The problem of thinking that descriptions of the world stack like cards in a deck is the same that happens when kids ask 'why?' until the adult get tired. One can always suppose there is a card that supports the next one, but that isnt necessary true.
Maybe there are brute facts, not in the virtue that we are stupid apes, but in virtue of things that simply are. However unlike Chalmers i dont think the thing that happen above your neck are by any extent any of the above.
@BlackSabotage100 Chomsky obviously; Searle is and appears to be a closet authoritarian (despite being a social constructionist).
As to philosophy of mind, despite being a Dennettian physicalist myself, having a grandfather who promotes NM is better than the vague "materialism without materialism" that is biological naturalism.
@BlackSabotage100 Intellectually and emotionally Chomsky would better their chances of life, but John (Wayne) Searle if you want you sons to grow up to be cowboys. I.e., definitely Searle the way this 'hard problem' of total spectrum ass-kicking is coming into Uncle Sam's line of sight.
"Humans can't understand it." =/= "It is a mystery beyond the material world." .... "Humans can't understand it." = "We are too stupid to understand it because our brains have limited capabilities."
I couldn't find anything on the "hard problem of motion." What does Chomsky mean we cannot comprehend motion? In a pre-Einstein world especially, motion seems pretty easy to understand. Chomsky lost me here.
@workingTchr He means we do not understand why motion occurs at all, so we abandoned trying to solve the problem, as he thinks we should abandon trying to explain the generation of consciousness, and just try to describe it and its functions/architecture. This is termed "New Mysterianism".
@niriop See, I don't think we "abandoned" trying to understand why motion occurs. I googled "the hard problem of motion" and came up with nothing --except Chomsky in this video. And I'm not familiar with this being a "known problem."
i'm not sure, but I think he's referring to the axiomatic nature of certain things we intuitively know to be correct: for example, it is impossible to prove causality. You can only prove an effect follows another.
@ThisOneIsTaken For some intellectual reason, Chomsky WANTS there to be irreducible mysteries. Maybe consciousness .. or motion .. or causality .. are such mysteries, but the fact that one of the above may be does not imply that one of the others is as well. And also, who's to say that what's a mystery now might not be explained later. Personally, I think when consciousness is explained, the whole human game is going to change. Do we celebrate or blow everything up?
@workingTchr He is a linguist and philosopher, him desiring non-explicable things is like a plumber who desires clogged toilets. What he meant was that we cannot explain why these things occur in any fundamental sense, we just take it as given that they do and create systems to predict the behavior based on visible patterns. The best hope we have for consciousness seems to be "Look at these brain waves, uh.. thats what causes consciousness"
"That's Hume already" fwahaha, love Hume so much, one of my favorite "no bullshit" philosophers. But the whole "we cannot comprehend motion" thing. While we would like to subjugate everything to the human intellect it most likely will not happen soon. Look at Heidegger's "I want to understand Dasein". I don't think he ever understood dasein. He had valuable insights and experiences but not complete understanding.
And what people forget is that consciousness is primary for knowledge, and primary for experience. And all knowledge of the world comes from experience, which means consciousness. And since consciousness is primary, you can't solve for it. It's just there. From physics to neuroscience are all based on experience, which means it's based on consciousness. You can't solve for consciousness by using consciousness. Completely circular and illogical.
"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes....In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle." Robert Geroch
The hard problem of motion, in a sense, is that we experience motion at all. If you honestly take space-time seriously, then there is no motion. Continued in Next post...
Mysteries of motion...it's funny that high-level physics only seems to lay down the basis of consciousness. I think about this a lot. How if we are to change there must be a opposite and equal reaction in order to change your mind to a more moderate stance making one less ambivalent. Another rule that can be thought of (from physics) is that you cannot know the exact property of a particle at a moment & know where it is at the same time (is because of the filter of consciousness.)
"5-no ones suggesting u can change dimensions by perception"
You said one of your dimensions was subjective truth which is your own personal perception of the world around you.
"6-u expect me to just answer ur demands?"
Well yes. By an empirical standard they're not so outrageous as suggesting that the thirteenth dimension of the universe is something that J.K. Rowling could grasp with more understanding than a physicist.
For starters, the wave/particle behavior of light certainly still presents many intractable enigmas, a lot of which are detailed in Feynman's book, "Quantum Electrodynamics". Further, all motion induced by gravity is a complete mystery, as we currently have no idea whatsoever what gravity really is. The same is true of all motion induced by the interaction of electric fields and magnetic fields. Further, we know mass has inertia, but have no idea why.
@natmanprime No that was a face palm. Like when someone says something so absurd that the only adequate response is to lightly slap the front of your face with your palm.
@MrCaptain221 welll, how's this for a joke: it's actually true.
btw, i forgot, the 4th response , of course, that i'm bonkers!
seems to be the one you went with.
all the answers are easy, understandable, and right in front of you. It's only emotion and ego that's stopping you looking for them in the right place.
and these things are controlled by the society around you. the society that's primed you to regard my words as nonsense on their face.
@natmanprime Are you telling me that mathematically there is a dimension of black magic >_>
Show me harry potter.
Still, if you're telling me that reality is held together by a thirteenth dimension of magic then tell me how in the same detail as a physicist describing particle behavior in a Hamiltonian. Get to work?
@natmanprime "the only important thing here is the truth."
Mathematics is the expression of truth in the physical universe. Show me mathematically. Language has nothing to do with this because language is a an anthropomorphic way of describing the world, it is imperfect and carries human bias. If we are discussing physics on a universal level, shit don't matter. What matters is what you can prove through empirical means.
@natmanprime I'm going to continue being condescending because you've not given me a reason not to be condescending. You come at me, someone learned on the universe, talking about dimensions of black magic expecting the same respect of a hard science. Were you in my position you would treat your assertion with the same hostility so until you prove otherwise you'll suffer the tone humbly because your theory demands your humility or you'll just sound insane.
@natmanprime Fuck Hamilton or fuck a Hamiltonian? One is a person and another is a mathematical system, which one are you fucking?
There are not 12 dimensions in the universe, there are in string theory but that's barely beyond the cusp of theoretical physics. The physical dimensions of the universe do not change based on a person's subjective view of them. If you need proof of this reference mythology or Christian apologetic arguments.
@natmanprime Surface, vacuum, solidity, potential energy, and shape are properties of the interactions of particles that exist in the dimensions of time and space. They themselves are not dimensions of physical reality. 12-7 objective versions doesn't mean anything.
How is the universe a giant clock? A clock is an ordered mechanism, the universe is a chaotic plane of predominantly empty space.
"3- were i in your position" i would never be so dogmatic and tribalistic dont ever assume i'm like you."
If I could split my consciousness, take one copy and make it like you and keep one copy and the two of them had a debate it would end in the suicide of the persona that took your form.
If I were like you I would kill myself.
I'm going to tear apart your points one more time then I'm going to be done.
@natmanprime You know there's this book called the bible. If you're going to espouse silly theories on any academic video on youtube using Christianity as a source may draw less contempt for your intellectual integrity then if you were to suggest what you're suggesting in such a hostile manner. I'm saying that if you're going to be insane, being a Christian at least makes you insane amongst others of the mentally deficit nature. There are two billion, less lonely. Good day sir.
@niriop there is such a thing as 1 "ness", 2 ness, etc. the resonate throughout the entire universe, as notions. this can be planly demonstrated and proven. it underlies everything, eg. physics, psychology, collective unconscious.
and the fact that ur taking that attitude is unreal. its almost like u want to b lambs to the slaughter, and i'm TIRED, snot the REMOTEST iota of curiosity to even get a clue what i'm tallking about, for a whole year...u truly deserve everything ur getting
I believe the problem is Chomsky is using a weak analogy. The problem of consciousness is not relevantly analogous to the problem of motion. Consciousness is intentional, private, and subjective... motion is the observed movement of things in the external world and their measurable effects. I am not motion so there is nothing it is like to be motion, but there is something it is like to be conscious. As atheist Colin McGinn know, recognizing the irreducibility of Cons does not imply soul...red H
Thought-provoking stuff. Though one can't really be sure I would have to side with those that think its outside the scope of materialism. Take an emotion, suffering, for ex. Though one may find the mechanics so to speak within a materialist approach that are directly connected with the manifestation of suffering this does not really touch upon what suffering itself is. The suffering you and I experience subjectively. My two cents.
@MJForevr1958Infinty You come to my video, rant against atheists, strawman my position, and then you tell me to shut up. Fuck off, I'm sick of your incoherent angry bullshit.
@MJForevr1958Infinty Pain is a conscious experience--it is a twitch in the nervous system--it exists a brain state. And quit talking about Einstein; he was a physicist, not a neurologist.
@MJForevr1958Infinty I can say the same of you. Don't bitch at me if you don't understand the term; if you don't understand the terms then maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation. "when it explains nothing" Why doesn't it? "behaviour that u cannot predict" But if consciousness is a physical property, and all physical properties are subject to the same laws, then we can in theory predict behaviour. Emergence does not transcend its parts; it is one with its parts and subject to conditions.
@MJForevr1958Infinty "science can't detect it" Brain states? Hello? "no theory predicts its existence" Human beings couldn't predict it, so it must be magic! genius logic! "NO OTHER physical phenomenon is like that" Hume's Is/Ought problem; how can you get non-physical from that? You can't, its a leap in logic. "Consciousness is as elusive as "God"" *Sighs* He doesn't exist.
That's Dennett's complaint--qualia does not exist in his model; the "what-it-is-like"-ness is an illusion
@MJForevr1958Infinty "SEPARATE PHENOMENON" Give me one good reason why consciousness--such a microscopic part of our reality--be privy to special status and not be subject to normal scientific laws? Just one.
Energy and matter, no matter how many times you divide it, is still there, just in smaller bits. If I take a red brick house, take it apart brick by brick, then split the bricks into dust, and then split the dust particles into particles so small they no longer registered on any [con]
@MJForevr1958Infinty Erm, yes, that's my point: consciousness is a physical function of the brain, I've never denied it. "it's essentially behaviour you couldn't predict" We can't predict physical system since...when? Are you thinking before you're typing?
I'm not saying any of that; I'm saying that conscious experience is part of the brain, which part of the nervous system in which it is contained. There is no "miracle invoking"; I believe that such a thing is your argument.
"Physicalism isn't explaining anything" It's not really suppose to other than propose a state of the composition of consciousness; the real trouble in philosophy of mind should be whether the mind functions as a computational system or as an embodied one (I'm with the former), but the wacky spiritualists keep bringing the hard problem up time and time again, as though there's still a question mark over it.
@MJForevr1958Infinty Churchland denotes the neurophilosophical husband and wife superteam of Paul and Patricia Churchland (you should listen to The Partially Examined Life's interview of the latter).
By that logic, digestion does not exist for it is merely a mechanical function of the stomach; is there a mythic immaterial element that allows the emergence of digestion? No, its an emergent function of the stomach, and you wouldn't deny it exists. I look at consciousness in the same way.
@MJForevr1958Infinty And you've already decided we can't decode consciousness for lack of desire to try to hunt for evidence. "u even dismiss conscious experiences as utterly irrelevant" Strawmanning; where do I say this? I'm downplaying qualia, not conscious experience; that exists, obviously. "psychological need" Ad hom. "u're just matter" It appears so yes; I don't really care, but ultimately that's how things seem to be.
Look up Ramachandran's work on colour and aesthetic experience.
@MJForevr1958Infinty It's just another bodily process and deceptive in its supposed complexity. This little clip of Dennett puts it in perspective: watch?v=qYYFQiN052c
You don't actually seem to know much about neuroscience; it appears to me that the millions of synapse lapses occuring within the brain any given second are enough to generate conscious self-awareness (I would also like to point out that only part of the brain is given over to the mind; the rest is unconscious regulatory work).
@MJForevr1958Infinty "why do we see colour & not hear it" Pointless question, a distraction even.
"If the genes affect only neurons, then consciousness has to be caused & shaped by neurons" Pretty much, as best we can see.
Dennett's views are actually fuelling a movement within modern neuroscience; he isn't at odds with them; he's taken their results and applied them to philosophical questions.
I'm always waiting for a good argument or new evidence against physicalism of course.
@MJForevr1958Infinty That's Churchland's argument; however, even if it can be reduced, it still does exist, otherwise there would have been nothing to reduce in the first place.
If we dig into the nervous system, it sorta can.
We do; its called sensory experience and we can study the nervous system that receives it. There's no special "4th dimension" to it; that's all there is (as far as we can tell).
@MJForevr1958Infinty Logical fallacy: you are *assuming* that consciousness is immaterial right off; hence your criticism is invalid, and your rejection dogmatic
No, that isn't so. You seem to be confusing Dennett and Block on consciousness; Dennett believes conciousness does exist, as an emergent property resultant of neural Darwinism; he attacks qualia as an illusion however, a confusion of conscious experience and content. (I really think you should have a look at Content and Consciousness).
@MJForevr1958Infinty "science will NEVER explain consciousness" Absolutist much? It's a very dogmatic assertion to say the least. Cognitive neuroscience isn't saying it WILL find the roots of conscious experience, its just saying "lets see"; no science would dare annouce that it WILL have a result, as this is completely against the scientific method. As to qualia, I'm largely agnostic and uninterested in it, but the more I read about it, the more I sympathise with Dennett's claim it is illusion.
This video should have been longer .It cuts out before he makes his point .Chomsky is one of the for fathers of cognitive science .So his opinion on this matter is very important .To hear Chomsky's views on this matter youtube language and mind revisited, .
I have been following the consciousness wars as Dennet calls it for a decade .There is unbounded riches in research and theories in this field .I believe before we have a unified theory of physics we will first have to have a theory of mind .Dont listen to all the anti intellectual comments up here . This is the attempt of coming to a science of the mind and just because we don't have all the answers does not mean we dont know anything about consciousness . I am reluctant to dismiss chomsky .
@niriop Pain in itself is an aspect of self-awareness. Any system that allows an organism to gather information about its surroundings is self-aware, and conscious. The moment the concept of "consciousness" becomes bullshit, is when people start making the unnecessary and unjustifiable requirement, that there should be an extra layer of consciousness on top of the one almost all organisms already have, just so we can separate humans from all (or most) other species and feel a bit special.
@SAsgarters Exactly! An "extra layer" perfectly describes the bullshit people seem to keep demanding time and time again. Maybe self-awareness of self-awareness is something more concerned with the condition of metacognition, not consciousness in-and-of-itself. This is why I tell people to read/watch the lectures of great thinkers like Dennett, Churchland and Damasio, who actually synthesise proper neurobiology and philosophical inquiry; the mind-brain "problem" is an unnecessary one
@SAsgarters I don't understand why you think it is unjustifiable to believe the subjective, intentional, and private aspects of consciousness cannot be explained, in principle, by the objective methods of science. Furthermore, Intelligent people disagree (Chalmers vs Dennet, for example), and to reduce the problem to an attempt to feel special is a failure to either understand or address the strongest arguments against your position.
@betamale3 All of the "psuedo-intellections" that are currently arguing about the problem of consciousness also happen to all agree (more or less) on what they each mean by the word "consciousness", much in the same way you and I would agree on what the word "snow" means. Soooo... I'm a little confused about what your point is, except you kind of sound like an asshole.
@arides The first time ive ever seen Chomsky referred to as a Psuedo intellectual . Those anti intellectual thought patterns are very engraved in americans arent they . All the hate and ignorance on youtube someone should collect all the comments and do a mass Psycho analysis of youtubers . REALLY .
@betamale3 Try the Cambridge dictionary of philosophy . These people are certainly not Pseudo intellectuals .A comment like that makes you seem like a anti intellectual .The operation of the Brain though not fully understood , We do know how the basics work . We call them Neural correlations which is identifing which neurons interacting with other neurons to create a specific feeling like taste . That we are progressing very quickly on .Don't Not Major in Cognitive science for lack of research .
@betamale3 Try the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy . These people are certainly not Psuedo intellectuals .We already understand much of the brain in the form of neural correlations .Cognitive science is one of the most rich and exiting fields one can do research in .Dont not Major in Cognitive science for lack of research .You certainly will not be wasting your time (lol ) .
@GiveItUp2012 That was great, Chomsky is wrong!!! Chomsky thinks everything is linear. The quesiton is is our conscious drawn from the outside or does it come just from the inside. Don't go off on some tangent about motion and mysteries.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@GiveItUp2012: "Dennett believes in 'quining qualia' - a term he uses!"
IIRC, he uses this term and shows that it is impractical and useless.
"He fails to explain how u can have an illusion"
He does have plenty of examples of illusions.
"But to have an illusion of being conscious, you must first have an illusion of existing"
U seem to use a different framework, if consciousness is self-awareness, then brains can not be perfectly self-aware, thus some parts aren't self-aware, or subconscious.
"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we CAN suppose." J.B.S. Haldane. My suspicion is that CONSCIOUSNESS is primary... that it's ALL consciousness... but, of course there's no way of proving that.
Is time perhaps derived from relationships in space (Julian Balbour, "The End of Time") and space a derivative of digital-like consciousness (Thomas Campbell, "My Big TOE") ? If so then all we experience in spacetime is a an experience of objects, the objects themselves never exist physically. If (?) consciousness is primary then then is no hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem arises when we assume that the physical is primary and thus cannot account for our own obvious interiority.
Why would Noam immediately change teh subject? Whatever...I don't care, he's a brilliant thinker and debater. But, he's really out of his realm on this one. Very good on politics, geo-politics and social science. But, obviously, he can't answer this question better than you or I. There is a reason it's the "hard problem". No one's been able to solve it. But, there is no solution. The mathematics are literally infinite. No point in going down that road with consciousness. TOOOOO BIG!
Our bodies live in the world, conciousness lives in the world and the universe. Our bodies experience motion, conciousness allows us to debate it. Ergo, shit happens.
Interesting video. Of course, a simplistic view is that no matter what the field of study, there are always base assumptions, like axioms in mathematics, that are the underpinnings of the study. Why can no object (photon, particle, whatever) transcend the speed of light? Why do objects have mass? Etc. Everything must be described using some set of terms. It is those axioms that cannot themselves be proven or they cease to be axioms. No matter how it is reduced, there is always something left.
@niriop hey, could you state in the description what do you disagree with?
is that the motion was the hard problem or the consciousness is the hard problem now?
I am interested in the historical record. I tend to agree with Daniel Dennett that consciousness is not a problem in the first place, but I think it's David Chalmers who posed consciousness as a hard problem, so at least for some philosophers it is hard after all :-)
It still stands, i think, that Newton didn't attempt a complete description of motion and that this way he gained a better understanding than those that did. Look at it like this. Newton didn't try to answer the question "Why is there mass?" he simply looked at objects, observed they have mass then moved on to create equasions involving mass to see if it got him anywhere.
@dappercad Actually, i'm coming around on the whole 'we don't understand motion' thing. I think Hume was pretty convincing when he argued we never perceive causation, so any complete description of motion might have to include an account of the origin of motion, much like being unable to explain why there is mass, or why inertia is a thing. Wait, scratch that whole argument, if we can't explain inertia, then of course we don't understand motion. I'm an idiot.
I think I understand how you got to what you say next, that consciousness might be identical to representation of consciousness. I'm not sure I agree though. One property we might confidently(?) say that consciousness has is that it changes over time. However a single description of consciousness doesn't change over time if it is to be recordable and communicable. So if in fact consciousness is describable the description will not be conscious. (con)
We don't give up understanding only complete understanding. This seems fairly solid as the universe is a whole and to understand any one part of it completely you must completely understand the whole. Carl Sagan:"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe" which is true, but that doesn't mean that an apple pie recipie is useless, or that one can't understand some aspect of apple pie without first having a complete understanding of the universe. (con)
Yes, otherwise we wouldn't be looking for the higgs boson. Though this is beside the point that Chomsky makes which is that, in principle, it is impossible to understand motion. My argument as to why he said this boils down to "The map is not the territory" which seems to me to fit. Though maybe he had something else in mind.
@dappercad but, if motion is impossible to understand because we only have access to the representation, don't we have to abandon understanding pretty much anything about the physical world? And, if that's the reason we can't understand motion, how does that apply to an understanding of consciousness, where the representation presumably *is* the thing?
I don't agree that biology has anything meaningful to say, as yet, on what portion of human conciousness is emotional. I'm not even sure it's a meaningful question. Yes, changing the way we think based on experience is learning. Yes, it can often seem that the ability to learn is a rare thing. What does any of this have to do with your statement that "If his talk is counter-intuitive to me i dont buy it." which I pointed out was a poor way to go about judging the validity of an argument?
@dappercad Sure, but if it isn't clear that there is anything about motion that we haven't captured in our description of it, i'm happy to say that we understand it. Is there a deficiency in our description of motion other than the fact that we need to use language?
I would have to agree with this. I think every sentient being cannot comprehend itself entirely: consciousness is the limit of our understanding, or the understanding of any sentient being.
There is no limit to motion. Not even in this universe or even the whole multiverse. There is also no certan direction the motion travels. Expessally in the universe. Our lives are always filled with motion. Of any particle for lack of a better term. It's not only that we can't comprehend it as Chomsky says it's the fact that theres no limit to comprehend.
@cmilford1969 I suppose your academic achievement outstrips him? I suppose you yourself have formulated an untouchable theory of language acquisition and formation that has changed the course of the social sciences, a theory of the conscious mind, identity and the self, and written a flotilla of work on geopolitics and international relations that are regarded also as virtually non-debatable, that have formed the basis for some of the most well received non-fiction books in history? Hmmm?
@niriop If his talk is counter-intuitive to me i dont buy it... The best writers I have come about consciousness is Ken Wilber and Fritjof Capra. I think it is BS to suggest some mysteries will never be penetrated. Its self-imposed intellectual handicap.
@ilsy74 Wheather something is intuitive or not is not only a test of reality, it is also a test of self. The truth can be counter-intuitive. Search "Monty Hall Problem".
@dappercad well actually it depends on your consciousness level. For instance it is counter-intuitive that the world is round, until you learn for yourself that it is indeed round. I know my level of awareness is quite high, as it goes beyond right and wrong... Therefore, if I say it is counter intuitive i know what I am talking about,. Respect that I may have a truth that is different to yours, indeed higher.
@ilsy74 Yes, I can respect that, and I agree with what you are saying, essentially that what is intuative for one person, might not be intuative for another. So if you accept that what is real for one person is real for everyone that is, if you accept that the material world exists then you must accept that intuition is a flawed way of testing reality. There are 2 ways out of this quandry: (con)
1: The material world doesn't exist. 2. Your intuition is always correct but other people's is sometimes flawed. So either sometimes intuition is wrong or the materiel world is an illution and debate is pointless or you, Isy74, have an intuative faculty which is all knowing.
@dappercad The vast majority of a "world" perspective is emotional - biology proves that. So while one persons suffers in a tragic circumstance another stands there and bursts in to laughter. THat is 2 different worlds, each dependent on their own consciousness. The question of your intiuition - i believe it is fluid. Hence we have something called the learning process, by which we can change our way of thinking based on new experience.... of course some ppl are never willing to change POV
@TheKenTerry I agree with the spirit of the quote, but the context he quotes it in is that he prefers to ignore empirical research and reasoning grounded in it as completely fallible (just because he thinks it so) and instead rely on mysticism and other nonsense to explain the mind.
@TheKenTerry He eludes to it a lot I feel, particularily the mystic abuse of quantum indeterminacy; he also deleted several comments that declared humanity "the everloving self-conscious sentience of the universe" or some other such nonsense.
@suprcam The direct non-sharibility of individual experience and experiences of synesthesia do not point towards non-physicality; you keep leaping in logic.
@suprcam When Ancient Greeks looked at the sky, they were consciously experiencing bronze. As I've said, colours are arbitrary and subjective; there are no inherent qualities or Platonist form for colours. Pointing this out means nothing ultimately.
You repeatedly confuse the signifier (name of the colour) and the signified (the colour in itself). I've already offered my theory on subjective conscious experience.
@suprcam You're assuming a great deal; colours are arbitrary; do not forget that in the era of the Ancient Greeks blue was regarded as part of the spectrum of bronze.
Colours are, as odd as it may sound, a social construct, or rather, their names and perceived qualities are. Human beings pick up particular colours *as they are* as the construction of their iris permits; nothing non-physical is occuring; its all reactions to reactions to reactions.
@suprcam There are many versions of the Hard Problem; I usually debate the first version, that of the origin of consciousness; the second, more troublesome, version is the one you seem most interested in, that of qualia/intersubjective consciousness. As far as I'm concerned, qualia does exist, and it is caused by genetic and spatial differences in individuals; there is no "big mystery" of the origins of qualia.
As far as I'm concerned, McGinn and Pinker are just being lazy and pessimistic.
@suprcam And I put it to you me lad, that the problem of consciousness has been mystified to the degree that we *think* we can't solve it, when in fact its finding out is probably just around the corner; it really isn't that hard. Consciousness is obviously a biological process located in the brain; we already can see that mental states match neural states; if we accept Churchland's point they are the same thing. Why must we repeatedly make the scientific and philosophical process harder?
@suprcam I fail to understand why using the methods that have led to massive uncoverings outside and inside the human brain cannot be used introspectively to investigate consciousness; already, as I have pointed to, there are mountains of empirical evidence that point to a physicalist foundation of mind; just because there's a possibility it won't apply doesn't mean anything. What you are suggesting really is, yet again, special pleading, and a leap in logic. I'm not repeating myself again.
@suprcam Clinging to the observor problem to the logical end ultimately means taking the opinion that everything everybody observes, including yourself, cannot be taken literally, and therefore may not exist at all in a basic state; nothing can trusted because it is merely representation and will.
You keep assuming just because its possible, it most be that human beings will never know consciousness, or that consciousness is immaterial; its a leap in logic.
@suprcam Neurological experimentation has all but solved the "hard problem": it has been repeatedly shown that brain states are analogous to mental states (and vice versa), not to mention several tests that showed brains making decisions several minutes before the apparent conscious mind did.
@suprcam "try to disprove consciousness" I'm not up to that level yet, nor am I suggesting such a thing can be done. “to suggest that there's more to it” Chomsky and New Mysterianism in general doesn’t say this; it says that whether there is more to it or not is unimportant because we will still fail to understand truly what it is "possibly something that can't be understood from your position" The argument from humans are supposedly too stupid to understand themselves [con]
What you present is a leap in logic Underpants Gnomes argument: 1. Humans could be wrong about how the mind appears despite all the evidence. 2. ????? 3. Therefore, we can conclude that they will never understand the mind.
And the obligatory random argument from quantum physics (a non-sequitar fallacy in itself) which doesn't really mean anything; Pauli and Bohr and the rest are all talking about sub-atomic processes; it is a fallacious extension to apply the principle to consciousness.
@suprcam My "determination" comes yes from a philosophical bias for physicalism, but I have given my reasons for that.
We human beings (or rather those enlightened among us) are *the* observer; we use empirical methods to find evidence which we have a rational discourse over to come to a conclusion, and sometimes we have a rational discourse leads us to try to find empirical evidence. The question you pose I’m afraid I read as an unintentional defense of obscurantism. [con]
I think mental agnosticism (New Mysterianism) is either just pure laziness or obscurantism, with or without purpose; although I'm a Chomskyan linguistically, Chomsky may be promoting against deeper investigation into the mind as means of protecting his theories of universal and generative grammar (not that accusing him consciously of doing this).
The concept of an immaterial mind is ultimately special pleading; in absence of evidence it must be reasoned out of discourse as property dualism was.
@niriop I think the opposite is true, Chomsky is promoting FOR deeper investigations into the mind. It seems to be what he is describing is the discarding of attempts to describe conciousness in totality and that this discarding will result in a deeper understanding. Just as -he argues- when newton discarded attempts to describe motion in totality he came away with a deeper understanding of motion. I don't think any of this is even related to a conversation about an immaterial mind.
@AxiomaticInfinity Neutral monism is such a needless complication of the obvious. It's also self-defeating: if there is nothing physical or non-physical, then what could possibly be in-between that makes up the whole of existence?
Bertrand Russell is not a prophet of truth; I like him very much, but on this and quite a few other things he is quite wrong.
Neutral Monism is a flawed idea, and I don't really understand the appeal of it either. But it isn't self defeating, and it doesn't imply that there is nothing physical. In some ways it is quite similar to Chalmer's position.
finally a man w/ a brain that says what needs to be said, we dont know SHIT !
torymorton 1 week ago
The problem of thinking that descriptions of the world stack like cards in a deck is the same that happens when kids ask 'why?' until the adult get tired. One can always suppose there is a card that supports the next one, but that isnt necessary true.
Maybe there are brute facts, not in the virtue that we are stupid apes, but in virtue of things that simply are. However unlike Chalmers i dont think the thing that happen above your neck are by any extent any of the above.
jotatsu 3 weeks ago
Who would be a greater grandfather Noam Chomsky or John Searle?
BlackSabotage100 1 month ago
@BlackSabotage100 Chomsky obviously; Searle is and appears to be a closet authoritarian (despite being a social constructionist).
As to philosophy of mind, despite being a Dennettian physicalist myself, having a grandfather who promotes NM is better than the vague "materialism without materialism" that is biological naturalism.
niriop 1 month ago
@BlackSabotage100 Intellectually and emotionally Chomsky would better their chances of life, but John (Wayne) Searle if you want you sons to grow up to be cowboys. I.e., definitely Searle the way this 'hard problem' of total spectrum ass-kicking is coming into Uncle Sam's line of sight.
fungusmundi 1 month ago
"Humans can't understand it." =/= "It is a mystery beyond the material world." .... "Humans can't understand it." = "We are too stupid to understand it because our brains have limited capabilities."
Vincentaneous 1 month ago
I couldn't find anything on the "hard problem of motion." What does Chomsky mean we cannot comprehend motion? In a pre-Einstein world especially, motion seems pretty easy to understand. Chomsky lost me here.
workingTchr 1 month ago
@workingTchr He means we do not understand why motion occurs at all, so we abandoned trying to solve the problem, as he thinks we should abandon trying to explain the generation of consciousness, and just try to describe it and its functions/architecture. This is termed "New Mysterianism".
niriop 1 month ago
@niriop See, I don't think we "abandoned" trying to understand why motion occurs. I googled "the hard problem of motion" and came up with nothing --except Chomsky in this video. And I'm not familiar with this being a "known problem."
workingTchr 1 month ago
@workingTchr "I couldn't find anything on the "hard problem of motion.""
Google: "RENE DESCARTES, ON MOTION"
It wasn't really called "the hard problem of motion." Chomsky has taken some license in that description. It's not quite a fair comparison.
zarkoff45 1 month ago
@workingTchr
i'm not sure, but I think he's referring to the axiomatic nature of certain things we intuitively know to be correct: for example, it is impossible to prove causality. You can only prove an effect follows another.
ThisOneIsTaken 1 month ago
@ThisOneIsTaken For some intellectual reason, Chomsky WANTS there to be irreducible mysteries. Maybe consciousness .. or motion .. or causality .. are such mysteries, but the fact that one of the above may be does not imply that one of the others is as well. And also, who's to say that what's a mystery now might not be explained later. Personally, I think when consciousness is explained, the whole human game is going to change. Do we celebrate or blow everything up?
workingTchr 1 month ago
@workingTchr He is a linguist and philosopher, him desiring non-explicable things is like a plumber who desires clogged toilets. What he meant was that we cannot explain why these things occur in any fundamental sense, we just take it as given that they do and create systems to predict the behavior based on visible patterns. The best hope we have for consciousness seems to be "Look at these brain waves, uh.. thats what causes consciousness"
version191 1 month ago
"That's Hume already" fwahaha, love Hume so much, one of my favorite "no bullshit" philosophers. But the whole "we cannot comprehend motion" thing. While we would like to subjugate everything to the human intellect it most likely will not happen soon. Look at Heidegger's "I want to understand Dasein". I don't think he ever understood dasein. He had valuable insights and experiences but not complete understanding.
FeelingFreshSon 1 month ago
And what people forget is that consciousness is primary for knowledge, and primary for experience. And all knowledge of the world comes from experience, which means consciousness. And since consciousness is primary, you can't solve for it. It's just there. From physics to neuroscience are all based on experience, which means it's based on consciousness. You can't solve for consciousness by using consciousness. Completely circular and illogical.
TheApollo81 1 month ago
"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes....In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle." Robert Geroch
TheApollo81 1 month ago
The hard problem of motion, in a sense, is that we experience motion at all. If you honestly take space-time seriously, then there is no motion. Continued in Next post...
TheApollo81 1 month ago
This sorta seems self-evident
MaxwellGreene1 1 month ago
Mysteries of motion...it's funny that high-level physics only seems to lay down the basis of consciousness. I think about this a lot. How if we are to change there must be a opposite and equal reaction in order to change your mind to a more moderate stance making one less ambivalent. Another rule that can be thought of (from physics) is that you cannot know the exact property of a particle at a moment & know where it is at the same time (is because of the filter of consciousness.)
accebere 2 months ago
@niriop Do you have the entire video of which this clip came from? And where is it from I might add? Thank you...
rabbifilms 2 months ago
@rabbifilms This is the fullest version I can find: watch?v=QSQwBEL4mfQ
niriop 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"5-no ones suggesting u can change dimensions by perception"
You said one of your dimensions was subjective truth which is your own personal perception of the world around you.
"6-u expect me to just answer ur demands?"
Well yes. By an empirical standard they're not so outrageous as suggesting that the thirteenth dimension of the universe is something that J.K. Rowling could grasp with more understanding than a physicist.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
"4- ur suggesting i fuck a mathematical system? i said HAMILTON cos it's implied by 'hamiltonian"
I think you need to fuck something, that's a certainty.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
"2- 'language has nothing to do with.." yet ur USING language."
Well apparently the reliance upon linguistics as a fallacy in this circumstance is a concept that's beyond you.
"1- i didnt 'come at you', my initial comment was for people in general"
Ok, well my apologies, you still haven't said anything of consequence to prove any of your original assertions.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty What an insane little prick you surely are
niriop 2 months ago
of what properties of motion is he talking about? anybody knows?
lorenzarthur91 2 months ago
@lorenzarthur91 Why motion occurs at all
niriop 2 months ago
@lorenzarthur91
For starters, the wave/particle behavior of light certainly still presents many intractable enigmas, a lot of which are detailed in Feynman's book, "Quantum Electrodynamics". Further, all motion induced by gravity is a complete mystery, as we currently have no idea whatsoever what gravity really is. The same is true of all motion induced by the interaction of electric fields and magnetic fields. Further, we know mass has inertia, but have no idea why.
Stone2home 2 months ago
motion and consciousness.
they are both fundamentally 3 dimensional notions.
their source is the 13th dimension, which is Magic (black magic in fact, which is the first magic).
common impression: that i'm an arrogant geek
or, that i'm some troll
or 3rd, (and this is much rarer) you actually sense the reason in what i'm saying and apply some intellect...
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime >_<
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@MrCaptain221 i'm not trying to confuse you or say fancy things in a pathetic attempt to impress.
if thats what u mean...
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime No that was a face palm. Like when someone says something so absurd that the only adequate response is to lightly slap the front of your face with your palm.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@natmanprime I couldn't really tell if you were joking, in fairness >_>
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@MrCaptain221 welll, how's this for a joke: it's actually true.
btw, i forgot, the 4th response , of course, that i'm bonkers!
seems to be the one you went with.
all the answers are easy, understandable, and right in front of you. It's only emotion and ego that's stopping you looking for them in the right place.
and these things are controlled by the society around you. the society that's primed you to regard my words as nonsense on their face.
its just maths and language.
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime Are you telling me that mathematically there is a dimension of black magic >_>
Show me harry potter.
Still, if you're telling me that reality is held together by a thirteenth dimension of magic then tell me how in the same detail as a physicist describing particle behavior in a Hamiltonian. Get to work?
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@MrCaptain221 ok first fuck ur scoffing tone.
next, fuck 'hamilton'. the only important thing here is the truth.
and language, because we're using language.
dimensions are units we chop up the universe into.
i did not say the universe is 'held together', nor that it's a dimension 'of' magic, i said the 13th dimension IS black magic.
the universe is a 12 dimensional clock.
0-6..subjective truth, time, surface, vacuum, solidity, potential energy, shape.
12-7, objective versions.
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime "the only important thing here is the truth."
Mathematics is the expression of truth in the physical universe. Show me mathematically. Language has nothing to do with this because language is a an anthropomorphic way of describing the world, it is imperfect and carries human bias. If we are discussing physics on a universal level, shit don't matter. What matters is what you can prove through empirical means.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@natmanprime I'm going to continue being condescending because you've not given me a reason not to be condescending. You come at me, someone learned on the universe, talking about dimensions of black magic expecting the same respect of a hard science. Were you in my position you would treat your assertion with the same hostility so until you prove otherwise you'll suffer the tone humbly because your theory demands your humility or you'll just sound insane.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@natmanprime Fuck Hamilton or fuck a Hamiltonian? One is a person and another is a mathematical system, which one are you fucking?
There are not 12 dimensions in the universe, there are in string theory but that's barely beyond the cusp of theoretical physics. The physical dimensions of the universe do not change based on a person's subjective view of them. If you need proof of this reference mythology or Christian apologetic arguments.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@natmanprime Surface, vacuum, solidity, potential energy, and shape are properties of the interactions of particles that exist in the dimensions of time and space. They themselves are not dimensions of physical reality. 12-7 objective versions doesn't mean anything.
How is the universe a giant clock? A clock is an ordered mechanism, the universe is a chaotic plane of predominantly empty space.
What is black magic? Precisely?
I know what dimensions are.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@MrCaptain221 wow, i really despise you.
1- i didnt 'come at you', my initial comment was for people in general.
2- 'language has nothing to do with.." yet ur USING language.
3- were i in your position" i would never be so dogmatic and tribalistic dont ever assume i'm like you.
4- ur suggesting i fuck a mathematical system? i said HAMILTON cos it's implied by 'hamiltonian'.
5-no ones suggesting u can change dimensions by perception
6-u expect me to just answer ur demands?
ur thick
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime
"3- were i in your position" i would never be so dogmatic and tribalistic dont ever assume i'm like you."
If I could split my consciousness, take one copy and make it like you and keep one copy and the two of them had a debate it would end in the suicide of the persona that took your form.
If I were like you I would kill myself.
I'm going to tear apart your points one more time then I'm going to be done.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@MrCaptain221 LOL even ur insults don't make sense
why bother duplicating ur consciousness if ur going to ake it like me?
and for someone so 'lowly' as me, u spend way more time effort and energy on me than i do on you.
and and it comes out as nonsense anyway.
i cant believe u have a girlfriend with a personality like that, or if u do, she's got to be really lame or disturbed in some way.
besides, ur here writing ESSAYS on YT all week long
now fuck off i'm tired
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime You know there's this book called the bible. If you're going to espouse silly theories on any academic video on youtube using Christianity as a source may draw less contempt for your intellectual integrity then if you were to suggest what you're suggesting in such a hostile manner. I'm saying that if you're going to be insane, being a Christian at least makes you insane amongst others of the mentally deficit nature. There are two billion, less lonely. Good day sir.
MrCaptain221 2 months ago
@natmanprime Haha, fruit loopin' fruitcakin' herp derper...
niriop 2 months ago
@niriop there is such a thing as 1 "ness", 2 ness, etc. the resonate throughout the entire universe, as notions. this can be planly demonstrated and proven. it underlies everything, eg. physics, psychology, collective unconscious.
and the fact that ur taking that attitude is unreal. its almost like u want to b lambs to the slaughter, and i'm TIRED, snot the REMOTEST iota of curiosity to even get a clue what i'm tallking about, for a whole year...u truly deserve everything ur getting
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime What the hell are you talking about you foolish troll?
niriop 2 months ago
@niriop : )
natmanprime 2 months ago
@niriop I'M the troll? wow u really deserve everything u get...
natmanprime 2 months ago
@natmanprime Blocked for bullshitting and general nusiance
niriop 2 months ago
I believe the problem is Chomsky is using a weak analogy. The problem of consciousness is not relevantly analogous to the problem of motion. Consciousness is intentional, private, and subjective... motion is the observed movement of things in the external world and their measurable effects. I am not motion so there is nothing it is like to be motion, but there is something it is like to be conscious. As atheist Colin McGinn know, recognizing the irreducibility of Cons does not imply soul...red H
teachphilosophy 2 months ago
Thought-provoking stuff. Though one can't really be sure I would have to side with those that think its outside the scope of materialism. Take an emotion, suffering, for ex. Though one may find the mechanics so to speak within a materialist approach that are directly connected with the manifestation of suffering this does not really touch upon what suffering itself is. The suffering you and I experience subjectively. My two cents.
HalloFusilli 2 months ago
Your a bitch no your a bitch . oh where am I any way all of you are a bitch fuck the eleutiannatti .no,your a bitch
rydubz7 3 months ago
@rydubz7 Pretty much sums up my arguments with people on this thread; they make it hard, please understand, they're just so...
niriop 2 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty Maybe because they don't have brains and nervous systems you dogmatic dumbfuck.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty You come to my video, rant against atheists, strawman my position, and then you tell me to shut up. Fuck off, I'm sick of your incoherent angry bullshit.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty Pain is a conscious experience--it is a twitch in the nervous system--it exists a brain state. And quit talking about Einstein; he was a physicist, not a neurologist.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty I can say the same of you. Don't bitch at me if you don't understand the term; if you don't understand the terms then maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation. "when it explains nothing" Why doesn't it? "behaviour that u cannot predict" But if consciousness is a physical property, and all physical properties are subject to the same laws, then we can in theory predict behaviour. Emergence does not transcend its parts; it is one with its parts and subject to conditions.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty "science can't detect it" Brain states? Hello? "no theory predicts its existence" Human beings couldn't predict it, so it must be magic! genius logic! "NO OTHER physical phenomenon is like that" Hume's Is/Ought problem; how can you get non-physical from that? You can't, its a leap in logic. "Consciousness is as elusive as "God"" *Sighs* He doesn't exist.
That's Dennett's complaint--qualia does not exist in his model; the "what-it-is-like"-ness is an illusion
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty "So, conscious experience is an illusion" If you strawman me again I'm gonna stop this conversation.
"You don't know - no one does!" Ask a fucking neuroscientist...Jesus...
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty "SEPARATE PHENOMENON" Give me one good reason why consciousness--such a microscopic part of our reality--be privy to special status and not be subject to normal scientific laws? Just one.
Energy and matter, no matter how many times you divide it, is still there, just in smaller bits. If I take a red brick house, take it apart brick by brick, then split the bricks into dust, and then split the dust particles into particles so small they no longer registered on any [con]
niriop 3 months ago
[con] intrument, you would think me insane to say the house never really existed at all.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty Erm, yes, that's my point: consciousness is a physical function of the brain, I've never denied it. "it's essentially behaviour you couldn't predict" We can't predict physical system since...when? Are you thinking before you're typing?
I'm not saying any of that; I'm saying that conscious experience is part of the brain, which part of the nervous system in which it is contained. There is no "miracle invoking"; I believe that such a thing is your argument.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty "science will NEVER explain consciousness" Dogmatism...
"Physicalism isn't explaining anything" It's not really suppose to other than propose a state of the composition of consciousness; the real trouble in philosophy of mind should be whether the mind functions as a computational system or as an embodied one (I'm with the former), but the wacky spiritualists keep bringing the hard problem up time and time again, as though there's still a question mark over it.
niriop 3 months ago
Even Aliens will never solve the consciousness problem...
UnemployedProfessors 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty Churchland denotes the neurophilosophical husband and wife superteam of Paul and Patricia Churchland (you should listen to The Partially Examined Life's interview of the latter).
By that logic, digestion does not exist for it is merely a mechanical function of the stomach; is there a mythic immaterial element that allows the emergence of digestion? No, its an emergent function of the stomach, and you wouldn't deny it exists. I look at consciousness in the same way.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty And you've already decided we can't decode consciousness for lack of desire to try to hunt for evidence. "u even dismiss conscious experiences as utterly irrelevant" Strawmanning; where do I say this? I'm downplaying qualia, not conscious experience; that exists, obviously. "psychological need" Ad hom. "u're just matter" It appears so yes; I don't really care, but ultimately that's how things seem to be.
Look up Ramachandran's work on colour and aesthetic experience.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty It's just another bodily process and deceptive in its supposed complexity. This little clip of Dennett puts it in perspective: watch?v=qYYFQiN052c
You don't actually seem to know much about neuroscience; it appears to me that the millions of synapse lapses occuring within the brain any given second are enough to generate conscious self-awareness (I would also like to point out that only part of the brain is given over to the mind; the rest is unconscious regulatory work).
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty "why do we see colour & not hear it" Pointless question, a distraction even.
"If the genes affect only neurons, then consciousness has to be caused & shaped by neurons" Pretty much, as best we can see.
Dennett's views are actually fuelling a movement within modern neuroscience; he isn't at odds with them; he's taken their results and applied them to philosophical questions.
I'm always waiting for a good argument or new evidence against physicalism of course.
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty That's Churchland's argument; however, even if it can be reduced, it still does exist, otherwise there would have been nothing to reduce in the first place.
If we dig into the nervous system, it sorta can.
We do; its called sensory experience and we can study the nervous system that receives it. There's no special "4th dimension" to it; that's all there is (as far as we can tell).
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty Logical fallacy: you are *assuming* that consciousness is immaterial right off; hence your criticism is invalid, and your rejection dogmatic
No, that isn't so. You seem to be confusing Dennett and Block on consciousness; Dennett believes conciousness does exist, as an emergent property resultant of neural Darwinism; he attacks qualia as an illusion however, a confusion of conscious experience and content. (I really think you should have a look at Content and Consciousness).
niriop 3 months ago
@MJForevr1958Infinty "science will NEVER explain consciousness" Absolutist much? It's a very dogmatic assertion to say the least. Cognitive neuroscience isn't saying it WILL find the roots of conscious experience, its just saying "lets see"; no science would dare annouce that it WILL have a result, as this is completely against the scientific method. As to qualia, I'm largely agnostic and uninterested in it, but the more I read about it, the more I sympathise with Dennett's claim it is illusion.
niriop 3 months ago
This video should have been longer .It cuts out before he makes his point .Chomsky is one of the for fathers of cognitive science .So his opinion on this matter is very important .To hear Chomsky's views on this matter youtube language and mind revisited, .
rydubz7 3 months ago
@rydubz7 It's just a snipet I found somehwere; look in the sidebar for a more complete version
niriop 3 months ago
I have been following the consciousness wars as Dennet calls it for a decade .There is unbounded riches in research and theories in this field .I believe before we have a unified theory of physics we will first have to have a theory of mind .Dont listen to all the anti intellectual comments up here . This is the attempt of coming to a science of the mind and just because we don't have all the answers does not mean we dont know anything about consciousness . I am reluctant to dismiss chomsky .
rydubz7 3 months ago
Until someone can define what the word means, any discussion of "Consciousness", at the moment, is bullshit from pseudo-intellectuals.
Once the operation of the brain is understood, then it will be clear what "Consciousness" is, until then dont waste your time and everybody else's.
betamale3 3 months ago
@betamale3 Self-awareness of one's self-awareness? "I am in pain and I know that I am in pain"?
niriop 3 months ago
@niriop
>>@betamale3 Self-awareness of one's self-awareness? "I am in pain and I know that I am in pain"?<<
Like I said. "bullshit from pseudo-intellectuals"
betamale3 3 months ago
@betamale3 Yeah, can't take real philosophy. Fuck off troll.
niriop 3 months ago
@niriop Pain in itself is an aspect of self-awareness. Any system that allows an organism to gather information about its surroundings is self-aware, and conscious. The moment the concept of "consciousness" becomes bullshit, is when people start making the unnecessary and unjustifiable requirement, that there should be an extra layer of consciousness on top of the one almost all organisms already have, just so we can separate humans from all (or most) other species and feel a bit special.
SAsgarters 2 months ago
@SAsgarters Exactly! An "extra layer" perfectly describes the bullshit people seem to keep demanding time and time again. Maybe self-awareness of self-awareness is something more concerned with the condition of metacognition, not consciousness in-and-of-itself. This is why I tell people to read/watch the lectures of great thinkers like Dennett, Churchland and Damasio, who actually synthesise proper neurobiology and philosophical inquiry; the mind-brain "problem" is an unnecessary one
niriop 2 months ago
@SAsgarters I don't understand why you think it is unjustifiable to believe the subjective, intentional, and private aspects of consciousness cannot be explained, in principle, by the objective methods of science. Furthermore, Intelligent people disagree (Chalmers vs Dennet, for example), and to reduce the problem to an attempt to feel special is a failure to either understand or address the strongest arguments against your position.
teachphilosophy 2 months ago
@teachphilosophy I think you may be talking to the wrong person.
SAsgarters 2 months ago
@betamale3 All of the "psuedo-intellections" that are currently arguing about the problem of consciousness also happen to all agree (more or less) on what they each mean by the word "consciousness", much in the same way you and I would agree on what the word "snow" means. Soooo... I'm a little confused about what your point is, except you kind of sound like an asshole.
arides 3 months ago
@arides The first time ive ever seen Chomsky referred to as a Psuedo intellectual . Those anti intellectual thought patterns are very engraved in americans arent they . All the hate and ignorance on youtube someone should collect all the comments and do a mass Psycho analysis of youtubers . REALLY .
rydubz7 3 months ago
@betamale3 Try the Cambridge dictionary of philosophy . These people are certainly not Pseudo intellectuals .A comment like that makes you seem like a anti intellectual .The operation of the Brain though not fully understood , We do know how the basics work . We call them Neural correlations which is identifing which neurons interacting with other neurons to create a specific feeling like taste . That we are progressing very quickly on .Don't Not Major in Cognitive science for lack of research .
rydubz7 3 months ago
@betamale3 Try the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy . These people are certainly not Psuedo intellectuals .We already understand much of the brain in the form of neural correlations .Cognitive science is one of the most rich and exiting fields one can do research in .Dont not Major in Cognitive science for lack of research .You certainly will not be wasting your time (lol ) .
rydubz7 3 months ago
@betamale3 it literally means "awareness". it's basic awareness,
as opposed to conscious awareness, which is the intellect, or the mind.
natmanprime 2 months ago
@GiveItUp2012 That was great, Chomsky is wrong!!! Chomsky thinks everything is linear. The quesiton is is our conscious drawn from the outside or does it come just from the inside. Don't go off on some tangent about motion and mysteries.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
@GiveItUp2012: "Dennett believes in 'quining qualia' - a term he uses!"
IIRC, he uses this term and shows that it is impractical and useless.
"He fails to explain how u can have an illusion"
He does have plenty of examples of illusions.
"But to have an illusion of being conscious, you must first have an illusion of existing"
U seem to use a different framework, if consciousness is self-awareness, then brains can not be perfectly self-aware, thus some parts aren't self-aware, or subconscious.
mm1979dk 4 months ago
"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we CAN suppose." J.B.S. Haldane. My suspicion is that CONSCIOUSNESS is primary... that it's ALL consciousness... but, of course there's no way of proving that.
CosmicFork 4 months ago
nonsense, Chomsky is speaking clearly.
S2Cents 4 months ago
Is time perhaps derived from relationships in space (Julian Balbour, "The End of Time") and space a derivative of digital-like consciousness (Thomas Campbell, "My Big TOE") ? If so then all we experience in spacetime is a an experience of objects, the objects themselves never exist physically. If (?) consciousness is primary then then is no hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem arises when we assume that the physical is primary and thus cannot account for our own obvious interiority.
siamkarl 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with this. Hume is the fucking man, and Dennet is a douche.
orazdow 4 months ago
Comment removed
orazdow 4 months ago
Why would Noam immediately change teh subject? Whatever...I don't care, he's a brilliant thinker and debater. But, he's really out of his realm on this one. Very good on politics, geo-politics and social science. But, obviously, he can't answer this question better than you or I. There is a reason it's the "hard problem". No one's been able to solve it. But, there is no solution. The mathematics are literally infinite. No point in going down that road with consciousness. TOOOOO BIG!
Kostly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
noam chomsky is a faggot kike. Nazis fucked him so hard when he was a baby that his brain was permanently damaged.
omennoecile 5 months ago
@omennoecile Retarded troll is retarded
niriop 5 months ago
Our bodies live in the world, conciousness lives in the world and the universe. Our bodies experience motion, conciousness allows us to debate it. Ergo, shit happens.
wungabunga 5 months ago
how bout a transcript - Chomsky is brilliant but he's a mumbler
BiggerThinking1 5 months ago
@BiggerThinking1 Let me look into that
niriop 5 months ago
@BiggerThinking1 He's like 90 fuckin something years old. Give him a break.
duntpeeonme 4 months ago
@BiggerThinking1 I could send you one if you are interested :)
merryvinbock 3 months ago
@BiggerThinking1 I'm also a mumbling cunt just like Choma. I get tired of people saying 'pardon' or 'what did you say you mumbling cunt'
thegafferlives 3 months ago
Interesting video. Of course, a simplistic view is that no matter what the field of study, there are always base assumptions, like axioms in mathematics, that are the underpinnings of the study. Why can no object (photon, particle, whatever) transcend the speed of light? Why do objects have mass? Etc. Everything must be described using some set of terms. It is those axioms that cannot themselves be proven or they cease to be axioms. No matter how it is reduced, there is always something left.
dmpase 5 months ago
It would have saved me a lot of time if Chomsky had explained what Locke's objection was instead of just saying "he was right."
monkmunk 5 months ago
@niriop hey, could you state in the description what do you disagree with?
is that the motion was the hard problem or the consciousness is the hard problem now?
I am interested in the historical record. I tend to agree with Daniel Dennett that consciousness is not a problem in the first place, but I think it's David Chalmers who posed consciousness as a hard problem, so at least for some philosophers it is hard after all :-)
This video is amazing, thanks for sharing!
mm1979dk 5 months ago
@mm1979dk Sure, I can elaborate
niriop 5 months ago
It still stands, i think, that Newton didn't attempt a complete description of motion and that this way he gained a better understanding than those that did. Look at it like this. Newton didn't try to answer the question "Why is there mass?" he simply looked at objects, observed they have mass then moved on to create equasions involving mass to see if it got him anywhere.
dappercad 5 months ago
@dappercad Actually, i'm coming around on the whole 'we don't understand motion' thing. I think Hume was pretty convincing when he argued we never perceive causation, so any complete description of motion might have to include an account of the origin of motion, much like being unable to explain why there is mass, or why inertia is a thing. Wait, scratch that whole argument, if we can't explain inertia, then of course we don't understand motion. I'm an idiot.
monkmunk 5 months ago
I think I understand how you got to what you say next, that consciousness might be identical to representation of consciousness. I'm not sure I agree though. One property we might confidently(?) say that consciousness has is that it changes over time. However a single description of consciousness doesn't change over time if it is to be recordable and communicable. So if in fact consciousness is describable the description will not be conscious. (con)
dappercad 5 months ago
We don't give up understanding only complete understanding. This seems fairly solid as the universe is a whole and to understand any one part of it completely you must completely understand the whole. Carl Sagan:"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe" which is true, but that doesn't mean that an apple pie recipie is useless, or that one can't understand some aspect of apple pie without first having a complete understanding of the universe. (con)
dappercad 5 months ago
Yes, otherwise we wouldn't be looking for the higgs boson. Though this is beside the point that Chomsky makes which is that, in principle, it is impossible to understand motion. My argument as to why he said this boils down to "The map is not the territory" which seems to me to fit. Though maybe he had something else in mind.
dappercad 5 months ago
@dappercad but, if motion is impossible to understand because we only have access to the representation, don't we have to abandon understanding pretty much anything about the physical world? And, if that's the reason we can't understand motion, how does that apply to an understanding of consciousness, where the representation presumably *is* the thing?
monkmunk 5 months ago
I don't agree that biology has anything meaningful to say, as yet, on what portion of human conciousness is emotional. I'm not even sure it's a meaningful question. Yes, changing the way we think based on experience is learning. Yes, it can often seem that the ability to learn is a rare thing. What does any of this have to do with your statement that "If his talk is counter-intuitive to me i dont buy it." which I pointed out was a poor way to go about judging the validity of an argument?
dappercad 5 months ago
I'm still not sure what it is about motion we do not understand. Could someone break it down for me?
monkmunk 5 months ago
@monkmunk We don't understand in motion, we understand in language. So we describe motion as best we can and must be satisfied with that.
dappercad 5 months ago
@dappercad Sure, but if it isn't clear that there is anything about motion that we haven't captured in our description of it, i'm happy to say that we understand it. Is there a deficiency in our description of motion other than the fact that we need to use language?
monkmunk 5 months ago
I would have to agree with this. I think every sentient being cannot comprehend itself entirely: consciousness is the limit of our understanding, or the understanding of any sentient being.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
There is no limit to motion. Not even in this universe or even the whole multiverse. There is also no certan direction the motion travels. Expessally in the universe. Our lives are always filled with motion. Of any particle for lack of a better term. It's not only that we can't comprehend it as Chomsky says it's the fact that theres no limit to comprehend.
LolaCrazy222 6 months ago
i'm sorry but is he saying motion or emotion
Themexicanguanorat 6 months ago
@Themexicanguanorat
motion
xknowledgeisfreex 6 months ago 6
draw a car, house, weapon... dont even bother on how it works. il make it happen!
monsterrun 7 months ago
@monsterrun Admittedly, yes; Chomsky is being a bit lazy. However, he articulates the New Mysterian position very well for what its worth.
niriop 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is one of the biggest phonies in the history of academia. He is to academics what Cher is to the music business.
cmilford1969 7 months ago
@cmilford1969 I suppose your academic achievement outstrips him? I suppose you yourself have formulated an untouchable theory of language acquisition and formation that has changed the course of the social sciences, a theory of the conscious mind, identity and the self, and written a flotilla of work on geopolitics and international relations that are regarded also as virtually non-debatable, that have formed the basis for some of the most well received non-fiction books in history? Hmmm?
niriop 7 months ago 18
@niriop all his ideas are undebatable?
lookatmepleasesir 6 months ago
@lookatmepleasesir Not so much undebatable, but that they have lacked any significant or cogent challenges over the years
niriop 6 months ago
@niriop If his talk is counter-intuitive to me i dont buy it... The best writers I have come about consciousness is Ken Wilber and Fritjof Capra. I think it is BS to suggest some mysteries will never be penetrated. Its self-imposed intellectual handicap.
ilsy74 5 months ago
@ilsy74 Wheather something is intuitive or not is not only a test of reality, it is also a test of self. The truth can be counter-intuitive. Search "Monty Hall Problem".
dappercad 5 months ago
@dappercad well actually it depends on your consciousness level. For instance it is counter-intuitive that the world is round, until you learn for yourself that it is indeed round. I know my level of awareness is quite high, as it goes beyond right and wrong... Therefore, if I say it is counter intuitive i know what I am talking about,. Respect that I may have a truth that is different to yours, indeed higher.
ilsy74 5 months ago
@ilsy74 Yes, I can respect that, and I agree with what you are saying, essentially that what is intuative for one person, might not be intuative for another. So if you accept that what is real for one person is real for everyone that is, if you accept that the material world exists then you must accept that intuition is a flawed way of testing reality. There are 2 ways out of this quandry: (con)
dappercad 5 months ago
1: The material world doesn't exist. 2. Your intuition is always correct but other people's is sometimes flawed. So either sometimes intuition is wrong or the materiel world is an illution and debate is pointless or you, Isy74, have an intuative faculty which is all knowing.
dappercad 5 months ago
@dappercad The vast majority of a "world" perspective is emotional - biology proves that. So while one persons suffers in a tragic circumstance another stands there and bursts in to laughter. THat is 2 different worlds, each dependent on their own consciousness. The question of your intiuition - i believe it is fluid. Hence we have something called the learning process, by which we can change our way of thinking based on new experience.... of course some ppl are never willing to change POV
ilsy74 5 months ago
@cmilford1969 you must be an epic troll then?
monsterrun 7 months ago
@suprcam Just imagine answers...I'll do the actual thinking and research
niriop 7 months ago
@niriop
Why be a jerk for that statement? If it weren't for imagination, there wouldn't be thinking and research.
TheKenTerry 6 months ago
@TheKenTerry I agree with the spirit of the quote, but the context he quotes it in is that he prefers to ignore empirical research and reasoning grounded in it as completely fallible (just because he thinks it so) and instead rely on mysticism and other nonsense to explain the mind.
niriop 6 months ago
@niriop
Lol well I didn't see him talk about mysticism or anything like that, but that would erk me too if someone did that.
TheKenTerry 6 months ago
@TheKenTerry He eludes to it a lot I feel, particularily the mystic abuse of quantum indeterminacy; he also deleted several comments that declared humanity "the everloving self-conscious sentience of the universe" or some other such nonsense.
niriop 6 months ago
@niriop
Fair enough, I didn't read everything.
YEA FUCK YOU SUPRCAM!
TheKenTerry 6 months ago
@suprcam And...how does this reflect non-physicality? All you're doing is stating the bleeding obvious.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam The direct non-sharibility of individual experience and experiences of synesthesia do not point towards non-physicality; you keep leaping in logic.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam Arbitrary
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam The damn Mary's Room bollocks means nothing. You keep confusing information and experience; they are CLEARLY different.
Watch this: watch?v=bX6NF8QYcmY
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam When Ancient Greeks looked at the sky, they were consciously experiencing bronze. As I've said, colours are arbitrary and subjective; there are no inherent qualities or Platonist form for colours. Pointing this out means nothing ultimately.
You repeatedly confuse the signifier (name of the colour) and the signified (the colour in itself). I've already offered my theory on subjective conscious experience.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam You're assuming a great deal; colours are arbitrary; do not forget that in the era of the Ancient Greeks blue was regarded as part of the spectrum of bronze.
Colours are, as odd as it may sound, a social construct, or rather, their names and perceived qualities are. Human beings pick up particular colours *as they are* as the construction of their iris permits; nothing non-physical is occuring; its all reactions to reactions to reactions.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam It's sheer objective idealism dressed up; the same arguments work against it.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam There are many versions of the Hard Problem; I usually debate the first version, that of the origin of consciousness; the second, more troublesome, version is the one you seem most interested in, that of qualia/intersubjective consciousness. As far as I'm concerned, qualia does exist, and it is caused by genetic and spatial differences in individuals; there is no "big mystery" of the origins of qualia.
As far as I'm concerned, McGinn and Pinker are just being lazy and pessimistic.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam And I put it to you me lad, that the problem of consciousness has been mystified to the degree that we *think* we can't solve it, when in fact its finding out is probably just around the corner; it really isn't that hard. Consciousness is obviously a biological process located in the brain; we already can see that mental states match neural states; if we accept Churchland's point they are the same thing. Why must we repeatedly make the scientific and philosophical process harder?
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam I fail to understand why using the methods that have led to massive uncoverings outside and inside the human brain cannot be used introspectively to investigate consciousness; already, as I have pointed to, there are mountains of empirical evidence that point to a physicalist foundation of mind; just because there's a possibility it won't apply doesn't mean anything. What you are suggesting really is, yet again, special pleading, and a leap in logic. I'm not repeating myself again.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam Clinging to the observor problem to the logical end ultimately means taking the opinion that everything everybody observes, including yourself, cannot be taken literally, and therefore may not exist at all in a basic state; nothing can trusted because it is merely representation and will.
You keep assuming just because its possible, it most be that human beings will never know consciousness, or that consciousness is immaterial; its a leap in logic.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam Neurological experimentation has all but solved the "hard problem": it has been repeatedly shown that brain states are analogous to mental states (and vice versa), not to mention several tests that showed brains making decisions several minutes before the apparent conscious mind did.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam "try to disprove consciousness" I'm not up to that level yet, nor am I suggesting such a thing can be done. “to suggest that there's more to it” Chomsky and New Mysterianism in general doesn’t say this; it says that whether there is more to it or not is unimportant because we will still fail to understand truly what it is "possibly something that can't be understood from your position" The argument from humans are supposedly too stupid to understand themselves [con]
niriop 7 months ago
What you present is a leap in logic Underpants Gnomes argument: 1. Humans could be wrong about how the mind appears despite all the evidence. 2. ????? 3. Therefore, we can conclude that they will never understand the mind.
And the obligatory random argument from quantum physics (a non-sequitar fallacy in itself) which doesn't really mean anything; Pauli and Bohr and the rest are all talking about sub-atomic processes; it is a fallacious extension to apply the principle to consciousness.
niriop 7 months ago
@suprcam My "determination" comes yes from a philosophical bias for physicalism, but I have given my reasons for that.
We human beings (or rather those enlightened among us) are *the* observer; we use empirical methods to find evidence which we have a rational discourse over to come to a conclusion, and sometimes we have a rational discourse leads us to try to find empirical evidence. The question you pose I’m afraid I read as an unintentional defense of obscurantism. [con]
niriop 7 months ago
I think mental agnosticism (New Mysterianism) is either just pure laziness or obscurantism, with or without purpose; although I'm a Chomskyan linguistically, Chomsky may be promoting against deeper investigation into the mind as means of protecting his theories of universal and generative grammar (not that accusing him consciously of doing this).
The concept of an immaterial mind is ultimately special pleading; in absence of evidence it must be reasoned out of discourse as property dualism was.
niriop 7 months ago
@niriop Damn! I meant SUBSTANCE dualism!
niriop 7 months ago
@niriop I think the opposite is true, Chomsky is promoting FOR deeper investigations into the mind. It seems to be what he is describing is the discarding of attempts to describe conciousness in totality and that this discarding will result in a deeper understanding. Just as -he argues- when newton discarded attempts to describe motion in totality he came away with a deeper understanding of motion. I don't think any of this is even related to a conversation about an immaterial mind.
dappercad 5 months ago
@AxiomaticInfinity Neutral monism is such a needless complication of the obvious. It's also self-defeating: if there is nothing physical or non-physical, then what could possibly be in-between that makes up the whole of existence?
Bertrand Russell is not a prophet of truth; I like him very much, but on this and quite a few other things he is quite wrong.
niriop 8 months ago
@niriop
Neutral Monism is a flawed idea, and I don't really understand the appeal of it either. But it isn't self defeating, and it doesn't imply that there is nothing physical. In some ways it is quite similar to Chalmer's position.
23discordians 8 months ago