I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

"The nature of experience and existence" is a useful phrase. Entirely meaningless, but it sounds impressive.

Yes it could be argued that they are meaningless. But unfortunately they refer to two phenomena which are undeniable. Deny all you like, they exist, they are out there.

Why, yes. Making up things that don't exist and pretending that things can't be explained is irrational.

And usually incoherent.

Well that's cleared that up then. Remember those blinkers I kept referring to?

And you have no basis for this.

Show consciousness absent these conditions?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

since there are no other explanations which succeed, his claim that consciousness requires biologic metabolism is reasonable - until some such other explanation is developed

I was objecting only to the irreducible, unexplained part. Certainly mind is hosted by a biological brain.

I am referring to cellular life, specifically. Look at all living things on the planet (except for a few very primitive "living" things like viruses), they are all cells and groups of cells cooperating, they may even have, all come from one cell, in the beginning.

OK. So, let's start with chemotaxis. Do you consider that a form of consciousness?

This brings us to another issue I have not raised yet. That consciousness is produced by a physical material and its electrochemical interactions in three dimensional space. Whereas to simulate this interaction, firstly would require a three dimensional modelling and secondly would probably require some kind of simulation of an existence.

I am guessing that by simulating existence you might mean reproducing the two-way feedback loop between senses and brain? Or something else? (My position in this regard is that brains require senses and a nervous system to produce the experiential phenomenon of consciousness.)

One would be required to define self-consciousness precisely before being able to determine which advanced animals have it.

And there's the rub! Definitions are really key to this discussion, which is why on occasion I've asked for some.

"Consciousness, awareness, subjective experience, 'soul,' inner life"... these are all words in the lexicon, but they need to be circumscribed by working definitions or scientific discussion suffers.

 

[MRC_Hans]

By referring to a glossing over of these issues, I don't mean they are not considered a part of human consciousness. But rather that their philosophical implications, such as the possibility of idealism, or a soul or a god, are simply dismissed as fairy tales, as all is physical matter as described by science now and all the fairy tales and nonsense such as philosophy are now obsolete.

They are dismissed as assertions. There are no objective evidence for souls and gods. Science is not a life philosophy, it is a working method. A working method that seeks objective evidence. Anything for which no objective evidence exists is out of the realm of science, and into the realm of philosophy. Philosophy is not obsolete, it is just not science.

I make it because, "entire being" includes a living organism. If it is in any way not functioning as a living organism, there is no way it can be conscious.

An entirely unfounded assertion. You think it cannot be conscious, but you have presented no evidence what so ever for it.

Or an automaton, cleverly designed (by us) to entertain us and create the illusion in our minds that it is conscious.

How will you distinguish between them?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

One would be required to define self-consciousness precisely before being able to determine which advanced animals have it.

And here is your problem: Any definition we choose to make will be arbitrary. This means that no definition can objectively be said to be better than any other.

Definitions of consciousness are made to suit a specific purpose: Define a human, define which animals need protection against suffering, etc.

These things are the only meaningful use of such definitions.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

By referring to a glossing over of these issues, I don't mean they are not considered a part of human consciousness. But rather that their philosophical implications, such as the possibility of idealism, or a soul or a god, are simply dismissed as fairy tales, as all is physical matter as described by science now and all the fairy tales and nonsense such as philosophy are now obsolete.

Yup. Souls don't exist, gods don't exist, idealism is irrational and incoherent, and all of the above are silly fairy tales that rely on people not actually thinking things through. They are entirely obsolete.

Not liking it doesn't make it any less true.

If it is in any way not functioning as a living organism, there is no way it can be conscious.

Yes, you have asserted this many times.

You have yet to provide any actual argument for it.

This brings us to another issue I have not raised yet. That consciousness is produced by a physical material and its electrochemical interactions in three dimensional space. Whereas to simulate this interaction, firstly would require a three dimensional modelling and secondly would probably require some kind of simulation of an existence.

This is gibberish. I don't doubt that you do have an actual point you're trying to convey here, but this is completely unreadable.

Yes it could be argued that they are meaningless. But unfortunately they refer to two phenomena which are undeniable. Deny all you like, they exist, they are out there.

So it's a meaningless phrase, but it exists.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Show consciousness absent these conditions?

Show that there is any sort of requirement for it.

Computation requires a complex system to be in place, but it doesn't care what that system is made out of. Of course we would initially observe all instances of it to be biological in origin; biological evolution is the only method that will result in such complex systems (relatively) quickly and reliably. That the first computers to produce it are biological in nature does not alter the fact that it is computational in nature.

And, again, we know it's computational in nature. Literally every piece of evidence there is supports that. And there isn't even a coherent idea of how it could not be, other than "it's magic".

Magic tends to lose.

 

[punshhh]

I was objecting only to the irreducible, unexplained part. Certainly mind is hosted by a biological brain.

I have already pointed out that the irreducible part is the living cell. This does not mean that the cell cannot be dissected and each process understood. But that consciousness(as my definition) cannot be reduced further in organisms.

OK. So, let's start with chemotaxis. Do you consider that a form of consciousness?

Not in isolation.

I am guessing that by simulating existence you might mean reproducing the two-way feedback loop between senses and brain? Or something else? (My position in this regard is that brains require senses and a nervous system to produce the experiential phenomenon of consciousness.)

I was specifically referring to a simulation of the entire chemical structure of a cell as a 3 dimensional(holographically modelled) simulation within the computation. In respect of existence, I am referring to some way of representing a material presence*. As I am suggesting a material basis for consciousness.

And there's the rub! Definitions are really key to this discussion, which is why on occasion I've asked for some.

Yes, I am happy to give definitions.

"Consciousness, awareness, subjective experience, 'soul,' inner life"... these are all words in the lexicon, but they need to be circumscribed by working definitions or scientific discussion suffers.

Quite.

* the pseudo idealists are going to love this.

 

[punshhh]

They are dismissed as assertions. There are no objective evidence for souls and gods. Science is not a life philosophy, it is a working method. A working method that seeks objective evidence. Anything for which no objective evidence exists is out of the realm of science, and into the realm of philosophy. Philosophy is not obsolete, it is just not science.

Agreed. Materialism is a philosophy, among other philosophical stances. It cannot, within philosophy, become militant and turn on all other philosophical stances, labelling them as nonsense, meaningless, incoherent. That is not philosophy, it is dogmatism.

An entirely unfounded assertion. You think it cannot be conscious, but you have presented no evidence what so ever for it.

Well if it is not functioning as it is designed (by the organism which gave birth to it), it is not conscious, as consciousness is a phenomena of a fully functioning organism(I was specifically referring to human self-consciousness in that case).

How will you distinguish between them?

This cannot be done in specimens designed by human hands, which is why one should work from the bottom up in experiment. Which is what I was pointing out to Nonpareil.

 

[punshhh]

And here is your problem: Any definition we choose to make will be arbitrary. This means that no definition can objectively be said to be better than any other.

Definitions of consciousness are made to suit a specific purpose: Define a human, define which animals need protection against suffering, etc.

These things are the only meaningful use of such definitions.

Hans

Yes, which is why I suggested a human specimen as a control. On the assumption that we can only work from the bottom up. Whatever is produced in the experiment would then be compared with the control.

As such we can only reasonably presume the level of consciousness in the mechanism produced when it contains the same processes* as the control(in their entirety).


*As it is not currently known what processes (specifically) in the human body that result in conscious experience. We cannot rule out any processes.

 

[punshhh]

Yup. Souls don't exist, gods don't exist, idealism is irrational and incoherent, and all of the above are silly fairy tales that rely on people not actually thinking things through. They are entirely obsolete.

The doctrine of St Nonpareil.

Not liking it doesn't make it any less true.

Remember I pointed out that truth is a subjective concept.

This is gibberish. I don't doubt that you do have an actual point you're trying to convey here, but this is completely unreadable.

It was addressed to someone else. Let me address it to you. In the perfect mimic which happens to be synthetic, presumably will be found a comprehensive simulation of the brain of the control? Or it would be an imperfect mimic.

This still has the problem of not including any physical representation of the molecules found in the brain of the control. As such the consciousness may be entirely virtual and not self-conscious.

So it's a meaningless phrase, but it exists.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I see you are still in denial that anything exists outside the mind(which may not be understood) which can be referred to as an object with words. To you the words exist a priori to the object which they refer to and if an object does not compute in words, it cannot exist. It's blinkers all the way down.

Show that there is any sort of requirement for it.

Look at any living organism which is conscious, for example the control.

Computation requires a complex system to be in place, but it doesn't care what that system is made out of. Of course we would initially observe all instances of it to be biological in origin; biological evolution is the only method that will result in such complex systems (relatively) quickly and reliably. That the first computers to produce it are biological in nature does not alter the fact that it is computational in nature.

Agreed, but it has not been established that consciousness in the control is as a result of the computation(in which a neuron is a bit in the computation).

And, again, we know it's computational in nature. Literally every piece of evidence there is supports that. And there isn't even a coherent idea of how it could not be, other than "it's magic".

The evidence is insufficient. It has been assumed that the control can be reduced to its internal processes and then a replica can be produced using some of these processes and it will have the same level of consciousness as the control.

Magic tends to lose.

I told you that magic is straw.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have already pointed out that the irreducible part is the living cell. This does not mean that the cell cannot be dissected and each process understood. But that consciousness(as my definition) cannot be reduced further in organisms.

No, you are not pointing it out, You are claiming it. Entirely without any foundation. If you insist on making these unfounded assertions instead of arguments, I am forced to conclude that you are not worth my time.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Agreed. Materialism is a philosophy, among other philosophical stances.

No. You do not agree with that, because that was not what I said. Materialism is a thesis, based on science. It is no more a philosophy than athesism is a religion.

It cannot, within philosophy, become militant and turn on all other philosophical stances, labelling them as nonsense, meaningless, incoherent. That is not philosophy, it is dogmatism.

It does not. It labels them as unscientific and without evidence. It can do that, because it is true.

Well if it is not functioning as it is designed (by the organism which gave birth to it), it is not conscious, as consciousness is a phenomena of a fully functioning organism(I was specifically referring to human self-consciousness in that case).

Another blank assertion.

This cannot be done in specimens designed by human hands, which is why one should work from the bottom up in experiment. Which is what I was pointing out to Nonpareil.

Another blank assertion.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, which is why I suggested a human specimen as a control. On the assumption that we can only work from the bottom up. Whatever is produced in the experiment would then be compared with the control.

The most complexly evolved consciousness we know of can hardly be called bottom up.

As such we can only reasonably presume the level of consciousness in the mechanism produced when it contains the same processes* as the control(in their entirety).

Then I suggest we start with a considerably simpler template.

*As it is not currently known what processes (specifically) in the human body that result in conscious experience. We cannot rule out any processes.

Wrong. There is a number of processes we can safely rule out.

Hans

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'd suggest that for such a discussion one needs to create a hierarchy of observed behavior that we could agree to use to define mental activity.

The reason I have mentioned chemotaxis is because it is the earliest and simplest method for 'blind' decision-making: chemical gradients external to a simple single-celled organism lead to a reaction inside the cell that fires motility, with the cilia steering away from 'bad' things and toward food. This is the base or simplest form of agency, and can be seen at work in all life forms, plant or animal. Yet it would be a real stretch to call this rote reaction "consciousness." It is barely distinguishable from lifeless, non-organic chemical reactions.

Moving up the chain of life, so to speak, we get increasing complexity until at some point, memory is involved in processing, then networks of motor neurons tied to stored memories of past actions for rapid response, and so on.

When do we say we have a conscious agent? That is the question, and focusing on the simplest form of one would advance discussion.

 

[punshhh]

No, you are not pointing it out, You are claiming it. Entirely without any foundation. If you insist on making these unfounded assertions instead of arguments, I am forced to conclude that you are not worth my time.

Just take a look at all examples of self-consciousness and all examples of primitive consciousness in the empirical data. What do they have in common?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Just take a look at all examples of self-consciousness and all examples of primitive consciousness in the empirical data. What do they have in common?

What you ever heard of white swans and the fact that there are no black swans? You are committing the induction error in some sense. It doesn't follow with strong logic that because so far only life forms have shown consciousness that it will be so for the future.

1. Only biological life forms have so far shown consciousness.
2. It can't be any different because by my thinking it can't be otherwise.

#2 is a case of magical thinking, because it requires that it is my thinking which causes/determines what consciousness is. I.e. if I think that a computer can't be conscious, it is how I think which causes/determines the fact, that computers can't be conscious.
That is what you are claiming. How you think decides that a computer can't be conscious, because according to your thinking that is not possible.

 

[punshhh]

No. You do not agree with that, because that was not what I said. Materialism is a thesis, based on science. It is no more a philosophy than athesism is a religion.

I agreed with what you said about science and then I said something about materialism. Fine I can work with your definition of materialism. This being the case, it is blind to philosophical considerations. Or at least is ill-equipped to address them. It is a great approach to investigating objective reality as we find it and should confine its attention to assessing the empirical data. It falls flat on its face when it addresses issues of existence, as the science it is based on is blind to anything beyond the next experiment. Or to what we ought to do.

It does not. It labels them as unscientific and without evidence. It can do that, because it is true.

It does on occasion on this forum. Yes, other philosophies such as idealism are not scientific and have little verifiable objective evidence, there is evidence in other forms and there is the differing interpretations of evidence which fit rational philosophies.

Another blank assertion.

I am making an observation, it may be assertion in some respects. Just make a few observations of dis-functional organisms. For example a person with a defunct brain.

Another blank assertion.

I have given some thought to the process of distinguishing between the control and automata made by humans. I can see no way it can be done, because the ability to make a convincing automaton in the image of the control may outstrip any attempts to make the distinction between the two. Also the constructer of the automaton is an example of the control and may conflate the two.

 

[Nonpareil]

I have already pointed out that the irreducible part is the living cell. This does not mean that the cell cannot be dissected and each process understood. But that consciousness(as my definition) cannot be reduced further in organisms.

Your definition is nonsense and your claim that it cannot be reduced further in organisms is a sudden, dramatic step backwards from saying that it cannot be reduced further at all.

We don't care what you build the computer out of in an organic system. You can necessarily reproduce the computation on a non-organic computer.

I was specifically referring to a simulation of the entire chemical structure of a cell as a 3 dimensional(holographically modelled) simulation within the computation.

Which is fine, if you want a specific representation of that instance of consciousness.

We don't care which type of consciousness our hypothetical computer produces.

Agreed. Materialism is a philosophy, among other philosophical stances. It cannot, within philosophy, become militant and turn on all other philosophical stances, labelling them as nonsense, meaningless, incoherent. That is not philosophy, it is dogmatism.

Materialism isn't turning on anything.

Rationalism is.

This cannot be done in specimens designed by human hands

Yes, you have said this before.

You are wrong.

Yes, which is why I suggested a human specimen as a control.

That isn't what "control" means.

As such we can only reasonably presume the level of consciousness in the mechanism produced when it contains the same processes* as the control(in their entirety).

*As it is not currently known what processes (specifically) in the human body that result in conscious experience. We cannot rule out any processes.

Yes, we can.

Because we know that the ones producing it are computational.

The doctrine of St Nonpareil.

Well, I can't take all the credit. It's a hand-me-down from all the preceding rationalists. If you have to canonize somebody, though, I would recommend Mistress Esmerelda Weatherwax:

"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."
- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

Remember I pointed out that truth is a subjective concept.

No, you asserted that.

And you were wrong.

In the perfect mimic which happens to be synthetic, presumably will be found a comprehensive simulation of the brain of the control? Or it would be an imperfect mimic.

We aren't trying to create human consciousness. Just consciousness.

I see you are still in denial that anything exists outside the mind(which may not be understood) which can be referred to as an object with words. To you the words exist a priori to the object which they refer to and if an object does not compute in words, it cannot exist. It's blinkers all the way down.

You really don't understand a single thing I've said to you, do you?

Look at any living organism which is conscious, for example the control.

Which is not what I asked for.

Agreed, but it has not been established that consciousness in the control is as a result of the computation(in which a neuron is a bit in the computation).

Yes, it has.

Not liking it doesn't change it.

Yes, other philosophies such as idealism are not scientific and have little verifiable objective evidence, there is evidence in other forms and there is the differing interpretations of evidence which fit rational philosophies.

There is no evidence for idealism under any framework.

There are, however, quite a lot of people trying to pretend there is.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Just take a look at all examples of self-consciousness and all examples of primitive consciousness in the empirical data. What do they have in common?

No. I don't know if YOU are that silly, but I'm not. Of course, we have until now only observed consciousness in life-forms. That does not, however, lead to the conclusion that only life-forms can be conscious.

I'm sure you know this.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I agreed with what you said about science and then I said something about materialism. Fine I can work with your definition of materialism. This being the case, it is blind to philosophical considerations. Or at least is ill-equipped to address them.

It is not MEANT to deal with philosophy, just as piano lessons will not theach you to drive a car.

It is a great approach to investigating objective reality as we find it and should confine its attention to assessing the empirical data. It falls flat on its face when it addresses issues of existence, as the science it is based on is blind to anything beyond the next experiment.

Wrong. Science, and hence materialism, is capable of, and justified in, inferring about the world, based on our present knowledge.

Yes, other philosophies such as idealism are not scientific and have little verifiable objective evidence,

Correct that to zero objective evidence.

there is evidence in other forms and

No. There is only objective evidence. All else is conjecture.

there is the differing interpretations of evidence which fit rational philosophies.

No, they may fit philosophies, but not rationally. Philosophy is, per definition, not rational. It may be credible, but not rational.

I am making an observation, it may be assertion in some respects. Just make a few observations of dis-functional organisms. For example a person with a defunct brain.

You are making an assertion, period.

Hans

 

[MuDPhuD]

*my position is that there is an intrinsic quality of a living organism which results in a living, animated conscious experience as experienced by a human, along with all other lifeforms in more simplified forms depending on their complexity.

That this quality results from a metabolic process which cannot be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the particles found in the cell, in the absence of the entire mix of electrochemical homeostasis within the cell.

This reduces consciousness to a physical chemical process, which probably can't be simulated sufficiently to create the same quality as experienced by a living organism.

Self-consciousness is a quality of complex nervous systems like that in primates, which requires a computation in a mind(reason) which works in a logical way rather like the processing performed by computers.

So your "self consciousness" is the experience of sensing, remembering, feeling, acting,; the experience of being an individual with a past, a present, perhaps a future, that gives us as humans a rich mental life, an experience of having a mind?

I do not know what you mean when you say "animated conscious experience...experienced by all lifeforms", which "results from a metabolic process which cannot be reduced".