proto-consciousness field theory

[Darat]

Actions happen? That's a linguistic construct that allows complex ideas to be communicated between humans. It's not reality. The parameters of reality are already there, inherent in whatever matter is doing the performing, and the description of action adds nothing and changes nothing. It does not exist.







My theory doesn't allow for it but who's to say? Your objection is like dismissing gravity because 'who is to say' that a distortion in space time doesn't exist when the mass is removed.

Baron see my post above. In the clock that ticks where is the sound wave? It is not a property of any component, it only happens when all the components are working to a significant degree. Your reasoning seems to be that we should believe there is a “sound field " since emergent properties don't actually exist.

 

[baron]

This gets to the heart of it, the tick is not a property of any specific piece of metal or equipment in the clock, it is a sound wave and sound waves are not a property of any component of the clock. Show me the component that has the sound wave in it.

I don't see how that is different to any other example. The cogs of the watch turn and click into place. This creates a pressure wave. If you want to go further that pressure wave impacts the ear-drum and that creates another wave that stimulates the hairs in the cochlea (?) which create electrical impulses which are received by the brain.

All that without mention of the word 'tick'. There is no 'tick', it's an additional description that does not exist in the real world.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is no "leg". There are muscles and bones and skin and tendons and sinew. You can describe it perfectly without using the word "leg", therefore "leg" is an additional description that does not exist in the real world.

There is no "water". There are hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms that bond together and which exhibit certain properties when they do. You can describe it perfectly without using the word "water", therefore "water" is an additional description that does not exist in the real world.

There is no "atom". There are electrons and neutrons and protons arranged in a certain way. You can describe it perfectly without ever using the word "atom", therefore "atom" is an additional description that does not exist in the real world.

This is a linguistic game.

 

[baron]

There is no "leg". There are muscles and bones and skin and tendons and sinew. You can describe it perfectly without using the word "leg", therefore "leg" is an additional description that does not exist in the real world.

There is no "water". There are hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms that bond together and which exhibit certain properties when they do. You can describe it perfectly without using the word "water", therefore "water" is an additional description that does not exist in the real world.

There is no "atom". There are electrons and neutrons and protons arranged in a certain way. You can describe it perfectly without ever using the word "atom", therefore "atom" is an additional description that does not exist in the real world.

This is a linguistic game.

If it's a game then you don't know the rules. All those descriptions are of things, not processes. The fact they're composed of other things is wholly irrelevant and shows you haven't tried to understand what's being said.

You can remove an atom from a piece of metal. You can remove a piece of metal from a cog. You can remove a cog from a watch. All this you can do because these are things. Now you try removing the 'tick' from a watch and let me know how it goes.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If it's a game then you don't know the rules. All those descriptions are of things, not processes. The fact they're composed of other things is wholly irrelevant and shows you haven't tried to understand what's being said.

You can remove an atom from a piece of metal. You can remove a piece of metal from a cog. You can remove a cog from a watch. All this you can do because these are things. Now you try removing the 'tick' from a watch and let me know how it goes.

This is a different argument to the last one you made. If you think the last argument is silly and doesn't prove the point you were trying to make, then we're both in agreement.

And it still amuses me how you seem to think that "exists" is a synonym of "is a physical object".

 

[JoeMorgue]

And now we are firmly in the "How many tails does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" weeds and, as established by repeated experiments, we will never get out of it.

We're 13 pages into the billionth discussion of consciousness which totally isn't a soul without the people arguing the most angrily that it obviously exists BOTHERING TO DEFINE THE DAMN THING.

In words, actual human words, what process(es) of the human mind are we trying to find an explanation for? What question are we trying to answer?

I'll get word salad and "This philosopher said" (And the Ying & Yang twins aren't even in this discussion yet) but I will not, within metaphysical certainty, get an actual answer.

 

[Belz...]

Actions happen? That's a linguistic construct that allows complex ideas to be communicated between humans. It's not reality. The parameters of reality are already there, inherent in whatever matter is doing the performing, and the description of action adds nothing and changes nothing. It does not exist.

But that's nonsense. Do atoms not move?

If atoms move, that's what we call an action; a behaviour. It doesn't matter what word we use, it's just a shorthand. I'm sure you agree that atoms move and do stuff, and thus actions exist.

Your objection is like dismissing gravity because 'who is to say' that a distortion in space time doesn't exist when the mass is removed.

Actually, it's not like that at all. No one is using the theory of gravity in order to shoehorn a soul into the discussion.

I don't see how that is different to any other example. The cogs of the watch turn and click into place. This creates a pressure wave. If you want to go further that pressure wave impacts the ear-drum and that creates another wave that stimulates the hairs in the cochlea (?) which create electrical impulses which are received by the brain.

Exactly. So why isn't consciousness just like that?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Exactly. So why isn't consciousness just like that?

Jeez, Belz haven't you been listening? Because it's different. And it's different because it's not the same. And your cold, hard science can never explain that!

This philosophizer from a time when people still thought maggots spontaneously formed from rotten meat said something in Latin about it. You can't argue against that.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Not the ticking mechanism. The ticking itself. Where is it in the clock?

It's where the pieces of the clock hit each other to make the ticking sound. We can thoroughly explain how the sound is produced with physics and foumlas. What point are you trying to make?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Exactly. So why isn't consciousness just like that?

???

If you can do that, just go ahead and do that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's where the pieces of the clock hit each other to make the ticking sound. We can thoroughly explain how the sound is produced with physics and foumlas. What point are you trying to make?

And what do you think neurons and glia cells are? Tiny invisible Fairies? What do you think synapses are? Magic?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And what do you think neurons and glia cells are? Tiny invisible Fairies? What do you think synapses are? Magic?

They are components of the brain. Explain how they produce consciousness.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose that if consciousness doesn't exist if it's a process, like the ticking of a clock, then that means that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain only has one entity - a brain. So that makes it more parsimonious than a hypothesis that relies on a brain and a consciousness field.

 

[JoeMorgue]

They are components of the brain. Explain how they produce consciousness.

And we're right back to "I understand how the motions of the legs can producing a rapid moving gait where each foot leaves the ground for a split second... but I need you to point me to where 'the running' actually is." That's because the rapid moving gait IS the running.

"Yes, yes I completely see and understand that the candle is rapidly oxidizing it's wick in a chemical producing heat, light, and carbonized by products... but you can't show me how it makes fire." That's because the chemical reaction producing heat, light, and carbonized by products IS fire.

I can't show you BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING UP AN AIR GAP between the explainable part of the thing and the thing you want to exist and pointing a distinction that doesn't exist.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And we're right back to "I understand how the motions of the legs can producing a rapid moving gate where each foot leaves the ground for a split second... but I need you to point me to where 'the running' actually is."

I don't need to do that, I can point at the runner myself. And pointing at the runner isn't the issue. The explanation for running is "motions of the legs can producing a rapid moving gate where each foot leaves the ground".

"Yes, yes I completely see and understand that the candle is rapidly oxidizing it's wick in a chemical producing heat, light, and carbonized by products... but you can't show me how it makes fire?"

You just thoroughly described fire, do the same for consciousness.

Please stop evading my question and explain hour consciousness is produced if you can.

 

[baron]

But that's nonsense. Do atoms not move?

Actually, not really. But I'll take your question in the spirit it's intended, e.g. does a ball move? Yes, a ball does move. Is movement a thing? No, clearly not.

If atoms move, that's what we call an action; a behaviour. It doesn't matter what word we use, it's just a shorthand. I'm sure you agree that atoms move and do stuff, and thus actions exist.

No they do not. That's why we have terms such as 'verb' and 'abstract noun', to distinguish things from non-things and actions.

Actually, it's not like that at all. No one is using the theory of gravity in order to shoehorn a soul into the discussion.

- Right, so you think a soul exists!
- No I do not because my theory doesn't allow for souls.
- That's just woo, saying that souls exists!
- I don't make that claim, I don't believe souls exist.
- Oh look, you're shoe-horning souls into the discussion!
- No, I - forget it.

Exactly. So why isn't consciousness just like that?

What kind of question is that? Why the heck would it be? Why is beauty not like a flea up a drainpipe? Why is 134 not the aroma of rabbits with a hint of unhinged jealousy? Just because you can form a grammatically correct equivalence doesn't mean you should. The uniqueness of conscious experience is the reason that, for the entirety of human history, mankind has striven to explain its nature and origins, and has not afforded the same attention to ticking. That's why there is no research into ticking, or a Hard Problem of ticking, because however much you will it to be the same as consciousness it isn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't need to do that, I can point at the runner myself. And pointing at the runner isn't the issue. The explanation for running is "motions of the legs can producing a rapid moving gate where each foot leaves the ground".


You just thoroughly described fire, do the same for consciousness.

Please stop evading my question and explain hour consciousness is produced if you can.

*Head desk*

I.... it's like I don't say words here.

You argue something exists, I say it doesn't (in the sense you are using it), and then you ask ME to define what YOU are arguing for.

I'm so sick of the word "conscious" because it just means anything.

So here goes. This is the last time I'm doing this.

Everything that actually exists about the human mental experience can be explained via the normal, understood (in the broad strokes) working of a normal, physical, real world functioning of a normal human brain's normal neurological functions.

Slap what ever label you want on THAT. Call it awareness, call it consciousness, call it dancing the Charleston in a tri-cornered hat.

If you don't think that's "consciousness" then fine, your version of consciousness is a soul and doesn't exist.

If you do think "consciousness" is that, you need to tell me what you are talking about that still needs to be answered.

Do not argue "The difference is that they aren't the same, and the reason they aren't the same is the difference" and try to use one to argue the other.

 

[JoeMorgue]

People.

Either define what part of the human mental experience we need an X factor to explain OR define the X factor you're adding to the normal functioning of a human brain.

You can't do both at the same time!

Stop going "I have to add something to the equation to explain the thing I added to the equation."

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Everything that actually exists about the human mental experience can be explained via the normal, understood (in the broad strokes) working of a normal, physical, real world functioning of a normal human brain's normal neurological functions.

Then tell me the explanation.

If you don't think that's "consciousness" then fine, your version of consciousness is a soul and doesn't exist.

Do you have thoughts you are consciously aware of or not? Do you also have thoughts that you are not consciously aware of not? If you have both simply explain why and/or how the neurological activity does both and what the difference in the mechanism is that causes the difference.

 

[baron]

You argue something exists, I say it doesn't (in the sense you are using it), and then you ask ME to define what YOU are arguing for.

I'm so sick of the word "conscious" because it just means anything.

So here goes. This is the last time I'm doing this.

Everything that actually exists about the human mental experience can be explained via the normal, understood (in the broad strokes) working of a normal, physical, real world functioning of a normal human brain's normal neurological functions.

Slap what ever label you want on THAT. Call it awareness, call it consciousness, call it dancing the Charleston in a tri-cornered hat.

If you don't think that's "consciousness" then fine, your version of consciousness is a soul and doesn't exist.

If you do think "consciousness" is that, you need to tell me what you are talking about that still needs to be answered.

Do not argue "The difference is that they aren't the same, and the reason they aren't the same is the difference" and try to use one to argue the other.

And here JoeMorgue illustrates precisely what I mean when I say some people just don't get it. Except in this instance we can add, 'and doesn't want to try'.