On Consciousness

[leonAzul]

I don't think that's the case. I think pretty much everyone knows that a human being is a form of a sophisticated robot whether they like to admit it or not.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited for Rule 12.

There is much more going on than mere mechanical sophistication in the human body, or in any other living being for that matter, yet there is much less than some sort of supernatural "explanation".

It is a false dichotomy to pit materialism against idealism like this.

To those who think they have found some sort of champion for their woo, you might as well sod-off.

 

[deadendmind2013]

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove quoted material.

There is much more going on than mere mechanical sophistication in the human body, or in any other living being for that matter, yet there is much less than some sort of supernatural "explanation".

It is a false dichotomy to pit materialism against idealism like this.

To those who think they have found some sort of champion for their woo, you might as well sod-off.

It's physicalism, not materialism. Idealism I believe is a long-gone view. Today the distinction arises between non-reductive and reductive physicalism. To be fair, there is only a 2% of philosophers who still support idealism but they are so widely translated and savagely popularized by some New-Agey and religious publishers, that it just appears so that today they re the ones who represent the whole academic philosophy. I can assure you dear sir, this is not the case.

False dichotomy usually implies an uncertainty about whether there is a 3rd alternative. Enlighten me, what is that?

 

[annnnoid]

Yes, the idea that we are wet robots some people find highly offensive, but a fact is a fact regardless of how it makes you feel.

But it’s not a fact….is it Scott. A fact is something you can support with evidence, not Jack and Jill reductionism. As things currently stand, every piece of evidence currently available lends credence to the conclusion that human beings are, in fact, some variety of very unique and special phenomenon. We are somehow the product of what has been quite accurately described as the most complex object in the known universe. We currently have no idea how this occurs (as has been explicitly established) and the thing that we are, consciousness, is so complex that we have no clear idea what it even is (though a great many go to great lengths to pretend this is not the case). The fact that you and others of such manifest intelligence find these facts indigestible is the only fact worth noting. It’s called being delusional. Ironic isn’t it. You…a woo!

 

[steenkh]

Just a lurker here, but I am amazed that the false dichotomy presented in the OP has escaped notice among "skeptics" who have continued this thread for nearly 5,000 posts.
(Those who identified this early on know who you are.)

There are radical differences between a fabricated computing machine and a living brain.

Using machines to model consciousness is a valid method, yet it still relies on careful observation of evidence of consciousness as it is, which to date has always involved a living brain in a living body, if it intends to be anything but a gambit for job security.

What is your point? Exactly what do you think is the evidence for consciousness that we will only find in a living brain in a living body?

 

[Arcade22]

There are radical differences between a fabricated computing machine and a living brain.

Such as? You could easily call the brain a "fabricated computing machine used to generate the behavior required for reproduction".

Using machines to model consciousness is a valid method, yet it still relies on careful observation of evidence of consciousness as it is, which to date has always involved a living brain in a living body, if it intends to be anything but a gambit for job security.

So you have nothing insightful to share?

There is much more going on than mere mechanical sophistication in the human body

Yet again you stop just short of explaining what you mean. If you have anything worthwhile to say just say it.

 

[Belz...]

There is much more going on than mere mechanical sophistication in the human body, or in any other living being for that matter

I fail to see that. Care to explain ?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove quoted material.

There is much more going on than mere mechanical sophistication in the human body, or in any other living being for that matter, yet there is much less than some sort of supernatural "explanation".

It is a false dichotomy to pit materialism against idealism like this.

To those who think they have found some sort of champion for their woo, you might as well sod-off.

I'd like you to share with us your evidence for that.

 

[Mr. Scott]

But it’s not a fact….is it Scott. A fact is something you can support with evidence, not Jack and Jill reductionism. As things currently stand, every piece of evidence currently available lends credence to the conclusion that human beings are, in fact, some variety of very unique and special phenomenon. We are somehow the product of what has been quite accurately described as the most complex object in the known universe. We currently have no idea how this occurs (as has been explicitly established) and the thing that we are, consciousness, is so complex that we have no clear idea what it even is (though a great many go to great lengths to pretend this is not the case). The fact that you and others of such manifest intelligence find these facts indigestible is the only fact worth noting. It’s called being delusional. Ironic isn’t it. You…a woo!

My point is that how we feel about specific facts or ideas has nothing to do with whether or not the facts are true or the ideas are valid.

First, get the facts. Then, discuss how we feel about them.

The idea that we may be complicated wet robots upsets some people. This does not address whether or not it's true.

There is considerable evidence our consciousness is produced by our brains via data processing. There is no evidence it needs more than that.

If you have evidence the brain is more than a data processing machine, and that a data processing machine cannot produce consciousness, please share it.

 

[tsig]

But it’s not a fact….is it Scott. A fact is something you can support with evidence, not Jack and Jill reductionism. As things currently stand, every piece of evidence currently available lends credence to the conclusion that human beings are, in fact, some variety of very unique and special phenomenon. We are somehow the product of what has been quite accurately described as the most complex object in the known universe. We currently have no idea how this occurs (as has been explicitly established) and the thing that we are, consciousness, is so complex that we have no clear idea what it even is (though a great many go to great lengths to pretend this is not the case). The fact that you and others of such manifest intelligence find these facts indigestible is the only fact worth noting. It’s called being delusional. Ironic isn’t it. You…a woo!

Humans saying humans are special.

Isn't that special?

The brain, like all the rest of the human body, is a product of evolution and is entirely made of the same matter as the rest of the universe.

 

[PixyMisa]

But it’s not a fact….is it Scott. A fact is something you can support with evidence, not Jack and Jill reductionism. As things currently stand, every piece of evidence currently available lends credence to the conclusion that human beings are, in fact, some variety of very unique and special phenomenon.

If you would be so kind as to provide some of this evidence, and explain why it leads to the conclusion you have arrived at?

We are somehow the product of what has been quite accurately described as the most complex object in the known universe.

Not accurate at all. The Internet, considered as a single system, is orders of magnitude more complex than the human brain.

We currently have no idea how this occurs (as has been explicitly established) and the thing that we are, consciousness, is so complex that we have no clear idea what it even is (though a great many go to great lengths to pretend this is not the case).

Please understand: While we know a lot about what consciousness is and how it arises, we would never for a moment assert that you know any of this.

The fact that you and others of such manifest intelligence find these facts indigestible is the only fact worth noting.

None of these are, in fact, facts. It's just you.

It’s called being delusional. Ironic isn’t it. You…a woo!

Alanic. The word you are after is alanic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also: "very unique"? Does that fit in between "slightly unique" and "uniquely unique"?

 

[Prometheus]

Also: "very unique"? Does that fit in between "slightly unique" and "uniquely unique"?

Any given apple is unique if you use a strict definition of the word. There's nothing wrong with noting that an orange in a bowl full of apples is more unique than one of the apples. Objects can be unique in any number of different characteristics. To pretend that the word is only ever appropriately used with it's strictest possible interpretation is just pedantic (unfortunately not all that unique around JREF).

 

[leonAzul]

Please forgive me. I didn't mean to dump and run. I am experiencing technical difficulties. You might notice that I have not accessed this forum for some time.

I intend to return with more substantive evidence in the form of abstracts from peer-reviewed publications, but for the moment, this shall serve as a summary of what I am talking about, as much as I dislike random videos as argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5Fs6_O2mY&feature=youtu.be&t=7m57s

What is your point? Exactly what do you think is the evidence for consciousness that we will only find in a living brain in a living body?

I haven't said that. What I said is that the evidence for consciousness begins with the observation of it in living humans, and the inquiry should start there.

At this time, that's where the evidence is. At some time in the future, perhaps other forms of consciousness will have been observed. I'm not claiming some special privilege for humans. Everything is open to conjecture, but some conjectures are better supported than others.

The phenomena collectively reported as consciousness has to date involved a brain in a biological body. Biological systems are subject to the same physical laws as mechanical systems, but they involve chemistry as well, and more significantly, a level of organization that permits metabolism. This ability to take advantage of local differences in (for lack of a more succinct word) energy states makes it possible to develop ever more adaptive structures and repertoires of behavior, both at the chemical (protein expression) and physical levels.

A system that is a repertoire of successful adaptations seems inherently differently structured from a system that has a specific repertoire of behavior (a software program and the hardware it runs on) limited by design.

The evidence bears this out.

 

[deadendmind2013]

You re describing supervenience. And look, there are four main problems with it.
Ephiphenomenal ectoplasm,
lone ammonium molecule problem,
modal status problem
and
the problem of necessary beings.

What evidence bears what out?

 

[leonAzul]

You re describing supervenience.

If it seems that way, then I have not been clear. If anything, I reject the "as above, so below" mindset.

And look, there are four main problems with it.
Ephiphenomenal ectoplasm,

I am not sure I understand your point here. Please elaborate and clarify it for me. I do not understand how ectoplasm could in any way be understood to be epiphenomenal.

Are you referring to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience#Epiphenomenal_ectoplasm

lone ammonium molecule problem,

It seems to me this is more a detail of implementation than a general statement of what is taking place.

modal status problem
and
the problem of necessary beings.

What evidence bears what out?

These are all philosophical topics that are addressed with philosophical methodologies, not with scientific method.

There are good pragmatic arguments for such an approach—indeed, that might be all we have, for the moment—yet I do not find them satisfying.

 

[annnnoid]

If you would be so kind as to provide some of this evidence, and explain why it leads to the conclusion you have arrived at?

We are currently the only phenomenon in the known universe with the ability to be conscious or explore what it is. Until a definitive understanding of what consciousness is arrives…we are the only ones who possess it…by default (prove otherwise).

In addition…we currently have the technological capacity to analyze data from a significant percentage of the known universe. We have yet to discover the slightest sign of intelligent life…anywhere.

So if something can tentatively be described as the most complex object in the known universe…and is currently the only example of its kind in the known universe (ie: consciousness and / or intelligent life)…is that uniquely unique enough to qualify as unique? Or perhaps, in the Pixy lexicon, the known universe is an insufficiently significant metric by which to adjudicate the dimensions of a phenomena. Is that it? What could be larger (…the ego of the nameless one…perhaps)?

Whether we are ‘special’ may be somewhat more subjective…but then again…we are the only thing in the known universe that has any ability to comprehend that there even is a meaning to the word special (a meaning…not a definition).

Special enough?

Not accurate at all. The Internet, considered as a single system, is orders of magnitude more complex than the human brain.

If we consider the internet as a single system ????? Why…because we have a single word for it? Why not consider the earth as a single system. It’s all kinda stuck together…isn’t it? Or why don’t we consider our Galaxy as a single system…or the entire universe!!!!

Anyone who has graduated elementary school can quickly explain the difference between an internet and a brain.

Ok class…what’s the difference?

…I.

Thus…the brain is regarded as a single system because its sole function is the generation and maintenance of a singular unitary condition ( “ I “ ). The internet generates…nothing. It is no more a single system than the planet is a single system…and the planet is far more complex by comparison. So Pixy…is the planet a single system? Have you become a believer in Gaia? Are you a woo now as well!!!!

…and if you’re so determined to believe that the internet is conscious…let me know when it can understand the meaning of words like honesty, real, deep, etc. Not the definitions…the meaning.

That would actually appear to be a reasonable definition of consciousness: The habitation of meaning. Meaning is the origin of definition and the experience of intelligibility.

Please understand: While we know a lot about what consciousness is and how it arises, we would never for a moment assert that you know any of this.

We know a lot about how consciousness arises do we.

For the facts, we’ll refer to Geraint Rees. Remember him Pixy…the guy who flattened one of your previous dearly beloved delusions (Pixy:…‘…we can detect everything that happens in the human brain…yes we can!!!’ …Rees: “…not even wrong.”). For those who don’t know who Mr. Rees is…he’s the deputy head of the University College London Faculty of Brain Science and director of the UCL institute of Cognitive Neuroscience. He had this to say about a year back on this very subject:

“We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain…”

Rees says we don’t know…Pixy says we do know. Someone cannot be trusted here. Anyone care to venture a guess as to which of these two points of view is wrong?

As for ‘what consciousness is’…they had this to say:

" At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge … but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

So …according to accredited experts in the field…we neither know how consciousness is created nor do we really have a scientific understanding of what it is.

You seem to have difficulty acknowledging the facts Pixy. Don’t we have some resident psychologists at JREF? What’s it called when someone refuses to acknowledge facts? Insecurity…delusion…naiveté…neurosis…arrogance? Which of those is the correct term?

BTW Pixy…there’s a small matter that you noticeably ignored a while back. You made the following assertion:

There's a difference though between consciousness in itself and a fully functional human mind. The former is a lot simpler than the latter.

To which Prometheus responded:

Granted. But what's the minimum threshold for consciousness to exist? How much of a human mind is needed?

…and the answer is….
….
….
….?
Pixy seems to have decided to ignore this one.

 

[Dancing David]

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited for Rule 12.

There is much more going on than mere mechanical sophistication in the human body, or in any other living being for that matter, yet there is much less than some sort of supernatural "explanation".

It is a false dichotomy to pit materialism against idealism like this.

To those who think they have found some sort of champion for their woo, you might as well sod-off.

Excuse me, which part of life is not mechanical/physical?

 

[Dancing David]

But it’s not a fact….is it Scott. A fact is something you can support with evidence, not Jack and Jill reductionism. As things currently stand, every piece of evidence currently available lends credence to the conclusion that human beings are, in fact, some variety of very unique and special phenomenon. We are somehow the product of what has been quite accurately described as the most complex object in the known universe. We currently have no idea how this occurs (as has been explicitly established) and the thing that we are, consciousness, is so complex that we have no clear idea what it even is (though a great many go to great lengths to pretend this is not the case). The fact that you and others of such manifest intelligence find these facts indigestible is the only fact worth noting. It’s called being delusional. Ironic isn’t it. You…a woo!

And your evidence that humans are "some variety of very unique and special phenomenon"?

What specifically is the unique part?

I assume you mean rhetoric

 

[Dancing David]

Please forgive me. I didn't mean to dump and run. I am experiencing technical difficulties. You might notice that I have not accessed this forum for some time.

I intend to return with more substantive evidence in the form of abstracts from peer-reviewed publications, but for the moment, this shall serve as a summary of what I am talking about, as much as I dislike random videos as argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5Fs6_O2mY&feature=youtu.be&t=7m57s


I haven't said that. What I said is that the evidence for consciousness begins with the observation of it in living humans, and the inquiry should start there.

At this time, that's where the evidence is. At some time in the future, perhaps other forms of consciousness will have been observed. I'm not claiming some special privilege for humans. Everything is open to conjecture, but some conjectures are better supported than others.

The phenomena collectively reported as consciousness has to date involved a brain in a biological body. Biological systems are subject to the same physical laws as mechanical systems, but they involve chemistry as well, and more significantly, a level of organization that permits metabolism. This ability to take advantage of local differences in (for lack of a more succinct word) energy states makes it possible to develop ever more adaptive structures and repertoires of behavior, both at the chemical (protein expression) and physical levels.

A system that is a repertoire of successful adaptations seems inherently differently structured from a system that has a specific repertoire of behavior (a software program and the hardware it runs on) limited by design.

The evidence bears this out.

this is still mechanical/physical, mechanics under a broad definition can include chemical and electrical events.



the evidence still bears out that it is all physical.

 

[leonAzul]

this is still mechanical/physical, mechanics under a broad definition can include chemical and electrical events.



the evidence still bears out that it is all physical.

Of course, it's all physical. I haven't said otherwise.