Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[acbytesla]

That bears not even a passing relationship to what I posted.

Well then, perhaps you should be more clear.

You seem to be arguing that human's shared reality is an illusion and no more than electrical pulses. And what we experience is merely an illusion. And perhaps you are right. But you will never know from inside the matrix. You also seem to be arguing that quantum mechanics proves this. But from my perspective, that is just special pleading.

Feel free to clarify.

 

[Belz...]

I have no problem, and I was not debating science, I was debating acbytesla.

And he was talking about science. Nice try.

For the record, materialism is not a scientific term nor is it a scientific concept.

You might want to freshen up on your physics.

 

[Belz...]

And this one directly contradicts yours.

You're just being contrarian now.

I don't know what that means.

QM is a theory. It is an approximation of the workings of reality. It is not reality itself. It is entirely possible that we may be unable to fully describe reality.

 

[smartcooky]

And I didn't ask that.

And I wasn't talking to you, I was answering Donn

My position is simple: asserting any ontology is worse than asserting no ontology, essentially by Occam's razor. And that materialism is, indeed, a fad.

Oh, I can invoke Ocham's Razor to support and explain my position too

If I can see it, touch it, smell it, hear it or taste it, or any combinations of these, or if I can see, or perceive or be shown its effects, e.g. quantum physics, gravity, etc, then its real. The simplest answer is that what we perceive is real; these things impact on my everyday life, so really, they are the only things that matter to me. Anything else is, e.g., solipsism, matrixism, universal minds etc, are AFAIC, meaningless philosobabble. As SG Collins would put it, "it demands a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know"

 

[smartcooky]

QM is a theory. It is an approximation of the workings of reality. It is not reality itself. It is entirely possible that we may be unable to fully describe reality.

THIS!

And just because this is so, does not mean the world is imaginary or a simulation.

 

[Myriad]

What our mere senses and internal electrical impulses appear from all available evidence to be very capable of doing is to create a "chunked" understanding of the external world in terms of an ongoing narrative of objects, beings (with intentions), and events.

Regardless of what it's ultimately made of, an apple tree is in every sense just as real as quantum fields. In fact, quantum fields are far from an adequate description of the nature of an apple tree. The quantum equations for even a single molecule of the cellulose of the wood of the tree are far too complex to calculate their outcomes directly. If our understanding of the external world were limited to direct perception of quantum fields and events, we'd be unable to even perceive the tree; branches, leaves, roots, germination, mitosis, transpiration, seeding, and evolution would all be unfathomable abstractions. I'd say that "a bunch of quantum wavefunctions interacting in complex ways" is a far, far less meaningful or informative explanation for the nature of a tree than "a bunch of electrical impulses interacting in complex ways" is for the generation of consciousness in the brain.

We do not experience any external material thing directly. But even so, only in a bizarre quantum version of mereological nihilism could quantum wave functions of the particles and fields that make up the tree be regarded as real, while the leaves, roots, wood, DNA, and apples are regarded as illusory.

 

[baron]

Well then, perhaps you should be more clear.

You seem to be arguing that human's shared reality is an illusion and no more than electrical pulses. And what we experience is merely an illusion. And perhaps you are right. But you will never know from inside the matrix. You also seem to be arguing that quantum mechanics proves this. But from my perspective, that is just special pleading.

Feel free to clarify.

Perhaps tomorrow I will, as I haven't got the time right now.

However, I don't need much time to deal with this:

And he was talking about science. Nice try.

I was not debating science. Thank you.

You might want to freshen up on your physics.

Thanks for posting a link to the Wiki entry on 'matter' when the word under discussion was 'materialism'. That's what happens when you argue for the sake of it, you post rubbish like that.

 

[caveman1917]

Oh, I can invoke Ocham's Razor to support and explain my position too

No you can't. Suppose we let go off an object (L) and observe it to fall down (F) then some data we could have would be: LFLFLFLF. We get a law of gravity: L -> LF and can compress the data to:
"L -> LF, LLLL"

So far for the science. Now any ontology you're going to assert here is going to make this compressed data larger, such as:
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a really real thing" (ie materialism)

but also
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a simulated thing" (ie matrixism)
or
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a product of my mind" (ie solipsism)
and so on

Anything else is, e.g., solipsism, matrixism, universal minds etc, are AFAIC, meaningless philosobabble. As SG Collins would put it, "it demands a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know"

All of which applies just as well to materialism.

 

[IanS]

How does that lead to consciousness? And why doesn't it always lead to consciousness assuming it ever does?

It doesn't "lead" to consciousness. Instead what I'm suggesting (it's only a suggestion), is that, that is what consciousness actually is. That is ...

... what we call "consciousness" is just that continuous rapidly updating set of sensations and responses that we experience/undergo as a result of the chemical, electrical and physical changes from the sensory input, to reactions in the brain, to signals going back from the brain to the muscles and other organs and back to the sensory system in a continuous cycle ... the effect of that is what we call "consciousness".

If you don't understand how that could be what you think of as consciousness as you perceive it in your own daily life, then that may simply be because the effect has become so refined and so efficient in humans after billions of years of evolution, that to us as functioning apes, it now seems like “magic” … as if there must be some other reason different from the purely physical/chemical reactions that define how all living things function …

… but since all known evidence is against such “magic”, I expect the explanation for the effect that we call “consciousness”, is indeed just a highly evolved and very efficient (seemingly “very efficient” on out time scale at least, and where we are unaware of the underlying chemical, electrical processes that go on all the time in our cells and nerves etc.) sequence of perfectly natural chemical and electrical changes that occur in all “living things” (they occur to different extents, and with more or less complexity going from simple organisms such as plants, to the most complex such as mammals inc. apes and humans).

You could think about it another way – if you were able to travel back to the time when the first living things appeared on the Earth (e.g. you are the only human alive, but you actually know nothing about modern science or the modern world … all you can detect is what your senses see, hear, smell etc., and what your thinking human mind says to you about the single-celled “life” before you and the landscape of the planet that you perceive), then you would probably think it was impossible, even completely unimaginable, that a process of evolution would lead eventually (after billions of years) to humans that could make aircraft, computers, discover quantum field theory, develop language etc., or indeed experience an effect that we call “consciousness” …

… but the explanation for how humans came to have all those characteristics & abilities today (inc. “consciousness”), is certainly that it has been the inevitable result of 3 billion years of evolving life becoming more and more highly developed, more sophisticated, refined and more capable in everything associated with our life and existence.

 

[caveman1917]

But even so, only in a bizarre quantum version of mereological nihilism could quantum wave functions of the particles and fields that make up the tree be regarded as real, while the leaves, roots, wood, DNA, and apples are regarded as illusory.

You mean as in "the wavefunction exists"? I meant that as "the universal wavefunction exists", like in asserting the Everett interpretation applied to the universe as a whole. Not sure how you get nihilism from that. And it's not about the other stuff being illusory but about it not being fundamental, just like a classical materialist wouldn't call a car illusory merely because it reduces to more fundamental atoms.

 

[Belz...]

I was not debating science. Thank you.

Of course you are. You mentioned science several times during the discussion.

Thanks for posting a link to the Wiki entry on 'matter' when the word under discussion was 'materialism'.

Maybe you should tell this guy:

Materialism is an absurdity. Matter does not exist.

...because apparently he thinks that one has to do with the other.

Materialism is about matter, something science quite assuredly concludes exists. Ergo, science espouses the materialist philosophy.

Oh, my mistake, you don't even know what materialism is.

Heal thyself.

 

[smartcooky]

No you can't. Suppose we let go off an object (L) and observe it to fall down (F) then some data we could have would be: LFLFLFLF. We get a law of gravity: L -> LF and can compress the data to:
"L -> LF, LLLL"

Yes. For me, this is actualism.

I see the object fall
I understand why it falls.

This is all that is relevant.

So far for the science. Now any ontology you're going to assert here is going to make this compressed data larger, such as:
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a really real thing" (ie materialism)

but also
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a simulated thing" (ie matrixism)
or
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a product of my mind" (ie solipsism)
and so on

This is philosobabble, and I cannot even begin to parse it, let alone understand how any of it has relevance to actualism.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

... what we call "consciousness" is just that continuous rapidly updating set of sensations and responses that we experience/undergo as a result of the chemical, electrical and physical changes from the sensory input, to reactions in the brain, to signals going back from the brain to the muscles and other organs and back to the sensory system in a continuous cycle ... the effect of that is what we call "consciousness".

But my point is simply that we also call that unconsciousness. So how does it explain consciousness?

 

[smartcooky]

It doesn't "lead" to consciousness. Instead what I'm suggesting (it's only a suggestion), is that, that is what consciousness actually is. That is ...

... what we call "consciousness" is just that continuous rapidly updating set of sensations and responses that we experience/undergo as a result of the chemical, electrical and physical changes from the sensory input, to reactions in the brain, to signals going back from the brain to the muscles and other organs and back to the sensory system in a continuous cycle ... the effect of that is what we call "consciousness".

If you don't understand how that could be what you think of as consciousness as you perceive it in your own daily life, then that may simply be because the effect has become so refined and so efficient in humans after billions of years of evolution, that to us as functioning apes, it now seems like “magic” … as if there must be some other reason different from the purely physical/chemical reactions that define how all living things function …

… but since all known evidence is against such “magic”, I expect the explanation for the effect that we call “consciousness”, is indeed just a highly evolved and very efficient (seemingly “very efficient” on out time scale at least, and where we are unaware of the underlying chemical, electrical processes that go on all the time in our cells and nerves etc.) sequence of perfectly natural chemical and electrical changes that occur in all “living things” (they occur to different extents, and with more or less complexity going from simple organisms such as plants, to the most complex such as mammals inc. apes and humans).

You could think about it another way – if you were able to travel back to the time when the first living things appeared on the Earth (e.g. you are the only human alive, but you actually know nothing about modern science or the modern world … all you can detect is what your senses see, hear, smell etc., and what your thinking human mind says to you about the single-celled “life” before you and the landscape of the planet that you perceive), then you would probably think it was impossible, even completely unimaginable, that a process of evolution would lead eventually (after billions of years) to humans that could make aircraft, computers, discover quantum field theory, develop language etc., or indeed experience an effect that we call “consciousness” …

… but the explanation for how humans came to have all those characteristics & abilities today (inc. “consciousness”), is certainly that it has been the inevitable result of 3 billion years of evolving life becoming more and more highly developed, more sophisticated, refined and more capable in everything associated with our life and existence.

IIUYC, then your idea is that consciousness is the inevitable result of our sensory inputs to our brain. The brain interprets those inputs as its environment. Not only does this explain consciousness, but if true, no other explanation is even necessary.

I like this.

 

[Darat]

That's just silly, words mean things. ...snip...

And the meaning of words change over time. Sometimes older labels get redefined or co-opted to mean something else.

 

[Darat]

THIS!

And just because this is so, does not mean the world is imaginary or a simulation.

Or that anything is "possible".

 

[Darat]

But my point is simply that we also call that unconsciousness. So how does it explain consciousness?

This is not me trying a "aha but what does 'is' mean?" But to be able to answer your question properly you need to provide the definition you are using for "consciousness" in your question.

 

[smartcooky]

And the meaning of words change over time. Sometimes older labels get redefined or co-opted to mean something else.

Gay - once meant happy, now means homosexual.

Egregious - Once meant distinguished or eminent, now means conspicuously bad.

Terrible - originally meant inspiring great fear, now means harsh or excessive.

Naughty - originally meant you had nothing, then it came to mean evil, now it means badly behaved.

 

[IanS]

But my point is simply that we also call that unconsciousness. So how does it explain consciousness?

Why do we need to talk now about how we can become unconscious? I thought we were asking how it could be possible to experience the effect that we call "consciousness", i.e. being intellectually aware of our surroundings etc., and having the ability to think in a useful way about that, so as to make decisions on how we act etc. ... I thought we were looking for a possible explanation for how that might be occurring, not just in humans because it clearly occurs not just in other apes but in pet cat's and dogs as well ... why do we now have to change the problem to ask also for an explanation of what it means to say we are "unconscious"?

But if by "unconscious" you are thinking of humans who are, say, in a vegetative state after major brain injury (as opposed to, say, plants that also react in a very obvious way to their surroundings, and they also do that through a fundamentally similar use of sensory cells (afaik)), then afaik all that has happened to make us "unconscious" is that the brain has stopped processing the input data from the sensory organs (sight, hearing, smell etc.) ... so why is that difficult to understand?

Incidentally, a better/clearer example than my previous off-the-cuff scenario of a human observer watching the first life-forms appear 3 billion years ago, might be just to think about the human eye and think about how we could possibly experience the sensation of what we call “vision”, such that we form a very clear and rapidly updating really accurate picture of the world around us (so clear that we can react very quickly to changes such as objects that we might collide with etc.) … how could that possibly happen? … the eye might react to light in complicated ways with different specialised cells, but that alone would not explain how we then instantly experience a very accurate “vision” of what is actually all around us … so how could that occur without some magical mystical explanation of “conscious awareness”? … I think the answer is just the same one that I already described before about that constant exchange of impulses and reactions between the input from the eyes to the brain, and back to the eyes and other organs etc., in a continuous rapidly updating cycle ..

… I'm not trying to give a total full explanation of exactly how all of that occurs and exactly why that inevitably leads to an effect that we call “consciousness”, that would probably require decades or even centuries of research on every aspect of the way our sensory system interacts with the brain. But I think it should be fairly easy to understand how it may all be occurring in that way, simply as a result of the sensory system interacting with the brain and with all the other associated organs of the body (without the need for anything mystical, and certainly without the need for, or any evidence for any supernatural ideas such as a “soul” placed into us by an intelligent God).


Anyway, that's my suggestion. And I do not think it is a big mystery, and certainly not what philosophers like to present as what they call "the hard problem of consciousness", as if to imply that science cannot explain it ... well, one thing is for sure - neither philosophy or religion is likely to adequately explain either consciousness or anything else ... but science is very likely to explain it, and in fact science clearly has already produced a very considerable understanding of such things as "consciousness".

 

[MikeG]

If current physics are not labeled "materialism", what label should be used?

Reality.

Non-woo.