GENIUS FORUMS

I have no significant questions left, and nothing to figure out

-_-

A relief, and a tragedy at the same time


Anyone else in a similar position?

A conclusion is when the brain gets tired of thinking.

The fact that you quit the race doesn't mean that the race stops.

reedsch wrote:A conclusion is when the brain gets tired of thinking.

OR the question has been answered. You can stay active with new questions, sure, or different analytical models applied to the same problem. But remaining in a perpetual state of conclusion-free retardation is stupid.

Your reference is to a specific condition ("the question" = SINGULAR), whereas both the original post and my reponse were general ("no questions" = PLURAL) .

Actually though I feel better knowing that there are people who have it all figured out, who have reached the finish line, it does mean that there is a light at the end of the tunnel; a final resting place as it were, reward for a life of intellectual toil.
(TIC)

I infer that your definition of "stupid" is carefully crafted so that only you yourself meet all of the terms and conditions for avoiding that particular epithet.

reedsch wrote:Your reference is to a specific condition ("the question" = SINGULAR), whereas both the original post and my reponse were general ("no questions" = PLURAL) .

Actually though I feel better knowing that there are people who have it all figured out, who have reached the finish line, it does mean that there is a light at the end of the tunnel; a final resting place as it were, reward for a life of intellectual toil.
(TIC)

I infer that your definition of "stupid" is carefully crafted so that only you yourself meet all of the terms and conditions for avoiding that particular epithet.

"no questions" = plural?

plural means many questions.
when asked sequentially, they can be answered serially, building on each other, or not. At each phase there can be an answer, unless the question is sufficiently maldefined.

No. It's open to others as well. It's especially available to those who abhor conclusions.

But is it nihilism?

:)

Hades is just stirring the pot. Either that, or that was a posthumous posting.

Hey Hades, exactly how many levels are there Down There?

p.s. Pod-man nowhere did I state that I abhore conclusions. You are just plain trigger-happy, if you don't have a target you seem to feel no hinderance at creating one to suit your needs. Maybe I spent too much time in local politics, it made me sensitive to people putting words in my mouth.

reedsch wrote: Hey Hades, exactly how many levels are there Down There?

However many you want.



And steve coyle, no its not nihilism.

Its just the end -

(original post retracted by author due to excessive sarcasm)

Hades,

Would you like a few questions to ponder, or have you lost interest in philosophy altogether?

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:(original post retracted by author due to excessive sarcasm)

Hades,

Would you like a few questions to ponder, or have you lost interest in philosophy altogether?

Sure, offer me some questions if you like.

Hard Problem of Consciousness

Here's the problem that most fascinates me at the moment. It's essentially the old mind/body problem, but most folks call it the "hard problem of consciousness" or the "explanatory gap" these days. I'll let Chalmers explain it, given that he's the guy who got modern philosophers to pay serious attention to it again...

"The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does." -David Chalmers, Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness

____________
Sorites Paradox

Another interesting problem is the Sorites Paradox. I'm going to present it as it deals with aesthetics, due to the fact that I think it's implications are more easily understood that way:

If I were to play Beethoven's Für Elise on the piano, and I missed a note, would it still be Beethoven's Für Elise? What if I missed two notes? Three? How many notes do I have to get right for the song to still be Für Elise?

If we formulate this problem as it's traditionally conceived outside of aesthetics, we can state it something like this...

A large collection of grains of sand makes a heap. (Premise 1)
A large collection of grains of sand minus one grain makes a heap. (Premise 2)

It seems that if we accept both premise 1 and 2 we must conclude that a single grain of sand can compose a heap. This is because we can reapply premise 2 until such is the case. So which premise is wrong and why? There have been many attempts to answer this, but they generally have large-scale implications that are rather hard to accept. For instance, if we say that "heap" is too vague, then we have to accept that logic fails to work with natural language (this response is called the "ideal language response").

Actually, that ties in quite nicely to the "truth and language" thread on this board. Hmmm...

hades wrote: Q. Hey Hades, exactly how many levels are there Down There?
A. However many you want.

So Dante was full of shit, that lying bastard!

hades wrote: And steve coyle, no its not nihilism.

We should pose the question to the resident expert on Nihilism and all its various guises: Podster, is Hades being nihilistic?

I think he's either being contrarian, sarcastic, or is just tired and needs a break before retuning to the fray AKA combat fatigue. One needs to get into your body for awhile. too much time in your head is not a good thing.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: Hard Problem of Consciousness
It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises.

"you" are a confederation of billions of individual life forms. Some submit that there is nothing beyond the cell except the cooperative action of cells.

But the philosophers in this particular field should probably find something else to do for the next few years until the brain scientists get it all nailed down. Or steal the march on the next inevitable step: once life is proven to consist of nothing but physical (bio-chemical) processes, where do we go from there?

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: Sorites Paradox
A large collection of grains of sand makes a heap. (Premise 1)
A large collection of grains of sand minus one grain makes a heap. (Premise 2)

This seems to be a matter of definitions and semantics...not that I am using the term "semantic" in a dismissive way here. How many grapes in a bunch? How many stars in a galaxy? Part of the reason English became the language of science and technology is because it is able to express precision and meet the need for exactitude. So you tell me how many grains in a heap, and I'll tell you whether you have a heap or not.

reedsch wrote:Hades is just stirring the pot. Either that, or that was a posthumous posting.

Hey Hades, exactly how many levels are there Down There?

p.s. Pod-man nowhere did I state that I abhore conclusions. You are just plain trigger-happy, if you don't have a target you seem to feel no hinderance at creating one to suit your needs. Maybe I spent too much time in local politics, it made me sensitive to people putting words in my mouth.

Do you consider conclusion the product of a lazy and slow mind? Maybe abhor is the wrong word. I sense disdain, however. Do you disdain conclusions in any manner?

"you" are a confederation of billions of individual life forms. Some submit that there is nothing beyond the cell except the cooperative action of cells.

Nevertheless, that doesn't solve the problem of where first-person phenomenal consciousness comes from. Many modern philosophers of mind ascribe to something called functionalism, which is the notion that conscious experience is the processes undergone by the brain, but that alone doesn't solve the problem.

But the philosophers in this particular field should probably find something else to do for the next few years until the brain scientists get it all nailed down. Or steal the march on the next inevitable step: once life is proven to consist of nothing but physical (bio-chemical) processes, where do we go from there?

The way it's looking at the moment, science is never going to "nail it down" insofar as solving HPC is concerned. We've already found a direct correlation between certain particular conscious experiences and specific packets of neurons firing in monkeys (the experiment is described in Sci-Am: Mind, it's really quite clever how the managed it). We've also got some pretty decent theories of intelligence thanks to some folks abandoning the notion that conscious experience plays a causative role in such a thing, and if nothing else, they seem to demonstrate that consciousness doesn't need to play a causative role in brain functioning, so it seems to be something that just sits uselessly on top. I've studied into this area quite a bit, and right now seems a better time then ever to find out a way to hash out the problem, or otherwise conclude that it's impossible to solve.

(btw: I'm currently leaning in the direction that consciousness itself isn't a "physical process" insofar as the term means "describable by physics". All physical truths don't seem to a priori entail all phenomenal truths. Chalmers, Jackson, Block, and some other philosophers have been arguing back and forth on this one for awhile, but it seems to me that property dualism is going to win the day.)

This seems to be a matter of definitions and semantics...not that I am using the term "semantic" in a dismissive way here. How many grapes in a bunch? How many stars in a galaxy? Part of the reason English became the language of science and technology is because it is able to express precision and meet the need for exactitude. So you tell me how many grains in a heap, and I'll tell you whether you have a heap or not.

Still, that appears to invalidate the notion of traditional logic working effectively with natural language. I personally favor such a solution, but a lot of philosophers are uncomfortable with the implications. It makes everything just so darn subjective. Scientists don't use traditional Aristotelean logic, ever since Lord Bacon gave them their "inductive method". Theoretical physicists depend a great deal on math, but that's a sort of symbolic logic (more-or-less), and doesn't necessarily demonstrate any effectiveness on the part of good ol' fashioned non-symbolic philosophical logic.

Regarding the 'hard problem of consciousness', ya I know what it is.

Its no problem to me. Not because I have a bullet-proof answer for it, but because I see it as a misguided question, kind of like asking where the end of the world is, or where a circle begins and ends, etc. I say this because to approach the problem you have to adopt a dualistic view, a subjective / objective dichotomy, and thats baseless.

Also, this type of question leads to no new knowledge about yourself or the world, better to ask, "how does electricity work" or "where is the nearest hospital?" Those questions actually have some function although no philosophical value while the hard problem of consciousness is both functionally useless and philosophically inert.

simply, there is no answer a human can find

hades wrote:I have no significant questions left, and nothing to figure out

I felt that way for a while, after reading "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way." I stopped reading. It was at least six months before I picked up a book again - very unusual for me.

It's a good time to do some artwork, or engage in whatever other hobbies you might have, or start a new one. Relax.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:

"you" are a confederation of billions of individual life forms. Some submit that there is nothing beyond the cell except the cooperative action of cells.

Nevertheless, that doesn't solve the problem of where first-person phenomenal consciousness comes from.

To wit, it either comes from
a. in here (intrinsic)
or
b. out there (extrinsic)

One could posit a 3rd possibility, the interaction of the intrinsic and the extrinsic, after all it would be hard to imagine a being that had no sensory input capability whatsoever would have much to think about or even be considered conscious at all i.e. you can't really have one without the other.

Lemme ask you a related set of questions: Is a tree conscious? An ant? A snake? If life exists as a continuum from single-celled creatures up to the mammals, at what point can we identify the first evidence of what you refer to as consciousness?

hades,

I say this because to approach the problem you have to adopt a dualistic view, a subjective / objective dichotomy, and thats baseless.

I'm not suggesting that one can't solve the problem by accepting a monist view, but any such view I've heard requires assumptions that don't lend well to most modern epistemic outlooks. Anyone can solve a problem by proposing a grandiose metaphysical framework. The problem then is that you get folks debating that their personal grandiose metaphysical framework is better then the other grandiose metaphysical frameworks used to solve it. At the end of the day, I imagine, the best possible solution will involve the least possible metaphysical assumptions, and beg the fewest unanswerable questions.

Reedsch,

Lemme ask you a related set of questions: Is a tree conscious? An ant? A snake? If life exists as a continuum from single-celled creatures up to the mammals, at what point can we identify the first evidence of what you refer to as consciousness?

That's a bloody great question. I'm personally of the opinion that we will never be able to know what sorts of things are conscious excluding ourselves. We have no objective proof that even other people are conscious. Interestingly enough, one of the grandiose metaphysical frameworks that some folks use to solve HPC is pansychism, where everything is assumed to be conscious, in that they all have some sort of what-it's-like feeling intrinsically tied into the noumena they arise from. The idea that a rock might possess some sort of primal form of consciousness, without any sort of self-awareness or intelligence, is interesting to be sure. Although such things are a tough sell, and I'm certainly unwilling to commit to such a perspective.

DHodges wrote:

hades wrote:I have no significant questions left, and nothing to figure out

I felt that way for a while, after reading "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way." I stopped reading. It was at least six months before I picked up a book again - very unusual for me.

It's a good time to do some artwork, or engage in whatever other hobbies you might have, or start a new one. Relax.

yep, thats what I've been doing

Greetings,

hades wrote:I have no significant questions left, and nothing to figure out

Then figure out nothing,

JLJ

Apply your conclusions to the real world now. There is no end of things to think about. Perhaps you should take up a new hobby or way of life so you have new experience to think about. I hope your conclusion wasn't something like "lock myself in a closet and experience true emptiness".