March 02, 2017

Dismissive itself is complete nonsense

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness Hype
Thanks, Teed Rockwell, for your reply. Concerning your paper "The Hard Problem is Dead; Long live the hard problem". You start with:
"I think the hard problem needs to be dealt with by analyzing and reconfiguring many of our basic assumptions not just about consciousness, but in what appear to be concepts distantly related to it."

OK. For me, what you call "reconfiguring many of our basic assumptions not just about consciousness" means that we have to suggest a cardinally new meta-theory with all that it implies. My paper is on the problems of constructing a meta-theory as such. I hold that even before to start talking about consciousness we need first to construct a special language. The languages we use for everyday communication, as well as a language of Philosophy are not good here.

But, then you suggest:
"I'm therefore going to begin this paper by considering the relationship between knowledge and experience."

But what this gives us? For me, both knowledge and experience are the products of consciousness. They are the elements of our Phenomenal Reality that our consciousness constructs for each of us. To the point, Chalmers is a philosopher, but I am talking about a need to construct a valid scientific discipline, to wit, strict, objective, and so on. As I see, the main object of your paper is to criticize others, but where are your own solutions?

Then you conclude:
"I would hope even more that it is actually a pseudo-problem,..."

Indeed, if you have a key, the problem of entering your home will be a pseudo-problem for you. But, what if somebody does not have a key? It will be a real problem for him to enter your home. Similarly, if I have a method and models appropriate to deal with consciousness, then the hard problem of consciousness is a pseudo-problem for me. But what makes you to consider this problem to be a pseudo-problem for you?

As to David Chalmers, I have contacted him many times for the last 15+ years, but he showed no interest in any deep exchange of opinions. And I know why. For there to be a serious discussion, two persons must have their own solutions to the same problem. I have my own solution (good or bad -- it does not matter), but David still hasn't any.

A year ago I have started a thread on the jcs-online discussion forum with subject line "David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?" where I examine the similarities between our approaches. It can be found here In case you do not have your Yahoo account, I attach this post in pdf format.

Serge Patlavskiy

>"Not only with study of consciousness, with elementary particles etc, QM is deeply inconsistent and completely waste of time."

In this era of politically correct crystal-gazing, astrology and tarot, skepticism is indeed understandable and called for. The word "quantum" included in a title gives it a progressive "edge" guaranteed to attract the attention of gullible progressives everywhere... quantum cooking, quantum auto-care, quantum herbal remedies, you name it. However, we should not let this fashionable nonsense prejudice our understanding. If one is to dismiss QM as "deeply inconsistent and a complete waste of time," then such dismissives need to be justified by the person making them:

    1) Do they have an alternative model that "hangs together"? One that conforms to a set of consistent principles, within the context of an axiomatic framework? The genius of Isaac Newton comes to mind. By contrast, nothing comparable exists for the life sciences... not even close;
    2) If they do not have an alternative model, can they, at the very least, PROVE their assertion that QM is irrelevant and inconsistent?

Of course I have my own concerns regarding the consistency of established theory and the various interpretations that make the rounds, be it QM or even Einstein's SGR. But any failure to meet either one or both of the above two points establishes that the dismissive itself is complete nonsense.

Stephen Jarosek
RE: [Sadhu Sanga] QM is deeply inconsistent and completely waste of time

[our mind and ego are like the crown and dome of a temple jutting out from the waves while the building is submerged] Sri Aurobindo

[A completely nonphysical spirituality is just as suspect, in my view, as a completely spiritless materialism] ~Bob

[it’s all just the colors on the surface of a ball. It’s the unseen stuff that keeps the ball round that counts...]

[ShashiTharoor wrote a brilliant book exposing the crimes of the British in India. that they helped modernise India]

Read "Theologies of American exceptionalism," a new series @ImmanentFrame guest edited by @eshurd and @WinniSullivan

@Retributions We Indians tread on extremes, Here we have BJPs version of nationalism & Liberals version of Liberty, both farcical.
@pragmatic_rebel @Retributions True, but liberals in UK/ USA are true to their ideology, here it a political opportunism.

Not true, Americans much much talented and skilled than Indian work force, they lead from basics and Indians follow

Richard Feynman and the Connection Machine

[Positive freedom is freedom from inhibition: the power gained by transcending social or psychological constraints.]

@Ram_Guha This is also a part of ' politics of spectacle'. People are addicted to the idea of extravaganza.

Pakistani writing at its best
'Damadam mast Qalandar is a cry of rebellion against established orders' #SehwanBlast 

[just read a few lines at random, re-read them, contemplate over them, or, write a few lines by way of explanation]

[Catharanthus Roseus, referred to as Madagascar Periwinkle, has a deep symbolic meaning. It symbolises PROGRESS.]

Sensible people have started advocating the disarming of the planet. Does that not amount to the demand that the knowledge systems that go into the construction of weaponry—from pistols to hydrogen bombs—be deliberately set aside? I am told that the Japanese monarchs refused to introduce guns in their army for centuries even though the Europeans have been trying hard to sell the lucrative technology. The reason was, in a battle with swords, you have to face another human being from close quarters; so you are compelled to confront the moral issue of killing a human being. In a gun-battle from a distance, you do not face that moral choice.
Why should that argument not extend to the knowledge of making cars and aeroplanes, since these technologies require extraction of bauxite from revered mountains? Once we get the feel of the mess into which modern living has pushed the planet, why should we stop at cars and aeroplanes? Why not computers, mobile phones, skyscrapers, libraries, orchestras, art museums, cities and asphalt roads? The children of the gods of Niyamgiri lived without them happily for thousands of years. Exactly what argument do we have for not emulating their lives in full?

No comments:

Post a Comment