Consciousness

[ryan]

How gravity works is related to what gravity is. So we don't have complete knowledge about gravity.
Just as it is clear that it is the brain that's responsible for generating the internal experience we call conscious mind, even though we don't know how a brain forms conscious mind.

There being no reason to propose magical solutions for what gravity is or how conscious mind is formed.

Who is talking about magic? I sure hope you don't think panpsychism implies magic.

A child may know how to bake a cookie and have no idea what it is. The consciousness is even stranger. The "what the hell is it" question might not be answered with the how question.

We know what consciousness is. We are experiencing it right now....a collection of attributes and features presented in virtual form, sight, sound, smell, touch, feelings, thoughts, etc...not all running at the same time.

We just don't know how these collections of virtual experiences are being formed.

That is at least what it is. We don't know all of its properties yet. There is a lot of debate about what the consciousness is. Your certainty is not justified. Please read the following entry from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#ConEnt :

"At the risk of oversimplifying, the relevant questions can be gathered under three crude rubrics as the What, How, and Why questions:
The Descriptive Question: What is consciousness? What are its principal features? And by what means can they be best discovered, described and modeled?
The Explanatory Question: How does consciousness of the relevant sort come to exist? Is it a primitive aspect of reality, and if not how does (or could) consciousness in the relevant respect arise from or be caused by nonconscious entities or processes?
The Functional Question: Why does consciousness of the relevant sort exist? Does it have a function, and if so what it is it? Does it act causally and if so with sorts of effects? Does it make a difference to the operation of systems in which it is present, and if so why and how?" .

If panpsychism is true, there would still be consciousness, but it wouldn't be unified like what we are used to.

Consciousness is not unified as it is.

Yes it is. I mentioned the binding problem many times before.

From Springer "States of Consciousness"

"This chapter describes several candidate mechanisms that might explain the binding
of distributed macroscopic patterns of neuronal activities into a coherent whole.
According to current findings, this problem is still unresolved and represents a fundamental
problem in neuroscience related to brain coding and integration of distributed
neural activities during processes related to perception, cognition, and memory
(the “binding problem”)."

 

[ryan]

So the quarks are the structures you were referring to? Are you aware that quarks are particles from the Standard model?

No I give up. You are just trolling. Noone can be so stupid that he really believed what you write.

The atomic structure actually lessen the mass since part of the energy is stored as potential energy.

I am talking about the masses of the quarks of the atom. But anyways, we still have quarks/matter and energy.

In an attempt to understand what the hell you are talking about, maybe you could say that what you think exists as "structure" in addition to particles and energy outside of the brain are simply spaces in a dimensional framework.

Structure are not "spaces". Structure are order. Processes are structures in soace and time.

Water is different structures than gold.

A better analogy would be that water is a different structure than ice even though it's the same stuff. We can make that structure classification in the mind, and plot locations in a mental 4d space, but at the end of the day, all that can be said that is out there is space and particles from the Standard model.

 

[DBT]

The Functional Question: Why does consciousness of the relevant sort exist? Does it have a function, and if so what it is it? Does it act causally and if so with sorts of effects? Does it make a difference to the operation of systems in which it is present, and if so why and how?"

Ryan, I have already described the evolved purpose of conscious representation of the external world in relation to self numerous times as a means of being aware of the world, navigating the world .and responding to its objects and events, abilities that offer obvious advantages for organisms that are conscious.

Yes it is. I mentioned the binding problem many times before.

From Springer "States of Consciousness"

"This chapter describes several candidate mechanisms that might explain the binding
of distributed macroscopic patterns of neuronal activities into a coherent whole.
According to current findings, this problem is still unresolved and represents a fundamental
problem in neuroscience related to brain coding and integration of distributed
neural activities during processes related to perception, cognition, and memory
(the “binding problem”)."

No, I think you are shifting meaning and significance. As I've pointed out, consciousness is NOT an indivisible entity. It is composed of many features and elements; sight or hearing or sense of smell may be lost but consciousness is still active and present, albeit diminished in regard to the features that are lost.

Who is talking about magic? I sure hope you don't think panpsychism implies magic.

Your non material consciousness implies magic.

 

[untermensche]

Avoiding the truth is avoiding a "real" discussion.

When a person wants to remember something they make some kind of "mental effort" and many times the memory surfaces.

Nobody knows what this "mental effort" is.

But pretending it isn't the way it is experienced is avoiding a "real" discussion.

Both the effort to remember and the underlying work of remembering being produced by the brain, the brain being a modular system.

The part 'trying to remember' is just a another aspect of the system and not an autonomous entity that directs brain function.

The effort is something initiated by me, not my brain.

Why would a brain need to make some "effort"? How could a brain make some "effort"? Only a complete animal can make an effort.

Your speculations defy experience. They are useless, explain nothing, and do not coincide with happenings in the real world.

 

[fromderinside]

untermensche isn't the effort you exert trying to remember actually a rationalization for not being able to access a memory you believe you possess? With our wonderful brains and words to spare we spend a lot of time masturbating this way. Do you really want to argue such rationalization is actually will?

 

[Juma]

So the quarks are the structures you were referring to? Are you aware that quarks are particles from the Standard model?

No I give up. You are just trolling. Noone can be so stupid that he really believed what you write.

The atomic structure actually lessen the mass since part of the energy is stored as potential energy.

I am talking about the masses of the quarks of the atom. But anyways, we still have quarks/matter and energy.

In an attempt to understand what the hell you are talking about, maybe you could say that what you think exists as "structure" in addition to particles and energy outside of the brain are simply spaces in a dimensional framework.

Structure are not "spaces". Structure are order. Processes are structures in soace and time.

Water is different structures than gold.

A better analogy would be that water is a different structure than ice even though it's the same stuff. We can make that structure classification in the mind, and plot locations in a mental 4d space, but at the end of the day, all that can be said that is out there is space and particles from the Standard model.

Ice Is water. I assume that you ment liquid water.

The difference in structire is not a mental representation. There are real differences. Ice behaves ddifferentky from liquid water due to its structure.

 

[fromderinside]

The difference in structure is not a mental representation. There are real differences. Ice behaves differently from liquid water due to its structure.

How cold does ice need be before hitting it with a hammer shatters it? Experimented with water in HS. Water shrinks until about 4 degrees C then expands as temperature drops to about zero degrees then it expands substantially just below that until it begins to shrink again around -7 degrees. Interesting physical dynamic donchathink.

 

[ryan]

Ryan, I have already described the evolved purpose of conscious representation of the external world in relation to self numerous times as a means of being aware of the world, navigating the world .and responding to its objects and events, abilities that offer obvious advantages for organisms that are conscious.

But that has nothing to do with what I was trying to tell you. I am trying to explain to you that the questions how, what and why are still unresolved.

Yes it is. I mentioned the binding problem many times before.

From Springer "States of Consciousness"

"This chapter describes several candidate mechanisms that might explain the binding
of distributed macroscopic patterns of neuronal activities into a coherent whole.
According to current findings, this problem is still unresolved and represents a fundamental
problem in neuroscience related to brain coding and integration of distributed
neural activities during processes related to perception, cognition, and memory
(the “binding problem”)."

No, I think you are shifting meaning and significance. As I've pointed out, consciousness is NOT an indivisible entity.

Well then your are refusing to leave your bubble and accept the current state of cognitive science and psychology.

It is composed of many features and elements; sight or hearing or sense of smell may be lost but consciousness is still active and present, albeit diminished in regard to the features that are lost.

The individual neurons firing mysteriously unify and give you a sense of smell - a whole sensation. And even if you lose your sense of smell, there is still a larger domain of consciousness that your sense of smell was a part of.

Who is talking about magic? I sure hope you don't think panpsychism implies magic.

Your non material consciousness implies magic.

You are so worried about this that you are just going to shoehorn an incomplete and unverified explanation of the consciousness with certainty. From the University of Phoenix, (http://consciousness.arizona.edu/problem.htm ) and their "mission" in understanding the problems of the consciousness, here are a couple of the problems that they listed,

"•What is consciousness?
•Can subjective experience be explained in physical terms?"

These two problems of the larger set of problems they listed are relevant to what I am trying to tell you. The "what" question is at the top of the list. And they have yet to even know if they can explain it in physical terms which is in contrast with your certainty that it is physically understood.

Although, my version of the consciousness is to do away with consciousness entirely. There would only be one substance, and that is mental substances with mechanical properties, idealism.

 

[ryan]

So the quarks are the structures you were referring to? Are you aware that quarks are particles from the Standard model?

No I give up. You are just trolling. Noone can be so stupid that he really believed what you write.

The atomic structure actually lessen the mass since part of the energy is stored as potential energy.

I am talking about the masses of the quarks of the atom. But anyways, we still have quarks/matter and energy.

In an attempt to understand what the hell you are talking about, maybe you could say that what you think exists as "structure" in addition to particles and energy outside of the brain are simply spaces in a dimensional framework.

Structure are not "spaces". Structure are order. Processes are structures in soace and time.

Water is different structures than gold.

A better analogy would be that water is a different structure than ice even though it's the same stuff. We can make that structure classification in the mind, and plot locations in a mental 4d space, but at the end of the day, all that can be said that is out there is space and particles from the Standard model.

Ice Is water. I assume that you ment liquid water.

The difference in structire is not a mental representation. There are real differences. Ice behaves ddifferentky from liquid water due to its structure.

The "behavior" is in your head. There is still only the particles in space, and only your mind is making those connections.

 

[PyramidHead]

But that has nothing to do with what I was trying to tell you. I am trying to explain to you that the questions how, what and why are still unresolved.

Yes it is. I mentioned the binding problem many times before.

From Springer "States of Consciousness"

"This chapter describes several candidate mechanisms that might explain the binding
of distributed macroscopic patterns of neuronal activities into a coherent whole.
According to current findings, this problem is still unresolved and represents a fundamental
problem in neuroscience related to brain coding and integration of distributed
neural activities during processes related to perception, cognition, and memory
(the “binding problem”)."

No, I think you are shifting meaning and significance. As I've pointed out, consciousness is NOT an indivisible entity.

Well then your are refusing to leave your bubble and accept the current state of cognitive science and psychology.

It is composed of many features and elements; sight or hearing or sense of smell may be lost but consciousness is still active and present, albeit diminished in regard to the features that are lost.

The individual neurons firing mysteriously unify and give you a sense of smell - a whole sensation. And even if you lose your sense of smell, there is still a larger domain of consciousness that your sense of smell was a part of.

Who is talking about magic? I sure hope you don't think panpsychism implies magic.

Your non material consciousness implies magic.

You are so worried about this that you are just going to shoehorn an incomplete and unverified explanation of the consciousness with certainty. From the University of Phoenix, (http://consciousness.arizona.edu/problem.htm ) and their "mission" in understanding the problems of the consciousness, here are a couple of the problems that they listed,

"•What is consciousness?
•Can subjective experience be explained in physical terms?"

These two problems of the larger set of problems they listed are relevant to what I am trying to tell you. The "what" question is at the top of the list. And they have yet to even know if they can explain it in physical terms which is in contrast with your certainty that it is physically understood.

Although, my version of the consciousness is to do away with consciousness entirely. There would only be one substance, and that is mental substances with mechanical properties, idealism.

Just curious, why do you insist that it be mental with mechanical properties? Why not the other way around, or why not something like neutral monism, where you don't have to commit to a type of substance that excludes anything?

Also, I'm not sure idealism does away with consciousness at all, hardly entirely. It places consciousness at the base of everything.

 

[Juma]

So the quarks are the structures you were referring to? Are you aware that quarks are particles from the Standard model?

No I give up. You are just trolling. Noone can be so stupid that he really believed what you write.

The atomic structure actually lessen the mass since part of the energy is stored as potential energy.

I am talking about the masses of the quarks of the atom. But anyways, we still have quarks/matter and energy.

In an attempt to understand what the hell you are talking about, maybe you could say that what you think exists as "structure" in addition to particles and energy outside of the brain are simply spaces in a dimensional framework.

Structure are not "spaces". Structure are order. Processes are structures in soace and time.

Water is different structures than gold.

A better analogy would be that water is a different structure than ice even though it's the same stuff. We can make that structure classification in the mind, and plot locations in a mental 4d space, but at the end of the day, all that can be said that is out there is space and particles from the Standard model.

Ice Is water. I assume that you ment liquid water.

The difference in structire is not a mental representation. There are real differences. Ice behaves ddifferentky from liquid water due to its structure.

The "behavior" is in your head. There is still only the particles in space, and only your mind is making those connections.

? So that i dont fall into the lake when walking on ice (instead of on liquid water) is only in my head?

 

[ryan]

Just curious, why do you insist that it be mental with mechanical properties? Why not the other way around,...

Like matter/energy to a physicalist, consciousness would be the main substance which would have its own intrinsic properties like quantum mechanics.

or why not something like neutral monism, where you don't have to commit to a type of substance that excludes anything?

It's nice to be as specific as possible. But yeah, neutral monism might be the most justified philosophy at our current state of knowledge; I don't know.

Also, I'm not sure idealism does away with consciousness at all, hardly entirely. It places consciousness at the base of everything.

I meant the consciousness "of today" which is usually defined as something arising/emerging from a physical brain. That particular emergence would not exist anymore; instead, what we called the physical brain would be the consciousness. It simplifies some of the problems of the consciousness, and takes away the need for extra dual substance.

 

[ryan]

The "behavior" is in your head. There is still only the particles in space, and only your mind is making those connections.

? So that i dont fall into the lake when walking on ice (instead of on liquid water) is only in my head?

Yes, the behavior is only internalized in your head. There is no ice, death, liquid in addition to space and the particles of the Standard model out there. Those behaviors are just abstractions of space and particles.

 

[Juma]

? So that i dont fall into the lake when walking on ice (instead of on liquid water) is only in my head?

Yes, the behavior is only internalized in your head. There is no ice, death, liquid in addition to space and the particles of the Standard model. Those behaviors are just abstractions of space and particles.

It has nothing to do with mental representation. We sre talking about two different physical outcomes. In one case the particles of the bode mixed with water, in the other case it is separated from the water.

 

[Juma]

Like matter/energy to a physicalist, consciousness would be the main substance which would have its own intrinsic properties like quantum mechanics.

or why not something like neutral monism, where you don't have to commit to a type of substance that excludes anything?

It's nice to be as specific as possible. But yeah, neutral monism might be the most justified philosophy at our current state of knowledge; I don't know.

Also, I'm not sure idealism does away with consciousness at all, hardly entirely. It places consciousness at the base of everything.

I meant the consciousness "of today" which is usually defined as something arising/emerging from a physical brain. That particular emergence would not exist anymore; instead, what we called the physical brain would be the consciousness. It simplifies some of the problems of the consciousness, and takes away the need for extra dual substance.

Sigh. It then would be the dial substance and explain exactly nothing.

 

[ryan]

Yes, the behavior is only internalized in your head. There is no ice, death, liquid in addition to space and the particles of the Standard model. Those behaviors are just abstractions of space and particles.

It has nothing to do with mental representation. We sre talking about two different physical outcomes. In one case the particles of the bode mixed with water, in the other case it is separated from the water.

Everything you say like, mixed, separated, liquid water, different, ice, etc. are whole ideas and abstractions that only exist in the mind. You are taking samples from pure objectivity. Those concepts in your mind are like particles in their own right and only correlate to what's out there.

That's why I am convinced that the consciousness exists because why are we a holistic group (except for entanglement which I think has everything to do with consciousness) of particles instead of one particle or the whole universe.

 

[ryan]

Like matter/energy to a physicalist, consciousness would be the main substance which would have its own intrinsic properties like quantum mechanics.



It's nice to be as specific as possible. But yeah, neutral monism might be the most justified philosophy at our current state of knowledge; I don't know.

Also, I'm not sure idealism does away with consciousness at all, hardly entirely. It places consciousness at the base of everything.

I meant the consciousness "of today" which is usually defined as something arising/emerging from a physical brain. That particular emergence would not exist anymore; instead, what we called the physical brain would be the consciousness. It simplifies some of the problems of the consciousness, and takes away the need for extra dual substance.

Sigh. It then would be the dial substance and explain exactly nothing.

No, I am my mind; I do not get to know what it is like to not be my mind. I have no reason at all to believe that anything else, if it even exists, is not mental. It seems like I am discontinuous from other existence, which could be anything. But all I know to exist is mental; therefor, if I have to assume anything, I will assume that they are other minds.

 

[Juma]

It has nothing to do with mental representation. We sre talking about two different physical outcomes. In one case the particles of the bode mixed with water, in the other case it is separated from the water.

Everything you say like, mixed, separated, liquid water, different, ice, etc. are whole ideas and abstractions that only exist in the mind. You are taking samples from pure objectivity. Those concepts in your mind are like particles in their own right and only correlate to what's out there.

That's why I am convinced that the consciousness exists because why are we a holistic group (except for entanglement which I think has everything to do with consciousness) of particles instead of one particle or the whole universe.

Bye weirdo.

 

[OLDMAN]

Yeah, sorry. But so far I've heard the "God of the Gaps" argument with regards to our knowledge of consciousness.
An argument from ignorance, logical fallacies.
And even an "I feel that I am part of" spiritual testimony argument.

This doesn't cut it when Christians try it, and it doesn't cut it now. Bye.

 

[ryan]

Everything you say like, mixed, separated, liquid water, different, ice, etc. are whole ideas and abstractions that only exist in the mind. You are taking samples from pure objectivity. Those concepts in your mind are like particles in their own right and only correlate to what's out there.

That's why I am convinced that the consciousness exists because why are we a holistic group (except for entanglement which I think has everything to do with consciousness) of particles instead of one particle or the whole universe.

Bye weirdo.

Bye stupid.