Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[abaddon]

Just posting for support. I'm so tired of consciousness threads that I rarely post in them anymore. This topic is the last resort of woo, the last remaining nook for madness, and so you get what you get.

<snip for brevity>

You are correct. It is all a reformulation of the "God of the gaps" into the "Philosophy of the Gaps".

It gets tiresome.

You will often hear it claimed that "science has not solved X". This may be true.

But science has an evidential track record of solving whichever "X" and philosophy has no such record.

Now, I will not say that philosophy is utterly useless (except when engaging in hyperbole), but it leaves itself open to being hijacked and often seems to even invite said hijacking and the end result seems to be always nothing of substance.

 

[annnnoid]

The brain IS the someone. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Hans

Maybe cause it's utter crap!!!! Don't know about you, but last time I checked I did not exist as electro-bio-chemical phenomena, I exist as cognitive phenomena.

Might that possibly be the reason why folks with varieties of neurosis or psychosis go and see psychologists / psychiatrists and not biologists or chemists...just maybe???????????????

It truly boggles my mind that anyone can insist that the brain and the mind are one and the same...that there is absolutely no differentiation...especially given that the very process that you use to make the claim contradicts the claim.

IOW...it is blindingly obvious that you and everyone else here exists as something not just more than mere electro-bio-chemical activity...but massively more than mere electro-bio-chemical activity. If for no other reason than the simple process of modeling electro-bio-chemical activity implicates a category that is most indisputably NOT the same as electro-bio-chemical activity. Categories may ultimately be arbitrary assignments (cause everything ultimately boils down to the same utter mystery) but they have relevance within the philosophy of science so coherence and consistency demand they be represented.

The fact that we neither know how this ‘category’ is created nor what it is does not mean that it is not anything…duh! It simply means there is much that remains unknown. ‘Unknown’ seems to be a word many skeptics find hard to digest. Head in the sand time.

As for this stupid notion that there is no alternative to science when it comes to dealing with reality…why don’t some of you geniuses take a moment and consider how you created every single post you’ve ever written here.

Did you use any formal application of science to generate the content of any post?

Nope. Cause if you did, the thread would be long dead before you managed to come up with a single contribution (formal science is a sloooooooooooooow process). Thus… something very substantial, very meaningful, and very functional precedes science. If you want evidence, look no further than the process you use to write your next post.

It’s…not…science. But….surprise, surprise…it works.

Unfortunately…you have no idea how you created a single word of a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single post that any of you have ever posted here (but you managed to do it anyway…I wonder how?). At least…no electro-bio-chemical idea.

No one has any idea. These are indisputable facts. Not too mention, that every so-called ‘fact’ that science has achieved is not only an approximation of something…it is also a model of an approximation (that’s what science is…models with degree’s of accuracy). It is not the ‘something’ itself (except in one unique case). No one actually has a clue what anything actually is.

IOW…IT IS ALL WOO…including….YOU. Meaning…any understanding you think you or anyone possesses, is ultimately and entirely (that means 100%) a function of something that neither you nor anyone has the slightest understanding of.

That is reality. 100% faith.

Denial…as they say…is not a river in Egypt. But it sure seems to flow fast and deep through these threads.

What is the point of all this? Just that those of you who fling the woo label around better take a look in the mirror. You can pretend all you want, but woo is you. It is an indisputable fact.

…and Nick…take a moment and explore some of the background to your claims. Subjective identity is not exclusively a function of linguistic intellectual activity (thought). There are innumerable examples of the existence of identity absent linguistic intellectual activity. Unfortunately none of this can be confirmed anymore than any variety of subjective reality can be confirmed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe cause it's utter crap!!!! Don't know about you, but last time I checked I did not exist as electro-bio-chemical phenomena, I exist as cognitive phenomena.

And how is the "electro-bio-chemical phenomena" distinct and different from the "cognitive phenomena" in any meaningful way that isn't just invoking magic or a soul?

Might that possibly be the reason why folks with varieties of neurosis or psychosis go and see psychologists / psychiatrists and not biologists or chemists...just maybe???????????????

Errr the same reason you go to a doctor and not a chemist or a biologist for a broken leg.

Science has sub-disciplines. Where's the mystery?

It truly boggles my mind that anyone can insist that the brain and the mind are one and the same...that there is absolutely no differentiation...especially given that the very process that you use to make the claim contradicts the claim.

Okay. And? Or is this just more "The brain can't prove itself" meaninglessness?

As for this stupid notion that there is no alternative to science when it comes to dealing with reality…why don’t some of you geniuses take a moment and consider how you created every single post you’ve ever written here.

Concepts and processes understandable by science produced every single post you, I, and everyone else on this and every other board produced.

Did you use any formal application of science to generate the content of any post?

You are aware that just because you aren't standing in a lab wearing a lab coat and holding a beaker doesn't make it "not science" right?

Unfortunately…you have no idea how you created a single word of a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single post that any of you have ever posted here (but you managed to do it anyway…I wonder how?). At least…no electro-bio-chemical idea.

Philosophy seems a lot easier to do when you put your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA" when presented with facts.

No one has any idea.

And this is beyond so wrong it's not even wronger than wrong to the point that it isn't even wrong.

IOW…IT IS ALL WOO…including….YOU. Meaning…any understanding you think you or anyone possesses, is ultimately and entirely (that means 100%) a function of something that neither you nor anyone has the slightest understanding of.

Listen I get it. We use the term Woo so you're just slinging it back at us in a wonderful "I am rubber, you are glue" method, but you're wrong.

I get that as a defense mechanism you've rejected the entire concept of being right and wrong, but you're wrong.

 

[abaddon]

Maybe cause it's utter crap!!!! Don't know about you, but last time I checked I did not exist as electro-bio-chemical phenomena, I exist as cognitive phenomena.

Yet that is the only evidence which exisrts. You don't like that. Tough luck.

Might that possibly be the reason why folks with varieties of neurosis or psychosis go and see psychologists / psychiatrists and not biologists or chemists...just maybe???????????????

Or might it be that psychoses are the very reason that they so consult? Gee, what a choice?

It truly boggles my mind that anyone can insist that the brain and the mind are one and the same...that there is absolutely no differentiation...especially given that the very process that you use to make the claim contradicts the claim.

It truly boggles my mind that in the 21st century that anyone can believe in spooks. Yet you apparently do. That is where the evidence leads. It is nobodies problem but yours that you refuse it.

IOW...it is blindingly obvious that you and everyone else here exists as something not just more than mere electro-bio-chemical activity...but massively more than mere electro-bio-chemical activity. If for no other reason than the simple process of modeling electro-bio-chemical activity implicates a category that is most indisputably NOT the same as electro-bio-chemical activity. Categories may ultimately be arbitrary assignments (cause everything ultimately boils down to the same utter mystery) but they have relevance within the philosophy of science so coherence and consistency demand they be represented.

Evidence? So far, you have presented none. When will you be doing so?

The fact that we neither know how this ‘category’ is created nor what it is does not mean that it is not anything…duh! It simply means there is much that remains unknown. ‘Unknown’ seems to be a word many skeptics find hard to digest. Head in the sand time.

Yay, Insert whatever woo you want because science "doesn't know". Science thrives on the unknown.

As for this stupid notion that there is no alternative to science when it comes to dealing with reality…why don’t some of you geniuses take a moment and consider how you created every single post you’ve ever written here.

Do you have an alternative with evidence? No? Your argument fails straight out of the box.

Did you use any formal application of science to generate the content of any post?

Nope. Cause if you did, the thread would be long dead before you managed to come up with a single contribution (formal science is a sloooooooooooooow process).

Of course. Science is a careful process, while faith will leap.

Thus… something very substantial, very meaningful, and very functional precedes science.

Nope. Science has trumped religion at every turn.

If you want evidence, look no further than the process you use to write your next post.

It’s…not…science. But….surprise, surprise…it works.

Actually it is. Were religion in charge, you would not be posting in this forum because it simply would not exist.

Unfortunately…you have no idea how you created a single word of a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single post that any of you have ever posted here (but you managed to do it anyway…I wonder how?). At least…no electro-bio-chemical idea.

straight out insult. You are flat out wrong, and are asserting the God of the gaps. Grow up.

No one has any idea.

Wrong.

These are indisputable facts.

Wrong.

Not too mention, that every so-called ‘fact’ that science has achieved is not only an approximation of something…

Wrong

it is also a model of an approximation (that’s what science is…models with degree’s of accuracy). It is not the ‘something’ itself (except in one unique case). No one actually has a clue what anything actually is.

Wierdly both wrong and right. Yet even then, you get it entirely wrong.

IOW…IT IS ALL WOO…including….YOU. Meaning…any understanding you think you or anyone possesses, is ultimately and entirely (that means 100%) a function of something that neither you nor anyone has the slightest understanding of.
That is reality. 100% faith.

You are a solipsist? Really?

Denial…as they say…is not a river in Egypt. But it sure seems to flow fast and deep through these threads.

Nope. It illustrates that you have been taught to apply trite labels. Nothing more.

What is the point of all this?

Avoiding the seduction of the unwary.

Just that those of you who fling the woo label around better take a look in the mirror. You can pretend all you want, but woo is you. It is an indisputable fact.

A claimed fact for which you are unable to provide a jot of evidence. Why?

…and Nick…take a moment and explore some of the background to your claims. Subjective identity is not exclusively a function of linguistic intellectual activity (thought). There are innumerable examples of the existence of identity absent linguistic intellectual activity. Unfortunately none of this can be confirmed anymore than any variety of subjective reality can be confirmed.

Most of which render your pseudo-claims invalid, yet you continue to claim that yours are the only valid ones. How do you know?

 

[annnnoid]

And how is the "electro-bio-chemical phenomena" distinct and different from the "cognitive phenomena" in any meaningful way that isn't just invoking magic or a soul?

Where did anyone (except you) ever mention magic or a soul?

Errr the same reason you go to a doctor and not a chemist or a biologist for a broken leg.
Science has sub-disciplines. Where's the mystery?

But Joe…you never stop insisting that it’s all just bio-chemical activity. If it’s just bio-chemical activity then all we need are biologists and chemists.

…right?

Why on earth do we have all these other irrelevant folks for something that, according to you, simply does not exist? Are they all just idiots? Are you…and Hans…the only sane people on this planet?

Concepts and processes understandable by science produced every single post you, I, and everyone else on this and every other board produced.

“We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”

Written by neuroscientists (and confirmed by one who posts right here at ISF). Meaning there isn’t anyone who could even begin to definitively explain how your brain produced a single letter, let alone an entire post.

If you are convinced this is not the case, then produce some evidence to support your claim.

Like I said Joe…just keep sticking your head in the sand. Y’know what your problem is Joe…you think that winning arguments here matters more than getting your facts straight. This may come as a shock…but you’re not, in fact, winning any arguments here, and you’re also not getting any of your facts straight. No big deal…but it might be an idea to take some time off.

You are aware that just because you aren't standing in a lab wearing a lab coat and holding a beaker doesn't make it "not science" right?

So you use ‘science’ to write your posts? If there is one thing that is obvious, it is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Suffice it to say that you would be hard pressed to find an actual scientist who wouldn’t find your claim absolutely hilarious.

Listen I get it. We use the term Woo so you're just slinging it back at us in a wonderful "I am rubber, you are glue" method, but you're wrong.

I get that as a defense mechanism you've rejected the entire concept of being right and wrong, but you're wrong.

The word ‘indisputable’ means exactly that Joe. You are woo. Everyone is. You can either deal with it…or pretend it is not a fact. You’re doing a good job with the ‘pretending’ thing. Most psychologist’s I know of (as opposed to biologists and / or chemists) typically recommend a do-not-pretend approach to life. Your choice I guess.

(snip)

Do you and Joe know each other?

"Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation.” Bertrand Russell

“The most common versions of philosophy of science accept that empirical measurements are always approximations—they do not perfectly represent what is being measured.” (Wikipedia):

You'll probably succeed at finding some way to misunderstand the above statements. I guess sometimes facts just don't matter.

 

[annnnoid]

A claimed fact for which you are unable to provide a jot of evidence. Why?

Fact #1: Nobody has any definitive idea what this universe actually is, how it actually works, or where it actually came from (or even if any of those are the right questions).

Fact #2: Nobody has any definitive idea what a ‘you’ actually is or how a ‘you’ is created (‘the brain dunnit’ does not qualify as an explanation).

Feel entirely free to demonstrate that either of these facts is not a fact.

IOW...you do not know what you are. You...are...woo!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Where did anyone (except you) ever mention magic or a soul?

Nobody's even put an effort into explaining what this supposed "other part of consciousness that can't be explained via natural mental functioning" is so yeah I'm going with magic or soul.

But Joe…you never stop insisting that it’s all just bio-chemical activity. If it’s just bio-chemical activity then all we need are biologists and chemists.

…right?

What?

That's like saying we don't car mechanics because we have physicists.

Or that we don't need any applied science at all because we have mathematics.

Why on earth do we have all these other irrelevant folks for something that, according to you, simply does not exist? Are they all just idiots? Are you…and Hans…the only sane people on this planet?

Do... do you not know what science is? Cause it seems like you don't.

So you use ‘science’ to write your posts?

What did you use to write yours?

Again it would be nice if you put any effort into actually putting up a reasonable alternative to all this stuff you say "science" can't do.

 

[annnnoid]

Again it would be nice if you put any effort into actually putting up a reasonable alternative to all this stuff you say "science" can't do.

Science can’t do you….and lots of other things. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is, these are really big issues and it will take a lot of time to understand them. If you really want to understand the issues, then take the time to understand the issues. Don’t waste your time pretending you understand issues that you quite obviously do not understand. Nobody here cares and you’re not doing yourself any favors.

 

[annnnoid]

Nobody's even put an effort into explaining what this supposed "other part of consciousness that can't be explained via natural mental functioning" is so yeah I'm going with magic or soul.

…that’s what isn’t known yet. What variety of ‘thing’ it actually is. You could waste the next 100 years of your life reading everything that’s been written about it, but you would still end up with the conclusion that nobody knows what it is (or even if it is ‘something’...but it does sound kind of dumb to say that you are not something).

What is most interesting is that it is also something that you have direct access to. You don’t need a scientist to tell you whether it is something or not. You can find out for yourself (theoretically anyway). After all, the scientists are just studying what you are…and what they themselves are. They’re not studying weird chemicals, or something at the bottom of the ocean, or at the edge of the galaxy, or at the working end of a microscope…they are studying the thing that you are.

So study it yourself and find out. Do you know what you are? Does anyone? Does a scientist have to answer it for you, or can you do it all by yourself?

Better be careful though. You’ll be in danger of answering the biggest question there is. Before you waste your time asking what that could possibly be…I’ll waste my time answering it. The biggest question there is…is…what is the biggest question there is?

Why are you here (aka: what is the meaning of life)? Sounds horribly unscientific, but I guess if there is an answer, then it’s better to know what the answer is than not know what the answer is.

The scientists, of course, are already on it....the answer....which is, of course...to find out what you are.

And there’s no point in pretending that “it’s just science.” It’s most indisputably not just science. Science is trying to figure out everything about every single little thing that you are and do (and they’re trying to find ways to make artificial neural networks do the same things… check this out if you doubt me).

So…scientists are already convinced that the things that you are are, in fact, real things, so you might as well go to the trouble to find out what all these things actually are yourself. You might discover that you are some valuable things that you never even knew about. Maybe you could even have something interesting to tell the scientists about some day. How exciting would that be!?!?!?!?

 

[Myriad]

…that’s what isn’t known yet. What variety of ‘thing’ it actually is.

It's a computation.

You could waste the next 100 years of your life reading everything that’s been written about it, but you would still end up with the conclusion that nobody knows what it is

It's a computation.

(or even if it is ‘something’...but it does sound kind of dumb to say that you are not something).

It's something. A computation.

What is most interesting is that it is also something that you have direct access to. You don’t need a scientist to tell you whether it is something or not.

It's a computation.

You can find out for yourself (theoretically anyway).

It's a computation.

After all, the scientists are just studying what you are…

A computation.

and what they themselves are.

Computations.

They’re not studying weird chemicals, or something at the bottom of the ocean, or at the edge of the galaxy, or at the working end of a microscope…they are studying the thing that you are.

Which is, a computation.

So study it yourself and find out. Do you know what you are?

A computation.

Does anyone? Does a scientist have to answer it for you, or can you do it all by yourself?

Whoever answers, the right answer is, a computation.

Better be careful though. You’ll be in danger of answering the biggest question there is. Before you waste your time asking what that could possibly be…I’ll waste my time answering it. The biggest question there is…is…what is the biggest question there is?

Why are you here (aka: what is the meaning of life)? Sounds horribly unscientific, but I guess if there is an answer, then it’s better to know what the answer is than not know what the answer is.

Computations exist because material systems are performing them.

The scientists, of course, are already on it....the answer....which is, of course...to find out what you are.

A computation.

And there’s no point in pretending that “it’s just science.” It’s most indisputably not just science. Science is trying to figure out everything about every single little thing that you are and do (and they’re trying to find ways to make artificial neural networks do the same things… check this out if you doubt me).

So…scientists are already convinced that the things that you are are, in fact, real things, so you might as well go to the trouble to find out what all these things actually are yourself.

They're computations.

You might discover that you are some valuable things that you never even knew about.

I know about being a computation.

Maybe you could even have something interesting to tell the scientists about some day. How exciting would that be!?!?!?!?

Depends on whether or not the scientists already know.

 

[Aridas]

The brain is programmed to behave as though life is happening to someone.

Either or both of "life" and "someone" would need to have distinctly non-standard definitions for this to do anything other than demonstrate that you simply don't have a viable argument along these lines.

Even though monism and determinism must assert that this can't be true, still it will try to wiggle and jiggle a way to get an observer or an experiencer in there.

The only way that either determinism or monism would assert such is if you're using definitions for "life" and/or "someone" that are wholly irrelevant to the topics on hand.

I'm just interested in this field generally. (And seem to have a penchant for supporting the underdog, in this case homeopathy)

If it's just a general interest, chances are that it would fit better into a more appropriate thread.

Well, I don't know that that's really the case, just to argue the point. If we had solved the whole combination issue and could get from neural (or quantum) behaviour to conscious experience, and if materialism was validated in this, then I would say that there really was no gap left for an observer to hide in.

Even if everything could be directly explained via the paradigm of materialism right now, there would still be "gaps" in the form of unfalsifiable claims like that the FSM has been manipulating all the test results to give an entirely reasonable picture that is, nevertheless, simply wrong, among other things. Either way, your argument here isn't much of one, when applied to either of the cases that were noted. The entire line of argument is simply irrelevant to the former, and there's really nothing that can be done about that. When it comes to the latter, your words in the quoted here in no way show that it is not the case that, at best, the relevance of that line is limited to pointing out things that should never have been in doubt or question in the first place.

The brain IS the someone. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Hans

I would dispute that slightly. Notably, at last check, the brain is affected sufficiently by the rest of the body to make it a bit unfair to say that the brain, singled out, is the someone. The most important part, by far, but not the only part of value if one wants to understand the whole picture.

 

[annnnoid]

It's a computation.

Ahhh, computation. I guess everything bio-chemical reduces to computation. In fact, it would seem that everything that is everything reduces to computation. That is the logical conclusion of your conclusion…is it not? That is exactly what they’re up to over at the Blue Brain…from what I understand. Neural activity gets represented as computation. Molecular activity gets represented as computation. Atomic activity gets represented as computation. Quantum activity gets represented as computation. I wonder at what point we lose the capacity to represent whatever exists as computation?

Should we all be visiting computer scientists for our neurosis / psychosis…as opposed to biologists, or chemists, or psychologist, or psychiatrists.

…or not.

So tell us Myriad, how…specifically…does what you call a ‘computation’ create you? At what level do ‘you’ begin? At what point of this ‘computation’ does consciousness become relevant?

For example, I’ve just been reading some stuff on Wolfram’s site relating to his versions of how stuff may be quantized down to Planck length’s…and how networks, and computation, may occur (he’s applying his NKS thing to the constitution of space-time).

May we conclude that ‘you’ (since ‘you’ also exist contiguously in these very dimensions right at this very moment) also ‘compute’ at this scale? Is such a question definitively resolved in any way shape or form?

I know about being a computation.

So you are saying that you actually experience yourself digitally? You experience yourself as some manner of discreet differentiated conditions? You can actually discriminate between your ‘hardware’ and ‘software’? I would have to wonder though...which ‘you’ is it that exists across these various highly distinct conditions?

…or are you just speaking metaphorically? You 'know about'...rather than know, as in 'experiencing'?

Or maybe you've been watching too much Star Wars and are beginning to identify too closely with R2D2 and the rest. We'll have to coin a new term for that. Folks who have come to realize that humanity is merely a grand illusion...we are Borg. Nothing but the sum total of a bunch of parts that we have all but no understanding of, but ignorance somehow generates a coherent identity just the same.

LGBTQ...and C...for those who've decided their truth is born out of a higher programmer. I wonder though, does that make you a theist?

 

[LarryS]

We know brain activity and mental activity are linked.

Right, and we know fish and water are linked . . . I only find fish in water, I don't find fish swimming in my rose bushes or in my corn field. If I take water away, the fish die, and no water means no more fish. I probe the water and fish appear . . . so therefore, fish emerge from water.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I would dispute that slightly. Notably, at last check, the brain is affected sufficiently by the rest of the body to make it a bit unfair to say that the brain, singled out, is the someone. The most important part, by far, but not the only part of value if one wants to understand the whole picture.

Sure, I have no problem with that. At least, the rest of the body plays a significant role in shaping the 'someone'. OTOH, people who have lost the practical use of most of their body still seem to remain roughly the same 'someone', whereas people who have lost most of their brain function do not. So I would still hold that the brain is the absolute protagonist here.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Maybe cause it's utter crap!!!! Don't know about you, but last time I checked I did not exist as electro-bio-chemical phenomena, I exist as cognitive phenomena.

That's interesting. And how exactly did you check that?

Might that possibly be the reason why folks with varieties of neurosis or psychosis go and see psychologists / psychiatrists and not biologists or chemists...just maybe???????????????

I see it more as the difference between a hardware problem and a software problem.

It truly boggles my mind that anyone can insist that the brain and the mind are one and the same...that there is absolutely no differentiation...especially given that the very process that you use to make the claim contradicts the claim.

I did not claim that there is absolutely no differentiation. I claim that consciousness arises from brain functions. Your engine is not the same as the power it procuces, your computer is not the same as the program you run.

IOW...it is blindingly obvious that you and everyone else here exists as something not just more than mere electro-bio-chemical activity...but massively more than mere electro-bio-chemical activity.

If you want to claim that the data processing vastly transcends the data processer, then be my guest. However, if you want to claim that it comes from a different source, you might present some evidence for this "blindingly obvious" claim.

If for no other reason than the simple process of modeling electro-bio-chemical activity implicates a category that is most indisputably NOT the same as electro-bio-chemical activity. Categories may ultimately be arbitrary assignments (cause everything ultimately boils down to the same utter mystery) but they have relevance within the philosophy of science so coherence and consistency demand they be represented.

The fact that we neither know how this ‘category’ is created nor what it is does not mean that it is not anything…duh! It simply means there is much that remains unknown. ‘Unknown’ seems to be a word many skeptics find hard to digest. Head in the sand time.

Try to relax, OK? I have no problem with unknown. Most of the universe and what happens in it is unknown. That doesn't mean it transcends physical explanations.

As for this stupid notion that there is no alternative to science when it comes to dealing with reality…why don’t some of you geniuses take a moment and consider how you created every single post you’ve ever written here.

Did you use any formal application of science to generate the content of any post?

Sure. We evaluated available evidence and made a conclusion. We no doubt also factored in our experience and emotions, but then, this is an internet discussion and not a ph.d.

Thus… something very substantial, very meaningful, and very functional precedes science.

Please define what you mean by that.

Unfortunately…you have no idea how you created a single word of a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single post that any of you have ever posted here (but you managed to do it anyway…I wonder how?). At least…no electro-bio-chemical idea.

Quite the contrary, I have a pretty good idea. I may be mistaken, of course, but pending contrary evidence, I think I'll stick to that idea.

Hans

 

[Myriad]

Ahhh, computation. I guess everything bio-chemical reduces to computation. In fact, it would seem that everything that is everything reduces to computation. That is the logical conclusion of your conclusion…is it not?

Of course not. What an absurd extrapolation. By analogy:

"What's that in your hand?"

"An apple."

"Oh, I suppose you think everything is an apple, right?"

That is exactly what they’re up to over at the Blue Brain…from what I understand. Neural activity gets represented as computation. Molecular activity gets represented as computation. Atomic activity gets represented as computation. Quantum activity gets represented as computation. I wonder at what point we lose the capacity to represent whatever exists as computation?

And a Renaissance painter represents everything as oil paint. Ask him whether that means he thinks the world is made of oil paint.

Should we all be visiting computer scientists for our neurosis / psychosis…as opposed to biologists, or chemists, or psychologist, or psychiatrists.

…or not.

I'll just wait until you're ready to offer a sensible response.

So tell us Myriad, how…specifically…does what you call a ‘computation’ create you? At what level do ‘you’ begin? At what point of this ‘computation’ does consciousness become relevant?

At the point where mental processing develops the ability to construct narrative from memory and sensory input. This has the advantage of being able to model and predict the behavior of the world, but the necessary computation is metabolically expensive.

It's easy enough to sense that "a large mass is moving toward me, and I should move out of the way to avoid harm." An insect can do that. But to say, "Ogg has attacked me in the past when I've tried to mate with his mate. He noticed me trying to mate with his daughter this morning, so I should beware of that pointed stick he's holding" (and thereby take preventive action before the hazardous mass even starts moving) requires constructing narrative using categories (weapon, people-Ogg-is-jealous-about) and modeling the mental states of others. Many mammals and a few birds manage that.

The presence of the self in a narrative constructed from memory and sensation is consciousness.

For example, I’ve just been reading some stuff on Wolfram’s site relating to his versions of how stuff may be quantized down to Planck length’s…and how networks, and computation, may occur (he’s applying his NKS thing to the constitution of space-time).

May we conclude that ‘you’ (since ‘you’ also exist contiguously in these very dimensions right at this very moment) also ‘compute’ at this scale? Is such a question definitively resolved in any way shape or form?

What I generally think of as "me" computes on the scale of neural interactions and, more importantly, on the larger scale of linguistic symbols (which are complex patterns of neural interactions, but the patterns follow different rules than the individual interactions).

Nothing of what actually happens on the Planck scale is known. However, computation at the quantum scale does come into play. The lens of my eye, for instance, sorts photons by the direction they're coming from, using the quantum-scale phenomenon of refraction of light. (Pretty cool, right?) That's a massive amount of computation carried out in parallel, without which visual imaging could not occur.

So you are saying that you actually experience yourself digitally? You experience yourself as some manner of discreet differentiated conditions? You can actually discriminate between your ‘hardware’ and ‘software’? I would have to wonder though...which ‘you’ is it that exists across these various highly distinct conditions?

…or are you just speaking metaphorically? You 'know about'...rather than know, as in 'experiencing'?

Not all computation is digital. (See, e.g., the lens of the eye mentioned above, or the pulse-frequency-domain computation of neurons.)

Why would the computational substrate determine how I experience myself? Are you experiencing this sentence as a collection of ones and zeros, or even as a sequence of alphanumeric characters? Or can those computational elements occur in patterns that form more complex things that follow different rules and are not perceived as digital, like words and sentences and concepts?

Or maybe you've been watching too much Star Wars and are beginning to identify too closely with R2D2 and the rest. We'll have to coin a new term for that. Folks who have come to realize that humanity is merely a grand illusion...we are Borg. Nothing but the sum total of a bunch of parts that we have all but no understanding of, but ignorance somehow generates a coherent identity just the same.

LGBTQ...and C...for those who've decided their truth is born out of a higher programmer. I wonder though, does that make you a theist?

You're capable of better than this feigned incredulity, stupid questions, and absurd comparisons. Let me know if you actually want to discuss the answers to the questions you yourself posed.

Do you want to know what you are, or not?

 

[IanS]

Joe,

Name me one scientist working in consciousness research who says they've got there. Just one. Link me one paper where one scientist says one time - we've got there. Consciousness... sorted!

Actually, YOU are the only person who thinks science has got there. No scientists do. Just you. YOUR belief system is actually more woo than the new-agers and homeopaths you love to ridicule.

What do you mean by using that word "conciousness"? Can you define what you actually mean with that word?

If the word only refers to a range of different things, then "conciousness" is not any specific particular thing for which anyone could ever say "we have a pretty good understanding of what that thing is".

Someone here asked before for any explanation at all of how humans are "concious". The implication, or the claim was, that "conciousness" is totally 100% inexplicable by science.

But there is a perfectly obvious scientific explanation of how it happens that humans (and other animals) experience what is called "conciousness". And that explanation is simply this -

- what we call conciousness, by which people appear to mean our awareness of events around us, may be just be the very highly evolved and hence very highly complex and sophisticated stage which has now been reached (after about 3 billion years of evolution) in the sensory cells of the animal body and in the consequent inescapable processing of that sensory input in the cells of the organ that we call the "brain".

IOW - all that is happening to produce "conciousness" in higher animals, is just the same very simple input-stimulus and cellular chemical response that happens in all living organisms, even from the the earliest prehistoric times in very primitive living things.

What makes conciousness in humans seem "incomprehensibly" different from (say) primitive plants in the Jurassic period (or any period) bending their stems and leaves in response to the direction light, is only that in primitive plants and primitive animals the reason why living cells respond in the way they do, is fairly easy to understand. In humans and other very highly evolved animals, the difference is only that the sensory cells and the response cells have evolved into such a highly sophisticated and complex and powerful system, that it's now hard for most people (non-scientists particularly, it seems) to believe, imagine or comprehend that the end result of that vastly improved process is what we now call "conciousness".

In that respect, the situation is rather like the position of creationists who simply cannot conceive of how humans could have possibly evolved from earlier more primitive apes millions of years ago. Apart from being wedded to the idea of religious superstitious beliefs, their problem is a complete failure to appreciate the vast time scales involved, i.e. many millions of years. They just cannot comprehend how much more primitive life forms could ever evolve to finally produce humans. The same sort of thing may be going on with human conciousness - it's just a very VERY sophisticated development of the most basic chemical cellular input-output response to external stimuli such as heat light, sound, touch, feel, smell, etc.

OK, so is that all a "fact"? No. And there is no such thing in science as the certainty of absloute "facts". Is it a current hypothesis in science? I don't know. All I am trying to show is that an explanation like the above, which is scientifically based, seems to me to be perfectly reasonable as a proposed mechanism for how humans have evolved to exhibit something that we now call "conciousness". IOW - it's a suggested explanation in reply to those here who were saying that science could never suggest an explanation ... well as a scientist (ex scientist now), in the absence of any other more refined published explanation (are there other more refined published explanations in the science research literature?), I'm just offering the above as an example of what seems to me to be perfectly likely as the sort of explanation we should expect for "conciousness".

 

[marplots]

Right, and we know fish and water are linked . . . I only find fish in water, I don't find fish swimming in my rose bushes or in my corn field. If I take water away, the fish die, and no water means no more fish. I probe the water and fish appear . . . so therefore, fish emerge from water.

They do indeed. This is actually quite profound. As a materialist, I must agree.

 

[abaddon]

Fact #1: Nobody has any definitive idea what this universe actually is, how it actually works, or where it actually came from (or even if any of those are the right questions).

How does your computer work, then?

Fact #2: Nobody has any definitive idea what a ‘you’ actually is or how a ‘you’ is created (‘the brain dunnit’ does not qualify as an explanation).

Once upon a time, your Mom and Dad cuddled...

Feel entirely free to demonstrate that either of these facts is not a fact.

Done

IOW...you do not know what you are. You...are...woo!

Descent to the childhood schoolyard. How cute.

 

[abaddon]

Ahhh, computation. I guess everything bio-chemical reduces to computation. In fact, it would seem that everything that is everything reduces to computation. That is the logical conclusion of your conclusion…is it not?

Emergent properties.

That is exactly what they’re up to over at the Blue Brain…from what I understand. Neural activity gets represented as computation. Molecular activity gets represented as computation. Atomic activity gets represented as computation. Quantum activity gets represented as computation. I wonder at what point we lose the capacity to represent whatever exists as computation?

"Represented". Is the Mona Lisa a representation or an actual woman trapped under glass in the Louvre?

Should we all be visiting computer scientists for our neurosis / psychosis…as opposed to biologists, or chemists, or psychologist, or psychiatrists.

…or not.

When your laptop breaks down do you bring it to a psychiatrist?

So tell us Myriad, how…specifically…does what you call a ‘computation’ create you? At what level do ‘you’ begin? At what point of this ‘computation’ does consciousness become relevant?

When the computer is sufficiently complex.

For example, I’ve just been reading some stuff on Wolfram’s site relating to his versions of how stuff may be quantized down to Planck length’s…and how networks, and computation, may occur (he’s applying his NKS thing to the constitution of space-time).

Irrelevant.

May we conclude that ‘you’ (since ‘you’ also exist contiguously in these very dimensions right at this very moment) also ‘compute’ at this scale? Is such a question definitively resolved in any way shape or form?

Irrelevant. We know that a boundary exists between conscious and not concious. Precisely where that boundary is has not been determined, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nor does that fact automatically give licence to insert god or whatever into that knowledge gap.

So you are saying that you actually experience yourself digitally? You experience yourself as some manner of discreet differentiated conditions?

Nobody said anything remotely like that, you simply made it up out of fat air.

You can actually discriminate between your ‘hardware’ and ‘software’?

Yup. Everyone can.

I would have to wonder though...which ‘you’ is it that exists across these various highly distinct conditions?

None. Your conditions are a strawman.

…or are you just speaking metaphorically? You 'know about'...rather than know, as in 'experiencing'?

Yay, semantics.

Or maybe you've been watching too much Star Wars and are beginning to identify too closely with R2D2 and the rest. We'll have to coin a new term for that. Folks who have come to realize that humanity is merely a grand illusion...we are Borg. Nothing but the sum total of a bunch of parts that we have all but no understanding of, but ignorance somehow generates a coherent identity just the same.

Yay, insults.

LGBTQ...and C...for those who've decided their truth is born out of a higher programmer. I wonder though, does that make you a theist?

Yay, homophobia.