Is Consciousness just a word to describe the 5 senses?

[Altair]

Daniel Dennett has an interesting perspective on consciousness. No-nonsense, straightforward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K26f...=CloserToTruth

Originally Posted by WeRDivine

Also dreams are just thoughts from your past experiences, generated as a movie/story by your brain. Your dreams are made up stories, things you've been thinking about mashed up into a story.

''mashed up into a story'' ~ I like how you say that.

Originally Posted by Altair

Daniel Dennett has an interesting perspective on consciousness. No-nonsense, straightforward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K26f...=CloserToTruth



''mashed up into a story'' ~ I like how you say that.

I see your Dennett and raise you a Chalmers and Rovelli.

https://youtu.be/o7pXxpwehhU

LOL!

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

LOL!

....

Originally Posted by Altair

....

Okay, it was a goof. They comically took the views opposite of their normal views. Chalmers coined "The Hard Problem" of consciousness and believes it's a fundamental force or the fundamental force. Consider him a panpsychist. Rovelli, being a physicist, takes the material reductive position.

Here's a more serious take by Chalmers. https://youtu.be/hTIk9MN3T6w?list=PL...ywQvhBzzdrQ A

Dennett's argument is weak. He simply dismisses qualia and his entire argument assumes consciousness is an illusion even though it is the one indisputable aspect of our existence.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Okay, it was a goof. They comically took the views opposite of their normal views. Chalmers coined "The Hard Problem" of consciousness and believes it's a fundamental force or the fundamental force. Consider him a panpsychist. Rovelli, being a physicist, takes the material reductive position.

Here's a more serious take by Chalmers. https://youtu.be/hTIk9MN3T6w?list=PL...ywQvhBzzdrQ A

Dennett's argument is weak. He simply dismisses qualia and his entire argument assumes consciousness is an illusion even though it is the one indisputable aspect of our existence.

What's so relevant about qualia? Yeah, so we have our own experiences, derived from being individuals. Plato got caught up in that qualia, and many Hindus do too... the ''rockness of the rock'', ''the milkness of the milk'', ''the blueness of the sky''. I have a perception and idea of the rock ''having rockness''. Talked about as if it's something real, something separate. I mean seriously... it's just the human brain thinking and imagining. It has its uses to an individual, in art for example.

I'll have a look into Chalmers later..

Originally Posted by Altair

What's so relevant about qualia? Yeah, so we have our own experiences, derived from being individuals. Plato got caught up in that qualia, and many Hindus do too... the ''rockness of the rock'', ''the milkness of the milk'', ''the blueness of the sky''. I have a perception and idea of the rock ''having rockness''. Talked about as if it's something real, something separate. I mean seriously... it's just the human brain thinking and imagining. It has its uses to an individual, in art for example.

I'll have a look into Chalmers later..

Actually qualia precedes thinking. It is the direct experience. You hear a clap (direct experience) and then you think about the clap (indirect experience), giving it name, form and function. The thinking about the clap also results in a direct experience of the thinking which in turn can lead to more indirect experience of the thinking. LOL!

The important point is there is a direct experience before thinking and that's the "Hard Problem" of consciousness. The "Easy Problems" are all the neuronal correlates of perception, which aren't exactly easy in and of themselves.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Actually qualia precedes thinking. It is the direct experience. You hear a clap (direct experience) and then you think about the clap (indirect experience), giving it name, form and function.

Yes.. it starts with the senses, then the brain makes something of it, so where's the ''hard problem''? And language plays a very important part in it too, if you put a child in the wild and it grows up among wolves then it won't do what we do, and create so many abstractions, if at all.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The important point is there is a direct experience before thinking and that's the "Hard Problem" of consciousness.

It's the senses working together with the nervous system. You see/hear/taste/touch/feel something and your brain makes something of it.

Perhaps you are thinking about knowing something intuitively. The more familiar we are with something though, the more likely we will also have a concept of that very thing at the same time our senses observe it. Like when you learn to drive it will be more deterministic and you are aware of it in the beginning, but as an experienced driver you quickly know what to do, so quick in fact that you think your thinking is quicker than your senses. From this one can assume that one's intuition and ''qualia'' are there without the senses or before the senses.

So where is the mystery?

Originally Posted by Altair

It's the senses working together with the nervous system. You see/hear/taste/touch/feel something and your brain makes something of it.

Perhaps you are thinking about knowing something intuitively. The more familiar we are with something though, the more likely we will also have a concept of that very thing at the same time our senses observe it. Like when you learn to drive it will be more deterministic and you are aware of it in the beginning, but as an experienced driver you quickly know what to do, so quick in fact that you think your thinking is quicker than your senses. From this one can assume that one's intuition and ''qualia'' are there without the senses or before the senses.

So where is the mystery?

Nope. From my experience it's the difference between qualia, whatever witnesses qualia and the mind thinking about it. It's very subtle and I suppose that's why it's mostly missed but it's there. Always. In the deepest state of meditation and at the height of activity. Once realized it's unmistakable and unforgettable if not always attainable.

That bit about the deepest state of meditation and the height of activity... These are not mutually exclusive although the one who can lay claim to that continuous state of being is rare indeed. Call him/her a Yogi or Master in the truest sense. In other words Enlightened.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Actually qualia precedes thinking. It is the direct experience. You hear a clap (direct experience) and then you think about the clap (indirect experience), giving it name, form and function. The thinking about the clap also results in a direct experience of the thinking which in turn can lead to more indirect experience of the thinking. LOL!

The important point is there is a direct experience before thinking and that's the "Hard Problem" of consciousness. The "Easy Problems" are all the neuronal correlates of perception, which aren't exactly easy in and of themselves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Qualia are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.


Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:

Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[2]
Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

These various definitions of subjectivity are sometimes joined together in philosophy. The term is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.

Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.[1]

Conclusion: qualia does not precede thinking and is not direct experience. Subjective imagining experiences of the mind are not direct experiences. No subjective experiences of the mind are direct experiences. You used your imagination to turn qualia into its opposite meaning.