proto-consciousness field theory

[Belz...]

As I said, this is based entirely on subjective reporting. If you doubt me, describe an experiment to measure consciousness that does not rely on any reference to observations made by conscious subjects (and I mean reference made at any point in time, not just during the experiment).

Isn't that true of any observation, though? If I describe elephants, I must do so based on my observations as a conscious subject, etc.

That's not much of an objection.

 

[baron]

Ok that's fair enough, but how does it gel with the fact that only brains are known to be conscious? How is one to tell the difference between "everything is conscious but only brains exhibit it" and "only brains are conscious"? And, if one can't, why believe this at all?

Brains are believed to be conscious because they're the only things connect to mouths that can assert the premise. That's not a flippant answer. Up until very recently it was the scientific consensus that only humans were conscious (an assertion so baseless it's literally religious in its nature). Now it's widely accepted that many other creatures are conscious, such as apes, whales, dogs, even octopi. The trouble is that scientists, in general, have never explained how or where they draw the line. My hypothesis has the advantage of not having a line.

 

[baron]

Well, that's not entirely true.

Not only can we observe evidence of consciousness in other people, which makes it an objective observation, but we can also observe subjectively that we are aware of something and not others, even within our own brain processes.

But this is not empirical evidence. We see someone behaving in a certain way and we say they're conspicuously performing an action on the basis that when we perform that action we feel as though we're conscious. This might be classed as evidence, but it's 100% subjective evidence.

Take an experiment where brain activity is measured. A specific pattern of activity is identified as occurring when the subject is conscious. And that's fine, but that identification can only be made because somewhere down the line a person has actually sat in a chair and effectively said, "I am doing X consciously" whilst a similar pattern was observed on the monitors. Again, entirely subjective, because unless we accept a theory along the lines of what I propose, we can imagine a non-conscious mechanical entity saying exactly the same thing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's begging the question.

It's really not.

Furthermore, it's not evidence of anything aside from a change in brain state.

...one of which is what we describe as "conscious".

They are not things, they are attributes. The flight of a flock of birds has no independent reality, nothing additional has been created other than a new way of describing what's already present.

Your original argument was that if consciousness was emergent then it didn't exist. You are therefore now making the argument that attributes do not exist.

If what you meant when you said that consciousness being an emergent property of the brain meant that it didn't exist independently of the brain, then that's true. But all you're really doing then is saying "defining consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is defining consciousness as an emergent property of the brain". I hope you can see how that's not really an effective argument against consciousness being an emergent property of the brain.

As I said, this is based entirely on subjective reporting. If you doubt me, describe an experiment to measure consciousness that does not rely on any reference to observations made by conscious subjects (and I mean reference made at any point in time, not just during the experiment).

It's impossible to name any experiment of any kind which doesn't rely on any reference to observations made by conscious subjects at any point in time, not just during the experiment. Using the criterion you've set out here there is no such thing as empirical evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Brains are believed to be conscious because they're the only things connect to mouths that can assert the premise. That's not a flippant answer. Up until very recently it was the scientific consensus that only humans were conscious (an assertion so baseless it's literally religious in its nature). Now it's widely accepted that many other creatures are conscious, such as apes, whales, dogs, even octopi. The trouble is that scientists, in general, have never explained how or where they draw the line. My hypothesis has the advantage of not having a line.

I don't see that as an advantage. It's arguing from ignorance. All of those things you name have brains very similar in function and structure to our own.

But this is not empirical evidence. We see someone behaving in a certain way and we say they're conspicuously performing an action on the basis that when we perform that action we feel as though we're conscious. This might be classed as evidence, but it's 100% subjective evidence.

No, that's still objective. Otherwise everything is subjective and we might as well give up science and curve up into solipsistic balls.

Take an experiment where brain activity is measured. A specific pattern of activity is identified as occurring when the subject is conscious. And that's fine, but that identification can only be made because somewhere down the line a person has actually sat in a chair and effectively said, "I am doing X consciously" whilst a similar pattern was observed on the monitors. Again, entirely subjective, because unless we accept a theory along the lines of what I propose, we can imagine a non-conscious mechanical entity saying exactly the same thing.

Do you see double-blind medical trials as entirely subjective, then?

 

[baron]

It's really not.



...one of which is what we describe as "conscious".

Because it has been subjectively reported as such. If you disagree, describe how else the association could be made experimentally. You don't even need to describe an actual experiment, just in theory.

Your original argument was that if consciousness was emergent then it didn't exist. You are therefore now making the argument that attributes do not exist.

As we're using the term they don't, they're descriptive tools. A tree exists. A tall tree exists. Tall does not exist.

If what you meant when you said that consciousness being an emergent property of the brain meant that it didn't exist independently of the brain, then that's true.

So you agree, consciousness as an emergent property doesn't exist.

But all you're really doing then is saying "defining consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is defining consciousness as an emergent property of the brain". I hope you can see how that's not really an effective argument against consciousness being an emergent property of the brain.

It is, because I believe consciousness has an independent existence. It seems to me you're confusing the concept of causation with that of independence. They are not the same.

It's impossible to name any experiment of any kind which doesn't rely on any reference to observations made by conscious subjects at any point in time, not just during the experiment.

It's impossible for me, correct, because I believe consciousness is ubiquitous. It should be very easy for you, however. All you need to is imagine a lab full of robots performing experiments.

 

[baron]

I don't see that as an advantage. It's arguing from ignorance. All of those things you name have brains very similar in function and structure to our own.

And that's a great example of argument from ignorance. Instead of developing a theory for consciousness that describes what it is and under what conditions it occurs, we are told that humans are conscious, because we feel like we are, and you know, some animals are similar to humans so I guess we can say they're conscious too. That doesn't sound very scientific to me, and the reason is because it's not.

Science has come up with some arbitrary tests for consciousness, such as a subject recognising themselves in a mirror. To my mind this is entirely futile and shows a naive misunderstanding about what is being studied.

No, that's still objective. Otherwise everything is subjective and we might as well give up science and curve up into solipsistic balls.

You can't redefine what subjective means simply because you don't like its implications. What I wrote is perfectly correct. Your only reference point for assuming that when a person performs a certain action they are conscious is that when you perform that action you feel you are conscious. This is the definition of subjectivity. And no amount of experimentation on your brain states or behaviour will alter this fact, because at every stage it relies on your subjective reporting to decide which of your behaviours are conscious and which are not.

Do you see double-blind medical trials as entirely subjective, then?

Medical trials don't rely on the subjects' conscious reporting. That's why they can be done on pigs or rats.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because it has been subjectively reported as such.

No. Because that's how it's defined.

As we're using the term they don't, they're descriptive tools. A tree exists. A tall tree exists. Tall does not exist.

The movement of birds exists. The organisation of an ant colony exists. They're not physical objects, which seems to be what you're getting at, but physical objects aren't the only things which exist.

So you agree, consciousness as an emergent property doesn't exist.[/quote]

Please don't start straw manning me.

It is, because I believe consciousness has an independent existence.

That doesn't make your argument any better. All you seem to be doing here is saying that you believe your argument to lead to the conclusion you're using it to support because that conclusion is the one that you believe to be true. That's not how it actually works.

It seems to me you're confusing the concept of causation with that of independence.

Not even slightly. I've no idea where you're getting that from.

It's impossible for me, correct, because I believe consciousness is ubiquitous. It should be very easy for you, however. All you need to is imagine a lab full of robots performing experiments.

Who built the robots? Who created the lab? Who is going to look at the results?

 

[Belz...]

And that's a great example of argument from ignorance.

Baron, using the evidence we actually have is the exact opposite of an argument from ignorance.

Believing, without evidence, that rocks and everything else is conscious to some degree, however, IS arguing from ignorance. You've admitted that you have no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps you simply don't process as I do, but I'm usually loathe to reach conclusions based on fairy dust.

Instead of developing a theory for consciousness that describes what it is and under what conditions it occurs, we are told that humans are conscious, because we feel like we are, and you know, some animals are similar to humans so I guess we can say they're conscious too. That doesn't sound very scientific to me, and the reason is because it's not.

I don't think you're quite up to date with what we actually know about consciousness, if you think this is all there is. Furthermore, there is nothing "unscientific" about comparing similar things and concluding that they are, in fact, similar.

Science has come up with some arbitrary tests for consciousness, such as a subject recognising themselves in a mirror.

I don't think your theory compares favourably to even that, since you have no test at all. Your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

You can't redefine what subjective means simply because you don't like its implications.

I'm not. You observing someone else behave is not a subjective though.

Your only reference point for assuming that when a person performs a certain action they are conscious is that when you perform that action you feel you are conscious.

Wrong. We have _defined_ consciousness a certain way. Then we can observed if the behaviour fits the definition. That's not subjective.

This is the definition of subjectivity. And no amount of experimentation on your brain states or behaviour will alter this fact, because at every stage it relies on your subjective reporting to decide which of your behaviours are conscious and which are not.

Again: every measurement you ever make therefore is subjective, and the world cannot be known.

Medical trials don't rely on the subjects' conscious reporting.

Actually, they very often are. How do you know if a pill has solved someone's headaches? Do you think they stick electrodes into people's brains? They don't. They ask the subject if there's any improvement. That's a subjective response, and yet the trial results are NOT subjective.

 

[baron]

No. Because that's how it's defined.

Says who?

The movement of birds exists. The organisation of an ant colony exists. They're not physical objects, which seems to be what you're getting at, but physical objects aren't the only things which exist.

Movement is not an emergent property, I assume you're referring to the dynamics of bird flocks, in which case go ahead and explain how they exist as anything other than a descriptive tool.

Please don't start straw manning me.

I didn't, I literally repeated your own words, which were:

"If what you meant when you said that consciousness being an emergent property of the brain meant that it didn't exist independently of the brain, then that's true."

That doesn't make your argument any better. All you seem to be doing here is saying that you believe your argument to lead to the conclusion you're using it to support because that conclusion is the one that you believe to be true. That's not how it actually works.

It's not how what works? (That question isn't incumbent on me understanding your initial statement, which makes no sense).

Who built the robots? Who created the lab? Who is going to look at the results?

1) Robots.
2) Robots.
3) Robots.

 

[baron]

Baron, using the evidence we actually have is the exact opposite of an argument from ignorance.

Believing, without evidence, that rocks and everything else is conscious to some degree, however, IS arguing from ignorance. You've admitted that you have no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps you simply don't process as I do, but I'm usually loathe to reach conclusions based on fairy dust.

I've already explained this. If you believe consciousness doesn't exist then fine, no further debate required. If you believe it does exist and you believe you're stating this from empirical evidence then you are in error. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for consciousness, nor is there any theory about how this might be even possible.

Since you're of the second persuasion you need to understand that you have no more empirical evidence than I do to back up your theory. We both have precisely none.

I don't think you're quite up to date with what we actually know about consciousness, if you think this is all there is.

When did I say it's all there is? I gave it as an example.

Furthermore, there is nothing "unscientific" about comparing similar things and concluding that they are, in fact, similar.

I can state a monkey is similar to a human without even mentioning consciousness. When you start hypothesising the existence of subjective phenomena on that basis then it is unscientific.

I don't think your theory compares favourably to even that, since you have no test at all. Your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

If you believe consciousness exists then so is yours. I could make up an experiment that also proved nothing, however, if you prefer. What will that show?

I'm not. You observing someone else behave is not a subjective though.

Wrong. We have _defined_ consciousness a certain way. Then we can observed if the behaviour fits the definition. That's not subjective.

It is entirely subjective. If you believe otherwise then describe what part can be confirmed by a third party observer. (And I don't mean someone standing there saying, "Oh aye, I reckon he's conscious too", I mean an objective record).

Again: every measurement you ever make therefore is subjective, and the world cannot be known.

It's not. If I measure something as 1m then that's an objective measurement as it can be confirmed by others. Consciousness doesn't enter into it.

Actually, they very often are. How do you know if a pill has solved someone's headaches? Do you think they stick electrodes into people's brains? They don't. They ask the subject if there's any improvement. That's a subjective response, and yet the trial results are NOT subjective.

The difference being that if enough was known about how headaches occurred in and around the brain, equipment could be set up to monitor their effects without recourse to human reporting (for example, inflammation, imbalance of certain chemicals, measurement of nerve impulses). This is not true of consciousness, there is no theory that suggests this is even possible.

 

[Belz...]

If you believe consciousness doesn't exist then fine, no further debate required. If you believe it does exist and you believe you're stating this from empirical evidence then you are in error. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for consciousness, nor is there any theory about how this might be even possible.

By that logic "colour" doesn't exist, either.

Since you're of the second persuasion you need to understand that you have no more empirical evidence than I do to back up your theory. We both have precisely none.

Don't try to pull the theist's "science is a religion" equivocation game, please. You are wrong, quite simply: there IS evidence for consciousness; otherwise neither of us would need a theory to explain it.

I can state a monkey is similar to a human without even mentioning consciousness.

And yet the similarity of behaviour is the primary reason why we think they have consciousness too.

I could make up an experiment that also proved nothing, however, if you prefer. What will that show?

I would rather you made up an experiment that proved something.

It is entirely subjective. If you believe otherwise then describe what part can be confirmed by a third party observer. (And I don't mean someone standing there saying, "Oh aye, I reckon he's conscious too", I mean an objective record).

You've been told several times by now that by that standard NOTHING is objective, since everything is determined through observation by humans. If I look at the absorbsion lines of a star's light through a spectrometer, that perception of the results is entirely subjective, is it not? If not, how is that different from observing human behaviour? You seem to be special pleading about consciousness.

It's not. If I measure something as 1m then that's an objective measurement as it can be confirmed by others.

And yet all of those observers are giving their subjective perception of the measurement. Even if they agree, you cannot trust them because they are subjective. This is the consequence of your line of argument.

The difference being that if enough was known about how headaches occurred in and around the brain, equipment could be set up to monitor their effects without recourse to human reporting (for example, inflammation, imbalance of certain chemicals, measurement of nerve impulses).

That's completely irrelevant and ignores my point. The point is that you RELY on subjective reporting in order to objectively evaluate the product. Is that subjective or objective?

 

[baron]

By that logic "colour" doesn't exist, either.

Exactly right.

Don't try to pull the theist's "science is a religion" equivocation game, please. You are wrong, quite simply: there IS evidence for consciousness; otherwise neither of us would need a theory to explain it.

I'm going on what I myself experience. I don't cite that as empirical evidence. You don't have any more evidence than I do, but for some reason you won't admit it.

And yet the similarity of behaviour is the primary reason why we think they have consciousness too.

It's not the reason I think they have consciousness, as I've explained.

I would rather you made up an experiment that proved something.

Then I would receive the Nobel prize and my experiment would be heralded as the most important in human history.

You've been told several times by now that by that standard NOTHING is objective, since everything is determined through observation by humans.

And each time that has been told to me I have explained how it is wrong. If it were so you would have to conclude that nothing can be determined in the absence of conscious human observation. That would certainly be news to the life-forms that existed for three billion years prior to our evolution.

If I look at the absorbsion lines of a star's light through a spectrometer, that perception of the results is entirely subjective, is it not? If not, how is that different from observing human behaviour? You seem to be special pleading about consciousness.

You're begging the question. Of course if you look at it you're integral to the observation. If a robot looks at it the robot is doing the observing. If a chaffinch looks at it, the chaffinch is doing the observing. If the light from it is reflected in a pond, then the pond, whilst not observing in a classical sense, is still receiving information about the event.

And yet all of those observers are giving their subjective perception of the measurement. Even if they agree, you cannot trust them because they are subjective. This is the consequence of your line of argument.

Trust is not a scientific principle. I trust people's reporting of their conscious experience because I am not a solipsist. However, I recognise that such conclusions have no place in the science lab and do not constitute evidence.

That's completely irrelevant and ignores my point. The point is that you RELY on subjective reporting in order to objectively evaluate the product. Is that subjective or objective?

Again, you're confusing trust with evidence. If someone tells me that they had cereal for breakfast I'd likely trust they were telling the truth. I wouldn't claim that their report constituted empirical evidence because clearly it does not.

 

[Minoosh]

There was a guy who used to post here who had a Bertrand Russell quote as his signature. It was all about thought - how thought soars free, the chief glory of man etc. On a thread similar to this one, he also took a hard materialistic line and declared "I control nothing."

Mind was emergent of brain etc.

I asked if he then believed thought was an emergent property of the universe. He hedged a little.

Question: Was there any contradiction here? If we control nothing, we also don't control our thoughts - IOW we can only have thoughts prompted by the meat between our ears. They can't soar free of anything; they are completely deterministic.

I'm actually fine with either theory though I am slightly allergic to the consciousness-field type idea. I also don't understand how the introduction of quantum effects would make thought non-computational. Is it because of the randomness of quantum effects? How would that create agency?

At a consciousness conference I asked someone if you really need to have a Ph.D in particle physics to understand this stuff. He said yes.

I also asked the guy I was dating why collapsing quantum wave functions would cause consciousness and he said, "Well, something has to cause consciousness." I was never really sure he knew what he was talking about. It was a stimulating conference, though.

 

[Chanakya]

... The difference being that if enough was known about how headaches occurred in and around the brain, equipment could be set up to monitor their effects without recourse to human reporting (for example, inflammation, imbalance of certain chemicals, measurement of nerve impulses). This is not true of consciousness, there is no theory that suggests this is even possible.

I don't know about how this might tie in with some theory of consciousness: but in purely practical terms, what you say about measuring for headaches, I believe they are able to do just that, by measuring brain waves, to differentiate a comatose state, or for that matter sleep, from a normal awake conscious state.

 

[Minoosh]

I don't know about how this might tie in with some theory of consciousness: but in purely practical terms, what you say about measuring for headaches, I believe they are able to do just that, by measuring brain waves, to differentiate a comatose state, or for that matter sleep, from a normal awake conscious state.

But whatever we can measure doesn't tell us what it feels like to have a headache, or not have a headache. The experience of pain is subjective, like all experience.

That doesn't rule out the idea that with enough measurements we could find out what somebody's subjective state was.

 

[Chanakya]

True. But baron seemed to be saying, in the portion I quoted, that he is okay with accepting the existance of headache. I don't see, then, why consciousness would be any different.

 

[Minoosh]

True. But baron seemed to be saying, in the portion I quoted, that he is okay with accepting the existance of headache. I don't see, then, why consciousness would be any different.

There are measurements used as a proxy for consciousness. It has to do with measuring integrated information which is phi.

I like this Scientific American article because the writer does not pretend to really understand the theory. That sounds weird, I know.

I don't know if this relates to anything baron said, though.

 

[Chanakya]

There are measurements used as a proxy for consciousness ...

Ditto headaches, right?

But you do say, later, that what you're saying here is not about baron's post or my response to his post, so perhaps I should, by rights, be keeping those headaches out of this part of the discussion.

I like this Scientific American article because the writer does not pretend to really understand the theory. That sounds weird, I know.

Yeah, that sounds weird, and yeah, I understand exactly what you mean to convey.

Re. that symposium you mentioned earlier, where some physicist tells you you can properly follow these consciousness theories only if you are fully up to speed on QM, that sounds like a load of self-serving bull to me. (On the other hand, I'm no physicist, and it is possible that is only my inner Dunning-Kruger speaking.)

 

[Darat]

Perhaps it may help to have a more productive discussion if everyone making claims about counciousness provided the definition they are using for the word consciousness.