The Inter Mind

Steve Klinko said:
That's the Embarrassment of Science that it has come to this. Science might as well have a Pixie Dust Theory because right now there is nothing.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel it is an "embarrassment" to have open questions in science?
By that logic, anything not currently known is an embarrassment. The only way science could succeed, in your eyes, is if it has solved everything to solve and closed its doors.

Don't be such a drama queen.
 
Steve Klinko said:
I'll take what Einstein says under advisement. Come on, Loosen up. You will never solve the Hard Problem if you don't think in Different ways. I say that because thinking in the Same ways has gotten us nowhere. Science may need new concepts to solve the Hard Problem, but when it is figured out it will be Science that does it. I try to get Science to think in that new way, what ever it will be. I Speculate on things to try to drum up enthusiasm for Speculating on explanations Conscious Experience.
Click to expand...
To me it seems you are saying
No-one knows what conscessness is
Let's call it blah blah blah
We don't know what blah blah blah is but at least we are thinking about it in a different way

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
Why do you feel it is an "embarrassment" to have open questions in science?
By that logic, anything not currently known is an embarrassment. The only way science could succeed, in your eyes, is if it has solved everything to solve and closed its doors.

Don't be such a drama queen.
Click to expand...
No, as I say again and again, Science does not need to Explain everything about all Phenomenon, but Science should at least have a Clue about any Phenomenon in particular. Science has Zero Clues about Conscious Experience itself, which is why it is the Hard Problem of Conscious Experience. What is Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste? How is it that we Experience these things. What is the Thing that is Experiencing these things. Difficult questions. If Science does not do better at figuring these things out then Religious concepts will necessarily fill the Vacuum. Religious concepts also get us nowhere.
 
Michael 345 said:
To me it seems you are saying
No-one knows what conscessness is
Let's call it blah blah blah
We don't know what blah blah blah is but at least we are thinking about it in a different way

:)
Click to expand...
Yes, the old ways of looking at Blah Blah Blah are obviously not working.
 
Steve Klinko said:
Yes, the old ways of looking at Blah Blah Blah are obviously not working.
Click to expand...
You appear to have missed the point entirely

How does changing CONSCESSNESS into BLAH BLAH BLAH give science a new way of looking at it?

Quote here - The Bard something about a rose

:)
 
Steve Klinko said:
No, as I say again and again, Science does not need to Explain everything about all Phenomenon, but Science should at least have a Clue about any Phenomenon in particular. Science has Zero Clues about Conscious Experience itself, which is why it is the Hard Problem of Conscious Experience. What is Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste? How is it that we Experience these things. What is the Thing that is Experiencing these things. Difficult questions. If Science does not do better at figuring these things out then Religious concepts will necessarily fill the Vacuum. Religious concepts also get us nowhere.
Click to expand...

From post#123

Steve

Life . Life needs no religion , Life exists anyway .
 
Steve Klinko said:
I'll take what Einstein says under advisement. Come on, Loosen up. You will never solve the Hard Problem if you don't think in Different ways. I say that because thinking in the Same ways has gotten us nowhere. Science may need new concepts to solve the Hard Problem, but when it is figured out it will be Science that does it. I try to get Science to think in that new way, what ever it will be. I Speculate on things to try to drum up enthusiasm for Speculating on explanations Conscious Experience.
Click to expand...
Ah but first you need to convince science that there is a hard "problem" to be solved in the first place. This is far from clear.

Science works by evaluating objective observations - or as close to objective as we can get, by means of insisting that observations be reproducible, in different places by different people. So if one poses a question such as "What it is like to be a bat?", science can't help.

Or, if one asks what makes a sensation "feel like" something, it is far from clear what sort of reproducible observations one could make to tackle such a question. If there are none, then the question being asked is not a scientific one.

There is a further issue: for a theory to be scientific, it must be testable by observation. It should be able to make successful predictions of what we should be able to observe. Reproducibly, of course.

So tell me, if you say you have a theory of consciousness, what observations could people make to test your theory?
 
exchemist said:
Ah but first you need to convince science that there is a hard "problem" to be solved in the first place. This is far from clear.

Science works by evaluating objective observations - or as close to objective as we can get, by means of insisting that observations be reproducible, in different places by different people. So if one poses a question such as "What it is like to be a bat?", science can't help.

Or, if one asks what makes a sensation "feel like" something, it is far from clear what sort of reproducible observations one could make to tackle such a question. If there are none, then the question being asked is not a scientific one.

There is a further issue: for a theory to be scientific, it must be testable by observation. It should be able to make successful predictions of what we should be able to observe. Reproducibly, of course.

So tell me, if you say you have a theory of consciousness, what observations could people make to test your theory?
Click to expand...

All 6 senses tested at the same time at the same moment . And continuous in seconds , minutes , hours , days etc .

Which Happens Daily , 24/7 , 365 days a year , every year .
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
So tell me, if you say you have a theory of consciousness, what observations could people make to test your theory?
Click to expand...
I'm betting no observations to build a theory to test via making predictions

Perhaps a reference read the web site

I'm waiting for the reveal where this blah blah blah comes out as

Universal Cosmic Consciousness (perhaps that has been overused)

So it might be the new kid on the block a

Quantum Physics Entanglement of the Universal Mind

Place your bets

:)
 
exchemist said:
Ah but first you need to convince science that there is a hard "problem" to be solved in the first place. This is far from clear.

Science works by evaluating objective observations - or as close to objective as we can get, by means of insisting that observations be reproducible, in different places by different people. So if one poses a question such as "What it is like to be a bat?", science can't help.

Or, if one asks what makes a sensation "feel like" something, it is far from clear what sort of reproducible observations one could make to tackle such a question. If there are none, then the question being asked is not a scientific one.

There is a further issue: for a theory to be scientific, it must be testable by observation. It should be able to make successful predictions of what we should be able to observe. Reproducibly, of course.

So tell me, if you say you have a theory of consciousness, what observations could people make to test your theory?
Click to expand...
I think your words are admitting that Science is not able to deal with Conscious Experience at this point in time. This is why I have been saying we need new Concepts and new Perspectives in order to deal with Conscious Experience.
 
Michael 345 said:
You appear to have missed the point entirely

How does changing CONSCESSNESS into BLAH BLAH BLAH give science a new way of looking at it?

Quote here - The Bard something about a rose

:)
Click to expand...
Maybe I did miss your point. What was the BLAH BLAH BLAH, supposed to mean?
 
Steve Klinko said:
I think your words are admitting that Science is not able to deal with Conscious Experience at this point in time. This is why I have been saying we need new Concepts and new Perspectives in order to deal with Conscious Experience.
Click to expand...
We could start with considering "hard facts"....:), instead of asking the "hard question".....:?
 
Steve Klinko said:
Maybe I did miss your point. What was the BLAH BLAH BLAH, supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
He's saying you claim 'the existing mind model is useless' - but that your new mind model makes a merely semantic change. i.e.: How does creating a new word salad to replace the old word salad actually shed any light on the issue?
 
Steve Klinko said:
I think your words are admitting that Science is not able to deal with Conscious Experience at this point in time. This is why I have been saying we need new Concepts and new Perspectives in order to deal with Conscious Experience.
Click to expand...
No, I'm suggesting science will never be able to deal with the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness, specifically, because to science there simply is no "problem" to solve. The "problem", if there is one at all, is philosophical, not scientific. I'm with Massimo Pigliucci on this: https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/What_Hard_Problem :biggrin:

Science is getting by degrees a fairly good handle on consciousness in terms of objectively observable factors, viz. the neural activity in the brain and what affects this, via anaesthesia, the effects of injury, sleep and so forth. But if you ask a question that is about something that has no objectively observable effects, it is ipso facto outside science.

So, while you may say "we" (whoever "we" may be) need new concepts, perspectives or whatever, you should not bring any of this stuff to a science forum and expect to get a favourable hearing for it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
He's saying you claim 'the existing mind model is useless' - but that your new mind model makes a merely semantic change. i.e.: How does creating a new word salad to replace the old word salad actually shed any light on the issue?
Click to expand...
You have obviously not read the website: http://TheInterMind.com. It is way more than a semantic change. It is basically a Paradigm change from current thinking. It is truly an Alternate Perspective on Conscious Experience, from the current Mainstream Beliefs.
 
exchemist said:
No, I'm suggesting science will never be able to deal with the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness, specifically, because to science there simply is no "problem" to solve. The "problem", if there is one at all, is philosophical, not scientific. I'm with Massimo Pigliucci on this: https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/What_Hard_Problem :biggrin:

Science is getting by degrees a fairly good handle on consciousness in terms of objectively observable factors, viz. the neural activity in the brain and what affects this, via anaesthesia, the effects of injury, sleep and so forth. But if you ask a question that is about something that has no objectively observable effects, it is ipso facto outside science.

So, while you may say "we" (whoever "we" may be) need new concepts, perspectives or whatever, you should not bring any of this stuff to a science forum and expect to get a favourable hearing for it.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that is exactly why I post in a Science Forum. I have found the Science to be lacking when it comes to Conscious Experience. I am talking about the Deficiencies of the Science with respect to Conscious Experience. This is certainly an appropriate issue for a Science Forum. If anyone could show me a good Scientific Explanation for Conscious Experience, then ok I'll be satisfied. But saying that it Emerges from the Neurons is unacceptable. This is a Belief, not an Explanation. But if that is your Belief then I can only implore you to think more Deeply about the Conscious Experience itself. How can it just spontaneously be produced by the Neurons? There is a huge Explanatory Gap here. There is no Chain of Logic to get from Neural Activity to Redness, or the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste. This is the classic Hard Problem of Conscious Experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top