[ExI] [Extropolis] test this idea

[William Flynn Wallace]

OK, let's everybody jump on me:  how about this:  consciousness is the
private experiences of a person's inner and outer world.  It is nothing
more than an awareness of incoming stimuli (at least some of them) from the
outside world and from the person's unconscious mind and short term memory
(temporary storage of experiences).  This awareness is greatly turned off
in sleep (though powerful stimuli can get through and awaken the person).
Simple things like EEG can determine the level of awareness (and they claim
they can tell sometimes what a person is dreaming!).

If consciousness is anything more than the above, let me know.  Maybe I am
naive but I can learn.   I don't think there is any mystery to it.
Certainly not any ghosts. bill w

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:09 PM Terren Suydam <terren.suydam at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:08 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:44 AM Terren Suydam <terren.suydam at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The obvious answer is that  our world appears to be lawfully ordered
>>>> and constrained by the laws of physics because our universe *IS* lawfully
>>>> ordered and constrained by the laws of physics. And Occam's razor says
>>>> the simplest explanation that explains an observation is the best.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Yes, that is the obvious answer, but sometimes the obvious answers
>>> are wrong.*
>>>
>>
>> But usually they are not, usually Occam's razor is a very effective
>> strategy and I see absolutely no reason to deviate from it in this case.
>>
>
> But you said yourself that you need to sweep some inconvenient facts under
> the rug to make physicalism work. Even if you ultimately choose not to
> deviate from it, that is clearly a reason to do so.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> *>>> It's just saying that the Hard Problem is a proof that the axioms
>>>>> at the heart of physicalism are wrong.*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>If I knew exactly what the hard problem was maybe I'd agree I don't
>>>> know. But at least tell me this, tell me what sort of thing would convince
>>>> you that the "hard problem" had been solved? If somebody said X produces
>>>> consciousness then what sort of thing would X have to be, could it be
>>>> complex and made of many parts or would it have to be simple and be all of
>>>> one thing and not have parts at all? I'm assuming you would demand that X
>>>> be pure objective stuff since you're trying to figure out how to jump over
>>>> the huge subjective/objective gap. Is my assumption correct?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> I don't think the hard problem can be solved, that's why I'm no
>>> longer a physicalist. I think the "Hard Problem" is actually a poor name
>>> for what it's describing, because calling something a problem suggests
>>> there's a solution. It's more of a category error. Idealism makes the
>>> category error go away. Nothing "produces" consciousness. Consciousness is
>>> primary.*
>>>
>>
>> So your brute fact is that something as wonderful and complex as c
>> onsciousness just is, and that's that. My brute fact is that something
>> as wonderful and complex as consciousness is the result of the simplest
>> thing conceivable, something that can have only 2 states, for example on or
>> off. I like my brute fact better and I'm pretty sure William of Ockham
>> would too, and as an added bonus it agrees with experimental results (the
>> effects of anesthesia and poison) which your brute fact does not.
>>
>
> Your brute fact is a category error and a base contradiction. It's saying
> the ghost *is *the machine, and yet physicalism only allows machines.
> For physicalists who allow consciousness, they are at complete odds with
> the rest of their metaphysics. They allow it because they have to (unless
> they're courageous enough to deny consciousness), but it's a terribly
> inconvenient fact that consciousness exists, which is why most physicalists
> would really rather not talk about it.
>
> Terren
>
>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "extropolis" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0nDYP5q6PzqdkT%3DjWtbDBr_JoBvE%2BmkFR3A_sGZgW%3DJA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0nDYP5q6PzqdkT%3DjWtbDBr_JoBvE%2BmkFR3A_sGZgW%3DJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAMy3ZA9%3DM6Sx_qnnv0LSrG5ktcXu%3D-zf%2BvXA4%2B8uVT5eFNvCJg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAMy3ZA9%3DM6Sx_qnnv0LSrG5ktcXu%3D-zf%2BvXA4%2B8uVT5eFNvCJg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230110/96f8dba7/attachment.htm>