On Consciousness

[PixyMisa]

Indeed. My fixed focus of conscious attention caused me to fail to notice even a quite significant object in my the field of vision, causing me to be inatttentionally blind to it's presence.

Could you not equally explain it that way?

You could. You'd be wrong.

Yes, you are wrong when you claim I'm saying it's supernatural. Even natural phenomena not understood are still natural events, even if science does not fully understand them yet.

We do understand them.

 

[Mr. Scott]

How would you define the word 'spiritual' ? Since you brought it up.

Let's go by the dictionary definition of the word: "Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You seem to keep zeroing in on the immaterial, metaphysical, supernatural aspects of consciousness or the human spirit, for which there is currently no science supporting it, only subjective experience, as if it's a figment of the imagination.

I've gathered this from the balance of all your posts here. Did you change your mind about this and not alert us?

 

[dlorde]

You seem to keep zeroing in on the immaterial, metaphysical, supernatural aspects of consciousness or the human spirit, for which there is currently no science supporting it, only subjective experience, as if it's a figment of the imagination.

I've gathered this from the balance of all your posts here. Did you change your mind about this and not alert us?

Possibly - see Open-mindedness vs being too skeptical.

 

[Mr. Scott]

All the half baked thoughts were giving me indigestion.

My translation of that: "I feel sick when I read opinions I don't agree with."

Tell me if this is the type of half-baked thought that makes you feel ill:

Although the complex machinery of consciousness is not yet understood, there's no evidence it's more than complex machinery.

 

[annnnoid]

My translation of that: "I feel sick when I read opinions I don't agree with."

Tell me if this is the type of half-baked thought that makes you feel ill:

Although the complex machinery of consciousness is not yet understood, there's no evidence it's more than complex machinery.

We do understand them.

…understood…not understood…understood…not understood…understood….not understood…understood….not understood…ping pong ping pong ping pong…

….amazing, really, how much can be shoe-horned into an explanation like “it’s just complex machinery.” …until you have to start asking…” how complex “…and…” what kind of machinery.”

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

 

[Mr. Scott]

…understood…not understood…understood…not understood…understood….not understood…understood….not understood…ping pong ping pong ping pong…

….amazing, really, how much can be shoe-horned into an explanation like “it’s just complex machinery.” …until you have to start asking…” how complex “…and…” what kind of machinery.”

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

When writing my post, I debated on whether to say "not understood" or "not completely understood." It's not an either/or thing, annnnoid. My comment and PixyMisa's have different contexts, which you carelessly conflated.

Why would anyone expect that neuroscience, which has been around less than a hundred years, completely understand the most complex machine know to exist, which took nature a billion years to produce in a laboratory the size of the planet? We understand a lot more than you think we do, I am sure of that. We just don't understand everything, though we understand more and more every day.

About the supernatural world, we understand, it seems, nothing. That might be because it's not real. Aside from spooky feelings, every time we test it carefully, it seems to be completely absent.

 

[quarky]

Understanding things is a handy way to dodge the fact that we understand almost nothing.
It keeps us safe from the shaky uncertainty of the future and our role in it.
I saw a recent TED talk (oops, memory failure) wherein the speaker asked the audience how many of them considered themselves religious. A few hands went up; less than 3%...then he asked how many considered themselves at least somewhat spiritual...well over half the crowd responded in the positive.

Of course, the form of such polling is tainted by the order and intonation of the questions asked (damnable statistics) though something remains: curiosity about that which we don't fully comprehend...and a sense of openness and tolerance; wonder, even.

In my brief encounters with great scientists, besides their unruly hair, this was a hallmark.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Understanding things is a handy way to dodge the fact that we understand almost nothing.
It keeps us safe from the shaky uncertainty of the future and our role in it.
I saw a recent TED talk (oops, memory failure) wherein the speaker asked the audience how many of them considered themselves religious. A few hands went up; less than 3%...then he asked how many considered themselves at least somewhat spiritual...well over half the crowd responded in the positive.

Of course, the form of such polling is tainted by the order and intonation of the questions asked (damnable statistics) though something remains: curiosity about that which we don't fully comprehend...and a sense of openness and tolerance; wonder, even.

In my brief encounters with great scientists, besides their unruly hair, this was a hallmark.

Hmmm... I smell a strawman.

To say we understand almost nothing is silly. Google "neuroscience" and get 40,300,000 hits. Start reading at hit #1 and then tell me we understand nothing about neuroscience.

The reason I'm discussing consciousness here is I have curiosity about what I don't fully comprehend.

 

[quarky]

In retrospect, don't we always know less than we thought we knew?
We certainly know a lot more than we used to, though number of google hits isn't much of a parameter.
Compared to what we may eventually know, extrapolating on the flow of new data, we likely do know almost nothing.

 

[Roboramma]

Compared to what we may eventually know, extrapolating on the flow of new data, we likely do know almost nothing.

How do you go about making that conclusion? How are you measuring what is and isn't known? I would suggest that we know a great deal, though certainly there is a great deal that we don't know, but how do we go about quantifying that?

For instance, the number of species known to science is very small compared to the number estimated to exist (something between 10 and 100 million if my memory is accurate). But does that suggest that we known next to nothing about life on earth? That's a strange conclusion given that we understand the mechanism that created that diversity, and the theoretical framework given by evolutionary theory tells us a great deal even about those species that we haven't discovered yet. Moreover, we may not have classified the majority of species, but we are likely familiar with all extant kingdoms of life on earth. And understanding those divisions seems more meaningful and offering deeper understanding than simply naming every species.

My point is that while there is a great deal left to discover, perhaps even some fundamentals, we have a good general understanding of the way the world works. To call that "almost nothing" just seems silly to me.

 

[quarky]

How do you go about making that conclusion? How are you measuring what is and isn't known? I would suggest that we know a great deal, though certainly there is a great deal that we don't know, but how do we go about quantifying that?

For instance, the number of species known to science is very small compared to the number estimated to exist (something between 10 and 100 million if my memory is accurate). But does that suggest that we known next to nothing about life on earth? That's a strange conclusion given that we understand the mechanism that created that diversity, and the theoretical framework given by evolutionary theory tells us a great deal even about those species that we haven't discovered yet. Moreover, we may not have classified the majority of species, but we are likely familiar with all extant kingdoms of life on earth. And understanding those divisions seems more meaningful and offering deeper understanding than simply naming every species.

My point is that while there is a great deal left to discover, perhaps even some fundamentals, we have a good general understanding of the way the world works. To call that "almost nothing" just seems silly to me.

Well,
I am silly. You're not the first to suggest it, even in this thread. You are the kindest, though, which I like.

So let me explain the good news in my "almost nothing" slander of the human ego:

As I imagine the future, which I won't be in, human learning and data exchange is explosive. Is it Moore's law I'm thinking of? It will get squared.
And the humans of that future will have a pie-chart of what was known today, vs/ what is known in that new time...and our slice of that pie; what is presently known...it will be 'almost nothing'.

Less than a full slice of pizza, for sure.

One might reverse engineer this pie graph for 100 years ago vs/ today.
100 years ago, we knew plenty.
The amount, in today's pie, would be 'almost nothing'.

So, in this way I express my faith in the continued acceleration of our collective knowledge, and remind myself, reflecting from the future, that we know "almost nothing". I mean this in a good way.

The part that might sound even sillier, but is most likely true, is that almost everything we know is wrong.
Its not totally wrong. It sort-of works and all...but it is never correct.


I see no harm in approaching the universe from the perspective of knowing almost nothing, and even the tidbit is mostly wrong.
Extrapolation. History. Aggression.

Sometimes we know stuff we don't quite know enough stuff about. I like to err on the side of assuming we know very little and that we have a history of being wrong about most of that.

Perhaps Pixy will back me up on even my own wrongness in this assessment.
I certainly sense a good possibility that I'm wrong. We usually are.

 

[quarky]

When writing my post, I debated on whether to say "not understood" or "not completely understood." It's not an either/or thing, annnnoid. My comment and PixyMisa's have different contexts, which you carelessly conflated.

Why would anyone expect that neuroscience, which has been around less than a hundred years, completely understand the most complex machine know to exist, which took nature a billion years to produce in a laboratory the size of the planet? We understand a lot more than you think we do, I am sure of that. We just don't understand everything, though we understand more and more every day.

About the supernatural world, we understand, it seems, nothing. That might be because it's not real. Aside from spooky feelings, every time we test it carefully, it seems to be completely absent.

The quantum realm, and its mechanics, may as well be the supernatural world. Its spooky, absent, mostly; supposedly sprang forth from something more bizarre than the Virgin Mary and lots smaller, with impeccable morals, at least at first.

How much weirder would something need to be, than what is, before we get to call it supernatural?
Is it the degree of our comprehension of that which we perceive that causes it to lose the "super" pre-fix?

Why is there energy?
We can predict a few things, yes.
But we live in a supernatural universe.

The underlying premise of our existence is utterly preposterous.
Yet, here we are.

 

[Minoosh]

Why would anyone expect that neuroscience, which has been around less than a hundred years, completely understand the most complex machine know to exist, which took nature a billion years to produce in a laboratory the size of the planet?

I accept this reasoning, and Quarky's analogy about comparing what we knew in the 19th-century compared to what we know now, and how "what we know now" would look in a pie chart 100 years from now.

Personally, I think we'll keep on finding out about things, and keep learning how much there is yet to learn. When I read about lack of positive evidence of a phenomenon, I take it seriously, but sometimes I see people use it without questioning their own premises - in other words, assuming that we know most of what is knowable. I don't think that's always a valid premise.

It seems likely to me that biological determinism accounts for a lot of what we experience as consciousness. But if, for example, I believe humans have free will - then I believe there may be whole other categories of evidence whose existence we're unaware of. And that just seems like common sense to me. How do you know all of what you don't know?

 

[Mr. Scott]

It seems likely to me that biological determinism accounts for a lot of what we experience as consciousness. But if, for example, I believe humans have free will - then I believe there may be whole other categories of evidence whose existence we're unaware of. And that just seems like common sense to me. How do you know all of what you don't know?

Sure, every time when I research a subject and answer one question, two more unanswered questions emerge. For finite subjects, though, that doesn't (and can't) go on forever. Eventually, there are diminishing returns, and knowledge on a subject can be satisfactory complete. E.g., if I want to fully understand an internal combustion engine, I don't have to go back to the big bang.

However, extrapolating the future, assuming how much we will understand, then looking back from that to the present, and concluding "we know nothing" is silly. We know a lot right now about how the brain works. No one except somebody's straw man thinks or says we know everything. It's silly to fill the gaps with the supernatural until evidence for for the supernatural is verified. Otherwise, it's just argument from ignorance.

Re. Free will, Dennett has a wonderful lecture on the subject, available on youtube. I think I've watched it 5 times. I'm no longer befuddled by the puzzle of free will. I don't think we need to resort to the supernatural.

 

[quarky]

I keep seeing the word "silliness".

It may be applied to me. I've already confessed.
But it might also be applied to the nature of consciousness.

As physicists ran out of words, the began giving names to particles that likely never existed in any pragmatic way...quarks that are 'strange' or 'charmed'.

I hypothesize a more fundamental particle than those rascally quarks.

The silly anti-quark...the cornerstone of consciousness.
And for the sake of argument, I claim to be an authority on the subject.

Why not?

I've actually studied consciousness.
I'm not about to roll over and play dead for a handful of bogus scientists that claim to understand something that I don't.

We (whatever we is) have a minimal command over a single sub-atomic particle that jumps a synapse...as I recall, a single electron going between cholinesterase and acetocholine. I've been away from the chemistry for awhile.

Yet, all large manifestations can be traced back to these minute 'decisions' in the endless branchings of initial impulses.

So here's my definition:

Consciousness is the ability to influence the movement of a single electron.
On purpose.

All the rest radiates outward from that.
What most of us are unwilling to do is trace that minute influence backward, to the very point of our individual involvement in the seemingly chaotic influence of that little 'vote' that we have.

Consciousness.

 

[steenkh]

So here's my definition:

Consciousness is the ability to influence the movement of a single electron.
On purpose.

So at last you admit that computers can be conscious! That took some time!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Understanding things is a handy way to dodge the fact that we understand almost nothing.
It keeps us safe from the shaky uncertainty of the future and our role in it.

Agreed.

Well ...

I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing, and am constantly humbled by what I discover.

... even if what I do know often comes from people that know that they nearly know everything.

 

[dlorde]

In retrospect, don't we always know less than we thought we knew?

If you mean that we always discover that we know less than we thought (unless we discover it, how would we know?), the answer depends on what you mean by that.

The sum of our knowledge may occasionally reduce in certain areas as we discover we are mistaken about something, but in general it increases far more. Many steps forward, few steps back.

It is true that discoveries often open whole new fields of investigation, or make us more aware of a lack of knowledge in some area. But without going too Rumsfeld, there will always be known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and the extent - of the latter at least - is, by definition, unknown.

In general, I don't agree that we always know less than we thought we knew. It seems a sweeping and inaccurate generalisation.

 

[dlorde]

Re. Free will, Dennett has a wonderful lecture on the subject, available on youtube. I think I've watched it 5 times. I'm no longer befuddled by the puzzle of free will. I don't think we need to resort to the supernatural.

I agree with your conclusion, but having seen the video, I don't see how Dennet really addresses the problem, because (using the deterministic 2D world of Conway's Game of Life) he equivocates the meaning of 'evitability' and 'inevitability' with regards to determinism, talking of GoL structures he calls 'avoiders' (that can avoid threats) as if they have somehow transcended their deterministic inevitability. He doesn't explain this, and the rest of his talk assumes this point has been substantiated.

He is challenged on this several times in the Q&A that follows, and after several attempts, eventually agrees that it is really a matter of having sufficient complexity to be able to represent reasons and rules (for action).

Nevertheless, 'avoiders' of whatever complexity, evolved or otherwise, don't somehow avoid or transcend deterministic inevitability as he originally claimed; perhaps what he should have said is that they are too complex for that to be useful or relevant at those scales, i.e. they transcend it only by virtue of unpredictability.

Part of the problem is that he doesn't clarify what he really means by 'free will' (or 'purpose', which he mentions in the Q&A), although he does briefly address the concept of choice ('could do otherwise').

What disturbs me is that he was surely aware of his equivocation with 'evitability' but still chose to use it - which strikes me as deceptive. I do agree with his conclusions about free will, but question the quality of his explanation - I hope his book does a better job.

All this, incidentally, doesn't address the practicalities of 'avoiders' in the GoL. The complexity of a GoL environment that permits foreknowledge of potential threats in GoL is likely to be of a level where - as Dennet suggests, it might require to be run as an emulation on a UTM (Universal Turing Machine) in GoL, i.e. in a meta-reality, a level of abstraction above 'raw' substrate of Gol reality (though still deterministic, of course).

 

[dlorde]

So here's my definition:

Consciousness is the ability to influence the movement of a single electron.
On purpose.

If that's a joke, well done.

If it isn't a joke, you'll need to explain how it isn't tautologous or recursive, as it seems equivalent to saying:

"Consciousness is the ability to influence the movement of a single electron using consciousness".

Then you can explain how the movement of a single electron can be influenced and what that implies about the physical nature of consciousness.