Has consciousness been fully explained?

[dlorde]

Having a working, physical brain seems to be a requirement of consciousness.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

[Frank Newgent]

I see "logically deduce" and I equate that with "know." Are you assuming some other meaning to "logically deduce?" Seems to me that if we consider our logic valid, and furthermore sound, then any deduction is knowledge. Is that not correct?

Thinking so bad that somewhere advanced vat programming unavoidably anticipates an Auguste Rodin sculpture covered in regurgitated cheese fries.

 

[westprog]

Having a working, physical brain seems to be a requirement of consciousness.

Yes, it seems to be. However, that's not the same thing as a mechanism*.

We don't know if a brain produces consciousness like a generator, or traps it like a net, for example. And until we really do know these things, we shouldn't speak as if we do.

That's why I'm not interested in saying what my best guess is - this topic is full of supposed experts guessing away as if it meant something - and worse, insisting that their guesses must be true.

*And in the case of eating dinner, we do have a mechanism, which is well understood.

 

[Philosaur]

Yes, it seems to be. However, that's not the same thing as a mechanism*.

We don't know if a brain produces consciousness like a generator, or traps it like a net, for example. And until we really do know these things, we shouldn't speak as if we do.

That's why I'm not interested in saying what my best guess is - this topic is full of supposed experts guessing away as if it meant something - and worse, insisting that their guesses must be true.

*And in the case of eating dinner, we do have a mechanism, which is well understood.

So it sounds like you want to say that a game of chess is really just a sequence of logical moves, and that it can be played without a board and pieces, etc. That the little carved wooden knights and pawns are just convenient placeholders for logical knights and pawns.

So let's say that we jettison the pieces, the board, even the players' bodies as inessential physical trappings. Now we just have two bare minds engaged in a game of chess and...wait. Can that work? Can a mind exist without a brain?
If a mind *can* exist without a brain (or some other physical substrate), then presumably our non-physical game of chess can take place. But now there's the problem of how these minds communicate (since they don't have mouths, or hands to sign with, or ears and eyes to receive the signals). If we're assuming non-physical minds, then I suppose we can assume telepathy, too, right?

Or better yet, let's say that one mind can just play both sides, since this prevents us from having to assume another improbable entity (like telepathy). But this raises another question: is single-player chess really chess? Is competition an essential part of the game? I would argue that it is, and that if anyone told you that he beat himself (or lost to himself!) in a game of chess then you would think he's confused or an idiot.

If, on the other hand, a mind *can't* exist without a brain, then it's safe to say that there are essential physical underpinnings that must be in place for a chess game to happen. If we strip away all the inessential parts, then we have two brains (physical substrates) with signalling apparatus (ears and mouths, buzzers for morse code, etc) and some sort of persistent memory to hold a shared game state (hard drive, paper and ink, neurons, board and pieces).

So, the physicalness of chess rests on the answer to the highlighted question above. And if we answer in the positive, then we still have problems of how non-physical minds can communicate, or whether single-player chess is really a game of chess, or merely...duh duh DUH...a simulation.

(I'm fully expecting a string of "tl;dr" responses.)

 

[Belz...]

Thermostat wept.

Who what ?

 

[Belz...]

But not to produce them.

Irrelevant. Perhaps we can understand consciousness better by simulating it.

You didn't address my claim.

You haven't shown that we can't understand consciousness through computer simulations. Your claim is unsupported and unwarranted. Why would I need to address it ?

It's clear that a game of chess cannot take place without some physical activity happening.

Same for consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

Some people are apparently able to play chess without boards or pieces. The 'game' is in the thinking.

And the thinking is physical. Imagine that !

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it seems to be. However, that's not the same thing as a mechanism*.

The whole damn subject of consciousness is one huge case of special pleading, apparently. Nothing is ever comparable to consciousness, somehow, and therefore no argument can ever apply to it.

 

[westprog]

So it sounds like you want to say that a game of chess is really just a sequence of logical moves, and that it can be played without a board and pieces, etc. That the little carved wooden knights and pawns are just convenient placeholders for logical knights and pawns.

So let's say that we jettison the pieces, the board, even the players' bodies as inessential physical trappings. Now we just have two bare minds engaged in a game of chess and...wait. Can that work? Can a mind exist without a brain?
If a mind *can* exist without a brain (or some other physical substrate), then presumably our non-physical game of chess can take place. But now there's the problem of how these minds communicate (since they don't have mouths, or hands to sign with, or ears and eyes to receive the signals). If we're assuming non-physical minds, then I suppose we can assume telepathy, too, right?

Or better yet, let's say that one mind can just play both sides, since this prevents us from having to assume another improbable entity (like telepathy). But this raises another question: is single-player chess really chess? Is competition an essential part of the game? I would argue that it is, and that if anyone told you that he beat himself (or lost to himself!) in a game of chess then you would think he's confused or an idiot.

If, on the other hand, a mind *can't* exist without a brain, then it's safe to say that there are essential physical underpinnings that must be in place for a chess game to happen. If we strip away all the inessential parts, then we have two brains (physical substrates) with signalling apparatus (ears and mouths, buzzers for morse code, etc) and some sort of persistent memory to hold a shared game state (hard drive, paper and ink, neurons, board and pieces).

So, the physicalness of chess rests on the answer to the highlighted question above. And if we answer in the positive, then we still have problems of how non-physical minds can communicate, or whether single-player chess is really a game of chess, or merely...duh duh DUH...a simulation.

(I'm fully expecting a string of "tl;dr" responses.)

The problem is that there is no particular physical interaction needed between the two minds. They can function without hearing or sight, for example. (This is even if we rule out single player chess, which is really a matter of definition).

So all we can say is that some physical means of communication must be there in order that the chess game can take place. But the game doesn't consist of the physical interactions.

 

[westprog]

Perhaps

I've never denied "perhaps". If RD and Pixy confined themselves to "perhaps" then there'd be little disagreement.

 

[tsig]

The whole damn subject of consciousness is one huge case of special pleading, apparently. Nothing is ever comparable to consciousness, somehow, and therefore no argument can ever apply to it.

Yes, If consciousness is nothing more than neurons firing then they're not 'special' anymore, god won't love them and they'll have to go in the back yard and eat worms.

 

[tsig]

Yes, it seems to be. However, that's not the same thing as a mechanism*.

We don't know if a brain produces consciousness like a generator, or traps it like a net, for example. And until we really do know these things, we shouldn't speak as if we do.

That's why I'm not interested in saying what my best guess is - this topic is full of supposed experts guessing away as if it meant something - and worse, insisting that their guesses must be true.

*And in the case of eating dinner, we do have a mechanism, which is well understood.

I think your net is full of holes. Where would this consciousness that we are trapping come from? How is it transmitted? What transmits it? Can other devices be made that could trap it?

 

[Philosaur]

The problem is that there is no particular physical interaction needed between the two minds.

Are you saying there would be some sort of non-physical interaction? Like telepathy?

They can function without hearing or sight, for example. (This is even if we rule out single player chess, which is really a matter of definition).

They can function, *maybe*. But they sure as hell can't play chess if they can't communicate with one another.

So all we can say is that some physical means of communication must be there in order that the chess game can take place. But the game doesn't consist of the physical interactions.

You can't just abstract away whatever parts of the game don't fit your theory, or I think you'll find that there is nothing left that can actually be considered the game.

 

[rocketdodger]

We don't know if a brain produces consciousness like a generator, or traps it like a net, for example. And until we really do know these things, we shouldn't speak as if we do.

Yeah lets just throw the last few thousand years of scientific progress out the window, eh?

I suppose if you had been alive 10,000 years ago westprog you would be arguing that when wood burns it is actually trapping the essence of fire -- like a net.

 

[Philosaur]

Yeah lets just throw the last few thousand years of scientific progress out the window, eh?

Yeah, I read the "traps it like a net" thing and had a double-take moment as well. I mean, since we don't know for certain, let's entertain any and all possibilities equally.

Maybe consciousness is an evil demon that infects otherwise healthy brains.

Maybe brains and minds are separate substances that just happen to be synchronized somehow, like Leibniz's monads (since there's no conceivable way for dual substances to interact).

Maybe the brain has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness.

 

[westprog]

I think your net is full of holes. Where would this consciousness that we are trapping come from? How is it transmitted? What transmits it? Can other devices be made that could trap it?

It's amusing that the constant rebuttal to "we don't know" is a list of questions. "We don't know" means "we don't know". You can't rule things out on the basis of ignorance. You can't define the limits of what consciousness might be based on not knowing how it works.

 

[westprog]

Are you saying there would be some sort of non-physical interaction? Like telepathy?

No, that's not what I said. The point I'm making is that almost any kind of physical interaction will do.

They can function, *maybe*. But they sure as hell can't play chess if they can't communicate with one another.



You can't just abstract away whatever parts of the game don't fit your theory, or I think you'll find that there is nothing left that can actually be considered the game.

I think that even when not played with ivory pieces on a wooden board, it's still chess.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Are you referring to a simulated/brain in a vat solipsism or an external real-world solipsism?

Both.

Thermostat wept.

Who what ?

Though it was funny myself.

 

[AlBell]

Are you referring to a simulated/brain in a vat solipsism or an external real-world solipsism?

Both.

Thermostat wept.

Who what ?

Though it was funny myself.

Me too.

ps. Dammit, Jim: it's 100% certain energy/matter exists.

 

[dlorde]

So all we can say is that some physical means of communication must be there in order that the chess game can take place. But the game doesn't consist of the physical interactions.

It requires information transfer, which requires physical interaction. Playing the game involves a series of physical interactions involving information transfer. Thinking requires physical interactions.