• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Interaction ("mind body") problem

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No because we have a much better understanding of necessary and sufficient conditions when it comes to elephants. For consciousness, we (or I) are not sure what it takes. So the analogy is not that good. A for a consciousness to be present in the first place. So the mind-elephant analogy is not that strong for me.

So, TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES, we've seen consciousnesses on non-living matter, yes or no?
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You were taking it for grainted that quarks are non consicous.

Am I? Proof, please. I'm "taking it for granted" in the same way you're "taking it for granted" that quarks are non-chocolate.

There is a genreally accepted test for whether a gnome is responsible for stealing socks.
Please provide a universally accepted test from a definitive source.

It may be the case that non-brains are consicous
How do you know this?

You chose to convey philosophy asan attempt at "counting angels on the head of a pin" which is often regarded by modern philosophers (who believe there has been progress) as an example of where Medievalists went wrong.
How do we know that current philosophical objections to naturalistic explanations of consciousness are going to fare any differently?

As there are (afaik) no known laws of physics stating necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness, quark conscious remains (as far as we know) a physical possibility.
As you say, this is :

Again an argument from ignorance
OK< what about some brains are consicous therefore all consciousness is brain dependent?
I don't know. What about it? Who's claiming it and what implications does it have?

YOu seem to be saying "we know brains are conscious, therefore quarks can't be".
If it seems that way to you, it only shows you're not comprehending the multiple times I've tried to correct this misunderstanding of yours.

for instance it does not know of necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness
Proof?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Re; chocolate quarks and elephants on the moon etc

If my position is equivalent to "elephants on the moon" or "chocolate trees" or "sock stealing gnomes" (or whatever) then why is the world renowned MIT press publishing serious scholarship on panpsychism but not any of the above?

If it has something significant to say about consciousness in sub-atomic particles, why isn't it showing up in peer-reviewed scientific or medical journals?
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Am I? Proof, please. I'm "taking it for granted" in the same way you're "taking it for granted" that quarks are non-chocolate.
No there is a scientific test for chocolete. There is nop scientific test for sa robot consciousness, or computer consciousness. (for starters).

Please provide a universally accepted test from a definitive source.
There doesn't need to be one. All I am saying is that IAFAIK the idea that only the brain can be conscious does not represent scientific consensus and/or modern (scientifically informed) philosophical consensus.

How do you know this?
AFAIK we do not know the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness, therefore if we do not know that a mere quark is insufficient, we cannot know that it is has no consciousness.

How do we know that current philosophical objections to naturalistic explanations of consciousness are going to fare any differently?
I think that panpsychism is naturalistic, so it does not go against the grain.

As you say, this is :
See what I said above about not knowing sufficient conditions.

I don't know. What about it? Who's claiming it and what implications does it have?
Well you said (pointing out flawed reasoning):
"Really? Some birds are ducks therefore all birds are ducks. Makes perfect sense."
I just pointed out the obvious analogy to:
"Some brains are conscious therefore all consciousness is of the brain".


If it seems that way to you, it only shows you're not comprehending the multiple times I've tried to correct this misunderstanding of yours.
So what is your argument again?

I think that is we did they would be all over the internet, for instance Wikipedia, SEP, Scholarpedia etc. Are yousaying that science knows the necessary and sufficient conditions, but is keeping it quiet for now?
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
If it has something significant to say about consciousness in sub-atomic particles, why isn't it showing up in peer-reviewed scientific or medical journals?
Perhaps its too early in the history of science.

Of course you know that to be wrong because there is a well established, evidence based, experimentally corroborated scientific consensus the idea of panpsychism is as ridiculously silly and childish as the idea of chocolate quarks or elephants on Venus.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So, let me see if I am understanding your position up to this point, GS:

Our definition of "consciousness" is too fuzzy at the moment because we do not have precise understanding of it. So, it could be that things like chairs and quarks will be included once our definition of it changes through more knowledge and understanding of what consciousness is and how it works. Am I anywhere near the ballpark?
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
So, let me see if I am understanding your position up to this point, GS:

Our definition of "consciousness" is too fuzzy at the moment because we do not have precise understanding of it. So, it could be that things like chairs and quarks will be included once our definition of it changes through more knowledge and understanding of what consciousness is and how it works. Am I anywhere near the ballpark?
Thats right. There are things like brains that we can rule in at the moment, but other things we cannot theoretically rule out (like quarks etc). So if we can neither rule them in or rule them out, we have to accept agnosticism. Its just another way of saying something like " at present science does not have all of the answers."
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No there is a scientific test for chocolete.

And it is ... ? Again, be sure to back up your claim using a definitive definition from an authoritative scientific dictionary just like you asked me to do.

There is nop scientific test for sa robot consciousness, or computer consciousness. (for starters).

Sure there is.

There doesn't need to be one. All I am saying is that IAFAIK the idea that only the brain can be conscious does not represent scientific consensus

Proof for this claim, please.

AFAIK we do not know the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness, therefore if we do not know that a mere quark is insufficient, we cannot know that it is has no consciousness.

This is an argument from ignorance, nothing more.

But we can know quarks have no consciousness, the way we know that magical gnomes don't steal socks and the same way that we know that houses aren't chocolate. Word games aside, it's pretty obvious that when there's no reason to believe claim and lots of reasons to not believe in them, then it makes sense to tentatively conclude that they aren't true.

I think that panpsychism is naturalistic, so it does not go against the grain.

The quotes I posted from your "definitive philosophical" source disagree.

See what I said above about not knowing sufficient conditions.

So you're saying we've never observed consciousness in brains? Because I believe we have, therefore brains are sufficient to produce consciousness. I guess you can ignore all of modern neuroscience to keep your faith alive but that's not what I'd consider an honest approach.

Well you said (pointing out flawed reasoning):
"Really? Some birds are ducks therefore all birds are ducks. Makes perfect sense."
I just pointed out the obvious analogy to:
"Some brains are conscious therefore all consciousness is of the brain".

Except that brain isn't a type of conscious - you're confusing objects and actions again. It's a pretty basic mistake when you correctly convert my statement to use your hobby horse :

Some brains are conscious therefore all conscious are brains.

This doesn't even parse, so obviously your analogy isn't really useful.

But this is all pointless - you're trying to show us that something that no one claims is logically invalid. Great, I agree. What's your point again?

So what is your argument again?

That it's not a failing to lack a naturalistic explanation for something that exists only in your imagination.

Are yousaying that science knows the necessary and sufficient conditions, but is keeping it quiet for now?
No. Now it's your turn to answer my question.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thats right. There are things like brains that we can rule in at the moment, but other things we cannot theoretically rule out (like quarks etc). So if we can neither rule them in or rule them out, we have to accept agnosticism. Its just another way of saying something like " at present science does not have all of the answers."

Yes, everyone who's made it past their freshman year of college (or seen The Matrix) knows there's no way to really prove that we're not just brains in a vat and that reality might not be really real. Most people move beyond that and realize that absolute proof isn't a realistic requirement for knowledge.

Is that really the maturity level that professional philosophy of mind types are stuck at? If so, the field is in even worse shape that I thought.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps its too early in the history of science.

That's one interpretation. Another is that science is too rigorous to bother with things which other less demanding fields consider worthwhile.

Of course you know that to be wrong
Here's an idea. How about you write about your thoughts and let me go through the hassle of writing down mine. If you get to make up what both of us supposedly believe I won't have anything to do.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, everyone who's made it past their freshman year of college (or seen The Matrix) knows there's no way to really prove that we're not just brains in a vat and that reality might not be really real. Most people move beyond that and realize that absolute proof isn't a realistic requirement for knowledge.

Is that really the maturity level that professional philosophy of mind types are stuck at? If so, the field is in even worse shape that I thought.
Againyou seem unable to address the issue except by forming far fetched analogies and addressing those instead.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
GrowingSmaller said:
AFAIK we do not know the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness, therefore if we do not know that a mere quark is insufficient, we cannot know that it is has no consciousness.


This is an argument from ignorance, nothing more.


Please elaborate this view in a logical manner.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
But we can know quarks have no consciousness, the way we know that magical gnomes don't steal socks and the same way that we know that houses aren't chocolate. Word games aside, it's pretty obvious that when there's no reason to believe claim and lots of reasons to not believe in them, then it makes sense to tentatively conclude that they aren't true.
So how do we know please? Please explaing in a bit of detail. Claiming "scientists tell us" is an appeal to authority, but it is an absent authority unless you can demonstrate that is what scientists actually say.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
think that panpsychism is naturalistic, so it does not go against the grain.The quotes
I posted from your "definitive philosophical" source disagree.
Where please? As far as I know panpsychism is consistent with physicalism. Quarks are physical. Adding "quarks are conscious" does not make is a non-physical perspective.

An analogy would be "brains are physical". Adding "brains are cosncious" does not make it a non-physical perspective, does it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
See what I said above about not knowing sufficient conditions.
So you're saying we've never observed consciousness in brains? Because I believe we have, therefore brains are sufficient to produce consciousness. I guess you can ignore all of modern neuroscience to keep your faith alive but that's not what I'd consider an honest approach
Yes we can know that certain brain states are sufficient for consciousness, but my remark was about quarks. Just because certain brain states are sufficient for consciousness it does not mean that being a quark is not sufficient.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Some brains are conscious therefore all conscious are brains.

This doesn't even parse, so obviously your analogy isn't really useful.

But this is all pointless - you're trying to show us that something that no one claims is logically invalid. Great, I agree. What's your point again?
I thought that you were saying something like quarks were not conscious because they did not pass a medical examination designed for humans (with brains). That would rpughly imply that that only brains can be conscious, as only people with brains can pass the medical examinations. Yet it is that argument (i.e. with the the assumption the exam is meant to be a universal test) that I am contesting. Please don't respond by passing the buck and posting what you think are analogies to this pov, which I must then defend against.

If you know that a medical is (or is even intended to be) a universal test for consciousness, rather than an exam specifically for human beings, then prove it. Or is that asking for the impossible?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
KCfromNC said:
So what is your argument again?
That it's not a failing to lack a naturalistic explanation for something that exists only in your imagination.
Thats not an argument, sorry. A basic syllogism would be helpful.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
KCfromNC said:
Are yousaying that science knows the necessary and sufficient conditions, but is keeping it quiet for now?
No.
So does science know the necessary and sufficient conditions for all physically possible consicousness, or not? If yes then pelase cite the source, and if possible the science behind it. Please, no passing the buck on this one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0