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

[Elaedith]

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

Don't understand the title. Has somebody claimed the study of consciousness is simple?

 

[Hux]

Exactly. It was and is never going to be simple. It might be one of those things we never qute get a handle on but Im not one of those who advocate there are some things beyond the realm of human understanding.

All I have seen above is a bunch of people trying to score points off one another, pedantic and unhelpful. This is probably why no one has got to the bottom of the question yet.

 

[Dancing David]

We "understand" a work of art not because we know the mind of the artist, but because we know our own.

Yes, but you are still taking an experinece, which is 'thing in an of itself' and ascribing to it a value.

We may have experiences that we label as 'Ithink' but that is what they are , experiences, they are no more a valid reference point than any other.

To assert '*I think*' is as much of an assumption as '*matter exists*', it is a face value, an appearance. There is no more validity to *I think* than there is to *matter exists*, the error is the same either way, one can not assume either materialsim or idealism, one can only judge appearnces.

I am trying to get back to not 'what is thought' but the basis of the idea "I think", because that is what we ahce to start at before we can get into the other stuff.

Now it appeared to me that you stated

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5278679&postcount=18

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.
It therefore can only be recognized by itself.
The question for me is not how does consciousness arise, which is answered above, but why does consciousness create itself?

Which is a huge assertion, that requires a discussion of the basis of many sperate parts.

In that you have not demonstrated premise 2 'It creates itself.' but merely asserted it.

these are really profound speculations to make, and I think we need to discuss them before going on to things such as

Consciousness creation by matter assumes that matter is conscious.

And no way we can even resolve the tautology of

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

it matters not, the tools we have are the same regardless.

This is not meant to be snarky or mean or judgmental, I apologise if my post appears that way.

 

[Robin]

Exactly. It was and is never going to be simple. It might be one of those things we never qute get a handle on but Im not one of those who advocate there are some things beyond the realm of human understanding.

All I have seen above is a bunch of people trying to score points off one another, pedantic and unhelpful. This is probably why no one has got to the bottom of the question yet.

Sure, if we were less pedantic and more helpful we would have gotten to the bottom of the problem of consciousness by now.

 

[!Kaggen]

And how would we decide whether there is process or change other than employing thinking?

If there is no process and no change then we neither decide nor think - so the question is redundant.

And you decided all of this without thinking I suppose

Exactly, this is the unavoidable nature of thinking. It is self referential because I create it myself.

This has precisely nothing to do with what I said. Providing a circular definition of "think" and "conscious" does not prove that consciousness creates itself.It only proves your definition is meaningless.

Not my definitions dictionary.com definitions and the point of the exercise was to demonstrate that these concepts are not atomic facts which can be scrutinized by logic. They 'are' self referential, no matter how much you want to analyze them further they won't give. Get over it or lets change the subject to bricks.

If someone provided a circular definition of "matter" would that prove that matter creates itself?

Please try, it would be most interesting to see.

But if you create thinking please feel free to go ahead and explain how you create it.

You obviously did not read this reply http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5282531#post5282531

"Thinking" is not a metaphysical proposition as metaphysics pre-supposes thinking.

So what? Did I suggest that thinking was a metaphysical proposition?

That is my reading of this

So "thinking" is no better a metaphysical starting point than "matter".

I can't even prove there is such a thing as thinking and neither, apparently, can you.

I never suggested that thinking required proof as I assume it. Feel free not to assume your own thinking. But then again feel free to reply with some further thoughts.

 

[!Kaggen]

Yes, but you are still taking an experinece, which is 'thing in an of itself' and ascribing to it a value.

We may have experiences that we label as 'Ithink' but that is what they are , experiences, they are no more a valid reference point than any other.

To assert '*I think*' is as much of an assumption as '*matter exists*', it is a face value, an appearance. There is no more validity to *I think* than there is to *matter exists*, the error is the same either way, one can not assume either materialsim or idealism, one can only judge appearnces.

I am trying to get back to not 'what is thought' but the basis of the idea "I think", because that is what we ahce to start at before we can get into the other stuff.

Now it appeared to me that you stated

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5278679&postcount=18



Which is a huge assertion, that requires a discussion of the basis of many sperate parts.

In that you have not demonstrated premise 2 'It creates itself.' but merely asserted it.

these are really profound speculations to make, and I think we need to discuss them before going on to things such as


And no way we can even resolve the tautology of


it matters not, the tools we have are the same regardless.

This is not meant to be snarky or mean or judgmental, I apologise if my post appears that way.

All good David, I am happy for post.

Just to be very clear. I am not referring to the finished product of thinking ideas, thoughts, concepts and assuming them. I am only assuming thinking. Also not your thinking or somebody else's thinking, but my thinking.

As far as "matter" is concerned I differentiate between matter and thinking in that matter is "given" and I play no role in its appearance, whereas thinking is what I must be active in for it to happen. Furthermore thinking cannot be grasped whilst it happens only thereafter. I can only reflect on my thinking. Whereas I can interact with matter as it appears before me.

I will try to address the rest of your concerns later.

 

[Robin]

And you decided all of this without thinking I suppose

If there is no such thing as thinking I didn't decide it.

Not my definitions dictionary.com definitions and the point of the exercise was to demonstrate that these concepts are not atomic facts which can be scrutinized by logic. They 'are' self referential, no matter how much you want to analyze them further they won't give.

What - based on a couple of circular definitions from dictionary.com and your own unsupported assertions?

Please try, it would be most interesting to see.

OK, from dictionary.com also:
Matter: the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed
Physical: noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy

So there you are - a circular definition of matter. Therefore by your logic matter is self-referential and creates itself - right?

You obviously did not read this reply http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5282531#post5282531

I did. It does not even remotely answer the question I asked.

That is my reading of this

I said the very opposite. It is not a metaphysical starting point.

I never suggested that thinking required proof as I assume it.

You seem to be very intent upon defending the concept

Feel free not to assume your own thinking. But then again feel free to reply with some further thoughts.

Assuming of course that there were ever any in the first place.

 

[!Kaggen]

Sorry that looks wildly speculative to me, I will take the time to read through it, but it goes against my childhood training at the feet of my father. (A famous mezo american archaeologist.) Structural analysis of living culture is very difficult to do, economic and game theory provides some metrics for theory, but speculation about un-measurable metrics is fraught with danger.

For example the common Victorian assertions about egyptian culture, which is not montheistic.

More later.

On first impressions I would tend to agree. However the unique documentation by the linguist Wilhelm Bleek and his assistant Lucy Lloyd in the 19th century of Bushman ethnology provides a hugely important resource for understanding ancient rock art directly from the creators thereof. In a way this documentation has allowed archaeologists to look back at the archaeological record of abstract representations using a "dictionary" to translate what they observe.

If you want to read some journal publications on the work of Lewis-Williams look here
http://web.wits.ac.za/Academic/Science/Geography/RockArt/Home.htm

 

[Dancing David]

All good David, I am happy for post.

Just to be very clear. I am not referring to the finished product of thinking ideas, thoughts, concepts and assuming them. I am only assuming thinking. Also not your thinking or somebody else's thinking, but my thinking.

well, I take it all to a neutral stance
: The appearance of thinking, the appearance of matter

.

As far as "matter" is concerned I differentiate between matter and thinking in that matter is "given" and I play no role in its appearance, whereas thinking is what I must be active in for it to happen.

then that discusses why one given and not the other.

Matter is a label for an experience, thinking is another. We have sensation and perceptions that lead to an appearance of matter, we have othere xperiences that lead to an appearnce of thought.
They are both appearances. (IMNSHO)

Furthermore thinking cannot be grasped whilst it happens only thereafter.

Well that is an even more interesting question.

I can only reflect on my thinking. Whereas I can interact with matter as it appears before me.

Are you sure?

That again is an appearance. It appears you can interacts with thoughts as well. generic you and generic thought. (Place holders for the moment.)

I will try to address the rest of your concerns later.

These kinds of discussions take alot of time.

 

[Dancing David]

On first impressions I would tend to agree. However the unique documentation by the linguist Wilhelm Bleek and his assistant Lucy Lloyd in the 19th century of Bushman ethnology provides a hugely important resource for understanding ancient rock art directly from the creators thereof.

Well by training I am cautious. theer are the personal filters of the people involved and then the cultural filters of the people involved. And all the other confirmation bias, and sampling error.

So I would not draw general conclusions from a sample, perhaps speculative indicative factors.

But to translate from the !Kung or Khoi San experience to another would be fraught with peril.

In a way this documentation has allowed archaeologists to look back at the archaeological record of abstract representations using a "dictionary" to translate what they observe.

A specific and limited dictionary filtered through two cultures.

If you want to read some journal publications on the work of Lewis-Williams look here
http://web.wits.ac.za/Academic/Science/Geography/RockArt/Home.htm

I am sure it is great stuff, I am just trained as I am trained (informally).

One of the huge problems is:

.... artifacts of preservation...

So the sudden appearance of 'art', 'technology' and similar signs of intelligence may just be an artifact of preservation. (Read Magdelian explosion)

The window of preservation is about 40,000 years for anything that is not a carved or chipped rock. This also is when the material tends to show up in the record.

So we can not say what neanderthal art, soft technology might have been. The instances of preservation would be too low to give a sample. It may be that they had a very advanced wood and fiber technology, but due to the artifacts of preservation, we would be very unlikely to find any traces of it.

So the only thing we have are stone tools and carving, not traditionally considered art.

 

[westprog]

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 )

Whether or not you want to read the book should not be determined by any of the summaries put forward so far in this thread. They've all been wildly inaccurate. One might assume that Penrose was some kind of new-Age mystic instead of on of the leading living Mathematical Physicists.

Penrose might well be wrong on some specific issues, but he has one thing going for him - he's the only Physicist who's addressed the issue of consciousness, AFAIAA. If you accept that consciousness is a physical phenomenon, then you have to assume that it will be explained in physical terms, by physicists.

An advantage of the book is that because Penrose is a physicist, he feels the need to explain exactly what he means by just about everything. So there's some quite deep physics right from the start. It is possible to skip the very difficult maths if you want to.

If, when you've finished TENM, and Shadows Of The Mind, you might want to read some of the rebuttals, to be found on line. Also some of the rebuttals of the rebuttals.

 

[drkitten]

Whether or not you want to read the book should not be determined by any of the summaries put forward so far in this thread. They've all been wildly inaccurate. One might assume that Penrose was some kind of new-Age mystic instead of on of the leading living Mathematical Physicists.

No, he's not a new-Age mystic. He's simply wrong.

Penrose might well be wrong on some specific issues, but he has one thing going for him - he's the only Physicist who's addressed the issue of consciousness, AFAIAA.

Big deal. My cat may well be the only Cat who's addressed the issue of consciousness. That doesn't mean that "Meow" is a useful or correct contribution.

If you accept that consciousness is a physical phenomenon, then you have to assume that it will be explained in physical terms, by physicists.

Not at all. Broken bones are physical phenomena, but they're explained and addressed by physicians, not by physicists.

An advantage of the book is that because Penrose is a physicist, he feels the need to explain exactly what he means by just about everything.

Yes, but that's overridden by the disadvantage that it's wrong beyond repair from day one. He gets the physics wrong, he gets the cognitive science wrong, he gets the neuroanatomy wrong, and he even gets the math (Goedel's theorem) wrong.

(And, no, Penrose is NOT a physicist. He's a mathematician. Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, with a Ph.D. in mathematics (algebra, specifically) from Cambridge. One of the top mathematicians in the world, but NOT a physicist.)

So there's some quite deep physics right from the start.

And it's all incorrect.

Which makes "deep" rather less than useful.

 

[!Kaggen]

fraught with peril.

who says some discovery's aren't

 

[westprog]

No, he's not a new-Age mystic. He's simply wrong.

He might be wrong, but he's certainly not simply wrong, as any perusal of the discussions will show.

Big deal. My cat may well be the only Cat who's addressed the issue of consciousness. That doesn't mean that "Meow" is a useful or correct contribution.

However, cats have not made any noteworthy contributions to understanding physical phenomena.

Not at all. Broken bones are physical phenomena, but they're explained and addressed by physicians, not by physicists.



Yes, but that's overridden by the disadvantage that it's wrong beyond repair from day one. He gets the physics wrong, he gets the cognitive science wrong, he gets the neuroanatomy wrong, and he even gets the math (Goedel's theorem) wrong.

(And, no, Penrose is NOT a physicist. He's a mathematician. Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, with a Ph.D. in mathematics (algebra, specifically) from Cambridge. One of the top mathematicians in the world, but NOT a physicist.)

Well, that's simply wrong. He might be a mathematician, but he's undoubtedly a physicist as well, as a brief read of The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe will show. He's made major contributions to mathematics and physics. He's won major physics prizes. I gave the link to the Wiki page, so really there's no excuse for that one.

Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. ... From 1992 to 1995 he served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation

You see, in order to carry out certain types of physics, it's actually helpful to start out as a mathematician. Would the fact that someone was Lucasian professor of Mathematics at Cambridge mean that they could not be considered as an expert on physics?

And it's all incorrect.

Which makes "deep" rather less than useful.

I'll leave it to the OP to judge whether "Penrose is not a physicist" has any implications as to the truth of the statement "Penrose gets the physics wrong".

 

[drkitten]

He might be wrong, but he's certainly not simply wrong, as any perusal of the discussions will show.

No, he's simply wrong.

There's a reason it's called the Lucas-Penrose fallacy.

I'll leave it to the OP to judge whether "Penrose is not a physicist" has any implications as to the truth of the statement "Penrose gets the physics wrong".

It does not, since the fact that he gets the physics wrong (Tegmark's 17 orders of magnitude) is independently documented.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let's take one concrete example. Part of the collection of mental processes that fall under the label "consciousness" is proprioception. Neuroscience has localized proprioception functions to the basal ganglia, and can make successful predictions based on the knowledge gained from this study. They can stimulate specific brain regions to induce OBEs.

People who invoke QM for the study of something like proprioception makes claims that the consciousness can leave the body (astral projection or OBE). Of course, their "work" hasn't led to any better understanding of the phenomenon, and they can't even reproduce the phenomenon under controlled conditions.

Again, neuroscience has done a great deal to explain consciousness. I expect it will be the field that gives us more insight into the phenomenon in the future. Invoking QM has not led to any greater understanding, and I doubt very much it ever will.

 

[drkitten]

Let's take one concrete example. Part of the collection of mental processes that fall under the label "consciousness" is proprioception. Neuroscience has localized proprioception functions to the basal ganglia, and can make successful predictions based on the knowledge gained from this study. They can stimulate specific brain regions to induce OBEs.

.... And, contra westprog, these neuroscientists are by and large not physicists. Suggesting that the idea that the best people to work on explanations of consciousness are not physicists.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

An even better example is how we explain the conscious perception of pain. The neuroscience model tells us that some mechanical force is translated via a nociceptor into an action potential that travels along afferent nerves to the CNS. Connections that go to the primary sensory cortex for that area of the body seem to correlate highly with the subjective experience of the pain.

Using that model we can predict that it should be possible to block that afferent nerve at any number of places, or just sedate the cortex entirely. We can do all those things with great precision. (Ask a woman who's had an epidural during labor. From what I'm told, the subjective experience of pain goes away like magic.)

Has invoking QM led to any such practical applications?

 

[westprog]

No, he's simply wrong.

There's a reason it's called the Lucas-Penrose fallacy.

It's called that by people who disagree with it. People who are neutral call it the Lucas-Penrose thesis. There are of course a number of versions - inherent in the fact that it's Lucas-Penrose, not just Lucas.

I suggest a reading of the actual discussions which are far more subtle than is likely to be found here.

It does not, since the fact that he gets the physics wrong (Tegmark's 17 orders of magnitude) is independently documented.

Are you prepared to concede that he is, in fact, a physicist? Indeed, a very eminent physicist?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

.... And, contra westprog, these neuroscientists are by and large not physicists. Suggesting that the idea that the best people to work on explanations of consciousness are not physicists.

Yup. I'd accept that we can get advances from fields like psychiatry, neuroscience, even psychology before I would expect any insight into consciousness coming from physics.

Somewhat of a derail. . .I understand the TV show NUMB3RS is pretty entertaining, but the first episode I watched turned me off completely because it made the same mistake people here are making. The hero was using some mathematical model of the criminal's behavior to predict what he would do next. At one point, the prediction was dead wrong. Aha! he says, I forgot to consider the observer effect. He then invokes the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and claims that any time you observe something you alter it. He then leaps to the conclusion that since the bad guy knows the cops are after him, he has to change the mathematical model to take that into account. . .

Bleah!

What applies to subatomic particles does not necessarily apply to human brains (at that level of organization). The characteristics that emerge from such higher levels of organization that give rise to consciousness are NOT the characteristics of subatomic particles--especially the "weirdness" which is pretty much defined as the characteristics of subatomic particles that are NOT observed in the macro world.

From a logic point of view, it is the composition fallacy to think that if an object is composed of smaller objects with a given property that the larger object must also have that property.

As I mentioned, the collection of mental processes that we call "consciousness" are emergent properties at least at the level of brain structure. You don't get consciousness in a single atom or subatomic particles. Even when physicists ask questions about how a particle "knows" about the spin of a linked particle, the scare quotes are used to recognize that they're using the pathetic fallacy.