Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:That goes back to this: "So in your view, 'straw man' doesn't refer to misrepresenting someone's statement or argument, but (misrepresenting) what, in your opinion, their statement or argument should have been, had they your perfect grasp of logic, rationality, etc."

I answered that one. Just go back and look it up.

Meanwhile, the continual retreat to the ruse of trying to catch me somehow speaking of "Materialists" instead of "Materialism" is getting quite thin. I think we can see that one coming, don't you? Time to try a new one, because as I said earlier, the OP isn't about that. We're not here to discuss the people but the ideology.

Ginkgo wrote:So the materialist would say that electricity is the basic stuff of consciousness.

Yes, probably.

Are you impressed with such an answer? Does "electricity" seem to you a good summary of what "you" or "values" or "reason" or "consciousness" really are? Would you believe that?

Or do you, like me, find that rather risibly reductional?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:So the materialist would say that electricity is the basic stuff of consciousness.

Yes, probably.

Are you impressed with such an answer? Does "electricity" seem to you a good summary of what "you" or "values" or "reason" or "consciousness" really are? Would you believe that?

Or do you, like me, find that rather risibly reductional?

I guess it depends on the type of materialist one is. Personally, I prefer physicalism, although some would argue there is not much of a difference.

I think science has explained "the easy problem of consciousness" but it has yet to give a satisfactory account of "the hard problem".

Immanuel Can wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:So the materialist would say that electricity is the basic stuff of consciousness.

Yes, probably.

What happened to the assertion of required mass? The repositioning of electrons seems not very massive to me, although as uwot pointed out many posts ago, some energy is required for said repositioning, and small bit of energy can be expressed as "not much" mass.

Does "electricity" seem to you a good summary of what "you" or "values" or "reason" or "consciousness" really are? Would you believe that?

Consciousness is a tool to me. It is not who I am.

Or do you, like me, find that rather risibly reductional?

I find myself unconcerned with how you find that.

Ginkgo wrote:I think science has explained "the easy problem of consciousness" but it has yet to give a satisfactory account of "the hard problem".

Perhaps you could state the hard problem in your words. IC declined. I actually don't see a problem, to the point where I wonder if I'm a p-zombie just imitating what all the Chalmer adherents are going on about, but unable to actually experience this extra part that whose explanation everyone finds so 'hard'. I don't take IC as a Chalmers fan, but most attempts at statements of the hard problem seem to be influenced by Chalmer's wording.

Qualia? That seems just like a natural way for thought processes to organize sensory information. First person? I cannot conceive of how a human could function in anything other than first person.

Whatever the hard problem is, I don't think it is a scientific one. It is an interpretation of experience, and science is not about interpretations, even if there are plenty of scientists that offer them.

Noax wrote:First person? I cannot conceive of how a human could function in anything other than first person.

Whatever the hard problem is, I don't think it is a scientific one. It is an interpretation of experience, and science is not about interpretations, even if there are plenty of scientists that offer them.

It seems to me that qualia pertains to the emotional experience of being. Take away the emotion and you have something akin to the protagonists of Chalmers's philosophical zombie thought experiment. It seems to me, though, that emotion is efficacious but perhaps its efficacy is reducing as tasks that once required instinct can be more reliably performed via analytics. Maybe much of what we value about consciousness is that which hinders us and renders us chronically unethical? Our best conscious intentions are regularly thwarted by vestigial unconscious impulses like fight-of-flight or PTSD response.

Perhaps the human kind of consciousness will produce emergent phenomena, just as cephalised, conscious animals emerged from purely reflexive life forms. All contemplative traditions refer to selfless Zen-style flow states and meditative states which are keenly focused in the present moment, unhindered by mental and emotional static. This seems to me to not be miles from how advanced future humans or general AI or may operate - with far more efficient, unhindered focus.

Ginkgo wrote:t has yet to give a satisfactory account of "the hard problem".

Right on. That's a concise way to put it. I agree. It even has a hard time deciding whether it dares try.

Noax wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:So the materialist would say that electricity is the basic stuff of consciousness.

Yes, probably.

What happened to the assertion of required mass?

That was ironic, I hope you understand, as was the listing of other physical qualities. Of course consciousness has none of those: it's not physical. The absurdity of the suggestion is clear, I would have thought. But then, the absurdity of Materialism proposing that "consciousness" was material should also be pretty evident.

I must remember that online people cannot detect irony.

Noax wrote:Perhaps you could state the hard problem in your words. IC declined.

You never asked -- at least, not that way. But look up "hard problem of consciousness" online, and you'll have an idea. It's not peculiar to me: it's a generally-recognized problem in the Philosophy of Mind.

Immanuel Can wrote:That was ironic, I hope you understand, as was the listing of other physical qualities.

Got it. My bad. My assessment is restored.

Noax wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:That was ironic, I hope you understand, as was the listing of other physical qualities.

Got it. My bad. My assessment is restored.

Nah. Really my bad. I shouldn't do irony. No worries.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:That goes back to this: "So in your view, 'straw man' doesn't refer to misrepresenting someone's statement or argument, but (misrepresenting) what, in your opinion, their statement or argument should have been, had they your perfect grasp of logic, rationality, etc."

I answered that one. Just go back and look it up.

Meanwhile, the continual retreat to the ruse of trying to catch me somehow speaking of "Materialists" instead of "Materialism" is getting quite thin. I think we can see that one coming, don't you? Time to try a new one, because as I said earlier, the OP isn't about that. We're not here to discuss the people but the ideology.

Ideology doesn't exist aside from what individuals believe.

In any event, despite your comical arrogance, you're forwarding straw men re what materialists believe.

Terrapin Station wrote:Ideology doesn't exist aside from what individuals believe.

Of course. That's trite. But ideologies are what they are trying to believe -- consistently or inconsistently.

As a result, some believe in such a way that they are consistent, and some are inconsistent -- it's the ideology that has to stand or fall, because the inconsistent ones can be made consistent if the ideology is any good. But if the ideology is messed up, then even to believe it with perfect consistency is rubbish.

And in this case, Materialism is just that kind of rubbish. In it's best, clearest and most consistent form, it's reductional and feeble. Never mind the weaker forms in which, perhaps, inconsistent people believe it, because such lesser versions are not only bad ideology but incoherent even with Materialism itself.

Also, remember the principle of charity? You're supposed to address each ideology in the strongest, purest and most coherent form in which it exists -- not in the weaker, inconsistent and incoherent forms that may surround that.

you're forwarding straw men re what materialists believe.

This implies that you know some better form of Materialism that "real" Materialists believe. Please, please DO try to expound it. Because if you think I can pound on Materialism in its pure form, just wait until you float the kind of inconsistent and incoherent things that merely professing Materialists say they believe. You're going to make my job very, very easy. So please, tell me about this other "Materialism," the one I'm slighting by talking about the ideology, but the one true "Materialists believe," according to you. I'm dying to hear.

Noax wrote: Yes, probably. What happened to the assertion of required mass? The repositioning of electrons seems not very massive to me, although as uwot pointed out many posts ago, some energy is required for said repositioning, and small bit of energy can be expressed as "not much" mass.

A photon has no mass yet it is the stuff of physics. More so, quantum physics.


"Does 'electricity' seem to you a good summary of what 'you' or 'values' or 'reason' or 'consciousness' really are?"


I guess the emergent theorist would claim that within the brain billions of neurons are communicating and out of this complexity consciousness emerges.


"Or do you, like me, find that rather risibly reductional?I find myself unconcerned with how you find that."


With the advancement of quantum mechanics materialism is pretty much on the scrap heap.

Noax wrote:I think science has explained "the easy problem of consciousness" but it has yet to give a satisfactory account of "the hard problem".Perhaps you could state the hard problem in your words. IC declined.

The hard problem can be explained in one world, EXPERIENCE. In other words, how and why do we have experiences?

Noax wrote: I actually don't see a problem, to the point where I wonder if I'm a p-zombie just imitating what all the Chalmer adherents are going on about, but unable to actually experience this extra part that whose explanation everyone finds so 'hard'. I don't take IC as a Chalmers fan, but most attempts at statements of the hard problem seem to be influenced by Chalmer's wording.

Experience is the extra part. If you kick a p-zombie in the shins he will say "ouch" and get very angry with you. But he is not really angry and he feels no pain, it is just a programmed response on his part. Your laptop computer probably has a health button that gives you information about operating temperature, battery charge and how efficiently your computer is processing information. One could imagine a program that could be devised whereby your computer could tell you how it is feeling today rather than just presenting technical information for you to read. So if the battery is low and the operating temperature is high it could tell you it is feeling run-down and very sluggish today. But of course this is just a programmed response, it can't really experience being-run and sluggish.

Noax wrote: Whatever the hard problem is, I don't think it is a scientific one. It is an interpretation of experience, and science is not about interpretations, even if there are plenty of scientists that offer them.

The hard problem is definitely not science.