• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The hard problem of consciousness

Pixy, Glad we can still agree on so many thing.
Lets get to the ones we dont.

Experiences are information. Mechanical devices can encode and process information.
Yes.

That does not mean that physical systems cannot have experiences.

So, cause and effect constructed in a specific manner = experience?

This gives no explanation why it's not all "happening in the dark" as a mere reaction

Unfounded assumption. The fact that you might not be able to adequately define your concept of experience does not mean that the concept of experience cannot be adequately defined.

You got it mixed up here. I'm not talking about concept of experience, which is again more WORDS or information. I'm talking about the actual event of experience that you can have. "The experience of experiencing."

You keep saying that something is missing. You have yet to say what this something is. That's the problem of belief.

The experiencer, which is different from a blind string of reaction after reaction
 
Last edited:
Skiba,

Once again, what is it that is missing? You claim to know what it is but you won't tell us. Is it a secret that has been vouchsafed to you only, that may not be communicated to anyone else?

Leon
Only to me? Theres people here who seems to have the same experience.

Anyway, I gave the answer to PixyMisa
 
Pixy, Glad we can still agree on so many thing.
Lets get to the ones we dont.

So, cause and effect constructed in a specific manner = experience?
No.

Experiences are information. Experience - as a verb - is information processing. Not every instance of cause and effect need be construed as information processing, and not all information processing is sufficient to constitute experience.

This gives no explanation why it's not all "happening in the dark" as a mere reaction
Why should it all "happen in the dark"? More than that, how could it all "happen in the dark"? Your brain is an immensely complicated computer with a great deal of internal state. It needs to be so, to do what it does. And that internal state is your consciousness. Is you.

You got it mixed up here. I'm not talking about concept of experience, which is again more WORDS or information. I'm talking about the actual event of experience that you can have. "The experience of experiencing."
You said that experience is beyond language. I say this is nonsense.

The experiencer, which is different from a blind string of reaction after reaction
Different how?
 
See, this is what I don't get.

I've actually read thru the thread, and a lot of this back-and-forth just loses me.

Maybe I'm missing something.

I see the HPC as a very real problem, and one amenable to inquiry.

I don't see how dualism has to be involved.

If I understand correctly, the "hard problem" consists merely in explaining how our brains produce the experience of self and sensation.

This is a different question from how the brain processes sensory input and how it generates responses, although obviously the latter are inextricable from the former.

I mean, we have no reason to expect that a rock has anything like a conscious experience. We know that humans do. It's reasonable to assume that apes, elephants, and other mammals do, too.

If Dennett is correct with his brain-in-a-brain theory, then insects and arachnids have no conscious experience, and yet they process input and produce responses.

So the problem is real, seems to me. You can tackle all the small problems, yet that doesn't necessarily tell you how it is that I have the experience of sitting here typing, how I'm aware of it.

That's a perfect layman's account of what the problem is. It's obviously expressed in a fuzzy way. It might be impossible to define it in a non-fuzzy way. However, that is the problem, and any explanation that doesn't deal with it is inadequate.
 
Computers have memory.

In fact, they don't. They have a current state - which includes the RAM*, the registers and the disks. It's not possible to determine from the current state what the previous state was. Programs don't run backwards.

* I know RAM stands for memory, but it really isn't - any more than the CPU is the brain.
 
In fact, they don't. They have a current state - which includes the RAM*, the registers and the disks. It's not possible to determine from the current state what the previous state was. Programs don't run backwards.

* I know RAM stands for memory, but it really isn't - any more than the CPU is the brain.

Using that as a definition for memory humans don't have memory.
 
That's a perfect layman's account of what the problem is. It's obviously expressed in a fuzzy way. It might be impossible to define it in a non-fuzzy way.
Let me get this straight.

You're saying that you don't know what the question is, but we have to answer it anyway?
 
Experiences are information. Experience - as a verb - is information processing. Not every instance of cause and effect need be construed as information processing, and not all information processing is sufficient to constitute experience.

Thats why I said: a specific cause and effect = experience.

Why should it all "happen in the dark"? More than that, how could it all "happen in the dark"? Your brain is an immensely complicated computer with a great deal of internal state. It needs to be so, to do what it does. And that internal state is your consciousness. Is you.

Your doing the same as every NHPC. Your hiding behind the complexity or rather, fooling yourself with the complexity.
"complex calculation, information processes, Information feed back loops, information going round and round"

Different how?

*sigh* never mind....
 
Thats why I said: a specific cause and effect = experience.
Read what I wrote. Experience requires information processing. Just saying "cause and effect" is meaningless. Everything is cause and effect.

Your doing the same as every NHPC. Your hiding behind the complexity or rather, fooling yourself with the complexity.
Utter nonsense.

The properties of consciousness show an obvious progression from simple brains (insects, worms and such) through to complex ones (birds and mammals) and then to us.

We recognise ourselves in the mirror. Ants can't do that. Gorillas can.

We use tools. Frogs don't. Crows do.

We dream. Most mammals do that too.

What we find in each case is that the progressions of sophistication in every aspect of consciousness follows the progression of complexity of the brains generating that consciousness.

We can map out an insect brain in complete detail. There's a complete working simulation of a rat neocortical column, with work in progress to simulate the entire neocortex. Where exactly is the magic injected, and how, and why do you think this?

"complex calculation, information processes, Information feed back loops, information going round and round"
Indeed. That is what the brain does, after all.

*sigh* never mind....
You brought it up. You keep claiming there's a difference. You are completely unable to explain what this difference is.

Look, it's a complex subject. You can't be expected to pick it up from a short forum thread. Read Godel, Escher, Bach. Listen to the lecture series I linked to previously. Then, when you have some understanding of the question you are asking, come back and we'll start again.
 
Mercutio beat me too it, but you ARE wrong. We feel plenty of emotion, we just don't think there's something non-physical about it. There's no reason to think that emotions come from anywhere except our body, especially since emotion is very much a physical thing.

I am not saying emotions don't come from the body. I don't know where they come from. But it seems clear they are at least mediated by the body. I was interested to know how you would propose a machine could be made that would experience feeling.

It seems to me that HPC deniers rely on accepting that there are vast amounts of things we don't know in order to maintain denial. Whilst this may be true I find it never-the-less not so satisfying an approach.

Nick
 
The thing that rocks, insects and arachnids seem to lack that humans, apes, elephants, and other mammals have seems to be memory. Memory seems to be sufficient to explain "experience of self and sensation". Why does consciousness need be any more complicated than that?

Can you explain me how memory is sufficient to explain the actual experience of sensation? Not of changes in sensation, but of sensation itself? I'm intrigued.

Nick
 
One of the biggest mysteries in science is consciousness.....Or is it?



I know we have alot of materialists here, so would like their take on this, and ofcourse the non-materialistic POV too.

Instead of - to be is to be perceived - (consciousness precedes matter), it should have been - to be is to perceive - (matter precedes consciousness).

John Von Neumann was right when he said that the evolution of the Schroedinger wave depends on quantum mechanical observables, implying that this information can only come from spacetime. Yet, since the theory considers brains to be quantum measuring devices, it includes the observer as an efficacious agent. The only reason human brains entered the equation was that, as they received light (EMR) coming from the particle, just like all objects in spacetime do, information about momentum and location, which is vital to maintain energy conservation laws, became known to the particle/system, allowing it to complete the feedback control loop and continue to condense.

According to present day theory the total energy available to the Universe was preset at the moment of its emergence and Thermodynamics tell us that each of its parts must register how much energy is being used in relation to the whole. Each object that moves in space must follow the laws of energy conservation. But how else could the Universe register how much energy is being used by some galaxy 5 billion light years away if it wasn't through momentum space, a non-material medium from which spacetime emerges as a product of active information?

As Ernst Mach explained inertia he came to the conclusion that energy usage by objects within the Universe is instantaneously registered through momentum space. This is where phenomena like inertia comes from. Particles sense other particles as they complete the state information exchange and realize the spatial relationships, between them and space, required to collapse the state-wave packet from hyperspace as they crystallize into spacetime. Holistic perception is an intrinsic function of matter explained by the Aether's oneness and this function helps Nature to evolve.

The observer, in the present theory, must refer to any object that is able to interpret environmental information brought to it by EM waves. Observation with the only purpose of establishing the particle's spatial parameters (speed, size, mass...) in any given inertial frame. The particle must first be in thermal equilibrium with the environment before it can exist as matter in spacetime, that is the law.

So Quantum Mechanics' big mystery was - why do I have to observe the cat in order for Schroedinger's cat to live or die? The answer is that our brains are measuring devices, just like the rest of all matter. We are the best quantum measuring device that ever emerged from all the information processing that has transcurred in our neighborhood to date. Interactions within a system, like a brain for example, depend on more than the information it gets through the senses.

Perception is a very old natural function inherent to all matter, not some exclusive human ability. Particles in spacetime perceive, select, and integrate into their state-wave function only that information which is important or useful to them in their endless quest for thermal efficiency and equilibrium. Our mind, with all of its mental waves and accompanying frequencies, became the modern version of that same holistic awareness function after 14 billion years of information processing, autopoiesis and evolution. Wholeness in time and space is what allowed Nature to evolve.
 
*sigh* I have answered this at least twice in this thread alone.

Everyone arguing for the HPC just ignores my answer. Why is that?

Conscious experience is simply a reasoning system reasoning about some aspect of itself.

Self-consciousness is simply a reasoning system reasoning about reasoning about itself.

You want to learn about this stuff? Sit down, and think about what happens when you think. If you are honest, patient, and observant, you will learn much -- and arrive at the above conclusion.

When I sit down and think about what happens when I think, more thoughts are created. I fail to see how this resolves anything to be honest. It just creates more thoughts. So what?

Nick
 
You're gonna have to pony up if you want to say something like that.

I'm not saying it's wrong. It might be right. But I haven't seen it yet.

I agree we're talking about an emergent property.

But precisely because of that, we will not be able to understand it by understanding what happens at the level of the neuron. That goes with the territory.

We will have to understand the shape of the brain, how signals from groups of these neurons are routed, triggered, related, etc.

The shape and macro-activity of the brain will likely be the necessary bridge between neural activity in the sensation-processing chain and both conscious experience and gross motor response on the output side.

If we're talking about the brain, we have to deal with the brain.


Well the inhibitory and actualization effect extends to the whole brain. There is the gross anatomy , which is governed by the development of neural pathways through enzyme gradients during developement and may be influenced by usage.

What is really cool is that some areas actualy swap out the processing of material. What is also cool is that because it is a learned structure, you can't map one brain to another except at the gross structural level.

If say you were able to map the phrase "I see the dog." as a verbal cognitive phrse, it would involve the same gross areas of the brain, but it is likely that each individual has a unique pattern that generates that verbal cogintion. i would suggest this because the neural network is platic and learns the associations that form the basis of the actual verbal cognition. So when it comes to a Matrix style plug in, the interface software would have to be unique for each individual, in my estimation.

Then we get into something that i have discussed before, the brain makes up a lot of perception, and memory as well. It is not always accurate and is more of a consensus amongst the neural pattersns. And just like the House of Representatives, they don't always get it right.


But if you want to frame the HPC as an understanding of the actual metaprocess that we call 'consciousness' I am very cool with that.
 
It doesn't for you, for some it requires an ineffable that can't be described or measured, but exists.

Well, the act of definition does take one away from the experience of definition. The attempt of the mind to define anything is just the mind attempting to define. So what? What has experience to do with definition? You can experience definition, but you can't actually define experience. It's too primary, too inescapable.

I think the HPC deniers are simply so identified with thought that they fail to see the issue lies with the inability of thought to convey experience. Thoughts can merely be used to invoke a similar experience in others, but they are not touching on experience. You can have the experience of trying to define experience through thinking, but you are not actually defining experience, merely trying.

If you are in-the-moment aware of the immediacy of experience you are aware of the HPC.

Nick
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom