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

[Malerin]

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.

Kaggen's not asking how many atoms it takes before consciousness can emerge (which would lead to your rebuttal question about atoms and wings).

Wouldn't the question be more like: How much lift does a wing have to generate before "flight" occurs?

 

[RandFan]

Kaggen's not asking how many atoms it takes before consciousness can emerge....

:facepalm: Sweet jesus.

He's asking about brain cells. Brain cells are the constituent parts that make up a brain. What are the constiuent parts that make up a wing (the primary means of flight in flying animals) Atoms are constituent units of wings. If you prefer molecules I could go for that. If you perfer feathers I could go for that. If you have any other constituent unit that would be an analog I would be happy to accept it.

Which constituent unit would you choose? Hint: Lift ISN'T a constiuent part.

Wouldn't the question be more like: How much lift does a wing have to generate before "flight" occurs?

NO. Because lift ISN'T a constiuent part of a wing.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

*Looks at radical growth of thread since the last time he posted*

..... I think I have created a monster

What did you expect mentioning the word "consciousness" in a thread title?

 

[Malerin]

:facepalm: Sweet jesus.

He's asking about brain cells. Brain cells are the constituent parts that make up a brain. What are the constiuent parts that make up a wing (the primary means of flight in flying animals) Atoms are constituent units of wings. If you prefer molecules I could go for that. If you perfer feathers I could go for that. If you have any other constituent unit that would be an analog I would be happy to accept it.

Which constituent unit would you choose? Hint: Lift ISN'T a constiuent part.

NO. Because lift ISN'T a constiuent part of a wing.

Think more in terms of necessary conditions:

Lift is a necessary condition for a typical plane to get off the ground. So you can then ask, Well how much lift is necessary? In the same way, physicalists claim neural activity is a necesssary condition for consciousness. So the same question arises: how much neural activity is necessary?

 

[RandFan]

In the same way, physicalists claim neural activity is a necesssary condition for consciousness.

Atoms and molecules ARE a necessary condition.

So the same question arises: how much neural activity is necessary?

How man feathers are necassary for flight?

If you can't tell me precisely how many feathers are needed for a bird to fly then how can you expect me to tell you how much neural activity is necassary for flight?

When does night become day? No, really. What is the precise moment? Such questions are absurd. We don't know. Consciousness isn't a binary question. There are different levels (actually gradations) of consciousness.

If there was an answer then we don't know what that answer is. I've said "we don't know". I've said it over and over. So what should we make of our ignorance?

 

[Dancing David]

But the bit is just an idea that we have. The physics of it is not digital.

So?

The usage is digital not analog. It uses numbers to transmit the data in the processor, not a volatge state. the way music is encoded digitaly is very different from analog encoding. You are saying that there is no way to tell the DnA of a rabiit from the DnA of a dog because they are physically teh same.

The number 55₁₆ is not a sliding scale from 1 to 256 represented by a volatge potential, it is low high low high low high low high. It is used to represent the digits in binary of 85₁₀, 55₁₆.

It is the usage that determines the defintion, not the underlying process.

You use the voltages to represent 0/1 and then numbers in binary, octal, digital or hexideci, which is what makes it digital. And yes you can tell the difference physically, if you send an analog video signal down an ethernet cable to an ethernet modem it will receive noise. You can distinguish the signal pattern difference.

So are you really saying that rabbits and dogs are the same because you can't tell their DnA apart.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Indeed.

 

[PixyMisa]

Think more in terms of necessary conditions:

Lift is a necessary condition for a typical plane to get off the ground. So you can then ask, Well how much lift is necessary? In the same way, physicalists claim neural activity is a necesssary condition for consciousness. So the same question arises: how much neural activity is necessary?

The two questions are not only not equivalent, they are not even similar.

Lift is a vector. If you have more lift than weight, you go up. Very very simple.

Neural activity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness in neural networks. Obviously. No neural activity, no consciousness. But you can also have neural activity without consciousness.

Are you seriously disputing any of these facts? Are you seriously suggesting that those questions are equivalent?

 

[PixyMisa]

It wasn't me who mentioned the word "consciousness". Ask the person who asked the original question. You should already know my answer to this: I think we depend on a subjective definition of this word - we have to define it privately in terms of our own experience of reality.

I absolutely deny this. My definition is objective and mathematically precise.

I know you don't like it. But that's your problem.

 

[rocketdodger]

I had no particular wish to revisit this, but the alternative seems to be to have Rocketdodger give his misunderstood version.

Right. Lets just clear up my misunderstanding then, eh?

Do you or do you not consider consciousness to be a physical process?

Do you or do you not think a working computer is different from a pile of non-functional computer parts?

Do you or do you not think a thermostat is different from a rock?

Do you or do you not consider bacteria different from rocks?

Do you or do you not think that life would exist on Earth if humans didn't exist?

Do you or do you not think a glass of water contains a virtual machine and software to run on it?

Do you or do you not think that an adult human assembled cell by cell in an advanced laboratory would be human in the same way as the rest of us, if there were no way to tell the difference between us?

 

[rocketdodger]

Think more in terms of necessary conditions:

Lift is a necessary condition for a typical plane to get off the ground. So you can then ask, Well how much lift is necessary? In the same way, physicalists claim neural activity is a necesssary condition for consciousness. So the same question arises: how much neural activity is necessary?

You can get a ballpark figure by looking at the complexity of animal brains.

Which animals do you consider conscious? There you go.

 

[rocketdodger]

So are you really saying that rabbits and dogs are the same because you can't tell their DnA apart.

westprog will never admit yes or no to such a question, David, because either way his/her argument dies.

If he/she claims yes, then everyone knows he/she is crazy, since rabbits and dogs are obviously not the same.

If he/she claims no, then we can simply say "well, see the difference between rabbits and dogs? That is what we are talking about, call it what you want," and he/she has nothing to argue about anymore because again rabbits and dogs are clearly different.

So westprog won't ever give you a straight answer.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

Its simple really.
You made an false argument about what you assumed was the motivation for my question instead of addressing the question directly.
Your assumption is that I believe brain cells are exclusively involved in the emergence of consciousness.
I did not make or imply this position and therefore your topic of atoms, wings and flight is an irrelevant attempt to rebut your own false assumption.
Commonly known as a strawman.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

Since when is "I do not know" an answer to a question.
Its a response yes, but hardly an answer!
Unless of course strawmen arguments are your specialty.
If there was "a point" to my question it was to illustrate how you see ghosts were there are none. And yes this could be construed as silly.

 

[!Kaggen]

Atoms and molecules ARE a necessary condition.

How man feathers are necassary for flight?

If you can't tell me precisely how many feathers are needed for a bird to fly then how can you expect me to tell you how much neural activity is necassary for flight?

When does night become day? No, really. What is the precise moment? Such questions are absurd. We don't know. Consciousness isn't a binary question. There are different levels (actually gradations) of consciousness.

If there was an answer then we don't know what that answer is. I've said "we don't know". I've said it over and over. So what should we make of our ignorance?

I think you are confused between maths and the scientific method.
I am not asking whats the circumference of a circle if the radius is 3 cm.
I am asking for example how many ants make up a colony. A colony being an emergent property of ants.
Biologists ask these types of questions all the time. The do not get exact answers and they do not expect them either.
They use statistical theory to design ways of counting ants in colonies which may stand up to the scrutiny of consistency and repeatability.

You have already agreed that there is nothing wrong with asking these types of questions

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.

and furthermore if you believe this is an answer to these questions

We don't know.

Then it certainly is an example of an answer from ignorance.

But now I am curious as to why you are not willing to suggest ways of trying to answer questions about the emergent property of consciousness?

 

[!Kaggen]

Neural activity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness in neural networks. Obviously. No neural activity, no consciousness. But you can also have neural activity without consciousness.

How much neural activity to we need before we get consciousness?

 

[!Kaggen]

You can get a ballpark figure by looking at the complexity of animal brains.

Which animals do you consider conscious? There you go.

Ahh... now we are getting somewhere.
You admit that we first need to find consciousness before we can measure it.
My question now is how do we find consciousness without measuring were it is, if we are to study it scientifically?

 

[PixyMisa]

How much neural activity to we need before we get consciousness?

Wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ahh... now we are getting somewhere.
You admit that we first need to find consciousness before we can measure it.
My question now is how do we find consciousness without measuring were it is, if we are to study it scientifically?

Wrong.

 

[RandFan]

You made an false argument about what you assumed was the motivation for my question instead of addressing the question directly.

No, and I've explained why this is wrong.