Has consciousness been fully explained?

[AlBell]

So physics is ultimately done at the level of language, not experience.

I'm not sure how this relates to being conscious. Animals with brains are conscious imo.

 

[!Kaggen]

So physics is ultimately done at the level of language, not experience.

Are you sure Robin?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6352021#post6352021

or are you saying we can have knowledge of baking a cherry pie without language but not knowledge of physics?

 

[Dancing David]

Possibly you don't know what it's like to think about a fish. Give it a try. The experience of what it is like to think about a fish is what I'm referring to.

Um, what i said before stands, you have taken a bunch of seperate events and lumped them under 'qualia'. Now that is a common kind of word usage but not very meaningful.

Knid of like the word 'moment'.

 

[nescafe]

All of physics is ultimately defined as the effect it has on the human consciousness. We know that electrons exist because of the experience we have of the green dots on the screen. No experience - no electrons.

That is one of the most asinine things I have seen on the R&P board. Physics is ultimately defined in terms of mathematics, but our definitions do not change or affect physics itself.

No electrons, no experience. The reverse is a ridiculous failure of logic.

 

[Aepervius]

That is a terrible example, because the hierarchy of how a PC game is 3D works is understood right down to the molecular level

And right down to the molecular level neuron works as compliucated organic chemistry, but it is all chemistry only.

We don't udnerstand the hirarchy the brain works on, and we made the 3D game. But imagine only getting the 3D game, and the basic function of the neuron/transistor correct, and anything more getting too complicated. This is what we are at.

Obviously, an operation like "turn this pixel red" involves the aggregation of many smaller steps. However, a hierarchy could be written out, and each of the steps, right down to the movement of electrons in the transistor, would be understood by physicists according to the quantum model. There are no unexplained gaps. The entire tree could be built up from simple interactions on the atomic scale.

You say that because you start with the finished product. And it is albeit a tad bit simpler. But really ma objection is that you think a physicist should be able to describe all steps of that. No he does not. He can describe precisely the ransistor, pixels,with some specialisation the elctronic, maybe the RAM and HDD, but the 3D game ? need a much more specialised domain. A physicist would only be able to superficially describe how the 3D game works.

And where on this diagram would personal experience go? From what would it be built up? It simply would not be there. There would be no components from which the creation of personal experience could be created. The light hitting the retina, the optic nerve impulse, the reflex loop, the signal to blink, the muscle contracting - all this could be analysed right down to the molecular level. There's nothing in there that's a mystery to physics. There's no elan vital, there's no distinction between organic and inorganic chemistry - it all works fine according to the laws of physics as we understand them. But - consciousness isn't there. It doesn't explain anything, and it's not explained by anything. No hierarchy can be built up except to say "this seems to happen and we don't know why".

It is a tad bit of argument by ignorance. Or a lack of definition of consciousness. Consciousness isn't magic as you seem to describe. There are complicated pathway working in parallel, looping, some not even interracting., and this summa4tion make the emergent process be the consciousness. That it is complicated don#t make it LESS a physical proceess and something magic. The fact is there are only physical process evidenced. That we can't go to have a detailed model to satisfy your apparent criterion does not make it less physical. I have actually even to QUESTION the concept of consciousness as you present it. You seem to think it is a single coherent self contained process. My udnestanding of people studying brain accident and partial lesion, is that it is a multitude of self correcting process working in parallel many interracting, some not. That big heap of process is what we call consciousness. I would probably think it more like a multitude of "consciousness" or brain process, and youa re seeing only the full results. Thnik of all that threading and various process having nothing to do with each other sometimes exchanging info in the 3D game. You see the final result the game and say it is a whole lote. I see it more deeper and say it is actually a set of process[/quote]

If it isn't understood in physical terms, it's not understood.

Again I think you are not seeing what we understand from the brain. On the physical process we udnerstand a lot more, as far as I understand, than what you let on. We are not able to udnerstand it all, true, but it isn't an utterly magic box either.


ETA: And in case you are wondering why I am writing much worse than usual, my damn cat stole my glasses and I can't see where they brought them. I am definitively blind typing, and withdrawing cat mint for a week as punishment.

 

[Robin]

I'm not sure how this relates to being conscious. Animals with brains are conscious imo.

Well why don't you go and read the context?

Animals with brains are also conscious in my opinion. In fact I know for a fact that a certain animal is conscious.

 

[Robin]

Are you sure Robin?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6352021#post6352021

or are you saying we can have knowledge of baking a cherry pie without language but not knowledge of physics?

What part of that do you have trouble with?

 

[westprog]

Right.

But when I read your paper it would be absurd to say - "this is westprog's experience". It is not, it is my experience of the words and numbers you have written.

So when I replicate your experiment I am not comparing my experience to yours - I am comparing my experience of the experiment to my experience of the words and numbers in your paper.

I might write up my replication and publish it and then a third party is reading it. But that third party has no access to your experience or mine - just our words and numbers.

So physics is ultimately done at the level of language, not experience.

Imagine the last man on Earth. He's working in a lab, doing experiments. Is that science?

Imagine he dies. Are all the science books around the world doing science?

The purpose of language is to communicate what one person's experience is to another person.

 

[AlBell]

I hope you get a better response than 'read the context'.

 

[Robin]

I hope you get a better response than 'read the context'.

What is wrong with "read the context"?

Do you expect me to repeat the context to save you 5 minutes of reading?

 

[Robin]

Imagine the last man on Earth. He's working in a lab, doing experiments. Is that science?

Deserves a longer answer than I have time for right now. I might accept he is doing science even though there was no possibility of independent replication.

But even he is doing it at the level of language. If he replicates one of his own experiments he is not comparing experience with experience - he is comparing his current experience with the notes of his previous experience.

Imagine he dies. Are all the science books around the world doing science?

They are not doing science, but they contain science.

Suppose an alien civilisation found and managed to translate these books - they would then have access to our science.

The purpose of language is to communicate what one person's experience is to another person.

Do you mean that a robot could never use language to communicate to a human or to another machine?

 

[westprog]

Um, what i said before stands, you have taken a bunch of seperate events and lumped them under 'qualia'. Now that is a common kind of word usage but not very meaningful.

Knid of like the word 'moment'.

Most words refer to more than one thing. If we could only name unique items then language wouldn't be very useful.

 

[westprog]

That is one of the most asinine things I have seen on the R&P board. Physics is ultimately defined in terms of mathematics, but our definitions do not change or affect physics itself.

No electrons, no experience. The reverse is a ridiculous failure of logic.

So how do you suggest finding out about electrons without any experience of the effects of electrons? Any suggestions?

I wish people would at least think a bit before handing out the abuse.

 

[Robin]

The purpose of language is to communicate what one person's experience is to another person.

Also, you can never communicate what your experience is to me.

When I read your words I don't get your experience. I get my experience of your words.

 

[westprog]

And right down to the molecular level neuron works as compliucated organic chemistry, but it is all chemistry only.

We don't udnerstand the hirarchy the brain works on, and we made the 3D game. But imagine only getting the 3D game, and the basic function of the neuron/transistor correct, and anything more getting too complicated. This is what we are at.


You say that because you start with the finished product. And it is albeit a tad bit simpler. But really ma objection is that you think a physicist should be able to describe all steps of that. No he does not. He can describe precisely the ransistor, pixels,with some specialisation the elctronic, maybe the RAM and HDD, but the 3D game ? need a much more specialised domain. A physicist would only be able to superficially describe how the 3D game works.

So? There's no limit to how deeply he can understand the process. It's just a matter of how hard he studies it. In any case, nothing happens in the game which isn't a fully understood physical process.

It is a tad bit of argument by ignorance. Or a lack of definition of consciousness. Consciousness isn't magic as you seem to describe. There are complicated pathway working in parallel, looping, some not even interracting., and this summa4tion make the emergent process be the consciousness. That it is complicated don#t make it LESS a physical proceess and something magic. The fact is there are only physical process evidenced. That we can't go to have a detailed model to satisfy your apparent criterion does not make it less physical. I have actually even to QUESTION the concept of consciousness as you present it. You seem to think it is a single coherent self contained process. My udnestanding of people studying brain accident and partial lesion, is that it is a multitude of self correcting process working in parallel many interracting, some not. That big heap of process is what we call consciousness. I would probably think it more like a multitude of "consciousness" or brain process, and youa re seeing only the full results. Thnik of all that threading and various process having nothing to do with each other sometimes exchanging info in the 3D game. You see the final result the game and say it is a whole lote. I see it more deeper and say it is actually a set of process

You can say whatever you like about what you think consciousness is, but you don't know what it is. Just saying that it's a lot of complicated things going on doesn't add up to anything. If you don't know what it is, then you can't insist that it is or is not anything in particular.

It's ignorance that I insist on. I refute the claim that we know about this stuff.

Again I think you are not seeing what we understand from the brain. On the physical process we udnerstand a lot more, as far as I understand, than what you let on. We are not able to udnerstand it all, true, but it isn't an utterly magic box either.


ETA: And in case you are wondering why I am writing much worse than usual, my damn cat stole my glasses and I can't see where they brought them. I am definitively blind typing, and withdrawing cat mint for a week as punishment.

I hope you find 'em soon - for both our sakes. That's why I keep spare pairs of glasses all over the house.

 

[westprog]

Deserves a longer answer than I have time for right now. I might accept he is doing science even though there was no possibility of independent replication.

But even he is doing it at the level of language. If he replicates one of his own experiments he is not comparing experience with experience - he is comparing his current experience with the notes of his previous experience.

Maybe he's got a good memory and it's a simple experiment. IMO that's still science.

They are not doing science, but they contain science.

I suppose that this is a tree-falling-in-forest thing, but if nobody's reading them, how can they be said to have information?

Suppose an alien civilisation found and managed to translate these books - they would then have access to our science.

I just removed all the aliens from the universe, forever.

Do you mean that a robot could never use language to communicate to a human or to another machine?

That's a possibly deep question. Certainly people can get information from inanimate objects.

 

[westprog]

Also, you can never communicate what your experience is to me.

When I read your words I don't get your experience. I get my experience of your words.

Science is about repeatable experiences. Art is about unique but communicable experiences.

 

[Piggy]

But what do you mean by "consciousness exists"?

Do you mean that it has existence as sort of substance?

Or do you just mean "consciousness happens"?

Well, both, when you get right down to it.

Certainly it happens. There can be no doubt about that.

And since energy is undoubtedly involved, and there must be certain massive structures allowing it to happen, you could argue that it has substance as well.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why should consciousness not be defined as the interaction of a brain and its environment? Take away either - no consciousness.

That's tautological. Without an environment, the brain is dead.

Beyond that, what precisely is it about the environment that is a necessary component or factor in consciousness, and why?

Still waiting for an answer to my previous questions, by the way.

 

[PixyMisa]

So? There's no limit to how deeply he can understand the process. It's just a matter of how hard he studies it. In any case, nothing happens in the game which isn't a fully understood physical process.

That's not entirely true; however, the important point is that there is absolutely no difference in this respect between a computer game and a human mind.

You can say whatever you like about what you think consciousness is, but you don't know what it is.

Yeah, we do.

Just saying that it's a lot of complicated things going on doesn't add up to anything.

Strawman.

If you don't know what it is, then you can't insist that it is or is not anything in particular.

But if we do - and we do - then we can. So your argument is without a point, really.

It's ignorance that I insist on.

Yes, we noticed. You can't enforce that upon others, though.

I refute the claim that we know about this stuff.

As I said, you can't enforce your personal ignorance upon others. We know things.