Terminal lucidity

[Jim Cross]

May be you can ask BK in his blog

That's the best you got? You seemed to be trying to make a big deal out of a few minutes of lucidity at the terminal stage of the disease but nothing about how or why the disease ravages the supposed extrinsic image of the mind in the first place.

[Eugene I]

That's the best you got? You seemed to be trying to make a big deal out of a few minutes of lucidity at the terminal stage of the disease but nothing about how or why the disease ravages the supposed extrinsic image of the mind in the first place.

There are many versions of idealism that may offer different explanations.

In BK's version it's something like this: this is the way MAL manifests ideations of the world that we perceive. In some cases the MAL manifests its ideations of human brain in a form of Alzheimer decease. In other cases there may be different deceases. Why? Even MAL des not "know" because it is not meta-cognitive. It is just instinctively trying different scenarios in an evolutionary way. Much like materialistic view of multiverse bubbling up with different sets of universal physical constants shaping the universes in different ways, and then life emerges only in those where the conditions are favorable.

Disclaimer: this is BK's view and not mine, I adhere to a more "esoteric" view but I will not elaborate on it here.

[Jim Cross]

That's the best you got? You seemed to be trying to make a big deal out of a few minutes of lucidity at the terminal stage of the disease but nothing about how or why the disease ravages the supposed extrinsic image of the mind in the first place.

There are many versions of idealism that may offer different explanations.

In BK's version it's something like this: this is the way MAL manifests ideations of the world that we perceive. In some cases the MAL manifests its ideations of human brain in a form of Alzheimer decease. In other cases there may be different deceases. Why? Even MAL des not "know" because it is not meta-cognitive. It is just instinctively trying different scenarios in an evolutionary way. Much like materialistic view of multiverse bubbling up with different sets of universal physical constants shaping the universes in different ways, and then life emerges only in those where the conditions are favorable.

Disclaimer: this is BK's view and not mine, I adhere to a more "esoteric" view but I will not elaborate on it here.

Thanks for trying. I mean that sincerely not sarcastically. I would be interested in hearing your more "esoteric" view.

In BK's view, would it be possible for one part of MAL to be like a pathogen and attack another part of MAL encapsulated in the alter? And since MAL doesn't know, I can't see what functionally would be the difference between a MAL pathogen and a material pathogen. Wouldn't they behave identically, appear the same, have the same effects?

[Eugene I]

In BK's view, would it be possible for one part of MAL to be like a pathogen and attack another part of MAL encapsulated in the alter? And since MAL doesn't know, I can't see what functionally would be the difference between a MAL pathogen and a material pathogen. Wouldn't they behave identically, appear the same, have the same effects?

I'm not trying to sell you my beliefs, you just asked so I answered, so pls don't feel any pressure here Here is another relevant post to this

I have no idea, but IMO it's more likely that MAL's part of mind that manifests the physical reality works like a "quantum computer" running a computational algorithm based on some simple equations (like QM and GR formulas) and producing ideations based on these calculations that we perceive as sense perceptions of physically-looking and physically-behaving world. Something like VR. This would explain why the phenomena we observe with sense perceptions follow the consistent patterns that comply with certain math equations. But since the algorithms are probabilistic and not deterministic (hence QM uncertainty), there is a lot of degrees of freedom for this reality to unfold and there is room to exercise free will.

More "esoteric" view is based on the assumption that in the universe of MAL there is (or are) conscious being/beings that actually know why/what they are doing and are manifesting ideations of the "physically-looking world" with a pre-meditated purpose (and not instinctively as BK suggests).

[Jim Cross]

In BK's view, would it be possible for one part of MAL to be like a pathogen and attack another part of MAL encapsulated in the alter? And since MAL doesn't know, I can't see what functionally would be the difference between a MAL pathogen and a material pathogen. Wouldn't they behave identically, appear the same, have the same effects?

I'm not trying to sell you my beliefs, you just asked so I answered, so pls don't feel any pressure here Here is another relevant post to this

I have no idea, but IMO it's more likely that MAL's part of mind that manifests the physical reality works like a "quantum computer" running a computational algorithm based on some simple equations (like QM and GR formulas) and producing ideations based on these calculations that we perceive as sense perceptions of physically-looking and physically-behaving world. Something like VR. This would explain why the phenomena we observe with sense perceptions follow the consistent patterns that comply with certain math equations. But since the algorithms are probabilistic and not deterministic (hence QM uncertainty), there is a lot of degrees of freedom for this reality to unfold and there is room to exercise free will.

More "esoteric" view is based on the assumption that in the universe of MAL there is (or are) conscious being/beings that actually know why/what they are doing and are manifesting ideations of the "physically-looking world" with a pre-meditated purpose (and not instinctively as BK suggests).

Actually your "quantum computer" idea is so far off from some of the things I've speculated about.

We discuss a possibility that the entire universe on its most fundamental level is a neural network…This shows that the learning dynamics of a neural network can indeed exhibit approximate behaviors described by both quantum mechanics and general relativity. We also discuss a possibility that the two descriptions are holographic duals of each other.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01540

My overview here.

https://broadspeculations.com/2020/09/1 ... l-network/

[Eugene I]

Actually your "quantum computer" idea is so far off from some of the things I've speculated about.

We discuss a possibility that the entire universe on its most fundamental level is a neural network…This shows that the learning dynamics of a neural network can indeed exhibit approximate behaviors described by both quantum mechanics and general relativity. We also discuss a possibility that the two descriptions are holographic duals of each other.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01540
My overview here.
https://broadspeculations.com/2020/09/1 ... l-network/

Yes, I saw that. You commented there:
"Consciousness and its association with learning emerges directly from the overall processes."
Again, you are talking here about the functioning of consciousness - what consciousness does, and in that sense you are correct. In Chalmers terms this is the "easy problem of consciousness". But it provides no explanation of how, from this overall process, the actual 1-st person perspective conscious experience of qualia occurs, and it can't in principle. This is the "hard problem".

Moreover, I can tell you my real problem with materialism. The only experiential fact that I'm 200% certain is true is the existence of my own personal conscious experience of qualia. Everything else I can doubt. No philosophy or science can ever convince me that I don't have my own conscious experience. Now, Dennett is one of the most renown materialist philosophers, I assume he knows what he is talking about, and indeed he is a very smart person (I read his papers). And what he says is this: if we stand on the premise of materialism, then the conscious experience must an illusion, it can not exist. And he is absolutely right, if one starts from the premise of materialism, such conclusion is inevitable. But it contradicts to the experimental fact of the reality of my conscious experience that I'm 200% certain is true. Therefore materialism can not be a true model of reality. That doesn't not mean though that idealism automatically becomes the right one.

[Jim Cross]

Actually your "quantum computer" idea is so far off from some of the things I've speculated about.

We discuss a possibility that the entire universe on its most fundamental level is a neural network…This shows that the learning dynamics of a neural network can indeed exhibit approximate behaviors described by both quantum mechanics and general relativity. We also discuss a possibility that the two descriptions are holographic duals of each other.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01540
My overview here.
https://broadspeculations.com/2020/09/1 ... l-network/

Yes, I saw that. You commented there:
"Consciousness and its association with learning emerges directly from the overall processes."
Again, you are talking here about the functioning of consciousness - what consciousness does, and in that sense you are correct. In Chalmers terms this is the "easy problem of consciousness". But it provides no explanation of how, from this overall process, the actual 1-st person perspective conscious experience of qualia occurs, and it can't in principle. This is the "hard problem".

Moreover, I can tell you my real problem with materialism. The only experiential fact that I'm 200% certain is true is the existence of my own personal conscious experience of qualia. Everything else I can doubt. No philosophy or science can ever convince me that I don't have my own conscious experience. Now, Dennett is one of the most renown materialist philosophers, I assume he knows what he is talking about, and indeed he is a very smart person (I read his papers). And what he says is this: if we stand on the premise of materialism, then the conscious experience must an illusion, it can not exist. And he is absolutely right, if one starts from the premise of materialism, such conclusion is inevitable. But it contradicts to the experimental fact of the reality of my conscious experience that I'm 200% certain is true. Therefore materialism can not be a true model of reality. That doesn't not mean though that idealism automatically becomes the right one.

BTW, in my original comment I meant to write: Actually your "quantum computer" idea isn't so far off from some of the things I've speculated about. Maybe you read it that way anyway.

I still don't think of myself as a materialist. In fact, I think the whole concept of "physical" or "material" in the metaphysical sense is incoherent.

But I also think Chalmers is wrong that the premise of materialism requires the conscious experience to be an illusion, because it could always be a different form of materiality. It might be considered an illusion in the sense that it appears to be other than something material but I don't think that is what Chalmers means.

[Eugene I]

But I also think Chalmers is wrong that the premise of materialism requires the conscious experience to be an illusion, because it could always be a different form of materiality. It might be considered an illusion in the sense that it appears to be other than something material but I don't think that is what Chalmers means.

I think you meant Dennett here, not Chalmers? It's Dennett who claims that the premise of materialism lead to the necessary conclusion that the conscious experience is an illusion.

There indeed may be a different form of materiality in which the ability to have conscious experience is a fundamental (non-emergent) aspect of materiality, and that is what Chalmers proposed long time ago and is now called "panpsychism". But it has its own problems, namely the "subject combination problem", which, as Chalmers said is "as hard as the hard problem of consciousness", so he later abandoned it.

[Jim Cross]

But I also think Chalmers is wrong that the premise of materialism requires the conscious experience to be an illusion, because it could always be a different form of materiality. It might be considered an illusion in the sense that it appears to be other than something material but I don't think that is what Chalmers means.

I think you meant Dennett here, not Chalmers? It's Dennett who claims that the premise of materialism lead to the necessary conclusion that the conscious experience is an illusion.

There indeed may be a different form of materiality in which the ability to have conscious experience is a fundamental (non-emergent) aspect of materiality, and that is what Chalmers proposed long time ago and is now called "panpsychism". But it has its own problems, namely the "subject combination problem", which, as Chalmers said is "as hard as the hard problem of consciousness", so he later abandoned it.

Sorry, you're right, I meant Dennett.

Emergentism, of course, would be an alternative to panpsychism. Somewhat implicit in your "quantum computer" and the linked article's learning neural network is that probably everything we observe in the universe is emergent from a lower level materiality. Consciousness is yet another thing that emerges in biological entities with biological neural networks at a small scale like a fractal pattern of the neural network of the universe as a whole.

[Eugene I]

Emergentism, of course, would be an alternative to panpsychism. Somewhat implicit in your "quantum computer" and the linked article's learning neural network is that probably everything we observe in the universe is emergent from a lower level materiality. Consciousness is yet another thing that emerges in biological entities with biological neural networks at a small scale like a fractal pattern of the neural network of the universe as a whole.

As I said above, it depends by what you mean by "consciousness" here. If it's the conscious events, then yes, it is possible in principle to establish causal relations between neural network activity and the outcoming conscious evens. But what is not possible is to demonstrate how these events are consciously experienced as qualia. How is that an output of a neural network is experienced as "red"?

There are high-tech companies making chips with electronic or photonic neural networks. This chips process images taken by a camera and produce signals/events at the outputs of the neural network for a purpose of pattern recognition. Let's say we will send an image of a red rose to its input. How would such a neural network chip ever be able to consciously experience the "redness" in the image? How would there be in this chip "something like to experience the redness"? Now, if we replace the photonic neural network with bio-cell neural network, how does it change anything? How could the electrical impulses at the outputs of the bio-cell neural network cause the experience of "redness"? "Somehow" is not a good answer here, there needs to be at least a tractable explanatory path to explain how such emergence of the conscious experience would be possible based on the known laws of physics. It is actually pretty obvious that it is not possible in principle. This is the "hard problem"