Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 8:42 pm Therefore, there is no hard problem of consciousness since consciousness is a property of the mind.

Hmmm.

Go and read Thomas Nagel or Jaegwon Kim, and then say again "There's no hard problem of consciousness." If you did that, it would only tell everyone you can't understand the problem....but that it still certainly exists.

What do they say?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 8:42 pm Therefore, there is no hard problem of consciousness since consciousness is a property of the mind.

Hmmm.

Go and read Thomas Nagel or Jaegwon Kim, and then say again "There's no hard problem of consciousness." If you did that, it would only tell everyone you can't understand the problem....but that it still certainly exists.

What do they say?

Well, you're going to have to read them, aren't you? They're substantial, and they make far too many good points for me to summarize for you in these spaces. But I warn you...you're going to find out there's a genuine hard problem of consciousness...and not just one, but a bunch.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:57 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:36 pm
Hmmm.

Go and read Thomas Nagel or Jaegwon Kim, and then say again "There's no hard problem of consciousness." If you did that, it would only tell everyone you can't understand the problem....but that it still certainly exists.

What do they say?

Well, you're going to have to read them, aren't you? They're substantial, and they make far too many good points for me to summarize for you in these spaces. But I warn you...you're going to find out there's a genuine hard problem of consciousness...and not just one, but a bunch.

Can you make one of their points so we can discuss it in here? By the way, did you understand my argument?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 pm Can you make one of their points so we can discuss it in here?

I think you'd need some of the background in the issues they supply. Their arguments, especially Kim's, are quite sophisticated, and I won't do them justice in brief. One thing for sure, though: you're going to see that there IS a hard problem of consciousness.

By the way, did you understand my argument?

Well, I understood your OP very clearly, and could see instantly it was wrong. And then I looked at your argument, but found it ambiguous. So I don't quite know how to interpret what you're trying to say. For example, you assert that consciousness is a property of the mind, but we need materials to make that work. Well, what does "need" imply? You mean, if there were no materials, we couldn't think? But if that's so, then consciousness depends on materials, and isn't just a property of the mind. Or is the mind "materials" as you see it? In which case, why call it "mind" at all?

It's all so capable of opposite interpretations that It's hard to figure out what you want to say there.

Anyway, the term "hard problem of consciousness" pertains to a particular problem, not merely to all things one can think about counsciousness that might seem "hard" to figure out. Here's a summary of the real "Hard Problem of Consciousness": https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/. So it's not just that understanding consciousness isn't "hard" -- it's really, really difficult, and this is one of they key philosophical problems.

Once you can understand that, then you can imagine, therefore, what anybody who knows what "The Hard Problem" actually is would think of somebody who said blithely, "Oh, it's no problem."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 pm Can you make one of their points so we can discuss it in here?

I think you'd need some of the background in the issues they supply. Their arguments, especially Kim's, are quite sophisticated, and I won't do them justice in brief. One thing for sure, though: you're going to see that there IS a hard problem of consciousness.

Can you give a link to their argument?

By the way, did you understand my argument?

Well, I understood your OP very clearly, and could see instantly it was wrong. And then I looked at your argument, but found it ambiguous. So I don't quite know how to interpret what you're trying to say. For example, you assert that consciousness is a property of the mind, but we need materials to make that work. Well, what does "need" imply? You mean, if there were no materials, we couldn't think? But if that's so, then consciousness depends on materials, and isn't just a property of the mind. Or is the mind "materials" as you see it? In which case, why call it "mind" at all?
[/quote]
How could you see that my OP is wrong if it is ambiguous to you? I can explain it in more depth if you are interested.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:39 pm It's all so capable of opposite interpretations that It's hard to figure out what you want to say there.

Anyway, the term "hard problem of consciousness" pertains to a particular problem, not merely to all things one can think about counsciousness that might seem "hard" to figure out. Here's a summary of the real "Hard Problem of Consciousness": https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/. So it's not just that understanding consciousness isn't "hard" -- it's really, really difficult, and this is one of they key philosophical problems.

Once you can understand that, then you can imagine, therefore, what anybody who knows what "The Hard Problem" actually is would think of somebody who said blithely, "Oh, it's no problem."

I read many books regarding consciousness.

What do yo mean by "hard"?

Is it NP-hard or are you using the word "hard" in some poorly-defined way?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:53 pm How could you see that my OP is wrong if it is ambiguous to you? I can explain it in more depth if you are interested.

You didn't read carefully. I'll say it again.

I said I understood the OP, but it's clearly wrong.

I said I didn't understand your explanation, your argument under it in the first post, because it was too ambiguous.

I read many books regarding consciousness.

Then it would be helpful if you were conscious when you read them. If you did, and afterward you think there's no "hard problem of consciousness," then you didn't pay any attention to what you read....or the books were really, really bad.

Seriously, though...did you look at the site I sent you about The Hard Problem? You should. It's an academic, peer-reviewed site, but worded very simply, so it's both careful and understandable in what it says.

Go have a look.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:00 pm What do yo mean by "hard"?

Is it NP-hard or are you using the word "hard" in some poorly-defined way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:13 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

I repeat myself: What do you mean by "hard" ?

The word "hard" describes a quality. The concern with qualia is the concern of consciousness.

So if people keep insisting that red/redness requires an explanation, then surely hard/hardness requires an explanation too?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:13 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

I repeat myself: What do you mean by "hard" ?

The word "hard" describes a quality. The concern with qualia is the concern of consciousness.

So if people keep insisting that red/redness requires an explanation, then surely hard/hardness requires an explanation too?

I didn't invent the world hard. That is the invention of David Chalmers. By that, he means that the problem of how consciousness can arise from matter is impossible to answer.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:26 pm I didn't invent the world hard. That is the invention of David Chalmers. By that, he means that the problem of how consciousness can arise from matter is impossible to answer.

So is it the hard, or the impossible problem?

Because if it's impossible - then that's a very good reason to abandon it and focus our attention elsewhere.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:28 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:26 pm I didn't invent the world hard. That is the invention of David Chalmers. By that, he means that the problem of how consciousness can arise from matter is impossible to answer.

So is it the hard, or the impossible problem?

Because if it's impossible - then that's a very good reason to abandon it and focus our attention elsewhere.

Impossible. The point that I am raising is that this problem arises from the fact that we assign consciousness to matter. People are confused.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:31 pm Impossible. The point that I am raising is that this problem arises from the fact that we assign consciousness to matter. People are confused.

Well, it way worse than that. We assign "consciousness" to ourselves without knowing what it is.
And then we assign "materiality" to the everything (ourselves included) without knowing what that is either.

We assign meaning to everything.

But that's a problem/limit inherent to all language. Even Mathematics.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:31 pm Impossible. The point that I am raising is that this problem arises from the fact that we assign consciousness to matter. People are confused.

Well, it way worse than that. We assign "consciousness" to ourselves without knowing what it is.
And then we assign "materiality" to the everything (ourselves included) without knowing what that is either.

We assign meaning to everything.

But that's a problem/limit inherent to all language. Even Mathematics.

True.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:39 pmOne thing for sure, though: you're going to see that there IS a hard problem of consciousness.

It is correct to say there IS a hard problem of consciousness.

This problem is a hard nut to crack, because knowledge of any such claim requires a knower, and while knowledge is KNOWN, the known know nothing. It is not known who or what knows, only what is known. It's a conceptual problem, for concepts are known NOT by no conceptually known thing.

No doubt a huge dilemma for the one who questions, for how could one thing exist...in truth,no such questioner ever arises, except in this conception. Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality.