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

[Darat]

At first glance your analogy is useful - given a snapshot of planet earth 2 billion years ago one could not predict evolution . . . yet given a series of snapshots, someone could - someone named Darwin did just that.
However, given 'chemical, electrical and physical changes' - can one predict a rich 1st person experience? That's what it really boils down to . . . given what we know about the nervous system, is there any way or mechanism that predicts consciousness? I'm not aware of any such theory, hypothesis or even a wild-eyed guess.

Again what is the definition of consciousness that you are using?

 

[smartcooky]

It's not just that 3 billion years ago it would not have been predicted. It's more the case that it would have been literally beyond all possible imagination ... you could not have even conceived of how an eye (for example) could possibly ever appear and then become vastly more advanced and effective over the passage of time. You would not even have any concept of what sight or vision ever could be.

As far as the Darwin analogy is concerned - he was not around 3 billion years ago to predict evolution. He was only able to finally verify that process because by the 1830's when Darwin was gathering his data, huge strides were already being made across all areas of science, inc. iirc earlier descriptions of something very similar to evolution.

On the issue of why nobody has yet published a complete explanation of exactly how our sensory system along with the brain, produces the effect that we call “consciousness”, I suspect that is because the most advanced and sophisticated areas of science are not concerned with debates about “consciousness” (it's not part of what physicists, chemists, mathematicians, or even most biologists normally concern themselves with). And it's also an area that has got a lot of attention from philosophy and religion where they have been debating it for thousands of years … mostly in the context of claims for it being evidence of a soul and hence evidence for God … and that sort of religious-philosophical debate is not something that many scientists want to waste their time getting drawn into.

But, I have just given you the basic outline of a “theory” for what consciousness actually is and what causes it. And if we look in the research literature for recent papers (the last 30 years, say), I would not be at all surprised to find quite a large number of papers from psychology, medicine, neuroscience and similar fields describing something essentially similar to what I just described … i.e. describing how continuous exchanges of large amounts of information between the sensory system and the brain, are probably responsible for the effect that we call “consciousness”.

Certainly you will find loads of papers describing (for example) how the functioning of the brain is clearly the principal causal component producing what we call “consciousness” (mainly because we know that if areas of the brain are prevented from working, then certain parts of consciousness also stop … and conversely, if certain parts of the brain are deliberately stimulated with drugs or electrical impulses etc., then the patient experiences specific conscious effects and experiences, albeit the “conscious” experiences are being stimulated entirely by that artificial use of drugs and electrical impulses … i.e. the patient reacts as if experiencing real events going on around him/her, but actually it's just an effect caused by the application of electrical signals or certain drugs).

IanS, a lot of this sounds far too certain. You know that Philosophers will never accept this intrusion of commonsense into their area of expertise. They "demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty"

 

[IanS]

I don't think my current point really hinges much on the definition. The processes that IanS described as being responsible for consciousness happen in both conscious processes and unconscious processes. That point remains true regardless of whether conscious means merely "awake" or "self aware with a sense of self". Also the same for "unconscious". Define it as "not fully aware at the moment", or "asleep" or, at the extreme, "nearly comatose" and it still remains true.

Despite that though, IMO the most interesting/useful definition to use in these discussions is "sense of experience/conscious awareness".

I think you are talking about states, not processes. That is I think you meant to write something like "The processes that IanS described as being responsible for consciousness happen in both conscious processes states and unconscious processes states". Otherwise your sentence would make no sense in English language. But therein lies/exposes the mistake of course ...

... because the processes that I described as information exchange between the sensory system and the brain, are certainly NOT the same in both a normal conscious "aware" state and in a genuinely "unconscious" unaware state ...

... if you are truly fully unconscious, as in for example a brain-dead vegetative state, then although your sensory system might still be working or capable of working (assuming you are being artificially kept alive in a hospital), your brain is no longer exchanging any of that information with your sensory system.

Even if you are just minimally "unconscious, e.g. during normal sleep, your senses are afaik still working, but your brain is not processing and responding to that information as efficiently or as accurately and persistently as when you are fully awake ... you are not seeing clearly with your eyes for example, and you are not aware of quiet sounds. You are still aware to some extent, but not so efficiently as in the fully conscious awake state.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, I see, you don't actually have a problem with materialism per se, you have a problem with matter.
You don't seen to like the fact that it could consist of particles with no mass as well as 'immaterial' fields.
How can you argue about materialism, which is based on matter and how it behaves, if you use an incorrect definition of matter?

Small aside, all matter is energy.

And I am not sure what the hang up baron is having with materialism.

It pretty much translates to philosophical naturalism, that world is as it appears.

 

[caveman1917]

Actualism... what I see is real and it exists

When I look at my morning cup of coffee sitting on the desk in front of me, it is there. I see it, smell it taste it and can touch it.

It is not a figment of my imagination.
Its not there merely because I see it.
Its is not a non-existent construct of my brain or my consciousness.

Its real

Philosobabble then? Your appeal to Occam's razor fails, when required to reproduce the data ("LFLFLFLF") then "L -> LF, LLLL" is shorter than "L -> LF, LLLL, and L represents something real and not a figment of my imagination".

 

[IanS]

IanS, a lot of this sounds far too certain. You know that Philosophers will never accept this intrusion of commonsense into their area of expertise. They "demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty"

Unfortunately ... yes, you are right!

 

[acbytesla]

Quantum mechanics does prove this, along with the classical sciences of course. Quantum physics experiments prove that the fundamental building blocks of reality don't share the attributes of the macro world. Sub-atomic particles are not objects as we define objects in the macro realm. They can only be described using mathematics. When we talk about an electron being a particle that travels from A to B we are imposing macro terminology on the quantum world, and whilst it gives us an idea of what's happening, it is not correct. An electron is not an object in the classical sense, it does not 'travel' anywhere, its behaviour can only be predicted in aggregate with other electrons based on mathematics.

Quite how you imagine this situation is accurately reflected in our daily perception is unclear. What's more, the very notion of us observing the world is flawed and we don't need quantum mechanics to demonstrate this. The world we experience is built from scratch inside our brains. As I've explained, it is an interpretation of a minuscule subset of reality designed to aid our evolutionary survival. There is no light out there, no colour, no sound, no solidity, just fields and potential.

Sorry, this is philosophical nonsense. If the world was built from scratch inside our brains, then why do so many different brains perceive the same things?

While I grant you that are perception is dictated to us through are senses which produce electrical impulses sent to our brain to make sense of reality, it doesn't make reality any less real.

Thanks for the response Baron. But you'll excuse me when i say your theory is interesting, but essentially meaningless to us all...including you.

 

[baron]

Sorry, this is philosophical nonsense. If the world was built from scratch inside our brains, then why do so many different brains perceive the same things?

So if I gave the instructions to build a house to a dozen people, and they build comparable houses, would you deny that they had been built from scratch because they all looked the same? What kind of logic is that?

And would you maintain that the houses were literally the same thing as the instructions, because one had engendered the other?




As to the other replies, I can't work up the enthusiasm to restate my case. There are some people who simply do not get it. I know what it's like, I was once one of them. Research and education is the key. How many here have even read a book on materialism? On the workings of the brain? On consciousness? On quantum mechanics? Seriously, do the research.

 

[acbytesla]

So if I gave the instructions to build a house to a dozen people, and they build comparable houses, would you deny that they had been built from scratch because they all looked the same? What kind of logic is that?

And would you maintain that the houses were literally the same thing as the instructions, because one had engendered the other?

That's a false analogy. People are perceiving what they sense. And their minds process those senses in the same way. You're suggesting that those senses are false even though your own perceptions match the people around you. I see no reason to question them as my perceptions are also shared by others.

As to the other replies, I can't work up the enthusiasm to restate my case. There are some people who simply do not get it. I know what it's like, I was once one of them. Research and education is the key. How many here have even read a book on materialism? On the workings of the brain? On consciousness? On quantum mechanics? Seriously, do the research.

Ahhh, the I am smarter then the rest of you argument. Does this actually work on anyone?

 

[LarryS]

Again what is the definition of consciousness that you are using?

consciousness is 'being present, being aware'.

 

[baron]

That's a false analogy. People are perceiving what they sense. And their minds process those senses in the same way. You're suggesting that those senses are false even though your own perceptions match the people around you. I see no reason to question them as my perceptions are also shared by others.

My analogy was accurate. Yours is a logical fallacy. There is no reason why the similarity of interpretation of similar machines is proof that these machines are correctly interpreting their inputs.

As I've already described, we are not correctly identifying inputs, nor would such a thing be possible. Have you not heard of decoherence? The observer effect? Not familiar with Young's famous experiment? These demonstrate that by its very nature, fundamental reality cannot be observed.

Ahhh, the I am smarter then the rest of you argument. Does this actually work on anyone?

I merely suggested doing a bit of research. Sorry if the idea offends you.

 

[acbytesla]

My analogy was accurate. Yours is a logical fallacy. There is no reason why the similarity of interpretation of similar machines is proof that these machines are correctly interpreting their inputs.

As I've already described, we are not correctly identifying inputs, nor would such a thing be possible. Have you not heard of decoherence? The observer effect? Not familiar with Young's famous experiment? These demonstrate that by its very nature, fundamental reality cannot be observed.

Here's the problem baron. You're arguing that everything we experience is an illusion even though you yourself share that illusion. Now, hypothetically, what you are arguing may be true as anything may be true. But it is inherently unfalsifiable and from a scientific perspective borders on useless.

I merely suggested doing a bit of research. Sorry if the idea offends you.

That isn't actually what you are doing. There is a subtext to your suggestion and you know it.

Now, I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I have watched several lectures on quantum mechanics and not during a single one of those lectures have they ever suggested that our physical world is not real, just that at a subatomic level, physics behaves differently.

 

[ynot]

As I've already described, we are not correctly identifying inputs, nor would such a thing be possible. Have you not heard of decoherence? The observer effect? Not familiar with Young's famous experiment?

So what? Reality existed well before conscious brain observation did. A conscious brain observes reality (regardless of how poorly), it doesn’t create it.

These demonstrate that by its very nature, fundamental reality cannot be observed.

“Cannot be observed completely and totally correctly” isn’t the same as “cannot be observed”. Only one of these statements is correct. Please tell us all which one it is . . .

 

[Belz...]

So if I gave the instructions to build a house to a dozen people, and they build comparable houses, would you deny that they had been built from scratch because they all looked the same? What kind of logic is that?

If you think they're analogous then you have no idea what's beign discussed.

As to the other replies, I can't work up the enthusiasm to restate my case.

That would require you to make a case in the first place.

There are some people who simply do not get it. I know what it's like, I was once one of them. Research and education is the key. How many here have even read a book on materialism? On the workings of the brain? On consciousness? On quantum mechanics? Seriously, do the research.

I have. The problem is that, just like with the wiki article, you "researched" just long enough to find the words and concepts you wanted to accept and imagined your grasp of the topic to be complete. A textbook exaple of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Belz...]

As I've already described, we are not correctly identifying inputs, nor would such a thing be possible. Have you not heard of decoherence? The observer effect? Not familiar with Young's famous experiment? These demonstrate that by its very nature, fundamental reality cannot be observed.

And yet you are presumably using a computer that is built upon QM principles to tell us that. Amusing.

 

[theprestige]

Have you not heard of decoherence? The observer effect? Not familiar with Young's famous experiment? These demonstrate that by its very nature, fundamental reality cannot be observed.

Decoherence does no such thing. Instead, it describes an observed phenomenon of wave function collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Young's "famous experiment" (I assume you mean his double-slit experiment) does no such thing. Instead, it produces the observations that "fundamental reality" has both wave-like and particle-like properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_interference_experiment

The observer effect demonstrates no such thing. Instead, it demonstrates (as we know through repeated rounds of hypothesis, testing, and observation) that "fundamental reality" can be both observed and changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics

At this point it seems like "fundamental reality" in your usage is just weasel words, designed to set up a "fundamental reality of the gaps" excuse for rejecting actual observations.

 

[theprestige]

And yet you are presumably using a computer that is built upon QM principles to tell us that. Amusing.

You see, the computer works, but until Science can give us a Philosophical Principle that underlies all of reality, we can't really explain it, and any observations about it don't count.

 

[baron]

Here's the problem baron. You're arguing that everything we experience is an illusion even though you yourself share that illusion. Now, hypothetically, what you are arguing may be true as anything may be true. But it is inherently unfalsifiable and from a scientific perspective borders on useless.

Quantum physics falseifies it. If you won't read a book, at least Google 'materialism' and 'quantum mechanics' or something. You seem to be stuck in a groove and I don't have the motivation to engage much further.

That isn't actually what you are doing. There is a subtext to your suggestion and you know it.

Now, I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I have watched several lectures on quantum mechanics and not during a single one of those lectures have they ever suggested that our physical world is not real, just that at a subatomic level, physics behaves differently.

I never suggested the physical world is not real, either. I said our model of it does not and cannot reflect reality.

So what? Reality existed well before conscious brain observation did. A conscious brain observes reality (regardless of how poorly), it doesn’t create it.

Who are you even replying to? If you got that from my post then your model of reality is more skewed than I can even imagine.

“Cannot be observed completely and totally correctly” isn’t the same as “cannot be observed”. Only one of these statements is correct. Please tell us all which one it is . . .

Fundamental reality cannot be observed. HTH.

If you think they're analogous then you have no idea what's beign discussed.

That would require you to make a case in the first place.

I have. The problem is that, just like with the wiki article, you "researched" just long enough to find the words and concepts you wanted to accept and imagined your grasp of the topic to be complete. A textbook exaple of Dunning-Kruger.

I genuinely pity you.

 

[Belz...]

Decoherence does no such thing. Instead, it describes an observed phenomenon of wave function collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Young's "famous experiment" (I assume you mean his double-slit experiment) does no such thing. Instead, it produces the observations that "fundamental reality" has both wave-like and particle-like properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_interference_experiment

The observer effect demonstrates no such thing. Instead, it demonstrates (as we know through repeated rounds of hypothesis, testing, and observation) that "fundamental reality" can be both observed and changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics

At this point it seems like "fundamental reality" in your usage is just weasel words, designed to set up a "fundamental reality of the gaps" excuse for rejecting actual observations.

Gee, you almost get the idea that baron doesn't know what he's talking about.

You see, the computer works, but until Science can give us a Philosophical Principle that underlies all of reality, we can't really explain it, and any observations about it don't count.

Ooohhh! Deep stuff, man!

 

[Belz...]

I genuinely pity you.

I believe you. It's clear that you believe yourself superior to everyone else. As shown by your poor grasp of physics, however, it's unearned.

I'd like to point out that this response of yours is content-free, by the way, something I thought you disliked.