• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has consciousness been fully explained?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PixyMisa said:
AkuManiMani said:
Thats odd...I actually got around to reading a copy of GEB, as you suggested -- interesting stuff. You see the problem is Hofstadter actually does say exactly this as in "Meaningless symbols acquire meaning despite themselves". Ringing any bells? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What is meaning, AkuManiMani?

I actually misread you when you said
Hofstadter's philosophy is simply that meaningless processes and symbols become meaningful merely by 'referencing' themselves or other meaningless symbols.
Click to expand...

And didn't note the inclusion of the word processes, which changes things substantially. I apologise for that.

Now, as to whether this is an accurate representation of Hofstadter, and in any case, whether it is true, rests on something else:

What is meaning?
Click to expand...

[First I would like to say you've earned some respect points from me. You've just showed some integrity by acknowledging a mistake :) ]

And in answer to your question, 'meaning' refers to the raw experience of some quality or combination of qualities. Symbols are what conscious entities use to convey meanings or evoke/trigger corresponding experiences in other conscious entities.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
I'm not sure this is true. In the natural world, just as many features are fractal in form and amenable to analysis via fractal maths, many features are mathematically chaotic in form and amenable to analysis via the maths of chaos theory. It is the chaotic behaviour of natural processes that gives rise to many of the patterns and self-organisation found in nature, e.g. spatio-temporal chaos in reaction-diffusion reactions.

We can't predict the exact forms that will result from the activities of such systems, but we can predict the kind of forms they will produce - they are amenable to mathematical analysis. The brain is a complex self-ordering structure and is known to have chaotic features in its functioning, and it seems reasonable to suppose that while its functioning may be unpredictable, it may be amenable to mathematical analysis, and it may be possible to emulate some aspects of its complex activities using such mathematical techniques.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I don't disagree with any of this. What I'm saying is that we do not, at this point, know enough to state that it definitely is or is not possible.
 
AkuManiMani said:
And in answer to your question, 'meaning' refers to the raw experience of some quality or combination of qualities.
Click to expand...
What's this "raw experience"? What are "qualities"?

Symbols are what conscious entities use to convey meanings or evoke/trigger corresponding experiences in other conscious entities.
Click to expand...
And how do they do that?

Look, I'll cut it short:

There's nothing but physics. If you can't explain it, ultimately, with physics, then it doesn't exist.

Meaning is what we call the act of an information processing system creating a relationship between two symbols. That's why processes are critical; symbols in and of themselves have no meaning and do not refer to anything.
 
Last edited:
AkuManiMani said:
To be ignorant is human. To refuse to acknowledge one's own ignorance is #@&*ing retarded.
Click to expand...

But we can't know that for sure, for all we know being certain about things is a sign of genius. We don't know everything about how humans think, how can you make such an arrogant statement like that, as if you know everything :rolleyes:
 
Beth said:
Absolutely. I don't disagree with any of this. What I'm saying is that we do not, at this point, know enough to state that it definitely is or is not possible.
Click to expand...
Not in every case, no. But some cases, we definitely do.

The specific examples you brought up all fall into the neutrino category. They may be there; they may on occasion pass through the brain. But if the brain were so sensitive that they could have an effect, we'd all be dead already from the far more energetic interactions constantly going on within the brain and between the brain and the environment.

Well, the quantum superposition one is impossible, and the information going backwards in time one doesn't happen - I think you've misinterpreted something there - but the take-home lesson is that none of these things can possibly play any role in the production of consciousness, and more than tides, or cosmic rays, or the light from the Pleiades, or the Casimir effect.
 
PixyMisa said:
What's this "raw experience"? What are "qualities"?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that AkuManiMani is referring to qualia. Isn't this why the consciousness discussion seems to be stuck? You would of course refuse to recognize the coherence of the concept, but others would see it as essential to any complete explanation of consciousness. There doesn't seem to be a way of bridging this gap?
 
PixyMisa said:
AkuManiMani said:
And in answer to your question, 'meaning' refers to the raw experience of some quality or combination of qualities.
Click to expand...

What's this "raw experience"? What are "qualities"?
Click to expand...

Answer my earlier question, and you'll find that you already know the answer to yours...

PixyMisa said:
AkuManiMani said:
Symbols are what conscious entities use to convey meanings or evoke/trigger corresponding experiences in other conscious entities.
Click to expand...

And how do they do that?
Click to expand...

By sorcery, of course...!

I kid. I kid :D

*ahem*

They do so by learned association. The entities in question must be conditioned to associate particular symbol(s) with some common experience(s) between them. Once the association is sufficiently embedded every time the particular symbol(s) enter the awareness of the conscious entity(s) in question it will trigger the corresponding experience(s).

Think of pink elephants.

PixyMisa said:
Look, I'll cut it short:

There's nothing but physics. If you can't explain it, ultimately, with physics, then it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

'Physics' is just a word that refers to our conceptual model of reality. Models, by their nature, are tentative and incomplete. I would amend your statement to: "If you can't explain it, tentatively, with physics, then it doesn't exist within our model".

PixyMisa said:
Meaning is what we call the act of an information procecssing system creating a relationship between two symbols. That's why processes are critical; symbols in and of themselves have no meaning and do not refer to anything.
Click to expand...

You are right in one regard. Symbols, IAOT, do not have meaning outside of their association with something else. However, the root "something else", from which all meaning is derived, is experience. Even an IP system has no meaning as such outside of the context of some entity(s) that can experience them as such. Qualities are the 'suchness' that -define- an experience; symbols are a means of evoking experiences in a -constrained- manner. Information, broadly speaking, is a constraint -- in formation.

Its high time for you to open than closed loop of yours to the larger reality...
 
Last edited:
Democracy Simulator said:
I'm guessing that AkuManiMani is referring to qualia. Isn't this why the consciousness discussion seems to be stuck? You would of course refuse to recognize the coherence of the concept, but others would see it as essential to any complete explanation of consciousness. There doesn't seem to be a way of bridging this gap?
Click to expand...

The only "gap" is the one PixyMisa has between his awareness and his own feelings. His psyche is so cluttered with symbols and abstractions he can even identify the root of their meaning. His own consciousness is tightly constrained and very dim.

To anyone not in a state of deep repression and denial the issue of qualia is a no brainer; otherwise you gotta uphill struggle on your hands. The best way to teach such a person over the internet is via an object lesson; inflict emotional pain and force them to turn their awareness towards it. If they don't understand what the word 'qualia' means after that then they cannot be salvaged.
 
Last edited:
AkuManiMani said:
The only "gap" is the one PixyMisa has between his awareness and his own feelings. His psyche is so cluttered with symbols and abstractions he can even identify the root of their meaning. His own consciousness is tightly constrained and very dim.

To anyone not in a state of deep repression and denial the issue of qualia is a no brainer; otherwise you gotta uphill struggle on your hands. The best way to teach such a person over the internet is via an object lesson; inflict emotional pain and force them to turn their awareness towards it. If they don't understand what the word 'qualia' means after that then they cannot be salvaged.
Click to expand...

I think you just scared the Pixy away with your sorcery ;)
 
Democracy Simulator said:
I'm guessing that AkuManiMani is referring to qualia. Isn't this why the consciousness discussion seems to be stuck? You would of course refuse to recognize the coherence of the concept, but others would see it as essential to any complete explanation of consciousness. There doesn't seem to be a way of bridging this gap?
Click to expand...
No, there isn't.

The concept of qualia is not logically coherent under materialism. Since, from everything we have ever observed, materialism is actually true...

It's like... Y'know, it's actully difficult to come up with a concept as muddle-headed as qualia. It's just so much a case of putting the cart before the horse, and at the same time, so blatantly useless and so clearly untrue.

Well, homepathy comes close. Okay:

It's like believing that the word Aspirin on the box is what makes the pills work, and not the acetylsalicylic acid inside. And believing that this is true for all pharmaceuticals, and insisting that this is a valid and rational explanation, the only valid and rational explanation, and the biochemists have it all wrong.
 
PixyMisa said:
It's like believing that the word Aspirin on the box is what makes the pills work, and not the acetylsalicylic acid inside. And believing that this is true for all pharmaceuticals, and insisting that this is a valid and rational explanation, the only valid and rational explanation, and the biochemists have it all wrong.
Click to expand...

No its like putting a childsafe closure on the aspirin box, since any child experiences little colorful shapes to mean pleasure.
 
PixyMisa said:
...

How, exactly, is it like that? Or is this Bad Similes Day and no-one invited me?
Click to expand...

You're so lost in your symbols and abstractions that you forget that small children mostly experience the world through qualia and we have no choice but to act on this. No amount of logical explanations of biochemistry to children is going to convince them their experiences are magic..
 
!Kaggen said:
You're so lost in your symbols and abstractions that you forget that small children mostly experience the world through qualia and we have no choice but to act on this. No amount of logical explanations of biochemistry to children is going to convince them their experiences are magic..
Click to expand...
Uh, what?

Okay, I get that children don't come along already understanding biochemistry. Sure.

But you're the one that just said that children's experiences are magic. I'm the one saying they're biochemistry.

And, if I did sit down with a five-year-old and go through the endless questions of why, through biochemistry and computation and physics and neuology and so on, I would have no problem with that at all.

Because five-year-olds tend to be less wedded to their false preconceptions than adults on web forums.
 
PixyMisa said:
Uh, what?

Okay, I get that children don't come along already understanding biochemistry. Sure.

But you're the one that just said that children's experiences are magic. I'm the one saying they're biochemistry.

And, if I did sit down with a five-year-old and go through the endless questions of why, through biochemistry and computation and physics and neuology and so on, I would have no problem with that at all.

Because five-year-olds tend to be less wedded to their false preconceptions than adults on web forums.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.
Why do we put child safe locks on aspirin bottles?
Why do artists use colour and form in their art?
Why do girls like diamonds?
Certainly not because of biochemistry.
Phenomena have an affect on humans on a phenomenological level with no need for biochemical explanations.
These affects relate to the qualities of aspirin pills, works of art and jewelry.
The fact that you have a metaphysical desire to reduce these qualities to symbols and abstractions in order to categorize them for immortality in a computer program is irrelevant as to how the real world works.
Medical pills get childsafe locks, artists sell there paintings and De Beers destroys the environment for diamonds.
All because of qualia.
 
Piggy said:
Do I what? I can't match that question up syntactically with my post to which you responded.

Anyway, I'm not saying that an isolated brain can develop normally in perceptual isolation.

What I'm saying is that perception (as well as response, memory, and even learning) happens independent of consciousness quite regularly. If it didn't, we'd be in quite a pickle.

I'm not saying that the two are always divorced. That would be daft.
Click to expand...

Do you have conscious states that are separate from perception?

When you imagine things, you activate mirror neurons, which are in the parts of the brain corresponding to the senses you are imagining. You may not be actually perceiving things but you're using the brain in a way as if you really are perceiving things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom