In that sense (my previous post), you can only perceive present reality objectively by not being subjective, by not interfering your subjectivity with what actually is, otherwise you will still keep on creating subjective images of reality that are just concepts, ideas, etc. Considering all that, is it really possible to dress reality into words, into theories, into descriptions?
What is being subjective if not all your knowledge, your memory (including DNA), all that you has gone through since you were born and then reflecting back on all that as you perceive every next moment? A newborn is not subjective, it has not perception of itself, but as the brain has incredible capacity to soak up data through all the senses, it builds up an image of what we see as our subjective self. It's nothing more than looking in the past though, bending reality through our past.
the first time i heard that answer i thought it was fine. Most people quoting the hard problem allude that its not possible for a phisical thing to have a subjective experience. Its like saying that the devices in a car can't go. They can go if you arrange them a specific way.
@pyrrho314 - Some people don't believe in time and think everything is happening all at once and we experience it as happening over time... Have you seen 'Through the wormhole - Season 2, Episode 3 - Does Time Really Exist?' It has a good video on time. :-) I agree we have to work how will power works so we can then determine how to look at it with physics. :-)
@TheaDragonSpirit there is cause and effect, metabolism and entropy, though, that is why we measure time. This is explained in basic science when they go over the laws of thermodynamics. There is an indicator of time there, and it is stated as such. What you said is just how god would experience things if there was one. Time would be horizontal to a god and it could play time like a piano.
@masluxx : lol, standing waves. Well as I said before when I was admitting these are no more waves than particles, and ideas that show why both ideas might apply, in my model of electrons video, the mathematics of waves is the same as the mathematics of all things that oscilate, even irregular oscillations can be decomposed into summations of harmonic oscillations, so indeed all signals. So waves stand well in feedback systems which are inherently cyclic.
nobody is saying it cant be answered with physics true. Rather, physics needs to take a different approach. There have been plenty of scientific models that were then thrown in the dustbin. Did that completely destroy physics? No ofcourse not.
One possible solution is to take conscioussness as fundimental.
ontologistics made some pretty cool videos on the topic. its his last two.
@InvincibleNumanist : atm there is Quantum Consciousness being developed emperically, but in its infancy, and there are neuro-computational ideas that are trying to get neural network software ready for computers fast enough to execute it. However, I think their estimate of how many "computations" are going on in the mind are wrong. They think of each neuron as a computational switch, when in reality there seems to be computation going on in the microtubules (controversial).
consciousness is an emergent property of complexity not sure physics is the correct tool ,you'd not understand the Mona Lisa by studying the atomic structure you'd need to stand back and see it as a whole ,or am I missing the point also ,lols . only way I could see us getting a handle on consciousness is through AI ,but I sort of see where you are coming from, consciousness is a bloody strange thing if you look at evolution you'd think it would create automatons
@sausage4mash I don’t know much but my lazy thoughts say the same for ‘complexity’, whatever that means, as you say. Automatons can have consciousness though, no?
@Charlesdance well, maybe they'd become conscious if complex enough . actually if you look at those clockwork birds in a cage the Victorians used to make to ASIMO (that Honda robot ) you could imagine a progression to consciousness . but how you would register or measure consciousness ,God knows *shrugs shoulders* I think consciousness is something to do with feedback ,perception and collating information to a focal point ,the sum of those three ,perhaps
@Illuzionz1111 : I'm not vested in if will turns out to be deterministic. However it turns out is fine with me. I don't like perspectives that stop the questions.
"The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."
I don't have a problem saying that science will be unable to answer it. In fact that is what double-aspect theory implies: the mental and the physical are both inseparable and irreducible. Consciousness is not to be reduced and explained by science but rather taken as fundamental. Schrödinger's take on this is very clear when he said: (cont.)
@InvincibleNumanist : yes and no, he runs in that quantum consciousness group and I'm very much liking their work... I think they are turning a fringe into emperical arguments, and have done a lot so far. I should read more of his stuff in particular.
@tranquil87 : once you can create it, you'll be able to say "XYZ" are the nec. conditions for subjective experience. Given that you created it, there may be ways inside it (to read it's mind) and play with it. You might still not know "well, why does XYZ mean consciousness, but you'll be close to that and find ABC is the reason consciousness emerges, and you'll need to ask "why is ABC" the case, and so on. Sound like a promising process to me.
In that sense (my previous post), you can only perceive present reality objectively by not being subjective, by not interfering your subjectivity with what actually is, otherwise you will still keep on creating subjective images of reality that are just concepts, ideas, etc. Considering all that, is it really possible to dress reality into words, into theories, into descriptions?
hristoitchov 4 weeks ago
What is being subjective if not all your knowledge, your memory (including DNA), all that you has gone through since you were born and then reflecting back on all that as you perceive every next moment? A newborn is not subjective, it has not perception of itself, but as the brain has incredible capacity to soak up data through all the senses, it builds up an image of what we see as our subjective self. It's nothing more than looking in the past though, bending reality through our past.
hristoitchov 4 weeks ago
Nice Max Headroom effect there at the end.
moesblues 4 weeks ago
You know, its just the truth of physicalism. I think its worthwhile to study it further though. Should have useful applications.
AEVautomatic 4 weeks ago
its like saying that swimming is seperate from the body. Swimming is just something the body can do. Thinking is something the brain can do.
AEVautomatic 4 weeks ago
the first time i heard that answer i thought it was fine. Most people quoting the hard problem allude that its not possible for a phisical thing to have a subjective experience. Its like saying that the devices in a car can't go. They can go if you arrange them a specific way.
AEVautomatic 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 - Some people don't believe in time and think everything is happening all at once and we experience it as happening over time... Have you seen 'Through the wormhole - Season 2, Episode 3 - Does Time Really Exist?' It has a good video on time. :-) I agree we have to work how will power works so we can then determine how to look at it with physics. :-)
TheaDragonSpirit 4 weeks ago
@TheaDragonSpirit there is cause and effect, metabolism and entropy, though, that is why we measure time. This is explained in basic science when they go over the laws of thermodynamics. There is an indicator of time there, and it is stated as such. What you said is just how god would experience things if there was one. Time would be horizontal to a god and it could play time like a piano.
IndifferentSky 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheaDragonSpirit 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IndifferentSky - I don't believe in laws. I think there a lot like facts they change, or are based on faulty knowledge or facts.
TheaDragonSpirit 4 weeks ago
@IndifferentSky I gave you specific examples, derp. Metabolism happens and cause and effect happens as demonstrated by energy.
IndifferentSky 4 weeks ago
feedback systems. Where do your waves stand?
masluxx 4 weeks ago
@masluxx : lol, standing waves. Well as I said before when I was admitting these are no more waves than particles, and ideas that show why both ideas might apply, in my model of electrons video, the mathematics of waves is the same as the mathematics of all things that oscilate, even irregular oscillations can be decomposed into summations of harmonic oscillations, so indeed all signals. So waves stand well in feedback systems which are inherently cyclic.
tmi?
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 positive feedback system, a little push can send the wave in motion. where will it go?
masluxx 4 weeks ago
lmao okay you kinda laboured it at the end. But yeah I agree with the video.
I'd take people like Dennet a lot more seriously if they stopped relying so much on AI to prove their points.
InvincibleNumanist 4 weeks ago
nobody is saying it cant be answered with physics true. Rather, physics needs to take a different approach. There have been plenty of scientific models that were then thrown in the dustbin. Did that completely destroy physics? No ofcourse not.
One possible solution is to take conscioussness as fundimental.
ontologistics made some pretty cool videos on the topic. its his last two.
InvincibleNumanist 4 weeks ago
@InvincibleNumanist : atm there is Quantum Consciousness being developed emperically, but in its infancy, and there are neuro-computational ideas that are trying to get neural network software ready for computers fast enough to execute it. However, I think their estimate of how many "computations" are going on in the mind are wrong. They think of each neuron as a computational switch, when in reality there seems to be computation going on in the microtubules (controversial).
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@InvincibleNumanist : many say it can't be answered with physics.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314
your face cant be answered with physics
InvincibleNumanist 4 weeks ago
Will Power ranges from 0.1uN to 13400 jottaN roughly
BeyondWrittenWords 4 weeks ago
consciousness is an emergent property of complexity not sure physics is the correct tool ,you'd not understand the Mona Lisa by studying the atomic structure you'd need to stand back and see it as a whole ,or am I missing the point also ,lols . only way I could see us getting a handle on consciousness is through AI ,but I sort of see where you are coming from, consciousness is a bloody strange thing if you look at evolution you'd think it would create automatons
sausage4mash 4 weeks ago
@sausage4mash I don’t know much but my lazy thoughts say the same for ‘complexity’, whatever that means, as you say. Automatons can have consciousness though, no?
Charlesdance 4 weeks ago
@Charlesdance well, maybe they'd become conscious if complex enough . actually if you look at those clockwork birds in a cage the Victorians used to make to ASIMO (that Honda robot ) you could imagine a progression to consciousness . but how you would register or measure consciousness ,God knows *shrugs shoulders* I think consciousness is something to do with feedback ,perception and collating information to a focal point ,the sum of those three ,perhaps
sausage4mash 4 weeks ago
If you could physically describe will in great detail would that not mean that it is now deterministic? perhaps will is indefinable...
I find comfort in thinking will is just a property of complex systems of logic just like math is a property of reality.
Illuzionz1111 4 weeks ago
@Illuzionz1111 : I'm not vested in if will turns out to be deterministic. However it turns out is fine with me. I don't like perspectives that stop the questions.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
This was very entertaining to watch. Quite a nice rebuttal.
Unworshipediety 4 weeks ago 2
"The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."
tranquil87 4 weeks ago 2
I don't have a problem saying that science will be unable to answer it. In fact that is what double-aspect theory implies: the mental and the physical are both inseparable and irreducible. Consciousness is not to be reduced and explained by science but rather taken as fundamental. Schrödinger's take on this is very clear when he said: (cont.)
tranquil87 4 weeks ago 2
@tranquil87
contemporary scientists would really love it if there was no such thing as consciousness lol. I take it youre a fan of David Chalmers?
InvincibleNumanist 4 weeks ago
@InvincibleNumanist : yes and no, he runs in that quantum consciousness group and I'm very much liking their work... I think they are turning a fringe into emperical arguments, and have done a lot so far. I should read more of his stuff in particular.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@tranquil87 : once you can create it, you'll be able to say "XYZ" are the nec. conditions for subjective experience. Given that you created it, there may be ways inside it (to read it's mind) and play with it. You might still not know "well, why does XYZ mean consciousness, but you'll be close to that and find ABC is the reason consciousness emerges, and you'll need to ask "why is ABC" the case, and so on. Sound like a promising process to me.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
you look like a boxer on the pink filter.
AEVautomatic 4 weeks ago
You could say "the hard problem of binary code." How does binary code make a program. I have no idea they have it in a certain manner.
AEVautomatic 4 weeks ago
@AEVautomatic : that answer is easily given.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
going to make a video of my explanation, too long for comment(s)
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago