proto-consciousness field theory

[baron]

Let me re-phrase the question - do you believe that the degree to which someone or something has consciousness is directly proportional to the amount of information that that person of thing is processing? Or, perhaps, the amount of data that's processed relative to some other factor, such as bits per cubic inch or something along those lines. If not, can you clearly explain what factors you believe the level of consciousness to be dependent on.

I've just said; the complexity and intensity of information processing. That would seem logical to me. Now, if you can give me a couple of examples of what you asserted earlier I can address those.

 

[Belz...]

How many times have I said it? Fifty? NO. But apparently nobody is claiming this so I need not explain any further (although I have explained it several times previously).

It's completely irrelevant whether there is someone claiming this. That you can't pin me down on certainty is not an excuse for you to dodge my questions. Why can't it be what I describe?

Look, you don't have a theory. I do.

At best you have unsupported speculation. At least my proposal fits with known physics.

Simple. And your theory is..?

It's quoted in the post you were responding to. I stated it multiple times already.

Of course.

So all of this nonsense about them not existing was just word games. If they happen, then all of this has been a distraction aimed at preventing discussion and agreement.

So you agree that actions happen. So why couldn't consciousness 'happen' rather than 'exist'?

Now you answer mine; I asked first, several pages ago.

Which one, exactly? I've answered plenty of your questions already.

No.

When you only have knowledge of a single thing, you cannot compare it. You therefore cannot claim that it is special or unique compared to other things. It's really a simple idea.

 

[baron]

It's completely irrelevant whether there is someone claiming this. That you can't pin me down on certainty is not an excuse for you to dodge my questions. Why can't it be what I describe?

Why can't 7 be 12? It's a ridiculous question and what's more, according to you, nobody has made the claim, so why would I waste further time on it?

At best you have unsupported speculation. At least my proposal fits with known physics.

You got that the wrong way around. There are plenty of fields in physics and the mechanism I describe has an analogy in the way in which mass distorts space-time to produce a gravitational field. There's nothing remotely unscientific about that. Your 'theory', however, appears to be taking the first part of mine then failing to explain what consciousness actually is, whilst making noises about welllll, I don't claim that it's an action but maybe someone does so why can't it be that and oh, did I say that I never actually claimed it but let's discuss it anyway...

It's quoted in the post you were responding to. I stated it multiple times already.

I must have missed it. Do me a favour and just cut and paste your theory so we have it in one place.

So all of this nonsense about them not existing was just word games. If they happen, then all of this has been a distraction aimed at preventing discussion and agreement.

So you agree that actions happen. So why couldn't consciousness 'happen' rather than 'exist'?

Why would it? Actions aren't self aware. Consciousness is. That's the entire problem. If the discussion was 'What's the metaphysical difference between running and rolling?' then you'd be correct, there's no reason to cite one of them as being special. But it's not, it's about consciousness, which is clearly an entirely different entity.

Which one, exactly? I've answered plenty of your questions already.

Why are you excluding unobserved actions? Surely they happen in the same way as observed ones. And why are you limiting actions to those we find useful to define? There are, you must admit, an effectively infinite number of actions we could define for an effectively infinite number of observations. How can all these things be anything but invention, or potential invention?

When you only have knowledge of a single thing, you cannot compare it. You therefore cannot claim that it is special or unique compared to other things. It's really a simple idea.

I have a knowledge about many things, that's how I can compare them. No problemo. If you're asserting that I only have self-awareness in one sphere, that being consciousness, then this is evidence - albeit subjective evidence - that it is unique.

 

[Belz...]

Why can't 7 be 12? It's a ridiculous question

It's not a ridiculous question! It's a fundamental question about the possible nature of consciousness. It could be a substance, it could be a field, it could be actions. You say it can't be the third but offer no explanation. I'm asking to provide one.

You got that the wrong way around. There are plenty of fields in physics and the mechanism I describe has an analogy in the way in which mass distorts space-time to produce a gravitational field.

I can make up a field that explains why some movies suck but just because I can make up something that sounds sciency doesn't mean it fits with known physics. Your defense here sounds exactly like so many new-age "quantum" pseudoscience claims.

Your field also has the virtue of being entirely unnecessary, since it could very well be that the brain generates consciousness all on its own.

I must have missed it.

You responded to it. Do you expect me to believe that you forgot since this morning? See above.

Why would it? Actions aren't self aware. Consciousness is. That's the entire problem.

Consciousness isn't self aware, it's the action of the brain being self aware. If you don't know what consciousness is to begin with, it's no wonder you think there's a hard problem relating to it. I repeat: consciousness isn't aware of itself, it is the very act of being self-aware.

Why are you excluding unobserved actions?

Dude, I answered it immediately in the post following you asking. Slow down and read my posts, please.

I have a knowledge about many things, that's how I can compare them.

Again you are missing the point: consciousness is the ONLY way through which you experience, yes or no? It encompasses the sum total of all your experience, yes or no? Assuming you answered 'yes' to both, you can't compare the sum total of your experience to anything else, since the set of "anything else" is empty!

 

[baron]

It's not a ridiculous question! It's a fundamental question about the possible nature of consciousness. It could be a substance, it could be a field, it could be actions. You say it can't be the third but offer no explanation. I'm asking to provide one.

Of course I can say it can't be the third. It isn't the third, because actions don't exist. There. My opinion, given for the 100th time.

Now - which of the three do you believe it is?

I can make up a field that explains why some movies suck but just because I can make up something that sounds sciency doesn't mean it fits with known physics. Your defense here sounds exactly like so many new-age "quantum" pseudoscience claims.

Your field also has the virtue of being entirely unnecessary, since it could very well be that the brain generates consciousness all on its own.

It could well be. So describe how that's possible.

You responded to it. Do you expect me to believe that you forgot since this morning? See above.

I haven't forgotten a anything. You posted

"Er... actually my theory is that consciousness is generated by the brain, via the informaiton processing that goes on in there."

It's incomplete. You don't say what consciousness is, which is kind of necessary when talking of a theory of consciousness. So I'll ask again, please summarise your theory. What's the problem? I have summarised my thinking at least 50 times in this thread and I don't complain. You're complaining at being asked to do it once.

Consciousness isn't self aware, it's the action of the brain being self aware. If you don't know what consciousness is to begin with, it's no wonder you think there's a hard problem relating to it. I repeat: consciousness isn't aware of itself, it is the very act of being self-aware.

That doesn't make any sense, it's just psychobabble.

Dude, I answered it immediately in the post following you asking. Slow down and read my posts, please.

I asked three questions. How about the other two?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've just said; the complexity and intensity of information processing. That would seem logical to me.

How are you defining "complexity" and "intensity"? How would you quantify them?

 

[Belz...]

Of course I can say it can't be the third. It isn't the third, because actions don't exist. There. My opinion, given for the 100th time.

Your objection is invalid because you have admitted that actions happen; they are real. So again, why can't consciousness be one?

Now - which of the three do you believe it is?

I've already told you.

So describe how that's possible.

Again, I already told you: the brain's neural functions, it's actions, ARE consciousness. That's how it's possible. And, mind you, that's not any less descriptive than your own theory, which happens to answer nothing.

It's incomplete. You don't say what consciousness is, which is kind of necessary when talking of a theory of consciousness.

I can't tell you what consciousness is because it doesn't exist; it happens. That's a consequence of your own argument.

That doesn't make any sense, it's just psychobabble.

In order to be psychobabble it would have to relate to psychology. It doesn't. It's a logical inference, and a distinction that a child could make. The action of running isn't going places; legs are. Ticking doesn't make sound; the clock does. Consciousness isn't self-aware; the brain is.

This entire thread, and your theory, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what consciousness means.

I asked three questions. How about the other two?

The other two questions are nonsensical, so I couldn't begin to answer them.

 

[baron]

How are you defining "complexity" and "intensity"? How would you quantify them?

I define them the same way you do.

Your objection is invalid because you have admitted that actions happen; they are real. So again, why can't consciousness be one?

Actions aren't real.

I've already told you.

Wait... I've spotted something up ahead...

Again, I already told you: the brain's neural functions, it's actions, ARE consciousness. That's how it's possible. And, mind you, that's not any less descriptive than your own theory, which happens to answer nothing.

...no, just a bit further...

I can't tell you what consciousness is because it doesn't exist; it happens.

There! At last. You don't believe consciousness exists. Our conversation can go no further. I believe it exists and as such is a thing. You don't believe it exists, just like an action or, maybe, a unicorn. There's nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[Belz...]

Actions aren't real.

THEY HAPPEN.

Was that clearer? I can't believe I'm trying to explain to an adult that things that happen in reality exist. If actions aren't real then how the **** do they happen? You're not making any sense, presumably because you know if you had to make sense and argue honestly you'd lose.

I can't tell you what consciousness is because it doesn't exist; it happens.

There! At last. You don't believe consciousness exists.

Of all your dishonest rhetorical tactics, this has to be the worst, although I half expected you to do this. How about you highlight the words that follow the ones you did? You know, the ones that establish the crucial difference and the flaw in your argument and theory?

It's clear at this point that A) you have no idea what consciousness is, and therefore you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist B) you can't be bothered to read and understand the points and arguments made do you because they threaten that misconception C) you have zero intention of debating this or any topic honestly, as evidenced by your dodges, lies and misdirections.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I define them the same way you do.

Colloquially and imprecisely, then.

How would you quantify them?

 

[baron]

THEY HAPPEN.

Was that clearer? I can't believe I'm trying to explain to an adult that things that happen in reality exist. If actions aren't real then how the **** do they happen? You're not making any sense, presumably because you know if you had to make sense and argue honestly you'd lose.

They don't exist. That might make you angry but it's a fact. Actions do not exist. You can only justify it to yourself by ignoring my explanations and pretending the questions I ask regarding your position are 'nonsensical'. The notion that actions exist is pure woo; unsubstantiated, unevidenced, fuzzy blather that a moment's reflection shows to be absurd.

Of all your dishonest rhetorical tactics, this has to be the worst, although I half expected you to do this. How about you highlight the words that follow the ones you did? You know, the ones that establish the crucial difference and the flaw in your argument and theory?

You said it. Consciousness doesn't exist. You then said, post semi-colon, that it happens. Logic shows us that events do not exist, so we're left with your first claim, clear and unmodified. That's your position. Consciousness happens? **** happens too, and in this case is represented by me revealing you have no debating position. Again.

It's clear at this point that A) you have no idea what consciousness is, and therefore you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist

And you've even been kind enough to confirm my conclusion. I am "trying to solve a problem that does not exist." You have been far from clear for this entire thread up until your last two posts, which are admirably lucid.

Colloquially and imprecisely, then.

Correct.

How would you quantify them?

The same as you would.

 

[Belz...]

They don't exist. That might make you angry but it's a fact.

Your nonsensical claims are not facts. They are your delusions, and no one else's.

The simple fact of the matter is, no matter what word you use, actions and behaviours happen; atoms move and legs jiggle. They happen in reality. I suggest that consciousness is of the same nature. You have made zero attempt to address this. You weave and dodge because you know you've lost the argument.

You said it. Consciousness doesn't exist. You then said, post semi-colon, that it happens.

You're the only one here to be foolish and dishonest enough to claim that something that happens in reality doesn't exist.

There's no point engaging with you on any topic if you insist on being disingenuous.

 

[Crawtator]

Actions are simply combinations of events that occur and produce an outcome. To say that they don't "exist" is nonsensical and semantic quibbling. None of this argument has anything to do with the topic. I am not locked down due to the non-existence of "breathing", "thinking" and a host of other verbs. I can clearly do these things. They exist as combinations of events, whether causal or acausal.

To invent a field to create consciousness is wholly unnecessary and not at all scientific, period. There is no evidence for said field. I think it can more firmly be established that there is a "bullcrap field" that has permeated this thread, through and through, for the last bunch of pages. And, unlike this consciousness field, I have verifiable evidence of my bullcrap field.

 

[baron]

Actions are simply combinations of events that occur and produce an outcome. To say that they don't "exist" is nonsensical and semantic quibbling. None of this argument has anything to do with the topic. I am not locked down due to the non-existence of "breathing", "thinking" and a host of other verbs. I can clearly do these things. They exist as combinations of events, whether causal or acausal.

To invent a field to create consciousness is wholly unnecessary and not at all scientific, period. There is no evidence for said field. I think it can more firmly be established that there is a "bullcrap field" that has permeated this thread, through and through, for the last bunch of pages. And, unlike this consciousness field, I have verifiable evidence of my bullcrap field.

You certainly do, and you've just proved you're an expert at using it.

 

[baron]

Your nonsensical claims are not facts. They are your delusions, and no one else's.

The simple fact of the matter is, no matter what word you use, actions and behaviours happen; atoms move and legs jiggle. They happen in reality. I suggest that consciousness is of the same nature. You have made zero attempt to address this. You weave and dodge because you know you've lost the argument.



You're the only one here to be foolish and dishonest enough to claim that something that happens in reality doesn't exist.

Are you still pretending to believe that or do you actually believe it? Either way, it's shocking.

No, I don't claim that something that happens doesn't exist, I claim that the happening itself doesn't exist.

Legs exist. Legs that run exist. Running does not exist.

If you still can't grasp this basic concept, describe to me one single objective, measurable attribute of 'running' that exists as a descriptor unique of the verb itself and not as a function of the objects that enact it.

For example, 'fast' is invalid because it is a description of the speed at which the legs move the body and is evidenced by measuring the body, not the 'running'.

Go ahead. And if you can't come up with one, maybe explain how a thing that exists can do so in the absence of attributes.

 

[Belz...]

Legs that run exist. Running does not exist.

But how can legs run if running doesn't exist?

If you still can't grasp this basic concept, describe to me one single objective, measurable attribute of 'running' that exists as a descriptor unique of the verb itself and not as a function of the objects that enact it.

Who said it was not a function of the object? No one, that's who.

Consciousness is an action that the brain does. It's absolutely a function of the brain. I suspect that if we were to remove all of your word games, you'd be in total agreement with me.

 

[baron]

But how can legs run if running doesn't exist?



Who said it was not a function of the object? No one, that's who.

Consciousness is an action that the brain does. It's absolutely a function of the brain. I suspect that if we were to remove all of your word games, you'd be in total agreement with me.

How can a thing exist if it has no independent objective properties?

If I asked you what are the attributes of a piece of limestone (assuming you would answer my question) you would say... what? Dense. Heavy. Water permeable. You might even describe its albedo or its chemical composition or its molecular structure. Great, so here's a challenge: Describe a rock without reference to any of its attributes.

 

[Belz...]

How can a thing exist if it has no independent objective properties?

Fine. Consciousness is a property of a functioning brain just like wetness is a property of water.

These words games of yours are obviously designed to muddle the discussion rather than, as words should be, to communicate.

 

[baron]

Fine. Consciousness is a property of a functioning brain just like wetness is a property of water.

These words games of yours are obviously designed to muddle the discussion rather than, as words should be, to communicate.

What are the measurable properties of wetness?

 

[Belz...]

These words games of yours are obviously designed to muddle the discussion rather than, as words should be, to communicate.

What are the measurable properties of wetness?

See what I mean?

You're the one who brought up properties, and now you deny that they are even there, because suddenly it's no longer convenient to your argument.

If you really want to get down to it, elementary particles are only fluctuations in spacetime; they are behaviours of spacetime, and thus they don't exist, according to you. But what would be the point of making such an argument, save to prevent discussion.

You know that your consciousness field doesn't exist. You know that it's unnecessary and redundant. You just can't admit it, so you play games instead.