Is Consciousness Beyond Physical Explanation?

[Maui]

You don't know what is matter, I already asked you. I suspect that you will give me the same answer if I ask about the mind. So, they are both what you don't know. It seem they are the same to you.

What does it matter for the purpose of this discussion that I and everyone else on the planet doesn't sufficiently well know what 'matter' is to state it as proven FACT?

We can still lead a philosophical discussion about it.

 

[Maui]

I assume when you talk about the properties of matter, you are using the term broadly to mean matter-energy and in physical terms, the four fundamental forces that currently define all physical reality according to the Standard Model of physics.

Yes.

If you define matter this way, what do you think this "non physical" existent is?

Consciousness.

It's not clear to me whether you accept that mind is an emergent property of natural processes or not.

Yes i do and that places me with the dualists.

If you do, it seems we are all on the same page. Otherwise, just what do you think consciousness/mind is?

This is going beyond science and philosophy. As far as i am aware there is very little progress within the current scientific paradigm.

 

[Upisoft]

What does it matter for the purpose of this discussion that I and everyone else on the planet doesn't sufficiently well know what 'matter' is to state it as proven FACT?

We can still lead a philosophical discussion about it.

Why do you assume that there is such thing as FACT? Matter can be unknowable.

 

[Maui]

Why do you assume that there is such thing as FACT? Matter can be unknowable.

I don't. That doesn't stop us from weighing in the possibities. That's what a good philosophical discourse is about.

 

[Upisoft]

Well, then matter is unknowable. I choose to call everything matter.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Consciousness.
Yes i do and that places me with the dualists.

Well, if you believe that mind is an emergent property of natural processes, why is that dualism? This is my position as well. I checked "not a dualist" in the poll. I think the word "physical" is sometimes misunderstood. If we are talking about natural processes, then I equate that with physical processes. There's the nature we in some way "know" though tested models and there's the nature we don't "know" because we have no tested models. Can we eventually know (model) all of nature, including the nature of our own self-awareness and identity? Good question. There may be aspects of nature we cannot know because our brains are not sufficiently developed or there may be some natural censoring. For example our present theories tell us we cannot know of events outside of our light cone.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the "light cone" example is given as an example of natural censoring, nothing more. Afaik, it has nothing to do with self-awareness or consciousness.

 

[Maui]

Well, if you believe that mind is an emergent property of natural processes, why is that dualism?

My impression was that anyone who recognized the mind-body problem was a dualist.

This is my position as well. I checked "not a dualist" in the poll. I think the word "physical" is sometimes misunderstood.

It might be that it's always misunderstood to a certain degree. Calculations show there's suppsed to be 5 times as much dark matter than ordinary matter in my room that doesn't interact directly with ordinary matter. Is dark matter ''physical'' or just inferently present/existing? The word "physical" isn't quite what it used to be.

If we are talking about natural processes, then I equate that with physical processes. There's the nature we in some way "know" though tested models and there's the nature we don't "know" because we have no tested models. Can we eventually know (model) all of nature, including the nature of our own self-awareness and identity? Good question. There may be aspects of nature we cannot know because our brains are not sufficiently developed or there may be some natural censoring. For example our present theories tell us we cannot know of events outside of our light cone.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the "light cone" example is given as an example of natural censoring, nothing more. Afaik, it has nothing to do with self-awareness or consciousness.

There is no deep understanding of anything, and it may even be unattainable. One could argue that what Socrates said 2400 years ago about Truth was all that could be said about certainty - True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

There is no deep understanding of anything, and it may even be unattainable. One could argue that what Socrates said 2400 years ago about Truth was all that could be said about certainty - True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

We build mental models of the world and to the extent they survive continuous testing, that suffices for empirical knowledge. Logic and reason however is a different kind of "knowledge" which in a Kantian sense seems to arise from an inherent ability for abstract thought. But that's another subject.

As for dualism, I don't accept there is a "mind-body' problem" in the same way as physicists don't accept that there is a fundamental problem with physics just because they cannot observe events outside our light cone or inside black holes. If they could, their theories would be wrong. The mind-body "problem" is not even as well defined. There may be problem, but we don't know if there are hard limits as to what we can know. In any case, any censoring that might exist will be natural, not supernatural IMO, and therefore could be accommodated by a (physical) theory of nature.

 

[Ferris_bg]

The reason I am not a dualist is that all forms of dualism contradict with itself in one way or another. Let's define mental states as M and physical as P. We have the following versions of dualism:
1) Interactionism (P <-> M) // mental events and physical events influence each other
2) Epiphenomenalism (P -> M) // mental events are caused by physical events, but have no causal influence on the physical
3) Parallelism (P | M) // no causal interaction, but run in harmony

In case 2) and 3) either the mental or both have no influence over the other, but we still want to value them somehow. So why not accept into the picture N (Neutral Monism)? The cases will look like this:
4) P interacts with M through N and M is reported to N, but not to P.
5) P and M are reported to N.

So this leaves option 1) as the single option for dualism. But again it faces the problem of causal over-determination.
6) Neural state (S) causes pain (P) which causes wince (W) => S causes W => W is causally over-determined.

And over-determination of behaviour doesn't seem logic.

 

[G037H3]

What is matter?

energy in a slow vibration

 

[Pythagorean]

It's evident what matter can do and i have no idea why you need to state the obvious. The question I raised was and still is:

Is mind matter or not?

You've changed your position from stating a "FACT" (you even capitalized it). You are the one claiming to have facts. That is why I "stated the obvious", to counter your claim about this "FACT":

I'd note that the FACT that not everything is reducible to matter and its interactions is puzzling and deserves attention.

I gave you suggestive evidence to the contrary. You still have to prove this as a fact if you want to utilize it in this discussion in such an authoritative manner. Can you even think of an example besides mind that fits this so-called fact? You claim to be just asking a question, but to me it looks like you're answering it.

If you want to make it about pure philosophy, then you should well know that you can't prove a negative since we can't assume to ever have the universal set or... to put it as you quoted from Socrates:

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"

Which leads to the inevitable result of not being able to prove a negative. So a negative statement can never be revered as FACT.

If mind is different from matter, then your implied statement that all is matter does not hold water, i.e. non-dualism(mind/body) doesn't make sense.

Yes, that's the point of this discussion... This is a true statement. If p --> q. My assumption is that p is false. Your assumptions is clearly that p is true, though you haven't proven it, you just keep stating it as if it were proven.

What does this have to do with the claim that matter is not all that exists?

Simply that matter is capable of unpredictable things. You can't predict what matter can't do. I'm still waiting for an example of something that can't be reduced to matter from you. and it can't be mind, because this is what is unknown and what is wished to be discovered. If you want to make a formal proof, assuming your conclusion is an important first step, but you still have to follow through with the proof. Assuming your conclusion alone isn't a proof.

The above is saying that my conscious choices and thoughts are not reducible to the properties of matter that comprises my brain.

I fully understand your claim, but I don't believe it. Prove it to me. Earlier in this thread, I gave plenty of suggestive evidence that the brain (at least) is directly responsible for consciousness. I have not seen anything from dualists even comparable. They do plenty of sitting back and criticizing little details of the more successful theory (the theory that, you know, leads direct medical applications like psychology and neurology) but they haven't offered any useful alternatives yet.

Thus, I stick with the assumption that has been more fruitful in our understanding and manipulation of consciousness. If dualism was to somehow become necessary or helpful in making predictions, I would adapt it... but that sounds pretty contradictory: once we can make predictions and model observables, it is necessarily physical, so being a dualist is unproductive: as time goes on, you lose more and more ground, while the physicalists gain more and more ground. That has been the history so far.

 

[Upisoft]

energy in a slow vibration

Then we will run into problem defining how much slow is enough... You better define a term for each rate of vibration if you go that way, thus dropping dualism in favor of something that is not based on the number 2, but on infinity. (Is there appropriate name for this?)

 

[G037H3]

Then we will run into problem defining how much slow is enough... You better define a term for each rate of vibration if you go that way, thus dropping dualism in favor of something that is not based on the number 2, but on infinity. (Is there appropriate name for this?)

Spinoza :D

 

[Maui]

You've changed your position from stating a "FACT" (you even capitalized it). You are the one claiming to have facts. That is why I "stated the obvious", to counter your claim about this "FACT":

It's FACT that my mind employs unscientific top-down causation and my conscious choices are REAL. The current scientific paradigm cannot explain this FACT, it can only deny it, because it makes NO sense to scientists. But scientists who consider their knowledge in the field final and true arent much better then creationists.

Even though you can't see me, I am now rasing my right hand through top-down causation. It's a FACT proven many billion times per second around the globe.

I gave you suggestive evidence to the contrary. You still have to prove this as a fact if you want to utilize it in this discussion in such an authorhow itative manner.

If your theory contradicts observational evidence, it's plain wrong.

I'm still waiting for an example of something that can't be reduced to matter from you. and it can't be mind, because this is what is unknown and what is wished to be discovered. If you want to make a formal proof, assuming your conclusion is an important first step, but you still have to follow through with the proof. Assuming your conclusion alone isn't a proof.

Observations are and have always been considered authoritive proofs in the sciences.

I fully understand your claim, but I don't believe it. Prove it to me.

If you wish i can make a video of myself raising my hands or legs and upload on youtube.

Earlier in this thread, I gave plenty of suggestive evidence that the brain (at least) is directly responsible for consciousness.

But it's not reducible to the brain. There are genuinely NEW properties that are not reducible to the brain that control my body in a NON-scientific, top-down causation.

I have not seen anything from dualists even comparable. They do plenty of sitting back and criticizing little details of the more successful theory

That "successful" theory posits that I can't raise my hands or that what I experience is an illusion. That theory is born out of the desire to prove that science has discovered almost everything. This is a religious belief probably designed to fill in gaps in our current knowledge.

Thus, I stick with the assumption that has been more fruitful in our understanding and manipulation of consciousness. If dualism was to somehow become necessary or helpful in making predictions, I would adapt it... but that sounds pretty contradictory: once we can make predictions and model observables, it is necessarily physical, so being a dualist is unproductive: as time goes on, you lose more and more ground, while the physicalists gain more and more ground. That has been the history so far.

No ground has been gained so far on the way the mind makes conscious decisions or how conscious experience is born. You should move on, instead of denying the obvious.

 

[Upisoft]

Spinoza :D

I have to read something... Any idea what can be a good start?

 

[Maui]

As for dualism, I don't accept there is a "mind-body' problem" in the same way as physicists don't accept that there is a fundamental problem with physics just because they cannot observe events outside our light cone or inside black holes.

Okay, i won't hold you accountable for what you said, since it wasn't your mind that made the decision to state what you did, but the inveitability.

On a side note, what if not everything is reducible to classical physics? What would it take for you to believe that what you experience is real and actual?

 

[Upisoft]

It's FACT that my mind employs unscientific top-down causation and my conscious choices are REAL.

You feel it that way. Your feelings about the subject are no proof. If your choices were real then your dream world would be a reality.

 

[Upisoft]

On a side note, what if not everything is reducible to classical physics?

Of course not. There is also Quantum mechanics, etc. An there is also a lot that can be known, but we don't know it yet.

 

[Maui]

You feel it that way. Your feelings about the subject are no proof. If your choices were real then your dream world would be a reality.

But there is a very definite difference between dreaming and being awake. It's an assumption after all, but if you don't make it, what do you suggest we do?

Even if i am lucid dreaming everything while i am awake, what benefit does it bring over the situation when i assume that i am not? It's self- and socially destructive to think this way of existence and reality.

 

[Maui]

You feel it that way. Your feelings about the subject are no proof. If your choices were real then your dream world would be a reality.

Observational evidence is proof in science. Whether they are fundamentally wrong is not a scientific question. You should not mix science and philosophy, as sciences do not deal with fundamental truths.

 

[Upisoft]

Observational evidence is proof in science. Whether they are fundamentally wrong is not a scientific question. You should not mix science and philosophy, as sciences do not deal with fundamental truths.

There is no other observer of your feelings. You cannot have objective observational evidence.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Okay, i won't hold you accountable for what you said, since it wasn't your mind that made the decision to state what you did, but the inveitability.

On a side note, what if not everything is reducible to classical physics? What would it take for you to believe that what you experience is real and actual?

I do believe my personal experiences are real. I also believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain function. You agreed that emergent properties are part of nature and do not require a fifth force or some non-physical explanation. This discussion should have ended there. Perhaps you just like to argue.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by top-down causation. There's no doubt that our thoughts and feelings result from our interactions with the environment. Also, I don't doubt that 'mind' is a legitimate concept. You can give someone "a piece of your mind". That's doesn't equate to giving someone a piece of your brain. Brains communicate with each other creating larger emergent structures.

And yes, not everything is reducible to classical physics. We've known that since the 1920's. We also are just beginning to find ways to study emergent phenomenon and complex systems. But they are still part of nature and therefore "physical".

 

[Maui]

There is no other observer of your feelings. You cannot have objective observational evidence.

Then science is dead, since nothing can be considered objective observational evidence. Continuing your line of thought, there could be no other observer than me, since there is no objective way to ascertain the veracity of my feelings and experiences. Do you see how silly this duscussion is becoming when somebody pushes this type of reasoning?

 

[Maui]

I do believe my personal experiences are real. I also believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain function. You agreed that emergent properties are part of nature and do not require a fifth force or some non-physical explanation. This discussion should have ended there. Perhaps you just like to argue.

If your consciousness/mind is an emergent property, then you are a dualist.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by top-down causation. There's no doubt that our thoughts and feelings result from our interactions with the environment.

Not only. There is no enviropnmental reason why i should sing songs or paint pictures or suffer emotionally for lost relatives. But this is kind of obvious, isn't it?

Also, I don't doubt that 'mind' is a legitimate concept. You can give someone "a piece of your mind". That's doesn't equate to giving someone a piece of your brain. Brains communicate with each other creating larger emergent structures.

Agreed.

And yes, not everything is reducible to classical physics. We've known that since the 1920's. We also are just beginning to find ways to study emergent phenomenon and complex systems. But they are still part of nature and therefore "physical".

Then you must point a way to measure how a mind makes a decision.

 

[Upisoft]

But there is a very definite difference between dreaming and being awake. It's an assumption after all, but if you don't make it, what do you suggest we do?

Even if i am lucid dreaming everything while i am awake, what benefit does it bring over the situation when i assume that i am not? It's self- and socially destructive to think this way of existence and reality.

If there is no difference between dreaming and being awake, then you are correct - your choices are real (or not real - whatever you define the dream you are in).

If there is difference, and that difference being the objective world, then your choices are not real. They are the dreams (a virtual reality that your mind emulates). Some of them become reality if you are able to find way to express them in the real world. There is nothing unscientific in your brain function. It is just unique, and therefore your virtual reality emulated by your brain function differs from the virtual realities of all other people.

Even the animals have brains capable of virtual reality emulation. Yours is just much more complicated, I guess.

 

[Maui]

If there is difference, and that difference being the objective world, then your choices are not real. They are the dreams (a virtual reality that your mind emulates).

My mind is me. There is no evidence that there is a separate me and a mind that i call mine. If my mind emulates something, that means i am emulating something, i.e. i am dreaming, contemplating, etc.

Some of them become reality if you are able to find way to express them in the real world.

Then they are ALL real since i can express them all all the time, any day of the year.

There is nothing unscientific in your brain function. It is just unique, and therefore your virtual reality emulated by your brain function differs from the virtual realities of all other people.

Top-down causation is currently considered unscientific, hence the "paradoxes" about our conscious choices. There are no paradoxes once you learn to accept that reductionism and materialism can ONLY offer a partial explanation of the world.

Anyone who considers the current state of science complete is deeply ignorant of the deep fundamental and conceptual problems that plague physics and biology.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If your consciousness/mind is an emergent property, then you are a dualist.

Why? Is dualism nothing more than admitting we don't know everything? We can't observe or measure what goes on inside black holes. Does that invalidate science?

Not only. There is no enviropnmental reason why i should sing songs or paint pictures or suffer emotionally for lost relatives. But this is kind of obvious, isn't it?

How do you even know you have relatives or that there are such things as songs? As for emotion, that's a personal experience. Others can only observe your behavior. I already addressed this in previous posts. I'm confident there are physical correlates to our thoughts and feelings which can be observed. As for actually getting inside your head and becoming you, that may be a "black hole" of neuroscience, but it hardly invalidates neuroscience any more than real black holes invalidate physics.
.

Then you must point a way to measure how a mind makes a decision.

Why? If you could go back in time, would you expect Isaac Newton to point a way to measure electromagnetic phenomenon (volts, amps, etc)?

 

[Upisoft]

Then they are ALL real since i can express them all all the time, any day of the year.

Then you have never been frustrated. Lucky you.

Top-down causation is currently considered unscientific, hence the "paradoxes" about our conscious choices.

There is no "top-down" causation. There is just causation. It is only one kind. What you are talking about is the illusion(virtual reality) that the brain creates.

Anyone who considers the current state of science complete is deeply ignorant of the deep fundamental and conceptual problems that plague physics and biology.

There is no need to think that the current state of science is complete to complete. No more than there is need to mystify our lack of knowledge and make conclusions based on it.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's FACT that my mind employs unscientific top-down causation and my conscious choices are REAL. The current scientific paradigm cannot explain this FACT, it can only deny it, because it makes NO sense to scientists. But scientists who consider their knowledge in the field final and true arent much better then creationists.

Your whole post pretty much relies on this statement of willpower. Science has actually investigated the matter and the results are somewhat discouraging for the case of willpower. It's fairly easy to find the research on the internet, but if you want links, let me know.

As a starter, if you have a healthy brain, you're not going to be able to stick your hand on a piping hot stove, drown yourself, starve yourself when your know there's food, hold in your digestive function, the list goes on. What's stopping you from doing all these things? The simplified answer is inhibitory neurons that care more about your survival than your intellectual self does.

When a species adapts such that they don't have to work as hard for survival, attention is reflected inward, noise becomes more significant, the random stream of consciousness begins to randomly manifest itself. Every once in a while (in the history of billions of human beings) the random thoughts add up to something significant in the environment that was previously observed, but not understood, and through social mechanisms, the organisms are able to convey the information and hold on to it and teach it to their young. As the young learns new information, it changes their behavior: the experience of pain deters you from repeating painful actions. Temptation towards available pleasure is often irresistible unless the greater consequences are fully realized. Many human actions are nothing more than reactions to emotional experiences which are indicators of survivability. Of course, when an organism is bored (no pleasure available or pain warning of threats to survival) then returns the random noise, based on past observations that we can somehow, by chance, make sense out of. But usually not.

That "successful" theory posits that I can't raise my hands or that what I experience is an illusion. That theory is born out of the desire to prove that science has discovered almost everything. This is a religious belief probably designed to fill in gaps in our current knowledge.

This is completely false. The successful theory does not posit that, nobody has claimed that science has discovered almost everything, nor do most practicing scientists have any desire to prove it, nor is the theory born out of any other desire than that to understand nature.

It's well recognized that answering a question in science leads to more questions. It's also well understood that no one man can hope to understand his whole scientific field (or even a subfield of his field) in a lifetime. Nature is too complex and diverse (in more ways than just life). Much too complex and diverse for you to start guessing what it can't do, especially in the light of such suggestive evidence.

 

[Maui]

Why? Is dualism nothing more than admitting we don't know everything?

If conscious acts are observed, they are fact. Since there is someone WHO observes, there are conscious act and observations. This is an undeniable FACT. Matter does not observe, mind does. Reality is REAL in some way, this is certain and it is certain that i do exist.

We can't observe or measure what goes on inside black holes. Does that invalidate science?

If you posit that black holes do not exist because we don't understand them, then your "science" is in deep trouble.

How do you even know you have relatives or that there are such things as songs?

Through my conscious interactions. Don't my relatives exist? Do songs not exist?

As for emotion, that's a personal experience.

Yes. There is someone that experiences.

Others can only observe your behavior. I already addressed this in previous posts. I'm confident there are physical correlates to our thoughts and feelings which can be observed.

Would you want me to post an EEG for you show the physical correlates?




.

Why? If you could go back in time, would you expect Isaac Newton to point a way to measure electromagnetic phenomenon (volts, amps, etc)?

Then anything goes, right? In time we could hope to prove that the conservation of energy is false, that we can live without breathing, etc. The question is how do we separate the nonsense from the logic in wild speculations?