Matt Mahoney wrote: >> 2) It is real, as it clearly influences our thoughts. On the other >> hand, though it feels subjectively like it is qualitatively >> different from other aspects of the world, it probably isn't (but >> I'm open to being wrong here). > > The correct statement is that you believe it is real. Everybody does. > Those who didn't, did not pass on their DNA.
No, the correct statement is the one I made. It is real. We have empirical evidence that it is real since it influences observable actions. Consciousness *may* be a belief. But we have no empirical evidence for or against that statement, so it's too early to make blanket statements like yours. >> 3) We cannot currently define or measure it, but some day we will. > > You can define it any time you want, or use the existing common > definition. No, you can't define it any way you want. I am talking about a specific phenomenon that has been observed but not understood. And the definitions from others that I've seen may allow us to identify shared experiences of the phenomenon, but don't provide either a good model or empirical tests, so they're less that I, for one, want in order to say we've "defined it." > Blood flow can be directly observed, for example, by x-rays during an > angioplasty. But that isn't the point. Even without direct > observation, blood flow is supported by a lot of indirect evidence, > for example, when you inject a drug into a vein it quickly spreads to > other parts of the body. Even theories for which evidence is harder > to observe, for example, the existence of fractional electric charges > in quarks, are accepted because the theory makes predictions that can > be tested. So far we're in complete agreement. Concluding that blood flows requires observation which requires technology applicable to the phenomenon (x-rays, needles, tests to see if the drug spread, etc.). > But there are absolutely no testable predictions that can > be made from a theory of consciousness. But here you suddenly jump from saying we have no empirical tests to saying there can be no empirical tests. This makes no sense to me. Even if consciousness is only a belief with no real substance, there are testable predictions that follow from its existence, and perhaps tests to determine that it is limited to being only a belief. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
