Uhm... that's all fine and well but aren't we kinda nitpicking over semantics? I mean tonight I will fall asleep and for hours on end cease to exist yet tomorrow I will awake and recall my name, age, procedures to tie shoelaces, use a knife and fork, construct sentences in two languages etc etc etc you get the picture. To say that I don't remember any of this because my brain doesn't have memory but I do recall it because the brain is... is not an explanation at all. It's just stating an observation.
"The sky is not blue because of light refraction while photons collide with atmosphere particles while traveling through air molecules but it is blue because I perceive it to be blue"
Hmm... Well... I mean... yeah. The distinction escapes me. But then again I don't do this sort of intellectual naval gazing any longer.
To use IP metaphor or whatever doesn't reflect true brain operations or whatever may very well be but to simply state the brain is also doesn't explain anything at all. I can make a statement like that about anything.
"You are not experiencing agony right now because your nails are being pulled out with pliers but the pain of feeling your nails pulled out is"
Uhm... wut? Aren't we laboring the technicalities of this point a little hard? I mean- who gives a shit about the semantics, either way stop pulling my fucking nails.
If the brain doesn't remember because it has no memory but it does recall because it exists can we still use the word memory? Reason I ask is because computer science borrows terminology we had before computers not the other way around.
Similar with knowledge and information. If the brain doesn't process info, neither does a computer. A computer performs voltage sequence permutations seeing as we are harbinging on semantics. Any information processing or encoded meaning in those permutations is something we infer but a computer simply exists. See? I too can play holyerthanthou pseudointellectual BS.
The bottom line is that metaphors and abstractions away from subatomic particle energy vibrations (which is technically the most accurate explanation we have for all things in existence) are useful way to have a conversation about anything yet we somehow feel uncomfortable using them to talk about consciousness even though we are perfectly comfortable using them to talk about everything else. Emphasizing that taboo in the name of intellectual honesty is hypocritical, ironic and sadly missing the point.
Uhm... that's all fine and well but aren't we kinda nitpicking over semantics? I mean tonight I will fall asleep and for hours on end cease to exist yet tomorrow I will awake and recall my name, age, procedures to tie shoelaces, use a knife and fork, construct sentences in two languages etc etc etc you get the picture. To say that I don't remember any of this because my brain doesn't have memory but I do recall it because the brain is... is not an explanation at all. It's just stating an observation.
"The sky is not blue because of light refraction while photons collide with atmosphere particles while traveling through air molecules but it is blue because I perceive it to be blue"
Hmm... Well... I mean... yeah. The distinction escapes me. But then again I don't do this sort of intellectual naval gazing any longer.
To use IP metaphor or whatever doesn't reflect true brain operations or whatever may very well be but to simply state the brain is also doesn't explain anything at all. I can make a statement like that about anything.
"You are not experiencing agony right now because your nails are being pulled out with pliers but the pain of feeling your nails pulled out is"
Uhm... wut? Aren't we laboring the technicalities of this point a little hard? I mean- who gives a shit about the semantics, either way stop pulling my fucking nails.
If the brain doesn't remember because it has no memory but it does recall because it exists can we still use the word memory? Reason I ask is because computer science borrows terminology we had before computers not the other way around.
Similar with knowledge and information. If the brain doesn't process info, neither does a computer. A computer performs voltage sequence permutations seeing as we are harbinging on semantics. Any information processing or encoded meaning in those permutations is something we infer but a computer simply exists. See? I too can play holyerthanthou pseudointellectual BS.
The bottom line is that metaphors and abstractions away from subatomic particle energy vibrations (which is technically the most accurate explanation we have for all things in existence) are useful way to have a conversation about anything yet we somehow feel uncomfortable using them to talk about consciousness even though we are perfectly comfortable using them to talk about everything else. Emphasizing that taboo in the name of intellectual honesty is hypocritical, ironic and sadly missing the point.