A Case for a Non-physical Consciousness

[ryan]

nm.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If as Ryan says the collection of particles we call a brain can not be the source of our self perceived minds without something non-physical, then the same question should apply to a tree growing from a seed needing some non-material guidance or function.

Non sequitur.

The puzzle of the mind is not other people's minds but our own mind, as subjective experience. There is nothing we can observe in the physical world that is even remotely similar to subjective experience. So far, I can't observe other people's minds in the way I experience my own and what description science offers of minds doesn't fit my subjective experience.

Sure, if we could ascertain that trees have subjective experience the question would have to be revisited but the last time I checked science wouldn't go that far even though it is now accepting the idea that plants communicate and send signals indicative of the kind of attack they are subjected to, from pests to drought.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

If as Ryan says the collection of particles we call a brain can not be the source of our self perceived minds without something non-physical, then the same question should apply to a tree growing from a seed needing some non-material guidance or function.

Non sequitur.

The puzzle of the mind is not other people's minds but our own mind, as subjective experience. There is nothing we can observe in the physical world that is even remotely similar to subjective experience.

But everything you observe is, by definition, subjective experience.

 

[steve_bnk]

Dude...I was being sarcastic with Ryan who has been posting the same question for many years.

Ooops. See what it makes to you talking too much to Ryan.... My irony detector has crashed completely...

'...See what it makes to you talking too much to Ryan...'

Sorry my juma translator app has crashed.

 

[steve_bnk]

How can a tree develop from a seed ort a human from sperm and egg without something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

How can a tree develop from a seed or a human from sperm and egg WITH something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

What change does that "non physical" explain that not anything hitherto unknown physical could?

Dude...I was being sarcastic with Ryan who has been posting the same question for many years.

If as Ryan says the collection of particles we call a brain can not be the source of our self perceived minds without something non-physical, then the same question should apply to a tree growing from a seed needing some non-material guidance or function.

What he is invoking is a modern take on ancient animism. According to Ryan there is something that animates the human mind beyond that which is part of the physical body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

What Ryan seems to be is looking for is what Christians call god.

Wow, animism, god?! That is such a random leap - thank god you wrote "seems". All of my threads and posts have been an attempt in finding evidence for something non-physical. Non-physical does not imply god or animism.

Instead of trying to reinvent the supernatural, why not just become a Christian? Or take up yoga and learn to channel your psychic pranja? Why torture yourself, there are plenty of non-material traditions.

 

[DBT]

Dude...I was being sarcastic with Ryan who has been posting the same question for many years.

Ooops. See what it makes to you talking too much to Ryan.... My irony detector has crashed completely...

Me too, though I thought it strange that Steve would make the comment. I nearly asked if it was a joke.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If as Ryan says the collection of particles we call a brain can not be the source of our self perceived minds without something non-physical, then the same question should apply to a tree growing from a seed needing some non-material guidance or function.

Non sequitur.

The puzzle of the mind is not other people's minds but our own mind, as subjective experience. There is nothing we can observe in the physical world that is even remotely similar to subjective experience.

But everything you observe is, by definition, subjective experience.

Not that I know of. Look up dictionaries. I doubt if you'll find any one linking the two notions in one definition.

I would say that by definition you observe something which is understood to be something else than the resultant observation. "Observe" is also related to "see" in Latin.

The notion of subjective experience does not suggest the observation of something else. It is the idea of an unmediated experience. The word "subjective" does not even necessarily suggest a subject different from the experience. Rather, it's the notion of being somehow reflective.

I do not have subjective experience of the material world, not in the sense that I mean by "material world", i.e. something independent of my mind. What is part of my subjective experience is the belief that there is a material world and the qualia that I believe are indicative somehow of elements in the material world, etc.

Confusing the two notions is preempting the conclusion of any discussion, either by stipulating that there is no material world or that subjective experience is part of it.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

If as Ryan says the collection of particles we call a brain can not be the source of our self perceived minds without something non-physical, then the same question should apply to a tree growing from a seed needing some non-material guidance or function.

Non sequitur.

The puzzle of the mind is not other people's minds but our own mind, as subjective experience. There is nothing we can observe in the physical world that is even remotely similar to subjective experience.

But everything you observe is, by definition, subjective experience.

Not that I know of. Look up dictionaries. I doubt if you'll find any one linking the two notions in one definition.

I would say that by definition you observe something which is understood to be something else than the resultant observation. "Observe" is also related to "see" in Latin.

The notion of subjective experience does not suggest the observation of something else. It is the idea of an unmediated experience. The word "subjective" does not even necessarily suggest a subject different from the experience. Rather, it's the notion of being somehow reflective.

I do not have subjective experience of the material world, not in the sense that I mean by "material world", i.e. something independent of my mind. What is part of my subjective experience is the belief that there is a material world and the qualia that I believe are indicative somehow of elements in the material world, etc.

Confusing the two notions is preempting the conclusion of any discussion, either by stipulating that there is no material world or that subjective experience is part of it.
EB

If you observe something, you subjectively experience it. If you subjectively experience something, you observe it. There is no such thing as an observation that is not subjectively experienced, nor a subjective experience that is not observed. So, when you say nothing we observe is even remotely similar to subjective experience, I don't know how to parse that. We are probably using different definitions, as you say.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you observe something, you subjectively experience it.

No. I may well observe a tree. Yet, I don't subjectively experience the tree. Certainly not in any way that we know. I may also observe a galaxy billions of light-years away through images produced by technical means. All I see are images on a computer screen. Yet, I am actually obseving this galaxy. In fact, the galaxy is so old now that it no longer looks like the images. So, the object I am observing now does not exist. Subjective experience is unmediated and also immediate. You only experience what is present, what is in the present.

I think you have a metaphysical position which is to regard these two things as the same but you couldn't prove they are the same.

I base my position both on dictionary and usage as far as possible and on whether I can prove sameness.

If you subjectively experience something, you observe it.

No. I may well experience pain subjectively but I'm not observing pain. I may well experience the idea of Santa Claus subjectively but I'm not observing this idea of Santa Claus. Certainly not in any way that we know.

There is no such thing as an observation that is not subjectively experienced, nor a subjective experience that is not observed.

So you say.

So, when you say nothing we observe is even remotely similar to subjective experience, I don't know how to parse that. We are probably using different definitions, as you say.

Obviously we are.
EB

 

[Togo]

I base my position both on dictionary and usage as far as possible and on whether I can prove sameness.

I'd be interested in seeing that proof.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ryan, you seem to think that recognizing myself in a mirror requires the full resources of a consciousness.
And if i think about the fact that i see myself, that's another activity, which you seem to think requires a separate consciousness.
And, to me, you seem to think that the first observation fully engages the capabilities of my brain. And the second observation requires another brain (or some non-physical platform to run my second consciousness upon).

Wouldn't it be simpler to think the brain has multiple tracks?
I mean, i assume that you can drive a car, navigate to the mall, and carry on a conversation about non-physical brain-surrogates with your passenger at the same time? Your brain just multitasks the demands upon it's capabilities. No need for a ghost brain to do one or the other.

Does it make more sense to you that the entire three pounds of your brain is wrapped up in driving, and a non-physical brain is used up in figuring out traffic and the best path to the T-Shirt sale at MegaStuff? And another non-physical brain is required to carry on the conversation?
If we did have this sort of ability to create entire brains for extra activities, then we wouldn't have to worry about people driving and dialing. There would be sufficient capacity to totally avoid distractions. Texting may be a problem, because that shares resources of hands and eyes to accomplish two different tasks, but the cell phone conversation shouldn't be a problem, if it's using the ears and the mouth which are not involved in driving.

Except it is.

Because all these activities are being performed by the same functioning unit. At least, that seems the simplest explanation. I can explain multiple thought lines without having to add nonphysical brain activity to the scenario.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I base my position both on dictionary and usage as far as possible and on whether I can prove sameness.

I'd be interested in seeing that proof.

Sorry, maybe it was badly formulated. I haven't seen a proof either. So, I base my position on the fact that I don't know a proof of sameness in this case.

PyramidHead is not proving it either. Rather, he ignores dictionary and usage and maybe feels we should feel engaged or somehow compelled by what he means by observation and subjective experience, i.e. the same thing.
EB

 

[Draconis]

Perhaps one way to test this is to create a vacuum and see if it is conscious or not?

 

[Togo]

I'd be interested in seeing that proof.

Sorry, maybe it was badly formulated. I haven't seen a proof either. So, I base my position on the fact that I don't know a proof of sameness in this case.

PyramidHead is not proving it either. Rather, he ignores dictionary and usage and maybe feels we should feel engaged or somehow compelled by what he means by observation and subjective experience, i.e. the same thing.
EB

I'm not convinced they are the same thing. We can both observe the same phenomenon (e.g. a sunset), yet our subjective experiences might be quite different.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Obviously a person can pass the mirror test to prove that she has a consciousness. It's interesting to me that she can realize this. She can observe herself observing herself, and it seems that she can do both simultaneously. If she is observing herself, then what is observing her observing herself?

This is essentially an example of an out-of-body experience that we take for granted everyday.

Yeah I can observe myself in a mirror but I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the guy I see in the mirror is actually observing me. So I don't observe myself observing me. It's all in my head (or my mind rather).

I think this is conclusive against ryan's claim.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ooops. See what it makes to you talking too much to Ryan.... My irony detector has crashed completely...

'...See what it makes to you talking too much to Ryan...'

Sorry my juma translator app has crashed.

See what it does for you too talk to Ryan.

Well, at least that's what a well-known search engine translation app could come up with.

Bizarrely, the "too much" just disappeared.
Go figure.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I need to amend that...

If you observe something, you subjectively experience it.

No. I may well observe a tree. Yet, I don't subjectively experience the tree. Certainly not in any way that we know. I may also observe a galaxy billions of light-years away through images produced by technical means. All I see are images on a computer screen. Yet, I am actually obseving this galaxy. In fact, the galaxy is so old now that it no longer looks like the images. So, the object I am observing now does not exist. Subjective experience is unmediated and also immediate. You only experience what is present, what is in the present.

I think you have a metaphysical position which is to regard these two things as the same but you couldn't prove they are the same.

I base my position both on dictionary and usage as far as possible and on whether I can prove sameness.

We also need to consider the case where we can ascertain observation but not subjective experience. For example, in certain neurological condition(s) the subject can be shown to have observed some item in his environment while also reporting not being conscious of this item. In this case, he may not have any subjective experience corresponding to the observation of this item. There may be a good explanation for how that could work but I haven't seen any yet.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, maybe it was badly formulated. I haven't seen a proof either. So, I base my position on the fact that I don't know a proof of sameness in this case.

PyramidHead is not proving it either. Rather, he ignores dictionary and usage and maybe feels we should feel engaged or somehow compelled by what he means by observation and subjective experience, i.e. the same thing.
EB

I'm not convinced they are the same thing. We can both observe the same phenomenon (e.g. a sunset), yet our subjective experiences might be quite different.

Yes but we may also be observing the same phenomenon and yet make differing observations as well. We presume our respective observations should be essentially the same if the conditions of observation are sufficiently similar for the both of us. We will of course compare our notes and in most cases find that we made similar enough observations. Essentially it all comes down to the objecitve semantics of the word "observation", i.e. something we can get to agree on most of the time through due process. Not so for the term "subjective experience" because the semantics of it is subjective, private, individual. Ultimately, though, it's what we mean which is crucial here. PyramidHead just wants to ignore the usual semantics.

I could accept the idea that subjective experience is a kind of observation. Yet, it would all be very hypothetical since we would have no idea of what would be the required observer and what exactly would be the necessary thing that would be observed. It would just be a manner of speaking rather than anything really useful to do.

Of course, it can also be used to peddle some ideological position. In any case, we definitely mean two different things: our subjective experience and our observation of the world around us. We have all manner of devices to produce observations beyond our natural capabilities, telescopes for instance, but we wouldn't know where to begin to design a device to observe the pain we experience subjectively. Maybe one day we'll do that but for now we just don't and our vocabulary is a reflection of that. (of course, I'm not sure anyone would want to observe his own pain at all).
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not convinced they are the same thing. We can both observe the same phenomenon (e.g. a sunset), yet our subjective experiences might be quite different.

Yes but we may also be observing the same phenomenon and yet make differing observations as well. We presume our respective observations should be essentially the same if the conditions of observation are sufficiently similar for the both of us. We will of course compare our notes and in most cases find that we made similar enough observations. Essentially it all comes down to the objecitve semantics of the word "observation", i.e. something we can get to agree on most of the time through due process. Not so for the term "subjective experience" because the semantics of it is subjective, private, individual. Ultimately, though, it's what we mean which is crucial here. PyramidHead just wants to ignore the usual semantics.

I could accept the idea that subjective experience is a kind of observation. Yet, it would all be very hypothetical since we would have no idea of what would be the required observer and what exactly would be the necessary thing that would be observed. It would just be a manner of speaking rather than anything really useful to do.

Of course, it can also be used to peddle some ideological position. In any case, we definitely mean two different things: our subjective experience and our observation of the world around us. We have all manner of devices to produce observations beyond our natural capabilities, telescopes for instance, but we wouldn't know where to begin to design a device to observe the pain we experience subjectively. Maybe one day we'll do that but for now we just don't and our vocabulary is a reflection of that. (of course, I'm not sure anyone would want to observe his own pain at all).
EB

Ah, my confidence that scientists will eventually find devices that can read pain and other machines that can transfer that pain signature to others. Scientists succeed in objectively measuring pain http://io9.com/scientists-succeed-in-objectively-measuring-pain-472456061 Yes Speakpigeon we can design a device to observe and subject others to the same subjective experience. My faith in fMRI is being confirmed. You may now embark on developing a vocabulary for reflecting that. Think mimicry.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps one way to test this is to create a vacuum and see if it is conscious or not?

Some have claimed that matter itself is conscious, air, rocks, rivers, planets, stars...