Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Where does the math involved come from?

I'm not a math type, so don't trust anything that I have to say about it, but math is just a type of language; I would say that it arises in the same way that language arises, which must arise from lots of complex processing, which is really no answer.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That is one of the strongest suggestions that classical materialism -- that is the ur substance is inert -- is wrong.

Only if you believe that there must be a homonculus in the theater of the mind. This is why dualism was invented in the first place. That it is difficult is why we discuss it.

Monism, to be consistent, must explain meaning in a way that does not involve a conscious agent from the outset.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I'm not a math type, so don't trust anything that I have to say about it, but math is just a type of language; I would say that it arises in the same way that language arises, which must arise from lots of complex processing, which is really no answer.

Just wondering how many of the computational theorists are mathematical realists.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But I don't see the definition of a somatosensory receptor as being meaningful except as it relates to a conscious being.

Meaning, at its most basic, refers to survival in such a scenario. Imagine a simple organism that has a touch receptor and a means of movement with the touch receptor directly linked to movement. In a hostile environment, where the organism survives only through getting away from touch, touch means death is on the way; so it has its touch receptor linked to movement so that it can move away from whatever touched it. In a non-hostile environment, touch may mean sex and so the touch receptor is linked to movement in such a way that the organism moves closer to whatever touches it.

When there are multiple possible meanings you need more complex processing to decide what the information means in context. The simple meaning is always there (provided the receptor works properly), which is "been touched"; the more complex meaning depends on context and is decided by survival.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just wondering how many of the computational theorists are mathematical realists.

No idea. Like I've said before, I'm not really a computationalist strictly speaking because I don't know the math well and computers and I don't get along perfectly. I am only fighting against the arguments that I don't think work because I am interested in the possible ways that a computer could do it in order to understand how the brain does it.

I am definitely limited in my abilities here.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Any such definition must be strong enough that some third person could take the definition and apply it and get the same results. I haven't seen any of RD's attempts come near to reaching that standard.

May be entirely true, but what specifically is wrong with the definition of information above (which is his definition with system members moved to reflect better Blobru's description)?

 

[Meed]

I've mentioned how it is possible in regards to receptor function several times, so I will mention it again using Blobru's excellent improvement......


Information is defined as: a change in system C through the action of intermediary B because of a change in system A. By this definition, virtually every action in the universe is information.

Information may be further defined/refined base on its specificity. If the change in system A only (no other possible cause of a change in C by means of B is possible) may cause the change in system C, then the information is specific. If many different causes for the change in system C are possible, then the information is non-specific and essentially amounts to random chance or noise. But this is not an absolute distinction; rather, there is a continuum based on the number of possible causes for the change in system C (the number of possible system As that can produce a given change in C).
The nervous system places constraints on information so that it is more specific, and that is how we create meaning.

I can't see the number of possible causes being relevant. The statistical frequency of the cause of interest as opposed to other causes would be what's relevant, if anything.

I'm not sure how you jump from there to meaning. You could argue that's a part of how we assign meaning, sure. But a small part. Meaning is assigned in the brain.

For instance, if we look at the world at large we see a blooming, buzzing mess with information everywhere. But not all information is meaningful to us. We begin to impose meaning by restricting the types of information in the blooming buzzing mess that are important. This process begins at the level of sensory receptors. Somatosensory receptors will respond to a very small number of physical stimuli to produce a particular type of response – an action potential. That change in system C, the action potential, is defined by the way the nervous system is constructed; there are only two types of basic response, action potential or no action potential. Different aspects of the original stimulus, however, may be transmitted in the change in system C (the neuron) since the duration of the stimulus is coded by how long the train of action potentials continues and the intensity of the stimulus is coded in the frequency of action potential firing. Location on the body is maintained throughout, so location information also carries through.

Since not just anything activates a somatosensory receptor the information it transmits is relatively specific. This specificity provides the origin of meaning.

Perceptual meaning, specifically.

Activation of a somatosensory receptor means something; we are designed in such a way that it means that something is touching us. No observer had to impose this meaning; it arose through the process of random mutation and natural selection.

The "us" being touched has to observe it.

How the brain assigns meaning to things is not yet understood, but it involves significant processing beyond the sensory receptors. There's no reason to assume it's the same as what a calculator does when it adds numbers.

 

[Meed]

We may be defining "meaning" differently though.

 

[Meed]

We are physical systems. Our brain is a physical system. If the physical system of our brain can have meaning only because of the intention of a human being, then intention cannot arise from our brain since the brain is a physical system and physical systems require imposition of meaning from outside by your argument.

Interpretation might be a better term to use than intention.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We may be defining "meaning" differently though.

Yes, I think there are several different 'levels' of what we call meaning. Relevant to survival is certainly one of the most basic.

ETA: which moves us back to the meaning of meaning.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Interpretation might be a better term to use than intention.

Fine with me; I was following Westprog's use of words, though not precisely. He introduced 'intention'.

 

[AlBell]

Only if you believe that there must be a homonculus in the theater of the mind. This is why dualism was invented in the first place. That it is difficult is why we discuss it.

Monism, to be consistent, must explain meaning in a way that does not involve a conscious agent from the outset.

We appear to disagree what the monism idealism must entail.

Dualism was invented because materialism fails when we move from the inert to life.

 

[AlBell]

May be entirely true, but what specifically is wrong with the definition of information above (which is his definition with system members moved to reflect better Blobru's description)?

All require inherent intent to have meaning (that damn word).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I can't see the number of possible causes being relevant. The statistical frequency of the cause of interest as opposed to other causes would be what's relevant, if anything.

I'm not sure how you jump from there to meaning. You could argue that's a part of how we assign meaning, sure. But a small part. Meaning is assigned in the brain.

I'm thinking more in terms of survival value, which is the reason why the receptors are there in the first place which does not require a brain. The example I give of a simple touch receptor to muscle cell (like Blobru's previous example with light) is a attempt to show how it might work on a simple level. It is not really proper, with the nervous system, to speak of the sensory side without connection to motor output. Meanings arise originally I would assume, and assuming that we did evolve, from what worked in the past -- what restricted type of sensory input provided a means for motor action to support survival. It would all be context based, though, depending on the environment in question.

Perceptual meaning, specifically.

Yes.

The "us" being touched has to observe it.

We have to because we live in a very complex environment and have evolved multiple different behavioral strategies. But a simple organism would 'observe' touch simply by being touched and having its receptor fire.

How the brain assigns meaning to things is not yet understood, but it involves significant processing beyond the sensory receptors. There's no reason to assume it's the same as what a calculator does when it adds numbers.

Yes, but there must be simpler examples out there if monism is even possible; and I think this involves all monisms.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We appear to disagree what the monism idealism must entail.

Dualism was invented because materialism fails when we move from the inert to life.

It might be that we need to more closely examine what idealism as a monism means.

If there is one substance -- let's call it God's mind, then everything else is an action of God's mind because what we call matter isn't God's mind (unless you want to argue that it is). If God's mind creates matter through its action, and thinking is an action (as it appears to be), then our way of thinking cannot be God's mind; rather it is created by God's mind just as matter is. We couldn't possibly see the difference between the ur-substance being God's mind or whatever else. If we are talking monism, it must all look entirely the same. No monism is going to get us out of this issue. Only dualism can do it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

All require inherent intent to have meaning (that damn word).

Meaning what exactly? Why does survival value not provide inherent intent?

ETA:

Keep in mind that the definition of information that RD provided does not concern itself with meaning. Meaning is something that arises through a different process than something merely being information. It has to be a certain type of information used for a purpose, which is why I think it arises in living organisms; the original purpose being survival.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Just wondering how many of the computational theorists are mathematical realists.

No idea. Like I've said before, I'm not really a computationalist strictly speaking because I don't know the math well and computers and I don't get along perfectly. I am only fighting against the arguments that I don't think work because I am interested in the possible ways that a computer could do it in order to understand how the brain does it.

I am definitely limited in my abilities here.

Guess your sentence "meaning must arise from interactions amongst the single substance that is, if monism can make sense" got me going. The idea of running an algorithm of thought on a computer seems the very illustration of "dualism" to me.

Or like I asked before, where does the math structuring the logic gates come from? Mathematical realism - that mathematical entities exist independently of the mind - seems indistinguishable from Platonism which is certainly "dualism".

On the other hand, if the maths are invented your single substance seems out the window.

 

[AlBell]

Meaning what exactly? Why does survival value not provide inherent intent?

We are near agreement, but it could be said the inherent value of survival -- to be, rather than be-not -- is there for strings, quarks, bosons, whatever actually exists by and of itself in a meaningful fashion.

Keep in mind that the definition of information that RD provided does not concern itself with meaning. Meaning is something that arises through a different process than something merely being information. It has to be a certain type of information used for a purpose, which is why I think it arises in living organisms; the original purpose being survival.

As above it could also be construed as what imbues the lowest level of reality.

What we might term God's Laws (math & physics provides our best understanding) provides both ways and means for the lowest intentful bits to combine and recombine.

Once the needed environment and rna/dna and cell structure was reached evolution kicked in and here we are. Intentful stuff combining into more refined intentful stuff.

I don't see any coherent god's mind after the big bang.

ymmv

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Guess your sentence "meaning must arise from interactions amongst the single substance that is, if monism can make sense" got me going. The idea of running an algorithm of thought on a computer seems the very illustration of "dualism" to me.

Or like I asked before, where does the math structuring the logic gates come from? Mathematical realism - that mathematical entities exist independently of the mind - seems indistinguishable from Platonism which is certainly "dualism".

On the other hand, if the maths are invented your single substance seems out the window.

Not really, no. Running an algorithm is just an action. The simulation, would just be a way of helping folks see the relationships, but there is just an action going on in the computer no matter what els we are talking about.

It seems to me that some folks are getting caught up in the different 'levels of discussion' since talking about the program is just an easy way of discussing the movements of electrons in a computer. I don't see how anyone gets dualism out of any of this.

How is a single substance out the window if maths are invented? Math is just a way of describing relationships. And, yes, mathematical realism is a form of dualism. But none of this argument concerns mathematical realism. That is much closer to Beth's position.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We are near agreement, but it could be said the inherent value of survival -- to be, rather than be-not -- is there for strings, quarks, bosons, whatever actually exists by and of itself in a meaningful fashion.

OK, but not sure exactly how. I can see that in terms of the Darwinian universes idea, but the ultimate stuff that exists just exists. I don't think we can ever arrive at any better explanation than that.

As above it could also be construed as what imbues the lowest level of reality.

What we might term God's Laws (math & physics provides our best understanding) provides both ways and means for the lowest intentful bits to combine and recombine.

Once the needed environment and rna/dna and cell structure was reached evolution kicked in and here we are. Intentful stuff combining into more refined intentful stuff.

I don't see any coherent god's mind after the big bang.

ymmv

OK, but I don't see any reason to think in terms of intention structured into the universe. It's a natural consequence of one way of the universe unfolding with natural selection, I think.

It might be the case, though, that intent is part of the fabric of really. I don't think we have any way of knowing and I have no need of that hypothesis.