5 ms·

That's a convenient way of dismissing the problem, but since you didn't make any coherent arguments, we can safely ignore you. The hard problem simply asks how

That's a convenient way of dismissing the problem, but since you didn't make any coherent arguments, we can safely ignore you. The hard problem simply asks how, for example, our subjective experience of color comes about, and why we should have that experience at all rather than nothing. If that's disconnected from reality and nonscientific, then you don't understand the meaning of those words.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
faktorialas 10y ago
Well it is nonscientific, it's outside the bounds of science. Doesn't mean it's irrational.
- TaupeRanger 10y ago
  What do you mean it's outside the bounds of science? Surely there can be a physical explanation that we simply haven't been clever enough to discover yet? That's all I'm saying.
  - faktorialas 10y ago
    I mean that there is no known empirical method for receiving a datapoint about the mind. We can know things about the brain, we can ask people to talk about their experiences, but we can't receive the actual contents of the experiences. Maybe we'll figure it out someday. That is probably a long way away though, and for now, the problem is for philosophy of mind, only to be informed, but not solved by relevant sciences.
    - lgas 10y ago
      Someday may be closer than you think -- https://www.nextnature.net/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/ https://www.nextnature.net/2008/12/scientists-extract-images...
Houshalter 10y ago
I don't need to make an argument, because there is nothing to argue against. I don't accept that "the hard problem" is a real problem, or even a coherent thought. It seems quite obvious to me that "consciousness" is caused by complex algorithms being run by the human brain. But even if science shows that is false, there will always be another scientific explanation. Even if souls exist, they would have to interact with physical matter to work, and so, in principle, could be studied scientifically. Observed and experimented with. And in principle, we could deduce the logical rules that explains their behavior, and build artificial souls, or simulate souls on a computer. I think "souls" are an insanely unscientific belief, on the verge of flat Earthism, but at least it's possible in principle. The hard problem asserts the possibility of something much, much weirder than the existence of souls or physical laws we don't understand yet. It asserts the existence of a universe which is causally disconnected from our own. Meaning the things that happen in that universe, can never influence anything that happens in our universe in any way. And that our "consciousness" exists in that universe, and not in our own. More on the absurdity of that proposition here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nqv/zombies_redacted/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nqv/zombies_redacted/
- faktorialas 10y ago
  >It seems quite obvious to me that "consciousness" is caused by complex algorithms being run by the human brain. Why "consciousness" in quotes? You don't have it? Are you a bot? And where is the obviousness from? Just this is how problems usually go down, so you assume this one will go the same way? >But even if science shows that is false, there will always be another scientific explanation. I mean, science is pretty cool, and having some faith in it is fine, but why this much? Why say always when it doesn't have one now? > Even if souls exist, they would have to interact with physical matter to work, and so, in principle, could be studied scientifically. Observed and experimented with. And in principle, we could deduce the logical rules that explains their behavior, and build artificial souls, or simulate souls on a computer. Yes, if they do interact with the outside world, they can be studied by science as much as they do interact. But how do you study them where they don't, where they just provide qualia and the outside world doesn't look any different? Isn't science about reproducible empirical evidence, which qualia don't provide? >hard problem is weird Well, you using consciousness in quotes as a, hopefully, conscious person is also weird. I don't see how you avoid the disconnectedness when you see that no science can even know whether you're conscious or not.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

faktorialas 10y ago

Well it is nonscientific, it's outside the bounds of science. Doesn't mean it's irrational.

TaupeRanger 10y ago
What do you mean it's outside the bounds of science? Surely there can be a physical explanation that we simply haven't been clever enough to discover yet? That's all I'm saying.
- faktorialas 10y ago
  I mean that there is no known empirical method for receiving a datapoint about the mind. We can know things about the brain, we can ask people to talk about their experiences, but we can't receive the actual contents of the experiences. Maybe we'll figure it out someday. That is probably a long way away though, and for now, the problem is for philosophy of mind, only to be informed, but not solved by relevant sciences.
  - lgas 10y ago
    Someday may be closer than you think -- https://www.nextnature.net/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/ https://www.nextnature.net/2008/12/scientists-extract-images...

Houshalter 10y ago

I don't need to make an argument, because there is nothing to argue against. I don't accept that "the hard problem" is a real problem, or even a coherent thought. It seems quite obvious to me that "consciousness" is caused by complex algorithms being run by the human brain. But even if science shows that is false, there will always be another scientific explanation. Even if souls exist, they would have to interact with physical matter to work, and so, in principle, could be studied scientifically. Observed and experimented with. And in principle, we could deduce the logical rules that explains their behavior, and build artificial souls, or simulate souls on a computer. I think "souls" are an insanely unscientific belief, on the verge of flat Earthism, but at least it's possible in principle. The hard problem asserts the possibility of something much, much weirder than the existence of souls or physical laws we don't understand yet. It asserts the existence of a universe which is causally disconnected from our own. Meaning the things that happen in that universe, can never influence anything that happens in our universe in any way. And that our "consciousness" exists in that universe, and not in our own. More on the absurdity of that proposition here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nqv/zombies_redacted/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nqv/zombies_redacted/

faktorialas 10y ago
>It seems quite obvious to me that "consciousness" is caused by complex algorithms being run by the human brain. Why "consciousness" in quotes? You don't have it? Are you a bot? And where is the obviousness from? Just this is how problems usually go down, so you assume this one will go the same way? >But even if science shows that is false, there will always be another scientific explanation. I mean, science is pretty cool, and having some faith in it is fine, but why this much? Why say always when it doesn't have one now? > Even if souls exist, they would have to interact with physical matter to work, and so, in principle, could be studied scientifically. Observed and experimented with. And in principle, we could deduce the logical rules that explains their behavior, and build artificial souls, or simulate souls on a computer. Yes, if they do interact with the outside world, they can be studied by science as much as they do interact. But how do you study them where they don't, where they just provide qualia and the outside world doesn't look any different? Isn't science about reproducible empirical evidence, which qualia don't provide? >hard problem is weird Well, you using consciousness in quotes as a, hopefully, conscious person is also weird. I don't see how you avoid the disconnectedness when you see that no science can even know whether you're conscious or not.