My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Wudang]

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.

Unsupported assertion.

It therefore can only be recognized by itself.

Unsupported assertion and non sequitur

The question for me is not how does consciousness arise, which is answered above, but why does consciousness create itself?

House of cards is getting a little wobbly now

Consciousness creation by matter assumes that matter is conscious.

Only if we allow your unsupported assertion above

Clearly a form of dualism in the light of the above.

Since you have assumed a non-materialist axiom, duh!

Penrose's honest mistake is making this dualism explicit by hypothesizing that consciousness is created by matter through QM.

To avoid this dualism I believe the why of consciousness can only be explained within its borders using its substance, thought.

But this is still dualism. If there is matter and there is thought then that is dualism and we're back at the old "Which great opponent of Cartesian dualism resists the reduction of psychological phenomena to a physical state and insists there is no point of contact between the extended and the unextended?"

 

[!Kaggen]

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.

Unsupported assertion.

Yes, the only one we can make "I think"

Consciousness creation by matter assumes that matter is conscious.

Only if we allow your unsupported assertion above

So you agree then.

Clearly a form of dualism in the light of the above.

Since you have assumed a non-materialist axiom, duh!

What gives you reason to believe it is a non-materialist axiom?

Penrose's honest mistake is making this dualism explicit by hypothesizing that consciousness is created by matter through QM.
To avoid this dualism I believe the why of consciousness can only be explained within its borders using its substance, thought.

But this is still dualism. If there is matter and there is thought then that is dualism and we're back at the old "Which great opponent of Cartesian dualism resists the reduction of psychological phenomena to a physical state and insists there is no point of contact between the extended and the unextended?"

I do not assume a thought, only thought. Perhaps I should have used the word thinking instead. I am not differentiating between the matter and thoughts/ideas as this differentiation results from consciousness. I am saying we will only understand consciousness by examining that which we cannot avoid, thinking.

 

[Hux]

It is a biological expression. It will be explained in terms of biology. It will and does take some explaining but since it arose naturally, there is no reason to suppose we cannot come upon a satisfying explanation. After all, its not really a question of consciousness; it is the level that requires explanation. We look at the animal Kingdom and see varying levels of consciousness and we do not seem to have a problem understanding animal response - but we know it is limited, often instinctual - so if we work from that we should get close to the real answers. So what if it turns out we are creatures running millions if not billions of algorithms per sec? So what if it gives us the impression that we are something apart from nature, if all we are doing is reacting to it with infinitesimally large options? There appears to be no inner self. What will be bruised other than our ego's?

 

[!Kaggen]

It is a biological expression. It will be explained in terms of biology. It will and does take some explaining but since it arose naturally, there is no reason to suppose we cannot come upon a satisfying explanation. After all, its not really a question of consciousness; it is the level that requires explanation. We look at the animal Kingdom and see varying levels of consciousness and we do not seem to have a problem understanding animal response - but we know it is limited, often instinctual - so if we work from that we should get close to the real answers. So what if it turns out we are creatures running millions if not billions of algorithms per sec? So what if it gives us the impression that we are something apart from nature, if all we are doing is reacting to it with infinitesimally large options? There appears to be no inner self. What will be bruised other than our ego's?

thanks for your thoughts

 

[Hux]

You cant guess what I'm thinking right now. Thanks also for your input.

 

[!Kaggen]

You cant guess what I'm thinking right now.

No, but if I could guess why you are thinking then I would understand consciousness.

 

[Dancing David]

I think

Which then begs the question, how do you know that?

Now phenomenology is a part of philosophy now, but nweuroscience has come a long way.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Since the issue of Artificial Intelligence has been argued here before, and dualists have argued that you can't explain the "magical" process of consciousness through science and math; it occurs to me that maybe we haven't been fair to the process and appeared too simplistic with our explanations, and we have not fully reviewed in what way is it that consciousness can be approached (And the way Penrose suggest is Quantum Mechanics).

(And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

And that includes people who have read Penrose's book and can give their layman version of what's more or less addressed in such book (Trying not to spoil us the surprises too much )

You wanted a reasonable, balanced response to that question? You posted your question on the wrong board. You might just as well have asked a bunch of Christians for their opinions on evolution.

The bottom line is that most of the people who post on this board (a) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about consciousness, (b) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about quantum mechanics, (c) aren't actually interested in understanding (a) or (b) because (d) they have an agenda which involves the denial that there could be anything about either subject which could possibly challenge that dogmatic, anti-religious, anti-"woo" agenda.

Ask proper scientists, ask philosophers, but don't bother asking a bunch of knee-jerk-responding, ignorant, arrogant "skeptics", because you should already know in advance what sort of response you will get. If there is a deep connection between the problems concerning QM and consciousness, this board is home to about the last people on Earth which would be willing to admit it. In short, most people here already believe they understand enough about these issues to be reasonably certain that any talk connecting consciousness and QM is woo-woo nonsense, but, if past experience is anything to go by, very few of them actually do understand those issues. It's their gut instinct which drives their opinions on this subject, not reason or scientific knowledge. Woo-woos talk about "quantum consciousness", therefore it must be nonsense.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, the only one we can make "I think"

I observe and experience something I call thought.

That does not say what the experiece actaully is.

...


I do not assume a thought, only thought. Perhaps I should have used the word thinking instead. I am not differentiating between the matter and thoughts/ideas as this differentiation results from consciousness. I am saying we will only understand consciousness by examining that which we cannot avoid, thinking.

Well, the differentiation comes about because of the use of language, which is an idiomatic and self refential system of communication that takes place between communicants with the appearnce of existance.

that does not give validity to the actual label usage of the underlying phenomena.

We can also understand more about consciousness through biology than phenomenology.

 

[Dancing David]

You wanted a reasonable, balanced response to that question? You posted your question on the wrong board. You might just as well have asked a bunch of Christians for their opinions on evolution.

The bottom line is that most of the people who post on this board (a) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about consciousness, (b) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about quantum mechanics, (c) aren't actually interested in understanding (a) or (b) because (d) they have an agenda which involves the denial that there could be anything about either subject which could possibly challenge that dogmatic, anti-religious, anti-"woo" agenda.

Ask proper scientists, ask philosophers, but don't bother asking a bunch of knee-jerk-responding, ignorant, arrogant "skeptics", because you should already know in advance what sort of response you will get. If there is a deep connection between the problems concerning QM and consciousness, this board is home to about the last people on Earth which would be willing to admit it.

Ah, that is nice, and a great spin.

You can't present your ideas in a defensible fashion, so you blame everyone else.

Bravo UCE!

Some of us do care, we just don't agree with you.

So what 'problems' concerning QM ?
Maybe you could also say what problems there are with 'consciousness' ?


Please be sure to use some rigor in the defintions.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ah, that is nice, and a great spin.

You can't present your ideas in a defensible fashion, so you blame everyone else.

Bravo UCE!

Some of us do care, we just don't agree with you.

Sorry, DD, but I've been posting on this board a long time too and I do not believe that this subject is approached by most people here with a sufficiently open mind.

So what 'problems' concerning QM ?
Maybe you could also say what problems there are with 'consciousness' ?

Please be sure to use some rigor in the defintions.

As I have explained on numerous occasions in the past, these two problematic areas are connected because both of them require us to consider the distinction between the physical world we are directly aware of and the physical world of the external realists or hard physicalists. The "hard problem" of consciousness and the conundrums posed by Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment both end up being curve-balls for materialistic scientists because in both cases, unlike any other areas that we would like mainstream science to tackle, we cannot ignore the conceptual, metaphysical distinction between the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself. The denialists on this board try to claim that in neither case is there any need for scientists to turn to metaphysics. They are wrong. Bottom line: both subjects cause serious problems for naive materialists, and most of the people here are naive materialists who are unwilling to admit there is any reason for them to question their unacknowledged metaphysical commitments. It is a threat to the foundation of a belief system which, in this case, most adherents aren't even willing to admit is a belief system at all, let alone that there might be a serious problem with it.

 

[!Kaggen]

Which then begs the question, how do you know that?

Like I said, consciousness is self-referential.

Now phenomenology is a part of philosophy now, but nweuroscience has come a long way.

Yes it it should be supported to go further as an exact empirical science.
However it does not exist in a vacuum and thus far still needs to be thought about and interpreted by humans.

 

[!Kaggen]

I observe and experience something I call thought.

That does not say what the experiece actaully is.

That is until you start thinking about your observations and experience of thought.

Well, the differentiation comes about because of the use of language, which is an idiomatic and self refential system of communication that takes place between communicants with the appearnce of existance.

that does not give validity to the actual label usage of the underlying phenomena.

Sure, using language to describe thoughts about thinking is hard. That is why much of phenomenology is incomprehensible.

We can also understand more about consciousness through biology than phenomenology.

We will understand more from using both methods together.
I do not believe they are exclusive.
I am of the opinion that biologists in particular will only benefit if they were also trained in phenomenology.

 

[Wudang]

Sorry, DD, but I've been posting on this board a long time too and I do not believe that this subject is approached by most people here with a sufficiently open mind.

Translation: nobody accepts my bluster as truth

As I have explained on numerous occasions in the past, these two problematic areas are connected because both of them require us to consider the distinction between the physical world we are directly aware of and the physical world of the external realists or hard physicalists. The "hard problem" of consciousness and the conundrums posed by Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment both end up being curve-balls for materialistic scientists because in both cases, unlike any other areas that we would like mainstream science to tackle, we cannot ignore the conceptual, metaphysical distinction between the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself. The denialists on this board try to claim that in neither case is there any need for scientists to turn to metaphysics. They are wrong. Bottom line: both subjects cause serious problems for naive materialists, and most of the people here are naive materialists who are unwilling to admit there is any reason for them to question their unacknowledged metaphysical commitments. It is a threat to the foundation of a belief system which, in this case, most adherents aren't even willing to admit is a belief system at all, let alone that there might be a serious problem with it.

Translation: the HPC sounds weird, QM sounds weird, anyone who watches Buffy knows that weird things go together.

"the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself" Classic misunderstanding - the QM world is part of the world as it is at a very small scale - a scale we find it hard to visualize. The macrocosmic world that we experience is not made any less real because the world acts counter to our intuition at a small scale.

By the way - when you can say "as I have demonstrated" instead of "I have explained" the debate can probably move on further.

 

[Wudang]

Yes, the only one we can make "I think"

I'm not interested in discussing opinions.

So you agree then.

Hardly

I do not assume a thought, only thought. Perhaps I should have used the word thinking instead. I am not differentiating between the matter and thoughts/ideas as this differentiation results from consciousness. I am saying we will only understand consciousness by examining that which we cannot avoid, thinking.

But when you start by making unfounded assumptions about what consciousness is then you may already be excluding the correct answer. You may wish to consider the history of introspection in the development of psychology to understand some of the wrong paths you can go down. Freudianism anyone?

 

[Aepervius]

I do not see quantum de-coherence spoken of in the thread so i guess it was not mentioned. The problem with Penrose idea is that quantum de-coherence happens at the nanosecond or so level, whereas neuron function are in the millisecond level. So I hardly see how a quantum effect can explain anything at all in the neuron function or even of the emerging behavior called consciousness.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, DD, but I've been posting on this board a long time too and I do not believe that this subject is approached by most people here with a sufficiently open mind.

fair enough

As I have explained on numerous occasions in the past, these two problematic areas are connected because both of them require us to consider the distinction between the physical world we are directly aware of and the physical world of the external realists or hard physicalists.

Well, I can agree with that, because all assumptions are false.

the world acts as though it is real, regardless of what it is made of.

The "hard problem" of consciousness

I still don't agree with the HPC, there may be a lack of detail in current models, but that is what they are, models. What is the problem, that models are incomplete?

and the conundrums posed by Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that, it one one possible interpretation of QM, the 'thing' exists as a waveform, before during and after any interaction. That is sort of a superposition if you want to conceptualise it that way.

But really superposition is a classical framework for interpreting QM. A wave exists in the possible space of the Scrodinger wave form.

So, also the cat is a macro object and therefore also does not have QM effects.

both end up being curve-balls for materialistic scientists because in both cases, unlike any other areas that we would like mainstream science to tackle, we cannot ignore the conceptual, metaphysical distinction between the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself.

Well I don't think we should ever ingnore that, models are models, and they are accurate but not reality. they are ways of describing reality. (Whatever that may be.)

The denialists on this board try to claim that in neither case is there any need for scientists to turn to metaphysics.

Um, why should they in the case of consciousness or QM?

I don't understand, i ask sincerely.

They are wrong. Bottom line: both subjects cause serious problems for naive materialists, and most of the people here are naive materialists who are unwilling to admit there is any reason for them to question their unacknowledged metaphysical commitments. It is a threat to the foundation of a belief system which, in this case, most adherents aren't even willing to admit is a belief system at all, let alone that there might be a serious problem with it.

 

[!Kaggen]

I'm not interested in discussing opinions.


Hardly


But when you start by making unfounded assumptions about what consciousness is then you may already be excluding the correct answer. You may wish to consider the history of introspection in the development of psychology to understand some of the wrong paths you can go down. Freudianism anyone?

The question is are you able to make any of the above statements without thinking?

 

[Dancing David]

Like I said, consciousness is self-referential.

that might be an assumption, how do you show it in phenomenology?

Yes it it should be supported to go further as an exact empirical science.
However it does not exist in a vacuum and thus far still needs to be thought about and interpreted by humans.

that is already part of science, what are you thinking? I don't understand.

 

[Dancing David]

That is until you start thinking about your observations and experience of thought.


Sure, using language to describe thoughts about thinking is hard. That is why much of phenomenology is incomprehensible.

We will understand more from using both methods together.
I do not believe they are exclusive.
I am of the opinion that biologists in particular will only benefit if they were also trained in phenomenology.

Well, there may be something you can demonstrate, what benefit is there to phenomenology? It seems to some of us to be dead end, that does not produce an effective/pragmatic model.

Unless you want to include cognitive behaviorism.