Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Emphasizing The Connection Perspective


Forums Forums Philosophy Emphasizing The Connection Perspective

This topic contains 94 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Steven J Klinko 9 hours, 8 minutes ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 95 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #309937

    TimB
    Participant

    Come to think of it, the term “qualia” seems rather useless, to me.

    #309938

    Write4U
    Participant

    Can we ask if  “empathy” is a related emotion.  The same electro-chemical response to watching someone actually performing some task. To be able to anticipate someone’s action by mere bodylanguage.

    Or for two people experiencing the same emotion while watching something tragic, or cute, or painful , or delightful. The crowd at a football game feeling the “moment” and breaking out in cheering in concert.

    Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another’s position.[1] Definitions of empathy encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

    IMO, this is due to the basic similarity in brain’s physically hardwired processing structure with subtle differences in personal emotional interpretations from associative experiences and memories.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  Write4U.
    #309941

    TimB
    Participant

    Emotions of all sorts are basically respondent behaviors.  i.e., behaviors that are elicited by stimuli. (Emotions are wired in.  We don’t have to learn to feel emotions.  It happens automatically.  We can learn to name, and identify many different emotions. We can learn when we are likely to respond emotionally to what and when. We can learn ways to adaptively deal with the emotions. But the emotions themselves just happen in response to stimuli.

    If I happen to experience the same emotion while watching something tragic, or cute, or painful , or delightful, as another person feels while watching the same thing, it is still just my emotional behavior that I am covertly exhibiting. If I hear a person who is in pain, I may have empathic behaviors.  One of which could be “imagining” what that person’s pain feels like.  This could be enhanced by my remembering a time that I had an injury that might elicit a similar pain.  Anyway, all behaviors.

    #309972

    Steven J Klinko
    Participant

    TimB: Steven, the hypothesis re: Consciousness that I have been touching on, is quite coherent.  It is you that is having difficulty with the terms “Behavior” and “Experiences”.  I am suggesting that Experiencing something IS a behavior – a mental behavior that occurs on a neurological level.  You say “Redness is an Experience”.  Now who is incoherent?  You say “Redness has nothing to do with Behavior”. But if one sees something red, that is a perceptual behavior.  If one says to oneself “That is a beautiful red apple.” then he is engaging in thinking behavior and simultaneously perceiving and being aware of perceiving the apple. There are an infinite # of possible behaviors that could involve the color red.

    Ok, now I see what you are saying. You are saying that the Neural Activity is the Behavior. Ok let’s define Behavior that way. Where you are getting confused is that you are saying, without justification, that then the Experience is the same thing as the Neural Activity. Usually Physicalists just say it directly: The Experience of Redness is the Neural Activity for Redness. It is a type of material Oneness belief that everything is Material, paralleling the New agers Consciousness Oneness belief that everything is Consciousness. But you are wrapping the thing up in another unnecessary layer by throwing the term Behavior into the mix. The statement that the Experience is the Neural Activity is however just as Incoherent. Like I said in the OP Science has tried to assume this for a hundred years and they have absolutely Zero understanding of how this could be true. The Neural Activity is merely the Neural Correlate of the Conscious Experience. It is not logical to assume that the Neural Activity is the Conscious Experience. That would be a Speculation not a proven fact of reality. It could be true but that has not been shown by anyone yet. The Connection Speculation is just as valid as your Oneness Speculation.

    #310035

    TimB
    Participant

    Steven said, “…The Neural Activity is merely the Neural Correlate of the Conscious Experience. It is not logical to assume that the Neural Activity is the Conscious Experience…”

    That is all wrong.  1st off, the neural activity (aka, the neural correlate)  is ALSO the Conscious Experience (the “conscious experience” being whatever composite of mental behaviors are in play for that period of being conscious.) Secondly, it is indeed logical to consider that neural activity itself IS the conscious experience.

    Consider this:  We know that all physical behaviors have neurological correlates.  (All mental behaviors have neurological correlates, also.)

    We know that we can generate neurological correlates that are quite similar to the neurological coordinates of a given behavior, by imagining doing that behavior.

    There would be tremendous value in recognizing that consciousness, awareness, perception, are simply various mental behaviors.   The most important, ultimately, I think, would be the fact that there are established rules of behavior.  An understanding of consciousness, I think, would expand tremendously with this paradigm.

    #310081

    Steven J Klinko
    Participant

    TimB: That is all wrong.  1st off, the neural activity (aka, the neural correlate)  is ALSO the Conscious Experience (the “conscious experience” being whatever composite of mental behaviors are in play for that period of being conscious.) Secondly, it is indeed logical to consider that neural activity itself IS the conscious experience.

    It’s not really logical to think that the Neural Activity IS the Conscious Experience. This is most evident if you think about something like the Experience of Redness. Neural Activity is a type of Phenomenon and the Experience of Redness is another totally different type of Phenomenon. It boggles the mind to grapple with these two disparate types of Phenomenon and logically conclude they are the same thing. It is more logical, especially at this infantile stage of our understanding of Conscious Experience, to just admit that the Experience of Redness is something so vastly different than Neural Activity that initially they should be conceptually separated. The research goal will then be to figure out (the Hard Problem) how it is that these diverse Phenomena are Connected to each other. This might be a Neural Activity process Connection, or an actual new type of Conceptual Connection from the Neural Activity Domain to the Conscious Experience Domain. If the Connection can be found to exist solely in the Neurons as some kind of yet to be discovered Process then that’s fine. However assuming it’s in the Neurons is not fine. It would be a pure Speculation when you consider the completely different Nature of the two Phenomena.

     

    TimB: Consider this:  We know that all physical behaviors have neurological correlates.  (All mental behaviors have neurological correlates, also.)

    From this I think you are saying that the Experience of something like Redness is a Behavior that has a Correlated Neural Activity. But I thought you said earlier that the Neural Activity was the Behavior. I don’t yet see how calling things Behaviors, that are already well defined in other ways, helps get us closer to understanding the Consciousness problem. But since Science has Zero understanding of Consciousness, everything is still on the table and you could be right.

    #310103

    TimB
    Participant

    You said “Neural Activity is a type of Phenomenon and the Experience of Redness is another totally different type of Phenomenon.”

    What is this mysterious “Experience of Redness”?  How does it differ from “seeing the color red” or from “visualizing something red, or imagining something red” (all of which would have neurological correlates)? Is it something about feelings mixed in?  Feelings are behaviors too, you know, they are typically respondent (unconditioned and sometimes conditioned).

    The benefit of understanding these things as behaviors, is that we know the rules of behavior.  Behavior is functional.  So we can come to a better understanding of the relevant controlling stimuli.  We can have better descriptions of what is going on and why.  We will have better opportunities to predict and even change behavior if we have a realistic model rather than something mysterious and inexplicable.

    Let me balance out you comment that I could be right.  I could also be wrong, but I don’t think so.

    #310134

    TimB
    Participant

    Re:   The neural correlates of a mental behavior being the same thing as the mental behavior.

    Consider the neural correlates of a physical behavior (let’s say tapping your foot).  With the tap of your foot, there are neural correlates.  The neural correlates are not the entire behavior, but they are definitely a requisite part of the behavior.

    With consciousness behaviors, the neural correlates happen simultaneously with the subjective experiencing.  So in this case, the behavior is a composite of the neural correlates (which can potentially be crudely detected with existing technologies) on the one hand, and on the other hand, the subjective experience which cannot be, outwardly, directly, detected.

     

     

    #310155

    Steven J Klinko
    Participant

    TimB: You said “Neural Activity is a type of Phenomenon and the Experience of Redness is another totally different type of Phenomenon.”
    What is this mysterious “Experience of Redness”? How does it differ from “seeing the color red” or from “visualizing something red, or imagining something red” (all of which would have neurological correlates)? Is it something about feelings mixed in? Feelings are behaviors too, you know, they are typically respondent (unconditioned and sometimes conditioned).

    When we See Redness we are Experiencing Redness. No added emotion or anything else. Just the Redness itself. Redness is a thing in itself that must be Explained. Think about the Redness itself. Don’t ignore the thing itself by calling it a Behavior. The Redness itself is very Mysterious. The Redness itself is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

    I suppose you will also say that things like the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, and the feeling of Pain are Behaviors. I think that Conscious Experiences can elicit Behaviors, but to say that the Conscious Experiences themselves are Behaviors is Incoherent and rings hollow to me.

    #310156

    TimB
    Participant

    Again, redness, tones, saltiness are not behaviors. Mentally experiencing those things are the behaviors.

    You say “Redness is a thing in itself that must be Explained… The Redness itself is very Mysterious.”

    For whatever reason our neurology and eyes allow us to perceive colors.  So yes perceiving is a behavior. Tasting, seeing, hearing, feeling pain are perception behaviors.

    I don’t get why “redness” is supposedly some mysterious, inexplicable thing.  We perceive colors due to different light waves (maybe with a little xtra brain processing to present an interpretation of the particular light waves that go with the particular color of a thing as Write4U suggested).

     

    #310157

    Steven J Klinko
    Participant

    TimB: I don’t get why “redness” is supposedly some mysterious, inexplicable thing. We perceive colors due to different light waves (maybe with a little xtra brain processing to present an interpretation of the particular light waves that go with the particular color of a thing as Write4U suggested).

    If you still think that Redness has anything to do with Wavelengths of Light then I can see why you would have trouble understanding the Hard Problem. The Redness Experience will obviously have nothing to do with Wavelengths of Light when you are having a Vivid Color dream with Redness in the Dream Scene. Think about the Redness. It has nothing to do with the 670nm Electromagnetic phenomenon. The Electromagnetic phenomenon is a travelling Oscillation of Electric and Magnetic fields at a particular Wavelength. The Redness Experience has no Oscillatory Properties. It is just a continuous Experience of Redness in an area of your total Conscious Light Scene that is embedded in the front of your face. The Redness is a Surrogate for the Electromagnetic Phenomenon. You never have seen any Electromagnetic Light but only the Surrogate that is generated by your Brain/Mind.

    So do you think you know what this Surrogate Redness Experience actually is? If you did know what it was you would have solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness. What is the Redness Experience itself? Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion. It is a Phenomenon of the Conscious Mind that will require new ways of thinking to completely understand it.

    #310158

    Lausten
    Keymaster

    You never have seen any Electromagnetic Light but only the Surrogate that is generated by your Brain/Mind.

    A guy on my track team explained this to me when we were on the bus to a meet. He was 15. This is just a redefinition of the word “seen”. Normally, “seeing” means whatever happens when those waves contact an eye that is connected to a brain. Depending on what animal is connected to the brain, it might appear different, but the waves remain constant.

    Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion.

    This suggests that if I did this deeper thinking I’d arrive at a different conclusion. But so far, you’ve only stated that the conclusions expressed here and elsewhere are wrong. Are you leading up to something, or are you just not satisfied with what the rest of the world says about experiencing color?

    #310171

    Steven J Klinko
    Participant

    You never have seen any Electromagnetic Light but only the Surrogate that is generated by your Brain/Mind.

    Lausten: A guy on my track team explained this to me when we were on the bus to a meet. He was 15. This is just a redefinition of the word “seen”. Normally, “seeing” means whatever happens when those waves contact an eye that is connected to a brain. Depending on what animal is connected to the brain, it might appear different, but the waves remain constant.

    Do you understand that you have never seen Electromagnetic Light but just your own internal Surrogate in place of the Electromagnetic Light?

    Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion.

    Lausten: This suggests that if I did this deeper thinking I’d arrive at a different conclusion. But so far, you’ve only stated that the conclusions expressed here and elsewhere are wrong. Are you leading up to something, or are you just not satisfied with what the rest of the world says about experiencing color?

    I’ve talked about the Internal Surrogate for the Electromagnetic Light. That is nothing new. It is the central concept that the Hard Problem is based on. Since I think that you and TimB reject the Hard Problem of Consciousness, I am just trying to figure out why you reject it. It is usually because of a misunderstanding of what the Hard Problem actually is. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is to Explain what that Internal Surrogate is. What is that Experience of Redness?

    #310176

    Lausten
    Keymaster

    Do you understand that you have never seen Electromagnetic Light but just your own internal Surrogate in place of the Electromagnetic Light?

    Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion.

    So, you are acting like a bot now. Just repeating yourself. You are replacing “internal Surrogate” for “seen”. Then telling me to think and putting Tim’s words into my mouth. Not that Tim’s words are wrong, I just have my own, thank you.

    #310181

    Steven J Klinko
    Participant

    Lausten: So, you are acting like a bot now. Just repeating yourself. You are replacing “internal Surrogate” for “seen”. Then telling me to think and putting Tim’s words into my mouth. Not that Tim’s words are wrong, I just have my own, thank you.

    “Seen” will imply to Direct Realists that they are Seeing the actual thing as it is. “Internal Surrogate” eliminates that interpretation. I assumed you would be in the Illusion camp not the Behavior camp, but I suppose I was talking to both of you.

     

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 95 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.