-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
smcder
Paranormal Adept
18 references to Hoffman here:
Quantum mechanics etc: Kooky history of the quantum mind: reviving realism [comment on Donald Hoffman - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception etc ][Artem Kaznatcheev @ egtheory.wordpress.com ]
Hoffman works for the Chopra foundation?
Quantum mechanics etc: Kooky history of the quantum mind: reviving realism [comment on Donald Hoffman - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception etc ][Artem Kaznatcheev @ egtheory.wordpress.com ]
Hoffman works for the Chopra foundation?
smcder
Paranormal Adept
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Electromagnetic theories of consciousness - Wikipedia
gets us nowhere with explaining phenomenal cs/hp/subj b/c it just shifts from brain to EM field doesn't show how ... also subjectivity, what it is like to be ... isn't like a magnetic field... Or anything physical ...
gets us nowhere with explaining phenomenal cs/hp/subj b/c it just shifts from brain to EM field doesn't show how ... also subjectivity, what it is like to be ... isn't like a magnetic field... Or anything physical ...
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Explaining, "phenomenal cs/hp/subj b/c it ... subjectivity ..." is irrelevant. A particular kind of EM field that only the experiencer experiences as consciousness could still be what consciousness is on a physical level. But there's no way to know that with 100% certainty. We can only infer it by correlation. However with sufficient correlation and experimentation, it might be possible one day to become as sure of that as we are sure that certain supermodels are hot ( that was just for you smcder, since you are bored with the magnetism analogy )
. Or should I go back to using the magnetism analogy?
Last edited:
smcder
Paranormal Adept
You're so smart!
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Explaining, "phenomenal cs/hp/subj b/c it ... subjectivity ..." is irrelevant. A particular kind of EM field that only the experiencer experiences as consciousness could still be what consciousness is on a physical level. But there's no way to know that with 100% certainty. We can only infer it by correlation. However with sufficient correlation and experimentation, it might be possible one day to become as sure of that as we are sure that certain supermodels are hot ( that was just for you smcder, since you are bored with the magnetism analogy )
"Irrelevant!"
Except that the whole point of a theory of cs is why the experiencer experiences anything ... Why there is an experiencer/experiences.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I'm so smart that ( insert wisecrack here ) ... lol.
Last edited:
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Understanding why isn't necessarily "the whole point". Other points ( assuming that by "cs" you mean consciousness ), might be to establish the conditions that give rise to consciousness so that we can find ways to better treat, maintain, enhance, create, and repair it. These could be of of tremendous significance to medicine, psychology, neuroscience, and AI research. The why question is largely subjective, but obviously experience does seem to provide motivation for action, and motivation for action can be useful for survival and perpetuation of the species, especially where analogies to supermodels are concerned
.
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Explaining, "phenomenal cs/hp/subj b/c it ... subjectivity ..." is irrelevant. A particular kind of EM field that only the experiencer experiences as consciousness could still be what consciousness is on a physical level. But there's no way to know that with 100% certainty. We can only infer it by correlation. However with sufficient correlation and experimentation, it might be possible one day to become as sure of that as we are sure that certain supermodels are hot ( that was just for you smcder, since you are bored with the magnetism analogy )
Correlation with
Study of cs vs theory of cs the pt of which is to explain
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Explaining, "phenomenal cs/hp/subj b/c it ... subjectivity ..." is irrelevant. A particular kind of EM field that only the experiencer experiences as consciousness could still be what consciousness is on a physical level. But there's no way to know that with 100% certainty. We can only infer it by correlation. However with sufficient correlation and experimentation, it might be possible one day to become as sure of that as we are sure that certain supermodels are hot ( that was just for you smcder, since you are bored with the magnetism analogy )
Correlation with ... What? With what you're trying to prove = circularity
smcder
Paranormal Adept
smcder
Paranormal Adept
Understanding why isn't necessarily "the whole point". Other points ( assuming that by "cs" you mean consciousness ), might be to establish the conditions that give rise to consciousness so that we can find ways to better treat, maintain, enhance, create, and repair it. These could be of of tremendous significance to medicine, psychology, neuroscience, and AI research. The why question is largely subjective, but obviously experience does seem to provide motivation for action, and motivation for action can be useful for survival and perpetuation of the species, especially where analogies to supermodels are concerned
"The why question is largely subjective, but obviously experience does seem to provide motivation foraction, and motivation for action can be useful for survival andperpetuation of the species"
EDITED
And WHAT is subjectivity?
HOW does experience provide motivation?
Those are not largely subjective questions.
Last edited:
smcder
Paranormal Adept
"Given my background, it should not be a surprise that the whole approach revolved around evolutionary questions:what useful trait requires consciousness? How could such a trait plausibly evolve from other abilities? The answers I’ve found can be summarised in simple terms: you need experience to learn from experience, duh. At this stage, in order to solidify the idea I wrote things down, followed some threads, and then turned to study.
Updating myself on the advances of neuroscientific knowledge about consciousness was a grim affair. The more I read, the more depressing it got. We have a massive amount of data, and precious little to explain it. We have tiny proto-theories that try to explain small details, and a few macro-theories that claim to explain the whole, but look irredeemably simplistic to my eyes (will tackle this another day). By contrast, the philosophical side of the argument looked pugnacious and manifestly confused. Whatever position you can think of, there’s a philosopher that violently insists it must be the right one, and unfortunately this applies also to hypotheses that you might intend as jokes. Not nice. Furthermore, it soon became clear that there was a turf war going on: short-sighted scientists on one side and wishy-washy philosophers on the other, flinging mud in all directions, with little respect for rigour and dialogue. Numerous exceptions do apply, on both fields, and it soon became clear that it was worth paying attention to what people likeDavid Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Ned Block, David Rosenthal, Thomas Metzinger, Antti Revonsuo, V.S. Ramachandran, Stanislas Dehaene, Giulio Tononi and Andy Clarkhave to say (and others, apologies for all the omissions!). They all disagree with one another, but that’s not the point: each one of them has valuable insights to offer, and their disagreements are excellent tools to highlight the central issues that need to be solved."
Updating myself on the advances of neuroscientific knowledge about consciousness was a grim affair. The more I read, the more depressing it got. We have a massive amount of data, and precious little to explain it. We have tiny proto-theories that try to explain small details, and a few macro-theories that claim to explain the whole, but look irredeemably simplistic to my eyes (will tackle this another day). By contrast, the philosophical side of the argument looked pugnacious and manifestly confused. Whatever position you can think of, there’s a philosopher that violently insists it must be the right one, and unfortunately this applies also to hypotheses that you might intend as jokes. Not nice. Furthermore, it soon became clear that there was a turf war going on: short-sighted scientists on one side and wishy-washy philosophers on the other, flinging mud in all directions, with little respect for rigour and dialogue. Numerous exceptions do apply, on both fields, and it soon became clear that it was worth paying attention to what people likeDavid Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Ned Block, David Rosenthal, Thomas Metzinger, Antti Revonsuo, V.S. Ramachandran, Stanislas Dehaene, Giulio Tononi and Andy Clarkhave to say (and others, apologies for all the omissions!). They all disagree with one another, but that’s not the point: each one of them has valuable insights to offer, and their disagreements are excellent tools to highlight the central issues that need to be solved."
smcder
Paranormal Adept
But here he is very insightful:
" personal note: I can recognise in myself a pattern that is very visible in others. One approaches a subject with (what feels like) a brilliant new idea, and in time stubbornly refuses to see why his idea isn’t that new, it doesn’t convince anyone, and even when it does, it leaves many questions unanswered while opening up new ones. That’s the harsh reality: the study of consciousness is so complicated that it’s almost impossible to be sure that your point is coming across, and/or that you are understanding the points made by others. In the end, no one, including and starting with myself, should hold the presumption of being right. I hope it’s still OK to nurture the ambition of adding something useful: it would be gratifying enough."
Bingo
" personal note: I can recognise in myself a pattern that is very visible in others. One approaches a subject with (what feels like) a brilliant new idea, and in time stubbornly refuses to see why his idea isn’t that new, it doesn’t convince anyone, and even when it does, it leaves many questions unanswered while opening up new ones. That’s the harsh reality: the study of consciousness is so complicated that it’s almost impossible to be sure that your point is coming across, and/or that you are understanding the points made by others. In the end, no one, including and starting with myself, should hold the presumption of being right. I hope it’s still OK to nurture the ambition of adding something useful: it would be gratifying enough."
Bingo
smcder
Paranormal Adept
@Soupie
Is it possible anesthesia blocks memory not pain? Each instance, each basic unit of experience of pain IS experienced but then immediately forgotten? On the one hand you might think how bad can a single instance of pain be ... but on the other ... And there isn't any way to prove this isn't the case ...
The woman who experienced everything while under anesthesia doesn't prove it .... but her experience doesn't disprove it.
Attention also comes in here ... Anesthesia could work on attention ... Depending on what consciousness is, then ... this would mean cs does not neccessarily cease under anesthesia.
Similarly for "dreamless" sleep... Which wouldn't be ... So that seems to challenge one of your main assumptions
Is it possible anesthesia blocks memory not pain? Each instance, each basic unit of experience of pain IS experienced but then immediately forgotten? On the one hand you might think how bad can a single instance of pain be ... but on the other ... And there isn't any way to prove this isn't the case ...
The woman who experienced everything while under anesthesia doesn't prove it .... but her experience doesn't disprove it.
Attention also comes in here ... Anesthesia could work on attention ... Depending on what consciousness is, then ... this would mean cs does not neccessarily cease under anesthesia.
Similarly for "dreamless" sleep... Which wouldn't be ... So that seems to challenge one of your main assumptions
- Status