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

[tsig]

"
Quote:
I don't think an overdraft has a physical meaning."

Of course it does.

.

Westp must never have bounced a check.

 

[PixyMisa]

What I mean is that there is no physical process called "computing" whereby a physicist can look at a brain and a computer and say "I have detected computing going on here" and look at the bits of computer, or a rock, or a car, and say "No computing going on here".

Yes, we know what you mean.

You are completely wrong.

Computing is a functional engineering definition which we apply to certain tools that we use.

A functional engineering definition is a physical definition.

And this definition is absolutely not restricted to "certain tools we use".

It becomes meaningful only in the use we make of it.

Wrong.

It's not that computing is not carried out by physical processes. It's that computing is not a physical process itself.

That's a contradiction.

This is of course subject to someone coming up with a physical definition for computing. (And this means something more than mentioning semiconductor behaviour).

We have done that. You don't like it. Since you have been unable to raise a valid (or indeed coherent) objection, that's your problem.

 

[Robin]

Science cannot assign value to anything. If the value of something is to be studied, then it has to be by non-scientific methods.

That does not answer the question.

I have already stipulated that there are some things that science cannot study.

What I asked is, what cannot be studied by scientific methods that can be studied by non-scientific methods.

So to answer my original question you have to be explicit and nominate the particular non-scientific method available to study value.

 

[Dancing David]

You can describe a dog objectively without describing the interaction with an observer which is necessary to obtain the objective properties of a dog.

The distinction between an analogue and a digital computer, if expressed precisely, will refer to the output of the computer as used by an involved observer.

For some reason I think this is special pleading, the objective archtechture of the digital vs. the analog system is exactly the same sort of thing.

It can be run as objectively as the systems of the dog.

Do you know what architechture is? The actual layout of the circuits? Analog computers, especially the hydraulic ones are run on different principles.

I believe it is special pleading because I doubt you would make the exact same statement about a car.

Do you apply the same standard to all tools of human construction. (At this point exclude mental constructs.)

 

[Dancing David]

Uh-uh. The act of shopping might involve actual transfer of physical material, but it might just involve a conceptual exchange of rights. Try to define it in physical terms and it will evaporate from you.

this is more justs pecial pleading, i am sort of amazed you would say this.

Contract rights are rights that control the exchange of physical actions.

So what do you think is an example of this?

I can think of plenty of 'purely' conceptual rights with no basis in reality that have physical consequences. (The 'right to life' being a hot button one that is often used to limit human behaviors.)

That's not to say that shopping doesn't involve physical action, but delimiting what those actions might be is impossible.

And I haven't put my finger on it, why does that matter?

Give me an example in biology or some other sciencey subject.

Because you cannot narrow it down to anything specifically physical beyond the fact that some physical action probably needs to take place.

I have to think about this.

Please give an example of how this rule applies in science. That would help me understand.

Language is based upon idiomatic, not absolute usage.

 

[Dancing David]

Science cannot assign value to anything. If the value of something is to be studied, then it has to be by non-scientific methods.

That is a rather broad usage of the term 'value', it has multiple meaning.

I would also argue that there are ways to measure metrics of conceptual values as well, now purely personal values would have the validity issue.

Give an example of a 'value' the the scientific method could not measure. It is not the role of science to assign anything, it is a construct of approximate models. So I am not sure what usage of 'assign' you are using.

I grant you the personal ethical and moral values would be ahrder to discern but I think they could be measured, what do you have in mind?

(Some of the experiments would be highly unethical as well.)

 

[Dancing David]

The people who devised the theory of gravity were quite happy for it to include everything. Newton included matter and Einstein threw in radiation as well.

I've asked the people proposing the Strong AI theory of computing whether certain objects compute, and I was told not even a little bit. So if a theory is going to work, it has to exclude what they insist doesn't do what they say computing is. They aren't my definitions.

Sorry the strong AI argument as you have constructed is not my concern (at this point), you made a statement about exclusionary criteria and the role of defintions in the usage of the term 'digital' vs. 'analog'. And I am interested in that right now, what other ways is this exclusionary rule used in science contexts?

(I would not be the 'strong AI' proponent. I would be more of a study and fudge proponent for AI. My thinking would be to emulate actual nueral systems. Which could be modelled on either analog or digital or hybrid systems.)

 

[Dancing David]

You need a complete circuit for current to flow.

Yes and the voltage/other things to meet certain requirements, I was keeping it general.

 

[!Kaggen]

It is not even an observation about consciousness.

A circular definition is meaningless and says nothing whatsoever.

Another 2 observation about consciousness right there.
We as conscious minds talk about not meaningful as if it "is" something meaningful to have no meaning and saying which has no content but was said.

Do you prove things with consciousness anyway?

No , but I have yet to understand a proof whilst unconscious.

In any case why would I want a proof of consciousness? You are the one who seems to think we can draw metaphysical conclusions about it, not me.

You brought up using circular definitions as proof, not me. I just made an observation about them.
Metaphysical conclusions can only be drawn from metaphysical assumptions.
I do not see how thinking can be regarded as a metaphysical assumption as any metaphysics pre-supposes thinking.

 

[PixyMisa]

We as conscious minds talk about not meaningful as if it "is" something meaningful to have no meaning and saying which has no content but was said.

And?

No , but I have yet to understand a proof whilst unconscious.

And what is the connection, exactly, between consciousness and unconsciousness?

 

[westprog]

Nope, the design an analog computer is going to function differently that a digital computer, there was phase in CT where they were tried, they use different processes than a digital computer. They are arranged differently than those that do digital computing.

And the design architechture is different.

Yes, it's a functional difference. However, the digital computer will still have analogue processes going on.

 

[westprog]

Absolutely.

And just how can you be sure of that? It's a great trick if you can manage it.

 

[westprog]

So your computer works by nonphysical processes?

Any individual computer can have its operations defined physically, but what is claimed is that all computing devices are performing the same physical process of computing. And this includes using pebbles to count cows.

 

[westprog]

Not much computing going on in the cooling fan. Rocks are pretty inert and not many mufflers calculate.

If you think that, give me a physical definition of computing that excludes the rocks and the cooling fan, but includes the computer and the cow-counting pebbles.

 

[westprog]

That does not answer the question.

I have already stipulated that there are some things that science cannot study.

What I asked is, what cannot be studied by scientific methods that can be studied by non-scientific methods.

So to answer my original question you have to be explicit and nominate the particular non-scientific method available to study value.

Choice.

 

[westprog]

I can think of plenty of 'purely' conceptual rights with no basis in reality that have physical consequences. (The 'right to life' being a hot button one that is often used to limit human behaviors.)

Of course these non-physical concepts have physical consequences. It's just not possible to define them precisely in physical terms. It's impossible to provide a physical definition of an overdraft. However, it will have an effect on human beings, who straddle the physical and the conceptual world. Overdrafts are created by physical means, and they effect the physical world, but they are not physical things in and of themselves.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, it's a functional difference. However, the digital computer will still have analogue processes going on.

What's an analogue process?

 

[PixyMisa]

Any individual computer can have its operations defined physically, but what is claimed is that all computing devices are performing the same physical process of computing.

Yes.

And this includes using pebbles to count cows.

Yes.

 

[PixyMisa]

If you think that, give me a physical definition of computing that excludes the rocks and the cooling fan, but includes the computer and the cow-counting pebbles.

Look it up.

 

[!Kaggen]

Well a lot of this is going to come down to definitions, which is why I am a splitter, I do not classify much as thought except in general usage because there are too many components to thought.

And that gets to the real problem of the definition of consciousness, it is a rubric that glosses over the myriad of processes that support it.

“When I become aware of thoughts its after these thoughts were created by thinking.”

See that gets to my issue right away, so you have the event which can be labeled as a thought (which is a brain process) or you can refer to the chain of events and call it ‘thinking’. But if you only can be aware of it after it has occurred, and I would counter argue that you are aware of it while it is occurring, then it involves an element of recall or memory.

So part of the definition then becomes ‘Awareness of thoughts in the moment or in recall’.

Now the other issue for me is that thoughts often involve visual pictures and special representations for me, so there is more to them than just the traditional ‘thought’ of ‘verbal cognition.

“In other words, consciousness is something I am only aware of after thinking separates me/subject from my thoughts/object.”

Now this single sentence shows some great stuff!

So consciousness is awareness and you are only aware of awareness after the fact? Or there is another form of awareness that you are labeling in this fashion?

Now I again would also state that you can have awareness of thought during the thought process.

Then there is the whole statement about object/subject, which I think throws in a whole conceptual framework unannounced and untested. And as I stated I believe that one can be aware of thoughts in a holistic present moment fashion, not requiring the whole object/subject divide, although there would be forms of abstracted thought and decoupling where that would be the goal.

Now before proceeding with the rest, I should look at your response to just this. (Especially since I seem to be disagreeing with your next point.)

Now please do not think that I am dismissing your ideas I am just trying to explore this subject.

Hi David

You have brought up a lot of questions regarding what I mean by certain things.
I have tried to summarize my argument again below concentrating on clarifying your questions.
I hope I have covered most of them and I am sure you will let me know what I have not covered.

Well, yes. My thinking as to why this is the case is similar to the reasons given by many non-western philosophy's as to the problem of consciousness, the "noisy" mind.

Well that is a huge part of the problem here on teh R&P forum, if they called it the Hard Problem of Awareness I doubt that it would exist. It is because people sue the common sloppy usage of 'consciousness' with all its attendant atavistics baggage that the discussion becomes as crazy as it does.

Starting out with the premise that consciousness is a reality and can therefore be be observed I have consciously been trying to refer to the most basic manifestation of the observation of consciousness using the definition , aware of ones thought .

How do I come to this definition?

Identifying first the most basic manifestation of an observation is an important principal of any scientific investigation.
In this case if we examined our own consciousness we could identify basic starting points for a scientific investigation.
As far as our own consciousness is concerned we can minimize perception (sensory input and all its related nerve functions to a minimum) by consciously removing that which would not be necessary from our minds and environment till the brink of becoming unconscious.
This is commonly known as "meditation", but I personally do not like this term as it has too much baggage.
Another useful exercise is to examine one's state of mind in the last moments before falling asleep and in the first moments of awakening.
It is important to note again I am only referring to perceptions of which we are aware.
What I have found by doing these things is that we can most easily reduce external sensory information.
Then if we want to reduce internal sensory information resulting from our body this involves more effort.
Of course having an illness or injury makes this part even more difficult if not impossible. So I will assume a healthy person.
My experience has been that immediately after balanced physical exercises (not too much not too little) in which one participates fully with delight one can get a feeling which many people would describe as "I feel great".
This really means they are not aware of there bodies being under the influence by gravity and any of the related aches and pains resulting therefrom.
They feel light, young and supple.
This is also an interesting observation as regards the consciousness of a child, but that is another story.
Yoga for instance is designed to get the body into this state by various well designed exercises and then whilst in this state to meditate by quietly stilling ones remaining thoughts using various techniques. Interestingly this stage is the most difficult if not almost impossible thing to do by far, eliminating all thoughts.
I believe the exercise of meditation of ultimately quieting the mind of thoughts can lead oneself to that point were I am fully aware right up to the point at which I pass from an conscious to an unconscious state.
Hence my basic definition of consciousness (being aware of ones thoughts).
Now you have routinely asked me what I mean by "thinking" and in the post I am addressing also you question that we are not aware of thinking when it occurs.
The question as to what I mean by thinking should be clearer now, in that even with conscious effort to reduce awareness as much as possible we are still left with thinking which does not want to "go away" as such until we are unconscious and we can no longer differentiate. Therefore thinking for me is that which makes us aware of being conscious, i.e. having a conscious mind which can tell the difference between itself and its thoughts.

Finally
The last and most important pose in any Yoga routine is Savasana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savasana) which often induces one to become unconscious.
All this is done in order to bring attention to what consciousness is.
What I would be interested in is a scientific investigation, and hence the questions about numbers of brain cells earlier in this thread, as to what activity is happening in the brain under these conditions and how much brain tissue is involved.