Is Consciousness Unique to Human Brains?

[PIT2]

No mention of EM fields.

It doesn't mention neurons either

What is mentioned is "awareness" and "cognitive state". In fact, it has been established in the neurosciences to use the word "awareness" as the standard term rather than "consciousness" simply because the word "consciousness" has come to encompass religious concepts and other beliefs of unverifiable origin.

There is also something called "phenomenal consciousness" and "access consciousness." [1] What ivan is talking about seems to be phenomenal conscious (experience).

Since we have no idea how (or if) this arises in the brain, we also have no idea why/if neurons experience something and chairs do not.

 

[quantumcarl]

It doesn't mention neurons either

Actually, in defining "cognition" it only mentions the human brain (a highly evolved neural population). However, one could simlarily use the word to describe the cognitions taking place in a computer which is a system designed by humans.

High level functions carried out by the human brain, including comprehension and use of speech, visual perception and construction, calculation ability, attention (information processing), memory, and executive functions such as planning, problem-solving, and self-monitoring.
www.zdmu.ac.ir/learn/msc/ms03.htm[/URL][/quote]

Lets get a chair to teach Cantonese at MIT.
[quote]There is also something called "phenomenal consciousness" and "access consciousness." [url=http://www.rpi.edu/~brings/EVOL/evol6/node2.html][1][/url] What ivan is talking about seems to be phenomenal conscious (experience).[/quote]

Here's why the word consciousness doesn't work in scientific terms:

[quote]"Consciousness" derives from Latin conscientia which primarily means moral conscience. In the literal sense, "conscientia" means knowledge-with, that is, shared knowledge. The word first appears in Latin juridic texts by writers such as Cicero. Here, conscientia is the knowledge that a witness has of the deed of someone else. In Christian theology, conscience stands for the moral conscience in which our actions and intentions are registered and which is only fully known to God. [/quote]

Being cognitively aware, remembering and communicating reasoned responses about a phenomenon is a product of possessing a brain. A "phenomenal consciousness" is also a product of an active neural network... not necessarily a product of nature. So far, phenomonal consciousness remains in the realm of philosophical sci fi. But then, no one thought we'd make it to the moon... and some still don't believe it.:wink:

[quote]Since we have no idea how (or if) this arises in the brain, we also have no idea why/if neurons experience something and chairs do not.[/QUOTE]

There are a lot of things "we" don't know, yet.

 

[PIT2]

Actually, in defining "cognition" it only mentions the human brain (a highly evolved neural population).

Thats what i was talking about, the EM field generated by the neurons and located inside the human brain.

A "phenomenal consciousness" is also a product of an active neural network... not necessarily a product of nature. So far, phenomonal consciousness remains in the realm of philosophical sci fi. But then, no one thought we'd make it to the moon... and some still don't believe it.

Back when mechanised clocks became popular in the 17th century, there used to be scientists who believed that the behaviour and movements of animals could be explained by how clock cogwheels worked(it was quite a hype!). It later turned out that it wasnt quite so simple as they thought and that a more fundamental insight into biology was required. If u replace the word 'clock' in a 17th century scientists' work with the word 'computer', the text could easily pass for a modern publication. Right now we think it perfectly logical that the cogwheel idea was too simple, yet many still try to explain our brain and consciousness by comparing it with a computer.

There are a lot of things "we" don't know, yet.

True, and this is exactly my point and also what Ivan is saying. There is nothing special about neurons that indicates that they should be conscious and other matter shouldnt.

 

[0rthodontist]

The idea is that you can implement any algorithm in a variety of ways, not necessarily with transistors. You can also do multiplication with water channels. You could do a whole computer if you wanted.
As a matter of fact, the only operations you need to implement are the logical AND and the logical NOT. Everything is built on top of these.

Actually, you only need one operation, NAND (for example).

 

[quantumcarl]

There is nothing special about neurons that indicates that they should be conscious and other matter shouldnt.

You're the guy I had to remind twice about how living and non-living matter are the same thing.

There is one unique quality about a neural network like the one that comprises our brains.

Our brains come up with concepts like how its "special" in comparison to everything else. Whereas rocks, plants and those animals other than humans cannot be proven to have created the same delusion of "specialness".

the EM field generated by the neurons and located inside the human brain.

Why are you pointing this out? For all we know every particle is an EM wave.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You're the guy I had to remind twice about how living and non-living matter are the same thing.

This logic is the result of a kind of mechanistic thick-headedness. Here's how that fallacious argument would go with a car.

If we take a car apart we will find that every single bit of it is matter, and we will find every single relationship between the parts is mechancial. THEREFORE . . . the absolute only thing involved in the development of a car is materiality and mechanics.

Along comes a more balanced mind to ask, "but what organized the parts into a car?"

Now here's where it get twisted. The person who believes a car is only mechanics and matter is a mechanic. All he does is look at mechanics. He goes to school and studies mechanics, his career is mechanics. Since it is all he looks at, guess what? Mechanics is all he sees. Because it's all he looks at and therefore sees, he concludes it's all there is; and since he is a professional mechanic, he thinks he is now in possession of the ultimate type of knowledge of the universe.

Getting back to how he will answer the question of how those parts got organized into a car, he will say "why mechanics must be self-organizing since all there is in this universe is mechanics and matter." If you ask for proof that matter can self-organize to such a high-functioning degree, he won't be able to prove it beyond a few superficial steps, but that doesn't stop him from lecturing others on how ignorant they are for doubting mechanicism.

There is one unique quality about a neural network like the one that comprises our brains.
Our brains come up with concepts like how its "special" in comparison to everything else. Whereas rocks, plants and those animals other than humans cannot be proven to have created the same delusion of "specialness".

Well, if you want to be dumb as a rock, knock yourself out. My preference is to feel it is rather special to know I exist.

 

[quantumcarl]

This logic is the result of a kind of mechanistic thick-headedness. Here's how that fallacious argument would go with a car.

If we take a car apart we will find that every single bit of it is matter, and we will find every single relationship between the parts is mechancial. THEREFORE . . . the absolute only thing involved in the development of a car is materiality and mechanics.

Along comes a more balanced mind to ask, "but what organized the parts into a car?"

Now here's where it get twisted. The person who believes a car is only mechanics and matter is a mechanic. All he does is look at mechanics. He goes to school and studies mechanics, his career is mechanics. Since it is all he looks at, guess what? Mechanics is all he sees. Because it's all he looks at and therefore sees, he concludes it's all there is; and since he is a professional mechanic, he thinks he is now in possession of the ultimate type of knowledge of the universe.

Getting back to how he will answer the question of how those parts got organized into a car, he will say "why mechanics must be self-organizing since all there is in this universe is mechanics and matter." If you ask for proof that matter can self-organize to such a high-functioning degree, he won't be able to prove it beyond a few superficial steps, but that doesn't stop him from lecturing others on how ignorant they are for doubting mechanicism.

Well, if you want to be dumb as a rock, knock yourself out. My preference is to feel it is rather special to know I exist.

You obviously have a lot to say about this topic.

Please expand on the differences between that matter which composes a living system and the matter of which a non-living system is comprised.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You obviously have a lot to say about this topic.

Please expand on the differences between that matter which composes a living system and the matter of which a non-living system is comprised.

I was challenging what I perceived as your assumption that explaining mechancial relationships between things necessarily explains it all.

When you ask me to "expand on the differences between that matter which composes a living system and the matter of which a non-living system is comprised," I suspect you've missed my point.

I wouldn't dispute that the matter in each is the same. My point was an organizational one. Yes, you can precisely describe every single bit of matter in both living and non-living systems. The matter is EXACTLY the same. What is different is how matter is organized in a living system. How do you explain that?

 

[-Job-]

Given that every person's brain is very distinct on a neuron-to-neuron basis, and yet everybody is conscious (i'm going to assume that), then it is unlikely that the effect of consciousness relies heavily on single neuron interactions, meaning that the process responsible for consciousness won't be identifiable at the level of inter-neuron activity. One thing that people's brains have in common is its organization, so I'm more convinced that the "consciousness machine", if there is one, works at this level, suggesting that it's the interaction between the components of the brain that is meaningful in explaining consciousness, rather than lower-level neuron interactions. What this means is that, as long each of these components have similar interfaces (functionality), then the way they are implemented (how many neurons and how they are connected), is not relevant.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Given that every person's brain is very distinct on a neuron-to-neuron basis, and yet everybody is conscious (i'm going to assume that), then it is unlikely that the effect of consciousness relies heavily on single neuron interactions, meaning that the process responsible for consciousness won't be identifiable at the level of inter-neuron activity. One thing that people's brains have in common is its organization, so I'm more convinced that the "consciousness machine", if there is one, works at this level, suggesting that it's the interaction between the components of the brain that is meaningful in explaining consciousness, rather than lower-level neuron interactions. What this means is that, as long each of these components have similar interfaces (functionality), then the way they are implemented (how many neurons and how they are connected), is not relevant.

I don't know if you are speaking to my comment about organization, but I mean something different than what you addressed above. I am talking about the fact with any purely physicalistic theory of life and consciousness, there is no suitable explanation for how the physical structure got organized first into the orignial life form, and then how it continued to organize so effectively to develop a brain. No self-organizing abillity has ever been discovered that can do that, so I am saying there is some organizational principle missing in scientific explanations.

However, if I were to answer your point I'd say that the brain's organization may explain its relationship to the body, how we interact with universe through our senses, where we think and store our memories, etc., but it doesn't explain why there is a "me" which is aware of all those the functions of the mind. So far the best physical theory can do is to "dismiss" the observer as an illusion, or label it an epiphenomenal phantom, or associate it with the silly old cellular homunculous model, and so on.

Is it possible to think so much that one loses touch with oneself? I believe it is, and that it's what is responsible for physicalistic intellectuals not being able to make a simple observation about themselves. The "self" is not found in thoughts, but rather it is a simple awareness of existence we are born with, and which stays with us throughout our lifetime. Like self-organization I mentioned above, there are no known physical principles or structures which can produce such an awareness.

 

[quantumcarl]

I was challenging what I perceived as your assumption that explaining mechancial relationships between things necessarily explains it all.

When you ask me to "expand on the differences between that matter which composes a living system and the matter of which a non-living system is comprised," I suspect you've missed my point.

I wouldn't dispute that the matter in each is the same. My point was an organizational one. Yes, you can precisely describe every single bit of matter in both living and non-living systems. The matter is EXACTLY the same. What is different is how matter is organized in a living system. How do you explain that?

First of all the word Organized is our ( a human) interpretation of what we see in, say, a solar system, the workings of an atom... and the arrangement of organs in an organism.

The word " organized" is not a complete description of what we are observing... it is simply an anthropomorphic view or interpretation of what we are lucky enough to observe.

Secondly, there are explanations for all of what we deem "organized" in that we can deduce the events that brought about what we observe and deliniate as "organized". The explanation is that we would not see these structures if it were not for the fact that they have survived the interactions with their environment.

This is the premise of evolution and suvival of the species. Which is that which works/cooperates/interacts most efficently with its environment. will survive, will be maintained, will continue to exist as a structure for a determined amount of time.

I would continue but, I have to get organized. EDIT: of course, if you're talking about the big "WHY" does this sort of system exist... you are asking an age old question that you can only answer for yourself and perhaps someone that will listen to you with an open mind.

 

[Les Sleeth]

First of all the word Organized is our ( a human) interpretation of what we see in, say, a solar system, the workings of an atom... and the arrangement of organs in an organism.

Yes, organization describes arrangements that result in coherent wholes.

The word " organized" is not a complete description of what we are observing... it is simply an anthropomorphic view or interpretation of what we are lucky enough to observe.

Just because humans observe something doesn’t automatically make it anthropomorphic. We isolate aspects of reality all the time to identify specific characteristics in order to help us understand. If we could only consider things as part of the whole of reality it would be very difficult to figure anything out.

Not all observations are “lucky” either since we actively seek out things to observe, and often we are looking for very certain things such as those efforts to observe neutrinos to explain unaccounted for energy, or to find Pluto to explain perturbations in Neptune’s and Uranus’ orbits.

Secondly, there are explanations for all of what we deem "organized" in that we can deduce the events that brought about what we observe and deliniate as "organized". The explanation is that we would not see these structures if it were not for the fact that they have survived the interactions with their environment.

Yes but “explanations” don’t cut it. Creationists have explanations, politicians have explanations, terrorists have explanations . . . all believers try to “explain” away the gaps in their theories.

If something exits obviously it has survived its environment! That tells us nothing. What was the environment? With life and consciousness, mechanists/physicalists would claim the ONLY environment is physicality, and so chemistry must have self-organized itself into life. Okay, demonstrate physicality can organize with that quality. If you can’t do it, then what reason do you have for believing physicality did it except that you are already committed to physicalism for everything (whether the evidence for it exists or not) and so automatically assume a priori a physicalistic explanation?

This is the premise of evolution and survival of the species. Which is that which works/cooperates/interacts most efficiently with its environment. will survive, will be maintained, will continue to exist as a structure for a determined amount of time.

Exactly. But why is it a premise? Obviously an organism must be adapted to its environment, but the only physical evolving mechanisms we can find fall short of demonstrating they can create organisms. So from adapting bird beaks and moth colors we leap miles ahead to assume that every bit of an organism evolved through those superficial mechanisms. Why? Because, I say, of a priori beliefs in physicalism.

of course, if you're talking about the big "WHY" does this sort of system exist... you are asking an age old question that you can only answer for yourself and perhaps someone that will listen to you with an open mind.

I am not just talking about why. I am questioning the ability of physicalness alone to organize itself into living systems, and then to keep organizing (i.e., via the standard evolution model) to produce brains that “create” consciousness. If it can’t be demonstrated that physicalness can creatively self-organize in the first place, what are theorists doing attributing all of life and consciousness to that ability?

 

[quantumcarl]

Just because humans observe something doesn’t automatically make it anthropomorphic.

You're correct in that there are many organisms with the ability to observe. They're all very lucky. But I pointed out and maintain that our interpretation of what we observe is anthropocentric. We, as you have emphasized, "explain" what we observe according to our interpretations of a "coherent whole". And, we are the only ones making that interpretation. That does not mean the explanation is any more correct than the evangelist's explanation concerning a big bearded overlord or whathaveyou.

We isolate aspects of reality all the time to identify specific characteristics in order to help us understand. If we could only consider things as part of the whole of reality it would be very difficult to figure anything out.

Suchas what you have written here.

Not all observations are “lucky” either since we actively seek out things to observe, and often we are looking for very certain things such as those efforts to observe neutrinos to explain unaccounted for energy, or to find Pluto to explain perturbations in Neptune’s and Uranus’ orbits.

I maintain that we are lucky enough to have evolved to a capacity where we are able to set goals for our observations.EDIT... and make those observations.

Yes but “explanations” don’t cut it.

Are you including your own explanations here?

If something exits obviously it has survived its environment! That tells us nothing. What was the environment?

If something exits it has left the building.
EDIT
If you mean exists... if something has surivived its environment it means that, so far, it is an example of a certain amount of efficency with regard to maintaining a position as a structure in the universe.. this would include the universe as well.

You're asking me what the environment was?
Different "things" have different environments. For instance, your nerves survive the environment created by your lymphatic system. In some cases white blood cells attack the nervous system creating a condition known as MS. A mechanism has evolved where a mylinated sheath protects the nerves, probably in response to this very type of condition... but, genetically/neurologically, there are those who have lost out in this regard.

With life and consciousness, mechanists/physicalists would claim the ONLY environment is physicality

By studying physicallity precisely with as little projection and interference from our own physical bias, we might, begin to see a mechanism that exists beyond the physical and which is supported by and supports the physical. It seems obvious that there may exist such an influence but, proving it by empirical standards provides a challenge. Proving it by ones' own personal standards is a relative matter.
EDIT
By the way, the word environment can be utilized to include a non-physical influence (in circles like those of para-physical-type entrepreneurs)

Exactly. But why is it a premise? Obviously an organism must be adapted to its environment, but the only physical evolving mechanisms we can find fall short of demonstrating they can create organisms. So from adapting bird beaks and moth colors we leap miles ahead to assume that every bit of an organism evolved through those superficial mechanisms. Why? Because, I say, of a priori beliefs in physicalism.

Can you point out a feature in the universe that has evolved through non-superficial mechanisms. And please give your definition of "superficial" as it applies to this discussion.

I am questioning the ability of physicalness alone to organize itself into living systems, and then to keep organizing (i.e., via the standard evolution model) to produce brains that “create” consciousness.

Personifying nature as "self-organizing" is an anthropocentric description. It implies an awareness of a goal.The act of human organization is to reach the goal of an efficient system. We got the idea from our observations of a 13 billion year old universe. The fact that we have brains makes us good at imitation. But this doesn't mean our imitations have anything to do with our original role model. Not anymore than Jerry Sienfeld's imitation of Baron Von Lichtenstein is an actual representation of that man.

Please present your alternate set of circumstances that may have resulted in the production of "consciousness" and/or awareness?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Its called awareness in the neurosciences. Plants are aware of their surroundings (EDIT: using the standard of stimulus and response). Plants also generate an EM field. So do rocks. This is verified by our intelligent use of our awareness of methods of verification. Its the way we use our awareness that is unique. The funny thing is that whales have much larger brains than us yet do not manufacture tools to verify events... they have evolved their own internal systems of sonar and communicative relay.

But, like I've said a few times... physically, brains are unique because there are no other examples of complex neuro-nets. This is a unique, physical feature in the universe.

What are the unique physical charactestics of complex neuro-nets? You keep telling me what is unique by citing the nature of consciousness rather than giving a physical description of what makes brains [neuro-nets] unique and beyond comparison to other complex systems.