The hidden variable of consciousness experiment

[RecoveringYuppy]

Within a metaphysical certainty nobody who is making the claim that "science" cannot explain "consciousness" will:

1. Define "consciousness" to any meaningful degree.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consciousness?s=ts Items 1 and 6.

2. Lay out how any test is supposed to test for it.

Isn't that a pretty silly thing to say? Not being able to test for it is one of the reasons science can't explain it. If you claim science has explained it then you should be citing these tests.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Isn't that a pretty silly thing to say? Not being able to test for it is one of the reasons science can't explain it. If you claim science has explained it then you should be citing these tests.

Science has explained (to at least a fair degree) all the parts it recognizes as valid.

Again I know this dance, I've danced it many times. We're talking about a soul and people are going to dance around that term, obviously talking about it while doing their best to avoid saying it directly with a fervor.

There is no such thing as a soul, so science doesn't have to explain it. People are saying science can't explain this or that when they really mean "Soul."

All of this is just that, every time we talk about it, it is all just a pantomime, shadow theater, house of cards facade put up around that.

Neurology is an established science, I will not waste my keystrokes explaining how at least the broad outlines of how the human brain operates have been built. Whatever hair split definition of "consciousness" you, me, or any other Tom, Dick, or Harry want to use it comes from the normal functioning of a human brain. This is no longer up for debate.

If you add something to that, some unexplained, (it's a soul), undefined (it's a soul), vague (it's a soul), "You know that feeling that you're not just your mind..." (it's a soul), "Oh so I guess your comfortable just being a bag of meat and electrical impulses" (it's a soul) to it and demand science explain that it can't. Because it doesn't exist. Because it's a soul.

The Woo Slingers are mad because "The Human Condition" was one of the last gaps they got to shove their Woo into and now they have to change tactics to pretending the gap is still there by making up stuff we need the gap to explain that is silly word games or distinctions without difference.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm an atheist who has never believed in a soul and believe that we'll develop artificial intelligence, including consciousness, in a computer. So try again.

Cite the explanation if you have it. You can't, there isn't one. FFS we don't even know the mechanism that stores memories, and that's part of the simple problem.

 

[MRC_Hans]

There are many different definitions of consciousness, none seem to really cover it. This has lead people who would like there to be a "soul" to claim that this is sign of such a thing.

However, the difficulty to unequivocally define consciousness can also be taken as evidence that it doesn't exist as a definite concept: There are simply a number of properties of beings with complex brains, and if a suitable collection of them are present, we consider the being to conscious, but here is no unique and consistent definition.

There has been much talk about whether computers will be conscious when complex enough. This all depends on which definition we use. Current computers, with the proper software installed and running, will exhibit properties that we might tend to consider as consciousness if observed in a biological being.

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

Cite the explanation if you have it. You can't, there isn't one.

Explanation for what? I'm the one arguing there's nothing to explain in the broad strokes. Not that it's been explained, that there isn't anything to explain.

What thing, what mental process, what function of the human brain do you want me to explain?

This always happen. People start screaming at people to "Explain this!" but never actually stop to clarity what they want explained and it turns into this loop of "I demand you explain the thing I'm refusing the define except I'm defining it as the thing you can't explain" and people will fight to keep the conversation there and react, angrily at times, at any attempt to pull it out of there and the whole thing just turns into getting screamed out to explain something I don't recognize as valid, then getting screamed out for not defining the things other people are demanding I explain.

No better to just throwing the loaded, vague, variable to the point of meaningless term "conscious" around and put all your effort into never defining it so it can be envoked at will but never answered or addressed.

Again I'm not playing the game until you describe what thing the human mind that falls under anything that could be called "consciousness" does that you think needs to be explained.

FFS we don't even know the mechanism that stores memories, and that's part of the simple problem.

That has sweet FA to do with "Science cannot explain the vague, loaded term 'consciousness.'

Memory is still a poorly understood process yes, probably because "memory" isn't really one thing. To frame it a total mystery is intentional ignorance, but it is still a very poorly understood process.

But we know more then enough to know that it is a naturalistic process that happens completely and totally within a normal, functioning human brain.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Explanation for what? I'm the one arguing there's nothing to explain in the broad strokes. Not that it's been explained, that there isn't anything to explain.

What thing, what mental process, what function of the human brain do you want me to explain?

Memory, thought, and/or Conscious awareness.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Memory, thought, and/or Conscious awareness.

Memory is simple. Thought? Data processing, including the ability to work with inferred/imagined data. Conscious awareness? Define, please.

Hans

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I already cited the definition FFS. And human memory is not at all simple. Tell me how a memory is recorded.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Good, "awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc."

Now all we need to define is "awareness" ..

 

[abaddon]

Synopsis: Controlling by exactly duplicating every aspect currently known to contribute to the individual conscious experience (nature/biology and nurture/environment) would provide evidence to allow reasonable inference if a variable exists which contributes to consciousness that is not currently found in the scientific literature.

Scientific Process:
1. Ask a question. Does the Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model adequately capture all variables that contribute to consciousness?

2. Background research. The current scientific literature is awash with evidence that supports the theories that Biology, Psychology, and Sociology contribute to consciousness. These areas of study are all included in the BPS Model.

My assessment for any scientific literature examining the possible existence of factors outside the BPS Model that contribute to the emergence of consciousness are very limited. All of them have been sensibly dismissed for various breaches in the scientific methodology.

3. Hypothesis. There exist a variable which contributes to consciousness that the current BPS Model does not include.

4. Test with experiment. This experiment will consist of no less than thirty test subjects. All three areas of the BPS Model will be controlled and exactly duplicated. Every test subject will have exactly the same;
DNA, nutrition, social/physical interaction and stimulation, environment, etc.

The test administered will seek differential anomalies among test subjects and could include the following tests and/or observations; behavioral, intelligence/adaptation, neuroscience, inspection of urine/fecal matter and blood, etc.

Any deviations from this protocol or observations of divergence among the test subjects will be recorded and documented so that they can be accessed for distortion of the results.

5. Analyze data and draw conclusion. Possible outcomes and conclusions:
a) The test subjects exhibit statistical and practically significant differences that are consistent and measurable on anytests. There exists a variable which contributes to consciousness that the current BPS Model does not account for.
b) The test subjects exhibit no statistical or practically significant differences that are consistent and measurable on all tests. The BPS Model completely includes all variables that contribute to consciousness.

Please explain why it is that Langton's ant invariably builds a highway regardless of starting conditions? Can you do that?

 

[ServiceSoon]

But why would differences between individuals necessarily mean there is some unknown variable?

It's possible that the same person raised with all the same stimuli down to the atom might turn out differently each time the experiment is run. It's possible he might turn out the same.

If you don't know what a null result is, I'm not sure how you could zero in on a deviation from the null.

The underlined is a fair question. If the current body of scientific theories cannot explain the variances, then further inquiry is warranted. These inquiries could lead to improvements of current models or birth new areas of research.

My proposed experiment isn't the end all know all. It's the start to expanding our knowledge from a different perspective that has not been tried before.

Are you certain that a null result must always be identified before an experiment can be conducted or a conclusions can be determined?

And we've reached peak Woo B.S.

Slap the word "Quantum" in front of it.

The link I provided is to a scholarly article with cites. Why do you dismiss it with reflexive contempt?

I propose a similar test on a game of pool. Let's build a robot to play a game of pool. If it can't play the same identical game every time for 30 consecutive games I propose that there is something beyond the Standard Model that impacts upon the dynamics of the game...

If your point is that some systems are stable, simple, linear, predictable & others are chaotic (as jrhowell has mentioned) or random, then I agree with you. Which system type does consciousness fit into?

You have yet to say what your experiment is,:
What are you variables; dependent/independent, how will you test for them?

Is consciousness in/dependent of biology? The experiment I want to conduct to dissect this question is in the OP.

Within a metaphysical certainty nobody who is making the claim that "science" cannot explain "consciousness" will:

1. Define "consciousness" to any meaningful degree.
2. Lay out how any test is supposed to test for it.

Does science explain consciousness to your satisfaction? Do you believe that science is discovered or invented?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Your test would not test consciousness being dependent on biology. It would test behavior being dependent on factors we can control.
The test seems completely irrelevant as far as consciousness goes. Will you be testing during the experiment if the subjects are conscious or not ? If so, how ?
Am I conscious ? Are you ? How can you test that ?

 

[Roboramma]

If your point is that some systems are stable, simple, linear, predictable & others are chaotic (as jrhowell has mentioned) or random, then I agree with you. Which system type does consciousness fit into?

Humans behaviour is obviously chaotic in the sense of being very sensitive to initial conditions. Which makes your suggested experiment basically impossible, or at least impossible to do in a way that would offer meaningful results.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Humans behaviour is obviously chaotic in the sense of being very sensitive to initial conditions. Which makes your suggested experiment basically impossible, or at least impossible to do in a way that would offer meaningful results.

Well, most likely this is one reason our increasingly complex computers don't suddenly develop consciousness, and probably never will: They are carefully built to be as deterministic as possible. If they do show chaotic signs, it is a malfunction (or a Windows feature ).

Not so with the biological brain. It has evolved to handle uncertainty. One trait of sentience is the ability to make useful decisions based on insufficient data. An animal in the wild can rarely afford to wait for sufficient data to show up (yes, that lion WAS coming for me), it must try to make the best possible decision with what it haves, and it fills in the blanks with previous experiences and pure fantasy.

I have worked with automatic routing algorithms. It sometimes happens that two paths are equally valid. It is then useful to program the router to make a random decision. It is not unlikely that biological brains do the same.

Thus, even theoretically identical beings might make different decisions in identical situation.

The OP (and others searching for the soul in similar ways) would also be wise to ask themselves: Is the sole purpose of the putative soul really just to add variability?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I already cited the definition FFS. And human memory is not at all simple. Tell me how a memory is recorded.

No, but memory is simple in concept. Store and recall information.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Are you certain that a null result must always be identified before an experiment can be conducted or a conclusions can be determined?

Of course. How else would you determine if you have discovered something?

If your point is that some systems are stable, simple, linear, predictable & others are chaotic (as jrhowell has mentioned) or random, then I agree with you. Which system type does consciousness fit into?

Most systems are in between. Consciousness certainly is.

Is consciousness in/dependent of biology? The experiment I want to conduct to dissect this question is in the OP.

The experiment is not suited to discover that. How about artificial consciousness.?

Does science explain consciousness to your satisfaction?

Not yet.

Do you believe that science is discovered or invented?

Question makes no sense. Science is a method for discovering reality.

- What is the difference between discovery and invention?

Hans

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, but memory is simple in concept. Store and recall information.

Yes, of course. But as an explanation for human memory, that's a totally pathetic non-starter. Do you have an explanation or not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Without using the word consciousness, explain to me what factor of the functioning, normal mental operation level of the human mind you think "science" doesn't understand or can't account for? In this answer you are not allowed to:

1. Beg the question.
2. Circular answer the question by defining it only as the thing you are trying to prove.
3. Loud angry incredulity.
4. Word salad.
5. Anything that is obviously a soul just not being called that.
6. Attack the broader concept of knowledge conceptually. (No scorching the Earth.)

Using those criteria, please describe the thing you think science can't describe.

Addendum.

7. No made up air gaps between the process and the experience when the process is the experience.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, of course. But as an explanation for human memory, that's a totally pathetic non-starter. Do you have an explanation or not?

Recurring electrochemical patterns in the brain reproduce the experiences that originally contributed to the formation of those patterns.

 

[Roboramma]

Recurring electrochemical patterns in the brain reproduce the experiences that originally contributed to the formation of those patterns.

And basically everything is just particles and fields interacting. But neither of those things implies that there are no interesting questions or surprises left.

RY isn't suggesting anything supernatural. Unless I'm mistaken I think he's just pointing out that there are still meaningful questions about the human brain, and our experiences which it produces, that remain unanswered.

When Joe says:

Without using the word consciousness, explain to me what factor of the functioning, normal mental operation level of the human mind you think "science" doesn't understand or can't account for?

He seems to be implying that neuroscience and psychology are complete. Which is nonsense. Now, I says seems, because it's also clear that's not what he meant, that he's simply saying that there's nothing supernatural going on, and I do think we have very good evidence that he's right.

But somehow those two ideas are being conflated, even by him, otherwise he wouldn't be arguing with RY after RY said:

I'm an atheist who has never believed in a soul and believe that we'll develop artificial intelligence, including consciousness, in a computer.