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

[PixyMisa]

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

True, but for normal people we have evidence from their observable behaviours. For some behaviours, the simplest explanation is consciousness.

Electrons, of course, are not and cannot be conscious; they do not have sufficient state.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Complete and utter nonsense. This problem is faced by lazy philosophers, but is no intrinsic problem to science because scientists define their terms.

This actually works. We know that it works, because science works.

You should try this sometime. It might well work for you too.

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

Of course consciousness is observable in a scientific sense. This is just heaping one absurdity on top of another.

Take pain for example. Subjective, sure. But it's also a well-understood physical process.

We can ask you to report where and how much it hurts - a perfectly valid scientific approach in its own right.

We can also measure firing rates of your nociceptors and activity in your thalamus and the responses of your autonomic systems.

The subjective is in no way excluded from the purview of science. Quite the opposite, in fact, because we now have an additional source of information.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not true. I have provided in-depth, coherent reasons why consciousness cannot be treated as a normal physical phenomenon.

No, you've asserted this, but you are wrong in every respect.

It is quite revealing that whenever I asked the materialists here to repeat my own arguments back to me, what they provide as an answer bears little or no resemblance to anything I actually said. Sure, I said that science has made no progress on the Hard Problem in 400 years, but that isn't the reason I've given as to why it will never make any progress. That really would be an argument from ignorance.

Science has also made no progress in improving the reliability of astrology and demon summoning or analysing the biochemistry of unicorns and fairies. There's been a notable lack of published results on the sociology of mermaids or the linguistics of the sphinx. Our aerodynamic studies of dragons have proved fruitless and medicine has yet to find any treatment, much less a cure, for lycanthropy.

Perhaps you catch my drift?

Consciousness/awareness is different to any normal physical phenomena because it defies our normal understanding of what the word "physical" or "material" means.

Nope.

Self-referential information processing. Provides a framework for every conscious behaviour we observe subjectively or objectively while being a simple, easily reproduced, and well-understood physical mechanism.

You don't like it. That's your problem. It's not a problem for us at all.

Normally, when we are trying to reduce some physical phenomena to some other physical phenomena or to explain a physical phenomenon in terms of some other physical phenomena then all of the phenomena in question are component parts of our experience of reality.

Yeah? And?

We are explaining component parts in terms of other component parts. 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.

Nope. There is only one concept involved. The subjective is a proper subset of the objective.

You can call a photon a particle or a wave. That doesn't mean it's two different things; it's just two descriptions for the same thing.

Surely you have to accept, at the very least, that this problem is fundamentally different to any other tackled by science?

Y'know, no, I don't have to accept that at all. The exact same scientific approach that we've used to solve every other question works just fine for consciousness.

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

We don't face any such question in quantum mechanics either. Quantum mechanics just says that the particle you label a photon behaves according to these equations. Those equations are the definition of a photon.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

Uhm...okaaay...

cybot: "So once again we are back to being nowhere since none of you who favour [perception] 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 [perceptions] 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."

Cyborg, I've some rhetorical questions for you:

-How many electrons are part of your make up at any given time?

-Are there any periods of time during which you're not conscious?

-If so, what is the difference between your conscious and unconscious periods, and does the difference involve a lack of electrons?

 

[cyborg]

Electrons, of course, are not and cannot be conscious; they do not have sufficient state.

The opposing argument is stateless - I need for them to explain why this is so without the need to appeal to those who are on the side of stateful consciousness.

 

[cyborg]

Uhm...okaaay...

None of what you subseqently say addresses the issue of whether or not an electron has qualia.

You make a fallacious tacet assumption that one conscious being could not be composed of others in an attempted to address this.

 

[cyborg]

Oh and I experience qualia during sleep but most people don't consider that conscious - so what say you of that?

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

Belz, not only does that statement fail to answer my question, it flatly contradicts itself. If a camera transmits/records the data it reads then its doing something with it.

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

Why would that be relevant ?

Because you stated that...

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

So again I ask you: How does an unconscious computer care about or observe anything?

You don't need to care to analyse something.

You need to be conscious.

Computers have never reached conclusions.

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

You saw computer outputs and reached conclusions based upon those outputs. An unconscious computer is no more capable of reaching a conclusion than an abacus.

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

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

Agreed. Which is why it's the one we're obliged to study first.

On what possible basis could you disagree?

Are you sure you're experiencing anything ?

Gee, I dunno. I'll have to get back to you on that one...

 

[AkuManiMani]

None of what you subseqently say addresses the issue of whether or not an electron has qualia.

You make a fallacious tacet assumption that one conscious being could not be composed of others in an attempted to address this.

And none of what you're saying here addresses what I've said. You might wanna consider doing so; I hear it's very conducive to conversation.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Oh and I experience qualia during sleep but most people don't consider that conscious

You mean the periods of REM sleep which I -specifically- said were examples of conscious states?

- so what say you of that?

If you agree that we experience qualia what are you arguing about? Are you just being contrary for contrary's sake?

 

[westprog]

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

Not only do I have evidence that I am conscious, I have certain evidence that I am conscious. This is also evidence that despite your soubriquet, you are conscious - not certain evidence, but a degree of likelihood. There is no evidence to suggest that a computer or an electron are conscious. They aren't similar to me, they don't claim to be conscious - and supposing them to be conscious wouldn't explain anything about their behaviour.

The only reason that consciousness is ascribed to non-living things is that it is a philosophical requirement for certain ways of thinking about the world. It certainly isn't supported by any evidence.

There is a mystery here, of course. I assume that the people who maintain that the evidence is the same that they or an electron, or a switch, or a computer are conscious have access to the same direct experience that I have. Why do they choose to disregard it?

 

[cyborg]

And none of what you're saying here addresses what I've said. You might wanna consider doing so; I hear it's very conducive to conversation.

Since any answer to your questions would be just as relevant to the original one I posited I will answer your questions in all possible ways:

-How many electrons are part of your make up at any given time?

More than zero, less than infinity.

-Are there any periods of time during which you're not conscious?

Yes.

No.

-If so, what is the difference between your conscious and unconscious periods, and does the difference involve a lack of electrons?

Yes -> There is no difference. Yes.
Yes -> There is a difference. Yes.
Yes -> There is no difference. No.
Yes -> There is a difference. No.
No -> There is no difference. Yes.
No -> There is a difference. Yes.
No -> There is no difference. No.
No -> There is a difference. No.

Choose whatever answer makes you happy.

 

[cyborg]

Not only do I have evidence that I am conscious, I have certain evidence that I am conscious.

Bully for you. Useless for me.

There is no evidence to suggest that a computer or an electron are conscious. They aren't similar to me, they don't claim to be conscious - and supposing them to be conscious wouldn't explain anything about their behaviour.

Supposing you are conscious doesn't explain anything about your behaviour either since your side's arguments about consciousness DO NOT invlove behaviour but only "subjective experience" or "qualia" - things you have not shown any number of entities do not, or could not, have.

Why do they choose to disregard it?

It's a provenly unreliable indicator of reality.

See also: science.

 

[cyborg]

You mean the periods of REM sleep which I -specifically- said were examples of conscious states?

Fine, then you do not see conciousness as behavioural at all.

If you agree that we experience qualia what are you arguing about? Are you just being contrary for contrary's sake?

I don't have to believe qualia exist for the term to be useful - anymore than I have to believe numbers exist (they don't) for them to be useful.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You mean the periods of REM sleep which I -specifically- said were examples of conscious states?

Fine, then you do not see conciousness as behavioural at all.

Not in the Behaviorist^WP sense of the word, no.

If you agree that we experience qualia what are you arguing about? Are you just being contrary for contrary's sake?

I don't have to believe qualia exist for the term to be useful - anymore than I have to believe numbers exist (they don't) for them to be useful.

"Qualia", just like any other word, is simply a label for a set of phenomena. You can substitute the word with anything you like, but the thing it represents [the "flavors" of our perceptions] are still real.

What I don't get is why otherwise intelligent adults here are behaving so irrationally over the term, as if it were some kind of evil taboo word that will destroy all reason and science. I don't post here just to indulge in some pointless ideological tug-o-war. Can we atleast get past this one point so there can actually be some progress made in this discussion?

 

[westprog]

Bully for you. Useless for me.

Luckily you can access your own personal state.

Supposing you are conscious doesn't explain anything about your behaviour either since your side's arguments about consciousness DO NOT invlove behaviour but only "subjective experience" or "qualia" - things you have not shown any number of entities do not, or could not, have.

I've shown that just one entity has them.

It's a provenly unreliable indicator of reality.

But it is reality, and to try to either ignore it or to pretend that it is something else, like "self-referential information processing" is to deny that reality.

And also, it's the only indicator or reality. Pixy might sneer at the concept of qualia, but that's the only way he interacts with the universe, the same as anyone else. Pain hurts him, and other experiences are pleasant, and that's not some weird religious propaganda, that's the essential experience of being human.

Denying the central fact of being human, or pretending it isn't significant, are just ways for determined materialists to shield their eyes and cuddle up to a security blanket of certainty.

See also: science.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

That's not scientific in the same sense that we could both observe the same mushroom and independently conclude that it is Amanita muscaria. This would be an observation of a component part of my consciousness and a component part of your consciousness which, when doing science, we can also think of as being a real external object "out there" in noumenal reality. We can both handle the same mushroom and verify what it is by refering to a botanical textbook. We cannot do this with consciousness. You've got yours, I've got mine, but it's not any sort of object we can measure or classify. Instead, it really refers to the entirety of my conscious experiences instead of a component part, and can't be placed anywhere at all in the external noumenal reality. Therefore we are talking about something which is not like an object which can be observed by science or even thought to exist in the "real" universe.

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?

Joe's conscious experiences.

 

[cyborg]

Luckily you can access your own personal state.

Which - yet again - tells me nothing about yours.

I've shown that just one entity has them.

No you haven't.

But it is reality

No, it isn't.

Denying the central fact of being human, or pretending it isn't significant, are just ways for determined materialists to shield their eyes and cuddle up to a security blanket of certainty.

Blah blah blah - change the record and get on and show me why an electron doesn't experience qualia - or WTF you want to call it.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Blah blah blah - change the record and get on and show me why an electron doesn't experience qualia - or WTF you want to call it.

Maybe you could ask it?

The electron might note this and then theorize something attempting to isolate its properties.

What theoretical structure the electron might achieve concerning this remains unknown

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yes, yes, the consistency is the only thing that separates fiction from reality, but that's not the question: how do you know you experience anything at all ? Could the experience itself be an illusion ? Or is it somehow immune from your doubt ?