On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 1:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> 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? * > Yes really. *> Do you really reject the theory that other people are conscious in a way > similar to you? * > No. As I've said more than once, I accept the theory that other people are conscious but not for any scientific reason, not because it fits the facts better than any other consciousness theory, but simply because I could not function if I really thought I was the only conscious being in the universe. The consciousness gurus want to understand at the most fundamental level how consciousness works in the same way that they understand how Newtonian physics works, and that just ain't going to happen; they've made zero progress during the last thousand years and I expect they'll make just as much in the next thousand. Consciousness research is a bore, intelligence research is where it's at. *> 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:* > That doesn't make any sense. Yes, if you're scientifically studying objective reality like physics or biology then personal subjectivity is of no help and just gets in the way, but if you're studying personal subjectivity then ... well ... you've got to study personal subjectivity, and there is no way to do that objectively or scientifically. > > *"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."* > If I'm studying consciousness then I don't care what Bob says and I don't care what Bob does, I only care what Bob feels, and there is no way to do that scientifically without making unproven and unprovable assumptions. * > 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 don't agree with that, or maybe I do, I'm not sure because I don't know what it means. I think John K Clark is the way matter behaves when it is organized in a johnkclarkian way. * > Do you think you could be conscious in the way you are without > language?* > Certainly not. My consciousness wouldn't be the same as it is now if I knew no language, and my consciousness would be different if my native language was Spanish rather than English too, or if I had been born in Sweden rather than the USA. > *> Empiricists just look of a good enough theory.* > That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good enough, they all fit the facts equally well, choosing one is entirely a matter of taste. And there is no arguing in matters of taste. And because objective empiricism is of no help in understanding the fundamental nature of consciousness, the field has not advanced one nanometer in the last thousand years. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> nn22 -- 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/CAJPayv3ZygSj5veYrEfgXSLoji6LhuVAb01i8R7zQ2Hhe4H8wA%40mail.gmail.com.
