proto-consciousness field theory

[Belz...]

Your last two posts suggest you have no idea what we're talking about.

Translation: "I disagree".


Is Darat conscious?

 

[baron]

I think this is definitely a counter-argument to the idea that consciousness is a product of any data-processing, or that any data-processing causes a distortion in the consciousness-field. If that were the case, then damage to one small part of the brain wouldn't cause consciousness to be lost. Then again, the same is true of sleep and anaesthesia - the brain is still functioning while in these states, processing a relatively massive amount of data when compared to most other data processing systems.

At the very least, it implies that only certain kinds of data-processing give rise to consciousness, which doesn't support the idea that consciousness is all-pervasive.

This is a misapprehension due to confusion of definitions, as I've pointed out more than once in regard to this study. 'Conscious' in the realm of this study indicates wakefulness and responsiveness and has nothing to do with subjective internal experience. It's like watching a show on TV then snipping wire A and removing capacitor B and claiming some sort of revelation regarding radio signals when the picture shuts off.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is a misapprehension due to confusion of definitions, as I've pointed out more than once in regard to this study. 'Conscious' in the realm of this study indicates wakefulness and responsiveness and has nothing to do with subjective internal experience. It's like watching a show on TV then snipping wire A and removing capacitor B and claiming some sort of revelation regarding radio signals when the picture shuts off.

I was going to ask on what basis you'd claim things which are not conscious have subjective internal experiences, but then I remembered that you've already admitted that you have no evidence for it and cannot suggest a mechanism by which your hypothesis would work. So perhaps a better question is why do you believe this to be true?

 

[baron]

I was going to ask on what basis you'd claim things which are not conscious have subjective internal experiences, but then I remembered that you've already admitted that you have no evidence for it and cannot suggest a mechanism by which your hypothesis would work. So perhaps a better question is why do you believe this to be true?

I presume when you say 'conscious' you're meaning 'awake and responsive', otherwise your first sentence is clearly untrue. As such, evidence is pretty easy to come by. You dream, don't you? And when you dream are you awake and responsive? Nope. So there you go. Subjective internal experience when not awake and responsive.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You didn't answer my question.

 

[kellyb]

I presume when you say 'conscious' you're meaning 'awake and responsive', otherwise your first sentence is clearly untrue. As such, evidence is pretty easy to come by. You dream, don't you? And when you dream are you awake and responsive? Nope. So there you go. Subjective internal experience when not awake and responsive.

I am awake and responsive within my dreams, though. I'm just quarantined within the internally produced dream world.

 

[baron]

You didn't answer my question.

Of course I did. I believe it to be true because the experience is common to almost every person on the planet, including you.

I am awake and responsive within my dreams, though. I'm just quarantined within the internally produced dream world.

Of course. To a third party you are unconscious. Subjectively you are fully conscious. That's exactly what I said.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Of course I did. I believe it to be true because the experience is common to almost every person on the planet, including you.

You believe inanimate objects have a degree of consciousness because most humans do? I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

Perhaps it's the way I phrased the question. Allow me to be clear.

You have stated that you believe there to be a consciousness field that permeates the entire universe. You have stated that the processing of data distorts this field and thereby gives rise to consciousness, at different points on a scale. You have admitted that you have no evidence to support these beliefs, and that you cannot propose a mechanism by which it would work. So why do you believe it to be true? We do, after all, have evidence that radio waves exist.

Also, FWIW, not everybody has qualia all the time. There are any number of stories of people losing consciousness and it being as if no time has passed. I myself have experienced this, when ill as a child. I was in front of the TV and lost consciousness. From my mother's POV I fell asleep for half an hour. From my POV the TV programme changed mid-sentence from being an old cop show to a nature documentary. I literally perceived it as someone on TV saying "First I'll have to run that past Colonel brown bear" with no pause, hesitation, or perception of any time having passed. If it weren't for the change in voice and the resultant sentence making no sense it would have seemed like a complete sentence spoken by a single person. Yet there was undoubtedly data processing going on inside my brain during that period.

 

[kellyb]

Subjectively you are fully conscious. That's exactly what I said.

Doh! Sorry!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A couple of follow-up questions, which I'll put in a separate post in case they get missed:

What does the consciousness-field hypothesis explain, or otherwise make sense of, that the idea of consciousness as an emergent property does not? Am I right in thinking that it's a less parsimonious explanation than of consciousness being an emergent property? If not, how are there fewer entities in your hypothesis? If so, why should it be preferred?

 

[kellyb]

There are any number of stories of people losing consciousness and it being as if no time has passed. I myself have experienced this, when ill as a child. I was in front of the TV and lost consciousness. From my mother's POV I fell asleep for half an hour. From my POV the TV programme changed mid-sentence from being an old cop show to a nature documentary. I literally perceived it as someone on TV saying "First I'll have to run that past Colonel brown bear" with no pause, hesitation, or perception of any time having passed. If it weren't for the change in voice and the resultant sentence making no sense it would have seemed like a complete sentence spoken by a single person. Yet there was undoubtedly data processing going on inside my brain during that period.

This is totally off topic, but that sounds like a simple partial seizure to me, as a life long epileptic. In 2nd grade, when I was 6, my teacher would sometimes drift between talking about math (or whatever) in front of class to almost seamlessly be grabbing my chin, yelling at me inches away from my face to pay attention. "And you carry the one to over here what is wrong with you, Kelly?" with her coffee breath in my face.

 

[Belz...]

Of course I did. I believe it to be true because the experience is common to almost every person on the planet, including you.

Sounds almost empirical.

 

[baron]

You believe inanimate objects have a degree of consciousness because most humans do? I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

Perhaps it's the way I phrased the question. Allow me to be clear.

You have stated that you believe there to be a consciousness field that permeates the entire universe. You have stated that the processing of data distorts this field and thereby gives rise to consciousness, at different points on a scale. You have admitted that you have no evidence to support these beliefs, and that you cannot propose a mechanism by which it would work. So why do you believe it to be true? We do, after all, have evidence that radio waves exist.

I believe consciousness exists because I experience it. I also trust those who say they have the same experience, although I have no empirical evidence that they do, so I understand that consciousness is common to all humans. Fifty years ago it was absurd to suggest a dog, or an octopus, might be conscious, because a line had been drawn under the level of the human animal and the declaration made, "Beneath this line, nothing can possibly be conscious." Now that line has been pushed down a ways to incorporate a number of other species but there is still no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate why this line should be placed where it is or even why it must exist.

In the absence of evidence, Occam's razor says there should be no line, and this is what I believe. The line is an unnecessary entity that has its origins in religious dogmatism, where the human animal stands above and outside nature and is possessed of qualities not to be found anywhere else. This is nonsense, and whilst it's true I have no evidence for my claims, it's also true that the scientists have exactly the same amount for theirs.

Also, FWIW, not everybody has qualia all the time. There are any number of stories of people losing consciousness and it being as if no time has passed. I myself have experienced this, when ill as a child. I was in front of the TV and lost consciousness. From my mother's POV I fell asleep for half an hour. From my POV the TV programme changed mid-sentence from being an old cop show to a nature documentary. I literally perceived it as someone on TV saying "First I'll have to run that past Colonel brown bear" with no pause, hesitation, or perception of any time having passed. If it weren't for the change in voice and the resultant sentence making no sense it would have seemed like a complete sentence spoken by a single person. Yet there was undoubtedly data processing going on inside my brain during that period.

This is an assumption on your part, and IMO a wrong one. You say that because you have no memory of that half hour you must have been unconscious (unconscious as in having no subjective experience, not as appearing unresponsive to a third party). In my view what happened is that, for whatever reason, the activity in your brain slowed or changed and this resulted in a reduced level of consciousness. You were still subjectively aware in the moment but not aware enough to lay down memories in the brain. Therefore, when you came to, you believed you had been unconscious.

A sleepwalker can perform tasks as complex as cooking a meal or driving a car whilst unresponsive and seemingly asleep. We're told they are unconscious, as having no internal experience, but this is based only on the 'evidence' that they don't remember their actions. This is a very naive and closed-minded approach and in my view reaches entirely incorrect conclusions.

A couple of follow-up questions, which I'll put in a separate post in case they get missed:

What does the consciousness-field hypothesis explain, or otherwise make sense of, that the idea of consciousness as an emergent property does not? Am I right in thinking that it's a less parsimonious explanation than of consciousness being an emergent property? If not, how are there fewer entities in your hypothesis? If so, why should it be preferred?

AFAIC saying consciousness is an emergent property is the same as saying it doesn't exist. Emergent properties, by definition, have no independent reality. I believe that consciousness, or more accurately the conscious field, is as real and 'solid' as space-time, and equally - or more - fundamental.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I believe consciousness exists because I experience it. I also trust those who say they have the same experience, although I have no empirical evidence that they do, so I understand that consciousness is common to all humans. Fifty years ago it was absurd to suggest a dog, or an octopus, might be conscious, because a line had been drawn under the level of the human animal and the declaration made, "Beneath this line, nothing can possibly be conscious." Now that line has been pushed down a ways to incorporate a number of other species but there is still no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate why this line should be placed where it is or even why it must exist.

In the absence of evidence, Occam's razor says there should be no line, and this is what I believe. The line is an unnecessary entity that has its origins in religious dogmatism, where the human animal stands above and outside nature and is possessed of qualities not to be found anywhere else. This is nonsense, and whilst it's true I have no evidence for my claims, it's also true that the scientists have exactly the same amount for theirs.

How does any of that lead to the idea of a consciousness field?

I also think you're misapplying Occam's Razor. The, as you term it, "scientists' claims" require the existence of brains and the formation of consciousness from the activity of those brains. Yours require the existence of brains, the existence of a consciousness field, a mechanism by which the processing of data interacts with this field, and the formation of consciousness from the interaction of the processing of data with the field. That's more entities required for your claims - and that's just covering consciousness in humans.

This is an assumption on your part, and IMO a wrong one. You say that because you have no memory of that half hour you must have been unconscious (unconscious as in having no subjective experience, not as appearing unresponsive to a third party). In my view what happened is that, for whatever reason, the activity in your brain slowed or changed and this resulted in a reduced level of consciousness. You were still subjectively aware in the moment but not aware enough to lay down memories in the brain. Therefore, when you came to, you believed you had been unconscious.

That would suggest a perception of time having passed, such as when you've been in a dreamless sleep. This was like a jump-cut.

A sleepwalker can perform tasks as complex as cooking or driving a car whilst unresponsive and seemingly asleep. We're told they are unconscious, as having no internal experience, but this is based only on the 'evidence' that they don't remember their actions. This is a very naive and closed-minded approach and in my view reaches entirely incorrect conclusions.

This is equivocation on the word "conscious". I've never seen it claimed that sleepwalkers aren't experiencing anything while they're sleepwalking. On the contrary, I've seen many stories where somnambulists were dreaming about doing one thing while physically doing something relevant to that (such as punching in their sleep because they believe themselves to be fighting an ogre). Similarly, I've never seen it suggested that we don't experience dreams we don't remember.

AFAIC saying consciousness is an emergent property is the same as saying it doesn't exist. Emergent properties, by definition, have no independent reality.

Why does something have to have a reality independent of something else in order to exist? If I have a computer perform calculations for me do those calculations not exist? Why is more required of consciousness than of those calculations?

I believe that consciousness, or more accurately the conscious field, is as real and 'solid' as space-time, and equally - or more - fundamental.

What does this hypothesis explain, or otherwise make sense of, that the "scientists' claims" do not?

 

[baron]

How does any of that lead to the idea of a consciousness field?

I also think you're misapplying Occam's Razor. The, as you term it, "scientists' claims" require the existence of brains and the formation of consciousness from the activity of those brains. Yours require the existence of brains, the existence of a consciousness field, a mechanism by which the processing of data interacts with this field, and the formation of consciousness from the interaction of the processing of data with the field. That's more entities required for your claims - and that's just covering consciousness in humans.

My claims require fewer entities, not more. The claim that the brain creates consciousness involves two entities - brain and consciousness. I claim consciousness exists independently of brains. That's also two entities - brain and consciousnesses. Yet the claim that consciousness is unique to this set of animals over here and not present in this set over here requires another entity - the line. I don't believe that line exists. So my claims require fewer entities.

That would suggest a perception of time having passed, such as when you've been in a dreamless sleep. This was like a jump-cut.

So you're making a distinction between dreamless sleep and your experience in terms of internal conscious awareness. What is that distinction?

This is equivocation on the word "conscious". I've never seen it claimed that sleepwalkers aren't experiencing anything while they're sleepwalking. On the contrary, I've seen many stories where somnambulists were dreaming about doing one thing while physically doing something relevant to that (such as punching in their sleep because they believe themselves to be fighting an ogre).

That's RBD. RBD and somnambulism are entirely separate phenomena.

Similarly, I've never seen it suggested that we don't experience dreams we don't remember.

Neither have I. That's because we can detect when someone is dreaming with very high accuracy and we have no need for subjective reporting after the event.

Why does something have to have a reality independent of something else in order to exist? If I have a computer perform calculations for me do those calculations not exist?

No, they're an abstract noun, they don't actually exist.

Why is more required of consciousness than of those calculations?

Calculations don't share any of the elements we attribute to consciousness.

What does this hypothesis explain, or otherwise make sense of, that the "scientists' claims" do not?

It depends which claims you mean. I don't accept that consciousness is an emergent property because that would mean it doesn't exist. I don't accept that consciousness is a direct product of the brain, and only of the brain, because that would require adoptions of unwarranted assumptions and additional entities to explain. My theory also explains certain observations such as group behaviours, where individual creatures behave as one single large one.

 

[Belz...]

My claims require fewer entities, not more. The claim that the brain creates consciousness involves two entities - brain and consciousness.

No, they're one and the same. The claim that legs create running doesn't involve two entities; same for consciousness. Your claim requires at least one more.

 

[Chanakya]

Neither have been proven. Personally, I'd say the evidence + logic strongly indicates that free will is probably an illusion, but that consciousness itself is mere illusion isn't really backed by any evidence at all. Some people just look at evidence showing how quirky and deceptive conscious experience is and use that to conclude (somehow) that the whole thing is just an illusion.

Oh. I'll take your word for it, for now. I was under the impression that both these have been kind of proven, but perhaps I was mistaken. (Haven't read the two articles you've linked, yet, but I will, when I have a bit of time. And it might be good for me to generally read a bit more on this, and, perhaps, after that, start a fresh thread on this?)

I have never understood the "consciousness is an illusion" claim. What does it even mean?

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk

I'm one of the people making the claim -- or at least, not quite claim, but at least expressing that vague impression. But reading your post, I realize that far from being able to actually back this claim (or impression), I'm hard pressed to even define this properly.

Just to address the definition part, the what-does-it-even-mean that you ask, I guess I'd say: Consciousness is probably no big deal. Absolutely not unique to humans. Probably all animals, at least higher animals, have it. Although I suppose there'd be a scale, going from lower to higher.

That is, 'most everything -- at least, (higher) animals -- is conscious, also means I suppose that consciousness is an illusion, in as much as it is simply an intrinsic part of simply being alive with some complexity.



This isn't a claim, or an overture for debate (although certainly, a discussion on this with others better informed than I am would be welcome). I'm not equipped for that, not yet, not without a great deal more reading on this. Given that I'd forwarded the view that consciously is probably an illusion, I thought I'd try to answer your question, and tell you what it might mean.

Why just animals, why not plants? Why not amoeba? If you ask me that, I'll simply shrug, and say "perhaps, who knows?"

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Your last two posts suggest you have no idea what we're talking about.

It seems to me that the first of those posts revealed considerable knowledge of the matters Myriad was discussing.

 

[Belz...]

It seems to me that the first of those posts revealed considerable knowledge of the matters Myriad was discussing.

Yeah but he disagreed with him, so clearly he's wrong.

 

[baron]

O
I'm one of the people making the claim -- or at least, not quite claim, but at least expressing that vague impression

The Hard Problem goes further than that. It asks, implicitly, If consciousness is an illusion, who is experiencing that illusion?

When you look around you, everything you experience is created from scratch 'inside' your brain. That whole three dimensional, tactile, aromatic world is entirely modelled from the electric impulses of your nervous system. I presume when you say that consciousness is an illusion you're referring to the the fact that none of this has an independent existence, which is true, but that's only part of the story. Without some observational element an illusion cannot exist. Who, or what, is doing the observing?

Another puzzler is why I have never - literally never in my life - typed illusion without first spelling it illlustion?