Consciousness question

[Dark Jaguar]

Why have you concluded that consciousness is a collective process? Let's be clear here about something - your brain is nothing more than protons, neutrons and electrons with some EM radiation thrown in for good measure. Why specifically do you think that macro-scale activity is necessary to generate consciousness? Why not something a little bit smaller? Are insects conscious? Do you disagree with Daniel Dennett's theory about theromostats being intentional systems with beliefs about the world?"Seems to vanish"? Do you have anything other than this circumstantial evidence? When I thump a table the shockwaves diminish within a second or two and the energy transferred from my thumping the table to the shockwaves "seems to vanish". Appearances can be deceiving.

I concluded this based on the shows I've seen documenting experiments on the brain. Various tests on the status of the brain as conciousness is reduced show that brain activity reduces as well. This is but a corrolation, but as of yet we have not determined the presence of any 3rd thing that would occur that would reduce both of them in the same way as simply reaching the conclusion that reducing brain activity affects our conciousness and nullifying it stops it altogether.

Further, all we can EVER say in science is that things "seem to" be one way or another. The sun seems to rise, and from our perspective, that is an accurate description. Upon further analysis, we have found that it is more accurate to say that the earth moves around the sun. That is because of observations of the small circles other things thought to orbit us made, it seemed very strongly that that was the case. Science can offer no absolute facts.

The bottom line is, as with matter/energy which we don't believe can ever be created or destroyed having no evidence for such we have no reason to believe that consciousness can ever be created or destroyed.

Neither matter nor energy are destroyed when one loses conciousness, so that is not violated. To extend our observations of the inability to destroy matter/energy to anything beyond that is to go one step too far. Where is the evidence that the current state of matter or energy can't be destroyed? I find it hard to believe that such can ever actually be shown to be true when we have many many observations of that happening all the time. While it is true that the current activity level means there is a "new state" that the brain's matter and energy can take, that new state can't be called conciousness, by definition.

And my bumping into a table should reduce my mass and increase the table's mass. How's that testable?

Pardon? If perhaps you scraped off a few skin cells in the process, sure. If you mean that the energy you put into the table would increase it's mass, keep in mind that energy lacks mass. As for testability of energy transfer, simply observe the movement of the table. and the energy of your body bumping into it. Done.

Anything beyond that is an assumption.

 

[HypnoPsi]

If I take your brain away, it doesn't happen any more.

Neural information processing ceases when we die, but how do you know that causes the cessation of consciousness?

It's you.

??? Again, you wrote:

"Consciousness is a perfectly straightforward informational process. It only seems odd because you are observing it from the inside, and as such, cannot directly compare it with any other examples." There's no point in just saying "you" are "you" here. Try to be more specific.

There isn't anything else, so if you don't accept any of those, that's your problem.

It's not a problem for me not to accept anecdotes, models, theories and circumstantial evidence. I don't even care if you do accept them - and I'm glad to see you admit that's all you have.

Do you therefore accept that the idea that matter/energy produces consciousness is just faith?

But p-zombies are conscious.

The very definition of p-zombies is that they are non-conscious. They are a philosophical device used to contrast against our conscious state.

Why aren't we p-zombies?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Can't you read? There is no replicable, on-demand, evidence for the existence of ghosts. That's not the same as their being no evidence at all.I don't have to show you anything. I have no evidence for the creation of destruction of consciousness plain and simple. As such, I have no reason to believe it can be created or destroyed.

Again, do you disagree with Dennett about thermostats being intentional systems with beliefs about the world? If so, why? If not, why not?
_
HypnoPsi

If you cannot show us evidence, then that is the entire point. So you say there is evidence but you can't show it to us. Okay, prove THAT. Prove you have this evidence. (Hint: best way to do that would be to show us the evidence)

And actually, you DO have evidence for the creation and destruction of conciousness. The evidence is in the form of someone being born who's awareness you have not seen any signs of before the child's birth, and the total ceasing of all the signs of conciousness not only upon the being's death, but when one is unconcious (and Iacchus, I refer to when one is not in dream state, but in deep unconciousness).

As to whether or not an insect is concious or a thermostat, those are interesting questions. However, there are apparently "levels" of conciousness. This concept has already been explained in the thread. It may be very faulty to percieve of conciousness as "on/off" when it can be made "greater" and "lesser" just by tweaking the brain. I certainly am not very aware or able to think when I'm dead tired. I am in fact less concious than normal.

 

[HypnoPsi]

So, if you value this, you should understand that for Buddhism there is not such a thing as "a consciousness". Its not real. Period.

I see some value in Buddhist and Hindu ideas but I'm not convinced by them either. I think the Western and Eastern notions of God/Source are two sides of the same coin and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Why aren't we p-zombies? If the idea is that conciousness is a byproduct of brain activity, then p-zombies are IMPOSSIBLE. A thread has already been created addressing this VERY well. Essentially, in order for something to ACT like it is concious in a way that can't be discerned from the "real thing", it has to actually BE concious.

And again, there is no absolute evidence of the sun EXISTING, but there is so much evidence pointing to that as being the case that I would be foolish to think otherwise.

 

[Mercutio]

Neural information processing ceases when we die, but how do you know that causes the cessation of consciousness????

It gradually becomes obvious that you are using a very different definition of consciousness than the majority of our language community. Where others say that someone has lapsed into unconsciousness, you will point out that they merely have ceased to respond--but how do we know that this causes the cessation of consciousness? When someone dies, again you question whether this means they have ceased being conscious! If you are free to use the word differently than anyone else, I don't think you can fairly fault others for citing studies that examine consciousness as defined by the rest of us.

By your definition, it is impossible to observe in others; as I said in the other thread, this has the effect of making it impossible to learn (from others, which is how we learn our language) how to label it in ourselves. These "how do we know they are not still conscious?" questions are self-answering: if we think there is some unobservable element of consciousness displayed (or rather, possessed, not displayed) by even the dead, then we could never have known enough about it to have asked the question in the first place.

In other words, it is *your* view of consciousness that can only be held through pure faith.

Do you therefore accept that the idea that matter/energy produces consciousness is just faith?The very definition of p-zombies is that they are non-conscious. They are a philosophical device used to contrast against our conscious state.

Why aren't we p-zombies?
_
HypnoPsi

They are a philosophical device used to show the uselessness of the term "consciousness" as you attempt to use it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, how many protons, neutrons electrons and much EM radiation do you need to produce consciousness - and why?

It's more about the organisation than the quantity.

What about cat's, dogs, rabbits and snakes? What about insects? How and why are you defining what is and isn't conscious? What about Dennett's thermostats? What about my calculator?

What about them? Consciousness is quantitative.

What specific properties do you think are necessarty to produce consciousness and why?

Not properties, processes. Information processing, to be specific.

Nope, you haven't defined or demonstrated any way in which consciousness is created in the brain at all. You just think it is.

Wrong again.

I haven't shown, in detail, how consciousness is generated. I don't need to. It has been shown that it is generated by the brain.

See above. Is Dennett wrong about thermostats in your view? If so, why? If not, then why stop at thermostats. What about a smaller thermostat?

You have no understanding at all of what Dennet is talking about, do you? "What about a smaller thermostat?" Sheesh.

Is an alcohol based theromostat permanently drunk? What about mercury based ones?

It is difficult to fathom the confusion of ideas that could give rise to such questions.

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why the universe is the way it is let alone why it even exists at all.

Well, I do.

Why should there be consciousness at all if it's all just a big machine? Why aren't we permanently non-conscious p-zombies?

As I said before, we are p-zombies. P-zombies are conscious.

Physics is borne of materialism so that point is moot.

Actually, this is not true either.

Either way, we don't believe that matter can be created or destroyed for the very simple reason that we have no evidence it can be created or destroyed.

The equations balance, every time, without fail.

Until there is clear evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence, that consciousness that consciousness can be created or destroyed why do you believe it can be?

Because it is. Because - even if we restrict ourselves to human consciousness, and to outright creation and permanent destruction of same - we observe this hundreds of thousands of times a day.

Wrong. Even the energy that produced the singularity that became/was the Big Bang is believed to have came from somewhere.

That is not a coherent statement.

I'm asking you whether or not you can prove that matter/energy has always existed in some form and always continue to do so?

I don't claim that it has always existed. Neither do any physicists or cosmologists. So asking me why it has always existed is a pretty stupid question.

And what exactly makes you think that matter/energy actually exists in the first place when all we have is measurements of something that is, ultimately, indescribable?

It's perfectly describable. We describe it all the time.

My bad, but the energy that created it is supposed to be indestructable.

Again, that's not a coherent statement.

Prove there is not consciousness before birth or after death?

Pixy: Hello, person not yet born! Are you there?
Person not-yet-born:
Pixy: Okay, never mind then. Hello, dead person! Are you there?
Dead person:
Pixy: Well, there you have it. Conscious is generated by the operation of the living brain.

I think you'll find that it's the survival theory that generates that hypothesis.

No.

I'm asking you about what you specifically say creates consciousness and how you're going to prove it.

The brain.

How big does it have to be?

Wrong question. Consciousness is quantitative.

And why?

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

Can't you read? There is no replicable, on-demand, evidence for the existence of ghosts. That's not the same as their being no evidence at all.

It's not the same, no. But there is no evidence for the existence of ghosts.

I don't have to show you anything.

You do if you want anyone to listen to you.

I have no evidence for the creation of destruction of consciousness plain and simple. As such, I have no reason to believe it can be created or destroyed.

Yes you do. What you don't have is evidence to the contrary.

Again, do you disagree with Dennett about thermostats being intentional systems with beliefs about the world? If so, why? If not, why not?

I agree. Because they are.

 

[PixyMisa]

Neural information processing ceases when we die, but how do you know that causes the cessation of consciousness????

Because it does.

Ask any dead person.

Again, you wrote:

"Consciousness is a perfectly straightforward informational process. It only seems odd because you are observing it from the inside, and as such, cannot directly compare it with any other examples." There's no point in just saying "you" are "you" here. Try to be more specific.

It's you. What do you think it should be?

It's not a problem for me not to accept anecdotes, models, theories and circumstantial evidence. I don't even care if you do accept them - and I'm glad to see you admit that's all you have.

It's not all I have, it's all there is. There is nothing else in the world.

Do you therefore accept that the idea that matter/energy produces consciousness is just faith?

No. No faith required. It's obvious from the evidence.

The very definition of p-zombies is that they are non-conscious.

Yes. But since they act in all ways like conscious beings, they necessarily have internal processes that act precisely - both subjectively and objectively - the same as consciousness. So they are conscious.

They are a philosophical device used to contrast against our conscious state.

That merely serves to show that most philosophy is bunk.

Why aren't we p-zombies?

We are p-zombies. P-zombies are conscious.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I didn't even bother dwelling on the minutia, but that is correct.

Getting "drunk" is produced because alcohol interrupts the process by which neurons communicate. If alcohol could somehow interrupt the process by which a thermostat's individual parts communicated, that might actually MEAN something to us.

Size is irrelevent. Making a "bigger" computer doesn't make it more powerful. Adding mass is irrelevent to system performance. If we could get the circuitry properly set up, we could easily get a computer at the molecular level processing at the same speed as a macroscopic version.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

P-zombies are a paradox. The very idea is completely illogical.

 

[HypnoPsi]

This is but a corrolation, but as of yet we have not determined the presence of any 3rd thing that would occur that would reduce both of them in the same way as simply reaching the conclusion that reducing brain activity affects our conciousness and nullifying it stops it altogether.

Correlation is not causation and absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Further, all we can EVER say in science is that things "seem to" be one way or another.

Yes, but circumstantial evidence should never be taken as evidence of causation either.

The bottom line is (and I see no reason why this should be so hard to accept) that it is just another form of faith to believe that neural activity generates and sustains consciousness.

Where is the evidence that the current state of matter or energy can't be destroyed?

I said nothing about the "current state" of matter or energy. I am well aware M/E can be converted.

Pardon? If perhaps you scraped off a few skin cells in the process, sure. If you mean that the energy you put into the table would increase it's mass, keep in mind that energy lacks mass.

Hold on a second. The table only gains energy, yes. But I'm pretty sure that if I convert chemical energy into kinetic energy and transfer this to the table that I lose mass at some level.... if not no matter, if you'll pardon the pun. Either way the point is that M/E cannot be, ultimately and completely, destroyed to my knowledge. Since there's no proof consciousness can be either....
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

If you cannot show us evidence, then that is the entire point. So you say there is evidence but you can't show it to us. Okay, prove THAT. Prove you have this evidence. (Hint: best way to do that would be to show us the evidence)

Dude, if you want to go read up on peoples OBE's, NDE's, ghost encounters and check out their ajoining ghost-hunters photograph collection, be my guest. It's non-replicable and that's the way it is. But it's still qualitative evidence and that's the way it is too.

The word evidence isn't yours to remodify.

And actually, you DO have evidence for the creation and destruction of conciousness. The evidence is in the form of someone being born who's awareness you have not seen any signs of before the child's birth, and the total ceasing of all the signs of conciousness not only upon the being's death, but when one is unconcious (and Iacchus, I refer to when one is not in dream state, but in deep unconciousness).

There is no point in repeating the same thing over and over again. You cannot actually prove that the brian produces consciousness and you know it. You only have a correlation and nothing more.

Why not just admit that your view is faith-based? What's the difficulty here?

As to whether or not an insect is concious or a thermostat, those are interesting questions. However, there are apparently "levels" of conciousness.

And where would you define those levels as beginning? Are mice conscious? What about a goldfish? If you consider thermostat consciousness a possibility, do you even have any reason for thinking that brains are actually necessary to produce consciousness? What about my desk calculator? That's a lot more complex than a thermostat.

Can you actually list any conditions you think are required for consciousness or are you just going along with your "priests" pronouncements (that you don't understand) on faith?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Correlation is not causation and absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

A group of correlations can indicate causation, and absence of evidence can indeed indicate absence in fact.

That's induction.

The bottom line is (and I see no reason why this should be so hard to accept) that it is just another form of faith to believe that neural activity generates and sustains consciousness.

The reason it's hard to accept is that it's nothing of the sort.

Hold on a second. The table only gains energy, yes. But I'm pretty sure that if I convert chemical energy into kinetic energy and transfer this to the table that I lose mass at some level.... if not no matter, if you'll pardon the pun. Either way the point is that M/E cannot be, ultimately and completely, destroyed to my knowledge. Since there's no proof consciousness can be either....

Depends on what you mean by proof.

If you mean deductive proof, then you are out of luck. You don't get that in the real world.

If you're talking about a rock-solid inductive conclusion, then we have exactly that. People who die do not come back. Tested billions of times. A scattering of reports to the contrary, not one of which has ever been borne out upon examination.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dude, if you want to go read up on peoples OBE's, NDE's, ghost encounters and check out their ajoining ghost-hunters photograph collection, be my guest. It's non-replicable and that's the way it is. But it's still qualitative evidence and that's the way it is too.

The word evidence isn't yours to remodify.

I've read up on them. There's no evidence. There's nothing to suggest that OBEs and NDEs are anything other than dreams. There's nothing to suggest that ghosts exist at all.

There is no point in repeating the same thing over and over again. You cannot actually prove that the brian produces consciousness and you know it. You only have a correlation and nothing more.

We don't have "a correlation". We have six billion walking, talking correlations.

Why not just admit that your view is faith-based? What's the difficulty here?

Faith doesn't enter into it.

And where would you define those levels as beginning? Are mice conscious? What about a goldfish? If you consider thermostat consciousness a possibility, do you even have any reason for thinking that brains are actually necessary to produce consciousness? What about my desk calculator? That's a lot more complex than a thermostat.

Consciousness is quantitative.

Can you actually list any conditions you think are required for consciousness

Information processing.

or are you just going along with your "priests" pronouncements (that you don't understand) on faith?

No priests. No faith. Evidence.

That you dislike the evidence doesn't alter the fact that it exists - in truly vast quantities - any more than the fact that you desire evidence for ghosts alters the fact that such evidence does not exist.

 

[PixyMisa]

Here's the thing, HypnoPsi.

Living human beings are, for the most part, conscious. We can verify this by communicating with them.

When they die, they cease to communicate. Indeed, they cease to interact with the universe as conscious beings in any way whatsoever. This is the invariable result of death. There is no evidence to the contrary.

What you are postulating is that consciousness survives as something that does not interact with anything in any way whatsoever. That means that it doesn't exist.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Why aren't we p-zombies? If the idea is that conciousness is a byproduct of brain activity, then p-zombies are IMPOSSIBLE.

Nope. If you think biochemistry is required then a robot would be a p-zombie.

But if you're going with the brain produces consciousness theory then how do you explain us ever being unconscious (as in sleep or under anaesthesia) when there is still brain activity?

A thread has already been created addressing this VERY well. Essentially, in order for something to ACT like it is concious in a way that can't be discerned from the "real thing", it has to actually BE concious.

How so? What if it's just a very well programmed computer.

And again, there is no absolute evidence of the sun EXISTING, but there is so much evidence pointing to that as being the case that I would be foolish to think otherwise.

There is direct evidence for the Sun existing, which is as good as absolute evidence. When it comes to brains creating consciousness there is only circumstantial evidence and no known reason why matter/energy should generate consciousness in the first place. We know why there is a sun AND why it produces light...

It doesn't strike me that you lot really understand what it is that people like Dennett and Blackmore are saying. Surely you should understand from that fact alone that your beliefs are just faith-based?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I have in fact examined a number of ghost claims. None of them have survived the light of reason.

Allow me to ask you this. What evidence do you have that the sun is what causes the day to be so bright? All you have is the CORROLATION that when the sun rises, things get brighter. All you have is the CORROLATION that when things emit light, things nearby become lit. Who is to say that it isn't all those other things suddenly emitting light all at once and converging upon the so called "emitter" of light that causes daytime? Sure it's a lot less reasonable, but hey that doesn't seem to matter to you.

 

[PixyMisa]

But if you're going with the brain produces consciousness theory then how do you explain us ever being unconscious (as in sleep or under anaesthesia) when there is still brain activity?

Generators produce electricity. Except when they don't.

How so? What if it's just a very well programmed computer.

Then it's conscious.

There is direct evidence for the Sun existing, which is as good as absolute evidence. When it comes to brains creating consciousness there is only circumstantial evidence and no known reason why matter/energy should generate consciousness in the first place. We know why there is a sun AND why it produces light...

And we know that there are brains and that they generate consciousness.

It doesn't strike me that you lot really understand what it is that people like Dennett and Blackmore are saying. Surely you should understand from that fact alone that your beliefs are just faith-based?

No faith. Evidence. Every study of consciousness, every study of the brain, human or animal. Every night out drinking in the history of the human race. Every cup of coffee, every headache pill. Every boot to the head. Every birth, every death. Every time we go to sleep or wake up. Every single shred of evidence tells us the same thing: Consciousness is generated by the brain.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

You should take a few programming classes. It would give you some insight into what I'm talking about.

I do not think biochemistry is required for something to be concious, nor have I said anything to that effect. I merely state that something needs to do what the biochemistry is doing. Why isn't a robot concious? I think I should explain myself here. What matters is how our brains are PROGRAMMED. The arrangement of the reactions in our mind is what is relevant, not the mass and energy simply "being there". If you just had a mass of grey matter stirred up and let sit in one side of the skull and a battery storing the energy used by the brain on the other side, you would not have a concious being. I state this based on previous observations made by many scientists. A robot CAN be concious, and in fact robots slowly are becoming more and more concious, if you simply program it to behave just like a human. That's all that is needed, a "well programmed computer" as you put it.

Essentially, we are providing you WITH the evidence and you are disregarding it because it isn't absolute. There is no absolute evidence. We have no PROOF that we aren't in The Matrix, but in the absence of any evidence showing this is the case, we can only conclude that is not the case. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It isn't absolute, but no evidence is.

You state that you make no claims that the current state of matter/energy can't be lost. Good, because that's the point. It is the ability to process data that defines conciousness. The brain can do that. So can a computer, but not nearly as well.

Size is irrelevent. Mass is irrelevent. The specific ingrediants used are irrelevent. All that matters is the program.