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

[Robin]

I'm saying that all real world computing devices are in fact analogue in nature, and emulate an ideal digital computer. There is no such thing in reality as a digital computer, since nature at the level at which such devices operate is not digital in nature.

It might be possible, theoretically, to create a genuinely digital device, but it hasn't been done yet.

Assuming of course that nature is not in fact digital.

Feynman once conjectured that nature might be fundamentally discrete. If that was the case then digital devices would be an emulation of digital on an emulation of analog.

 

[Robin]

A semantical argument. Digital has a real and fundamental meaning when it comes to data transmission. That all underlying medium is analog does not obviate that meaning. Digital transmission has high fidelity (not perfect). Analog, by comparison, does not.

This is true too and more to the point. A digital system is no less a digital system because it is built on an analog system.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm saying that all real world computing devices are in fact analogue in nature, and emulate an ideal digital computer. There is no such thing in reality as a digital computer, since nature at the level at which such devices operate is not digital in nature.

It might be possible, theoretically, to create a genuinely digital device, but it hasn't been done yet.

I don't think I understand enough to agree with you or disagree with you. The bytes in memory of the machine I am typing this on are stored eight bits, 01010101 being 85 if I remember correctly, I think the 1 bit is last.

So that is processed as 85₁₀ or 55₁₆ and it is not an analog value it is not gated at 'around 85', if the byte is a command in the processor, 55₁₆ it is going to be a separate function in the list of the processor than 56₁₆.

So I don't really understand your point, could you elaborate with examples. The amplification of radio waves in a non-digital system is a good example of analog.

What do you have in mind?

 

[Dancing David]

It's not to be expected that theory would lead to more practical applications than experimental research. AFAIAA, no theory of consciousness has produced any practical applications so far.

There is no dichotomy between experimental research and forming theories. It's impossible to devise theories without data, but uninterpreted data is of no value.

And again, you place this meta value on an undefined term that you wish to place at some arbitrary value.

Perception is part of consciousness, as is sensation, as is memory and while they are not all perfectly understood processes, they are processes that do have a strong data basis and theory to go with the data.

 

[Dancing David]

A semantical argument. Digital has a real and fundamental meaning when it comes to data transmission. That all underlying medium is analog does not obviate that meaning. Digital transmission has high fidelity (not perfect). Analog, by comparison, does not.

And i am fairly certain that the internal architechture of the processor is digital. I could be totaly wrong.

 

[RandFan]

And i am fairly certain that the internal architechture of the processor is digital. I could be totaly wrong.

Transistors (digital switches) are mechanical devices composed of semiconducting material. IOW: They are an analog medium. There is no such thing as a metaphysical switch.

 

[PixyMisa]

Penrose might well be wrong on some specific issues

He's wrong on all the specific issues.

but he has one thing going for him - he's the only Physicist who's addressed the issue of consciousness, AFAIAA.

And that's why he's wrong. He knows nothhing about consciousness or neuroscience.

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

No. Complete rubbish.

Rock formations are physical phenomena. They are studied by geologists.
Living creatures are physical phenomena. They are studied by biologists.
Chemical compounds are physical phenomena. They are studied by chemists.
Fossils are physical phenomena. They are studied by paleontologists.

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.

There remains the problem that he's completely wrong.

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.

He's still completely wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

Transistors (digital switches) are mechanical devices composed of semiconducting material. IOW: They are an analog medium. There is no such thing as a metaphysical switch.

Oh, God, please don't bring up switching...

 

[rocketdodger]

Until we can trace the effects of consciousness from the micro level, tracking the forces involved, then we don't have a physical process.

I agree -- the fact that our brains are entirely physical doesn't imply anything about whether consciousness is a physical process.

 

[RandFan]

I agree -- the fact that our brains are entirely physical doesn't imply anything about whether consciousness is a physical process.

As a former and ardent duaalist I have to ask. Pray tell what process could it be then?

 

[!Kaggen]

And you decided all of this without thinking I suppose

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

hmm.. I refer to you sig for clarification, please.

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?

once again I refer you to your sig for clarification, please.

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?

I am not convinced of your proof. In any case I was not suggesting that matter or thinking would create themselves if they were defined self-referentially. You suggested this and I suggested you try prove it. What I did say was that what I myself create, is self-referential. I gave you a dictionary definition of think and conscious as a guide and proceeded to explain why you saying you think and me saying I think is not equivalent. The point being to show you how only I can create and address my consciousness.

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.

I did not pretend to answer the question in the above post only point out that it is unjustified to transfer thinking outside of its activity so as to explain its creation.

That is my reading of this

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

Hmm.. not and no better are not equivalent. This is shifting the goalposts.

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

You seem to be very intent upon defending the concept

Thinking is the only concept to defend. Failure thereof would make any other concept indefensible.

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.

I would rather be polite at this stage.

 

[!Kaggen]

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

If you like. The difference for me is that for thinking I cannot see how I can experience its appearance without producing it myself.

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)

What are these other experiences, if I may ask?

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

Are you sure?

No, but that's the only experience I have had (consistent and repeatable )

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

Thoughts yes, not thinking.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.



A specific and limited dictionary filtered through two cultures.




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

Now I did not mean that. I meant that translating the idiomatic meaning of pictorial art that is filetered through personal and cultural filters and then trying to interpret symbolms across time and culture is not wise.

You are safe in saying 'flying people can be interpreted as shamans','flying people can be interpreted as angels','flying people can be interpreted as being launched from a catapult' but you can only speculate as to the meaning of pictorial art unless you have a good contemporary understanding of the symbology. And even then it can be questionable.

Of course you may be right David, then again you may be wrong.
Like our other discussion on thinking and consciousness, perhaps studying the evolution of consciousness starts with the self examination of our own thinking. It is after all the one artifact, the experience thereof, we share with our ancestor H. sapiens.

The other important thing I forgot to mention about the thesis of Lewis-Williams is the insight he has drawn from neuroscience and specifically the work on entoptic phenomena entoptic phenomena arising during ASC.

I would be most interest to know what you think after an in depth study of the work of Lewis-Williams and the Rock Art Institute as you seem to be knowledgeable in both archaeology, cognitive science and neuroscience. I realize this is asking a lot, but to be honest I have yet to find someone who understands the background and the thesis of Lewis-Williams well enough to have a serious discussion about it.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

An important point. However you appear to have left out rock art from the Magdelian explosion? Do you think it justified that "intelligence" as a term used today should be applied to people 40 000 years ago or even 500 years ago for that matter?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But if he wants to know how chemical energy is converted into motion, it is necessary to understand the workings of the car on an atomic level.

No. There is no such thing as the understanding of a car on an atomic level.

You can learn about atoms by studying things at the atomic level, but not cars.

The properties of a car (something you can sit in, the ability to transport you and other loads from place to place, etc.) do not emerge at the atomic level.

Again, this statement:

Nevertheless, any large-scale physical phenomenon reduces to a composition of small/atomic scale physical phenomena. If consciousness is an actual physical phenomenon, then it will be possible to analyse it at all scales.

Is not true. In the car analogy, consciousness is a higher level emergent property (or rather a collection of properties) like the ability of a car to transport you from one place to another. You can't analyze either of these properties at the atomic level.

If we don't know how all this happens on an atomic scale, we don't know how a car works.

That's not true. Again, most auto engineers, designers and mechanics do not know QM, and yet we do actually know how a car works. The properties that we're concerned with in higher levels are not the properties of subatomic particles.

Saying that a car moves because it's an emergent property of fuel air and steel is just saying we don't actually know how the car works.

Not it's not. It's saying that we can understand these properties without worrying about individual atoms much less subatomic particles. In fact, it says that atomic theory and subatomic particles doesn't tell us anything about how cars work.
_________

It's not to be expected that theory would lead to more practical applications than experimental research. AFAIAA, no theory of consciousness has produced any practical applications so far.

I've already given you several examples of this. In neuroscience, specific components of consciousness (memory, proprioception, systems of arousal, etc.) have been studied in some detail and have led to practical applications, especially in medicine.

There is no dichotomy between experimental research and forming theories. It's impossible to devise theories without data, but uninterpreted data is of no value.

I'm not arguing about the difference between experimental vs theoretical work. I'm arguing that neuroscience (which is both theory and experiment) has led us to theories of consciousness that have led to very practical applications. QM (which is also theoretical and experimental) has not. Applying QM to consciousness has only resulted in the publication of New Agey books that compare subatomic particles to the mind.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course. There's so little known about consciousness that there's nothing much for physicists to work with.

No. Again, we know quite a lot about consciousness (memory, arousal, proprioception, etc.) and it's all based on the neuroscience model. The field is advancing pretty quickly these days. . . in neuroscience, not in physics, and certainly not from QM.

I'm not dissing physics. It's just that the collection of properties or functions we call consciousness is not the subject of physics. (No more than auto repair and house construction are!)

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't think any number of disorganized brain cells will result in consciousness emerging. (Nor will any number of aggregated atoms or molecules. Nor will a collection of amygdalas or a collection of nerve fibers.)

However, the question as to what specific structures give rise to what specific components of "consciousness" (again stuff like memory, proprioception, language, empathy, etc. are all components of consciousness) and how they do it are questions that I predict will be answered by neuroscience (or related fields) and not by physics.

How many organized brain cells till consciousness emerges?

 

[!Kaggen]

How many atoms are needed in the wing of a plane before flight emerges?

flight will never "emerge" if it is a plastic model plane.
I do not see how flight will "emerge" on any wing regardless.
Why is a wing even necessary for flight?

 

[!Kaggen]

It's just that the collection of properties or functions we call consciousness is not the subject of physics. (No more than auto repair and house construction are!)

I see so if physics explains gravity we can safely ignore this and build houses as high as we want to?

 

[RandFan]

flight will never "emerge" if it is a plastic model plane.

That's not an answer to the question. It's a straw man for you to attack.

I do not see how flight will "emerge" on any wing regardless.

What you "see" is neither here nor there. To achieve flight there needs be a number of variables. If and only if all of the variables are met can flight happen (aka emerge).

Why is a wing even necessary for flight?

Another straw man.

You have left the question unanswered. I assume you are withdrawing your silly question about brain cells. Even if your semantical argument was valid it still wouldn't answer the question as to how many atoms are necassary for flight.