Question for Atheists...

[Polymath257]

Forget physical for a moment and go for words as signs, with meaning and a referent. The problem is that some words don't have an objective referent and there is no objective knowledge possible for them, yet you can learn how they work and describe with knowledge how they work.
The problem in epistemology is that there are 2 versions of emprical and as a joke the following happens a lot, even for you.
The bold one is not something you can see as see. Rather the verb see as you use it means understand as not seeing but cogntiviely grasp.
That is the har problem in the end. Not all words or sentences have objective referents, yet we understand them and can use them.

And we all have different understandings of them, although the fact that we use them in similar ways shows that we have some agreement as to meaning.

Again, I don't see the hard problem. We learn the meanings of words through use. We get corrected when we use words incorrectly. That seems fully empirical to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And we all have different understandings of them, although the fact that we use them in similar ways shows that we have some agreement as to meaning.

Again, I don't see the hard problem. We learn the meanings of words through use. We get corrected when we use words incorrectly. That seems fully empirical to me.

You can't see as see the hard problem.
Here is the problem. I could correct you and point to a page about the problem with word empirical. You will then answer you don't find that useful to you, so you use another in effect philosophical defintion that is not really philosophical, because real philosophy is useless to you and you really can't see the probleim about, what you are doing, because it makes sense to you.
The hard problem is that that process has no objective referents and is all happing in your mind.

 

[PureX]

And we all have different understandings of them, although the fact that we use them in similar ways shows that we have some agreement as to meaning.

Again, I don't see the hard problem. We learn the meanings of words through use. We get corrected when we use words incorrectly. That seems fully empirical to me.

Ha! Have you tried correcting someone's deliberate misuse of a word, lately? Have you seen the politicians and media blowhards inventing definitions for words to make them say whatever they want you to believe? "Hard problem" is an understatement.

 

[anna.]

I've never quite grasped what is supposed to be 'hard' about it (in the philosophical sense). Sure, it is *difficult* technically, but 'hard' in the sense of Chalmers? I don't see it.

That's the thing. It's not philosophy where it's so hard. It's scientifically, particularly to the materialist scientific community.

 

[anna.]

Cool

Spoiler

 

[Audie]

Ha! Have you tried correcting someone's deliberate misuse of a word, lately? Have you seen the politicians and media blowhards inventing definitions for words to make them say whatever they want you to believe? "Hard problem" is an understatement.

Saw it here on rf where the first definition that comes
upon Google for "charlatan" cant be accepted.

 

[Polymath257]

That's the thing. It's not philosophy where it's so hard. It's scientifically, particularly to the materialist scientific community.

That isn't what Chalmers (the guy that first mentioned the 'hard problem') is talking about.

It is/was his position that there is something fundamentally different about consciousness that makes it so that scientific investigation *cannot* resolve its nature. So it was/is his position exactly that it is philosophically different in a way that makes it 'hard'.

If it is simply technically difficult to describe, his description would be that it is a 'soft' problem (like the nature of dark matter).

So, the HARD problem of consciousness is, precisely, a philosophical position that I have never quite understood/agreed with.

 

[Polymath257]

Spoiler

View attachment 79548View attachment 79549
View attachment 79550View attachment 79551View attachment 79552View attachment 79553

And I fail to see why finding the neural correlates of conscious states isn't a solution to the problem of consciousness. What else would you want?

 

[Polymath257]

Forget physical for a moment and go for words as signs, with meaning and a referent. The problem is that some words don't have an objective referent and there is no objective knowledge possible for them, yet you can learn how they work and describe with knowledge how they work.

I don't see how that follows. For example, when I experience an emotion, that is a personal experience, but it shows objective signs that, for example, parents can perceive and name. The fact that the name consistently goes with the personal state is what allows us to learn the word.

The problem in epistemology is that there are 2 versions of emprical and as a joke the following happens a lot, even for you.
The bold one is not something you can see as see.

??? I am having trouble parsing this.

Rather the verb see as you use it means understand as not seeing but cogntiviely grasp.

Huh? Yes, the word 'see' has multiple meanings. All those meanings are picked up from observation of how and when others use them.

That is the har problem in the end. Not all words or sentences have objective referents, yet we understand them and can use them.

And, again, I fail to see what is supposed to be hard about it.

All internal states have external effects. When I am happy, for example I smile (at least until I learn to hide my internal state). That smile signals that I am happy, so others can put a word to it. After this is repeated, I identify that internal state with the word 'happy'. Everything happens through objective criteria: my smile signals my internal state, the word (which is objective--a sound) names it.

Why is that supposed to be difficult?

 

[lukethethird]

I don't see how that follows. For example, when I experience an emotion, that is a personal experience, but it shows objective signs that, for example, parents can perceive and name. The fact that the name consistently goes with the personal state is what allows us to learn the word.

??? I am having trouble parsing this.

Huh? Yes, the word 'see' has multiple meanings. All those meanings are picked up from observation of how and when others use them.

And, again, I fail to see what is supposed to be hard about it.

All internal states have external effects. When I am happy, for example I smile (at least until I learn to hide my internal state). That smile signals that I am happy, so others can put a word to it. After this is repeated, I identify that internal state with the word 'happy'. Everything happens through objective criteria: my smile signals my internal state, the word (which is objective--a sound) names it.

Why is that supposed to be difficult?

It's not difficult, it's all a big kerfuffle by some over nothing.

 

[anna.]

And I fail to see why finding the neural correlates of conscious states isn't a solution to the problem of consciousness. What else would you want?

You may see it as a solution, when the rest of neuroscience doesn't see it as a solution at all. Those neural correlates are the easy problem, not the hard problem. Edward Witten thinks there is no solution.

 

[anna.]

That isn't what Chalmers (the guy that first mentioned the 'hard problem') is talking about.

It is/was his position that there is something fundamentally different about consciousness that makes it so that scientific investigation *cannot* resolve its nature. So it was/is his position exactly that it is philosophically different in a way that makes it 'hard'.

If it is simply technically difficult to describe, his description would be that it is a 'soft' problem (like the nature of dark matter).

So, the HARD problem of consciousness is, precisely, a philosophical position that I have never quite understood/agreed with.

The hard problem isn't philosophical, it's scientific. That's the whole point of this conversation. The easy part is explaining how the brain works, biologically, chemically, electrically. The hard part hovers above the process, because it asks why we feel the process.

 

[Bird123]

Cool! Bring me fresh baked oatmeal raisin walnut cookies. And ginger-tumeric kombucha.

You really do not want to eat my cooking or baking. Even with the best recipe, it doesn't come out well.
I had to google kombucha. I had never heard of it. Being tea, I would never drink it. Did you know that tea lowers a person's body temperature, especially green tea? It's a strange feeling shivering on a hot summer day. On the other hand, A little would not hurt you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

You really do not want to eat my cooking or baking. Even with the best recipe, it doesn't come out well.
I had to google kombucha. I had never heard of it. Being tea, I would never drink it. Did you know that tea lowers a person's body temperature, especially green tea? It's a strange feeling shivering on a hot summer day. On the other hand, A little would not hurt you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Ilike tea. I run hot.

 

[Bird123]

Sure, if you want to supply energy using a star as a fusion reactor and if the laws of physics are as they currently are, and if you want to supply energy for billions of years to have a planet where liquid water can exist, then you should have a star of types type F, G, K.

But, considering that there is billions of such stars in our galaxy alone, is it not reasonable to say that if there is a purpose, they should ALL share the same purpose (they have the same structures and properties)? So any purpose the sun has should *at least* be shared with all other type G2 stars, right?

Now, given that many, if not most of those stars have no planets at all, the purpose cannot be to supply energy to planets, and so cannot be to support life. That says that any support for life is a side-effect even *if* there is a purpose.

Well, your statement that we can currently supply all of our energy needs through solar power is simply false for a number of reasons.

The total energy absorbed by all the planets and moons in our solar system is still a minuscule fraction of the total output of the sun. Well over 99.9999% of the energy from the sun just goes off into space, never to do anything else.

That depends on the goal, doesn't it? Why do you assume that life is a goal? And, as I pointed out before, any star similar to our sun would have the same gravity well and same energy output. Given all the shared properties, it looks like such stars, if they have a purpose, were mass produced and so have the same purpose. Since most do not have planets at all, that purpose cannot be simply to provide a gravity well for planets.

Why would you assume design? As opposed simply function?

Only if you assume purpose to begin with. Now ask (first* whether there is a purpose at all and how you cold tell.

Note that key word: **if**.

How do you know that? How do you know such 'interaction' could not be duplicated artificially?

Proof?

Proof? Objective evidence?

So don't assume your conclusion before you start.

In order to find proof, you must take the journey. You must seek. Study and see how all these complex things come together. How many complex things do you really think randomly come together?

The Goal is not Life!! Look again. Put more of those pieces together.

There are many variables to consider. Sure, there are many different kinds of suns. Just like the bird flying, it's pointing to something. One must also consider that God placed great distances from living planets for very good reason. Simply answers leave the total picture lacking since so much knowledge is missing.

Aren't you just using function as an excuse not to look for purpose? Widen your view. Functions serve purpose.

The energy from the sun hitting the Earth alone is enough energy to supply mankind's total energy needs to date. Mankind does have the technology to accomplish this. On the other hand, multi-angular,not doing this creates learning and advancement in other areas.Variables!!! More is going on than you realize.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

You may see it as a solution, when the rest of neuroscience doesn't see it as a solution at all. Those neural correlates are the easy problem, not the hard problem. Edward Witten thinks there is no solution.

Once again, if you know all the neural correlates (not saying we do, but it seems like a feasible goal), what else is required to 'understand consciousness'? If you know how to predict what a person is experiencing from, say, brain scans, what else is required?

Let me give an analogy. We say some things have electrical charge. We say that because those things act in certain ways in certain conditions. To know those conditions and be able to predict the behavior in new situations *is* understanding what charge is.

I fail to see how the same would not be true for consciousness. If we are able to predict conscious states and find correlates with neural activities, isn't that *exactly* what is required to understand consciousness?

The hard problem isn't philosophical, it's scientific. That's the whole point of this conversation. The easy part is explaining how the brain works, biologically, chemically, electrically. The hard part hovers above the process, because it asks why we feel the process.

Well, if it is my brain that is processing the information, it makes sense that I am the one that experiences it, right? My brain wouldn't be processing the information and someone else experiencing it, right? We feel the process because 'feeling the process' is precisely what the brain does: it makes up a model that includes 'you' and processes incoming information with respect to that model. That *is* feeling or experiencing. I'm not sure what else is required.

 

[Polymath257]

Aren't you just using function as an excuse not to look for purpose? Widen your view. Functions serve purpose.

Aren't you looking for purpose even when it is likely not to be there? And then using mere function to claim purpose?

I *do* look for purpose. But I don't expect to find it everywhere. I expect to find it where there are living things using materials to construct new items. That pretty much limits 'purpose' to Earth as far as we know.

 

[Heyo]

The hard part hovers above the process, because it asks why we feel the process.

Facts don't care about your feelings.
1. Feelings are subjective, science is objective.
2. Science explains the "how". The moment you ask "why" you are performing religion or philosophy.

 

[ratiocinator]

If I am blindly accepting conclusions handed to me by others, who are these others???
If you say religion, have I not said that I have found no religion that really understands God at all?

I don't know but the idea that things are designed and that there is a god are very common ideas in religion. If you've just made it up yourself and still can't present it logically, then that's even worse.

 

[Polymath257]

In order to find proof, you must take the journey. You must seek.

I do seek. I don't assume.

Study and see how all these complex things come together. How many complex things do you really think randomly come together?

Who said anything about randomly? They came about through the very precise laws of physics. i don't know why so many people assume that the opposite of 'random' is 'intended'.

The Goal is not Life!! Look again. Put more of those pieces together.

Hmm. But wasn't it you that said the purpose of the sun is to provide energy for life?

Once again, you assume there is a purpose without first showing that there is. This is not, in my opinion, the path of reason.

There are many variables to consider. Sure, there are many different kinds of suns.

And many stars almost identical to the sun with no planets. Not all stars have planets.

Just like the bird flying, it's pointing to something.

that is an assumption, isn't it? Can you support it?

One must also consider that God placed great distances from living planets for very good reason.

No, I do not have to consider that if I don't think there is a God at all. Do you have a demonstration of that?

Simply answers leave the total picture lacking since so much knowledge is missing.

Simple answers like assuming there is always a purpose? I would agree.

Aren't you just using function as an excuse not to look for purpose? Widen your view. Functions serve purpose.

Some times they do. other times they do not. I don't assume that simply because there is a function, that some intellect was involved (so no purpose is assumed).

I would say that you need to widen your views. Allow for the possibility that your assumptions might be wrong.

The energy from the sun hitting the Earth alone is enough energy to supply mankind's total energy needs to date. Mankind does have the technology to accomplish this. On the other hand, multi-angular,not doing this creates learning and advancement in other areas.Variables!!! More is going on than you realize.

And you do realize it, right? You have yet to say anything that I didn't realize was going on, yet I come to a different conclusion than you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!