proto-consciousness field theory

[Dancing David]

This is the hard problem of consciousness.

Just like the HP of Digestion

 

[Dancing David]

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

Nothing exists! Case solved.

It is a elephants on a turtle!

 

[Darat]

All of which happen according to the laws of physics and would happen just fine if there was no accompanying experience of pain etc

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk

Evidence?

 

[Darat]

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?

No idea.

 

[Belz...]

No idea.

BAM! There you go. Soul.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

BAM! There you go. Soul.

You should really think about who is doing the lying here and why. What is so threatening to you about this subject that you have to lie about me like that?

 

[Robin]

Evidence?

Again - you are asking for evidence that the brain can be described entirely by the laws of physics? You are doubting this?

 

[baron]

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.

The onus is on you to explain how an action and consciousness are the same, because you made the claim. In what way is an action self-aware? Why would consciousness be the same as an action?

Then why seek to explain it?

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.

Then your theory is self-contradictory, or at best moot. Unless you can explain why you believe consciousness is an action, and how an action is self-aware, then you can't claim to have a theory at all.

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"?

The common definition; to 'have objective reality or being.' If you want to put forwards the idea that actions can exist then you need to address my previous argument, which neither you nor anybody else has done: Being that I can invent an infinite number of actions to describe an infinite number of states or processes, in what way do those actions exist? Furthermore, surely actions that no human has defined exist, so there are already an infinite number of them. Occam is turning in his grave.

EDIT: I can also define action A to describe state X and action B to describe state Y, and you can define action B to describe state X and action A to describe state Y. Each of us has an equal claim so how can that logically represent reality?

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.

On the contrary, if I only experience X and nothing else then X is as pure a definition of unique as you can hope to get.

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?

I'd have to see examples of what you're talking about because that's too much like begging the question to me.

 

[Darat]

Again - you are asking for evidence that the brain can be described entirely by the laws of physics? You are doubting this?

Nope.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Step 1. Make up a magical unique state of being that can only be experienced first person.
Step 2. Demand people explain to you what it is.
Step 3. Get mad/defensive when people point out what you're talking about is a soul.

Here. My Dodge Dart has a special engine that only it has. Sure from the outside it has the exact same characteristics as every other Dodge Dart engine, but mine is special, but that specialness is unique to my Dart and only it is aware of it.

There. I have now argued there's a "Hard Problem of Dodge Dart Engines" to the exact same level as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness."

 

[Belz...]

You should really think about who is doing the lying here and why. What is so threatening to you about this subject that you have to lie about me like that?

I've got a better question: why are you so insecure about your own mortality that you felt targeted and wounded by what was an obvious joke?

 

[baron]

Step 1. Make up a magical unique state of being that can only be experienced first person.
Step 2. Demand people explain to you what it is.
Step 3. Get mad/defensive when people point out what you're talking about is a soul.

Here. My Dodge Dart has a special engine that only it has. Sure from the outside it has the exact same characteristics as every other Dodge Dart engine, but mine is special, but that specialness is unique to my Dart and only it is aware of it.

There. I have now argued there's a "Hard Problem of Dodge Dart Engines" to the exact same level as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness."

I've got an idea how you can be included instead of feeling the need to post incessant mocking commentaries in order to derail the thread. Start here and let me know if you get stuck.

https://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetailsKids.aspx?p=335&np=152&id=1528

 

[Belz...]

The onus is on you to explain how an action and consciousness are the same, because you made the claim.

No, I'm not making the claim that it is so. I am asking you why you think it can't be so.

In what way is an action self-aware?

The idea isn't that an action is self-aware, but that self-awareness IS an action.

Then your theory is self-contradictory, or at best moot. Unless you can explain why you believe consciousness is an action, and how an action is self-aware, then you can't claim to have a theory at all.

Wait a second. Last post you said that this was YOUR position, and suddenly when I point out that it's mine as well, it's moot? Don't you see a problem there?

If you want to put forwards the idea that actions can exist then you need to address my previous argument, which neither you nor anybody else has done: Being that I can invent an infinite number of actions to describe an infinite number of states or processes, in what way do those actions exist?

...in the way that they actually happen. Obviously I'm not refering to fictional actions or objects. How can you say that observed actions don't exist? I mean, they happen, right? Do they happen?

On the contrary, if I only experience X and nothing else then X is as pure a definition of unique as you can hope to get.

You're missing the point. Say you're a person who has no sense at all. You can't hear, touch, smell, taste. All you experience is red. A big slab of red is all you ever see. Suddenly you have the first thought in your life: red is special and unique compared to other, theoretical colours. Is that logical? Maybe, but it's not useful because you have no way to compare red to anything else. Turns out, other colours are equal as well.

My point is that consciousness is how you experience the world. Your entire experience is consciousness. It's not very useful to try to distinguish it from other experiences, is it?

 

[Belz...]

You should really think about who is doing the lying here and why. What is so threatening to you about this subject that you have to lie about me like that?

And now that you know it was a joke, let me ask you this: if consciousness cannot be explained by science, and only through philosophical wordplay, what is it if not a soul?

In other words, I'm asking you to describe what consciousness is in your estimate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In other words, I'm asking you to describe what consciousness is in your estimate.

And they can't do that because their entire argument is predicated on getting us to explain the thing to them that they're arguing for.

This is what Jabba did for 5,000 centuries it felt like. He wasn't trying to convince us we have souls, he was trying to get us to admit that in our heart of hearts we always knew we had souls we just too blinded by cold rational science or not enlightened enough to see it.

Stripped of all the flowery language and defensive anger it's basically "Oh come on. I just KNOW that you feel it too, that feeling that you're more than just a wet meatsack hung on a skeleton powered by a 3 lbs cluster of nerve cells soaked in various chemicals. I feel it, so you have to feel it even if you don't admit it. I'm special, so you have to think you're special too or else... I'm not special."

But that's wrong. I don't see distinctions between me and my brain, between my sensory inputs and my "experience," between the feeling of pain and "qualia of the 1st person subjective experience with sprinkles" of pain.

And the irony is the people arguing for some "Special first person sense of self beyond what can be explained by science that I'm going to just declare we all agree exists even though we don't all agree it exists" are basically going to claim the magical psychic power to look in my brain and tell me "Nope. You're wrong. You feel it to. You just won't admit it."

 

[baron]

No, I'm not making the claim that it is so. I am asking you why you think it can't be so.

In that case why would I argue against something that nobody has claimed? I wouldn't argue against 7 being more than 12 because why would I? Nobody has claimed it and it's absurd.

The idea isn't that an action is self-aware, but that self-awareness IS an action.

That's a claim. Why do you believe it to be so?

Wait a second. Last post you said that this was YOUR position, and suddenly when I point out that it's mine as well, it's moot? Don't you see a problem there?

Yes, the problem is that you have again misrepresented my claim. The distortion in the conscious field is consciousness; is self-awareness. Whether you agree with me or not I've just located it and specified how it comes about. You, however, have specified the mechanism to be the same as mine but then not said what it actually is. I did think that you had claimed consciousness was an action, but in the first sentence I quoted you stated that you are not claiming that. So that's how our theories differ. I have one, correct or not, you don't.

...in the way that they actually happen. Obviously I'm not refering to fictional actions or objects. How can you say that observed actions don't exist? I mean, they happen, right? Do they happen?

Why are you excluding unobserved actions? Surely they happen in the same way as observed ones. And why are you limiting actions to those we find useful to define? There are, you must admit, an effectively infinite number of actions we could define for an effectively infinite number of observations. How can all these things be anything but invention, or potential invention?

You're missing the point. Say you're a person who has no sense at all. You can't hear, touch, smell, taste. All you experience is red. A big slab of red is all you ever see. Suddenly you have the first thought in your life: red is special and unique compared to other, theoretical colours. Is that logical? Maybe, but it's not useful because you have no way to compare red to anything else. Turns out, other colours are equal as well.

My point is that consciousness is how you experience the world. Your entire experience is consciousness. It's not very useful to try to distinguish it from other experiences, is it?

Well, it's all I've got an it's all you've got. Nothing can be said or done that's not been filtered through our consciousness. That doesn't just make it a moot discussion point, it is another way in which consciousness is unique.

 

[Belz...]

In that case why would I argue against something that nobody has claimed?

It's a simple question, baron: do you think it's possible that what we call consciousness is merely a behaviour/action/whatever of the brain?

That's a claim. Why do you believe it to be so?

Baron, seriously, that isn't a claim. I'm raising a possibility, and now clarifying it for you. You say it appears to be begging the question to you, but right now, to me, you seem to be avoiding the question.

Yes, the problem is that you have again misrepresented my claim.

No YOU are the one who said this, remember? Here:

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.

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.

Don't you get it? You worded it that way. I pointed out that no, that's my theory, not yours. You called it contradictory. Now I say that if that's the case then you're calling YOUR theory contradictory since it's the exact same wording, and now you say I misrepresent you? Dammit, read your own words.

The distortion in the conscious field is consciousness; is self-awareness.

How can a distortion be self-aware?

Why are you excluding unobserved actions?

Because the observed ones we know are happening, obviously.

Why did you not answer my question? Do actions happen or not?

Well, it's all I've got an it's all you've got. Nothing can be said or done that's not been filtered through our consciousness. That doesn't just make it a moot discussion point, it is another way in which consciousness is unique.

Do you understand my point or not?

****, it's like pulling teeth off of teeth.

 

[Toontown]

If we demonstrably understood what gives rise to consciousness, we would be able to evaluate whether, for example, a universe can be conscious.

But I have yet to encounter anyone who can demonstrate such an understanding in any meaningful and convincing way.

I haven't read through the entire voluminous thread and do not intend to, but I am confidently assuming that no one has gotten so far as to demonstrate an understanding of what gives rise to consciousness in a meaningful and convincing way.

We know the universe can give rise to consciousness, because we are conscious and the universe gave rise to us. We theorize the existence of 26 or so continuous particle fields which span the universe and give rise to each and every particle in our individual bodies. The complexity of the ways in which these theorized fields interact is, I'm sure, unimaginable to all of us.

But we can't really make the leap from there to the universe being conscious. As far as I can tell. I say "we" tentatively. Maybe somebody can.

Can we rule it out? I haven't seen anyone credibly do that either.

Which seems to leave us stuck in a limbo of ignorance from which we are unlikely to escape in the foreseeable future.

"God of the Gaps Argument" in 3, 2, 1...

 

[baron]

It's a simple question, baron: do you think it's possible that what we call consciousness is merely a behaviour/action/whatever of the brain?

How many times have I said it? Fifty? NO. But apparently nobody is claiming this so I need not explain any further (although I have explained it several times previously).

Baron, seriously, that isn't a claim. I'm raising a possibility, and now clarifying it for you. You say it appears to be begging the question to you, but right now, to me, you seem to be avoiding the question.

No YOU are the one who said this, remember? Here:

Don't you get it? You worded it that way. I pointed out that no, that's my theory, not yours. You called it contradictory. Now I say that if that's the case then you're calling YOUR theory contradictory since it's the exact same wording, and now you say I misrepresent you? Dammit, read your own words.

Look, you don't have a theory. I do. And I can prove that's the case. Here is my theory:

What is consciousness?
It is a distortion in the conscious field. The conscious field is a fundamental field or fabric that permeates the universe.

How does consciousness arise?
It arises as a result of material information processing; the more complex and intense the processing, the more distortion and the more conscious awareness.

Simple. And your theory is..?

How can a distortion be self-aware?

Is is self-awareness. That's what the field is.

Because the observed ones we know are happening, obviously.

Why did you not answer my question? Do actions happen or not?

Of course. Now you answer mine; I asked first, several pages ago.

Do you understand my point or not?

No.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'd have to see examples of what you're talking about because that's too much like begging the question to me.

Let me re-phrase the question - do you believe that the degree to which someone or something has consciousness is directly proportional to the amount of information that that person of thing is processing? Or, perhaps, the amount of data that's processed relative to some other factor, such as bits per cubic inch or something along those lines. If not, can you clearly explain what factors you believe the level of consciousness to be dependent on.