Page 30 of 80

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:27 pm
by JeffreyW
Eugene I wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:52 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:03 pm Nonsense. That would mean you can only assume your own consciousness, an error stemming from your misconception of consciousness as a hermitic container rather than entanglement with the world - a relic of subject/object metaphysics. It’s a pose you don’t actually believe or you wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of me, this board, or your computer - which you implicitly do every time you respond.
We already discussed that, so here it is again.

I do make an abstraction-inference that other conscious experiences exist outside of my own consciousness, I'm not a solipsist. The way I do such inference is that I take the facts that I already know from experience - the existence of my own conscious phenomena, and then extrapolate by inference that similar conscious experiences exist outside of my own consciousness, including the conscious experiences that exist in your consciousness. The "board" and "computer" are only content of my and other personal conscious experiences, I honestly do not believe that such "things" as non-conscious computers exist anywhere "outside" consciousness. I also accept that it is only my unprovable hypothesis that there are conscious phenomena existing outside of my own consciousness. But I think it's a reasonable hypothesis to hold because I'm not inventing the existence of something that I experientially can not prove to exist outside of my consciousness (like any non-conscious stuff). I'm only suggesting the existence of the stuff outside my consciousness that is already experientially proven to exist - conscious phenomena.

What you are doing is different. You invent by abstraction that there exist some "stuff" or objects (like "energy", computers or "external world" of non-conscious objects) that you can never experience directly (because all you can ever experience are the phenomena of your own conscious experience). You cannot prove that such things even exist, you can only hypothesize about their existence. Then you extrapolate by inference that such objects or "energy" actually exist in the world outside your consciousness, and you as consciousness experience it as an object of experience. It is plain metaphysics - you claim an existence of things you can never prove to exist, and you refuse to accept that it's only your hypothesis.

And yes, consciousness is entanglement with the world - with the world of consciousness outside of my own consciousness. But consciousness can not in principle entangle with anything that is unconscious by nature (per interaction problem).
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:08 pm Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?
It is ironic that this is the only argument that materialists are left with. Materialism started by establishing scientific method and scientific truth criteria
of coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy. But when it turned out that it can not withstand such determinants, so it rejected them and turned instead to "poetic mysterianism" as the last resort.

By the way, claiming that consciousness "emerges" from non-consciousness is materialism, renaming "matter" with "energy" does not change anything here, the premise remains the same: claiming that consciousness is an emergent byproduct and epiphenomenon of something originally non-conscious. And then refusing to face the "hard problem of consciousness" that inevitably arises from such premise.
That’s an evasion. How do you know you are experiencing anything at all outside your imagination? And what about your computer?

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:31 pm
by Eugene I
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:27 pm That’s an evasion. How do you know you are experiencing anything at all outside your imagination? And what about your computer?
Hello. I already said many times that I do not believe I am experiencing anything outside my consciousness except for the fact that my conscious phenomena are entangled with conscious phenomena that possibly exist in other instances of consciousness. I do not believe that such thing as "a non-conscious computer" exists anywhere outside consciousness in general. When I type on the "keyboard", there is actually no keyboard outside consciousness to type on, I'm only manipulating my own conscious phenomena that look like a "keyboard" in order to communicate with other instances of consciousness (like you and other people) through entanglement with them.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:39 pm
by JeffreyW
Eugene I wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:31 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:27 pm That’s an evasion. How do you know you are experiencing anything at all outside your imagination? And what about your computer?
Hello. I already said many times that I do not believe I am experiencing anything outside my consciousness except for the fact that my conscious phenomena are entangled with conscious phenomena that possibly exist in other instances of consciousness. I do not believe that such thing as "a non-conscious computer" exists anywhere outside consciousness in general
So you believe I exist but not the computer through which you experience me? That doesn’t strike as utterly ridiculous? And how do you experience other instances of consciousness? You make no sense at all.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:42 pm
by Eugene I
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:39 pm So you believe I exist but not the computer through which you experience me? That doesn’t strike as utterly ridiculous? And how do you experience other instances of consciousness? You make no sense at all.
I experience other instances of consciousness because my consciousness is entangled with other instances of consciousness. "Ridiculous" is not a good argument in philosophy. As if you are not familiar with a two-millennia of the history of idealism in philosophy from Plato through Berkley, Hagel and to many contemporary idealists.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:44 pm
by JeffreyW
Eugene I wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:42 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:39 pm So you believe I exist but not the computer through which you experience me? That doesn’t strike as utterly ridiculous? And how do you experience other instances of consciousness? You make no sense at all.
I experience other instances of consciousness because my consciousness is entangled with other instances of consciousness. "Ridiculous" is not a good argument in philosophy.
We left philosophy behind long ago. You keep evading by pushing one step backwards. How could you know you are entangled with other consciousnesses? And why do you respond on this board, which is definitely not entangled consciousness. No ATP.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:48 pm
by Eugene I
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:44 pm We left philosophy behind long ago. You keep evading by pushing one step backwards. How could you know you are entangled with other consciousnesses? And why do you respond on this board, which is definitely not entangled consciousness. No ATP.
I already told you that the existence of other instances of consciousness and entanglement with them is my inference. I do not know it as a proven fact, it is only inference, but I take such inference because I am not a solipsist.

The keyboard to me is a collection of conscious phenomena (tactile and visual) by manipulating which I can entangle with other instances of consciousness. It's an entanglement communication channel between the instances of consciousness.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:53 pm
by JeffreyW
Eugene I wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:48 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:44 pm We left philosophy behind long ago. You keep evading by pushing one step backwards. How could you know you are entangled with other consciousnesses? And why do you respond on this board, which is definitely not entangled consciousness. No ATP.
I already told you that the existence of other instances of consciousness and entanglement with them is my inference. I do not know it as a proven fact, it is only inference, but I take such inference because I am not a solipsist.

The keyboard to me is a collection of conscious phenomena (tactile and visual) by manipulating which I can entangle with other instances of consciousness. It's an entanglement communication channel between the instances of consciousness.
There is literally no reason for me to accept that. You deny your sense mechanisms which entangle with the world in measurable ways in favor of some unexplained type of entanglement with something we don’t know exists. That right there is why metaphysics died. Nothing more than fairytales.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:56 pm
by AshvinP
ScottRoberts wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:49 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:11 pm We do know things about energy, including we can reduce everything to it, including consciousness.
How do you reduce consciousness to energy?

I think I have unriddled what is going on here. Maybe not, but let me throw it out there... everyone is assuming everyone else is speaking of pure abstractions. And perhaps everyone is, but clearly some people don't think that they are.

So when anyone says "consciousness", JW is thinking this is appeal to standard metaphysical abstract concept that people try to posit as the Ground of all phenomena. Saying "consciousness is what we experience all the time" does not make it any less metaphysical or abstract - it's just a circular appeal, or the equivalent of saying "experience is the Ground of experience". Basically, it's giving up. Moreover, it's substance metaphysics - JW perceives it as an appeal to some-thing which can't possibly exist in our experience, because all in our experience is ceaseless process, not substance.

So JW rejects the entire premise behind questions such as, "what is the Ground?". Instead he says, we basically know nothing... we are as infants just born into the sense-world. But if he is forced to answer the question, "what is more concrete than 'pure awareness'?", he says "energy". How JW has determined this concept of "energy" is any less abstract and more certain than the activity of Thinking we are all engaged in right this moment, and we persistently suppose every time we open our mouths, or eyes, or wake up in the morning, I am not sure. Nevertheless, it is true that we [most people, but not everyone] currently know next to nothing about what, if anything, underlies their experience.

So, as usual, the only important question remains, can we actually know more than we currently know and, if not, why not? JW has proposed that cognition operating within space-time representational framework will never advance to deeper knowledge, and I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. I would say that cognition operating within abstract space-time framework will never advance, but that Reason is sufficient to mitigate the abstracting effect and make experience of space-time more living and concrete, thereby perceiving the ways in which our representations can link back to that which is being represented. To move even further towards knowledge of the unrepresented (across the threshold of dreaming sleep, death, and 'black holes'), however, mere intellectual cognition must be transfigured into Imaginative.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:01 am
by JeffreyW
AshvinP wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:56 pm
ScottRoberts wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:49 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:11 pm We do know things about energy, including we can reduce everything to it, including consciousness.
How do you reduce consciousness to energy?

I think I have unriddled what is going on here. Maybe not, but let me throw it out there... everyone is assuming everyone else is speaking of pure abstractions. And perhaps everyone is, but clearly some people don't think that they are.

So when anyone says "consciousness", JW is thinking this is appeal to standard metaphysical abstract concept that people try to posit as the Ground of all phenomena. Saying "consciousness is what we experience all the time" does not make it any less metaphysical or abstract - it's just a circular appeal, or the equivalent of saying "experience is the Ground of experience". Basically, it's giving up. Moreover, it's substance metaphysics - JW perceives it as an appeal to some-thing which can't possibly exist in our experience, because all in our experience is ceaseless process, not substance.

So JW rejects the entire premise behind questions such as, "what is the Ground?". Instead he says, we basically know nothing... we are as infants just born into the sense-world. But if he is forced to answer the question, "what is more concrete than 'pure awareness'?", he says "energy". How JW has determined this concept of "energy" is any less abstract and more certain than the activity of Thinking we are all engaged in right this moment, and we persistently suppose every time we open our mouths, or eyes, or wake up in the morning, I am not sure. Nevertheless, it is true that we [most people, but not everyone] currently know next to nothing about what, if anything, underlies their experience.

So, as usual, the only important question remains, can we actually know more than we currently know and, if not, why not? JW has proposed that cognition operating within space-time representational framework will never advance to deeper knowledge, and I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. I would say that cognition operating within abstract space-time framework will never advance, but that Reason is sufficient to mitigate the abstracting effect and make experience of space-time more living and concrete, thereby perceiving the ways in which our representations can link back to that which is being represented. To move even further towards knowledge of the unrepresented (across the threshold of dreaming sleep, death, and 'black holes'), however, mere intellectual cognition must be transfigured into Imaginative.
Why would reason be applicable to the most elemental layer of reality we know, which is arational, chaotic, and without space and time? I’m not saying we can know nothing of it - that is what esthetic experience is for, but I see no possibility of grasping it with our primitive objectification.

Re: Criticism

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:09 am
by JeffreyW
ScottRoberts wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:49 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:11 pm We do know things about energy, including we can reduce everything to it, including consciousness.
How do you reduce consciousness to energy?
The quick answer is I let Kastrup do it for me. In an argument he had with somebody on Twitter over the possibility of computers developing consciousness, he dismissed the possibility (as do I) on the basis that only life can support consciousness (which he does not substantiate but it does accord with experience), and that the marker to distinguish conscious beings from non-consciousness is the production of ATP. ATP is the molecule that distributes energy throughout the brain. Therefore, no energy from ATP, no consciousness. That necessarily implies that Energy is more elemental than consciousness.