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

JoeTheJuggler said:
Again, in the neuroscience model (which has resulted in a great deal of insight into conscious experience), sensory inputs run via afferent fibers to the CNS. Where they make connections to the neocortex (the primary sensory cortex) we have the subjective experience of the sensation.

If the neocortex is quiescent (through brain trauma, drugs, etc.) or the incoming sensory input doesn't get there (as with sleep or injury to the afferent fibers), we don't have the subjective experience.
Click to expand...

Neuroscience has done a great deal to narrow down the location and the processes which produce subjective experience, but we still don't know how it happens.
 
westprog said:
Well, precisely. It's impossible to have an illusion without a conscious being to be deceived.

Part of the business of writing consciousness out of existence is the redefinition of half the English* language so that words are defined to mean something other than what they are normally accepted to mean - so thermostats "want" to keep the house warm.
Click to expand...

Oh, and saying rocks "switch" is along the lines of what the term is normally accepted to mean?

And that piles of non-functioning parts "compute?"
 
westprog said:
I think the above is a good summary of the current situation. One way to address the problem of subjective experience is to deny that there is any such thing, or that it's just a description we give to already well defined phenomena. (Recent posts referenced eliminative materialism as a name for the idea). It has the advantage of producing a theory which conforms with known physics, though lacking the benefit of explaining anything.
Click to expand...

Well, if by "anything" you mean "everything that actually happens" then yeah, I agree 100%.
 
Fontwell said:
As far as I'm concerned, the hard problem of consciousness i.e. the feeling of what it is like to experience something ( quale ) is the key issue and one which nobody has ever really adequately addressed yet.
Click to expand...

It is a dead horse that has been beaten to a pulp, actually.

I will admit this much, however -- the debate has illustrated that there are four types of people:

1) People who are educated well in computer science, computation theory, neuroscience, and possibly electrical engineering, that actually understand how consciousness can arise from dumb matter.

2) People who are not as educated in the above, yet use logic to deduce that since everything else in the known universe is, in point of fact, physical then it is very likely that consciousness is as well, even if "it doesn't seem like it is from a subjective point of view."

3) People who are not as educated in the above and refuse to accept that consciousness is likely to be physical because "it doesn't seem like it from a subjective point of view."

4) People who are somewhat educated in the above, but not educated enough, and go through elaborate complex schemes to try to bridge the gap between the physical portion of consciousness and the woo portion of consciousness (I had to add this fourth category specifically for Roger Penrose).

You are clearly a member of group 2) or 3). I would be happy to try to explain what those of us in group 1) know, but honestly it does require alot of background education to understand it fully.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
Because it DOESN'T LOGICALLY FOLLOW, Randfan.
Click to expand...

Why, yes it does.

"One of the key characteristics of cars is that they have wheels". This would mean that a wheel-less vehicle is NOT a car. "One of the key characteristics of life is reproduction" means that ALL life have this characteristics because it's part of what defines LIFE, especially when you specify that it's the MOST important one.

Key defining characteristics of birds is that they have feather and can fly.
Click to expand...

And this is false, because it's not part of the definition of "bird".
 
Fontwell said:
This maybe a definitions issue. The things you mention are (I think) the so called 'easy' problems of consciousness. They explain a great deal about how the mind works and are truly fascinating but they don't help, so far, with the problem of how we get to actually experience these things as processes which have a quality to them.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Neuroscience has quite a bit to say about how we get to actually experience things.

Again, I'm reduced to saying 'what it is like to be hot' rather than just detecting information. There is a level of consciousness that appears to be one step beyond the biological workings of the mind.
Click to expand...
No it's not. We can stimulate a sensory cell and note that the cell converts the thermal stimulus to action potentials that go to various places in the CNS including the primary sensory cortex. The subjective experience goes on there. When brain surgeons stimulate places on the sensory cortex, the result is hallucinations (subjective experiences). It really does tell us a LOT about the subjective experience.

I'll repeat a point I made earlier: as much as I enjoy logic and philosophy, that too is a discipline that will not add to our knowledge of how consciousness works. Ultimately, all logic is circular, since the conclusion must come from the premises. Without new information (new premises from fields such as neuroscience), logic will not yield any new understanding. All these arguments with p-zombies or disembodies consciousness have resulted in no new knowledge on the subject.

If the limitation you think neuroscience faces is that it relies on self-reporting to correlate these various brain activities with the subjective experience, then I would point out that it is a limitation that neither New Agey QM approaches nor dualist philosophy (or any other flavor, for that matter) have found a way around either.

But if that's the standard, then ought we dismiss all of medicine that relies on subjective self-reporting of symptoms? All of linguistics that doesn't rely on a subjective reporting of whether or not a given utterance "sounds right"? It seems that that approach will only lead to solipsism.
 
Rocketdodger and JoeTheJuggler,

I think I'm a two. ( 'People who are not as educated in the above, yet use logic to deduce that since everything else in the known universe is, in point of fact, physical then it is very likely that consciousness is as well, even if "it doesn't seem like it is from a subjective point of view." ')I was an electronic engineer for twenty years designing Si chips at the functional level and I've done a chunk of computing, although not at the AI level by a million miles.

If it is the case that there are

1) People who are educated well in computer science, computation theory, neuroscience, and possibly electrical engineering, that actually understand how consciousness can arise from dumb matter.

then I would truly love to join their ranks. It would obviously take a certain amount learning but that just takes patience and time.

The thing is this: There are plenty of things I don't fully understand, like QM and relativity. But mostly, when I have started to investigate them and found material at the right level, I can see what the issues are and also come to an understanding that if I had the time, patience and a better brain, I would be able to understand them (or as much as anyone understands them). Eventually, I usually seem to uncover some key thing that makes it understandable in principle, even if I don't go any further.

But with anything I've encountered on consciousness it seems to me that all of it is either dealing with, on the one hand; the mechanics of thinking and perception; and on the other, consciousness. They never seem to get any closer.

My natural inclination is to imagine that consciousness is an emergent property of the complexity of the brain. I just have no clue as to how it could actually happen. I would love to have any tips, books, sites that you think would help.

ETA JoeTHeJuggler, I don't have a stance on philosophy vs science as such, other than to note that all the big advances in understanding the world at the big, middle and tiny levels have come through science. I don't see any reason to expect that will change any time soon. Actually that is a stance :)
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
It is a dead horse that has been beaten to a pulp, actually.

I will admit this much, however -- the debate has illustrated that there are four types of people:

1) People who are educated well in computer science, computation theory, neuroscience, and possibly electrical engineering, that actually understand how consciousness can arise from dumb matter.

2) People who are not as educated in the above, yet use logic to deduce that since everything else in the known universe is, in point of fact, physical then it is very likely that consciousness is as well, even if "it doesn't seem like it is from a subjective point of view."

3) People who are not as educated in the above and refuse to accept that consciousness is likely to be physical because "it doesn't seem like it from a subjective point of view."

4) People who are somewhat educated in the above, but not educated enough, and go through elaborate complex schemes to try to bridge the gap between the physical portion of consciousness and the woo portion of consciousness (I had to add this fourth category specifically for Roger Penrose).

You are clearly a member of group 2) or 3). I would be happy to try to explain what those of us in group 1) know, but honestly it does require alot of background education to understand it fully.
Click to expand...

Naturally, I would describe group (1) differently. I'd call them people who by dint of immersion in programming, and having a strongly materialist philosophical bent, have convinced themselves that they have explained the mystery of subjective experience, but have yet to produce a convincing explanation for everyone else.

It's also apparent from this endless discussion that educated well means "agreeing with our point of view". The extreme example of this was DrKitten's insistence that Roger Penrose is not a physicist, but there are other cases.
 
rocketdodger said:
I will admit this much, however -- the debate has illustrated that there are four types of people:

1) People who are educated well in computer science, computation theory, neuroscience, and possibly electrical engineering, that actually understand how consciousness can arise from dumb matter.

2) People who are not as educated in the above, yet use logic to deduce that since everything else in the known universe is, in point of fact, physical then it is very likely that consciousness is as well, even if "it doesn't seem like it is from a subjective point of view."

3) People who are not as educated in the above and refuse to accept that consciousness is likely to be physical because "it doesn't seem like it from a subjective point of view."

4) People who are somewhat educated in the above, but not educated enough, and go through elaborate complex schemes to try to bridge the gap between the physical portion of consciousness and the woo portion of consciousness (I had to add this fourth category specifically for Roger Penrose).
Click to expand...

That's a good observation. I'd put myself at about 1.5, though. I wouldn't say I am well educated in any of those fields listed in 1, but I have been exposed to enough of them that I understand how consciousness can arise from dumb matter.
 
Fontwell said:
Rocketdodger and JoeTheJuggler,

I think I'm a two. ( 'People who are not as educated in the above, yet use logic to deduce that since everything else in the known universe is, in point of fact, physical then it is very likely that consciousness is as well, even if "it doesn't seem like it is from a subjective point of view." ')I was an electronic engineer for twenty years designing Si chips at the functional level and I've done a chunk of computing, although not at the AI level by a million miles.

If it is the case that there are

1) People who are educated well in computer science, computation theory, neuroscience, and possibly electrical engineering, that actually understand how consciousness can arise from dumb matter.

then I would truly love to join their ranks. It would obviously take a certain amount learning but that just takes patience and time.

The thing is this: There are plenty of things I don't fully understand, like QM and relativity. But mostly, when I have started to investigate them and found material at the right level, I can see what the issues are and also come to an understanding that if I had the time, patience and a better brain, I would be able to understand them (or as much as anyone understands them). Eventually, I usually seem to uncover some key thing that makes it understandable in principle, even if I don't go any further.

But with anything I've every encountered on consciousness it seems to me that all of it is either dealing with on the one hand; the mechanics of thinking and perception; and on the other, consciousness. They never seem to get any closer.

My natural inclination is to imagine that consciousness is an emergent property of the complexity of the brain. I just have no clue as to how it could actually happen. I would love to have any tips, books, sites that you think would help.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of books out there that discuss the issues, and the best bet is to read a range of them. You won't learn enough about this subject if you stick to people who all agree with each other.
 
Fontwell said:
But with anything I've every encountered on consciousness it seems to me that all of it is either dealing with on the one hand; the mechanics of thinking and perception; and on the other, consciousness. They never seem to get any closer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you make this distinction. I think thinking and perception are components of consciousness*. How can you discuss something like any type of perception--for example proprioception--without talking about consciousness? Are you perhaps equating all consciousness with self-consciousness? If so, again neuroscience has shed some light on that. It seems that mirror neurons (involved in empathy) might be what lets us create a mental model of ourselves seen from the outside. Even short of that, psychology experiments like the mirror test for self-awareness have given us some answers that QM and philosophy couldn't possibly give us (i.e. strong evidence that some other animals than humans have the capacity for self-awareness).

*ETA: It's almost as if you're positing the existence of rarified consciousness. That is, the existence of consciousness that does not involve the consciousness of things like the self, location, temperature, etc. This reminds me of various Zen questions: when I hear a sound, does the sound exist in the external world, in my ears, or in my mind? (The answer is, "in my mind", or at least "in all three". For the pattern of variations in air pressure to become "sound" there must be the perception of sound. Similarly, light is not the perception of light. . . )
 
Last edited:
Fontwell said:
Can I, as a layman, really presume to have grasped the meaning of something that a whole group of credible philosophers don't get?
Click to expand...
Yes, because most of those philosophers did not have the knowledge gained by modern neuroscience to use as premises for doing logic. It merely shows that philosophy isn't really a science. (It doesn't add to our knowledge in itself.) Though I think logic is a tool used by all the sciences.
 
westprog said:
Naturally, I would describe group (1) differently. I'd call them people who by dint of immersion in programming, and having a strongly materialist philosophical bent, have convinced themselves that they have explained the mystery of subjective experience, but have yet to produce a convincing explanation for everyone else.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with the sentiments here. And this shouldn't be a place for getting personal about issues. If I'm wrong and the 1's really have got the answer then I want to join them, I really do. I just haven't ever seen anything that suggests to me more than a really good understanding of the brain.

What I'm lacking is an explanation 'in principle' that joins the dots. In QM it is that particles don't have defined positions and momentums and stuff to do with probability functions collapsing etc. In relativity it is to do with time not being universal and events being defined in space-time rather than space and time. So what are the issues that move dumb matter towards being conscious rather than just a lot of intricately connected dumb matter?

ETA I have tried reading stuff but I've never found the right level for me. Usually I disagree in the first page and that's that, or they seem to go on at length but never give me confidence that if I put the effort in, I would find what I was looking for.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm not sure how you make this distinction. I think thinking and perception are components of consciousness*. How can you discuss something like any type of perception--for example proprioception--without talking about consciousness? Are you perhaps equating all consciousness with self-consciousness? If so, again neuroscience has shed some light on that. It seems that mirror neurons (involved in empathy) might be what lets us create a mental model of ourselves seen from the outside. Even short of that, psychology experiments like the mirror test for self-awareness have given us some answers that QM and philosophy couldn't possibly give us (i.e. strong evidence that some other animals than humans have the capacity for self-awareness).

*ETA: It's almost as if you're positing the existence of rarified consciousness. That is, the existence of consciousness that does not involve the consciousness of things like the self, location, temperature, etc. This reminds me of various Zen questions: when I hear a sound, does the sound exist in the external world, in my ears, or in my mind? (The answer is, "in my mind", or at least "in all three". For the pattern of variations in air pressure to become "sound" there must be the perception of sound. Similarly, light is not the perception of light. . . )
Click to expand...

You have characterised me failry correctly! I'm not going to get spiritual about this but I am talking about the pure absolute consciousness that seems to exist regardless of things to be conscious of. Even self consciousness is making it overly complex as far as I can see. Self consciousness - 'knowing' you exist - seems to be a measure of intellectual capacity, or intelligence. A mouse might not be aware that it exists but it still feels hungry. In order to feel hunger it has to have consciousness. ETA it may not 'know' that it feels hungry but it still feels hungry.

ETA (Bigger edit than post!)

With this discussion here, I am still in the same quandary I've been in for years. We all talk about consciousness and some people like westprog seem to be using the word in the same way as me and I think we are talking about the same thing, even if we happen to disagree about how it might arise or whatever. Other people use the word consciousness and it seems to me that they just don't mean the same thing I do. They mean something that is connected to what I mean but not actually what I mean.

Now it's only words and I'm happy to try and understand what they mean but I never do get it. It is just like when that book reviewer suggested the re titling of "Consciousness Explained" to "Everything Except Consciousness Explained". JoeTheJuggler, Dancing Daving, RocketDodger etc engage in talking about consciousness but to my mind, talk about everything except (my definition of) consciousness. So what is it that they are talking about? I don't get it! And they don't seem to get what I mean either. Actually Joe did seem to get it when he talked about 'rarefied consciousness' but even then it seemed to me that it was in a theoretical way. I don't mean it in some esoteric spiritual way. I mean it in an "OMG all my senses and thoughts are just processes in bits of matter but I can EXPERIENCE them, ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!" kind of way.

The trouble is that the JoeTheJugglers and RocketDodgers seem content that they have the answers while I'm still utterly clueless.
 
Last edited:
Fontwell said:
My natural inclination is to imagine that consciousness is an emergent property of the complexity of the brain. I just have no clue as to how it could actually happen. I would love to have any tips, books, sites that you think would help.
Click to expand...

Introspection is the best place to start.

For example, when you look at a tree you are not conscious of all of the leaves. Yet, you can also be conscious of leaves or a group of leaves on a tree.

What is the difference?

Furthermore, when you are conscious of a leaf, what does it mean? What goes through your head?
 
Fontwell said:
I'm not going to get spiritual about this but I am talking about the pure absolute consciousness that seems to exist regardless of things to be conscious of.
Click to expand...
Do you have even one empirical example of this?

I don't think it's possible to have consciousness without perception (that is, without "consciousness of" something).

In one or another long discussion on this forum with a dualist, I ran into the assertion that it's possible to conceive of p-zombies (something that looks in ALL ways just like a conscious person, but isn't conscious) and disembodied consciousness. I challenge that assertion. (The p-zombie thing is just question-begging since the only way you can "conceive" of such a thing is to stipulate it in a hypothetical.) It's especially true of the disembodied consciousness. Can you imagine consciousness with no hippocampus for processing memory (that is, consciousness with no memory), no brain structures that we know are responsible for language (that is, consciousness without language), no proprioception (consciousness with no sense of location, orientation and position of the body in space--indeed, since there is no matter, there would be no actual location), no sense perception at all (consciousness without vision, hearing, etc.)? I don't think it's possible even to conceive of such a thing. When people claim they do, they're just imagining a ghost body with ghost eyes, a ghost brain, a ghost location, etc.

Even self consciousness is making it overly complex as far as I can see. Self consciousness - 'knowing' you exist - seems to be a measure of intellectual capacity, or intelligence. A mouse might not be aware that it exists but it still feels hungry. In order to feel hunger it has to have consciousness. ETA it may not 'know' that it feels hungry but it still feels hungry.
Click to expand...
I agree that self-consciousness is just one, non-necessary part of what we call "consciousness".

So here you are equating consciousness with any subjective perception at all. In that regard, biology can tell us with a great deal of precision how a mouse feels hunger. There really isn't any big mystery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom