Is Consciousness Beyond Physical Explanation?

[Pythagorean]

The use of physics to do cooking is called... cooking! A book on this topic is more likely to be appropriate in the baking section of the bookstore than the physics section of the bookstore.

Remember that this whole subthread started with:

I don't disagree with you, but I guess my point is that there's no need to snob our nose at Maui's request because we really do have plenty of examples, such as "Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness" (put together by Baars and Gage) or to see it in practice, Kalina Christoff's "Cognitive Neuroscience of Thought Laboratory".

(see "The Science of Cooking" to really know how to cook, as opposed to following recipes.)Ah yes, but this... Maui moved the goal post a bit:

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

I think I see where Hurkyl is coming from, but we can go straight to physics itself referring back to Hurkyl's post #37 (the complaint about the loaded term "explain").

I can't satisfy Maui's request in the same way I can't say why matter gives rise to mass or charge. I don't know how matter gives rise to mass and charge, and I don't think I'd ever really get a satisfactory answer from anyone else (I can't even imagine what a satisfactory answer would look like).

Despite this, I am certain that matter does possesses properties that we've come to call "mass" and "charge" and I think we've done well to prove that in physics without stating how it is that mass and charge arise from matter.

So in that way, Maui's challenge is unfair.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't disagree with you, but I guess my point is that there's no need to snob our nose at Maui's request because we really do have plenty of examples, such as "Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness" (put together by Baars and Gage) or to see it in practice, Kalina Christoff's "Cognitive Neuroscience of Thought Laboratory".

(see "The Science of Cooking" to really know how to cook, as opposed to following recipes.)

It seems it will be never enough for him, unless there is a book that describes the process of thinking in every detail. It is part of the human nature. People like to fill the gaps of our knowledge with mysticism just to be comfortable that they "know" something that otherwise has no exact explanation yet. It is nice though that there are still people that will try to fill the gaps with hard work and new knowledge.

I think I see where Hurkyl is coming from, but we can go straight to physics itself referring back to Hurkyl's post #37 (the complaint about the loaded term "explain").

I can't satisfy Maui's request in the same way I can't say why matter gives rise to mass or charge. I don't know how matter gives rise to mass and charge, and I don't think I'd ever really get a satisfactory answer from anyone else (I can't even imagine what a satisfactory answer would look like).

Despite this, I am certain that matter does possesses properties that we've come to call "mass" and "charge" and I think we've done well to prove that in physics without stating how it is that mass and charge arise from matter.

So in that way, Maui's challenge is unfair.

Well, there are people that try to answer the question about mass. The experiments in CERN are trying to find the hypothetical Higgs boson that is supposed to explain it.

We tend to split science in different areas. That is because there are certain effects that cannot be explained by taking the system apart, emergent properties of matter interaction with itself. You cannot explain the quantum entanglement by studying single particles. Nor you can explain the superconductivity by the properties of a singe electron. However even if you cannot explain the whole as sum of its parts, you can study it and predict its behavior.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, there are people that try to answer the question about mass. The experiments in CERN are trying to find the hypothetical Higgs boson that is supposed to explain it.

I don't think it's quite the same question. The Higg's boson would ideally tell us a lot more about the mechanisms of gravity but understanding the nature of something is more about familiarity and acceptance. It's inevitably an emotional and/or philosophical question. The only reason new information should be "weird" to us is because we have some preconceived notions about how it should be based on our experience. So understanding the nature of something really has emotional acceptance as a first step, then it's only a matter of exposure and experience to gain intuition of said thing. It's not something you see outlined in a science textbook, it's something you infer, something gained from experience.

We tend to split science in different areas. That is because there are certain effects that cannot be explained by taking the system apart, emergent properties of matter interaction with itself. You cannot explain the quantum entanglement by studying single particles. Nor you can explain the superconductivity by the properties of a singe electron. However even if you cannot explain the whole as sum of its parts, you can study it and predict its behavior.

Of course, I agree. I am particularly fond of emergent properties, and I don't mean to imply that everything should be broken down into single particles and isolated from other particles.

What I am interested in, in terms of research, is how emergent properties arise from the interactions between the reduced units. In particular, what kind of emergent properties arise from single neuron models (not artificial ones, biophysical ones like the Hodgkins-Huxley model) when you couple several (hundred) of them together? Their individual properties are still present and still influential on the group dynamics.

I'm not studying cognition or thought yet in this context, I still feel like there's a lot of groundwork to do from the reduced side of the gap. I do hope to work with people on the other side of the gap someday (maybe a decade or two) and be one of those contributing to the closing of it.

 

[Maui]

It seems it will be never enough for him, unless there is a book that describes the process of thinking in every detail. It is part of the human nature. People like to fill the gaps of our knowledge with mysticism just to be comfortable that they "know" something that otherwise has no exact explanation yet.

Perhaps, that's why science has been progressing. If Einstein was content with the level of knowledge of physics of the 19th century, there'd be substantially less knowledge now. Perhaps it's much more productive to recognize the paradoxes and work towards finding solutions than sitting back and neglecting obvious phenomena like consciousness. Because that is what current neuroscience is doing - ignoring that consciousness exists. It has been fairly successful without including conscious experience in the scientific story so far. And it's a kind of embarassment for the theory that such a faculty should exist at all. If your standards for accepting theories are that low, you should also embrace the other speculative proposals - the MWI, the Pilot Wave theory or the hologram model. After all, there are no knowledge gaps, once you fill them with speculation for your own comfort.

And if your conscious experience is such a masterfully created deception, may i suggest that you ask someone to throw a chair at your head and see if YOU experience pain.

For the purpose of this thread i will make a categorical statement(obvious to some, false to others) - it doesn't matter what current neuroscience theories say, there is a BIG fundamental behavioral difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one(but still alive). Any theory that posits otherwise(or simply neglects conscious experience as if it didn't exist) should be considered an embarassment to science.

 

[Upisoft]

Perhaps, that's why science has been progressing. If Einstein was content with the level of knowledge of physics of the 19th century, there'd be substantially less knowledge now. Perhaps it's much more productive to recognize the paradoxes and work towards finding solutions than sitting back and neglecting obvious phenomena like consciousness.

Here you are wrong. People are working in the area and that's why they do experiments that show the decision precedes the conscious awareness of it. People that dismiss the observed data, because they feel it's not right, are those who stop the progress. Also, we don't need paradoxes to progress. The inability to make correct prediction is enough.

Because that is what current neuroscience is doing - ignoring that consciousness exists.

I don't think they dismiss it. I think they say our feeling about it is incorrect.

It has been fairly successful without including conscious experience in the scientific story so far. And it's a kind of embarassment for the theory that such a faculty should exist at all. If your standards for accepting theories are that low, you should also embrace the other speculative proposals - the MWI, the Pilot Wave theory or the hologram model. After all, there are no knowledge gaps, once you fill them with speculation for your own comfort.

I'm not working in that area, so I don't have enough knowledge to weigh the proposals. But I think they are still proposals, not theories. Until we have some predictability we have no theory. And what about your theory? How we can predict something that we cannot observe?

And if your conscious experience is such a masterfully created deception, may i suggest that you ask someone to throw a chair at your head and see if YOU experience pain.

For the purpose of this thread i will make a categorical statement(obvious to some, false to others) - it doesn't matter what current neuroscience theories say, there is a BIG fundamental behavioral difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one(but still alive). Any theory that posits otherwise(or simply neglects conscious experience as if it didn't exist) should be considered an embarassment to science.

There is fundamental difference between computer switched on and one switched off. Do you insist there is something mystical and unexplainable about that fact?

 

[Pythagorean]

Maui, you're mischaracterizing neuroscience. It doesn't say that there's not a difference between a conscious and unconscious person and it doesn't ignore that consciousness exists. Feel free to look into any of the authors I mention before making such statements. Also, add Ramachandran, Friston, Izhikevich.

For the purpose of this thread i will make a categorical statement(obvious to some, false to others) - it doesn't matter what current neuroscience theories say, there is a BIG fundamental behavioral difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one(but still alive). Any theory that posits otherwise(or simply neglects conscious experience as if it didn't exist) should be considered an embarassment to science.

It depends on what you mean by unconscious. The thalamus, which is in the forebrain, seems to have a lot to do with consciousness. It is involved in the transition between wake and sleep states and lesions of the thalamus are said to significantly diminish consciousness.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz3a2.htm

Laureys et al (2002) investigated recovery from 'persistent vegetative state' (wakefulness without awareness). They found that overall cortical metabolism remained almost constant during recovery but that the metabolism in the prefrontal and association cortices became correlated with thalamic ILN and precuneus activity. Again confirming that thalamo-cortico-thalamic activity is required for consciousness and that cortical activity by itself is not conscious.

Perhaps you are talking about brain death? When everything but the hind-brain dies? Our hind-brain is on a separate set of resources from the body than the rest of our brain. When somebody has brain death, their is no activity in the brain except for that hind section that manages mundane survival apparatus (breathing, heart, circulation, etc). Because it's on a different set of resources, it can often happen that people lose blood supply to the forebrain and/or midbrain, but not the hindbrain. In this case, they are technically alive, but most neuroscientists would agree that any resemblance of a "person" in terms of character and personality... is gone. Neuroscience doesn't disagree with anything you've said. It only finds a physical basis for it instead of a mystical one.

But we can examine unconscious vs conscious processes even in a conscious person (that's Christof Koch's approach). Neural correlates of consciousness he calls them.

 

[Q_Goest]

For the purpose of this thread i will make a categorical statement(obvious to some, false to others) - it doesn't matter what current neuroscience theories say, there is a BIG fundamental behavioral difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one(but still alive). Any theory that posits otherwise(or simply neglects conscious experience as if it didn't exist) should be considered an embarassment to science.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you mean to say is that there is a difference between a person that experiences phenomenal consciousness and one that does not (ie: a http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/" or p-zombie or just zombie for short). Per SEP:

Zombies are exactly like us in all physical respects but have no conscious experiences: by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness. This disconcerting fantasy helps to make the problem of phenomenal consciousness vivid, especially as a problem for physicalism.

Although a zombie is defined as being identical in all physical respects, one can also extend this to being functionally identical to us in all respects. In other words, there is a 1 to 1 correlation in behavior. Computationalism is based on http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/" . From SEP:

Functionalism is the doctrine that what makes something a thought, desire, pain (or any other type of mental state) depends not on its internal constitution, but solely on its function, or the role it plays, in the cognitive system of which it is a part. More precisely, functionalist theories take the identity of a mental state to be determined by its causal relations to sensory stimulations, other mental states, and behavior.

Functionalism purports that we can 'measure' phenomenal experience indirectly by measuring behavior, something like a Turing test. Therefore, if a computer can be made to be functionally identical to a human, then functionalism (and thus computationalism) says that the computer must also experience phenomenal consciousness.

 

[Maui]

Maui, you're mischaracterizing neuroscience. It doesn't say that there's not a difference between a conscious and unconscious person and it doesn't ignore that consciousness exists. Feel free to look into any of the authors I mention before making such statements. Also, add Ramachandran, Friston, Izhikevich.

I read 2 essays that those authors wrote and they are hopeful that consciousness(the Self) will be revealed to be a certain configuration of neurons. They cite cases of mental disorders as evidence but don't mention any word of cognition, thinking, comprehension or self-awareness. While they don't specifically say in those essay that they are illusions, their collegues(the ones I've read) all held this opinion. Again, i have nothing against the idea that neurons in the brain influence the thought process, but i dismiss the idea that qualia, thinking and awareness are JUST deterministic, physical processes inside the brain.

It depends on what you mean by unconscious. The thalamus, which is in the forebrain, seems to have a lot to do with consciousness. It is involved in the transition between wake and sleep states and lesions of the thalamus are said to significantly diminish consciousness.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz3a2.htm

A unconscious person will register brain activity on a EEG machine. A conscious person will as well, but their physical behavior is not even similar while one of them is unconscious.

Neuroscience doesn't disagree with anything you've said. It only finds a physical basis for it instead of a mystical one.

It doesn't disagree because it shies away from the topic of awareness, thinking and free-will. When it does, it usually revolves around atatements like - "conscious experience and self are illusory", "free-will is an illusion", etc.

But we can examine unconscious vs conscious processes even in a conscious person (that's Christof Koch's approach). Neural correlates of consciousness he calls them.

Great, this stuff is fascinating and I love reading about it. But there is no physical reason in my brain why i disagree with its conclusions. Instead, the reason lies in logic. A theory has 2 basic requirements:

1. It has to make sense
2. It must match observations

The theory that consciousness(self-awareness) is a deterministic physical process fails on both points. If the world of conscious experience is truly illusory, it is because of an entirely different set of reasons that have little to do with brains.

 

[Upisoft]

I read 2 essays that those authors wrote and they are hopeful that consciousness(the Self) will be revealed to be a certain configuration of neurons. They cite cases of mental disorders as evidence but don't mention any word of cognition, thinking, comprehension or self-awareness. While they don't specifically say in those essay that they are illusions, their collegues(the ones I've read) all held this opinion. Again, i have nothing against the idea that neurons in the brain influence the thought process, but i dismiss the idea that qualia, thinking and awareness are JUST deterministic, physical processes inside the brain.

They are not deterministic processes of the brain. The brain is a system that interacts with the environment. If you analyze any such system you may find that they are not deterministic. The combination environment + system is deterministic, but the parts are not.

It doesn't disagree because it shies away from the topic of awareness, thinking and free-will. When it does, it usually revolves around atatements like - "conscious experience and self are illusory", "free-will is an illusion", etc.

Ah, the old question about "free-will", the self destroying idea. If something is willful then it is not free. And if something is free, then it cannot be willful.

2. It must match observations

Then you have to embrace every religion as a true religion. After all you will hear a lot of people claiming observations that support their religion.

 

[Maui]

Here you are wrong. People are working in the area and that's why they do experiments that show the decision precedes the conscious awareness of it.

Decision? How is a decision registered on a machine? Or did they just register brain activity that they interpreted to be a decision?

People that dismiss the observed data, because they feel it's not right, are those who stop the progress. Also, we don't need paradoxes to progress. The inability to make correct prediction is enough.

You are stuffing a quadrant through a round hole and because it will obviously not go in, you are ready to dismiss the existence of the hole(there is no hole, there is no problem).

I don't think they dismiss it. I think they say our feeling about it is incorrect.

Could it be that their neurons are just out of order and firing a non-sensical sequence? After all, there is no reason why neurons should fire in logical order and produce meaning or knowledge.

And what about your theory? How we can predict something that we cannot observe?

You have over-stayed and over-bought at the "Humans could explain everything" counter.

There is fundamental difference between computer switched on and one switched off. Do you insist there is something mystical and unexplainable about that fact?

A computer has nothing to do with conscious experience or self-awareness.

 

[Maui]

They are not deterministic processes of the brain. The brain is a system that interacts with the environment. If you analyze any such system you may find that they are not deterministic. The combination environment + system is deterministic, but the parts are not.

But there is a mirror image inside the brain and the environment is also actually "inside" the brain. So you are wrong.

Then you have to embrace every religion as a true religion. After all you will hear a lot of people claiming observations that support their religion.

My observations are the same as yours. They are of an external world observed through conscious experience(which seems to be real to the highest standards that humans could envisage).

 

[Upisoft]

Decision? How is a decision registered on a machine? Or did they just register brain activity that they interpreted to be a decision?

You are stuffing a quadrant through a round hole and because it will obviously not go in, you are ready to dismiss the existence of the hole(there is no hole, there is no problem).

Could it be that their neurons are just out of order and firing a non-sensical sequence? After all, there is no reason why neurons should fire in logical order and produce meaning or knowledge.

You have over-stayed and over-bought at the "Humans could explain everything" counter.

A computer has nothing to do with conscious experience or self-awareness.

The machine registers increasing brain activity in the region responsible for moving the finger that pushes the button. The person is instructed to push the button immediately after he decides to push it. "Immediately" can be small time of reaction, but the activity begins few seconds before that, not exactly a short time. Why there is activity if the person has not made the decision to push the button yet? Maybe it is supernatural activity that makes prediction in the future... or just maybe the brain has made unconscious decision.

(Skipping meaningless trolling)

You said "there is a BIG fundamental behavioral difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one" and I showed that there is the same big fundamental difference between a turned on computer and a turned off computer. If you still insist there is something mystical in the consciousness then the same conclusion is inescapable for the computer.

 

[Upisoft]

But there is a mirror image inside the brain and the environment is also actually "inside" the brain. So you are wrong.

There is "virtual reality" inside the brain. "Mirror image" suggest that the internal image of the outside world is perfect and full, which is not the case. You sometimes happen to touch hot objects. If you knew they are hot (= environment is "inside") you would not do it. Your brain made wrong decision to emulate the object as being not hot. So, no. Your idea of "mirror image" is wrong.

My observations are the same as yours. They are of an external world observed through conscious experience(which seems to be real to the highest standards that humans could envisage).

Are they? Tell me, what do I observe when I see red? Is it the same as yours?

 

[Maui]

You said "there is a BIG fundamental behavioral difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one" and I showed that there is the same big fundamental difference between a turned on computer and a turned off computer. If you still insist there is something mystical in the consciousness then the same conclusion is inescapable for the computer.

A computer has never been shown to be conscious, that's the difference. I am done dispelling this nonsense.

 

[Upisoft]

A computer has never been shown to be conscious, that's the difference. I am done dispelling this nonsense.

It does not matter that the computer is not conscious. Your conclusion is based on the big fundamental difference, which is present in both cases. If you don't agree there is big fundamental difference, then turn off your computer and never switch it on again.

Your proposition is: Exists big fundamental difference, therefore exists mystical unexplainable by physics "something".

I don't see why you don't want this proposition to be applied to the case of turned on/off computer. Unless, of course, your proposition was different.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I've been saying all along that all aspects of brain function must either be physical or supernatural. I'm not a dualist because I believe all phenomenon are physical (= natural) including qualia. However we may not be able to describe qualia in physical terms at our current state of evolution. When we have a language where we can describe the sensation of a color without referring to other colors, we may have solved the problem of qualia in "physical" terms. However there are many limitations that physics already imposes on us. We certainly don't have a language that describes exactly what happens to matter when it falls into a black hole. Infinities still plague physics the way qualia plague neuroscience (although I don't think neuroscientists worry too much about qualia).

I frankly don't see why this discussion keeps on going, but if you're having fun, have at it.

 

[Upisoft]

I've been saying all along that all aspects of brain function must either be physical or supernatural. I'm not a dualist because I believe all phenomenon are physical (= natural) including qualia. However we may not be able to describe qualia in physical terms at our current state of evolution. When we have a language where we can describe the sensation of a color without referring to other colors, we may have solved the problem of qualia in "physical" terms. However there are many limitations that physics already imposes on us. We certainly don't have a language that describes exactly what happens to matter when it falls into a black hole. Infinities still plague physics the way qualia plague neuroscience (although I don't think neuroscientists worry too much about qualia).

I frankly don't see why this discussion keeps on going, but if you're having fun, have at it.

This discussion keeps going on, because our qualia about consciousness differ. We are trying to find way to express that difference, but all attempts were futile I guess. I believe we will not be able to find a language that will be able to express qualia, just because of its natural uniqueness. But if you think that we will be able to express qualia in a language form, then why object our attempts to find that language?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But if you think that we will be able to express qualia in a language form, then why object our attempts to find that language?

Because it will probably require some form of electromagnetic telepathy that is beyond any capability we currently have.

 

[Upisoft]

Because it will probably require some form of electromagnetic telepathy that is beyond any capability we currently have.

I have to object. I don't see how the media relates to the capabilities of a language. You can express something with words (acoustical waves) as well as with electromagnetic waives. The only difference could be the speed of transmission and the distance.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I have to object. I don't see how the media relates to the capabilities of a language. You can express something with words (acoustical waves) as well as with electromagnetic waives. The only difference could be the speed of transmission and the distance.

No It would involve the expressive power of language. Our languages are based on phonemes and would no doubt be considered primitive by a much more evolved intelligence. We are limited to sounds and symbols representing sounds for the most part. An advanced intelligence could possibly communicate colors directly to each other in a common telepathic language just as unique brains can communicate now in a more limited way using a common language based on phonemes.

 

[Maui]

Honor suicides are a good example of how emergent immaterial phenomena, such as consciously experienced ideas, feelings, honor and dignity can ultimately trump all deterministic physical processes in the body and end them at a time of their choosing(i.e. observable emergent phenomena can consciously sever their own existence by overriding all physical processes and bring them to an untimely, from a deterministic point of view, end).

There are many detrimental deterministic physical processes such as cancer and malformations and the agency that is fighting those deterministic processes by inventing new medical treatments and medicines cannot be regarded as purely physical and/or material as there exist no property of physical matter that requires such behavior. But it's hardly surprizing, as emergent behavior is not a new concept.

What would be the non-dualistic explanation of an honor suicide(e.g. a Japanese CEO that has led a corporation to a bankrupcy)?

 

[Maui]

It does not matter that the computer is not conscious. Your conclusion is based on the big fundamental difference, which is present in both cases.

I said there is a big behavioral difference between a conscious and an unconscious person. Your computer example is completely irrelvant, because it's not a conscious entity and there is nothing unexplicable about computer behavior(whether it's on or off). Here is what "conscious" means:


con·scious   /ˈkɒnʃəs/ Show Spelled
[kon-shuhs] Show IPA

–adjective
1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often fol. by of ): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3. having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation.
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5. aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar.
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious.





If you have a computer that shows any of the above, it might be advisible to contact CNN, NBC or NASA.

 

[Upisoft]

No It would involve the expressive power of language. Our languages are based on phonemes and would no doubt be considered primitive by a much more evolved intelligence. We are limited to sounds and symbols representing sounds for the most part. An advanced intelligence could possibly communicate colors directly to each other in a common telepathic language just as unique brains can communicate now in a more limited way using a common language based on phonemes.

I don't see how more expressive can we be with the example most used here. We already can communicate with EM, so if you ask me what is "red" I can show it to you by showing object that emits red light or using a device that can emit red light. Now this is not possible for things like "fear" or "joy", but for the simple case of "red" we have the proper "language". This language, of course, will not explain your quale about "red". You will have to send information about some parts of your brain that are analyzing the visual information, but we are unequipped with any organ that can simulate second brain. Maybe if we double the capacity of our brain and use one half of it to emulate someone's else brain... But it is not longer a question of language, but a question of capabilities.

What would be the non-dualistic explanation of an honor suicide(e.g. a Japanese CEO that has led a corporation to a bankrupcy)?

I don't understand what is the problem. People usually do whatever they think is the best for them. If for that guy the honor was more important than his life then he did what every other person does.

I said there is a big behavioral difference between a conscious and an unconscious person. Your computer example is completely irrelvant, because it's not a conscious entity and there is nothing unexplicable about computer behavior(whether it's on or off). Here is what "conscious" means:

Ah, you turned on your computer after all. Did you notice the big behavioral difference? My computer usually behaves no better than a brick when it is turned off. But when I turn it on I can do many things with it. Much more than when its turned off. That is a big behavioral difference. Do you agree? Yes or no.

 

[Maui]

I don't understand what is the problem. People usually do whatever they think is the best for them. If for that guy the honor was more important than his life then he did what every other person does.

So here you say people are conscious and are responsible for their deeds. Hold on and see how you are saying the opposite below...

Ah, you turned on your computer after all. Did you notice the big behavioral difference? My computer usually behaves no better than a brick when it is turned off. But when I turn it on I can do many things with it. Much more than when its turned off. That is a big behavioral difference. Do you agree? Yes or no.

So there is no difference between a powered on computer and a conscious person and we are all really simply an unconscious piece of flesh through which run a few fluids. Good, now enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster - the truly loving and forgiving God, creator of the mighty illusory sensation of conscious experience. Or should i invite Neo?

 

[Upisoft]

So here you say people are conscious and are responsible for their deeds. Hold on and see how you are saying the opposite below...

I was asking a question about a computer. The question with simple answer. "Yes" or "No". If you have made any connection to our discussion about the consciousness it was your doing. It was not my intention.

What I said was:

Ah, you turned on your computer after all. Did you notice the big behavioral difference? My computer usually behaves no better than a brick when it is turned off. But when I turn it on I can do many things with it. Much more than when its turned off. That is a big behavioral difference. Do you agree? Yes or no.

Do you see anything about consciousness? I'm talking about my computer, it's behavior when it is turned on and off and about the difference between the two states. Sorry, if you somehow see "consciousness" in anything of this.

 

[Maui]

I was asking a question about a computer. The question with simple answer. "Yes" or "No". If you have made any connection to our discussion about the consciousness it was your doing. It was not my intention.

What I said was:


Do you see anything about consciousness? I'm talking about my computer, it's behavior when it is turned on and off and about the difference between the two states. Sorry, if you somehow see "consciousness" in anything of this.

The topic is actually about consciousness and whether it exists(is real) or illusory(not real). If you were not alluding to consciousness with the computer example, what was your point exactly? Spamming?

 

[Upisoft]

The topic is actually about consciousness and whether it exists(is real) or illusory(not real). If you were not alluding to consciousness with the computer example, what was your point exactly? Spamming?

It was attempt to make a point that there is nothing mystical in any BIG fundamental behavioral difference. But I guess it turned into spamming, as you avoided it all the time. So, let's stop this pointless discussion.

 

[Hurkyl]

–adjective
1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often fol. by of ): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3. having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation.
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5. aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar.
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious.


If you have a computer that shows any of the above, it might be advisible to contact CNN, NBC or NASA.

Ummm, which of those do you think computers don't do? I always find this argument against artificial intelligence rather poor, since it always winds up resorting to choosing narrow definitions that are more or less specifically designed to exclude computers.

 

[Maui]

Ummm, which of those do you think computers don't do? I always find this argument against artificial intelligence rather poor, since it always winds up resorting to choosing narrow definitions that are more or less specifically designed to exclude computers.

1 through 6. What is your point?

 

[Pythagorean]

I read 2 essays that those authors wrote and they are hopeful that consciousness(the Self) will be revealed to be a certain configuration of neurons. They cite cases of mental disorders as evidence but don't mention any word of cognition, thinking, comprehension or self-awareness. While they don't specifically say in those essay that they are illusions, their collegues(the ones I've read) all held this opinion. Again, i have nothing against the idea that neurons in the brain influence the thought process, but i dismiss the idea that qualia, thinking and awareness are JUST deterministic, physical processes inside the brain.

So you read two essays and then made conclusions about their colleagues. You're not exactly setting the bar for an objective view point here. I am not relying on any argument saying that consciousness is an illusion. Freewill is another topic.

A unconscious person will register brain activity on a EEG machine. A conscious person will as well, but their physical behavior is not even similar while one of them is unconscious.

This is a fallacious argument. Sure, unconscious people and conscious people both show activity on an EEG machine. That's irrelevant. The reading are going to be different for a conscious person than they are for an unconscious person. This is how we know, for instance, that the thalamus plays an important role in consciousness.

It doesn't disagree because it shies away from the topic of awareness, thinking and free-will. When it does, it usually revolves around atatements like - "conscious experience and self are illusory", "free-will is an illusion", etc.

No, it doesn't shy away from awareness, thinking, or free-will. That's something you've chosen to believe. It has, through scientific research, shown that their are problems with the current picture of free-will, but it hasn't stated anything about consciousness itself being an illusion. Our percepts are filled with illusions, but that's not the same thing.

Great, this stuff is fascinating and I love reading about it. But there is no physical reason in my brain why i disagree with its conclusions. Instead, the reason lies in logic. A theory has 2 basic requirements:

1. It has to make sense
2. It must match observations

The theory that consciousness(self-awareness) is a deterministic physical process fails on both points. If the world of conscious experience is truly illusory, it is because of an entirely different set of reasons that have little to do with brains.

Then you can see why dualism isn't a theory? If some principle of dualism was to somehow make valid predictions that were repeatable... it would no longer be dualism.

 

[Maui]

Is the following the neuroscience argument:

1. All our actions are pre-determined as research shows

2. There is an observer who only observes the pre-determined actions taking place(including those of his body, e.g. when he raises his hands) and can't have free will and/or exert willful influence

3. I(or the observer) am most likely asleep and 'observing' the action of a dreamt up physical body that i mistake for mine in a dreamt up world that only looks solid(when one is dreaiming there is no control over the events that unfold, everything is merely observed).

 

[Maui]

Then you can see why dualism isn't a theory? If some principle of dualism was to somehow make valid predictions that were repeatable... it would no longer be dualism.

Dualism has been making many billions of predictions per hours so far. Through dualism people predict if a food will be tasty, an idea good, a picture beautiful, a theory wrong, etc. Denying the reality of everything is rather silly idea(it will require much more evidence).

So you read two essays and then made conclusions about their colleagues. You're not exactly setting the bar for an objective view point here. I am not relying on any argument saying that consciousness is an illusion. Freewill is another topic.

I have a keen interest in this topic and have read many essays, but i am not good at remembering names. Instead of pointing out what your argument is not, why not point out what your argument actually is on the realness of conscious experience?

This is a fallacious argument. Sure, unconscious people and conscious people both show activity on an EEG machine. That's irrelevant. The reading are going to be different for a conscious person than they are for an unconscious person. This is how we know, for instance, that the thalamus plays an important role in consciousness.

So what does this mean to you? Are people really conscious or just under the idea that they are conscious but are in the final analysis not?

but it hasn't stated anything about consciousness itself being an illusion.

OMG. Of course when one believes that consciousness is a physical deterministic process, then conscious choices ARE a BIG farse, an illusion(i.e. there is no one, no SELF to do the choosing). You shouldn't be ashamed of the conclusions your own theory is leading to.

 

[Upisoft]

You show him a brain, but he says there is nothing... I'm starting to believe him.

 

[Hurkyl]

Through dualism people predict if a food will be tasty,

Really? Where can I learn this dualism? It would seriously help with my cooking if I could use it to predict whether my food would be tasty!

 

[Upisoft]

I had an interesting event in my life. I had to undergo a surgery and after they bring me back to the room, people in the room said that I attempted to stand up an go. I have told them: "I want to go home. I don't like being here any more."

I don't remember anything at all, but it looks I acted as if I was fully awake. Now my questions are:

1. Was I conscious when I did those things?
2. If I was conscious, then what is conscience if it depends so much on our memory?
3. If i was not conscious why did I express things like will (to go home) and emotion (didn't like being in the hospital), who was "I" in this context?

Edit: It is obvious that I was aware where I am. i.e. self-awareness was present.
Edit: The experience resembles the zombie-like behavior described by the OP, at least from my current point of view

 

[DaveC426913]

I had an interesting event in my life. I had to undergo a surgery and after they bring me back to the room, people in the room said that I attempted to stand up an go. I have told them: "I want to go home. I don't like being here any more."

I don't remember anything at all, but it looks I acted as if I was fully awake. Now my questions are:

1. Was I conscious when I did those things?
2. If I was conscious, then what is conscience if it depends so much on our memory?
3. If i was not conscious why did I express things like will (to go home) and emotion (didn't like being in the hospital), who was "I" in this context?

Edit: It is obvious that I was aware where I am. i.e. self-awareness was present.
Edit: The experience resembles the zombie-like behavior described by the OP, at least from my current point of view

I have often wondered about this. It seems to me that it is just as possible that you were indeed mostly* conscious but that the path to your memory was short-circuited. You have no recollection of the event, so it seems, in retrospect, you weren't conscious at all.


*you could not have been fully conscious and in possession of your faculties. The behaviour you exhibited (trying to get up and leave) was clearly irrational. You were definitely in some sort of compromised state.

 

[Upisoft]

I have often wondered about this. It seems to me that it is just as possible that you were indeed mostly* conscious but that the path to your memory was short-circuited. You have no recollection of the event, so it seems, in retrospect, you weren't conscious at all.*you could not have been fully conscious and in possession of your faculties. The behaviour you exhibited (trying to get up and leave) was clearly irrational. You were definitely in some sort of compromised state.

Well, some people take such decisions while being fully conscious. Say, they refuse blood transfusion even it is required to save their life. It is irrational from our PoV, but not from their PoV. So, I don't think that my irrational behavior necessary indicate lack of full conscience. After all I gave an explanation why I want to go home. Unfortunately the people were worried about my well being and didn't ask me why I don't like being in the hospital, but tried to relax me.

Edit: Anyway the problem here is that the memory seem to control the conscious experience.

 

[Ferris_bg]

There are many forms of sleepwalking. I myself experienced one this summer, I was asleep after the beach, my friends come and put some drops of hot water at my face. Now I remember in my sleep I am conscious and I think "WTF, it's so hot here, I am sweating". Then I don't remember, but I have gotten up and made a few steps, then I become conscious and see my friends around me laughing. And this is quite different than being drunk and not remembering, because while you are drunk you have some episodic memories, which is a fact that you was conscious in the moments when acting while drunk, just your memory is altered.

 

[Upisoft]

I had also sleep-* experience, but it was not walking, but solving a problem. I was about 15 years old when I had to switch from elementary school to high school. Of course, there were few schools that were prestige and had special courses I was interested in. So, there were a limited space and the exams for accepting new students were quite hard. There were like 6000 people trying to fill about 80 vacancies.

The exam was in mathematics and I was quite good. But nevertheless I worked hard solving problems from various sources. Everything was quite easy except one geometry problem that I couldn't solve. So, I went to my cousin who is 15 years older than me and has a degree in mathematics. He solved the problem in few rows using analytic geometry, but he was unable to think a way to solve it with elementary geometry. I didn't understand his solution, after all it used concepts I was going to learn in high school and university. So, I was very worried about it.

The night before the exam I went to bed early, so I can be fresh in the morning for the exam. Few hours later I wake up with the solution (using elementary geometry) in my head. I just wrote it down and went to bed again. In the morning I checked the solution and it was correct.

Guess what, one of the problems at the exam was quite similar. I was able to solve it (other problems were no challenge at all for me) and got 6 (= A in US I think). There were only 3 people that got 6 (A) out of about 5000-6000.

So, I had sleep-solving experience. Nice, eh?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, some people take such decisions while being fully conscious. Say, they refuse blood transfusion even it is required to save their life. It is irrational from our PoV, but not from their PoV. So, I don't think that my irrational behavior necessary indicate lack of full conscience.

Are you telling me, in the fully-conscious state you are in right now, that, upon reflection it was a good idea to get up immediately after that operation and try to go home? Did you even have pants on?

Or would you say right now, that that was not the best thing for you to do then?

 

[Upisoft]

Are you telling me, in the fully-conscious state you are in right now, that, upon reflection it was a good idea to get up immediately after that operation and try to go home? Did you even have pants on?

Or would you say right now, that that was not the best thing for you to do then?

I don't know. I don't remember anything, so I can't justify my action as rational, because I cannot repeat the thought process (or whatever process made me do what I did).

Anyway it could be that my memory was not working properly and I made rational decision based on less amount of data I had access to. Or my memory was OK, but I was acting irrationally..

Since I have no memory at all, it will remain a mystery for me what really happened.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know. I don't remember anything, so I can't justify my action as rational, because I cannot repeat the thought process (or whatever process made me do what I did).

You don't need to remember the thought process. I'm not asking you what you were thinking; I'm asking you if, right now, you think a patient who has just come back from surgery is in any fit state to go home.

 

[Upisoft]

You don't need to remember the thought process. I'm not asking you what you were thinking; I'm asking you if, right now, you think a patient who has just come back from surgery is in any fit state to go home.

I already answered that I cannot justify it now as rational.

What is puzzling me is that if you hear someone to say: "I don't like it here, I want to go home" you will not automatically think they are irrational. You may start thinking there is something wrong after you get additional data like in my case, or say if you know that the person is already home.

So, it not appear as irrational thinking by itself and can be explained by loss of memory. Isn't it possible that I didn't remember I was in a hospital and had surgery? If it happened this way it should be quite awkward to find myself in a place like a hospital. And it is quite reasonable to want go home.

Edit: After all I already gave an example that I can "think" rationally while I sleep. (Well, it happened only once, but nevertheless it happened.)

 

[Pythagorean]

Dualism has been making many billions of predictions per hours so far. Through dualism people predict if a food will be tasty, an idea good, a picture beautiful, a theory wrong, etc.

Dualism doesn't make any predictions.

Denying the reality of everything is rather silly idea(it will require much more evidence).

I suspect this is yet another strawman, but please do explain who you are accusing of "denying the reality of everything" (whatever that means).

I have a keen interest in this topic and have read many essays, but i am not good at remembering names. Instead of pointing out what your argument is not, why not point out what your argument actually is on the realness of conscious experience?

Because I'm criticizing the many flawed bases of your argument, I've already put forth my assumption and many accompanying arguments.

So what does this mean to you? Are people really conscious or just under the idea that they are conscious but are in the final analysis not?

Who cares? I was debunking your silly argument about both conscious an unconscious people having activity on an EEG. Do you see how your argument was flawed?

OMG. Of course when one believes that consciousness is a physical deterministic process, then conscious choices ARE a BIG farse, an illusion(i.e. there is no one, no SELF to do the choosing). You shouldn't be ashamed of the conclusions your own theory is leading to.

What is this accusation of shame? Your arguments continually rely on these straw men... I don't think you should be allowed to keep posting like this, honestly.

Besides that, you're confusing two concepts here: freewill and consciousness. We can still be conscious of the choices our brian makes without having any say in them. Consciousness is about being able to perceive, willpower is about being able to choose. One can exist without the other. No neuroscientist I know claims that consciousness is an illusion. Real experiments ARE, however, supportive of the claim that willpower is an illusion. That's not something I'm wishing into existence, it's a real scientific result.

This isn't a matter of shame, it's a matter of the laymen tendency to clump all the different aspects of "mind" into one.

 

[DaveC426913]

Isn't it possible that I didn't remember I was in a hospital and had surgery?

That would definitely qualify as being in an altered state of consciousness, resulting in irrational behaviour, yup. Kinda my point.

 

[Upisoft]

That would definitely qualify as being in an altered state of consciousness, resulting in irrational behaviour, yup. Kinda my point.

I can't get your idea. I thought it is normal for people to forget and then remember.

 

[Math Is Hard]

It would take me weeks to clean up the tangential and unrelated replies in this thread. Locked.