Consciousness: what do we know?

[Filip Sandor]

Ah, qualia. The thing that dualists and immaterialists think really matters, and materialists think don't matter at all.

Yes, that's it.

Simple enough - eliminate all that is inconsistant with observation. Non-physical things cannot be observed, and may therefore logically be eliminated.

I am always impressed by your writing - I wish I could write so well.

Self-awareness, a natural property of any conscious system (brains, computers, etc) allows for perception of the 'mind' from within. But no, until I (or you, or anyone else) first were taught about the brain, you had no idea a brain existed at all.

So now computers have minds... can you elaborate on that? Maybe provide a basic definition of 'mind' at least so we can have a meaningful discussion and address your original question better.

Ah - willfully ignorant antagonist/comedy relief. Got it.

No, I seriously do think you're a smart guy, I've read your posts. I'm just tired of hearing the same old arguments against materialism. This materialism vs. immaterialism, whatever you want to call it debate is no debate to me. Materialists always end up contradicting themselves, just as you have.

Have you seen the White Cat Experiment thread I started a while ago? It's designed to bring the reader to the clear and logical consclusion that non-physical phenomena does in fact exist. Try it... see what happens!

 

[hodgy]

Have you seen the White Cat Experiment thread I started a while ago? It's designed to bring the reader to the clear and logical consclusion that non-physical phenomena does in fact exist. Try it... see what happens!

It didn't look to me that you proved anything of the sort on that thread. Anyhow - would you accept that your 'immaterial' things must have state of some sort?

 

[Dancing David]

I think we have a very immature, unscientific understanding how consciousness works. I also think we're also ill-equipped to understand the world around us with the help of our senses, and need to think critically about things before we interpret them (but by this, I mean in comparison to the ideal, or even in comparison to what some take for granted)


For example: can anyone prove that moss on a rock doesn't have some sort of consciousness? So far as I'm concerned, we don't even have a very accurate scientifc definition of it. I'm not willing to throw my two cents in a pot we're currently building.

Perrhaps you aren't aware of how much goes into the study of perception and neurocheimistry.

The holes in this statement can be shown by using the IPU,

I think we have a very immature, unscientific understanding how Invisible Pink Unicorn works. I also think we're also ill-equipped to understand the world around us with the help of our senses, and need to think critically about things before we interpret them (but by this, I mean in comparison to the ideal, or even in comparison to what some take for granted)


For example: can anyone prove that moss on a rock doesn't have some sort of Invisible Pink Unicorn? So far as I'm concerned, we don't even have a very accurate scientifc definition of it. I'm not willing to throw my two cents in a pot we're currently building

 

[Dancing David]

Understanding, Purpose, Speech, Conduct, Vocation, Effort, Mindfulness, Meditation is a journey for all, or do you believe you have no more to learn?

And this demostrates the irreducable nature of qualia and consciousness how?

 

[Iacchus]

Great analogy... Oh, no, wait - there are no receptors in the brain for EMF or any other radiowave frequencies. Nothing, in fact, except neurons for the reception of biochemical signals. Which, in turn, are generated in the brain.

Wow - an even three! Sorry, Iacchus - you are hereby considered the thread fool.

Everything emits EMF. And, if for no other reason, receives EMF as well.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know whether consciousness can exist without matter. But, then again, I have no direct evidence that matter can exist without consciousness either. What makes you so sure it does?

So what test do you suggest, I have become unconscious a number of times, the world does not stop just because my perception does, solipism is a dead end.

I don't know whether Invisible Pink Unicorn can exist without matter. But, then again, I have no direct evidence that matter can exist without Invisible Pink Unicorn either. What makes you so sure it does?

 

[Dancing David]

Oh really, and what are these "signals" that the brain produces and interacts with? Not some form of emf?

Uh, dude they are eloctro chemical in nature, they are not electrical at all, they are chemical transactions that involve the use of very low potentials across membrane boundaries, the nuerotransmission of information is strictly chemical.

 

[Dancing David]

So, what would be the difference between what I'm saying here and saying that after we die (and drop our bodies) our consciousness endures forever?

They are bith unprovable assertions that make about as much sense as the IPU.

 

[Dancing David]

As soon as we say consciousness is a thing, that it exists, that its is not nothing then we must logically agree that it has state. Its state is what distinguishes it from something else that is not consciousness.

A non-materialist may argue that this state is not rendered in matter but all he can logically say is that it may not be rendered in matter as we currently understand it. Anything that has state is reasonably well described as being comprised of matter irrespective of whether such matter can be detected by us or conforms to our our current scientific understanding or not. The important point is that we have state.

As Hammy pointed out, we do, of course, actually have evidence of consciousness - our own experiences.

We also have pretty good evidence that the cause of consciousness (what provides its state) is the brain and the electrical activity therein. For the materialist, this is generally good enough (albeit recognising that we want to learn more about how it all works).

The non-materialist can suggest that there is something else, besides the brain, that renders consciousness. Since this would in itself require matter (in the wide definition described above) of some form (to render the state) it does not really advance the non-materialist's argument.

The simplest explanation is that the brain itself provides the matter requisite for consciousness and we have no evidence to the contrary. To posit another abstract layer of matter is superfluous and does not in any case support arguments against materialism.

As soon as we say Invisible Pink Unicorn is a thing, that it exists, that its is not nothing then we must logically agree that it has state. Its state is what distinguishes it from something else that is not Invisible Pink Unicorn.

A non-materialist may argue that this state is not rendered in matter but all he can logically say is that it may not be rendered in matter as we currently understand it. Anything that has state is reasonably well described as being comprised of matter irrespective of whether such matter can be detected by us or conforms to our our current scientific understanding or not. The important point is that we have state.

As Hammy pointed out, we do, of course, actually have evidence of Invisible Pink Unicorn - our own experiences.

We also have pretty good evidence that the cause of Invisible Pink Unicorn (what provides its state) is the brain and the electrical activity therein. For the materialist, this is generally good enough (albeit recognising that we want to learn more about how it all works).

The non-materialist can suggest that there is something else, besides the brain, that renders Invisible Pink Unicorn. Since this would in itself require matter (in the wide definition described above) of some form (to render the state) it does not really advance the non-materialist's argument.

The simplest explanation is that the brain itself provides the matter requisite for Invisible Pink Unicorn and we have no evidence to the contrary. To posit another abstract layer of matter is superfluous and does not in any case support arguments against materialism.

See!!!!!

This one passes the test!

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, just in the way the eye adapted and evolved to capture the light of the sun, the brain adapted and evolved to capture the substance of that which is ever-present, consciousness.

Yes, just in the way the eye adapted and evolved to capture the light of the sun, the brain adapted and evolved to capture the substance of that which is ever-present, Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Hmm!

 

[Iacchus]

So what test do you suggest, I have become unconscious a number of times, the world does not stop just because my perception does, solipism is a dead end.

And why do "you folks" insist on reducing it to the solipsist's level? How so, if it were an underlying principle to all things?

 

[Iacchus]

Hmm!

Yes, just in the way the eye adapted and evolved to capture the light of the sun, the brain adapted and evolved to capture the substance of that which is ever-present, Invisible Pink Unicorn.

And, do you deny that you're conscious and, that this is the only means you have of accepting anything? If you want proof, there it is right there.

 

[Iacchus]

Uh, dude they are eloctro chemical in nature, they are not electrical at all, they are chemical transactions that involve the use of very low potentials across membrane boundaries, the nuerotransmission of information is strictly chemical.

"Very low potentials" of what? Electrical discharge perhaps? If you have electrical discharge at any given frequency you have EMF.

 

[hammegk]

Perrhaps you aren't aware of how much goes into the study of perception and neurocheimistry.

The holes in this statement can be shown by using the IPU,

I have direct knowledge of (what I call "my") consciousness, no data whatsoever on IPUs. That's one of those 'category difference' fallacies.

Uh, dude they are eloctro chemical in nature, they are not electrical at all, they are chemical transactions that involve the use of very low potentials across membrane boundaries, the nuerotransmission of information is strictly chemical.

What do you term interactions mediated by photon exchange? EMF is not an unreasonable approximation.

 

[Asm]

A writer I'm fond of put it thus (or close to it, I'm not looking up the quote). If you were to grind the entire world up and shift through it atom by atom, would you find a single particle of justice?

No. Neither would you find a single particle of, let's say, temperature.

Asm

 

[Beth]

No. Neither would you find a single particle of, let's say, temperature.

Asm

Does temperature exist then? Is so, is it a thing made of matter? Or is it matterless?

 

[Tricky]

Does temperature exist then? Is so, is it a thing made of matter? Or is it matterless?

Temperature is a measure of matter, i.e. the motion of atoms. All measurements are concepts, not "things" in and of themselves, just as numbers aren't "things".

 

[Z]

Yes, that's it.

And that's really one of those 'faith' issues. The one dividing point, possibly, between a materialist and everyone else. I'm not, essentially, a materialist; but I do accept that qualia, whatever you think they are, really are meaningless as a category of thing. It is not the quale itself which is essential, but the interrelationships between qualia that becomes essential. If those relationships remain consistant from one individual to the next (for example the 'sky' is always 'blue', the 'grass' is always 'green', then the actual qualia don't matter at all (such as 'blueness', 'greenness', etc).

I am always impressed by your writing - I wish I could write so well.

I wish I could write better. I always feel as if the point I'm trying to communicate gets lost between my brain and the keyboard.

But thank you - compliment accepted!

So now computers have minds... can you elaborate on that? Maybe provide a basic definition of 'mind' at least so we can have a meaningful discussion and address your original question better.

OK, you caught me in one of my own premises. IMHO, 'consciousness' is nothing but the processing of sensory information, memory, and awareness of self as discerned from other. As such, many computers have what I think of as consciousness, as do most all animals, some plants (though we don't yet know WHAT information they process, nor how), even some automobiles, to an extent.

In other words, I see absolutely nothing in 'consciousness' that is unique to human kind or animal kind in general.

No, I seriously do think you're a smart guy, I've read your posts. I'm just tired of hearing the same old arguments against materialism. This materialism vs. immaterialism, whatever you want to call it debate is no debate to me. Materialists always end up contradicting themselves, just as you have.

Mind clearing up what contradiction you saw?

Have you seen the White Cat Experiment thread I started a while ago? It's designed to bring the reader to the clear and logical consclusion that non-physical phenomena does in fact exist. Try it... see what happens!

I saw it - and it doesn't prove much of anything. First, it starts with a completely contradictory definition for non-physical, then goes into the process of internal information processing.

'Visualization' is nothing more than one part of the brain - the part connected to memory - transmitting information to another part of the brain. We like to think of our brains as this nice, unified whole; but, in fact, the brain is more like a colony of information processors, each sending and receiving data one to another. Sometimes false information can be sent, and sometimes information can be confused as multiple centers try to communicate to the same node at once.

So, yes - I can picture a nice, white cat. This is because I possess memories of both whiteness and catness, both of which were received via physical process and stored via physical process. When photons for 'white' struck my nerves in my eyes, specific signals occured in specific parts of my brain. Another part made note of that signal pattern and associated the lingual label 'white' to it. When I want to recall 'white', the storage center re-stimulates the visual awareness center with 'whiteness' - albeit, nowhere nearly as strong as the visual nerves can, so the image is vague, only clarifying if I close my eyes (or, preferably, am asleep). Same with 'cat'.

In other words, this idea of a white cat (because, truly, you are NOT seeing a white cat) is a physical thing. The thought experiment fails, precisely because you do NOT understand what is going on when you 'see things in your mind'.

I'm not trying to come across as abrasive, Filip; it's just that, due to circumstances beyond my control, I never was able to finish college; this irks me to no end, as I was VERY good in school. But I know more in spite of my lack of education about how things really work, than almost anyone else I talk to in the woo community who, in spite of maybe even having done college, don't seem to understand the first thing about science in general! So when I hear something like the white cat experiment, I'm bothered, endlessly, at the ignorance it takes to actually believe that such thinking is 'profound' or 'proves' anything. It's not an affront against you, particularly; just against a culture that values willful ignorance over intelligent thought.

 

[Correa Neto]

I have direct knowledge of (what I call "my") consciousness, no data whatsoever on IPUs. That's one of those 'category difference' fallacies....snip...

Maybe just because you do not belive in IPU?

Perhaps if you belived in IPU, you would say you have direct knowelege of Her Holiness, maybe by some mystical or religious experience. So, I think the reasoning may be valid.

We experience our selves, regardless of what they actually are. And we all, regardless of our positions on the nature and origin of consciousness, experience our individual selves. You don't need to belive in a self -or know what a self is- to experience the sensation of having one.

Religious and/or mystical experiences are real for those who had them. Most of those who had them belive they are a product of some sort of spiritual manifestation. We know that they are related to brain activity and that they seem to be more common among religious people. Thus, belief is possibly an important prerequisite. Here's the main diference between the IPU and consciousness.

And now I digress, surprisingly close (at least to me) to some Buddhistic lines... Maybe we experience selves because somehow -don't ask me why- we are induced to "belive" we have selves. Maybe we can "unlearn" to experience individual selves. And maybe the feling of "oness with the universe", common in mystical experiences, is a state of consciousness without experiencing an individual self.

And no, regardless of what I wrote above, I don't think there's any good evidence backing the existence of conscioussness independent of the "material world".

 

[hammegk]

I do not suggest my consciousness -- of which I have actual knowledge -- is godlike, or IPU like, nor do I require metaphysics and belief to recognize that I am conscious at homo sap level. If you choose to characterize your own consciousness that you know you have as requiring belief, your choice, as is your choice to believe that what we name ego, etc is all you are.

Also, will any of you ever recognize and admit that invisible, pink, and unicorn are fundamental category errors? Define god, and we will disprove him, ok?

And what is that 'evidence of existence of a material world' you find compelling?