The question of "how does objective processes give rise to subjective experience" is also potentially backwards. There's no reason to assume that question is any more valid than, "how does subjective experience give rise to objective processes." The latter is much more akin to the idea of God, who is the eternal subjective awareness, creating the physical universe. I believe there is eternal creator and an eternal canvas for creation on the other side. These two opposite eternities are the spiritual and material world, heaven and earth, which are eternally meeting in the present. It's not that one side emerges from the other. It's two opposite eternities in an eternal relationship.
Epistemological puzzles hiding behind an amphiboly.
Apologies.
This teller isn't nearly well educated or well read enough to consider what other cases exist, and it took a genius being supercharged to catch on in the first place.
One wonders too just how many are simple error unknown even to their maker or the usual results of the matter of Babel and how many are maliciously constructed.
Looking forward, by the way to the address of Illusionism.
Yeah, it's a bit of a surprise to see how it's the same mistake appearing over and over again. But then, that's what having a 3D view is going to expose, and I suppose it makes sense that the philosophical BSers would rely upon the same rhetorical trick, given that it obviously worked for 2000 years.
The same structural equivocation of "explain" has independently sustained the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the functionalism-phenomenology debate in epistemology for decades. These aren't two different philosophical mistakes, they're the same mistake appearing in adjacent but related domains. Wherever you see the word "explain" appear in philosophy of mind, you should suspect this equivocation is happening until proven otherwise.
Hmm, people trying to find the science behind consciousness always seem to go off the rails quickly. To me that because is the only solution to the knot is God, or soul, which are 2 parts of the same coin. Of course this is also just another assertion, it is not epistemic knowledge, it is divine knowledge, more valuable, less tangible, much less debatable.
It still puzzles me why peoples arguments dissolve even before they get the obvious definition right.
Consciousness is that which makes us have an experience; any further characterization risks moving from identifying the phenomenon to replacing it with a theoretical surrogate.
Are we in disagreement there? Are any in disagreement?
I don't get the separation into A and B. It seems that is not from Chalmers according to AI-bot. I assume it is from your experience with how people try to answer. The word 'phenomenal states' doesn't mean consciousness in my book, it sounds like just another bait-and-switch.
Consciousness is not even necessarily related to how coffee taste of how red feels. We may all experience different. Consciousness is just the fact that we experience. And no one, including AI's, can ever prove they have a consciousness. Though it is possible we can feel it from soul to soul.
I appreciate your clear descriptions in 'Your Arbitrary termination' and 'Single-dimension collapse'.
The question of "how does objective processes give rise to subjective experience" is also potentially backwards. There's no reason to assume that question is any more valid than, "how does subjective experience give rise to objective processes." The latter is much more akin to the idea of God, who is the eternal subjective awareness, creating the physical universe. I believe there is eternal creator and an eternal canvas for creation on the other side. These two opposite eternities are the spiritual and material world, heaven and earth, which are eternally meeting in the present. It's not that one side emerges from the other. It's two opposite eternities in an eternal relationship.
Just how many of these things cleave to this same issue?
What do you mean by that? Epistemological puzzles hiding behind an amphiboly or something else.
Epistemological puzzles hiding behind an amphiboly.
Apologies.
This teller isn't nearly well educated or well read enough to consider what other cases exist, and it took a genius being supercharged to catch on in the first place.
One wonders too just how many are simple error unknown even to their maker or the usual results of the matter of Babel and how many are maliciously constructed.
Looking forward, by the way to the address of Illusionism.
Yeah, it's a bit of a surprise to see how it's the same mistake appearing over and over again. But then, that's what having a 3D view is going to expose, and I suppose it makes sense that the philosophical BSers would rely upon the same rhetorical trick, given that it obviously worked for 2000 years.
The survivorship bias that these are the kinds of errors that accumulate over time because other errors are caught.
An unprecedented opportunity to catch them now. The pickings will become slim after Triveritas cleans up the space and prevents new ones.
The same structural equivocation of "explain" has independently sustained the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the functionalism-phenomenology debate in epistemology for decades. These aren't two different philosophical mistakes, they're the same mistake appearing in adjacent but related domains. Wherever you see the word "explain" appear in philosophy of mind, you should suspect this equivocation is happening until proven otherwise.
is the brain cringe?
Hmm, people trying to find the science behind consciousness always seem to go off the rails quickly. To me that because is the only solution to the knot is God, or soul, which are 2 parts of the same coin. Of course this is also just another assertion, it is not epistemic knowledge, it is divine knowledge, more valuable, less tangible, much less debatable.
It still puzzles me why peoples arguments dissolve even before they get the obvious definition right.
Consciousness is that which makes us have an experience; any further characterization risks moving from identifying the phenomenon to replacing it with a theoretical surrogate.
Are we in disagreement there? Are any in disagreement?
I don't get the separation into A and B. It seems that is not from Chalmers according to AI-bot. I assume it is from your experience with how people try to answer. The word 'phenomenal states' doesn't mean consciousness in my book, it sounds like just another bait-and-switch.
Consciousness is not even necessarily related to how coffee taste of how red feels. We may all experience different. Consciousness is just the fact that we experience. And no one, including AI's, can ever prove they have a consciousness. Though it is possible we can feel it from soul to soul.
I appreciate your clear descriptions in 'Your Arbitrary termination' and 'Single-dimension collapse'.
It’s only the first post; maybe there will be a research direction in the conclusion.
He's banned for lying.