I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[MRC_Hans]

We are consciousness.

Human consciousness specifically, but generally we are consciousness.

Our consciousness makes what we are, but we are not it. Basically, consciousness is a property of humans, not the other way around.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

My view is that it is organisms which have consciousness. This is derived from observations that the only structures which have the various qualities associated with consciousness are biological organisms. This does not say that non biological structures can have these qualities, but that there is something about an organism, the way it is composed, the way it is animated that results in these qualities and an equivalent may be required for other structures to be conscious.

If one observes these organisms, the one unit of importance and which is present in all (except a very small number on the periphery) organisms is the cell and with a virtually identical form in all cases.

Again, this is the same as assuming that flight requires a biological framework because airplanes haven't been invented yet.

We know what results in consciousness. It does not require a biological framework. Biological processes are simply the only ones that are likely to result in it without outside intervention.

Yes, we as humans have an emergent quality, the quality of mind, this enables us to have self-awareness, subjective awareness, knowledge, intellect etc. This is the mind and cannot be reduced to the material of the brain.

Because it is brain activity.

For example, the thought " Freuds folly" and it's connotations are not represented in the brain by a common molecular or atomic combination in different brains.

It is, however, represented in the brain by a certain combination of neurochemical states.

This has been proven. It is not debatable.

Yes an AI can in theory represent abstract subjects like this and process all the connotations. But they are not necessarily anything more than an automaton, a congregation of toasters, when they do it and crucially, they are not aware that they are doing it, they have no knowledge of it, or what they are doing, they have no intellectual perspective on it, they have no mind.

You have no grounds on which to claim this.

Yes, I have offered a modified definition of consciousness. This is because the definition used around here and in academic circles( that I have come across) is rather archaic and fails to distinguish between aspects of thinking and the biological basis of thought and awareness. Or to accept that there is an entity, a being with experience and the phenomena of mind, independent in its specific contents from the brain.

That would be because there isn't. The mind comes from the brain.

It is alive and has the capacity to interact with its environment as an entity.

That is not what "consciousness" means.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Again, this is the same as assuming that flight requires a biological framework because airplanes haven't been invented yet.

Exactly. According to punshhh's logic, until 1904, flight required a biological framework.

Hans

 

[Hlafordlaes]

It is no more consciousness than a single NAND-gate is a computer.

Hans

Agreed, and I hope the reading of my text yields that impression.

There was a Nobel Prize for when tracking neural complexity to observed behavior led to revealing studies of implicit memory in a snail. I haven't gotten there yet in my reading, though.

Imagine, not being able to catch up to slugs. Life, in the slow lane.

 

[punshhh]

It really doesn't.

Quite, and there is no issue of mimics fashioned by humans to fulfil their notion of consciousness, being conscious. They are conscious because they were constructed specifically to perform externally observed behaviours. In this case a ventriloquist's dummy can be conscious.

It's rationality all the way down now.

You have no basis for this.

My conclusion that a cell is a requirement for consciousness is at least as strong as your conclusion that a level of computation is a requirement for consciousness.

You have no basis for making this distinction.

I am simply pointing out that mind, is not consciousness. I have repeatedly done this and provided the evidence* for this and you have not addressed it. I agree that mind and consciousness are required for self-consciousness.

If it fits the definition of self-conscious, whatever that might be, then yes.

if it's not a mimic, or ventriloquists dummy.

Read.

This is the definition I gave to you a few pages back. As I said in this case a control would be a human, in the absence of a full understanding of self-consciousness.

Pffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha

oh yes, woo woo.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away."
- Philip K. Dick

Oh yes, so when one stops believing that computers can be conscious, they don't go away? In this case, they are nothing more than an abacus. It is your belief which elevates them to the level experienced by a living organism, such as our control.

Truth statements must be valid from every frame of reference, or they are not actually true.

That they also can seem true to someone does not change this.

Statements are a language between beholders, hence subjects. We are talking objects here, not subjects.

Yes.

And you're still wrong.

So you are happy to fly in the face of primary knowledge now. Presumably on your broom stick playing quidditch.

"True appearance" is a meaningless phrase if there is no situation, anywhere, ever, under any circumstance, where the difference is distinguishable.

So what, humans are limited, why do you presume they can distinguish between appearances and reality?

Again, this is the same as assuming that flight requires a biological framework because airplanes haven't been invented yet.

It does for flight to be known about.

We know what results in consciousness. It does not require a biological framework. Biological processes are simply the only ones that are likely to result in it without outside intervention.

Yes and where is your example?

Because it is brain activity.

In a human, brain activity is required for our level of consciousness, ie self-consciousness. Along with the metabolic life as I have pointed out.

It is, however, represented in the brain by a certain combination of neurochemical states.

Only in an individual brain, in another person who understands the phrase, it takes an entirely different neurochemical state. The state is arbitrary, it is the entity of the mind where the understanding occurs. This requires a beholder, a living organism.

This has been proven. It is not debatable.

It is arbitrary.

You have no grounds on which to claim this.

They are an abacus, how does an abacus know the sum it is adding?

That would be because there isn't. The mind comes from the brain.

this is not in dispute. The mind comes from the brain. The mind is the thing which resembles a computer, in its processing. The consciousness is a state in the body, ie metabolic, it is not the mind*.

That is not what "consciousness" means.

Yes, I accept that my definition is novel one. If by "consciousness" you mean the "self-consciousness"
experienced by a human, I agree.


*The mind is a recent development in evolutionary terms. This is not in dispute.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

They are an abacus, how does an abacus know the sum it is adding?

The million dollar question in any discussion of consciousness and awareness. A finite-state machine can produce text similar to English using second-order word approximation, but lacks yet the ability to take the next step and use meaning to form sentences. (Machine translation today uses pattern matching, not semantic processing, occasional appearances to the contrary.)

My working guess is that upon encountering references, biological minds replay neural networks that either recall personal experience (impact of prior encounter on the agent in question) or actually fire chemical body responses that were part of past association with the stimulus. It is this ability to chemically live and relive the physical world that provides the qualia of consciousness, and the foundation of meaning. Maybe.

 

[punshhh]

The million dollar question in any discussion of consciousness and awareness. A finite-state machine can produce text similar to English using second-order word approximation, but lacks yet the ability to take the next step and use meaning to form sentences. (Machine translation today uses pattern matching, not semantic processing, occasional appearances to the contrary.)

My working guess is that upon encountering references, biological minds replay neural networks that either recall personal experience (impact of prior encounter on the agent in question) or actually fire chemical body responses that were part of past association with the stimulus. It is this ability to chemically live and relive the physical world that provides the qualia of consciousness, and the foundation of meaning. Maybe.

Yes, qualia is physical, even reliving memories is physical. The brain is not simulating these physical processes in computation and likewise a computer like a brain would not be simulating these processes either.
I like your phrase "fire chemical body responses". A chemical reaction is in a sense a burning, fire, combustion. Electricity is another kind of burning, or fire.
The cell utilises both in its metabolism. Both are physical.

 

[tsig]

Yes, qualia is physical, even reliving memories is physical. The brain is not simulating these physical processes in computation and likewise a computer like a brain would not be simulating these processes either.
I like your phrase "fire chemical body responses". A chemical reaction is in a sense a burning, fire, combustion. Electricity is another kind of burning, or fire.The cell utilises both in its metabolism. Both are physical.

You must have a mighty poor electrician.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

You must have a mighty poor electrician.

Maybe of the kind who likes to attach leads to each end of a #2 pencil and then go plug in the cord? (My misspent youth is showing, ahem.)

 

[Nonpareil]

They are conscious because they were constructed specifically to perform externally observed behaviours.

No, they are conscious because they were constructed specifically to perform all behaviors associated with consciousness, whether or not those are easily observable from outside.

In this case a ventriloquist's dummy can be conscious.

It's rationality all the way down now.

You don't understand a single thing I've said to you.

My conclusion that a cell is a requirement for consciousness is at least as strong as your conclusion that a level of computation is a requirement for consciousness.

You can say this, but it still isn't true.

I am simply pointing out that mind, is not consciousness. I have repeatedly done this

No, you have repeatedly asserted this.

You have never, ever provided any sort of evidence for it, or even a coherent distinction between the two.

and provided the evidence* for this

*The mind is a recent development in evolutionary terms. This is not in dispute.

Which, aside from not actually being evidence, is wrong.

Creatures with minds and self-consciousness have existed since the first animals. What is new is intelligence.

This is the definition I gave to you a few pages back.

Yes, and you failed to understand it.

There is no "control" for an experiment in which we attempt to create consciousness. We are not attempting to differentiate between two altered states of consciousness.

Oh yes, so when one stops believing that computers can be conscious, they don't go away? In this case, they are nothing more than an abacus. It is your belief which elevates them to the level experienced by a living organism, such as our control.

No. It is the evidence.

Statements are a language between beholders, hence subjects. We are talking objects here, not subjects.

Pointless word games.

So you are happy to fly in the face of primary knowledge now. Presumably on your broom stick playing quidditch.

You can try to call it "primary knowledge" all you want.

You're still wrong.

So what, humans are limited, why do you presume they can distinguish between appearances and reality?

If there is no difference between the appearance and reality, the appearance is reality.

This has nothing to do with human limitations. That's what reality means.

It does for flight to be known about.

So?

Yes and where is your example?

The human brain. Which is a computer.

In a human, brain activity is required for our level of consciousness, ie self-consciousness. Along with the metabolic life as I have pointed out.

If you turn a computer off, it stops computing.

Only in an individual brain, in another person who understands the phrase, it takes an entirely different neurochemical state.

Which is irrelevant. And wrong.

We already have the ability to decode visual signals in brain states across whatever brain you care to hook up to the machine. There may be slight variation from brain to brain, but nothing that radically changes the nature of the machine.

The state is arbitrary

This is a completely unwarranted conclusion even if the above were not demonstrably true. All we could draw from that would be that the wiring between brains varies wildly, not that they are not computers or that everything happening in there is meaningless.

They are an abacus, how does an abacus know the sum it is adding?

That's the big question. I point you again to Koch and integrated information theory.

The consciousness is a state in the body, ie metabolic.

You keep saying this.

It keeps on being wrong.

Yes, I accept that my definition is novel one.

Because it is both very, very silly and very, very wrong.

 

[MuDPhuD]

My view is that it is organisms which have consciousness. This is derived from observations that the only structures which have the various qualities associated with consciousness are biological organisms.

Please list the "various qualities associated with consciousness".
1.
2.
3.
Etc.

 

[Navigator]

Our consciousness makes what we are, but we are not it. Basically, consciousness is a property of humans, not the other way around.

Hans

Since when does the house own the builder?

Is it not better to understand that the builder and the house are one and the same and thus indistinguishable?

The house builds itself.

Thus the house does not own the builder of the house. Humans are not the property of consciousness. Consciousness is not the property of humans.

A human and a human’s consciousness is the same thing.

I think perhaps you are saying that the human body is the human and consciousness is a property of that body?

But if that were the case then, by saying that ‘consciousness makes us what we are’ you are saying that consciousness makes the human body, which of course you are most likely not at all wanting to suggest.

Can you reword it to better exemplify what you are trying to say?

 

[punshhh]

I wonder if you might think on this:

"Yes, we as humans have an emergent quality, the quality of mind, this enables us to have self-awareness, subjective awareness, knowledge, intellect etc."

We are that which is self awareness, subjective awareness.

We don't have that, we are that. The quality of mind enables us to experience what we are though that process and by that we gain experience, knowledge,intellect, understanding etc.

We are consciousness.

Human consciousness specifically, but generally we are consciousness.

We have the ability to look at other non human consciousnesses and understand that these are equally as important as our own and worthy of respect for that.

Hi Navigator

I understand the perspective on consciousness you are proposing. Essentially I agree, but I would present a more comprehensive and analytical approach.

Your position is similar to the idealist position we are discussing. With I presume a distinction between consciousness as primary rather than mind as primary.

My position is that neither consciousness, or mind is primary, but rather something equivalent to atman*, or monad**.

I agree that consciousness, mind, being are a triad, in the sense that they are each and all what we are as a manifest being, but that we may also have a monad. Whether, if we do have a monad, conscious being is possible without a monad, is another question to what we are discussing here.


*From wiki,"Atman (/ˈɑːtmən/; Sanskrit: आत्मन्, IAST: Ātman) is a Sanskrit word that means 'inner-self' or 'soul'. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[1] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman".


**From wiki,"Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "unit" from μόνος monos, "alone"),[1] according to the Pythagoreans, was a term for Divinity or the first being, or the totality of all beings,[2] Monad being the source or the One meaning without division.

For the Pythagoreans, the generation of number series was related to objects of geometry as well as cosmogony.[3] According to Diogenes Laertius, from the monad evolved the dyad; from it numbers; from numbers, points; then lines, two-dimensional entities, three-dimensional entities, bodies, culminating in the four elements earth, water, fire and air, from which the rest of our world is built up".

 

[Nonpareil]

I understand the perspective on consciousness you are proposing. Essentially I agree, but I would present a more comprehensive and analytical approach.

By which you apparently mean attempting to argue for the existence of nonsensical, unsupported entities that have been long since discarded as the purest fantasy.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, qualia is physical, even reliving memories is physical. The brain is not simulating these physical processes in computation and likewise a computer like a brain would not be simulating these processes either.
I like your phrase "fire chemical body responses". A chemical reaction is in a sense a burning, fire, combustion. Electricity is another kind of burning, or fire.
The cell utilises both in its metabolism. Both are physical.

Wrong, the brain does not directly experience qualia, it generates them.

The perceptions which are mistakenly labeled as qualia are made up by the brain. You may not like it but it is true, the brain makes up the perceptions from the sensations and it fabricates them wholesale from limited data.

So the beloved qualia are exactly simulations, they are made up models derived from the limited data of the sensations.

For example, the perceptual area of color vision, the fovea covers a small area of your visual field, smaller that the width or your thumb at arms length .

it provides two things visual acuity and color vision. So guess what almost all those colors that you see, especially in that beautiful sunset, your brain takes that very little area where it gets color sensations and makes up the rest.

Now granted due to the random jiggling of your eye that area moves somewhat but it is still a very small portion of your visual field. So where do all those lovely colors come from?

They aren't sensed. they are made up. Just like what you see where your blind spot is.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Wrong, the brain does not directly experience qualia, it generates them.

The perceptions which are mistakenly labeled as qualia are made up by the brain. You may not like it but it is true, the brain makes up the perceptions from the sensations and it fabricates them wholesale from limited data.

So the beloved qualia are exactly simulations, they are made up models derived from the limited data of the sensations.

For example, the perceptual area of color vision, the fovea covers a small area of your visual field, smaller that the width or your thumb at arms length .

it provides two things visual acuity and color vision. So guess what almost all those colors that you see, especially in that beautiful sunset, your brain takes that very little area where it gets color sensations and makes up the rest.

Now granted due to the random jiggling of your eye that area moves somewhat but it is still a very small portion of your visual field. So where do all those lovely colors come from?

They aren't sensed. they are made up. Just like what you see where your blind spot is.

I agree with your description. Certainly the processing economy of dealing with the exceptions in environment and filling in the background is a great advantage, as is combining bi- or multi-ocular vision into a single experiential input. I am not sure, though, that this dismisses qualia per se, if these are taken as the physical inputs from which such brain-enhanced compositions arise, which is what has been my take so far in this thread.

So perhaps we'd need terms to separate the gestalt of experience into a) real inputs and b) what is filled in, calling only one qualia, or using new terms for the components and sticking with qualia for the whole.

(Maybe this hair has already been split, but I like to try my hand first before wiki-googling my way to answers.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Since when does the house own the builder?

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand.

Is it not better to understand that the builder and the house are one and the same and thus indistinguishable?

No. In fact it doesn't make sense. Not even as an analogy.

The house builds itself.

What kind of house builds itself, even metephorically?

Thus the house does not own the builder of the house. Humans are not the property of consciousness. Consciousness is not the property of humans.

Consciousness is a property of humans.

A human and a human’s consciousness is the same thing.

You said that before. Repeating it does not make it more correct.

I think perhaps you are saying that the human body is the human and consciousness is a property of that body?

No. The human is a (human) body with the capacity for consciousness. (Note: I'm not going into a discussion of whether a human with serious brain damage remains a human. That is another discussion.)

But if that were the case then, by saying that ‘consciousness makes us what we are’ you are saying that consciousness makes the human body, which of course you are most likely not at all wanting to suggest.

No, that was not what I said.

Hans

 

[Navigator]

Hi Navigator

I understand the perspective on consciousness you are proposing. Essentially I agree, but I would present a more comprehensive and analytical approach.

Your position is similar to the idealist position we are discussing. With I presume a distinction between consciousness as primary rather than mind as primary.

My position is that neither consciousness, or mind is primary, but rather something equivalent to atman*, or monad**.

I agree that consciousness, mind, being are a triad, in the sense that they are each and all what we are as a manifest being, but that we may also have a monad. Whether, if we do have a monad, conscious being is possible without a monad, is another question to what we are discussing here.


*From wiki,"Atman (/ˈɑːtmən/; Sanskrit: आत्मन्, IAST: Ātman) is a Sanskrit word that means 'inner-self' or 'soul'. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[1] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman".


**From wiki,"Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "unit" from μόνος monos, "alone"),[1] according to the Pythagoreans, was a term for Divinity or the first being, or the totality of all beings,[2] Monad being the source or the One meaning without division.

For the Pythagoreans, the generation of number series was related to objects of geometry as well as cosmogony.[3] According to Diogenes Laertius, from the monad evolved the dyad; from it numbers; from numbers, points; then lines, two-dimensional entities, three-dimensional entities, bodies, culminating in the four elements earth, water, fire and air, from which the rest of our world is built up".

Hi punshhh

Yes I have read a lot of similar theories involving similar concepts where essentially it is only the names of these different aspects which are different. The functions seem to be pretty much identical.

From what I can gather, the theories all seem to say in their own way that when we 'reverse engineer' the process, we are all 'GOD' and that 'being' is ONE (undivided).

Presuming you accept the thought that the human sub conscious is real, is there a 'name' for that aspect in your more comprehensive and analytical approach?

 

[Navigator]

Wrong, the brain does not directly experience qualia, it generates them.

The perceptions which are mistakenly labeled as qualia are made up by the brain. You may not like it but it is true, the brain makes up the perceptions from the sensations and it fabricates them wholesale from limited data.

So the beloved qualia are exactly simulations, they are made up models derived from the limited data of the sensations.

For example, the perceptual area of color vision, the fovea covers a small area of your visual field, smaller that the width or your thumb at arms length .

it provides two things visual acuity and color vision. So guess what almost all those colors that you see, especially in that beautiful sunset, your brain takes that very little area where it gets color sensations and makes up the rest.

Now granted due to the random jiggling of your eye that area moves somewhat but it is still a very small portion of your visual field. So where do all those lovely colors come from?

They aren't sensed. they are made up. Just like what you see where your blind spot is.

What you say about colors Dancing David is really interesting. What is the real color of everything?

 

[Navigator]

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand.

No. In fact it doesn't make sense. Not even as an analogy.

I was only taking your statement "Our consciousness makes what we are, but we are not it. Basically, consciousness is a property of humans, not the other way around." and building an analogy around that.
If the analogy doesn't make sense, then perhaps, nor does your statement.

What kind of house builds itself, even metephorically?

The Universe might well be a contender.

Consciousness is a property of humans.

According to your belief humans are not the consciousness which - among other things - allows for the ability to be self aware.
What are humans without consciousness?

You said that before. Repeating it does not make it more correct.

A human and a human’s consciousness is the same thing.

What makes that correct is that it is true.
What is a human without consciousness?

No. The human is a (human) body with the capacity for consciousness. (Note: I'm not going into a discussion of whether a human with serious brain damage remains a human. That is another discussion.)

I agree with 'note.'

Ah - so a human is just a human body. Thus consciousness has nothing to do with what makes a human a human.

Is it the whole body which you regard is human, or the fleshy parts only? Do you regard the skeleton as being human or as being the property of a human?

In relation to the body, which parts (if any) do you regard as being human and which parts do you regard (like you regard consciousness) as being 'the property of the human'?