Consciousness: what do we know?

[hammegk]

Again, what predictable and observable do you have ?

For you, nothing. For me, all that is.

Speculation is great and wonderful, but what can you predict by waving your magic words around. Great speculation but no science.

Speculation is that matter exists. Science works fine with or without it, as long as 'what is' is truly objective; ergo objective idealism.

Oh sure Hamme and the exchange of photons is what causes the car to turn when I turn the steering wheel. Isn't it?

I have nothing to do with it, but otherwise, yes; you've got it!

What the hell do you think ENERGY is anyway ?

That, actually, may be the Question.

Energy and matter are pretty much the same thing, in a way.

Energy - capable of choice at least at subatomic level, matter - dead; other than that E=mc**2.

They're both physical things, particle or otherwise.

F=ma ... Is force the same thing as acceleration?

 

[Dancing David]

Filip Sandor:

How do you know that the qualia are the same for each individual, it is very likely that the color I perceive as red could be the color you perceive as green. Immaterialism is constrained in the same way that materialism is, you can't know that the color you see as red isn't the color I see as green, we just refer to them by the same set of verbal signals. So qualia are irreducable but that does not mean that they are universal.

 

[Dancing David]

Speculation is that matter exists. Science works fine with or without it, as long as 'what is' is truly objective; ergo objective idealism.

The essence of the question remanis the same, where can you prove that energy makes a choice, what test can you use to demosntrate it. Otherwise it is the same speculation that little monkeys on motor scooters are as likely as thought for the observable universe.

You stated that ions did not exist in sufficient numbers for statistics to apply. Which was nothing more than a broad assertion, where is your evidence that the number of ions is insufficient for quantum mechanics to apply?

Energy - capable of choice at least at subatomic level, matter - dead; other than that E=mc**2.

More of your magical thinking, if you truely understodd the concepts you bandy about you would know that matter is energy and that energy is matter. They are the same, they are not different 'states' they are the same thing, all the time and in all places. (That we can observe at any rate.)

Same question: At what point can you demonstrate choice?

F=ma ... Is force the same thing as acceleration?

Can you answer your own question?

Just because you can make pithy little satements that appear to be cryptic does not mean that you are communicating, perhaps you should bring your 'parrot' Pahansiri back?

 

[Tricky]

F=ma ... Is force the same thing as acceleration?

Why no. No it isn't. Force is mass times acceleration. You remember mass, don't you? It's that property that matter has. So if you have no matter, you have no mass. If you have no mass, you have no force.

Are you opting for nihilism now?

 

[hammegk]

The essence of the question remanis the same, where can you prove that energy makes a choice, what test can you use to demosntrate it.

I like Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM effects. The possibility of choice is there in the handshake.

Otherwise it is the same speculation that little monkeys on motor scooters are as likely as thought for the observable universe.

Slight diiference; physicists theorize energy exists. If your wordview allows you to rename energy to 'little monkeys on motor scooters', that's weird!

You stated that ions did not exist in sufficient numbers for statistics to apply. Which was nothing more than a broad assertion, where is your evidence that the number of ions is insufficient for quantum mechanics to apply?

No I did not. I was speaking of individual ions, and sfaik, one is what conveys specific info across a synapse.

More of your magical thinking, if you truely understodd the concepts you bandy about you would know that matter is energy and that energy is matter. They are the same, they are not different 'states' they are the same thing, all the time and in all places. (That we can observe at any rate.)

I suspect I have a reasonable layman's level understanding of the concepts. Apparently you finally understood the photon mediation idea.

Same question: At what point can you demonstrate choice?

Better suggestion: go ahead & choose not do.

Can you answer your own question?

Why? Do you already have the answer to every question you ask?

Just because you can make pithy little satements that appear to be cryptic does not mean that you are communicating, perhaps you should bring your 'parrot' Pahansiri back?

I don't recall Pahansiri & I agreeing on much.

Cryptic is a function of the receivers' knowledge base.

Are you opting for nihilism now?

As Camus said, the only real philisophical question is, should one commit suicide?

But actually, no. Mass ... hard to get a good handle on it, huh?

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

We may just have evolved to experience a self. Belief (or disbelief) in existence of the self may not be an issue. Remember, even the people who never heard about what a self is, feel they have one. Some people claim, however, that certain techniques can decrease or even eliminate -even if just for a small ammount of time- the feeling of existence of the self.

I compared IPU -actually religious and mystical experiences- with the experience of the self because I think both are somehow originated by interactions between the brain and the environment. But one of them (usually) requires belief to be experienced. And, if I´m correct (yes, I admit I may not be), then if you believed in IPU you could experience Her Holiness.

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?

If the concept of IPU is worng, then lets use the FSM ...

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

Well, we walk over the floor rather than float or sink through it... We are all subject to several identical phenomena and limitations that seem to correspond to living within a physical or material world. Do you have a more reasonable explanation? Do you have any evidence that there isn´t a material world?

 

[Complexity]

The best book that I have read on the subject of consciousness is Consciousness Explained, by Daniel Dennett. I bought it, in part, because the title annoyed me - I thought that this guy has a lot of nerve. Well, to my delight, he did a much better job of exploring the subject and explaining consciousness than I had any right to expect. I'm slowly rereading the book again for the umpteenth time and still loving it.

Challenge yourself and curl up with this book.

 

[Iacchus]

If the concept of IPU is worng, then lets use the FSM ...

Monsters from the id!

 

[Dancing David]

I like Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM effects. The possibility of choice is there in the handshake.

Which still mediates the transmission of ions through the sodium, calcium and potasium gateways, howver it does not cause them any choice. Unless it is like the choice of cattle in a shoot, which is rather limiting.

Slight diiference; physicists theorize energy exists. If your wordview allows you to rename energy to 'little monkeys on motor scooters', that's weird!

Wrong again, they theorise that energy and matter are the same thing, they assume that matter/energy exists bacause that is what they 'observe', the premise is again based upon predicting observation.
So what does choice add to the mix?

No I did not. I was speaking of individual ions, and sfaik, one is what conveys specific info across a synapse.

Which just shows that you don't read posts that explain such things, as was discussed earlier, ions per se don't carry the information across the synapse, that is done by very large molecules keyed to specific receptor sites on the receiving nueron, these are called nuerotansmitters. Information (if you want to call it such) is carried across the synapse by the transmitting nueron releasing nuero-tansmitter, if enough of it bonds to receptors then the receiving nueron is activated.
So it is not ions per se carrying the information, the ionic exchange is the mediator for how the presynaptic nueron is activated to release the transmitter.
However this is commonly considered by some to be electrical conduction, which the theory does not state.

I suspect I have a reasonable layman's level understanding of the concepts. Apparently you finally understood the photon mediation idea.

It still doesn't support your mistaken belief that there is a choice for ions to cross through the cell membrane because of micro-scale quantum mechanics, that is like invoking Cramers interaction to say that a single molecule of water does not cross the threshold to be in the realm of choice.

Better suggestion: go ahead & choose not do.

What benefit is there to your choice model , any predictable observations?

Why? Do you already have the answer to every question you ask?

No I don't , put you are the one using the f=ma theory to some bizzare end.
I know that you get some benefit from not explaing yourself, most likely because then you might have to actualy explain yourself.

I don't recall Pahansiri & I agreeing on much.

I don't see you saying that Pahansiri isn't your parrot.

Cryptic is a function of the receivers' knowledge base.

Un huh, and Webstars says that infer and imply mean the same thing. Cryptic has a standard definition that is not dependant upon the reciever's knowledge, in this case you just don't want to explain yourself, and it would seem that being witty means more than communicating.

And no one shouldn't commit suicide because then I loose my job!

 

[Iacchus]

So it is not ions per se carrying the information, the ionic exchange is the mediator for how the presynaptic nueron is activated to release the transmitter.

And by "activation," you mean what?

However this is commonly considered by some to be electrical conduction, which the theory does not state.

Oh well, I see, we're whipping out something we might refer to as a theory here.

The fact of the matter is, the mind is nothing more than a huge viewing screen. So, what causes "these images" to be displayed? Obviously there's an outside environment (as well as inside) that exists ... but, that's not what we're looking at.

 

[Belz...]

Monsters from the id!

I'm now convinced. Iacchus is really a bot who's picking lines from a random generator. I definitely remember seeing this exact post on another thread.

 

[Belz...]

Which just shows that you don't read posts that explain such things, as was discussed earlier, ions per se don't carry the information across the synapse, that is done by very large molecules keyed to specific receptor sites on the receiving nueron, these are called nuerotansmitters. Information (if you want to call it such) is carried across the synapse by the transmitting nueron releasing nuero-tansmitter, if enough of it bonds to receptors then the receiving nueron is activated.
So it is not ions per se carrying the information, the ionic exchange is the mediator for how the presynaptic nueron is activated to release the transmitter.

Please, man. Stop that.

 

[Iacchus]

I'm now convinced. Iacchus is really a bot who's picking lines from a random generator. I definitely remember seeing this exact post on another thread.

Yes, and it seems I keep hearing about these IPU and FSM thingees as well too.

 

[Mercutio]

And by "activation," you mean what?

Again, if you really are interested in finding out, this is very easily researched. Try an introductory psych book, the chapter on neurophysiology. Or, better, a biopsychology textbook. Or even google for "synaptic transmission". "Activation" is the proper term; if you do just a little work to educate yourself, you will get a lot more out of DD's post.

Oh well, I see, we're whipping out something we might refer to as a theory here.

The fact of the matter is, the mind is nothing more than a huge viewing screen. So, what causes "these images" to be displayed? Obviously there's an outside environment (as well as inside) that exists ... but, that's not what we're looking at.

Oh, that's the "fact of the matter", is it? What you describe here is called "the Cartesian Theatre", and it has long since been dismissed by those who know anything about consciousness. Try googling that one, too. The fact of the matter is, you are almost completely ignorant about these topics which you seem to be so interested in.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Force is mass times acceleration. You remember mass, don't you? It's that property that matter has. So if you have no matter, you have no mass. If you have no mass, you have no force.

Check out solar sails:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae270.cfm

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

We may just have evolved to experience a self.

Or we may be a bored alien IPU or FSM playing a game in a mind-altering holodeck. Theorising all possibilities and all possible combinations of possibilities isn't possible (and it would be pointless even if it were possible since they'd all be equal in theory). Instead, we have to start with what we have: the experience of self-awareness and the theory of 'brain matter' somehow fascilitating a sham.

Furthermore, if we don't agree to continue accepting shared experience as reality and to maintain the definition of theory as speculative model then, frankly, science collapses as a purposive or workable discipline.

I compared IPU -actually religious and mystical experiences- with the experience of the self because I think both are somehow originated by interactions between the brain and the environment. But one of them (usually) requires belief to be experienced. And, if I´m correct (yes, I admit I may not be), then if you believed in IPU you could experience Her Holiness.

There is a clear categorical difference between what you believe in becoming your experience and what you experience becoming your belief; with the difference being theory-driven pseudoscience at worst and protoscience at best and, real, data-driven science. (That's why amaterialism, the view that 'matter' is really 'energy' and that there is no clear evidence that brains produce consciousness is not a 'belief system'.)

Well, we walk over the floor rather than float or sink through it... We are all subject to several identical phenomena and limitations that seem to correspond to living within a physical or material world. Do you have a more reasonable explanation? Do you have any evidence that there isn´t a material world?

There's a real world we interact with that seems stable enough, that's for sure. But when we look at the sub-atomic level we find that our theory of 'matter' (which originally meant an indivisible solid) is wrong.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Filip Sandor]

Filip Sandor:

How do you know that the qualia are the same for each individual, it is very likely that the color I perceive as red could be the color you perceive as green.

If you cross examine some willing participants showing them different colored panels and asking them what they see you should be able to better determine who sees what and if it's more or less the same, as well as which colors are more likely to actually be there. Of course, such an experiment on it's own doesn't imply the existence of qualia, it just shows that what goes on in the brain correlates to certain physical behaviours such as different kinds sounds being uttered by the subject and movement in the mouth, eyes, body, etc.. yet even the materialists themselves insist that qualia is not merely a description of the physical activity in the brain... this is where it gets foggy.

According to materialists, qualia exists, but they can't provide any physical evidence of it. This is very basic logic folks. The fact that two things are interrelated - in this case the physical activity in the brain with the physical reactions of the subject's body parts - does imply the existance of qualia. Therefore, it is incorrectly labelled as 'physical evidence' of such by materialists. Now some people might still find this difficult to digest, naturally, they are aware of their own qualia, they don't need to correlate it to the physical states in their brain to know it exists. Let's take a different perspective on the matter. Assuming that the physical states we observe in the brain do in fact correlate to some sort of a mind or informational archetype for lack of a better term... should it not follow logically that any other type of physical phenomena may in fact correlate to some aspect of another kind of mind?

Our knowledge of the mind (or it's existence to be more precise) was not obtained by means of any kind of physical theory contructed from phyisical observation of the brain itself and so the conclusion that the mind is immaterial, is logical and very reasonable. You shouldn't let complicated analogies of computers and hard-drives fool you either. Materialists don't understand that none of the meanings they percieve in their minds when they use a computer are inherently 'contained' inside a computer; we assign meanings to the computer's physical states mentally. Computers are very complex machines, but then look at the complexity of the atoms in a rock, so what??

Disclaimer for the reading/ logically impaired:

I am not implying the existence of gods or spirits, or any kind of super-natural phenomenon.

Disclaimer for the weak willed:

Don't come crying with questions about the non-physical, you have your own reasoning abilities, use them. I showed you the door... I'm sure you can walk through it all by yourself!

 

[hammegk]

We may just have evolved to experience a self. Belief (or disbelief) in existence of the self may not be an issue. Remember, even the people who never heard about what a self is, feel they have one. Some people claim, however, that certain techniques can decrease or even eliminate -even if just for a small ammount of time- the feeling of existence of the self.

Do you contend human level (self, ego, id, whatever) is the only example of consciousness? If so, I disagree; the lowest level of 'consciousness' is yet speculation.

And, if I´m correct (yes, I admit I may not be), then if you believed in IPU you could experience Her Holiness.

Unknown, but irrelevant to my point.

Well, we walk over the floor rather than float or sink through it... We are all subject to several identical phenomena and limitations that seem to correspond to living within a physical or material world. Do you have a more reasonable explanation? Do you have any evidence that there isn´t a material world?

Current physics, in the sense 'material world' takes us back to Democritus' atoms.

Which still mediates the transmission of ions through the sodium, calcium and potasium gateways, howver it does not cause them any choice. Unless it is like the choice of cattle in a shoot, which is rather limiting.

I admit I don't know. I have read (source unknown at the moment) that ions that are part & parcel of brain activity interact in ways QM theory is required to predict their effect.

Wrong again, they theorise that energy and matter are the same thing, they assume that matter/energy exists bacause that is what they 'observe', the premise is again based upon predicting observation.

So do Democritus' atoms (matter) exist? E=mc**2 does not declare them "the same".

Which just shows that you don't read posts that explain such things, as was discussed earlier, ions per se don't carry the information across the synapse,

My error. Sorry. Yet ions are key players. Do you grant that?

It still doesn't support your mistaken belief that there is a choice for ions to cross through the cell membrane because of micro-scale quantum mechanics,

Agreed, yet ions play their part, and at QM level, perhaps. Agreed I do not have the cite.

that is like invoking Cramers interaction to say that a single molecule of water does not cross the threshold to be in the realm of choice.

No it is not. Cramer's TI applies at boson level.

What benefit is there to your choice model , any predictable observations?

I prefer mechanisms that allow for choice rather than determinism, no more, no less, choosing to believe my thoughts are not determined.

No I don't , but you are the one using the f=ma theory to some bizzare end.

I am?


BTW, every post I've ever made in any bbs, usenet, or the like was as hammegk. mmmkay .... ?

 

[Belz...]

There's a real world we interact with that seems stable enough, that's for sure. But when we look at the sub-atomic level we find that our theory of 'matter' (which originally meant an indivisible solid) is wrong.

You're just dancing around definitions here. "Solid" is just a useful term that means next to nothing beyond molecules. It's still MATTER even if it isn't SOLID.

 

[Beerina]

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?

Direct evidence in the Berkeley sense of matter may be obtained by placing the hypothetical matter-instantiated gun to one's hypothetical matter-instantiated temple and pulling the hypothetical matter-instantiated trigger.

Or just walking your hypothetical matter-instantiated body off a hypothetical matter-instantiated cliff.

This should let you know whether reality is objective or not. Let us know the results!