Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective

[SteveKlinko]

As I thought. You are just anti-science.

I don't think that's quite right. I think he's trying to 'drag science out of its Box', when that 'Box' actually defines and delineates the area to which science is applicable and valid. Outside that box lie philosophical problems that science cannot deal with (and other problems too, perhaps, that even philosophy cannot deal with?). Those metaphysical examples, where there is little or no evidence available, are typical of such things. If we drag science out of that Box, we end up with invalid conclusions. Science is Really Good at what it does, so let's not complain of what it can't do. No tool is universally applicable, after all.

Very Good, except I think Science will do quite well outside of its Box. Actually, Science should just make its current Box a little bigger and not necessarily go outside it completely.

[Sculptor1]

As I thought. You are just anti-science.

I don't think that's quite right. I think he's trying to 'drag science out of its Box',

... as he keeps sayng. No need for you to repeat.
I suggest that science is not in any box.

[Pattern-chaser]

I suggest that science is not in any box.

And I suggest that this 'box' is simply the area of applicability of science. Just that. No tool is universally useful in all contexts.

[Sculptor1]

I suggest that science is not in any box.

And I suggest that this 'box' is simply the area of applicability of science. Just that. No tool is universally useful in all contexts.

If you want to peddle nonsense, then I agree that not adhering to scientific rigour is unattractive. But this would be a case of GIGO.
If it aint empirical and rational then it just does not work.
If you can't demonstrate then you are talking about phantasms.
Any theory of consciousness that is not scientific is just a collection of self justifying coircular arguments such as "connectivism emphasisis the connective perspective". This is just word salad. It's just like placing the four elephants on a giant turtle.

[SteveKlinko]

I suggest that science is not in any box.

And I suggest that this 'box' is simply the area of applicability of science. Just that. No tool is universally useful in all contexts.

If you want to peddle nonsense, then I agree that not adhering to scientific rigour is unattractive. But this would be a case of GIGO.
If it aint empirical and rational then it just does not work.
If you can't demonstrate then you are talking about phantasms.
Any theory of consciousness that is not scientific is just a collection of self justifying coircular arguments such as "connectivism emphasisis the connective perspective". This is just word salad. It's just like placing the four elephants on a giant turtle.

Conscious Experience itself is not Empirical or Rational. Show how it is Empirical or Rationalize it in some way and then you can apply your criteria. You are going nowhere without opening your Mind to new Ideas and Perspectives when it comes to Conscious Experience. The Inter Mind Model and Connectism is word salad only if you don't read about it and know what it is. You might object to it, but to disregard it out of hand it narrow minded.

[Pattern-chaser]

I suggest that science is not in any box.

And I suggest that this 'box' is simply the area of applicability of science. Just that. No tool is universally useful in all contexts.

If you want to peddle nonsense, then I agree that not adhering to scientific rigour is unattractive. But this would be a case of GIGO.
If it aint empirical and rational then it just does not work.
If you can't demonstrate then you are talking about phantasms.
Any theory of consciousness that is not scientific is just a collection of self justifying coircular arguments such as "connectivism emphasisis the connective perspective". This is just word salad. It's just like placing the four elephants on a giant turtle.

As far as I know, or can tell, no theory of consciousness is scientific. There is not enough information or evidence for that to be the case. There isn't even a precise, scientific, definition of consciousness. Without such a definition, where might a scientific investigation begin?

At this point in our investigations, speculation is what we have. Later, it might be that speculation comes up with something capable of scientific investigation, although I rather doubt it. But I've been wrong before. We'll see.

For now, all available information and evidence - little or none - says I'm right.


N.B. I am not defending "connectivism", just making my own point. I'm not even sure what "connectivism" is supposed to be.

[Sculptor1]

I suggest that science is not in any box.

And I suggest that this 'box' is simply the area of applicability of science. Just that. No tool is universally useful in all contexts.

If you want to peddle nonsense, then I agree that not adhering to scientific rigour is unattractive. But this would be a case of GIGO.
If it aint empirical and rational then it just does not work.
If you can't demonstrate then you are talking about phantasms.
Any theory of consciousness that is not scientific is just a collection of self justifying coircular arguments such as "connectivism emphasisis the connective perspective". This is just word salad. It's just like placing the four elephants on a giant turtle.

Conscious Experience itself is not Empirical or Rational.

Conscious experience is where ALL empirical evidence resides.
It is also where all rationalising happens, and all theories are created.
It is totally empirical.

[SteveKlinko]

And I suggest that this 'box' is simply the area of applicability of science. Just that. No tool is universally useful in all contexts.

If you want to peddle nonsense, then I agree that not adhering to scientific rigour is unattractive. But this would be a case of GIGO.
If it aint empirical and rational then it just does not work.
If you can't demonstrate then you are talking about phantasms.
Any theory of consciousness that is not scientific is just a collection of self justifying coircular arguments such as "connectivism emphasisis the connective perspective". This is just word salad. It's just like placing the four elephants on a giant turtle.

Conscious Experience itself is not Empirical or Rational.

Conscious experience is where ALL empirical evidence resides.
It is also where all rationalising happens, and all theories are created.
It is totally empirical.

Full Definition of empirical

1: originating in or based on observation or experience

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Just want to point out that they are not talking about Conscious Experience or Qualia here when they say Experience.

I don't think Conscious Experience can be put in the Empirical Box.

[Sculptor1]

If you want to peddle nonsense, then I agree that not adhering to scientific rigour is unattractive. But this would be a case of GIGO.
If it aint empirical and rational then it just does not work.
If you can't demonstrate then you are talking about phantasms.
Any theory of consciousness that is not scientific is just a collection of self justifying coircular arguments such as "connectivism emphasisis the connective perspective". This is just word salad. It's just like placing the four elephants on a giant turtle.

Conscious Experience itself is not Empirical or Rational.

Conscious experience is where ALL empirical evidence resides.
It is also where all rationalising happens, and all theories are created.
It is totally empirical.

Full Definition of empirical

1: originating in or based on observation or experience

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Just want to point out that they are not talking about Conscious Experience or Qualia here when they say Experience.

I don't think Conscious Experience can be put in the Empirical Box.

Your metaphor does not work, since all empirical theory and experience is a conscious event. That is unimpeachable.
I really do not think you have grasped my meaning, consicousness is primary. We ought to ask how can we know the empirical from consciousness, not how do we know the consciousness from the emprirical.

[SteveKlinko]

Conscious Experience itself is not Empirical or Rational.

Conscious experience is where ALL empirical evidence resides.
It is also where all rationalising happens, and all theories are created.
It is totally empirical.

Full Definition of empirical

1: originating in or based on observation or experience

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Just want to point out that they are not talking about Conscious Experience or Qualia here when they say Experience.

I don't think Conscious Experience can be put in the Empirical Box.

Your metaphor does not work, since all empirical theory and experience is a conscious event. That is unimpeachable.
I really do not think you have grasped my meaning, consicousness is primary. We ought to ask how can we know the empirical from consciousness, not how do we know the consciousness from the emprirical.

I agree Conscious Experience (not ambiguous Consciousness) is Primary, but it is not Empirical. We are at an Impasse on that. Ok, enough semantics. Let's solve this Conscious Experience thing. What is the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface?

[Sculptor1]

Conscious experience is where ALL empirical evidence resides.
It is also where all rationalising happens, and all theories are created.
It is totally empirical.

Full Definition of empirical

1: originating in or based on observation or experience

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Just want to point out that they are not talking about Conscious Experience or Qualia here when they say Experience.

I don't think Conscious Experience can be put in the Empirical Box.

Your metaphor does not work, since all empirical theory and experience is a conscious event. That is unimpeachable.
I really do not think you have grasped my meaning, consicousness is primary. We ought to ask how can we know the empirical from consciousness, not how do we know the consciousness from the emprirical.

I agree Conscious Experience (not ambiguous Consciousness) is Primary, but it is not Empirical. We are at an Impasse on that. Ok, enough semantics. Let's solve this Conscious Experience thing. What is the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface?

The real questions are more like; can we know that your experience of red is the same as mine; what factors in the outside world are responsible for the sensory inputs whcih give us our quales; can we understand variations in percpetion between individuals to shed light on different experiences, such as disparities in witness statements.
Calling out science as the "problem" is false. Science is the reliable means by which these questions are constantly answered. And it is, and always has been through our consciousness that the world is known, or even knowable.
In other words we understand all there is to know about consciousness and always have.

[SteveKlinko]

Full Definition of empirical

1: originating in or based on observation or experience

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Just want to point out that they are not talking about Conscious Experience or Qualia here when they say Experience.

I don't think Conscious Experience can be put in the Empirical Box.

Your metaphor does not work, since all empirical theory and experience is a conscious event. That is unimpeachable.
I really do not think you have grasped my meaning, consicousness is primary. We ought to ask how can we know the empirical from consciousness, not how do we know the consciousness from the emprirical.

I agree Conscious Experience (not ambiguous Consciousness) is Primary, but it is not Empirical. We are at an Impasse on that. Ok, enough semantics. Let's solve this Conscious Experience thing. What is the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface?

The real questions are more like; can we know that your experience of red is the same as mine; what factors in the outside world are responsible for the sensory inputs whcih give us our quales; can we understand variations in percpetion between individuals to shed light on different experiences, such as disparities in witness statements.
Calling out science as the "problem" is false. Science is the reliable means by which these questions are constantly answered. And it is, and always has been through our consciousness that the world is known, or even knowable.
In other words we understand all there is to know about consciousness and always have.

Science is not a Problem, but it does not know what to do with Conscious Experience. There is a huge Explanatory Gap between Neural Activity and Conscious Experience that needs to be Explained.

[Sculptor1]

Your metaphor does not work, since all empirical theory and experience is a conscious event. That is unimpeachable.
I really do not think you have grasped my meaning, consicousness is primary. We ought to ask how can we know the empirical from consciousness, not how do we know the consciousness from the emprirical.

I agree Conscious Experience (not ambiguous Consciousness) is Primary, but it is not Empirical. We are at an Impasse on that. Ok, enough semantics. Let's solve this Conscious Experience thing. What is the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface?

The real questions are more like; can we know that your experience of red is the same as mine; what factors in the outside world are responsible for the sensory inputs whcih give us our quales; can we understand variations in percpetion between individuals to shed light on different experiences, such as disparities in witness statements.
Calling out science as the "problem" is false. Science is the reliable means by which these questions are constantly answered. And it is, and always has been through our consciousness that the world is known, or even knowable.
In other words we understand all there is to know about consciousness and always have.

Science is not a Problem, but it does not know what to do with Conscious Experience. There is a huge Explanatory Gap between Neural Activity and Conscious Experience that needs to be Explained.

Why does it need explaining, when we are masters at consiousness?

[SteveKlinko]

I agree Conscious Experience (not ambiguous Consciousness) is Primary, but it is not Empirical. We are at an Impasse on that. Ok, enough semantics. Let's solve this Conscious Experience thing. What is the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface?

The real questions are more like; can we know that your experience of red is the same as mine; what factors in the outside world are responsible for the sensory inputs whcih give us our quales; can we understand variations in percpetion between individuals to shed light on different experiences, such as disparities in witness statements.
Calling out science as the "problem" is false. Science is the reliable means by which these questions are constantly answered. And it is, and always has been through our consciousness that the world is known, or even knowable.
In other words we understand all there is to know about consciousness and always have.

Science is not a Problem, but it does not know what to do with Conscious Experience. There is a huge Explanatory Gap between Neural Activity and Conscious Experience that needs to be Explained.

Why does it need explaining, when we are masters at consiousness?

We are not Masters of anything. Until we know what We are and what Conscious Experience is we are just Hackers. Imagine what we might be capable of if we could Know.

[Sculptor1]

The real questions are more like; can we know that your experience of red is the same as mine; what factors in the outside world are responsible for the sensory inputs whcih give us our quales; can we understand variations in percpetion between individuals to shed light on different experiences, such as disparities in witness statements.
Calling out science as the "problem" is false. Science is the reliable means by which these questions are constantly answered. And it is, and always has been through our consciousness that the world is known, or even knowable.
In other words we understand all there is to know about consciousness and always have.

Science is not a Problem, but it does not know what to do with Conscious Experience. There is a huge Explanatory Gap between Neural Activity and Conscious Experience that needs to be Explained.

Why does it need explaining, when we are masters at consiousness?

We are not Masters of anything. Until we know what We are and what Conscious Experience is we are just Hackers. Imagine what we might be capable of if we could Know.

You are thinking backwards. Consciousness is primary. We know all there is to know about it. The problem is not trying to understand consciousness from matter but undertanding matter from consicousness.
One thing is for sure. All consciousness is embodied in neural matter.