Where is your experience?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There'd be a reduced consciousness, a "consciousness, but not as you know it" again several CNS faculties do not need the body or its information, though they do exacerbate physiological responses that enhance a particular sensation sometimes, so overall if you're conscious, you're quite dull. The CNS does a LOT of work up there effecting consciousness, the removal of the body wouldn't remove consciousness it would just make it less robust. At what point can you remove more to practically eliminate consciousness? Nobody is quite sure, but I recommend "The Quest For Consciousness" by Christof Koch (He was in the BBC Horizon vid BTW) if you want to learn more about the NCC.

Your points are guesses, the fact is, we don't know (and experimenting with current technology would be creepy). Of course nobody is sure, mine is not a claim of knowledge, as I have been saying, it is what I believe based on the information available. I will look for that, is it a book?

You don't know much about neuroanatomy and I called you out on it, it's hardly an ad hominem. Do you tell off doctors when they give you their informed opinions?

Yes, regarding my health or anyone I care about, of course. Doctors are just people, and many many times, they are wrong. This is why you always have to have several opinions from several doctors. If I happen to know the doctor, and know about that he/she is pretty aware of current limitations, then my reserves are less, but when I find one that believes "he knows it all" then every alarm I have sounds. Besides, you don't know my background, and whats more important, we are talking here about hypothesis, not facts.

As much as I agree with it, I'm starting to wonder how you define consciousness. I disagree that it's defined by experiences alone; experiences will lead to a more robust consciousness assuming certain faculties exist, memory being a pretty big one. And you wouldn't have a robust memory without a body, probably.

Every definition of consciousness has to be, at some point, arbitrary, as we lack a proper working definition. I would say that, if we were able to replicate using computers, we would have it, but unless we can make a working sample, all we have are ideas. Now, you seem to propose that there would be a semiconscious ("experience"?) state on the brain even in the lack of any kind of stimulation. Is this correct? Do you reckon that's is mere speculation from your part?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So, people paralyzed from the neck down with congenital analgesia (with anhidrosis), CIPA, cannot be conscious while they are dreaming in their sleep?

Those persons can still feel pressure and other stimuli, so, I would say that their world representation would be very different to ours, and, if we accept that we are not viewing the problem from a naive realism POV, then I would say it is easy to conclude that their consciousness would be rather different to ours (in other words yes, they are not conscious the way most people is).

 

[Lowpro]

Your points are guesses, the fact is, we don't know (and experimenting with current technology would be creepy). Of course nobody is sure, mine is not a claim of knowledge, as I have been saying, it is what I believe based on the information available. I will look for that, is it a book?

They're educated guesses grounded in facts. They're better guesses than a layman's guess. It's the reason a doctor's informed opinion has more merit than a layman's informed opinion.

Yes, regarding my health or anyone I care about, of course. Doctors are just people, and many many times, they are wrong. This is why you always have to have several opinions from several doctors. If I happen to know the doctor, and know about that he/she is pretty aware of current limitations, then my reserves are less, but when I find one that believes "he knows it all" then every alarm I have sounds. Besides, you don't know my background, and whats more important, we are talking here about hypothesis, not facts.

I don't think you have the knowledge to determine hypothesis from fact BDZ -.-

Every definition of consciousness has to be, at some point, arbitrary, as we lack a proper working definition. I would say that, if we were able to replicate using computers, we would have it, but unless we can make a working sample, all we have are ideas. Now, you seem to propose that there would be a semiconscious ("experience"?) state on the brain even in the lack of any kind of stimulation. Is this correct? Do you reckon that's is mere speculation from your part?

Well as I've said many times consciousness is an illusory job description of what emerges from your functioning brain. With what we know, we can conclude that consciousness is the culmination of neural correlates that are local within the brain, and these correlates are what give a robust consciousness (not a guess on this, this is fact). You could argue that it's the body that stimulates the neural correlates, but the extrapolation is erroneous. If you had the body doing stuff, and no brain for it to relay to then there would be no consciousness; consciousness is a brain product, not a body product, though the body is a probe that transduces information (read: experiences) to the brain that stimulate the NCC, therefor consciousness. But the extrapolation that you propose BDZ is just ignoring the work of the brain. I don't know why you ignore it.

ON A SIDE NOTE! Have you ever read "I have no mouth and I must scream" because our brain discussion made me think of it last night. A great, chilling story.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... so, in a general sense, if I wanted to point out to the "Software" of a computer.. all I need to do is point right to its disk. It is right there, inside the disk. In other words, the data is located in space/time just like a rock is (as a corollary, they would be a kind of physical object). Is this what (some of you) are saying?

YES

You don't think so?

err.... You miss the point completely... If I wanted to point the patterns of synaptic activity in the neurons, I would have to point to his brain, duh (big deal), now, if you are working on your computer remotely (using PC Anywhere for instance) then I would say (and you would say) that you are working ON THE REMOTE LOCATION. What's so complicated to understand?

Yes, and I think the point is that the software (or the calculation process) is not able to locate itself, nor does it have to take place where, say, an attached GPS sensor says it is.

To which I would say: Yes, Bodhi, but what of it?

With this set of definitions, there is no contradiction in saying "I'm on a train, but my mind is in a vat."

Thing is, people have the sensation of "being the mind". Minds, are a kind of process, not to be confused with the thing which does the processing. Again, if you have read the thread, we all agree in that the brain makes the processing, so, we are not discussing (in any conceivable way) that consciousness can arise without a brain. If that is clear, then I believe the contradiction seems to exist ONLY if we insist in thinking basing our ideas on naive realism. Now, and to be clear, I would rephrase "I'm on a train, but my brain is in a vat", and I would agree.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Those persons can still feel pressure and other stimuli, so, I would say that their world representation would be very different to ours, and, if we accept that we are not viewing the problem from a naive realism POV, then I would say it is easy to conclude that their consciousness would be rather different to ours (in other words yes, they are not conscious the way most people is).

I guess I would disagree here, but it could also be due to differences in definitions. I would say they are conscious (the mere fact that they are dreaming would indicate that). It’s the range of experiencing that could be vastly different. Although, it becomes more problematic to say that if they aren’t born with the aforementioned conditions, thus they would have a history of normalcy and past experiences.

There have been some experiments with sensory deprivation, but nothing to my knowledge seems to indicate that consciousness isn’t maintained in such situations. Or recursively: general anesthesia seems to render people unconscious without knocking out the sensory system. I think your hypothesis is on thin ice here. However, it might be the case that sensory input could be important when organisms develop such capabilities as conscious experiencing in the first place.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Thing is, people have the sensation of "being the mind". Minds, are a kind of process, not to be confused with the thing which does the processing.

...

I believe the contradiction seems to exist ONLY if we insist in thinking basing our ideas on naive realism. Now, and to be clear, I would rephrase "I'm on a train, but my brain is in a vat", and I would agree.

But I think you'd agree that the mind is a process limited to the brain. Or wouldn't you?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well as I've said many times consciousness is an illusory job description of what emerges from your functioning brain. With what we know, we can conclude that consciousness is the culmination of neural correlates that are local within the brain, and these correlates are what give a robust consciousness (not a guess on this, this is fact).

Ok, this illustrates the difference between our POV. For me it is the other way around. All we have, and can have, is experience, it is by attempting to make sense of it that we create theoretical frameworks that allows us to describe facts in an orderly fashion. In the past the known facts were analyzed and a theory was developed: Consciousness resided at the heart (Aristotle). Nowadays it resides on the brain. I believe both theories are that, theories, and the more advanced the model (in respect to the availability of facts) the more descriptive becomes. In that sense, we can conclude that the heart, and the brain (and in the model proposed here the entire body and the environment) are a requisite for consciousness to "appear".

You could argue that it's the body that stimulates the neural correlates, but the extrapolation is erroneous. If you had the body doing stuff, and no brain for it to relay to then there would be no consciousness;

I have no issues with this. It is obvious. But...

... consciousness is a brain product, not a body product, though the body is a probe that transduces information (read: experiences) to the brain that stimulate the NCC, therefor consciousness. But the extrapolation that you propose BDZ is just ignoring the work of the brain. I don't know why you ignore it.

Consider these facts: There are no brains without bodies. Brains evolved inside bodies. Would you agree?

Then, for me, it is logical to conclude that brains+body+environment are needed for consciousness to arise. That does not render the brain any less important, which is kind of the conclusion I can see behind your line of reasoning.

ON A SIDE NOTE! Have you ever read "I have no mouth and I must scream" because our brain discussion made me think of it last night. A great, chilling story.

Nope.. i just read the WP entry on it, I bet it is a good read

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I guess I would disagree here, but it could also be due to differences in definitions. I would say they are conscious (the mere fact that they are dreaming would indicate that). It’s the range of experiencing that could be vastly different. Although, it becomes more problematic to say that if they aren’t born with the aforementioned conditions, thus they would have a history of normalcy and past experiences.

There have been some experiments with sensory deprivation, but nothing to my knowledge seems to indicate that consciousness isn’t maintained in such situations. Or recursively: general anesthesia seems to render people unconscious without knocking out the sensory system. I think your hypothesis is on thin ice here. However, it might be the case that sensory input could be important when organisms develop such capabilities as conscious experiencing in the first place.

General anesthesia is a good example. Why is consciousness completely erased by it? No one knows for sure, but I can relate my own experience. As I said earlier on the thread, I'm a Lucid Dreamer, several times a week I'm aware about I'm dreaming and can control pretty much anything in the dream (sort of like Neo in the Matrix).

That said, I was intrigued by the reports of people after waking up from general anesthesia. Recently I had a bad motorcycle accident and I received surgical attention, of course, I asked for general anesthesia precisely because I wanted to know, being a good Lucid Dreamer, what would it feel.

Well, I can report that, it is like being "disconnected from experience", and what I want to mean is that, the whole process of going to sleep at nights, having dreams, having pre and post dream imagery, and so on, is completely different as undertaking general anesthesia. I know I know, its just an anecdotal report, but still, at least for me is interesting.

Regarding your last point. Yes, organisms developed senses and CNS in order to interact with the environment. It is logical to assume that they are all interconnected and are mutually dependent. Consciousness cannot arise if something is missing.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But I think you'd agree that the mind is a process limited to the brain. Or wouldn't you?

Let's see. I believe "minds" only happen when you have a relatively complex organism (meaning it has ways to "feel" its surroundings and a highly specialized CNS) and an environment.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Let's see. I believe "minds" only happen when you have a relatively complex organism (meaning it has ways to "feel" its surroundings and a highly specialized CNS) and an environment.

Sure, yes, but the processes that constitute the conscious thoughts about all the inputs and outputs are spatially limited to the brain, no?

 

[Lowpro]

Ok, this illustrates the difference between our POV. <snip for brevity>

Well I would consider your POV to be more interested in the content and robustness of consciousness.

Consider these facts: There are no brains without bodies. Brains evolved inside bodies. Would you agree?

Then, for me, it is logical to conclude that brains+body+environment are needed for consciousness to arise. That does not render the brain any less important, which is kind of the conclusion I can see behind your line of reasoning.

It would be most accurate to say they evolved alongside eachother, yes. I think again I consider consciousness the phenomena that occurs within the mind; it IS where the stuff is happening that makes you conscious. As for the content of it, that's determined by environment.

 

[Paul2]

ON A SIDE NOTE! Have you ever read "I have no mouth and I must scream" because our brain discussion made me think of it last night. A great, chilling story.

yes, a great story, and nearly the best title ever.

 

[Dancing David]

err.... You miss the point completely... If I wanted to point the patterns of synaptic activity in the neurons, I would have to point to his brain, duh (big deal), now, if you are working on your computer remotely (using PC Anywhere for instance) then I would say (and you would say) that you are working ON THE REMOTE LOCATION. What's so complicated to understand?
.

But you aren't, when you are in the remore screen the processing is done in the remote machine. When you switch to the local machine it is being processed at the local machine.

So when you operate a remote machine there are only two things happening at the local level (excluding the local processes):
-the display of the remote processor's output
-input that is transfered to the remote machine's processor

So maybe you would say that YOU are working at teh rmote location, and that is true, your body is doing it's movements and looking at the screen at teh loacl machine.

However all the processes that create the remote machines desktop on your local monitor happen at the remote machine, except for the I and O, so YOU are working locally, the processing that creates the image of the desktop is not. Now when you read your email or use the Active Directory on the remote machine, all those processes are done on the remote CPU and RAM.

Your experience at that time is of the local monitor and peripherals, the processing however that creetes the image on the monitor is not.

YOU are working locally the I and O is processed remotely.

 

[Dancing David]

Now, and to be clear, I would rephrase "I'm on a train, but my brain is in a vat", and I would agree.

My body is on the train, my brain is in the vat.

I am in the brain.

 

[Lowpro]

My body is on the train, my brain is in the vat.

I am in the brain.

And you are experiencing yourself in the train! and the rain in spain falls neatly on the plain.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It would be most accurate to say they evolved alongside eachother, yes. I think again I consider consciousness the phenomena that occurs within the mind; it IS where the stuff is happening that makes you conscious. As for the content of it, that's determined by environment.

So, in your opinion, one thing is "consciousness" and another, related but different is "mind"? And "consciousness" happens in or at the "mind"? I don't see any reason to make a distinction. I believe this is kind of a reminiscent of dualism approaches, and that it is based on naive realism. Ultimately, both the brain+body and the environment are unified in the experience, and I choose monism anytime instead of dualism. Now, no, I'm not saying I'm a monist, as that would mean that I ascribe myself to an ontology, and I believe ontology is moot. Maybe another look to what Model Dependent Realism is would clarify this for you.

But you aren't, when you are in the remore screen the processing is done in the remote machine. When you switch to the local machine it is being processed at the local machine.

Who is arguing against that? I'm saying, exactly like you, that "YOU ARE in the remote screen", that's my point, YOU, Dancing David, are located at the remote machine.

So when you operate a remote machine there are only two things happening at the local level (excluding the local processes):
-the display of the remote processor's output
-input that is transfered to the remote machine's processor

Exactly, and those things are the input (senses info) and output (conscious feedback) which locate you at the remote position. Yes, again, the processing is done elsewhere, I have never denied that, the point is irrelevant.

So maybe you would say that YOU are working at teh rmote location, and that is true, your body is doing it's movements and looking at the screen at teh loacl machine.

EXACTLY. That's the point.

However all the processes that create the remote machines desktop on your local monitor happen at the remote machine, except for the I and O, so YOU are working locally, the processing that creates the image of the desktop is not. Now when you read your email or use the Active Directory on the remote machine, all those processes are done on the remote CPU and RAM.

Again, where have I argued against that? Both parts are needed for the experience to occur, but the point is, where is the experience?

Your experience at that time is of the local monitor and peripherals, the processing however that creetes the image on the monitor is not.

Exactly.

My body is on the train, my brain is in the vat.

I am in the brain.

This is what doesn't follow. Where are you? If you were in the train with me, with your brain at the lab, what would you answer?

 

[Dancing David]

And you are experiencing yourself in the train! and the rain in spain falls neatly on the plain.

Yes but the generation of that experience is in the brain, not on the train on the dratted soggy plain.

 

[Dancing David]

This is what doesn't follow. Where are you? If you were in the train with me, with your brain at the lab, what would you answer?

I am in two places, my body and sense organs are in the train, my brain and the experiences are in the vat.

I say that the processing is the experience. Therefore I am in the vat. I would no more be on teh train than if I was using a web cam and waldoes.

And I do better when I have Chrome to correct my spelling.

 

[Dancing David]

Who is arguing against that? I'm saying, exactly like you, that "YOU ARE in the remote screen", that's my point, YOU, Dancing David, are located at the remote machine.

That depends, my physical body and brain is at the KVM interface. Yes. *I* am at the local machine using the KVM interface.

But if the analogy is that the body on the train is the remote sensing apparatus and motor interaction and the brain is in the vat is the processor. Then no, *I* am in the brain in the vat and the body is just remote sensing like a video cam and waldos.

The brain in vat and train in Spain are not equivalent to a remote log on session because there are three processors involved in that transaction. A brain in body, the local CPU and the remote CPU. The remote CPU drives the presentation at the KVM but the brain drives the body.

 

[Weak Kitten]

I would answer that my avatar is on the train. I might call it my character or my golem or any other number of things but it is not ME any more than a character in a video game is ME.

The brain is the core system unit of the body. The core system unit contains all the memory, processing and basic command structures of the computer. Yes you need devices to get input and output from it but it is the core system unit that makes the computer. I can swap my monitors, keyboards and mice but my core system unit is still the same. Heck, I could even swap out my graphics card for a new one without changing the core memory and programs of my core system unit. I can even put it in a new case and it will still be the same unit.