I'm talking about any internal feeling, sensation or anything else that is felt which is private to the subject. It doesn't have to be thinking. Any degree of internal, private experience is ridiculous and absurd to explain under the umbrella of current knowledge.
If your questions was in earnest my only question is, can a finite universe contain so much fail?
I don't understand this. Why is it absurd to explain an internal, private experience? A stomach ache is an internal, private experience. I'm sure a doctor could tell you both the cause of it, and why it's important that you be able to experience it. He could put you in a functional MRI machine and see what part of your brain was reacting to and processing that sensation. What level of explanation are you looking for here that goes beyond that?
You see, this is the real problem at hand here. People just don't grasp the hard problem of consciousness, they really don't get it. I think I just came to that conclusion.
They can't imagine that with our impressive current scientific knowledge that there could be something this baffling, yet this close to our every day experience. I am not trying to insult you, believe me, but I just don't think I can do any more to explain it than I already have.
This is something you will have to think on yourself. Google "hard problem of consciousness" and try to understand why they say its "hard". Once you get it, you will understand why its so damn hard.
There is an apparent disconnect between matter (regardless of its arrangement) and experience. The disconnect is in the explanation, because clearly matter has experience. Explaining that is hard. Explaining a stomach ache is easy in terms of biology, but what is experiencing the stomach ache? Does your brain feel it? Why should it? How does a neuron, or group of neurons, transition from being pieces of matter, to being something that "feels".
How does matter end up becoming an observer or experiencer? You have a universe filled with stuff. None of it should be able to observe or experience anything regardless of arrangement or complexity. Complexity is not enough to explain it. Something is missing.
Do you enjoy trying to insert random spiritual things into places where clearly none of it is needed, just because you "feel" it should be there?
The hard problem of consciousness is not a random spiritual thing. Maybe someone lied to you or you googled a bad page or something.
There is an apparent disconnect between matter (regardless of its arrangement) and experience. The disconnect is in the explanation, because clearly matter has experience. Explaining that is hard. Explaining a stomach ache is easy in terms of biology, but what is experiencing the stomach ache? Does your brain feel it? Why should it? How does a neuron, or group of neurons, transition from being pieces of matter, to being something that "feels".
How does matter end up becoming an observer or experiencer? You have a universe filled with stuff. None of it should be able to observe or experience anything regardless of arrangement or complexity. Complexity is not enough to explain it. Something is missing.
So I did as you asked, and it amounts to nothing IMO. The "hard problem of consciousness" is just another way of assuming that experience is somehow more than the sum of the physical processes that make it happen.....In the end, I suppose I can't answer the question definitively, but I can throw plenty of wrenches into the "hard problem of consciousness" idea.
Saying that experience is the sum of non experience based activity is like saying the sun revolves around the earth because it looks like it does.
Unless you can show that the problem isn't hard, you have no wrenches to throw.
Saying that experience is the sum of non experience based activity is like saying the sun revolves around the earth because it looks like it does.
Unless you can show that the problem isn't hard, you have no wrenches to throw.
The science zealots have their jimmies a little bit rustled eh?!
And I assure you, I understand the hard problem on consciousness much better than you do.
there's no such thing as a science zealot. natural law goes on doing it's thing whether you like it or not.
Saying that experience is the sum of non experience based activity is like saying the sun revolves around the earth because it looks like it does.
Unless you can show that the problem isn't hard, you have no wrenches to throw.
It's something obviously pastors don't have at all, especially ones with AIDS and ones on TV in $5000 suits.explain consciousness.
ITT: Moonbogg ponders subjectivity of experience, and Cerpin takes everything as literally as possible even when it doesn't make sense to do so.
Then you don't get it.So I did as you asked, and it amounts to nothing IMO.
No, it isn't. It's a collection of legitimate questions for which current science has inadequate answers.The "hard problem of consciousness" is just another way of assuming that experience is somehow more than the sum of the physical processes that make it happen.
This is not what the hard problem is about.I simply doubt that's true. It's the same argument BTW, that people make when describing transcendent religious experiences. They say that the joy they felt when they took Jesus as their personal savior was beyond anything that could be felt without God personally touching them. To that I simply say, how do you know that? All you really know is that you experienced more joy that you personally ever felt before. It's a new high point in your life for sure, but you can't say with any certainty that it goes beyond what is possible for a normal human.
There are many persuasive arguments. Read "Mind, Machines, and Godel," for example. Read a bunch of the papers here: http://consc.net/online/1/allLikewise Chalmers asserts that the quality of experience goes beyond the mechanical physical aspects of the human brain. How does he know that?
Perhaps you overestimate it.Perhaps he underestimates what is possible with mere physical parts.
Your dismissive behavior only reveals your ignorance.Just because something "feels" special doesn't mean that it is.
If we assume that rain fell upward then an ocean in the sky would make sense, too.If you assume for a moment that all that we experience is indeed caused by the physical interactions of our senses and our brain, then you see that we would have no frame of reference for anything beyond that.
No, we really aren't. This is a serious problem that is being worked on by serious individuals.We are simply arbitrarily assigning the most mysterious parts of it to that realm.
Why? Because it "feels" like that should be enough of an explanation?Stop thinking in terms of what matter should be able to do. A hunk of unformed metal couldn't get you to france, but shape it into an airplane and it can. You could make the argument that hunks of metal "shouldn't" be able to fly under their own power. A neuron can't be said to "feel" anything, but a few billion of them? Well I suppose they can.
The plan is an idea. Consciousness is not an idea. It is a real phenomenon.Anything complex that can be divided into small parts can be seen that way too. Spies in the cold war would often know only a small part of a larger plan so as to avoid giving the enemy too much information if they were caught. Think them as neurons. Individually none of them were "the plan", but all of them working in concert were. Perhaps it works the same way in the brain.
Ok, then do so.In the end, I suppose I can't answer the question definitively, but I can throw plenty of wrenches into the "hard problem of consciousness" idea.
Why wouldn't it make sense to speak literally when trying investigate something rigorously? You think science should employ more poetic license?
Philosophy naturally takes over when the question is poorly framed.
Am I an idiot? You're the guy that must've gone to Lieutenant Data's school of conversationalism, so you tell me.