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

[RandFan]

Not according to any concept of "digital" with which I am familiar.

According to the concept that I'm familiar with I think it very well could be argued.

 

[!Kaggen]

I am not convinced of your proof.

I was pointing out that circular definitions are easy to come by.

You said you would like to see me find a circular definition for matter. I did. That is all.

This is what you asked

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

and I said go ahead and try. I did not say that I agreed it was possible.

and thats not all since you have yet to show

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

It was your own reasoning, with "matter" and "physical" swapped for "consciousness" and "think". You seemed to think you had made some point because you had a circular definition.

no

this is what I said

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

and repeated later

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.

I don't recall asking anything of the sort. I think you will have to quote that part.

the quote

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

Please try, it would be most interesting to see.

Recall now?

What I did say was that what I myself create, is self-referential.

Your original claim was that consciousness creates consciousness as I seem to recall.

This assertion as related to thinking was clarified in these posts immediately after my first post on this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5278997#post5278997

And you know this - how?

I think

and

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5279089#post5279089

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.

Unsupported assertion.

, the only one we can make "I think"

I then proceeded over the next few posts addressed mostly the David to justify my initial claims regarding consciousness in the light of thinking.

Then you then asked me

You think, therefore consciousness creates itself.

Hmmm...

Perhaps you should be a little more explicit about this step.

So I first defined what I meant by conscious and think to be clear and then re-iterated what I had been trying to say next.

Asking me, how do you know "you think" is not equivalent to me asking myself how do I know "I think".
In the first instance you are addressing an object not of your creation in the 2nd I am addressing an object I created. This is the unique quality of thinking. It is self-referential. In order to answer the first question I refer to the 2nd and I am stuck, as I cannot transcend my own thinking in order to observe it as an independent object not of my creation. All I can say about it is, I think I think. We can transfer thinking to the brain/matter/atoms and then claim the "I" is an illusion which prevents us from studying thinking as an independent objective entity and this may prove useful in conceptualization, but it is not justified as it still assumes thinking and only transfers thinking elsewhere. We might then be further inclined to deny thinking as well, which is also unjustified as we would use thinking to do this.

and I repeated this later

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.

Only you can address your consciousness - but you cannot create it.

And what would I be addressing my consciousness with then?

Recall when I asked you how you created your consciousness you were unable to answer.

a reminder

And you know this - how?

I think

That is my answer the first time and I have yet to change my mind.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not according to any concept of "digital" with which I am familiar.

Our nerves carry pulse-coded digital signals. I'm not sure what concepts of "digital" with which you are familiar, but whatever they are, they are incomplete at best.

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't think it's a function purely of number.

For example, you might ask how many bricks make a house (and the emergent properties of a house)? It's not a matter of number (though it does take more than "some") as much as it is how they're organized to do certain functions.

(ETA: It also depends on how you define "consciousness". As I've been saying that's a term that refers to many different properties/functions.)

I think its problematic to refer to an emergent property without first defining this property and identifying at what stage it emerges.

But again, back to the point of this thread, do you suppose QM or neuroscience will answer this question?

The question of Penrose and his thesis on QM being capable of explaining consciousness ?
I do not believe it is consciousness that needs explaining, but thinking.
This can only be explained using thinking. We can confirm our thoughts on consciousness using the scientific method. In other words consciousness is a question for philosophy to unravel and science to communicate.

 

[RandFan]

I think its problematic to refer to an emergent property without first defining this property and identifying at what stage it emerges.

Nonsense. Prior to our understanding of aerodynamics we didn't have to pretend that flight wasn't a result of the constituent properties of birds, bats and other flying animals.

This is what you are asking us to do with consciousness. Since we don't know at what stage consciousness emerges we must presume that it doesn't emerge from physical processes.

Now, before our understanding of aerodynamics there were people who proposed that flight was metaphysical. Angels or special forces but it wasn't up to those who insisted that flight was simply the result of physical forces to prove the negative.

We only know of physical processes for consciousness.

End of story.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This would be a fallacy. If there is an error in logic then what's at stake has no relevance as to the error in logic.

The attempt is made to hide logical errors with absurd definitions like "consciousness is what the brain does." If I contest this sort of argument it is not a mere semantic argument.

 

[!Kaggen]

Then you are being dishonest. You asked a question about how many brain cells are needed for consciousness to emerge. I asked how many atoms are needed for flight to emerge.

1. Neuroscience does not hold that the only thing necessary for consciousness is brain cells.
2. Likewise, I do not hold that the only thing necessary for flight are wings.

So the question still stands.

One long strawman.

 

[!Kaggen]

Nonsense. Prior to our understanding of aerodynamics we didn't have to pretend that flight wasn't a result of the constituent properties of birds, bats and other flying animals.

This is what you are asking us to do with consciousness. Since we don't know at what stage consciousness emerges we must presume that it doesn't emerge from physical processes.

Now, there were people who proposed that flight was metaphysical. Angels or special forces but it wasn't up to those who insisted that flight was simply the resulto fo physical forces to prove the negative.

We only know of physical processes for consciousness.

End of story.

Another strawman

 

[RandFan]

The attempt is made to hide logical errors with absurd definitions like "consciousness is what the brain does." If I contest this sort of argument it is not a mere semantic argument.

You are veering off the course. Let's stick with the point that started this meta discussion. I noted that there was a semantical argument being made. Now, this is the case or it isn't. That claim must stand on it's own.

 

[RandFan]

Another strawman

Hardly. It goes directly to the heart of the matter. It illustrates clearly why you are making an error in logic.

However, I'll withdraw my use of the word "pretend" and substitute "presume" as that could be construed as a straw man.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I think you poked a sleeping giant.

I think I opened a can of killer worms.

 

[!Kaggen]

It's the same question. You seem to want to learn about the concept of emergent properties.

Actually, you seem to be scoffing at the idea of emergent properties by asking reductionist questions.

Emergent properties is not about quantity. It's much more about levels of organization.

Organ systems have properties that you won't find at the level of tissue; tissue has properties that you won't find at the level of cells; cells have properties that you won't find at the level of molecules; molecules have properties that you won't find at the level of atoms.

I am very much aware of the concept of emergence and have no issues with it.
I just do not see why we should not ask when does an emergent property emerge and therefore how much of "whatever" was required before a new property emerged. Otherwise stating that something complex is difficult to understand because "it is an emergent property" is just hand waving.

 

[RandFan]

I just do not see why we should not ask when does an emergent property emerge and therefore how much of "whatever" was required before a new property emerged.

There is nothing wrong with asking such questions. That we don't know the answer does not invite conclusions from our ignorance.

We don't know.

 

[RandFan]

One long strawman.

Why is it a straw man?

 

[!Kaggen]

Why is it a straw man?

The issue I brought up by asking the numbers question is that I do not see why the concept emergence should bypass empirical scrutiny.

You brought up something completely unrelated to point to your own thoughts on neuroscience about the emergence of consciousness being the result of more than one thing and the emergence of flight being the result of more than one thing.

I never said that consciousness was only the result of brain cells, I only asked how many brain cells would be necessary for consciousness.

 

[!Kaggen]

There is nothing wrong with asking such questions. That we don't know the answer does not invite conclusions from our ignorance.
We don't know.

What prompted this response?

 

[RandFan]

I never said that consciousness was only the result of brain cells, I only asked how many brain cells would be necessary for consciousness.

The question is a silly and nonsensical one. To illustrate why it is both silly and nonsensical I asked "how many atoms in the wing of a plane would be necessary for flight?".

Both questions are equally silly and absurd. Neither question (or the inability to answer either question) will advance a debate or discussion.

So, no straw man.

 

[RandFan]

What prompted this response?

If you already knew the answer to your question (we don't know how many brain cells are necessary) then why ask the question in the first place? Are you not trying to make a point? No point, other than we are ignorant, can be made.

Bob: Flight is the result of all of the pysical processes of flying animals and air pressure.
Ted: How many atoms are needed in the wing before an animal can fly?
Bob: That is a silly and absurd questions.

JTJ: Consciousness is the result of physical processes in the brain.
Kag: How many brain cells are needed in the brain before consciousness emerges.
RF: That is a silly and absurd question.

 

[PixyMisa]

The attempt is made to hide logical errors with absurd definitions like "consciousness is what the brain does."

Of course, no-one ever said that, so the point is irrelevant.

 

[RandFan]

The attempt is made to hide logical errors with absurd definitions like "consciousness is what the brain does." If I contest this sort of argument it is not a mere semantic argument.

Of course, no-one ever said that, so the point is irrelevant.

As a definition of consciousness that would be a rather incomplete definition at best.

However consciousness is what the brain does as flight is what planes do.