Consciousness

[bilby]

And then there's the people who know that there are unknowns out there; but who are aware that this doesn't mean 'anything goes', because science has put limits on the unknown. And amongst the limits we have placed on the unknown is that we are able to show that no unknown interactions with matter exist at scales larger than atoms and smaller than solar systems.

Your ignorance of this doesn't constitute a rebuttal of it.

I am certain that we will never discover that if we drop a hammer it might actually fall upwards; Your (correct) claim that gravity is not fully understood doesn't change this one iota.

I am equally certain that dualism is impossible, because there cannot be any force or particle that could transfer information from a hypothesised 'soul' to a physical human. The existence of dark energy and dark matter that are not yet understood is of zero relevance here; we don't know what those things are, but we do know they don't influence individual humans, and we do know that there are no more unknowns at human scales. YOU may not know that, but the physics is unarguable, and free for anyone to learn. Ignorance of the laws of nature is no defence.

Why not use a dual perspective based on evidence. Earlier I suggested an experiment, one I conducted as part of symposium on bases of sensation and perception.

Easy experiment. Cut out the eye of a horseshoe crab, connect it up to electrodes and watch as it organizes stuff passed in front of the eye. While you're doing that apply a hot soldering iron to the rest of the crab and watch it's reaction.

Wallah. You have demonstrated necessary mechanisms of consciousness.

Then I suggested

Is not the demonstration dualistic?

Why not call the above an example of operational dualism? No God, no soul, just same being two conditions, a disembodied eye organizing experiment and a eyeless body effecting experiment. Operational dualism?

That different parts of a physical entity can both communicate with each other, and operate independently if separated, is not in dispute, nor is it in any way relevant to the idea of dualism.

 

[fromderinside]

Not relevant to dualism. Exactly. Yet you understood my juxtposition of physical 'eye' and conceptual 'organizing' and physical 'iron ' and conceptual 'effecting'. Experiments relating the physical to the conceptual through a dismembered horseshoe crab. Science via Tower of Babel?

 

[untermensche]

You don't know on what scale "consciousness" exists.

Consciousness doesn't exist 'on a scale' - that's a category error. Consciousness is a property, not an object.

It is a process that produces a property. It is something generated by some kind of activity. Both the activity and the property produced by the activity are "consciousness".

And you have no idea on which scale consciousness, the activity creating the property, exists.

It's a property of brains; brains are too large and too hot for quantum effects to be relevant - at such enormous scales and temperatures, quantum effects sum to classical physics.

Consciousness and brains do not necessarily exist on the same scale.

There is a limit to the scale of activity humans can observe.

Your argument is really no more than, "If we can't detect it now, it doesn't exist". The same error made by people of science for ages.

 

[bilby]

Consciousness doesn't exist 'on a scale' - that's a category error. Consciousness is a property, not an object.

It is a process that produces a property. It is something generated by some kind of activity. Both the activity and the property produced by the activity are "consciousness".

And you have no idea on which scale consciousness, the activity creating the property, exists.

It's a property of brains; brains are too large and too hot for quantum effects to be relevant - at such enormous scales and temperatures, quantum effects sum to classical physics.

Consciousness and brains do not necessarily exist on the same scale.

There is a limit to the scale of activity humans can observe.

Your argument is really no more than, "If we can't detect it now, it doesn't exist". The same error made by people of science for ages.

It really isn't; My argument is far more detailed and subtle than that. But I can understand why you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong here.

It's not important to me that you stop being wrong - feel free to be wrong forever.

But please don't discourage other people from trying to understand that which you refuse to consider.

 

[untermensche]

It is a process that produces a property. It is something generated by some kind of activity. Both the activity and the property produced by the activity are "consciousness".

And you have no idea on which scale consciousness, the activity creating the property, exists.

It's a property of brains; brains are too large and too hot for quantum effects to be relevant - at such enormous scales and temperatures, quantum effects sum to classical physics.

Consciousness and brains do not necessarily exist on the same scale.

There is a limit to the scale of activity humans can observe.

Your argument is really no more than, "If we can't detect it now, it doesn't exist". The same error made by people of science for ages.

It really isn't; My argument is far more detailed and subtle than that. But I can understand why you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong here.

It's not important to me that you stop being wrong - feel free to be wrong forever.

But please don't discourage other people from trying to understand that which you refuse to consider.

You blather this nothingness.

You have a nice dogmatic position that gives you comfort. You know what can effect consciousness without having the slightest idea what consciousness is beyond the most obvious guess, something a brain does.

 

[bilby]

It is a process that produces a property. It is something generated by some kind of activity. Both the activity and the property produced by the activity are "consciousness".

And you have no idea on which scale consciousness, the activity creating the property, exists.

It's a property of brains; brains are too large and too hot for quantum effects to be relevant - at such enormous scales and temperatures, quantum effects sum to classical physics.

Consciousness and brains do not necessarily exist on the same scale.

There is a limit to the scale of activity humans can observe.

Your argument is really no more than, "If we can't detect it now, it doesn't exist". The same error made by people of science for ages.

It really isn't; My argument is far more detailed and subtle than that. But I can understand why you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong here.

It's not important to me that you stop being wrong - feel free to be wrong forever.

But please don't discourage other people from trying to understand that which you refuse to consider.

You blather this nothingness.

You have a nice dogmatic position that gives you comfort. You know what can effect consciousness without having the slightest idea what consciousness is beyond the most obvious guess, something a brain does.

OK, we can have this conversation at your level if you insist.

I assert, quite simply, that I am in fact rubber. Given that it is obvious to any third party reader of the thread that you are glue, I further assert that your comment, having rebounded from my elastic surface, will remain adhered to your surface, rendering you the dogmatist in this debate.

Feel free to rejoin the adults, if and when you have anything more substantive to say than mere repetition of your disbelief that others might understand something you cannot grasp.

 

[untermensche]

It is a process that produces a property. It is something generated by some kind of activity. Both the activity and the property produced by the activity are "consciousness".

And you have no idea on which scale consciousness, the activity creating the property, exists.

It's a property of brains; brains are too large and too hot for quantum effects to be relevant - at such enormous scales and temperatures, quantum effects sum to classical physics.

Consciousness and brains do not necessarily exist on the same scale.

There is a limit to the scale of activity humans can observe.

Your argument is really no more than, "If we can't detect it now, it doesn't exist". The same error made by people of science for ages.

It really isn't; My argument is far more detailed and subtle than that. But I can understand why you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong here.

It's not important to me that you stop being wrong - feel free to be wrong forever.

But please don't discourage other people from trying to understand that which you refuse to consider.

You blather this nothingness.

You have a nice dogmatic position that gives you comfort. You know what can effect consciousness without having the slightest idea what consciousness is beyond the most obvious guess, something a brain does.

OK, we can have this conversation at your level if you insist.

I assert, quite simply, that I am in fact rubber. Given that it is obvious to any third party reader of the thread that you are glue, I further assert that your comment, having rebounded from my elastic surface, will remain adhered to your surface, rendering you the dogmatist in this debate.

Feel free to rejoin the adults, if and when you have anything more substantive to say than mere repetition of your disbelief that others might understand something you cannot grasp.

This doesn't make your blabbering any more coherent.

You are claiming you know all that can affect consciousness without even knowing what consciousness is.

Beyond: Something the brain does.

Your position is absolute rubbish.

That is why you have stopped defending it.

 

[bilby]

It is a process that produces a property. It is something generated by some kind of activity. Both the activity and the property produced by the activity are "consciousness".

And you have no idea on which scale consciousness, the activity creating the property, exists.

It's a property of brains; brains are too large and too hot for quantum effects to be relevant - at such enormous scales and temperatures, quantum effects sum to classical physics.

Consciousness and brains do not necessarily exist on the same scale.

There is a limit to the scale of activity humans can observe.

Your argument is really no more than, "If we can't detect it now, it doesn't exist". The same error made by people of science for ages.

It really isn't; My argument is far more detailed and subtle than that. But I can understand why you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong here.

It's not important to me that you stop being wrong - feel free to be wrong forever.

But please don't discourage other people from trying to understand that which you refuse to consider.

You blather this nothingness.

You have a nice dogmatic position that gives you comfort. You know what can effect consciousness without having the slightest idea what consciousness is beyond the most obvious guess, something a brain does.

OK, we can have this conversation at your level if you insist.

I assert, quite simply, that I am in fact rubber. Given that it is obvious to any third party reader of the thread that you are glue, I further assert that your comment, having rebounded from my elastic surface, will remain adhered to your surface, rendering you the dogmatist in this debate.

Feel free to rejoin the adults, if and when you have anything more substantive to say than mere repetition of your disbelief that others might understand something you cannot grasp.

This doesn't make your blabbering any more coherent.

You are claiming you know all that can affect consciousness without even knowing what consciousness is.

Beyond: Something the brain does.

Your position is absolute rubbish.

That is why you have stopped defending it.

No, I am claiming that I know all that can affect physical human beings. I don't therefore NEED to know what consciousness is to know that it has to affect physical human beings. Anything that doesn't - no matter WHAT it is - cannot qualify as consciousness. This rules out the possibility of a non-physical consciousness. Whether or not you like it; whether or not you understand it.

I will continue to defend my position; but not if you just keep repeating the same old non-arguments against it. I feel no need whatsoever to defend what you think my position OUGHT to be. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, and to try to understand it, then I have no obligation to accept your misinterpretation of it as being something I should defend.

 

[untermensche]

No, I am claiming that I know all that can affect physical human beings. I don't therefore NEED to know what consciousness is to know that it has to affect physical human beings. Anything that doesn't - no matter WHAT it is - cannot qualify as consciousness. This rules out the possibility of a non-physical consciousness. Whether or not you like it; whether or not you understand it.

I will continue to defend my position; but not if you just keep repeating the same old non-arguments against it. I feel no need whatsoever to defend what you think my position OUGHT to be. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, and to try to understand it, then I have no obligation to accept your misinterpretation of it as being something I should defend.

Another bad argument.

Basically; Consciousness is equivalent to "human being".

Really bad.

 

[bilby]

No, I am claiming that I know all that can affect physical human beings. I don't therefore NEED to know what consciousness is to know that it has to affect physical human beings. Anything that doesn't - no matter WHAT it is - cannot qualify as consciousness. This rules out the possibility of a non-physical consciousness. Whether or not you like it; whether or not you understand it.

I will continue to defend my position; but not if you just keep repeating the same old non-arguments against it. I feel no need whatsoever to defend what you think my position OUGHT to be. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, and to try to understand it, then I have no obligation to accept your misinterpretation of it as being something I should defend.

Another bad argument.

Basically; Consciousness is equivalent to "human being".

Really bad.

'Consciousness is equivalent to "human being"' is a TERRIBLE argument.

So it's a good thing I'm not making it.

Why you think I'm making it is entirely an issue for you, and for the teachers who failed to teach you basic reading comprehension skills.

 

[untermensche]

Another bad argument.

Basically; Consciousness is equivalent to "human being".

Really bad.

'Consciousness is equivalent to "human being"' is a TERRIBLE argument.

So it's a good thing I'm not making it.

Why you think I'm making it is entirely an issue for you, and for the teachers who failed to teach you basic reading comprehension skills.

It is all your argument amounts to.

All one must do is follow your logic to it's conclusion. "I know a few forces that can affect matter therefore I know all possible forces that can affect consciousness."

It is undeniable that in order to know if something can affect consciousness one must know what consciousness is, beyond something that arises out of a particular arrangement of matter.

That some from this incredible position of blindness make dogmatic pronouncements is amusing.

 

[Juma]

'Consciousness is equivalent to "human being"' is a TERRIBLE argument.

So it's a good thing I'm not making it.

Why you think I'm making it is entirely an issue for you, and for the teachers who failed to teach you basic reading comprehension skills.

It is all your argument amounts to.

All one must do is follow your logic to it's conclusion. "I know a few forces that can affect matter therefore I know all possible forces that can affect consciousness."

It is undeniable that in order to know if something can affect consciousness one must know what consciousness is, beyond something that arises out of a particular arrangement of matter.

That some from this incredible position of blindness make dogmatic pronouncements is amusing.

Do you dispute that modern physics has shown that there are only four forces that can come into consideration for how the brain works?

 

[bilby]

'Consciousness is equivalent to "human being"' is a TERRIBLE argument.

So it's a good thing I'm not making it.

Why you think I'm making it is entirely an issue for you, and for the teachers who failed to teach you basic reading comprehension skills.

It is all your argument amounts to.

It really isn't. I do wonder about how dumb you need to be to consider yourself more of an authority on what I mean that I am myself.

All one must do is follow your logic to it's conclusion. "I know a few forces that can affect matter therefore I know all possible forces that can affect consciousness."

Nope, you STILL haven't grasped what I'm saying. But don't let that stop you from guessing!

It is undeniable that in order to know if something can affect consciousness one must know what consciousness is, beyond something that arises out of a particular arrangement of matter.

I am not talking about something affecting consciousness. I am talking about consciousness affecting matter. That's your major error here. However, as I have now explained this to you several times without apparent effect, I don't expect you to grasp it now.

That some from this incredible position of blindness make dogmatic pronouncements is amusing.

It IS amusing. It's even more amusing that you think someone other than YOU is doing this here.

 

[DBT]

Here it is, the ghost in the machine. It must be true;

 

[untermensche]

It is all your argument amounts to.

It really isn't. I do wonder about how dumb you need to be to consider yourself more of an authority on what I mean that I am myself.

All one must do is follow your logic to it's conclusion. "I know a few forces that can affect matter therefore I know all possible forces that can affect consciousness."

Nope, you STILL haven't grasped what I'm saying. But don't let that stop you from guessing!

It is undeniable that in order to know if something can affect consciousness one must know what consciousness is, beyond something that arises out of a particular arrangement of matter.

I am not talking about something affecting consciousness. I am talking about consciousness affecting matter. That's your major error here. However, as I have now explained this to you several times without apparent effect, I don't expect you to grasp it now.

That some from this incredible position of blindness make dogmatic pronouncements is amusing.

It IS amusing. It's even more amusing that you think someone other than YOU is doing this here.

You are incapable of defending your position, so instead we get this garbage.

Not one bit of logic or argument in it.

Because you have none.

Just because humans can detect some forms of energy that can act on matter that does not mean they know of all forms of energy that can act on matter.

Humans models don't even account for the greatest part of the universe, so-called dark matter.

To claim they are complete or somehow exclude things is again, laughable.

 

[Juma]

It really isn't. I do wonder about how dumb you need to be to consider yourself more of an authority on what I mean that I am myself.

All one must do is follow your logic to it's conclusion. "I know a few forces that can affect matter therefore I know all possible forces that can affect consciousness."

Nope, you STILL haven't grasped what I'm saying. But don't let that stop you from guessing!

It is undeniable that in order to know if something can affect consciousness one must know what consciousness is, beyond something that arises out of a particular arrangement of matter.

I am not talking about something affecting consciousness. I am talking about consciousness affecting matter. That's your major error here. However, as I have now explained this to you several times without apparent effect, I don't expect you to grasp it now.

That some from this incredible position of blindness make dogmatic pronouncements is amusing.

It IS amusing. It's even more amusing that you think someone other than YOU is doing this here.

You are incapable of defending your position, so instead we get this garbage.

Not one bit of logic or argument in it.

Because you have none.

Just because humans can detect some forms of energy that can act on matter that does not mean they know of all forms of energy that can act on matter.

Humans models don't even account for the greatest part of the universe, so-called dark matter.

To claim they are complete or somehow exclude things is again, laughable.

I see that as a "yes" to my question.
Then firther discussion is useless untill you read up on modern physics. (Or not so modern, this has been common knowledge sonce the sixties.)

 

[untermensche]

Do you dispute that modern physics has shown that there are only four forces that can come into consideration for how the brain works?

When the mechanism of consciousness is fully explained that claim can possibly be made.

But no positive claims like this can be made from a position of ignorance.

Modern physics has nothing to say about consciousness because consciousness is not understood well enough.

There is no real, physiological, model of consciousness because the physiology of consciousness is not known at all. How consciousness arises out of some neurotransmitters being released and some electrical impulses being generated by cells is completely unknown.

 

[bigfield]

And you have no idea on which scale consciousness, the activity creating the property, exists.

We have a very good idea: it is an emergent property of interactions between neurons:

Humans models don't even account for the greatest part of the universe, so-called dark matter.

Firstly, dark matter only accounts for 26.8% of the energy of the universe:

The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.

Secondly, your protest is irrelevant: the presence of dark matter is only detectable at cosmic scales:

Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, on galaxies, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Dark matter has no observable effects on baryonic matter at the quantum scale or at the scale of the brain. If it did then there would be observable effects on baryonic matter that are unexplained by the particles in the Standard Model.

Dark matter cannot do anything significant to neurons, just as random quantum effects cannot do anything significant to neurons. We know this because we have eliminated the possibility of any effects down to a subatomic scale, and anything smaller than that is certainly insignificant. It we can't observe it then it isn't doing anything meaningful to affect neural activity.

 

[untermensche]

We have a very good idea: it is an emergent property of interactions between neurons:

That seems to be part of it, on one scale, not all.

Are you aware of any activity in any of your neurons?

Firstly, dark matter only accounts for 26.8% of the energy of the universe:

Dark matter and dark energy constitute the majority of known reality.

And neither are explained or are contained within our incomplete current models.

To claim the models, by some magic, preclude an external unknown "energy" from interacting with matter is absurd.

 

[bigfield]

That seems to be part of it, on one scale, not all.

Are you aware of any activity in any of your neurons?

No, but I'm not directly aware of anything that occurs at the cellular level in my body, so I don't see your point.

Firstly, dark matter only accounts for 26.8% of the energy of the universe:

Dark matter and dark energy constitute the majority of known reality.

You don't need to tell me--I quoted the relevant part of the Wiki article to you to correct your mistake.

And neither are explained or are contained within our incomplete current models.

To claim the models, by some magic, preclude an external unknown "energy" from interacting with matter is absurd.

Our current models cannot account for some effects observed at very large scales, but they do account for all effects observed at quantum scales. So it is fair to say that current models preclude 'an external unknown "energy" from interacting with matter' at the scale of the brain's systems.