proto-consciousness field theory

[JoeMorgue]

Then tell me the explanation.

No. I'm not going to give you a crash course on neuro-science that you've already pre-rejected.

You can't explain to me on a PhD level how hormone production in the endocrine system works but we both agree and accept that it does because neither of us has an ulterior motive to think otherwise so we're not looking for them. That doesn't mean I get to argue to you that my hypothalamus and pituitary glands don't actually create hormones, they only create the factors of hormones but some mythical separate and distinct process is needed to create "the true essence of hormones."

I'm not going to walk you through every step in the process while you keep trying to make up gaps every step to shove a soul into.

This reducing "Explain it to me" to absurd levels. If you're told the heart pumps blood you don't demand a separate explanation for the "act of pumping."

It's not my fault or my problem that your sense of self can survive "Wow making hormones is just what my endocrine system does" but not "Well creating my mental awareness is just what my brain does."

If the state of mental awareness that your brain creates isn't what you consider your whole self, I can't help you because you've made an undefined variable that's defined as "the thing that can't be explained." It's God of the Gaps where your sense of self identity is the God.

 

[Darat]

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?

But will those physics and formulas make a tick sound?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No. I'm not going to give you a crash course on neuro-science that you've already pre-rejected.

It is easy to establish that there is no consensus, not even close, on how consciousness is produced in the brain. In fact, there is no agreement it's even a neuroscience issue at all. If computers are actually capable of becoming consciousness as many think then it can't actually be a neuroscience issue. You're just lying here by pretending there is an explanation when there isn't. Why?

You can't explain to me on a PhD level how hormone production in the endocrine system works but we both agree and accept that it does because neither of us has an ulterior motive to think otherwise so we're not looking for them.

We can't point at explanations for those by PhDs. Point to the equivalent for consciousness. You're the one making things up. So what's your ulterior motive?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But will those physics and formulas make a tick sound?

Of course not. Why do you ask?

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is easy to establish that there is no consensus, not even close, on how consciousness is produced in the brain. In fact, there is no agreement it's even a neuroscience issue at all. If computers are actually capable of becoming consciousness as many think then it can't actually be a neuroscience issue. You're just lying here by pretending there is an explanation when there isn't. Why?

I'll get on that right after I show you "JUST ONE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!" because we need to "teach the controversy."

I get that this whole "Oh the mind is this mysterious thing that cold hard science just can't understand" is like, really important for some people to think is true but it's like... not.

Yeah there are still things we need to fully understand, but that's true of everything and I can already tell you're gonna spend a lot of time hiding behind them. There's plenty of bodily functions we don't fully understand but we don't assume some separate mystical process operating on top of them. We don't yet know, on a process level, how anesthesia works but we don't get to go "Okay well maybe it puts your soul to sleep."

We understand enough about the mind to know it's a natural process of the brain. Hell the very concept of brain damage, as in if you injure part of your brain part of your mental processing stops working and if you injure the whole brain... all of it does pretty much ends the discussion.

But that's all beside the point. I'm not stupid. I know this game. You're going to demand I explain EVERYTHING to you before you stop trying to say "Oh well then we need to add something to explain it..."

Soul of the Gaps.

 

[baron]

It is easy to establish that there is no consensus, not even close, on how consciousness is produced in the brain. In fact, there is no agreement it's even a neuroscience issue at all. If computers are actually capable of becoming consciousness as many think then it can't actually be a neuroscience issue.

That brings up a tangential point, that there is no consensus of scientists regarding whether consciousness can ever be produced by machines. If we're to believe certain posters on this thread this is a bizarre state of affairs, because surely consciousness is just the same as 'running' and 'calculating', and computers calculate, right? Surely it's a no-brainer (no pun intended).

It's almost like consciousness isn't viewed as the same as running, even by the scientists who claim it's emergent. Even Dennett, arch-sceptic of all things non-empirical, has written several books about consciousness and admits that he cannot explain it (or at least he did at the end of the hilariously titled 'Consciousness Explained'). To my knowledge neither he nor anybody else has written one on the mysteries of running.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're gonna have to have the "Well some scientist still doubt evolution!" argument aren't we?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That's an awful lot of misdirection there Joe.

 

[Darat]

Of course not. Why do you ask?

To see if you were being inconsistent or not, and you are being inconsistent, there is no more reason to think an explanation of physics and formulas that can describe the brain's functioning would give you the consciousness than the same description of a clock would give you the tick.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

To see if you were being inconsistent or not, and you are being inconsistent, there is no more reason to think an explanation of physics and formulas that can describe the brain's functioning would give you the consciousness than the same description of a clock would give you the tick.

Then provide the explanation for consciousness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Then provide the explanation for consciousness.

Why? You've already rejected it.

You don't want to be just a brain. We get that.

Nobody here is going to jump through hoops to spoon feed you some Neuroscience 101 intro course when you've already made it clear that's not where your disagreement really lies.

You refuse to define what you want explained, refuse to simply say what question you want answered, you hide behind "Science doesn't know everything" but won't explain what you want "science" to explain beyond defining consciousness as the thing science can't explain.

We've shown you where the gears and clock hands are. So when you keep asking us "NOW SHOW ME THE TICKING!" without clarifying what "ticking" your talking about that's different from the ticket we've just described, we aren't going to describe the gears and clock hands at you more because it's not going to make a difference.

Your response will be angry incredulity and dismissal because that's all you have.

So again I will give you courtesy of asking one last time.

1. Do you agree that our modern understanding of the brain can describe the human brain's capacity to take in sensory inputs, react to stimuli, store and retrieve memories, make decisions, and otherwise function and be aware?

2. What is left over from that that we still need to explain?

Until you clearly answer one of those two questions I can't engage you because your problem is "you want there to be a problem."

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why? You've already rejected it.

I can't reject something that doesn't exist. There is no scientific consensus on how consciousness arises.

You don't want to be just a brain. We get that.

You've missed me repeatedly saying that I believe I am just a brain. Or you just have a need to lie about others beliefs on this matter.

Nobody here is going to jump through hoops to spoon feed you some Neuroscience 101 intro course when you've already made it clear that's not where your disagreement really lies.

What a pile of bluster. There is no consensus on consciousness and what exist about consciousness certainly isn't a 101 course.

So again I will give you courtesy of asking one last time.

1. Do you agree that our modern understanding of the brain can describe the human brain's capacity to take in sensory inputs, react to stimuli, store and retrieve memories, make decisions, and otherwise function and be aware?

Nice try to sneak something in. Everything in your sentence is easily explained except the last.

2. What is left over from that that we still need to explain?

How the difference between the non-conscious and conscious activities of our brains arises.

 

[baron]

Why? You've already rejected it.

You don't want to be just a brain. We get that.

Nobody here is going to jump through hoops to spoon feed you some Neuroscience 101 intro course

That's because nobody can, and that's a fact.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How the difference between the non-conscious and conscious activities of our brains arises.

When you say conscious and non-conscious activities what do you mean?

Is your argument that neuro-science doesn't understand awareness?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

When you say conscious and non-conscious activities what do you mean?

Do you not know from your own personal experience. Do you have thoughts that you are consciously aware of and others that you aren't. That difference.

Is your argument that neuro-science doesn't understand awareness?

It's hardly an argument. It's just a statement of fact.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you not know from your own personal experience. Do you have thoughts that you are consciously aware of and others that you aren't. That difference.

I'm extremely confused. What exactly does any of that prove about anything?

What is the fact that other people aren't aware of my mental functioning changing about anything?

My stomach also can't digest your food. My liver can't detoxify your blood. My heart can't pump your blood.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm extremely confused. What exactly does any of that prove about anything?

It's not a proof of anything. You asked a question, I answered. That's the answer.

What is the fact that other people aren't aware of my mental functioning changing about anything?

I didn't say that. I asked solely about things going on in your own head. Are there not some things that happen in your head unconsciously and others that happen consciously? That's the difference you asked me to explain.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I didn't say that. I asked solely about things going on in your own head. Are there not some things that happen in your head unconsciously and others that happen consciously? That's the difference you asked me to explain.

Again I don't get what point you're making.

Yes my brain has functions I am both aware of and unaware of (and things I am 'control' of and not in control of for lack of a better term.)

My mental functioning has higher level functions and lower level functions. I'm aware of my decision to have a bagel instead of an English muffin, I am not aware of my dopamine level dropping in response to a cloudy day. And?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you don't know what the thread is about by now I'm at a complete loss as to how to explain it any further.

 

[baron]

A machine reacts to a photon by moving an object -

* A photon impacts a sensor. An electrical impulse is sent down a wire to a motor. The motor moves an object.

A person reacts to a photon my moving an object -

* A photon impacts a sensor (eye). The person experiences a flash of light. An electrical impulse is sent down a wire (nerve) to a motor (brain). The motor (brain) moves an object (finger).

Conscious experience.
How is it possible that people can't grasp this concept? I genuinely can't understand it.