Consciousness and color (split from darkness defined)

[StephenH]

Great post Delta1212, really helps clarify the discussion.

 

In your post #38 you attempt to prove (please tell me what you are actually trying to prove) that because humans have no ability to sense oxygen levels in their blood that somehow correlates to this discussion about color perception. I'm not sure what you want me to concede, please enlighten me.

 

The thing being refuted in post #38 is the line of yours that I quoted verbatim, and gave a special label (Molecule's Conjecture) in bold, and that I explicitly say I'm refuting.
And your reading comprehension would have to be pretty appalling to think I was saying humans cannot sense oxygen levels in their blood.

 

Post #38 was not even the first (or last) time in this thread that I've explained the problem with that argument. So quit playing dumb and actually try to respond to it.

[koti]

Great post Delta1212, really helps clarify the discussion.

 

 

The thing being refuted in post #38 is the line of yours that I quoted verbatim, and gave a special label (Molecule's Conjecture) in bold, and that I explicitly say I'm refuting.

And your reading comprehension would have to be pretty appalling to think I was saying humans cannot sense oxygen levels in their blood.

 

Post #38 was not even the first (or last) time in this thread that I've explained the problem with that argument. So quit playing dumb and actually try to respond to it.

 

I still don't understand what problem you are having with my reasoning. Is it the word "sensation" ?

I assume you agree that organisms do things for evolutionary reasons ?

You can plugin as many stimuli to your thought experiments as you like and still the only problem I see that you might be having is the word "sensation" which I addressed in my original post with "within its own level of perception"

 

As for what you said about me playing dumb, I genuinely don't know what your stance is hence I asked. You are refuting my post #18 based on the word "sensation" which we can't seem to agree might mean different things for different species. I don't think that insults are of any help here. More respect would be advisable.

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by koti

[StephenH]

 

I still don't understand what problem you are having with my reasoning. Is it the word "sensation" ?

I assume you agree that organisms do things for evolutionary reasons ?

You can plugin as many stimuli to your thought experiments as you like and still the only problem I see that you might be having is the word "sensation" which I addressed in my original post with "within its own level of perception"

 

As for what you said about me playing dumb, I genuinely don't know what your stance is hence I asked. You are refuting my post #18 based on the word "sensation" which we can't seem to agree might mean different things for different species. I don't think that insults are of any help here. More respect would be advisable.

 

The point is simply this: you reasoned that if an organism has some evolutionary reason for detecting some stimulus then it must have an inner sensation of that stimulus. And from context, and the topic of this thread, by "inner sensation" both you and I surely agree that we're talking about qualia: subjective, first-person phenomena like pain, colors, smells etc. The problem is, this line of reasoning is demonstrably false, because we can give examples of stimuli that humans detect, and respond to, and have good evolutionary reason for doing so, and yet would all agree are not associated with any qualia.

The autonomic system, for example, is by definition part of the brain that processes stimuli without associated subjective states.

 

The "within its own level of perception" thing is meaningless. It's essentially saying: They have as much inner experience as they have. Obviously I'd agree with that tautology. However I don't see any grounds for assuming that that amount of inner experience is any greater than that of a digital camera, or my autonomic system, or a rock i.e. none whatsoever.

I'm not saying they don't have inner experiences, only that you have not given any reason to suppose they do, since your argument doesn't work.

Edited April 23, 2017 by StephenH

[koti]

The point is simply this: you reasoned that if an organism has some evolutionary reason for detecting some stimulus then it must have an inner sensation of that stimulus. And from context, and the topic of this thread, by "inner sensation" both you and I surely agree that we're talking about qualia: subjective, first-person phenomena like pain, colors, smells etc. The problem is, this line of reasoning is demonstrably false, because we can give examples of stimuli that humans detect, and respond to, and have good evolutionary reason for doing so, and yet would all agree are not associated with any qualia.

The autonomic system, for example, is by definition part of the brain that processes stimuli without associated subjective states.

 

The "within its own level of perception" thing is meaningless. It's essentially saying: They have as much inner experience as they have. Obviously I'd agree with that tautology. However I don't see any grounds for assuming that that amount of inner experience is any greater than that of a digital camera, or my autonomic system, or a rock i.e. none whatsoever.

I'm not saying they don't have inner experiences, only that you have not given any reason to suppose they do, since your argument doesn't work.

Substitute "sensation" with "reason" - better ?

Obviously we disagree on a fundamental level and were only a thread or so away from a full on flame war on ethics and religion so I will leave it here.

[StephenH]

Substitute "sensation" with "reason" - better ?

Obviously we disagree on a fundamental level and were only a thread or so away from a full on flame war on ethics and religion so I will leave it here.

No, that would be a completely different argument from the one you've given, and would be off-topic for this thread anyway. Also it would still be false for basically the same reason.

 

What I'm waiting for is: "OK, my argument about 'good evolutionary reasons' implying they must have inner sensations doesn't work" or "No Stephen, the reason the autonomic system, reflexes, proprioception etc don't refute my point is _________"

[koti]

No, that would be a completely different argument from the one you've given, and would be off-topic for this thread anyway. Also it would still be false for basically the same reason.

 

What I'm waiting for is: "OK, my argument about 'good evolutionary reasons' implying they must have inner sensations doesn't work" or "No Stephen, the reason the autonomic system, reflexes, proprioception etc don't refute my point is _________"

Try reading my last post again Stephen. Maybe someone else will be able to explain to you that the autonomic system and reflexes cannot be used to refute my argument. I tried and failed. I'm withdrawing from this debate because the crux of our disagreement is ethical and not really resolvable. Sensation has clearly different meaning to me and you. You are obviously inteligent and Im sure you are more knowledgeable on neuroscience than I am so the fact that you are incapable of parsing my argument: "sensation within their own perception capabilities" has to have some moral and/or religious ground - and I choose to not talk religion. Edited April 24, 2017 by koti

[StephenH]

Try reading my last post again Stephen. Maybe someone else will be able to explain to you that the autonomic system and reflexes cannot be used to refute my argument. I tried and failed. I'm withdrawing from this debate because the crux of our disagreement is ethical and not really resolvable. Sensation has clearly different meaning to me and you. You are obviously inteligent and Im sure you are more knowledgeable on neuroscience than I am so the fact that you are incapable of parsing my argument: "sensation within their own perception capabilities" has to have some moral and/or religious ground - and I choose to not talk religion.

Your last post said Substitute "sensation" with "reason" - better ? and that was it.

What explanation did I miss in that single short question? How does this address the point being put to you?

 

Possibly my language in threads like this can be a little harsh, and make people defensive -- I know possibly I need to dial it back, it's true.

But you've now taken defensiveness to the next level: so many attempts to avoid the point, culminating in now claiming you can't continue because the discussion has become religious, when no-one has mentioned religion but you...wow.