On 7/26/2021 2:32 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>> In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by
making objective observations about the way things behave, but
consciousness is a subjective phenomenon and that's what
causes the problem. The theory that other humans besides me
are conscious is perfectly consistent with all observable
evidence, but so is the theory that I am the only conscious
being in the universe,
/> But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness
is instantiated by physical processes in the brain./
No it is not. Your brain operates differently than my brain, if it did
not then we would be the same person. Only one chunk of matter in the
observable universe operates in a johnkclarkien way, and the theory
that the johnkclarkien way is the only way consciousness can be
produced is perfectly consistent with all observational evidence
available to me. And even I am not conscious all the time, not when
I'm sleeping or under anesthetic and I almost certainly won't be
conscious when I'm dead either.
> And that theory is supported by many observations and experiments
on brains and the reports by subjects.
Many? When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data
point to work with, and there are an infinite number of ways to draw a
line through a single point.
Really? Do you really reject the theory that other people are conscious
in a way similar to you? There are certainly similarities of
intelligence, including the ways in which we a tricked by illusions and
priming by words. I think the "hard problem of consciousness" is made
hard by this kind insistence on incorrigible personal subjectivity which
if it were applied consistently would make all science impossible: "Well
I seem to have heard Bob say that the needle pointed to 2.23 but how do
I know he meant the same thing that I do when I see the needle point to
2.23."
>> and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious,
even grains of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons.
The trouble is ANY consciousnesstheory will fit the observable
facts just fine, and that's why ALL consciousnesstheories are
utterly useless, except for the theory that solipsism is
untrue, that one has a use.
/> But that's the way all theories are. We provisionally believe
the ones that are consistent with the facts/
All theories of consciousness fit the facts,
With sufficiently bizarre ancillary assumptions. You apparently agree
with Bruno that a blow to the head doesn't eliminate consciousness thru
a effect on your brain; it's merely a discontinuity in the stream of
experiences called "John K Clark" and his brain is merely a construct of
this stream. I find the theory that consciousness is produced by brain
activity to be pretty good.
the same can certainly *NOT* be said of theories of intelligence,
that's why consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard.
> /And the theory of minds, that other people (and animals) are
conscious and have an internal narrative, is extremely useful and
in fact any human lineage*that did not hold* that theory has
already been eliminated by evolution. /
I agree, but if consciousness is not the way data feels when it is
being processed (which I have a hunch is true even though I will never
be able to prove it)
Do you think you could be conscious in the way you are without language?
then a non-conscious being could still calculate how its own actions
are likely to affect the environment in the future, and part of that
environment would be other non-conscious beings, who also calculate
what affect their actions will have on the environment in the future.
When 3 grains of sand interact in a Newtonian gravitational way, one
grain of sand changes the position of the other two grains, and the
other two grains change the position of the first grain, however that
is not evidence that the 3 grains of sand are conscious. Of course it
is not evidence that the 3 grains of sand are not conscious either.
/> Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in
the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?/
No I haven't read it, I have heard a little bit about itand my first
impression (which I admit may be unfair because as I've said I have
not read the entire book so maybe parts of it are good) is that it
just proposes yet another theory of consciousness that is no better
and no worse than every other rival theory of consciousness.
Jaynes takes perceptive consciousness as given and develops a theory of
how narrative consciousness evolved. Of course it doesn't prove that's
what happened anymore than the fact that you and I can discuss
consciousness proves we have it. But proof is for mathematicians.
Empiricists just look of a good enough theory.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b650cfc6-626e-11b8-9b5d-db521560c53c%40verizon.net.
