Consciousness question

[HypnoPsi]

Ok, let me see if finally get this. You say that consciousness is as fundamental as matter/energy? That is different from them? That its not composed by them?

Or maybe more in your line of thought, are you saying that matter/energy depend on and are a byproduct of consciousness?

Because, unless we really understand what is what you are thinking, we cant really communicate.

I am proposing no special knowledge or privilaged information regarding the ultimate nature of consciousness.

That the possible options include the idea that the physical creates consciousness, that consciousness creates the physical or that both have some other metaphysical origin, is completely beside the point.

The people in this forum are claiming they have evidence that consciousness has a physical origin and, furthermore, that consciousness is information processing and/or is generated by information processing.

So far, I see nothing but circumstantial evidence and guesswork. Why would information processing result in awareness?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

So, has anyone been able to measure a "drop" of consciousness yet?

That's exactly the point. We can observe the mercury/alcohol in a thermometer expand and contract but we don't assume that is temperature. There's a very close connection, obviously, but the real cause is thermal energy.

What seems to be happening in this thread is that people can't make up their minds specifically what they think it is in the brain or a theromostat that generates consciousness and what specific properties are required. Neither have we had any explanation as to why information processing generates conscious awareness, however rudimentary.

The bottom line is they don't understand the idea themselves yet deny they are just following a faith!

Mercutio mentioned definitions and how we commonly use the word consciousness. To my knowledge nobody would give "information processing" as their first response when asked to describe consciousness. Instead they would probably say their awareness. All that seems to be happening here is that the skeptics are arguing that information processing should just be assumed to be equivalent to all that is consciousness for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Iacchus]

I would very much dispute that this is a fact. The conclusions you are reaching are very much dependent on the questions you are asking, which presuppose some things which should instead be questioned. There were at least three presenters who, expressly or tacitly, disagree with what you assert is a fact. Perhaps more. Why do you claim it as fact? Is it faith?

Hey, you know what they say, One man's fact is another man's fiction.

 

[Mercutio]

Hey, you know what they say, One man's fact is another man's fiction.

They also say "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts." If it is a fiction to one, and fact to another, one of the two is wrong. And as usual, Iacchus, you are quite simply...wrong.

 

[cpolk]

Mercutio mentioned definitions and how we commonly use the word consciousness. To my knowledge nobody would give "information processing" as their first response when asked to describe consciousness. Instead they would probably say their awareness. All that seems to be happening here is that the skeptics are arguing that information processing should just be assumed to be equivalent to all that is consciousness for no justifiable reason whatsoever.

Isn't "awareness" just another word for the "information processing" of all of your senses, combined with, shall we say, "recorded data", from previously processed information? Isn't that what "consciousness" is?

 

[Iacchus]

Mercutio mentioned definitions and how we commonly use the word consciousness. To my knowledge nobody would give "information processing" as their first response when asked to describe consciousness. Instead they would probably say their awareness. All that seems to be happening here is that the skeptics are arguing that information processing should just be assumed to be equivalent to all that is consciousness for no justifiable reason whatsoever.

Of course in the smallest interaction beween one particle and the next, there exists some form of awareness. So what should that tell us then, except that the whole environment is conscious ... or, a by-product thereof.

 

[Iacchus]

And as usual, Iacchus, you are quite simply...wrong.

Is that a fact?

 

[HypnoPsi]

What's the minimum system? Is a thermometer also conscious?

No, as it does not process anything.

Look, one can very fabricate a thermostat from a thermometer just by properly connecting a pressure gauge on the end of the glass tube. (Have you ever seen those test-tube like things people sick in a turkey or chicken that pop out when it's cooked? Same principle.) As the air is compressed as the mercury/alcohol expands the gauge becomes depressed (which switches the heating off) and vice-versa. That's it.

But in a simple thermometer the air pressure still causes the glass tube to expand slightly, causing a minor displacement in the air around the tube. Basically, everything is an interconnected system.

Another system would be the ball and cock system in a toilet cistern. Without it, water would keep flowing into the tank. The variance here causes a different response. But how does this variance and responsiveness to "information" (the amount of water in the tank) cause consciousness?

I see you have missed the point of what I said quite completely. I shall endevor to repeat myself. The sun is complex, but it isn't even a COMPUTER, much less a human being. As I have stated many times already, it is the specific arrangement that does the trick. Just because something is "complex" it dosen't make it concious. It has to actually be arranged to do specific things.

How have you determined this? The pressure in a thermometer causes the glass to expand displacing the air round the tube. That's the exact same effect as occurs in a thermostat when the thermometer part of a thermostat has a pressure guage attached. How exactly have to you determined that one causes consciousness while the other doesn't?

How does this responsivness to the variance in "information" in one system generate consciousness, in your view, and not in the other system?

What, pray tell, is the key difference between the human mind and a computer that makes my analogy fall apart at the seams?

You're talking about information processing, which I agree occurs in both the brain and a computer. But what of it? I'm sitting here perfectly aware of my self, my surroundings and of the thoughts I'm expressing as I type this post. All reason says that I'm not just processing information - I'm also aware of that information being processed. How do you explain that?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What, and you were actually able to remain cognizant through the whole thing? Just kidding Merc!

Oh, they were perfectly interesting in terms of cognitive/behavioural psychology. No doubt about that at all. I recognised most of the speakers and learned about most of their work as a student. All of the things discussed are pretty much the standard in psychology as cognitive (and behavioural) psychology.

Basically, the argument that the skeptics are proposing in this forum is a hybrid of both "eliminativist materialism" and "internal behaviour". Consciousness, which is to say awareness, is being ignored completely in the discussion.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Iacchus]

You're talking about information processing, which I agree occurs in both the brain and a computer. But what of it? I'm sitting here perfectly aware of my self, my surroundings and of the thoughts I'm expressing as I type this post. All reason says that I'm not just processing information - I'm also aware of that information being processed. How do you explain that?

Yet consciousness is contingent upon the ability to process the information and present it in such a way that "the observer" can understand and/or utilize it.

 

[cpolk]

You're talking about information processing, which I agree occurs in both the brain and a computer. But what of it? I'm sitting here perfectly aware of my self, my surroundings and of the thoughts I'm expressing as I type this post. All reason says that I'm not just processing information - I'm also aware of that information being processed. How do you explain that?

Your computer is processing information in the exact same manner that you are - more thoroughly, actually. It is self-diagnosing, and depending on the programs, self-correcting.

However, it does not have a sense of smell and is not "aware" of your foot odor. It does not have a sense of "touch" and cannot feel you carressing the mouse and tapping the keyboard. Most likely, it is not programmed to respond to any sense of "vision" other than basics such as screen reading for the visually impaired. Speech recognition is only capable of recognizing words, not pallate - it cannot distinguish between "pleasant" and "grating" voices. Since it cannot sense these things, it cannot react to them.

Since you have all of those senses, you have a greater "awareness" of your surroundings.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Oh, they were perfectly interesting in terms of cognitive/behavioural psychology. No doubt about that at all. I recognised most of the speakers and learned about most of their work as a student. All of the things discussed are pretty much the standard in psychology as cognitive (and behavioural) psychology.

Basically, the argument that the skeptics are proposing in this forum is a hybrid of both "eliminativist materialism" and "internal behaviour". Consciousness, which is to say awareness, is being ignored completely in the discussion.
_
HypnoPsi

I'm sorry, but why is cognition irrelevant to the discussion of consciousness (awareness) since the definition of cognition is: the act or process of knowing including both awareness and judgment?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

You're talking about information processing, which I agree occurs in both the brain and a computer. But what of it? I'm sitting here perfectly aware of my self, my surroundings and of the thoughts I'm expressing as I type this post. All reason says that I'm not just processing information - I'm also aware of that information being processed. How do you explain that?
_
HypnoPsi

You're processing the fact that you're processing. That's awareness. That's consciousness. Humans are really good processors of new information.

Catch up.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

The bottom line is they don't understand the idea themselves yet deny they are just following a faith!

Faith is belief without evidence.

We have belief based on evidence. We trust scientific evidence because we can question it, it is peer reviewed, it is testable, and the findings are quite consistent regarding neurological activity in the brain and consciousness.

So far, you've mentioned eastern and western religions, personal accounts of non-reliable claims of paranormal activity, and the insistence that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to back up your personal belief.

Have fun with that.

 

[Iacchus]

Basically, the argument that the skeptics are proposing in this forum is a hybrid of both "eliminativist materialism" and "internal behaviour". Consciousness, which is to say awareness, is being ignored completely in the discussion.

Yes, they keep trying to explain to me that "I," that which rests above the surface of the depths or, the id, somehow don't exist. Which is to say, none of us really have an id-entity.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Er...he was asking about "drops" of consciousness, like "drops" of water.

That's exactly what Iacchus was asking.

In this thread the skeptics seem to have concluded that consciousness is information processing - but only in a regulated system. Thus a thermometer is not conscious in their model while a thermostat is. I'm pointing out that ultimately there's no real difference between the two and that everything is a system.

I'd like to know how you've determined that closed systems as opposed to open systems are conscious?

As to Iacchus point, if one unit of consciousness is exactly equal to one unit of information being processed then just how exactly does my toilet cistern have the qualia of "tank full of water" (and vice-versa)?

If there is no difference between qualia and information processing and between information processing and physical reality then how haven't you ended up with panpsychism?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Iacchus]

Faith is belief without evidence.

According to my dictionary faith is synonymous with belief. I believe the term you are looking for here is "blind faith" ... which, in fact is to believe in something "blindly."

 

[HypnoPsi]

But how does any of this explain the fact that we are consciously aware of information processing and/or the results of such information processing?

I would very much dispute that this is a fact.

That's nothing more than eliminativism and denial. You are ignoring the fact that consciousness means awareness.

The conclusions you are reaching are very much dependent on the questions you are asking, which presuppose some things which should instead be questioned. There were at least three presenters who, expressly or tacitly, disagree with what you assert is a fact. Perhaps more. Why do you claim it as fact? Is it faith?

How could there be "faith" if there wasn't an aware being placing their faith in something?

What exactly makes you think that information processing generates conscious awareness? How does it work? By what mechanism? What experiments demonstrate this?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

They also say "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts." If it is a fiction to one, and fact to another, one of the two is wrong. And as usual, Iacchus, you are quite simply...wrong.

How's he wrong? How's it fact that information processing either generates (or is) consciousness?

We experience information processing as thoughts, as qualia. Why do we experience it? How does your model account for this?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Iacchus]

If there is no difference between qualia and information processing and between information processing and physical reality then how haven't you ended up with panpsychism?

Exactly.