Is Consciousness Beyond Physical Explanation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Q_Goest
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of dualism in the context of cognitive science, particularly as articulated by philosophers like David Chalmers and Jaegwon Kim. Dualism posits that there are mental phenomena, such as consciousness and subjective experiences, that cannot be fully explained by physical facts alone. Proponents argue that while physical states influence mental states, additional non-physical facts exist that require separate explanation. Critics, or non-dualists, contend that all mental experiences can ultimately be understood through physical interactions, asserting that dualism introduces unnecessary complexities. The debate highlights the ongoing tension between physicalism and dualism in understanding consciousness and the nature of reality.

Are you a dualist?


  • Total voters
    33
  • #121
Maui said:
If you posit that black holes do not exist because we don't understand them, then your "science" is in deep trouble.

That wasn't his argument at all. He was stating that the lack of direct observation of black holes doesn't prove they don't exist.

Anyway, I can tell by now that you don't really want to have a discussion. You are already set in your ways.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Pythagorean said:
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.


Science is at a dead-end on this question(how subjective experience is born from inanimate matter) and i don't particularly care for some scientist's confused thoughts. For every scientist and paper that claims that free will is an illusion there is one that disagrees.




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.



This is true and there is obviously someone who recognizes these facts. That someone is me(my emergent mind) and you(your emergent mind).



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.



As soon as anyone(scientist or not) declares that coscious choices are an illusion, they are transgressing their field of knowledge and entering the void of ignorance with a set of WILD speculations. This isn't science.
 
Last edited:
  • #123
Maui said:
As soon as anyone(scientist or not) declares that coscious choices are an illusion, they are transgressing their field of knowledge and entering the void of ignorance with a set of WILD speculations. This isn't science.

Replace "coscious choices" with "physical causality" and back 'atchya.
 
  • #124
Pythagorean said:
Many human actions are nothing more than reactions to emotional experiences which are indicators of survivability.

I think that all of our actions are based on emotional experience. Some of them are those you are talking about. Direct reactions of emotional experiences, i.e. impulsive actions. Others contain "rational" component, what we call thought. I say "rational", because even people want to be completely logical, they make logical mistakes. Nevertheless how logical is one's action it always is based on emotional experiences (I include here all autonomic functions and reflexes).

For example, consider the question "Why is life worth to live"? Can anyone give a pure logical reason? I doubt it.
 
  • #125
Pythagorean said:
That wasn't his argument at all. He was stating that the lack of direct observation of black holes doesn't prove they don't exist.



I didn't perceive that, since i never said or implied that only direct obsevation is valid for the veracity of a statement. His example and motives for it were confusing.


Anyway, I can tell by now that you don't really want to have a discussion. You are already set in your ways.



Yes, i am not particularly fond of arguing with anyone who denies the validity of my obervations or that i exist or that I am able to consciously raise my hand or leg or produce a thought.

If you are not thinking(i.e. there is no one that thinks and makes decisions), what exactly are you doing on a forum that proliferates logic and logical thinking?
 
  • #126
Pythagorean said:
Replace "coscious choices" with "physical causality" and back 'atchya.



Care to show me the "physical causality" in an EEG or other examination of your choice as to how my choices are born and how they determine my volitional acts?
 
  • #127
Maui said:
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.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-17/1412563"
Do you observe them different in color?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
Upisoft said:
I think that all of our actions are based on emotional experience. Some of them are those you are talking about. Direct reactions of emotional experiences, i.e. impulsive actions. Others contain "rational" component, what we call thought. I say "rational", because even people want to be completely logical, they make logical mistakes. Nevertheless how logical is one's action it always is based on emotional experiences (I include here all autonomic functions and reflexes).

I mostly agree with you, but I think people can be largely disengaged from emotional thinking when they're bored or dissociated. I guess it depends on where you draw the line between emotional and computational. I consider myself adding 2+2 a computational operation. It is ultimately driven by emotion, I guess, though. The excitement of an answer or the prospect of success.

For example, consider the question "Why is life worth to live"? Can anyone give a pure logical reason? I doubt it.

I think it's largely because the question is not logical. It assumes that life is always worth living, which is not necessarily the case. Worth is a measurement of the value of the current situation, which changes depending on a) the situation and b) the state of the human brain. A weak brain in a high-stress situation may easily find life not worth living, but you throw a dog a bone every once in a while and even moderate-stress situations become more palatable. It's a delicate balance of pleasure and pain.

Also, to reproduce =)
 
  • #129
Maui said:
Care to show me the "physical causality" in an EEG or other examination of your choice as to how my choices are born and how they determine my volitional acts?
If you were willing to watch an experiment about willpower where an fMRI machine is able to predict people's choices before the people have made them based on their neural activity, then maybe you'd actually gain some more understanding of my stance.

But ultimately, An EEG or fMRI won't help you for visually understanding as deep as you'd want too... that's like trying to look at scrambled eggs and tell the yolk from the white. The actual machines are analyzed with statistics with a priori knowledge based on limited knowledge about brain function based on brain damage cases and experiments on animals (and willing human patients).

The brain doesn't nicely compartmentalize in a way that's convenient to understanding it's processing with an EEG alone. You really need to learn the circuits and the functions handled by particular circuits, and there's a lot of them... a really lot. (I'm not claiming to know them, myself, and the scientific community is still establishing them... but they are making progress, they're not dead in the water by any means, you're just not taking advantage of the information that's now available... out of stubbornness!.

In short, "choices" are based on prior information and current situation... basically memory and sensation. People will always try to make what they think are the best choices for their overall health. The more informed they are, the better choices they can (and WILL) make, as long as they are aware of the significance of the information.
 
  • #130
Pythagorean said:
I mostly agree with you, but I think people can be largely disengaged from emotional thinking when they're bored or dissociated. I guess it depends on where you draw the line between emotional and computational. I consider myself adding 2+2 a computational operation. It is ultimately driven by emotion, I guess, though. The excitement of an answer or the prospect of success.
Being bored is emotional state. Negative one. People will tend to go away from that state. Some may go to the local strip bar and some may start searching the answer of the question about Life, Universe and Everything. In any case they have something in common, they are doing something that distracts them from the boredom. Some may even consider adding 2 and 2, but doing so is already success itself, as it helps them to avoid the boredom. Well, boredom is not always the reason to add 2 and 2. You may actually counting sheep or something.. :-p


Pythagorean said:
I think it's largely because the question is not logical. It assumes that life is always worth living, which is not necessarily the case. Worth is a measurement of the value of the current situation, which changes depending on a) the situation and b) the state of the human brain. A weak brain in a high-stress situation may easily find life not worth living, but you throw a dog a bone every once in a while and even moderate-stress situations become more palatable. It's a delicate balance of pleasure and pain.

Also, to reproduce =)

I didn't meant to assume that life is worth living. Imagine you do ask this question to people around. Some may actually answer that their life is not worth living. What I'm trying to say is that if you get actual answer to the question, say "Life is worth living because the sky is so beautiful and...", it will always contain non-logical reason. Even if 99% of the reasoning is logical.

There is no logic in reproduction, that's why the nature made sure it is so good. :-p
 
  • #131
Maui said:
Yes, i am not particularly fond of arguing with anyone who denies the validity of my obervations or that i exist or that I am able to consciously raise my hand or leg or produce a thought.
nobody's disputing your observation. It's yout interpretation that is being scrutinized.


If you are not thinking(i.e. there is no one that thinks and makes decisions), what exactly are you doing on a forum that proliferates logic and logical thinking?

I never denied that we think. I claim the thinking is a physical process that we experience.
 
  • #132
Pythagorean said:
nobody's disputing your observation. It's yout interpretation that is being scrutinized.

Indeed, that's why I posted the link to the optical illusion. It is amusing to see how the change in the background in the picture can change your "mind" about if the birds have different color. If he is correct, then the background of the image is part of his mind, because it is the only thing changing.
 
  • #133
Upisoft said:
There is no other observer of your feelings. You cannot have objective observational evidence.

A Consciousness dipped with vengeance towards a race can result in an earth-shattering dictator-Hitler.
A Soul completely in awe towards Truth and non-violence can transform a nation and make the whole world weep when it departs the body-Gandhi
A Self wondering at the orderliness of the universe result in unearthing the mysteries of nature not obvious to the superficial and egoistic eyes. -Einstein

Enough observational evidences? Attributing these awesome abilities of Life to emergent behavior and reductionism just kills the concept of beauty.
 
  • #134
Upisoft said:
http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-17/1412563"
Do you observe them different in color?

That just takes advantage of averages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #135
sganesh88 said:
Enough observational evidences? Attributing these awesome abilities of Life to emergent behavior and reductionism just kills the concept of beauty.

Beauty is not objective concept. Complicating the uniqueness of the subject by adding concepts like mind, soul, spirit, etc. and insisting they are separate entities from the subject is not objective either.
 
  • #136
Pythagorean said:
I never denied that we think. I claim the thinking is a physical process that we experience.


Where exactly in physics textbooks did you see any mention of properties of matter related to the process of thinking?
 
  • #137
Pythagorean said:
If you were willing to watch an experiment about willpower where an fMRI machine is able to predict people's choices before the people have made them based on their neural activity, then maybe you'd actually gain some more understanding of my stance.


What do you mean by "before people have made them"? Before they were aware that they would make them?




But ultimately, An EEG or fMRI won't help you for visually understanding as deep as you'd want too... that's like trying to look at scrambled eggs and tell the yolk from the white. The actual machines are analyzed with statistics with a priori knowledge based on limited knowledge about brain function based on brain damage cases and experiments on animals (and willing human patients).

The brain doesn't nicely compartmentalize in a way that's convenient to understanding it's processing with an EEG alone. You really need to learn the circuits and the functions handled by particular circuits, and there's a lot of them... a really lot. (I'm not claiming to know them, myself, and the scientific community is still establishing them... but they are making progress, they're not dead in the water by any means, you're just not taking advantage of the information that's now available... out of stubbornness!.



It's clear to me that if you had ANY links whatsoever about how thinking and perception arise, you'd have posted them by now. All i can see is speculation about circuits in the hope that you'd find a mechanism for personal subjective experience that will confirm your or someone else's thesis.




In short, "choices" are based on prior information and current situation... basically memory and sensation.


...and of course LOGIC! And logic only exists in minds(especially the ability to predict possible outcomes). Surprized?



People will always try to make what they think are the best choices for their overall health. The more informed they are, the better choices they can (and WILL) make, as long as they are aware of the significance of the information.


Making choices is a good indicator of a well functioning mind.
 
  • #138
Try Neuroscience texts, who's principles are found on physics.
 
  • #139
Pythagorean said:
Try Neuroscience texts, who's principles are found on physics.



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.
 
  • #140
Maui said:
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.

What's your point? There are no cooking recipes in the physics textbook either. That does not mean the cake is unphysical...
 
  • #141
Maui said:
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.

Are you aware of the disease schizophrenia? Are you aware that there are drugs such as haloperidol which, although not a cure, can allow many of the afflicted to live reasonably normal lives as long as they take the medication? Schizophrenia is a classic thinking disorder. Moreover you must be aware that there are many drugs (too many) available legally and illegally that affect mood, emotion, the way we sense things. Why do you think people experiment with LSD or Ectascy ? If thinking and consciousness are such ineffable, mysterious non physical qualities, why are they affected by chemicals to such a degree?

It's true we don't know, in a deep sense, exactly how they work, although many receptor systems have been identified. How come something as physical as a chemical have such profound and mostly predictable psychic effects if there wasn't some physical connection?

http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/MdisordADV/AdvSchid.jsp

If you want more detail on the current state of knowledge of the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia:

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Mechanisms_of_Action_of_Second_Generation_Antipsychotic_Drugs_In_Schizophrenia.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #142
Maui said:
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.

As I've already stated, psychology has well accepted the tenants of neuroscience by now. There's not as much resistance from religious fanatics to exploring the brain-mind problem nowadays. Previously, it would have been sacrilegious to claim that there was no such thing as some nonphysical "soul" and so not much research was done in it: psychology was isolated from neuroscience.

That's not the case anymore, not in the last 20 or 30 years, but especially not in the last 10 years. People are getting over the fact that they're not magical beings, just like they got over the fact that they don't hold the center of the universe in centuries past.
 
  • #143
Galois was a dualist and look where it got him. I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except for the OP and I have no intention of wading through it all. However, this quote caught my eye.

Q_Goest said:
Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.
Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?
 
  • #144
Jimmy Snyder said:
Galois was a dualist and look where it got him. I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except for the OP and I have no intention of wading through it all. However, this quote caught my eye.


Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?

Cute.

Meh, I argue philosophy (which I am already skilled at), not physics (which I am putting off until after my mathematics is solid and far-reaching).

If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things
 
  • #145
G037H3 said:
If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things
Clearly, A and C are not the case when two physical states are identical without the scare quotes. B is Einstein's "Hidden Variables" objection.
 
  • #146
Jimmy Snyder said:
Clearly, A and C are not the case when two physical states are identical without the scare quotes. B is Einstein's "Hidden Variables" objection.

what's wrong with C?

for all we know, one of the two things that are the same happen to be bumped by some fleeting random spike in energy, and it causes a chain reaction that results in a non-deterministic change
 
  • #147
G037H3 said:
what's wrong with C?
QM has something to say about what can happen to two systems that are in the same state. State includes all bumps.
 
  • #148
Jimmy Snyder said:
QM has something to say about what can happen to two systems that are in the same state. State includes all bumps.

Well, I already said that I'm avoiding a physics interpretation, I was just using pure logic. o_O
 
  • #149
G037H3 said:
If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things

Didn't you miss:
D: they are not deterministic
?
 
  • #150
Upisoft said:
Didn't you miss:
D: they are not deterministic
?

I was only discussing a comparison between two things, not universal laws.

I take it that universal laws are much more complex than an endless number of comparisons between things.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
15K
Replies
113
Views
20K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
412
  • · Replies 135 ·
5
Replies
135
Views
23K
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
9K
Replies
500
Views
93K