proto-consciousness field theory

[RecoveringYuppy]

Sorry, I can't parse your post. What are you saying?

You asked someone, I forget who, probably baron, why consciousness isn't like ticking. Why don't you explain it to the same degree that ticking has been explained.

And there we go. It's a perpetual dance. No one here is claiming that we've solved consciousness, so your request here is irrelevant. What we're saying is that there is no reason to assume consciousness is anything more than a behaviour of a functioning brain, just like "ticking" emerges from a functioning clock or "running" is produced by functioning legs.

Then explain it just like ticking. And several people are claiming that consciousness is no problem at all so it's seems a bit disingenuous to say that those people aren't claiming the problem is solved.

I'm pretty sure there's a consensus that it arises "from the brain", however.

Wow.

Do you want to poll neuroscientists on that?

No.

Really? You found the ticking?
Show it to me.

Stop being intentionally stupid.

God, did you already lose track of the conversation? It's the argument I'M making. Not you. Christ.

Go back and re-read. If that's what you meant then you certainly weren't clear. You didn't say "it's my argument". You said it was an argument that people who you didn't identify were making. And you sounded dismissive of it which I wouldn't think would be your attitude towards your own arguments.

 

[Belz...]

You asked someone, I forget who, probably baron, why consciousness isn't like ticking. Why don't you explain it to the same degree that ticking has been explained.

Because the two claims aren't the same. Saying that we have every reason to think its nature is X is not the same as saying we know exactly what it is. I can't understand why you don't see that.

Wow.

Wow what? Do you really think that a significant number of scientists doubt that conclusion?

Stop being intentionally stupid.

You really, really don't want to be confronted with the problems with your arguments, do you?

You know as well as I do that you can't show me the substance of "ticking". That you can't point to a disassembled clock, or even a functioning one, and point to something and say "look, that's ticking". It's the same thing for consciousness. The "ticking" is a shockwave that hits your eardrums and is interpreted by your brain. Consciousness is also a behaviour that we observe in each other, and in ourselves. The point of the exercise, which you're very keen to avoid, is that no one has ever been able to establish that consciousness is in any way different from any other emergent behaviour or property of matter. You just assert it to be different because.... it feels different. But as I told baron, it feels different than what? You have no basis to compare it to anything else in terms of feeling.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Because the two claims aren't the same. Saying that we have every reason to think its nature is X is not the same as saying we know exactly what it is. I can't understand why you don't see that.

This sounds irrelevant to me, I can barely discern anything meaningful in this sentence.

Wow what? Do you really think that a significant number of scientists doubt that conclusion?

No.

You really, really don't want to be confronted with the problems with your arguments, do you?

I'd love to be.

 

[Belz...]

This sounds irrelevant to me, I can barely discern anything meaningful in this sentence.

I can see that, which is why I thought it was important to make the distinction. But clearly you don't want to understand it. The soul must remain.

No.

Then where do we disagree? If most neuroscientists conclude that the consciousness emerges from the brain, what's your take on the consensus?

I'd love to be.

Since I just explained it to you and you both cut it out of your response and ignored it completely, I'm going to say you're lying here.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

OK. I'll stop bothering you with my lies.

 

[Belz...]

OK. I'll stop bothering you with my lies.

Does that mean you'll stop posting entirely?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is the hard problem of consciousness.

Then I do not agree that it's a valid problem to be solved. It's a made up one.

That's all this is? You wanting me to talk you through your existential crisis?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yep, just like if you smash your TV it proves radio signals don't exist.

Oh for... not the "Brain is just a receiver that picks up the soul broadcast" argument again. I thought only Jabba was out there enough to think that.

 

[Belz...]

Oh for... not the "Brain is just a receiver that picks up the soul broadcast" argument again. I thought only Jabba was out there enough to think that.

Survival instincts are a powerful drug.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And yeah it's a soul. "Okay but if you take away your biological brain there's still something there" is a soul, period, end of discussion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

 

[baron]

Then explain how the ball gets from location A to location B. If it's not a thing, how can it happen?

Once you've done that, explain why consciousness is not of the same nature as this movement.

Without being rude, I can't help you out further. I've explained it to the best of my ability. Because I can't fathom how you can equate two things that are completely different I can offer to further argument as to why they are not the same. If I asked you to explain how a cow is different to genius, or how quarks are different to laughing at a swan, I'd estimate you'd give up well before the twentieth time of trying, or even before the first, saying in effect, WTF are you talking about?

Grammatically? It's a logical inference, not a linguistic one. Every single piece of evidence we have supports the idea that consciousness is produced by the brain.

We don't have any evidence that consciousness exists at all, let alone what its origins are. Now we're back to square one, if we ever left it.

Furthermore, my theory (as surely you understand by now) mandates that consciousness is generated by the brain, via the information processing that goes on in there. That's one up on your theory. Your theory is 'The brain does it, but I've no idea how, and non-brains can't do it but I've no idea why'. My theory is 'The brain does it through information processing, and other things can do it too at a level proportion to their information processing abilities'.

Clearly it isn't a substance

Is space-time a substance? It can be warped by mass to create gravity, so can you show me some space-time? Some empirical measurements? Nope.

, so the logical conclusion is that it is an action, instead.

So space-time must be an action too? Sorry, nope.

For some reason, you found an out by denying that actions exist at all, and are appealing to some semantic nonsense to support that.

Actions don't exist.

You have nothing to compared it to. How the hell do you know that it's unique?

Er, yes, that tends to be the definitive attribute of an entity's uniqueness - not having anything to compare it to.

 

[Belz...]

Without being rude, I can't help you out further. I've explained it to the best of my ability. Because I can't fathom how you can equate two things that are completely different I can offer to further argument as to why they are not the same.

But you're the one claiming that there's a difference. I'm distinguishing between an object and its behaviour, but not between two behaviours for the purposes of making that distinction.

We don't have any evidence that consciousness exists at all

Then why seek to explain it?

Furthermore, my theory (as surely you understand by now) mandates that consciousness is generated by the brain, via the information processing that goes on in there. That's one up on your theory. Your theory is 'The brain does it, but I've no idea how, and non-brains can't do it but I've no idea why'.

Er... actually my theory is that consciousness is generated by the brain, via the informaiton processing that goes on in there. Yours adds a field over than for no good reason.

So space-time must be an action too? Sorry, nope.

Actually, yes.

Actions don't exist.

Then answer the question you ignored: if it doesn't exist, then how does it occur? I shudder to ask, but how do you define "exist"?

Er, yes, that tends to be the definitive attribute of an entity's uniqueness - not having anything to compare it to.

You misunderstood my point, there. I'm not saying that consciousness is different from other things. I'm saying that from your point of view, consciousness is the ONLY thing you experience. Since there is only one thing you can't compare it to other things and declare it to be special and unique. You have no basis for doing that.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Actions don't exist.

But actions do have consequences.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You asked someone, I forget who, probably baron, why consciousness isn't like ticking. Why don't you explain it to the same degree that ticking has been explained.

The fact that something cannot yet be explained to the same degree as something else doesn't imply that it is a different kind of thing. There are many mysteries still around lightning, including what initiates a lightning strike. That doesn't imply that a lightning bolt isn't the same category of thing as the arc from a Tesla coil.

That we cannot yet explain all the causes of consciousness yet we can explain all the causes of a tick does not imply that they are not both processes. All that is is a statement about our knowledge. It says nothing whatsoever about either the tick or consciousness.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Furthermore, my theory (as surely you understand by now) mandates that consciousness is generated by the brain, via the information processing that goes on in there. That's one up on your theory. Your theory is 'The brain does it, but I've no idea how, and non-brains can't do it but I've no idea why'. My theory is 'The brain does it through information processing, and other things can do it too at a level proportion to their information processing abilities'.

Why is some information processing different to others? Why can damaging one small part of the brain have a huge effect on consciousness without having much effect on the amount of information processing going on in the brain, while other kinds of damage to the brain can reduce the information processing going on in the brain without having much (if any) of an effect on consciousness?

 

[Dancing David]

Nope.

Have we any evidence of 'consciousness' with an organic brain?

Nope.

Anyone who has claimed it does seem to be using one

 

[Belz...]

Consciousness doesn't exist! Actions don't exist!

Nothing exists! Case solved.

 

[Dancing David]

What's the difference between the reactions you are consciously aware of and those that you aren't? Are the chemicals themselves actually important and to what degree? Could other chemicals stand in? Totally replaced with electrical signals?

That depends on what you mean and define as aware.
The brain responds to different stimuli, perceptions, emotions and thoughts.
Despite the fact that they are apparently brain processes they interact.

Are you aware of digestion?

 

[Dancing David]

It's not clear that this is a species wide phenomena. Darat in this very thread claims to be a p-zombie by most definitions. Others claim to experience qualia and subjective awareness.


This is perfectly true. There is no reason a p-zombie could not be as well adapted as a conscious person. In fact there is no known reason they couldn't be better adapted.

I am a p-zombie as well.

"experience qualia and subjective awareness" are internal behaviors, therefore a p-zombie will have 'experience qualia and subjective awareness' yet not be 'conscious'.