For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Obviously not because human minds themselves are not mind independent phenomena and nor can they ever beDontaskme wrote:
So does phenomena that is mind independent requiring no mind include the human being thing ?
So are you saying that minds exist because human beings exist?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:40 pmObviously not because human minds themselves are not mind independent phenomena and nor can they ever beDontaskme wrote:
So does phenomena that is mind independent requiring no mind include the human being thing ?
A mind may be perceived as phenomena by another mind but it is still mind independent regardless of perception
Mind is simply another level of complexity that has evolved over time but is really nothing that specialDontaskme wrote:
If phenomena that is not conceptual and has always existed independent of mind ... then what is this mind thingy thats popped up recently ?
What is it now and why does it exist now but didnt exist before but can exist now ?
All human beings are minds by default but not all minds however are human beingsDontaskme wrote:
So are you saying that minds exist because human beings exist ?
Are you saying that the mind is another word for human being ?
Thanks for clarifying.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:54 pmAll human beings are minds by default but not all minds however are human beingsDontaskme wrote:
So are you saying that minds exist because human beings exist ?
Are you saying that the mind is another word for human being ?
So human beings are therefore a subset of everything that can be classed as minds
I kind of grasp what you are saying here... it's very interesting the way you describe the mind and the conscious experience as being like a recent appearance due to evolution.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:50 pmMind is simply another level of complexity that has evolved over time but is really nothing that specialDontaskme wrote:
If phenomena that is not conceptual and has always existed independent of mind ... then what is this mind thingy thats popped up recently ?
What is it now and why does it exist now but didnt exist before but can exist now ?
It is just that the forever changing eternal NOW is capable of producing them at this point in existence
Everything is connected directly or indirectly to everything else and so now that includes minds as well
As a matter of fact I have spent years working on Computer Vision algorithms and that is definitely not how Conscious Visual perception happens. If you think computer algorithms Explain anything about Conscious Visual Perception then you are highly mistaken. You are confusing two different ways of Detecting Red. The way Computers detect Red is all about numbers. Computers have no Experience of Redness. We detect Red using the Experience of Redness. How do we See that Redness?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:26 pmHave you ever built a Computer Vision algorithm which recognizes shapes and colors as captured by a camera? That's how it happens.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:12 pm How do we See what we See? If you can show me How something like the Redness of Red can be in the Neurons then tell me How that could happen?
But I guess, that answer is not sufficient for you either.
There's circular problem here. Do you not see it?
You want science to account for the experience of 'redness', but you are unable to account for the experience of 'reading a satisfactory answer'.
That's why you are avoiding the question: What do you expect an answer to tell you?
HOW it works? In what language and with what foundational concepts would you like the answer to be spoon-fed to you?
You clearly have some expectation, that when you read THE answer then something will happen in your mind, some red flag will pop up to allow you to recognize the answer as being 'valid'.
What might that red flag be exactly?
So I guess that the end of any serious conversation with you about this issue.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:27 pmMore circular reasoning.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:16 pm If Science came up with the answer to Consciousness tomorrow it would solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness and there would be World Wide acclaim for the Scientists that discovered it. That would do it for me.
The answer to the hard problem of consciousness is 42. It's solved.
Now what? Are you satisfied or was that not good enough?
I have always assumed that the answer to my question about Red would involve some concept of a Conscious Self. That Conscious Self is the 800lb Gorilla in the room.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:37 pm Steve...that which is looking / seeing the colour Red...is colourless else red would not be known...colourless can’t see itself and yet the colour Red is seen...Red is known because of seeing.. it’s known via the act of seeing itself ...Red is inseparable from what is seeing it..which is colourless...do you see a problem with that?
Without the blank screen of consciousness no colour would show up ....colour is known only by contrast to the blank screen.
That’s the only answer there is to how Red is seen Steve...consciousness is the blank screen...so how does a blank screen see colour?...
Or is the colour seeing the blank screen..or is the blank screen seeing the colour?
Do you see the dilemma here in trying to find the answer to how colour is known or how it is known?
Which is precisely why I am pointing out that you are stuck in a mode of circular reasoning.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:47 pm I have always assumed that the answer to my question about Red would involve some concept of a Conscious Self. That Conscious Self is the 800lb Gorilla in the room.
I am being dead serious when I am pointing out that you don't understand your own question.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:43 pm So I guess that the end of any serious conversation with you about this issue.
Be charitable. Maybe it’s a little nebulous. I’m sure there are different ways for them to express the question (whatever it is?)Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:55 pmI am being dead serious when I am pointing out that you don't understand your own question.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:43 pm So I guess that the end of any serious conversation with you about this issue.
As insulting as this may sound to you. It's true.