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

[AkuManiMani]

However you wanna categorize that fact, it's still immediately relevant to science. One cannot conduct science without empirical observation and it just so happens that one must be conscious to observe. Ergo, consciousness is the foundation of the scientific process.

Cameras observe but they are not conscious. However you want to cut it, science doesn't require consciousness.

You can't be serious. How does a camera "observe" if its not conscious?

For instance, how else can we know what brain stimulus is correlated with a particular sensation if the subject does not report their own internal states?

Depends. If you're a computer doing science you don't really care about the reported experience, so long as you can observe the results.

How does an unconscious computer "care" about or "observe" anything? And, more importantly: How does your above statement even make sense to you?

Because you would still need a conscious scientist to design the computer for the specified task, and a conscious observer to interpret the outputs of the machine.

Computers can't reach conclusions, now ?

Computers have never reached conclusions. Conclusions are reached by conscious users reading computer outputs.

Of course you need someone to construct the computer, but then that's not what you said. That would be moving the goalposts.

What?

Meaning that complexity has little relevance as to whether or not a system is conscious. A human's brain does not become less complex when they go unconscious.

Agreed, but human-like consciousness requires SOME amount of complexity, still. As I said, we know of nothing artificial that can reach that threshold simply because we haven't made one yet.

To be honest, I'm not so much concerned with human consciousness specifically; I'm curious about consciousness in general. Like I said before, its perfectly plausible that creatures as simple as nematodes may have some rudimentary consciousness. We just have no scientific means of determining that right now.

The only reason why humans are so pertinent to the studying consciousness is because we're the only species we know for sure to posses the capacity for it, and each of us can only examine our own from the 'inside'. If we can pin down what physically constitutes consciousness, and gain a solid understanding of how consciousness relates to physics in general, we can use that knowledge to study consciousness in other creatures of possibly even synthesize it in artificial systems.

You're missing what I'm saying. I presented two methods of conveying the same message: one used an electronic computer network, the other was a hand written message sent via vacuum tube system. The function of the two methods was identical [to convey a specific message to you] but the two means of carrying out that function were physically different. Understand?

Yes. The MEANS are physically different. You should have said so.

And what if one's goal were to generate electrical power for their home? There are many means of doing this, but emulating it on a computer is not one of them. It does not matter how deep or accurate one's simulation is, it will still not generate electrical power. If you want electrical power you're going to have to physically generate it. Likewise, a computer simulation of a human brain will not produce conscious experience because it's a physical product of neural activity and not simply a computational function. If one wants to produce conscious experiences in an artificial system they will need to understand the physics of consciousness and posses the means of meeting it's physical requirements.

Okay, lets phrase it a different way: Even if it turns out that everything we experience in life is illusion we can still know that the experience itself is absolutely real.

I disagree.

On what possible basis could you disagree?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks, they needed it.

Whoa, by a field goal. They were up by nearly two touchdowns at half-time weren't they?

We still have two undefeateds, though; and the Titans won, though that matters exactly zero in the grand scheme of things.

And Mark Ingram won the Heisman all but assuring the Longhorns of the national championship.

All's right with the world.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The not seeing the dalmation for the dots... you're so focussed on the dots you're unaware of the dalmatian context, maybe. The absent-minded lane-changing... you're peripherally [latently?] aware of the context, so taking the cue to change lanes from the other car took very little attention. Perhaps the recognition "something is there", the context of driving, belongs to what I'm calling latent awareness, or at most peripheral awareness (or some other operational level).



Sounds a good approach, too. I favor attacking it from different angles and then looking for common ground among the analyses.

I like his approach too. I'm still mulling some of the implications.

As to the Dalmation example, one of the issues we have not yet but will at some point have to discuss is foreground-background distinctions and gestalt. Perception is almost as murky as awareness.

 

[Maia]

Ok. Fine. I understand what you're saying. You are saying these are not scientifically valid questions. Then my question to you is: How can you claim these are not scientifically valid questions when neuroscience has already done major significant advancements at deciphering the "apparent complexity" of perception, feelings of awareness, deja-vu hunches, schizophrenia and others, which are essential aspects of consciousness?

This is good... very much based in excellent research...

What are you talking about, UE? Of course science can address these things. Neuroscience has begun, for the first time, to provide us a basic understanding on questions about ethics, spirits and meanings of life, as these are human concepts and have their origin in the human culture (and thus, human mind). All these things have been addressed and studied, their origins traced into the brain. Do some research on the study of "mirror neurons" and you get a very deep insight into the concept of empathy. Do a research on the hard-wiring of some brains which make people more prone to believe in religious ideals and you have an answer to "evil spirits" and other beliefs. Do some research on the role of the temporal lobes and how, in some patients, a cross wiring or a disruption in certain wirings of the brain causes a feeling of awe at everything and you have an answer at why some people feel like they see God in everything. The question I ask to you (and I ask sincerely) is: Have you done the research on these matters? Because you seem to be ignoring this substantial research that has been done. Otherwise I can't see why you would write something like that.

Eek. Okay; I've been with you completely so far, but you're getting a bit too far into Dennett-esque territory here for me. I'm fairly familiar with all of this research, and extremely familiar with everything that has been done concerning temporal lobe epilepsy/malfunction and its relationship to excessive religious experiences. I have read every study (sometimes I think I've read everything relating to TLE, including all the medication research!) I don't think it's a great idea to take good research and then use it to stretch philosophical conclusions too far. Sometimes the basis is very reasonable (which it was in the first paragraph) and sometimes it's too loosely associated in the first place (which is especially the case with mirror neurons and empathy, IMHO). Someone like Dennett does this far too often, which I've argued quite a bit in the other consciousness threads. It doesn't bolster a materialist POV to structure arguments this way. Don't overreach into grandiose statements. Stick to the evidence base.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Because you have to be conscious to begin with

This isn't circular at all.

You're right, it isn't.

If I have to be conscious to begin with then clearly I don't need any qualia.

Did you even read the rest of my post, or to you just stop at the portion you bothered to qoute? Recall I said:

"Being conscious necessarily entails the active capacity to experience information as subjective qualities. If a subject is experiencing qualia, of any "flavor", then they are conscious. Basically, a quale is an informational element in one's conscious awareness. No consciousness means no quale."

So your conclusion that...

Q.E.D. qualia - as you use them - have nothing to do with consciousness.

..Does not even begin to follow.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Science creates and tests hypotheses about the behaviour and probable past and future of the observable physical universe. It does not create hypotheses about the relationship between observable and unobservable realities. "Observable" includes observation using scientific instruments and discludes anything which is in principle unobservable, such as Schroedinger's cat. It does not create hypotheses about these relationships precisely because they are in principle untestable. Everytime somebody says "consciousness arises from brain activity" they are offering a hypothesis which is in principle untestable, and therefore non-scientific.

I'm guessing when you say that consciousness is "unobservable" you mean that it cannot be observed externally. Each of us can directly observe our own consciousness via introspection.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That what we call consciousness is nothing but a physical process which can be measured and predicted scientifically like any other organic process (And this can be traced and measured, so it's not just a claim made out of thin air)

The problem is that the claim contains a crucial word which has no actual scientific meaning. Science hasn't investigated consciousness at all. It has investigated the related physical processes.

Ok. Fine. I understand what you're saying. You are saying these are not scientifically valid questions. Then my question to you is: How can you claim these are not scientifically valid questions when neuroscience has already done major significant advancements at deciphering the "apparent complexity" of perception, feelings of awareness, deja-vu hunches, schizophrenia and others, which are essential aspects of consciousness?

Some aspects of consciousness can be investigated by science because they are reasonably straightforward to link to neural processes. In these cases an investigation of the neural processes can lead to some sort of information about consciousness. It is the specific questions about what it is and where it comes from that science can't tackle.

You might just as well be trying to use science to answer questions about ethics, evil spirits or the meaning of life.

What are you talking about, UE? Of course science can address these things. Neuroscience has begun, for the first time, to provide us a basic understanding on questions about ethics, spirits and meanings of life, as these are human concepts and have their origin in the human culture (and thus, human mind).

I find this comment really, really scary. When scientists start telling me that neuroscience is answering questions about ethics I start getting visions of dystopian nightmares.

All these things have been addressed and studied, their origins traced into the brain. Do some research on the study of "mirror neurons" and you get a very deep insight into the concept of empathy. Do a research on the hard-wiring of some brains which make people more prone to believe in religious ideals and you have an answer to "evil spirits" and other beliefs. Do some research on the role of the temporal lobes and how, in some patients, a cross wiring or a disruption in certain wirings of the brain causes a feeling of awe at everything and you have an answer at why some people feel like they see God in everything. The question I ask to you (and I ask sincerely) is: Have you done the research on these matters? Because you seem to be ignoring this substantial research that has been done. Otherwise I can't see why you would write something like that.

Have I done research on which matters? I recently went back to University to study philosophy and cognitive science.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Um, I said so above. In most situations what we observe are effects not direct relationships. The relationships are modeled after the fact.

So what we presently see are "facts"? Sounds straight out of line one of the Tractatus.

If you take that chip off your shoulder you might be able to discuss things civilly with other people. Our language is shot through with dualism. That is the problem. That is why the solution is a discussion about definitions make sense.

That our language is shot through with dualism is one part of the problem faced by scientists/materialists.

What unobservable reality are we discussing here? Is consciousness somehow unobservable? Is pain unobservable?

Consciousness is not observable in a scientific sense. It *IS* subjectivity. It cannot be objectified.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm guessing when you say that consciousness is "unobservable" you mean that it cannot be observed externally. Each of us can directly observe our own consciousness via introspection.

Which is no use to a scientist. It is a different sort of "observation" to a scientific observation. We don't "observe" that there is a reality in the same way that we observe what colours are on the wings of a butterfly. We already know there is a reality simply because we are observing anything at all. So you might say that the word "consciousness", if it has any scientific meaning at all, means "the whole of reality" or "the experienced cosmos".

 

[cyborg]

You're right, it isn't.

You lack the ability to see circular quales.

Basically, a quale is an informational element in one's conscious awareness. No consciousness means no quale.

So once again we are back to being nowhere since none of you who favour qualia as the thing of consciousness can tell me that an electron doesn't have one without special pleading or with me left to conclude that qualia are actually irrelevant to your argument as to what is conscious as you have other criteria which don't require you to contemplate the possibility that electrons are conscious.

 

[PixyMisa]

What I am saying is that the questions people are asking about consciousness e.g. "what is it?" "where does it come from?" "how is it related to brains?" are not even scientifically-valid questions. All of the valid scientific questions are posed in terms that can be defined and understood in terms of a physical entities. As soon as you start talking about "awareness" or "consciousness" or "minds" then you have introduced a new class of concept. This new class of concept differs to the ones that science deals with because it cannot be defined in the way that physical entities can be defined. It has to be defined subjectively and cannot be defined externally.

Nothing of the sort.

We know minds are produced by brains. We know this. There is no rational argument to the contrary.

Brains are physical systems. Therefore minds are physical processes.

As far as philosophy goes, end of story. Qualia and other such foolish trifles can be left out with the recyclables.

As far as science goes, that's where the hard work starts.

The whole context in which these sorts of questions make sense is a non-scientific context.

There's your insistence on magic again. No, sorry, you're just being irrational.

It's the wrong "language-game."

Language does not matter here.

THAT is why your "only available exit" is not an exit.

Not an exit, but an entrance.

You are claiming that science can (and has, apparently) answer questions that can only be asked in a non-scientific context.

We claim nothing of the sort.

We are pointing out, instead, that science applies to everything in the natural world, and that includes minds.

You might just as well be trying to use science to answer questions about ethics, evil spirits or the meaning of life.

You can certainly apply science to answering questions about any of those, if you phrase the questions appropriately. (Do evil spirits exist? No.)

Your only point is that you refuse to phrase your questions scientifically. That's your problem. It has nothing to do with whether the questions can be answered by science, and everything to do with your personal issues with reality.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So what we presently see are "facts"? Sounds straight out of line one of the Tractatus.

If I thought you had any interest in honest discussion I might bother to engage you further, but since you demonstrate clearly that your only interest is in twisting words -- what we "see" are effects, I said, and it is this that is a fact (that we see effects and not cause-effect relationships) -- what would be the point?

That our language is shot through with dualism is one part of the problem faced by scientists/materialists.

If you are leaving out others, then that can only tell me that others are not interested in finding solutions. Dualism is a dead end based in magical thinking

Consciousness is not observable in a scientific sense. It *IS* subjectivity. It cannot be objectified.

What in the world does 'not observable in a scientific sense' mean? I observe my consciousness, you observe your consciousness.

Joe, the consciousness researcher, puts ten people in a MEG and tests when each of them reports that a stimulus has reached conscious awareness while he looks at changes in their brain function.

Same thing happens when we try to look at electrons or any other sub-atomic particle. We don't observe any of them directly. We observe effects and build models.

What is not observable here?


I have a hard time believing that you don't know how science works.

 

[westprog]

When scientists start telling me that neuroscience is answering questions about ethics I start getting visions of dystopian nightmares.

Fortunately it's not the case. Neuroscience has not made any basic contributions to ethics. Science as a whole only has a peripheral connection to ethics.

 

[Belz...]

I am sure of my memories, in the same way that I am sure of my experiences. I am sure of the precise fact of the memory, or of the experience, or of the experience of the memory. I cannot be sure that the memory or experience is a reliable indicator of an external reality - external encompassing the Andromeda galaxy or my big toe.

Er... no. You only experience memories, Westprog. Therefore your "experiences" are already "planted" in your brain. So, how can you be sure of anything ?

 

[Belz...]

Well, I don't know what to say. From my perpective, I've been watching the denizens of the JREF go round and round this merry-go-round for the best part of a decade and the only reason they can't go forward is that they point-blank refuse to walk out of the only available exit.

You mean, the one without evidence ?

 

[Belz...]

You can't be serious. How does a camera "observe" if its not conscious?

Because in order to be conscious the camera must be self-aware. It isn't even aware because it's not actually doing anything with the data it reads, only transmits or records it.

How does an unconscious computer "care" about or "observe" anything?

Why would that be relevant ? You don't need to care to analyse something.

Computers have never reached conclusions.

Well, that's funny, because I see them do so on a regular basis.

To be honest, I'm not so much concerned with human consciousness specifically

It's the one we're most familiar with, though.

On what possible basis could you disagree?

Are you sure you're experiencing anything ?

 

[Belz...]

Consciousness/awareness is different to any normal physical phenomena because it defies our normal understanding of what the word "physical" or "material" means. [...] In the case of consciousness we have to acknowledge that there in fact two different concepts of material/physical in play (directly experienced vs. external/noumenal) and that we are trying to explain one of these concepts in terms of the other.

No, we don't. You do, but that doesn't mean it's true. You are giving consciousness special properties that it doesn't have.

Where else in science do scientists face questions about what concept of "material" they are refering to? Answer: quantum mechanics and nowhere else.

Huh ?

There's no reason for me to be making these arguments elsewhere, because elsewhere vast numbers of people pretty much don't agree, and the reason is that your average man-on-the-street is not a Randi/Dawkins skeptic.

The average man-on-the-street usually isn't doing much neuroscience. And also, science isn't a popularity contest.

 

[westprog]

You lack the ability to see circular quales.



So once again we are back to being nowhere since none of you who favour qualia as the thing of consciousness can tell me that an electron doesn't have one without special pleading or with me left to conclude that qualia are actually irrelevant to your argument as to what is conscious as you have other criteria which don't require you to contemplate the possibility that electrons are conscious.

There is no theory that shows whether or not electrons are conscious. There's exactly the same evidence for conscious electrons as for conscious computers.

 

[westprog]

Er... no. You only experience memories, Westprog. Therefore your "experiences" are already "planted" in your brain. So, how can you be sure of anything ?

I'm only sure of the fact of the experience as I experience it. No, I'm not sure of anything except that. However, the things I do seem to elicit consistent responses in experiences, so I work on the basis that the world is real - as do most people.

 

[cyborg]

There is no theory that shows whether or not electrons are conscious. There's exactly the same evidence for conscious electrons as for conscious computers.

Which is also exactly the same evidence for you being conscious.