Each party then just criticises the other, as that is the best tactic. Horrible system.
  • Higher dimensions beyond 4th?
    Interestingly, there is no 7th dimension. It skips straight from 6 to 8.
  • It is Immoral to be Boring
    I think this thread is a creative variable thing. Does that work?
  • It is Immoral to be Boring
    I have a soft spot for new ways to carve up the world. This is an interesting one. Are the 'things' you have in mind physical objects? Activities? Goals, purposes? People? Living things? Any and all of these?

    A few examples might be interesting.
  • It is Immoral to be Boring
    I remained awake and I'm glad I did. I remember when I lived in the North West of England where it was customary to accost neighbours on the way to the shops and tell them, in great detail, all of the personal events that have been exercising their minds since one saw them last and before, repetition being no bar. I had thought this merely boring and incredibly rude. However I now see clearly that these neighbours were actively destructive variable things.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    I mean, seriously. Have you ever interacted with, say, the better arguers in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc? These discussions generally strike me as so facile. Go out and find the better proponents of what gets called a conspiracy theory and argue your case that you present here. IOW tell them that really it is based on ad hoc, cherry picking and other fallacies. Point out to them where, see how it goes.Bylaw

    Yep. I'd be interested as well. I'm baffled as to how anyone can look at the collapse of WTC7 and think it was office fires. None of the NIST stuff is convincing.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    Bylaw, yeah, team reason gets on my tits. Don't like the other teams much either.
  • Phenomenology vs. solipsism
    I don't see how any approach to the study of consciousness which is not rooted in a phenomenological approach can actually be a study of consciousness at all, as a matter of definition.
  • Solving the problem of evil
    1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
    2. God exists
    3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world

    Valid but unsound I reckon. At least #1 is false, to my mind. Omnibenevolence only entails that from God's POV everything is good. That's perfectly consistent with human suffering. I'm a meta-ethical relativist. So you always have to specify a POV from which something is good or evil to avoid gibbering.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    That's interesting (I hate to say). Looks like the term goes back longer than I thought. According to Wikipedia there may have been a time that it wasn't implicitly derogatory.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    I'm going to kill myself from boredom, but to buy myself a bit of time I'll make another post. I think the issue here is that the meaning of 'conspiracy theory' can no longer be deduced from the meaning of 'conspiracy' and 'theory', both of which are totally respectable concepts. What has happened, at some point, maybe in the last thirty years or so (I don't know, don't really care) is that the combination 'conspiracy theory' has had falsity and irrationality imported into its definition. That's the way 180 is using the word-combo, I guess, and I am sick to say, consistently with current usage. I'm objecting to that usage, because I'm an old cunt. I hate it when people hijack words. Happens all the time. It's perfectly clear to me that 180 does believe some conspiracy theories, because he thinks plots happen. Plots are conspiracies by definition. And theories are theories by definition. Therefore plot theories, some of which he believes, are also conspiracy theories, if we take the meanings of those words separately.

    It'd be interesting (not) to find out the earliest use of the 'conspiracy theory' combo implying falsity. Any ideas? I'm not interested by the way. I don't give a fuck.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    There was a plot to knocked down the WTC and it succeeded.180 Proof

    Was it a conspiracy as well as a plot? A secret plot just is a conspiracy isn't it?

    There is no single truther conspiracy. I don't believe any particular one.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    An example of a "true conspiracy theory" please.180 Proof

    The only very specific conspiracy theories I know for sure are true are regarding conspiracies I've been personally involved in, featuring me as a manager conspiring with other managers.

    It's harder with large public events, like 9/11. The more specific the conspiracy theory, the less likely it is to be true. I know with a high degree of certainty that building 7 did not collapse from office fires (just from watching the footage), and I can infer that there was some kind of conspiracy involved there, but exactly what it was I have no idea. So that's a true but very vague theory.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    This is just a matter of meanings. A conspiracy theory is when someone speculates, with or without good evidence, that the correct explanation for some social/political/physical phenomenon or event is the intended result of a group of people who arranged it in secret.

    Some conspiracy theories will turn out to be true, others false. Somehow it has come to be identified as applicable to only irrational theories.
  • Interpreting what others say - does it require common sense?
    There is no common sense in philosophy. The writer has to be clear and unambiguous, and not blame the reader for not understanding it. Common sense is shared assumptions (or is it?). Philosophy is the examination of assumptions, among other things.

    EDIT: What Tim said
  • COP26 in Glasgow
    Democratic world government, not first past the post, publicly funded party campaigns, I'd vote for: government administered by an AI, managed reduction in population, rationing (especially meat), rewilding, sailing ships, heave ho, bicycles, no packaging, everything loose in boxes, baskets reusable bags etc, compost toilets, everybody sleep a lot more.
  • How can one remember things?
    A first clarification would be that brains work not on stored memories but active anticipations. They are designed not to remember the past but predict the future. So the comparison is between what is expected to be the case, and what turns out to be the case.apokrisis

    I slag you off a lot Apo but I like this bit. Not that I'm qualified to judge, merely being an armchair philosopher. :) If the human brain is really supposed to remember stuff, it's fucking shit at it. It can do it a bit, but if a computer had my memory it wouldn't even boot.
  • How can one remember things?
    Where did I say that? Again, you put the words into my thread.GraveItty

    I think T Clark plausibly inferred that from what you did say.
  • Phenomenology and the Mind Body Question
    Is not remembering that we are conscious simply to repeat to ourselves "I am conscious"?Janus

    Yes, although if, say, Banno said that, he would likely just mean that he was awake. If I say that when I'm in a philosophical mood, I would mean "I am a centre of experience" or something like that. But Banno rejects these other definitions. It's baffling to me, but one explanation is that he hasn't noticed he is conscious in that sense. I struggle to believe that though.