Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
I think we can explore Knowledge and Knowing by submitting a test question to a Brain and then to a Computer. Let the question be: What kind of animal Meows? Putting aside the difficulties of parsing the Sentence, we can view this as a Memory Association Data Access operation, and the Brain and the Computer will produce the answer: Cat. But now let's examine the differences in the underlying processes that occurred. First for the Brain. We can say that the word Animal and then the word Meow will Associate in the Brain to eventually fire some Neurons that indicate Cat. But there is no Experience of Knowing that the answer is Cat until the next Processing stage, where a Signal of Cat and Knowingness is received by the Conscious Mind. In other words, the Meaning of the Neural Cat Signal must become Known in the Conscious Mind. The Knowing is in the Conscious Mind. The Physical Brain Knows nothing. It is just a processor. Now for the Computer. The Computer can have an Associative Database that will retrieve the text string Cat for the given input of Animal and Meow. But the Computer does not have the next processing stage of Knowingness that is implemented in a Conscious Mind. So we can conclude that the Computer never Knows it computed the answer of Cat. With a Computer it is always only Processing. There is never any Knowing. This might seem obvious, but a lot of people seem to think that Computers are operating like Brains and that Computers can in some way Know things. There is nobody home in a Computer, like there is in a Brain.
Now let's talk about this in terms of the Inter Mind Model (IMM). We will ignore details of the Processing that had to occur in the Brain or in the Computer, that was needed to arrive at the answer of Cat. For the Brian there will be Neural Activity that fires Neurons for Cat. For the Computer there will be Computational Activity that will load the text string "Cat" into three bytes of RAM designated as the location for the answer. In both cases there has been some sort of Activity that indicates the answer is Cat. Up to this point the Process has been Mechanistic and Mindless for the Brain and for the Computer. There is no Knowing that it is Cat yet.
From the operation of the IMM we know that the Inter Mind (IM) is intimately Connected to the Brain, which in IMM terminology is the Physical Mind (PM). The IM is constantly monitoring the PM and is able to interpret the Neural Activity as referencing the word Cat. The IM converts this Neural Activity to the word Cat and to a Feeling of Knowing. The IM then sends the word Cat and the Feeling of Knowing to the Conscious Mind (CM). The Conscious Experience of the word Cat might consist of some vague Auditory Experience of the word Cat and maybe some hazy Visual spelling of the word Cat. There might be a fuzzy Image of a Cat. Other related associations of everything you have ever Experienced related to Cats can arise. But the important thing is that you Know the answer is Cat in your Conscious Mind. You also have the Feeling of Knowing it. There was no Knowing with merely the Neural Activity of the Brain. From this we can understand that the Computer will not be able to Know it has calculated or processed anything. There is no Connection to an IM or to a CM with Computers. But that is not to say that a Computer can not be designed to include such a Connection. The Technology is just not advanced to the point where we know how to do this yet.
We can now Logically say, because a Brain can Know the Information that it Processes, the Brain can have Knowledge. But since the Computer does not Know the Information it Processes, we can say a Computer can not have Knowledge, even though there is much stored Information. If a Computer is Programmed to Display the word Cat on a screen then the fact that the word is Displayed still does not indicate Knowing for the Computer. A Human Brain would be needed to read the screen and do some further Neural Processing to Know that the Computer computed Cat as the answer. The Computer still does not Know anything.
Now I would like to say some things about Human Memory in general. For a long time I was convinced that the Memory of things was strictly a PM function, but recently it has seemed to me that the only thing the PM does is store the Neural Correlates of Memories and not the Actual Memories. The PM can fire Neural Activity for a particular Memory or Knowledge such as for a Cat, but where does the actual Memory of a Cat come from? There seems to be no Explanation for how Neurons firing could possibly mean Cat or any of the thousands and thousands of other pieces of Knowledge stored in our Memories. It seems Logical that the situation for Memories is similar to the situation for Conscious Sensory Experiences. There is no Explanation for how we Experience Redness from Neural Activity. But we have Logically deduced that there must be some sort of IM monitoring the Visual Cortex. When the IM detects that the Redness Neurons are firing it produces the Redness Experience for the CM. Along that same line of Logic, it is deduced that the IM must be monitoring the PM for Neural Activity related to all the Memories that we might have stored. When there is Neural Activity for something like Cat, the IM detects this Neural Activity and produces a Cat Experience, as described above, for the CM. The PM merely provides the signal (Neural Activity) that triggers the actual Memory that is located in the IM. The Human Brain cannot Know anything, because the Human Brain is a Physical thing, and Knowing happens as a Conscious Experience in a CM.
We can now talk about Learning as the storage of New Information. For a Brain, the Neural Plasticity of the Brain will need to be changed in such a way that the New Information is encoded. There is now a Configuration change inside the Brain, and we can say the Brain was Reconfigured with the New Information. For a Computer, some New Patterns of Ones and Zeros will need to be included in such a way that the New Information is encoded. There is now a Configuration change inside the Computer and we can say the Computer has been Reconfigured with the New Information. As described above, the Brain will be able to access this New Information and Know this New Information. The Information is not Learned until it is Known. It will be New Knowledge. If the Information does not become Known, it is just a Reconfiguration and nothing more. A Computer will be able to access the Information but does not Know the Information. So a Computer cannot Learn in the same sense as a Brain/Mind. A Computer can be Reconfigured, but it cannot Learn. A Neural Net can be Reconfigured, but it does not really Learn. We say the Neural Net Learned, mostly by convention and for convenience.
Let's see what a Cat can Know and what the IBM Watson can Know. The IBM Watson has access to much Information but it can not Know anything. A Cat only has a little Information but it can Know this Information. A Cat therefore can know more than the IBM Watson because, whatever a Cat Knows, is going to be more than what the IBM Watson Knows, which is nothing. Without Consciousness there is no Knowing. This statement must still apply even if you Believe that Consciousness "Is In The Neurons" or "Emerges From The Neurons", because there has to be some implementation of the functionality of Consciousness, somewhere, somehow.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
And one definition we frequently run into re information is this: "knowledge that you get about someone or something." That's from Merriam-Webster, for example.
Also "data" is often defined in terms of "information." So if "data" is supposed to tell us what "information" is, but "data" is defined as "information," then that doesn't tell us much. "What is information?" "Data." "What is data?" "Information." "Oh, well that's clear now."
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
Semantics can be fun and I am certainly playing a slight Semantical game with the OP. But the point is really about Brains and Computers. I say right up front that there is Information, and when it is encoded into a Brain or a Computer it is Data. But it is not Knowledge until a Conscious Mind is aware of the encoded Information (Data). We know that a Brain is Connected to a Conscious Mind so the CM will have Knowledge of the encoded Data. A Computer is not Connected to a CM because we know that the Designers have not Connected it, since they don't know how to do that. So, a Computer cannot have Knowledge. It does not Know anything, because there's nobody home in a Computer. The purpose of the OP is to instigate discussion and to get people to think in new ways. It's all about the recognition and implications of separate Conscious Minds in the Universe.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:34 am One problem I see with this is that "information" is no less vague--in fact, I'd say it's more vague (at least per philosophy) than "knowledge," since so much philosophical work has been done on knowledge, where there's a very standard definition/characterization of it, but "information" seems to have a bunch of different suggestions for what, exactly, it might refer to.
And one definition we frequently run into re information is this: "knowledge that you get about someone or something." That's from Merriam-Webster, for example.
Also "data" is often defined in terms of "information." So if "data" is supposed to tell us what "information" is, but "data" is defined as "information," then that doesn't tell us much. "What is information?" "Data." "What is data?" "Information." "Oh, well that's clear now."
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
"Separate" in what sense? Do you just mean that different individuals are different in terms of their minds, too?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 11:09 amSemantics can be fun and I am certainly playing a slight Semantical game with the OP. But the point is really about Brains and Computers. I say right up front that there is Information, and when it is encoded into a Brain or a Computer it is Data. But it is not Knowledge until a Conscious Mind is aware of the encoded Information (Data). We know that a Brain is Connected to a Conscious Mind so the CM will have Knowledge of the encoded Data. A Computer is not Connected to a CM because we know that the Designers have not Connected it, since they don't know how to do that. So, a Computer cannot have Knowledge. It does not Know anything, because there's nobody home in a Computer. The purpose of the OP is to instigate discussion and to get people to think in new ways. It's all about the recognition and implications of separate Conscious Minds in the Universe.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:34 am One problem I see with this is that "information" is no less vague--in fact, I'd say it's more vague (at least per philosophy) than "knowledge," since so much philosophical work has been done on knowledge, where there's a very standard definition/characterization of it, but "information" seems to have a bunch of different suggestions for what, exactly, it might refer to.
And one definition we frequently run into re information is this: "knowledge that you get about someone or something." That's from Merriam-Webster, for example.
Also "data" is often defined in terms of "information." So if "data" is supposed to tell us what "information" is, but "data" is defined as "information," then that doesn't tell us much. "What is information?" "Data." "What is data?" "Information." "Oh, well that's clear now."
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
Separate from each other and separate from Physical Space. Conscious Minds are in Conscious Space.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:16 pm"Separate" in what sense? Do you just mean that different individuals are different in terms of their minds, too?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 11:09 amSemantics can be fun and I am certainly playing a slight Semantical game with the OP. But the point is really about Brains and Computers. I say right up front that there is Information, and when it is encoded into a Brain or a Computer it is Data. But it is not Knowledge until a Conscious Mind is aware of the encoded Information (Data). We know that a Brain is Connected to a Conscious Mind so the CM will have Knowledge of the encoded Data. A Computer is not Connected to a CM because we know that the Designers have not Connected it, since they don't know how to do that. So, a Computer cannot have Knowledge. It does not Know anything, because there's nobody home in a Computer. The purpose of the OP is to instigate discussion and to get people to think in new ways. It's all about the recognition and implications of separate Conscious Minds in the Universe.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:34 am One problem I see with this is that "information" is no less vague--in fact, I'd say it's more vague (at least per philosophy) than "knowledge," since so much philosophical work has been done on knowledge, where there's a very standard definition/characterization of it, but "information" seems to have a bunch of different suggestions for what, exactly, it might refer to.
And one definition we frequently run into re information is this: "knowledge that you get about someone or something." That's from Merriam-Webster, for example.
Also "data" is often defined in terms of "information." So if "data" is supposed to tell us what "information" is, but "data" is defined as "information," then that doesn't tell us much. "What is information?" "Data." "What is data?" "Information." "Oh, well that's clear now."
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
Why would we believe that minds are separate from "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 9:35 amSeparate from each other and separate from Physical Space. Conscious Minds are in Conscious Space.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:16 pm"Separate" in what sense? Do you just mean that different individuals are different in terms of their minds, too?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 11:09 amSemantics can be fun and I am certainly playing a slight Semantical game with the OP. But the point is really about Brains and Computers. I say right up front that there is Information, and when it is encoded into a Brain or a Computer it is Data. But it is not Knowledge until a Conscious Mind is aware of the encoded Information (Data). We know that a Brain is Connected to a Conscious Mind so the CM will have Knowledge of the encoded Data. A Computer is not Connected to a CM because we know that the Designers have not Connected it, since they don't know how to do that. So, a Computer cannot have Knowledge. It does not Know anything, because there's nobody home in a Computer. The purpose of the OP is to instigate discussion and to get people to think in new ways. It's all about the recognition and implications of separate Conscious Minds in the Universe.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:34 am One problem I see with this is that "information" is no less vague--in fact, I'd say it's more vague (at least per philosophy) than "knowledge," since so much philosophical work has been done on knowledge, where there's a very standard definition/characterization of it, but "information" seems to have a bunch of different suggestions for what, exactly, it might refer to.
And one definition we frequently run into re information is this: "knowledge that you get about someone or something." That's from Merriam-Webster, for example.
Also "data" is often defined in terms of "information." So if "data" is supposed to tell us what "information" is, but "data" is defined as "information," then that doesn't tell us much. "What is information?" "Data." "What is data?" "Information." "Oh, well that's clear now."
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 5:31 pmWhy would we believe that minds are separate from "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 9:35 amSeparate from each other and separate from Physical Space. Conscious Minds are in Conscious Space.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:16 pm"Separate" in what sense? Do you just mean that different individuals are different in terms of their minds, too?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 11:09 am
Semantics can be fun and I am certainly playing a slight Semantical game with the OP. But the point is really about Brains and Computers. I say right up front that there is Information, and when it is encoded into a Brain or a Computer it is Data. But it is not Knowledge until a Conscious Mind is aware of the encoded Information (Data). We know that a Brain is Connected to a Conscious Mind so the CM will have Knowledge of the encoded Data. A Computer is not Connected to a CM because we know that the Designers have not Connected it, since they don't know how to do that. So, a Computer cannot have Knowledge. It does not Know anything, because there's nobody home in a Computer. The purpose of the OP is to instigate discussion and to get people to think in new ways. It's all about the recognition and implications of separate Conscious Minds in the Universe.
The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is Conscious Space.
Even though we thought it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
I agree with you re the difference between computers and conscious brains. Searle makes a similar distinction of syntax (processes) and semantics (meaning) in his Chinese Room thought experiment.
If I understand you right, you're suggesting there needs to be some sort of bridging mechanism (''Inter Mind'') between two types of things which are the physical brain processes and the correlated conscious experience.
That's possible, but I don't think it helps us much, unless we know what sort of thing this bridging mechanism could be, so we can look for it. And without knowing what sort of thing it is, or how it could work, isn't it really just a place-holder concept like ''strong emergence'', which doesn't actually explain anything?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
So what is the explanation of consciousness under the assumption that it's not in "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 9:19 amThe Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 5:31 pmWhy would we believe that minds are separate from "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 9:35 amSeparate from each other and separate from Physical Space. Conscious Minds are in Conscious Space.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2022, 10:16 pm
"Separate" in what sense? Do you just mean that different individuals are different in terms of their minds, too?
The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is Conscious Space.
Even though we thought it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces.
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
Nobody has an Explanation of Conscious Experience. That is the Hard problem. The only thing I try to do is to give people an alternate Perspective for thinking about Conscious Experience. Maybe with this new (partly new partly old) Perspective someone will eventually be able to come up with an Explanation.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 11:01 amSo what is the explanation of consciousness under the assumption that it's not in "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 9:19 amThe Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 5:31 pmWhy would we believe that minds are separate from "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 9:35 am
Separate from each other and separate from Physical Space. Conscious Minds are in Conscious Space.
The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is Conscious Space.
Even though we thought it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces.
... But there was no Chain of Logic that could take us from Neurons Firing to the Visual Light Experience. It became an item of Faith that Science would figure out what the required Chain of Logic would be. Science has tried for a hundred years to figure this out. But there is nothing to show for the effort. Maybe the reason Science cannot find the Visual Light Experience in the Neurons is because it is Not in the Neurons. All we know is that Neural Activity happens and then a Visual Light Experience happens. Even though we thought it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
Okay, but wait a minute.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 11:10 amNobody has an Explanation of Conscious Experience.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 11:01 amSo what is the explanation of consciousness under the assumption that it's not in "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 9:19 amThe Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 5:31 pm
Why would we believe that minds are separate from "physical space"?
The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is Conscious Space.
Even though we thought it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces.
First, let's say that we assume that conscious experience is "in physical space" or is a physical phenomenon. But there's no explanation for conscious experience as a physical phenomenon, so that's a justification to think that it's not a physical phenomenon in your view.
So then let's assume that conscious experience isn't "in physical space," isn't a physical phenomenon. But there's no explanation for conscious experience as a nonphysical phenomenon.
So why isn't that a justification to think that it's not a nonphysical phenomenon in your view?
You're being inconsistent.
A lack of an explanation can't be a reason to believe that conscious experience isn't a physical phenomenon if a lack of an explanation isn't just as well a reason to believe that conscious experience isn't a nonphysical phenomenon. At least not without a justification of the asymmetry.
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
There is no Explanation as a Physical Phenomenon but even more important, it doesn't even seem like a Physical Phenomenon.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 11:30 amOkay, but wait a minute.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 11:10 amNobody has an Explanation of Conscious Experience.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 11:01 amSo what is the explanation of consciousness under the assumption that it's not in "physical space"?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 9:19 am
The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.
The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is Conscious Space.
Even though we thought it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces.
First, let's say that we assume that conscious experience is "in physical space" or is a physical phenomenon. But there's no explanation for conscious experience as a physical phenomenon, so that's a justification to think that it's not a physical phenomenon in your view.
It's not an Inconsistency to realize that the last hundred years of the best Scientific Research and Thinking has resulted in Zero Explanation for how Conscious Experience is in the Neurons. I think that does in fact tell us something about the Problem. Maybe it is time to think in new ways about the Problem. We are getting nowhere with the Physicalist "In The Neurons" Perspective. It's really the existence of the Conscious Visual Experience that has driven me to try new Perspectives. That Visual Experience will not be stuffed back into the Neurons no matter how hard anybody tries. The Visual Experience truly Exists in a separate reality or what I call Conscious Space. Call it whatever you like but realize the need for it. I think the Key to understanding the Need to change Perspective is to properly explore your own Visual Experience. Think about it. How on Earth does that get embedded in the front of our faces in order to let us move around in the world without bumping into things and walking off cliffs. There is not even a starting point to understanding that, based on Neural Activity.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 11:30 am So then let's assume that conscious experience isn't "in physical space," isn't a physical phenomenon. But there's no explanation for conscious experience as a nonphysical phenomenon.
So why isn't that a justification to think that it's not a nonphysical phenomenon in your view?
You're being inconsistent.
A lack of an explanation can't be a reason to believe that conscious experience isn't a physical phenomenon if a lack of an explanation isn't just as well a reason to believe that conscious experience isn't a nonphysical phenomenon. At least not without a justification of the asymmetry.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
Let's assume that conscious experience isn't "in physical space," isn't a physical phenomenon. But there's no explanation for conscious experience as a nonphysical phenomenon.
So why isn't that a justification to think that it's not a nonphysical phenomenon in your view?
An answer that addresses what I'm asking needs to say something like, "It's not a justification to think that it's not a nonphysical phenomenon, even though the lack of the explanation in the other case is a sufficient justification, because _________" and then you'd need to fill in the blank.
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
Looks to me like you did not understand my answer. If you are going to ask the question again and again then I can only give you my answer again and again.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 4:37 pm I don't know if you didn't understand what I wrote, but you sure didn't address it: again,
Let's assume that conscious experience isn't "in physical space," isn't a physical phenomenon. But there's no explanation for conscious experience as a nonphysical phenomenon.
So why isn't that a justification to think that it's not a nonphysical phenomenon in your view?
An answer that addresses what I'm asking needs to say something like, "It's not a justification to think that it's not a nonphysical phenomenon, even though the lack of the explanation in the other case is a sufficient justification, because _________" and then you'd need to fill in the blank.
It's not an Inconsistency to realize that the last hundred years of the best Scientific Research and Thinking has resulted in Zero Explanation for how Conscious Experience is in the Neurons. I think that does in fact tell us something about the Problem. Maybe it is time to think in new ways about the Problem. We are getting nowhere with the Physicalist "In The Neurons" Perspective. It's really the existence of the Conscious Visual Experience that has driven me to try new Perspectives. That Visual Experience will not be stuffed back into the Neurons no matter how hard anybody tries. The Visual Experience truly Exists in a separate reality or what I call Conscious Space. Call it whatever you like but realize the need for it. I think the Key to understanding the Need to change Perspective is to properly explore your own Visual Experience. Think about it. How on Earth does that get embedded in the front of our faces in order to let us move around in the world without bumping into things and walking off cliffs. There is not even a starting point to understanding that, based on Neural Activity.
I think we are at an impasse on this.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Knowledge, Knowing, Learning, and Memory Using the IMM
This has nothing to do with what I said, though. I didn't say that's an inconsistency. You must not have understood what I said.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑January 6th, 2022, 2:04 pm It's not an Inconsistency to realize that the last hundred years of the best Scientific Research and Thinking has resulted in Zero Explanation for how Conscious Experience is in the Neurons.
What I said is this:
Logically:
(1) We assume that c has property p,
(2) But under that assumption we have no explanation of c
(3) Therefore this fact warrants a belief that c does does NOT have property p
(4) We assume that c has property n,
(5) But under that assumption we have no explanation of c
(6) Therefore this fact warrants a belief that c does NOT have property n
The above would be consistent, right? We're doing the same thing in (1), (2) and (3) that we're doing in (4), (5) and (6). This should be clear, as they're the same. It' simply that we're swapping out "p" for 'n" when it comes to (4), (5) and (6).
You're saying (1), (2) and (3) as well as (4) and (5), BUT you're not reaching (6) at all. Why not? (6) follows from (4) and (5) just as well as (3) follows from (1) and (2). That is the inconsistency.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023