proto-consciousness field theory

[Chanakya]

You could be correct, I'm not sure what you mean though, you'll need to explain a bit more.

Let's say you're right and, one day, our instruments do detect something (in the teeth of the objections raised by others here).

How do you know, given that this is all the definition requires, that what you've found is actually water (as opposed to sunlight on asphalt/sand)?

How do you know that what you've found is what we perceive as consciousness-as-process (as opposed to something else altogether)?

 

[Chanakya]

But processes don't actually exist.

You're right, our views do seem diametrically opposed. I tend to think that everything -- even balls, even stars, even the universe, if only you allow for the differences in time scale -- is a process. I'm not sure, though, that the two views are necessarily irreconcilable.

'rolling' tells us nothing beyond what we have already calculated. Rolling does not exist, it's just a linguistic construct

Isn't that true of everything? If you describe a star in full detail, covering every aspect of it, then you may, if you wish, do away with the word 'star', since it says nothing new (given that you've already described all there is to describe).

In that sense, you could insist that "stars" don't exist. Is that what you mean? That seems a curious way to look at "lingustic constructs", which obviously can never exist-in-themselves.

 

[p0lka]

So tell me, what 'scale' represents that of the brain? It seems that for some reason you have ruled out the very idea that quantum processes can influence macro behaviour. This is demonstrably false, and it seems likely that if there is a conscious field then it would interface with the brain at the quantum scale. Indeed, what other option could there be?

To give Carroll a bit of credit he's talking about evidential effects. Consciousness does not fall into this bracket. Either you believe it does not exist, in which case there's nothing to talk about, or you do accept it exists and further accept that at this moment there is not a shred of evidence to support that conclusion. Therefore, it could be considered not part of the 'everyday' universe.



It's not. To take your analogy, I maintain that you can rig up a device to smack one of those pool balls off the table and through the window solely on the trigger of a single, random sub-atomic event. You deny this is possible and say that Newton's laws are always sufficient to describe the balls' motions, and when I explain how I'm right you say, "Oh, sure, but I'm talking about everyday stuff!"

Oh bugger, who invoked deepak chopra?

 

[Belz...]

For running we can do all the calculations using known, even well-known trivial, formulae to explain how the signals control the muscles, how the muscles act, where the energy is coming from and going and completely explain it. We even now build artificial legs capable of running.

We can't do the same for consciousness. What units is consciousness even measured in? I can answer that question for running but not for consciousness.

That's all true, but there's every reason to assume that consciousness will be more like running than like legs.

If you put all the molecules of a ticking watch into the configuration of a ticking watch and had never seen ticking before you would observe ticking. "Ticking" would be directly descriptive of the action you would observe.

If you put all the molecules into the configuration of a person or animal running and had never observed running before you would observe running. "Running" would be directly descriptive of the action you would observe.

Put all the molecules into the configuration of a brain experiencing pain and had never experienced pain then you would not observe the experience of pain, you would observe neurons firing in a particular order and so forth.

Well, yes you would. If you put all of these things together properly, you'd have a functioning human, and just like you can see them running or the clock ticking, you could see the human acting in a way that you call conscious.

 

[Belz...]

So how many miles per hour does consciousness work at?

That's a disingenuous question. How many miles per hour does "ticking" work at? And yet both of those are emergent properties of their respective constructs. They are actions performed by objects. We are proposing that the simplest solution to the question of consciousness is that it is not a soul or anything of the sort, but an action posed by a functioning brain. All the evidence we have is compatible with this, even though we haven't quite solved the problem yet.

That gap in our knowledge is not a lisence to plonk a god (soul) in it.

 

[Belz...]

Let me admit that it's a difficult question, but not in the sense you believe. You're outlining two completely different concepts and asking how they differ. Where do I start? If you believe consciousness exists, which you admit you do, then how can you compare it with running? Running doesn't go around wondering how it is self aware and pondering the mysteries of self-referential experience. Running doesn't exist.

What do you mean "exist"? As an object? No, of course not. But we're not talking about objects, but actions. Are you saying that actions don't exist? Sounds like playing with words to me. What do you want to call it? "Happens"? Does running "happen"?

Assuming you're ok with the latter term, does consciousness not "happen" as well?

 

[Belz...]

Ooh look, I've called something 'woo' - give me an internet point! I've said, "That's the same as a soul," so you must accept me into your skeptcial group! See here, I've compared one poster with another who has a poor reputation for critical thought, surely that's enough to rubber-stamp my skeptic's credentials! OK, I know nothing about the topic and have no desire to educate myself but I'm saying all the right stuff aren't I? Aren't I? Please validate me!!!!

You have to admit that it sounds a lot like a soul. Like the soul, your version of consciousness is not wholly contained within the person and, upon death, is not destroyed, allowing some sort of continuation in, say, another brain later on.

 

[Myriad]

But processes don't actually exist. If I roll a ball down a hill I can calculate all sorts of things regarding its energy, motion, modulus of elasticity, temperature, stresses and even its quantum state if I were clever enough, and this is all that's needed to describe the ball in terms of what we can empirically measure.

In addition I could say the ball is rolling. Note I say 'in addition', because 'rolling' tells us nothing beyond what we have already calculated. Rolling does not exist, it's just a linguistic construct to summarise a behaviour which makes communication between humans easier.

And there's your answer. Processes don't actually exist, except as elements in mental models of the world. Narrative constructs.

Can a wooden stick emit lightning bolts? No.

Can Harry Potter's wand emit lightning bolts? Yes.

Is this a contradiction? No, because Harry Potter's wand doesn't exist except as a narrative construct.

Can a bunch of protein machinery have conscious experience? No.

Can you have conscious experience? Yes.

Is this a contradiction? No; see reason in previous example.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Whether a "process" is a "thing" or the term/concept "thing" is reserved for physical objects is semantics.

A process is a perfectly well understood thing that can happen whatever you want to call it and when you have something that explains how the process occurs you stop looking, you don't make up an air gap between the thing that creates the process and the process and try to wedge something in there.

Like I said when you blow a candle out you don't suffer a crisis of faith over where the "fire" goes.

This whole "Okay I see the legs moving in such a way as to be faster than what we normally call walking and the gait is changed so that both feet leave the ground for in instant on each step... but I don't see the act of running itself" routine people always want to play with normal human mental functioning is simple nonsense.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That's a disingenuous question. How many miles per hour does "ticking" work at?

Show me the ticking mechanism and I'll calculate that for you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again I knew that this was gonna end with someone spreading all the parts of a grandfather clock out on the table and asking us to point to where "the ticking" is.

Show me the ticking mechanism and I'll calculate that for you.

*Dumbledore or Ian Malcom's "Well there it is" gif, chose either one.*

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Right now, we can't even measure the "simple problem" aspect of how much of our brain's energy goes toward consciousness. I think there's at most one person in the thread who wouldn't agree that consciousness is expected to have an energy requirement.

But that's not meaningful for the question of whether or not consciousness does have an energy requirement. The fact that a caveman wouldn't have been able to tell you the energy requirement of running a mile doesn't imply that there wasn't one at the time. All that is is a statement about the knowledge of the caveman, not about the energy requirement of running.

It's the same with the questions you're asking. They imply nothing about consciousness, and everything about our knowledge.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Let me admit that it's a difficult question, but not in the sense you believe. You're outlining two completely different concepts and asking how they differ. Where do I start? If you believe consciousness exists, which you admit you do, then how can you compare it with running? Running doesn't go around wondering how it is self aware and pondering the mysteries of self-referential experience. Running doesn't exist.



What does that even mean? How big is a chemical interaction and why do you believe nothing smaller is of relevance?



What's woo about using the word 'quantum' as it's intended? You're making what you think are the right sounds without any understanding of what you're saying.

Another example; I describe the level at which I suggest consciousness could interact with the brain and you think I'm describing a mechanism. Since when does scale = mechanism?



Now you're trying to redefine the English language to wriggle out of the hole you dug.



Your analogy was pool balls (or perhaps more accurately just balls). By definition it doesn't involve consciousness, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy. You maintained that the motions of pool balls are fully described by Newton and there is no room for forces at any other scale to have an effect. I said this is incorrect because you could rig up a device that can literally chuck a pool ball through a window on the basis of a single quantum event. So your theory of interactions based on scale has been proved false.

Ooh look, I've called something 'woo' - give me an internet point! I've said, "That's the same as a soul," so you must accept me into your skeptcial group! See here, I've compared one poster with another who has a poor reputation for critical thought, surely that's enough to rubber-stamp my skeptic's credentials! OK, I know nothing about the topic and have no desire to educate myself but I'm saying all the right stuff aren't I? Aren't I? Please validate me!!!!

I should have learnt my lesson last time. There really is no point trying to engage with you, as you are seemingly incapable of doing so honestly.

Feel free to consider this a "victory" again. Have a biscuit.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A billion different versions of "Nuh-uh, it's different" where the difference is never explained won't change that.

The difference, apparently, is self-awareness. Although consciousness is defined as the experience of qualia with no reference to self-awareness, and absolutely everything - including inanimate objects - is being said to be conscious. So either self-awareness isn't actually relevant at all, or absolutely everything is self-aware.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm trying to understand why baron insists that processes don't exist.

Does a wave exist, baron? Does life exist?

 

[baron]

What do you mean "exist"? As an object? No, of course not. But we're not talking about objects, but actions. Are you saying that actions don't exist?

Absolutely, as I stated previously. Actions do not exist. To exist they would need unique, empirical properties not taken from the physical entities they are describing. Clearly, they do not.

You have to admit that it sounds a lot like a soul. Like the soul, your version of consciousness is not wholly contained within the person and, upon death, is not destroyed, allowing some sort of continuation in, say, another brain later on.

Who said it's not destroyed upon death? Not me. I made it crystal clear numerous times that the distortion of the conscious field is dependant on information processing in the brain. There's not much information processing going on in the brain of a dead person (no more than in any other hunk of inanimate matter, in any event) so where are you seeing immortality?

I'm trying to understand why baron insists that processes don't exist.

Does a wave exist, baron? Does life exist?

I honestly can't put it any more clearly than I have multiple times already.

"If I roll a ball down a hill I can calculate all sorts of things regarding its energy, motion, modulus of elasticity, temperature, stresses and even its quantum state if I were clever enough, and this is all that's needed to describe the ball in terms of what we can empirically measure. In addition I could say the ball is rolling. Note I say 'in addition', because 'rolling' tells us nothing beyond what we have already calculated. Rolling does not exist, it's just a linguistic construct to summarise a behaviour which makes communication between humans easier."

 

[Belz...]

Show me the ticking mechanism and I'll calculate that for you.

Not the ticking mechanism. The ticking itself. Where is it in the clock?

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely, as I stated previously. Actions do not exist. To exist they would need unique, empirical properties not taken from the physical entities they are describing. Clearly, they do not.

You neglected to answer the second part of my post, there. Do you agree that actions "happen"? Because if you do, I don't see the difference with them "existing"; and if you don't, how are you doing things¹ if they don't exist?

¹: Notice that we say "doing something", indicating not only that actions exist, but that they are, in fact, things.

Who said it's not destroyed upon death? Not me.

There's a consciousness field that permeates the entire universe, you said. Clearly that survives your death. You don't think it includes some possibility that your personality and "self" can continue on somehow?

 

[baron]

You neglected to answer the second part of my post, there. Do you agree that actions "happen"? Because if you do, I don't see the difference with them "existing"; and if you don't, how are you doing things¹ if they don't exist?

¹: Notice that we say "doing something", indicating not only that actions exist, but that they are, in fact, things.

Actions happen? That's a linguistic construct that allows complex ideas to be communicated between humans. It's not reality. The parameters of reality are already there, inherent in whatever matter is doing the performing, and the description of action adds nothing and changes nothing. It does not exist.

There's a consciousness field that permeates the entire universe, you said. Clearly that survives your death. You don't think it includes some possibility that your personality and "self" can continue on somehow?

My theory doesn't allow for it but who's to say? Your objection is like dismissing gravity because 'who is to say' that a distortion in space time doesn't exist when the mass is removed.

 

[Darat]

Not the ticking mechanism. The ticking itself. Where is it in the clock?

This gets to the heart of it, the tick is not a property of any specific piece of metal or equipment in the clock, it is a sound wave and sound waves are not a property of any component of the clock. Show me the component that has the sound wave in it.