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

[!Kaggen]

No.


No.

Reference below

Please explain your words so I can tell the difference between your brain and a monkey's brain. Monkeys can say "no" too.

 

[!Kaggen]

Thinking is information processing.

Ahh some sentences.
So this information you process when you think, where does it come from?

 

[!Kaggen]

Consciousness is self-referential information processing.
To put it another way, consciousness is thinking about thinking.

start here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5278679#post5278679

 

[!Kaggen]

We already have the definition of conscsiousness.

There you go David the definition of consciousness is not idiomatic it is what PixyMisa has been hiding from us all along.
Please don't keep us in suspense.

 

[!Kaggen]

We already have created it outside ourselves.

Sure you have otherwise you would not have "the" definition of consciousness

 

[!Kaggen]

So you are telling me that when I say...

...would that prove it?​

What I really mean is...

...that would prove it​

Is this what you are saying? You do appreciate the difference between the too don't you?

No, The fact that you attempted to answer a question you proposed by assuming what I meant does not mean that you can change the question a posteriori when you're told the conclusion you draw from your answer is not what I actually said.

 

[!Kaggen]

I keep pointing out that it's not a question of quantity.

Water's property of wetness, for example, does not exist in any way whatsoever in hydrogen or oxygen. You can not explain wetness by looking at a hydrogen atom (or the subatomic parts thereof).

So the fact that we know exactly how much hydrogen and oxygen atoms makes water is irrelevant when it comes to waters properties?

 

[!Kaggen]

Here is a clue to the reason for the debate

There is an undercurrent running here with people on the metaphysics side of this debate insinuating that science is seriously lacking the tools to understand QM, consciousness, and perhaps other things. I'm curious, if anyone would like to field this question, what great insight does metaphysics have for any current science topics?

need an operator.

 

[!Kaggen]

!Kaggen's question is equivalent to asking, "How many sodium atoms does it take before you get saltiness?"

One, you get saltiness when you get salt (NaCl).

 

[!Kaggen]

You can't learn about a house by looking very closely at individual bricks.

Of course you can. An engineer can tell you how high you can build a house based on the strength of the bricks you use.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course you can. An engineer can tell you how high you can build a house based on the strength of the bricks you use.

But he can't tell you how high the house is.

 

[cyborg]

One, you get saltiness when you get salt (NaCl).

No.

The correct answer is: "you cannot get salt from any amount of sodium - you need chlorine too".

The entire point of the analogy being that you can't expect to get a senible answer to such a question. Asking, "how many brain cells does it take for consciousness to emerge?" is the wrong question.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There is an undercurrent running here with people on the metaphysics side of this debate insinuating that science is seriously lacking the tools to understand QM, consciousness, and perhaps other things. I'm curious, if anyone would like to field this question, what great insight does metaphysics have for any current science topics?

None, apart from to prevent certain subjects being misidentified as legitimate scientific subjects. Is it scientific progress to realise, as a scientist, that you are trying to find the answer to a question that doesn't really mean anything? Yes and no. It is progress of a sort, because you've learned something new, but it isn't really scientific progress because what you've learned isn't strictly scientific.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So your suggestion that consciousness is something that science can never explain somehow fits in with the idea that QM can explain consciousness?

I didn't say that QM can explain consciousness. I said that the scientific study of QM suffers from a specific difficulty and that the scientific study of consciousness suffers from another specific difficulty, and that there was an important and fundamental connection between these two difficulties. You could think of the two problems as being two knots on a string, where each knot is untanglable on its own but both disappear if you bring them together. Each problem contains the answer to the other.

Just because there are plenty of questions still to be answered doesn't mean a subject is somehow mysterious or beyond the reach of science.

It does in this specific case. I've already explained why: science can't work with theoretically-unobservable entities like Schroedinger's cat and noumenal brains.

 

[PixyMisa]

None, apart from to prevent certain subjects being misidentified as legitimate scientific subjects.

Such as?

 

[PixyMisa]

I didn't say that QM can explain consciousness. I said that the scientific study of QM suffers from a specific difficulty

What specific difficulty?

and that the scientific study of consciousness suffers from another specific difficulty

What specific difficulty?

and that there was an important and fundamental connection between these two difficulties.

What connection?

You could think of the two problems as being two knots on a string, where each knot is untanglable on its own but both disappear if you bring them together.

In that case, by definition, neither one was a knot.

Each problem contains the answer to the other.

No. It's physically impossible.

It does in this specific case. I've already explained why: science can't work with theoretically-unobservable entities like Schroedinger's cat

It can and does.

and noumenal brains.

There's no such thing; it's not even a meaningful term.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure you have otherwise you would not have "the" definition of consciousness

I have a definition of consciousness. It's something we can observe, measure, and construct, and it accounts for all related observations.

This makes it at least as useful as any other definition and infinitely more useful than no definition.

So, what have you got?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Pixy

There is a reason why you are on my ignore list. The reason is that I've answered all of those questions on numerous occasions in threads you posted in, and you never made the slightest bit of effort to understand the answers.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy

There is a reason why you are on my ignore list. The reason is that I've answered all of those questions on numerous occasions in threads you posted in, and you never made the slightest bit of effort to understand the answers.

Where?

Exactly.

I've never seen you answer any of those questions in any way that made sense, which is why I keep asking.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm late to this argument and had to skim a lot.
I actually read the Penrose book of the o.p., should it matter.

In my opinion, quantum effects enter consciousness rigtht where you expect it:
At the synapse of a neuron. The state of a single electron is implicated in every choice or decision we make.

Really, care to cite a source for that?

A neurotansmitters is not a single electron, it is very much larger than a QM object. So where did Penrose document this?

All large motions in a system at stasis can be traced to the state of a single sub-atomic particle.

Further lack of evidence and citations.

All the action starts with the very small action.

Ditto.

To keep qm isolated from the field at large is myopic and delusional.

yes cheistry is based upon QM, but that does not mean that the function of large molecules is more than very transparent.

Please explain your self.

All effect is quantum effect.

Overgeneralization. Most effects in teh word are extensions of QM, that does not mean that they behave at the QM wierdness level.

Observable phenomena begins with the behavior of its tiniest components, and works its way up to bricks. The idea of the brick, or the decision to throw one or not, originate in the smallest units of brain activity.

Nice assertion and a fallacy of constrcution. the behavior od most particles larger than hydrogen is very classical, and in fcat the behavior of hydrogen is mostly classical.

The difference between yes or no depends on the energy state of a single electron in the neuro-transmiter molecules at the synapse.

Except you have absolutely no citations, data or evidence.

ETA:
And no data on neurotransmission, do you mean receptor 'docking' or do you mean axon potential and the 'firing' of the neuron.

This is where the vagueness of definitions and lack of comprehension create these loose analogies that are incorrect.