Consciousness

[DBT]

I am familiar with this subject matter.

No you absolutely are not. You didn't know that answering the "what" question is of huge importance. You didn't even seem to know there was a problem with explaining the consciousness until recently.

Wrong. Now you are being dishonest.

How many times have I pointed out that it is not known how a brain forms consciousness?

Hence we have no explanation for how a brain forms consciousness.

I have said this numerous times, yet you resort to remarks that are clearly not true.

I'm not the one promoting fringe ideas that have no merit. You typically refer to fringe ideas.

It has been pointed out to you that what you want to be true in terms of consciousness beyond the brain has no evidence to support it.

That, ryan is willful ignorance.

You desperately want something to be true and in an attempt to justify what you believe you ignore evidence to the contrary (brain agency) but push fringe ideas that try to capitalize on our lack of understanding of how brain forms its virtual experience of the world and self.

That is the fact of it.

Have you heard of Integrated Information theory? That is a popular theory that suggests that the consciousness is in another dimension, a qualia dimension, a q-space. This is closely related to panpsychism in that inanimate objects may also have consciousness.

There you go again, citing wild speculation as if it was something justified by evidence.

Pretty much, but like it or not, these ideas are where neurological explanations of the consciousness are at.

Another wild claim. Can you support what you say by providing citations and stats that show that panpsychism and its variations is indeed where 'neurological explanations of consciousness is at'

Can you do that, or are you going to slide away from justifying your claim by shifting emphasis or avoiding the question?

I never claimed there was evidence. I am trying to tell you that philosophies like panpsychism are where they are at with explaining problems of the consciousness.

There it is again....what percentage of neuroscientists say that panpsychism is where it's at explaining problems of consciousness?

Where do you get this from?

What you are saying here is dead wrong. It is clear you don't understand where they are with explaining the problems of the consciousness.

Who? Who exactly are you referring to? And what percentage of researchers are promoting panpsychism as a solution to the binding problem?

When was I talking about an external agency or any agency for that matter?

Oh, please....how many times have you mentioned panpsychism?

''In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.''

 

[ryan]

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/ , ask yourself if what Diodorus Cronus (4th century BCE) says is a justified true belief (assuming science has hit the bottom with elementary particles):

"His argument begins from the idea that there is a difference in size between the smallest size at which a given object is visible—presumably from a given distance—and the largest size at which it is invisible. Unless we concede that, at some magnitude, a body is both invisible and visible (or neither), there cannot be any other magnitude intermediate between these two magnitudes. Magnitudes must increase by discrete units."

This is a good example of philosophy because he uses logic while choosing a more justified assumption between the two options. This may have inched us closer to formulating a scientific hypothesis.

But also think about philosophy as a way to discover what isn't science. A falsified hypothesis is not science (not knowledge for scientific realism) "anymore" but somehow was, but now is thrown into the heap of philosophies that aren't science.

Philosophy can keep science in line. Can check it's claims.

Also, how many times do you see scientists/people mention Occam's razor about what science has yet to explain, such as witches being the reason for quantum mechanics, or a really large person being the cause of dark energy and stretching the universe like an accordion.

Diodorus Cronus was wrong. How cannot you see that? There is no reason to believe that magnitudes changes in steps, until you have empirical facts for it.
The logical error is that he didnt realize that something can be barely visible. That visibility isnt a two state parameter.

But he gave that way out when he says "unless we can concede that ...".

And I think what he was saying was that there is a point in which something becomes evident or it's not. It probably isn't both. If it is not both, then there is at least a discontinuity.

 

[ryan]

No you absolutely are not. You didn't know that answering the "what" question is of huge importance. You didn't even seem to know there was a problem with explaining the consciousness until recently.

Wrong. Now you are being dishonest.

How many times have I pointed out that it is not known how a brain forms consciousness?

I mean recently like since we had our last long discussions.

Hence we have no explanation for how a brain forms consciousness.

I have said this numerous times, yet you resort to remarks that are clearly not true.

I'm not the one promoting fringe ideas that have no merit. You typically refer to fringe ideas.

It's the consciousness DBT; that's all there are are fringe ideas. Most of it is not even science.

Have you heard of Integrated Information theory? That is a popular theory that suggests that the consciousness is in another dimension, a qualia dimension, a q-space. This is closely related to panpsychism in that inanimate objects may also have consciousness.

There you go again, citing wild speculation as if it was something justified by evidence.

How did I imply that?

Can you find any explanations of the problems of consciousness supported by evidence? Obviously not or else they wouldn't be problems.

Pretty much, but like it or not, these ideas are where neurological explanations of the consciousness are at.

Another wild claim. Can you support what you say by providing citations and stats that show that panpsychism and its variations is indeed where 'neurological explanations of consciousness is at'

Can you do that, or are you going to slide away from justifying your claim by shifting emphasis or avoiding the question?

This is so well known that it doesn't even get mentioned.

I never claimed there was evidence. I am trying to tell you that philosophies like panpsychism are where they are at with explaining problems of the consciousness.

There it is again....what percentage of neuroscientists say that panpsychism is where it's at explaining problems of consciousness?

I can ask you the same question for why you said, " Virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness". You give it but won't take it???

What you are saying here is dead wrong. It is clear you don't understand where they are with explaining the problems of the consciousness.

Who? Who exactly are you referring to? And what percentage of researchers are promoting panpsychism as a solution to the binding problem?

It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries. This is why I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

When was I talking about an external agency or any agency for that matter?

Oh, please....how many times have you mentioned panpsychism?

''In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.''

What does external agency and panpsychism have to do with each other?

 

[DBT]

I can ask you the same question for why you said, " Virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness".

I don't see it being proposed as a serious contender or solution for consciousness formation in any of the neuroscience journals that I read, or have read.

I can't provide something that is not there to provide.

It's up to you to provide evidence that it is indeed being proposed.

It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries. This is why I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

Making the claim ''It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries'' means nothing if you can't or won't justify your claim.

Mentioned everywhere by whom?

What percentage of researchers 'mention' panpsychism as a possible solution to binding or how brains form subjective experience.

I think you are sliding away from providing evidence for the claims you are making.

What does external agency and panpsychism have to do with each other?

Isn't that obvious? If consciousness is universal, consciousness is not bound to the brain alone. Universal mind is often assumed by its adherents as manifesting within brains, a focus point if you will.

 

[ryan]

I don't see it being proposed as a serious contender or solution for consciousness formation in any of the neuroscience journals that I read, or have read.

I can't provide something that is not there to provide.

It's up to you to provide evidence that it is indeed being proposed.

It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries. This is why I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

Making the claim ''It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries'' means nothing if you can't or won't justify your claim.

Mentioned everywhere by whom?

What percentage of researchers 'mention' panpsychism as a possible solution to binding or how brains form subjective experience.

I think you are sliding away from providing evidence for the claims you are making.

Why is it that you don't have to back up what you said about there being virtually no one in neuroscience that believes in panpsychism and its relatives? But if I say the opposite with no support either, suddenly I am just ridiculous. It is a strange way argue with people DBT.

What does external agency and panpsychism have to do with each other?

Isn't that obvious? If consciousness is universal, consciousness is not bound to the brain alone. Universal mind is often assumed by its adherents as manifesting within brains, a focus point if you will.

Yes but what does panpsychism need agency? If particles are conscious but still have their physical properties, why does the consciousness have to interact with the physical? I mean it might, but it doesn't have to to be panpsychism, as far as I can tell.

DBT, I don't think you understand that this is philosophy. I mention these fringe ideas because that's all there is when it comes to the problems of the consciousness. There is no evidence, and that is why it is all under philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/ , ask yourself if what Diodorus Cronus (4th century BCE) says is a justified true belief (assuming science has hit the bottom with elementary particles):

"His argument begins from the idea that there is a difference in size between the smallest size at which a given object is visible—presumably from a given distance—and the largest size at which it is invisible. Unless we concede that, at some magnitude, a body is both invisible and visible (or neither), there cannot be any other magnitude intermediate between these two magnitudes. Magnitudes must increase by discrete units."

This is a good example of philosophy because he uses logic while choosing a more justified assumption between the two options. This may have inched us closer to formulating a scientific hypothesis.

Again I see this as a coincidence if it has similarities to actual later scientific discoveries.

It is an interesting argument but it seems more an argument about the nature of vision than the nature of reality.

 

[Juma]

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/ , ask yourself if what Diodorus Cronus (4th century BCE) says is a justified true belief (assuming science has hit the bottom with elementary particles):

"His argument begins from the idea that there is a difference in size between the smallest size at which a given object is visible—presumably from a given distance—and the largest size at which it is invisible. Unless we concede that, at some magnitude, a body is both invisible and visible (or neither), there cannot be any other magnitude intermediate between these two magnitudes. Magnitudes must increase by discrete units."

This is a good example of philosophy because he uses logic while choosing a more justified assumption between the two options. This may have inched us closer to formulating a scientific hypothesis.

But also think about philosophy as a way to discover what isn't science. A falsified hypothesis is not science (not knowledge for scientific realism) "anymore" but somehow was, but now is thrown into the heap of philosophies that aren't science.

Philosophy can keep science in line. Can check it's claims.

Also, how many times do you see scientists/people mention Occam's razor about what science has yet to explain, such as witches being the reason for quantum mechanics, or a really large person being the cause of dark energy and stretching the universe like an accordion.

Diodorus Cronus was wrong. How cannot you see that? There is no reason to believe that magnitudes changes in steps, until you have empirical facts for it.
The logical error is that he didnt realize that something can be barely visible. That visibility isnt a two state parameter.

But he gave that way out when he says "unless we can concede that ...".

And I think what he was saying was that there is a point in which something becomes evident or it's not. It probably isn't both. If it is not both, then there is at least a discontinuity.

No it isnt. The reason we suddenly recognizes something is how our vision works, not about the thing.
This is really a very good example of how philosophy without proper empirical support leads wrong.

 

[ryan]

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/ , ask yourself if what Diodorus Cronus (4th century BCE) says is a justified true belief (assuming science has hit the bottom with elementary particles):

"His argument begins from the idea that there is a difference in size between the smallest size at which a given object is visible—presumably from a given distance—and the largest size at which it is invisible. Unless we concede that, at some magnitude, a body is both invisible and visible (or neither), there cannot be any other magnitude intermediate between these two magnitudes. Magnitudes must increase by discrete units."

This is a good example of philosophy because he uses logic while choosing a more justified assumption between the two options. This may have inched us closer to formulating a scientific hypothesis.

Again I see this as a coincidence if it has similarities to actual later scientific discoveries.

It is an interesting argument but it seems more an argument about the nature of vision than the nature of reality.

I may be looking too much into it, but I take this to that an object is either evident of it's not. How could it be both? As it comes closer it will appear. Whether he was thinking of an information carrier (photon) or the object itself, the argument makes sense; something in nature is discontinuous.

 

[Juma]

Again I see this as a coincidence if it has similarities to actual later scientific discoveries.

It is an interesting argument but it seems more an argument about the nature of vision than the nature of reality.

I may be looking too much into it, but I take this to that an object is either evident of it's not. How could it be both? As it comes closer it will appear. Whether he was thinking of an information carrier (photon) or the object itself, the argument makes sense; something in nature is discontinuous.

Nothing is discontinous. The actual treshold where we realize what we see depends on how awake we are, how good eyesight we have for the moment etc. Even if there would be an exact same everytime it has nothing to do with the object but only with our recognition "circuits"

 

[ryan]

I may be looking too much into it, but I take this to that an object is either evident of it's not. How could it be both? As it comes closer it will appear. Whether he was thinking of an information carrier (photon) or the object itself, the argument makes sense; something in nature is discontinuous.

Nothing is discontinous. The actual treshold where we realize what we see depends on how awake we are, how good eyesight we have for the moment etc. Even if there would be an exact same everytime it has nothing to do with the object but only with our recognition "circuits"

When they did philosophy, they would use real world ideas to try to covey the point, like Zeno's tortoise and Achilles paradox. They didn't have a "base" model to refer to.

If everything in existence were continuous, then we would never know change. I think that's the point he was making.

 

[untermensche]

I may be looking too much into it, but I take this to that an object is either evident of it's not. How could it be both? As it comes closer it will appear. Whether he was thinking of an information carrier (photon) or the object itself, the argument makes sense; something in nature is discontinuous.

Yes our visual system is discontinuous.

You are dealing with cells that have a refractory period.

They cannot just continually fire. They have to stop once in a while to regenerate the proper concentrations of ions.

 

[Juma]

Nothing is discontinous. The actual treshold where we realize what we see depends on how awake we are, how good eyesight we have for the moment etc. Even if there would be an exact same everytime it has nothing to do with the object but only with our recognition "circuits"

When they did philosophy, they would use real world ideas to try to covey the point, like Zeno's tortoise and Achilles paradox. They didn't have a "base" model to refer to.

If everything in existence were continuous, then we would never know change. I think that's the point he was making.

Yes, that is the point he was making. And he was wrong.

 

[another1]

If you feel it is necessary I will accept any new words. The old ones aren't quite cutting it. Please include a vague definition when adding new words. I mean... did they just stop producing words one day, as if there were enough? Apparently there aren't. That was what I meant. terms, phrases, slang or whatever. Words unused. I learn new words everyday but they aren't actually new. It isn't so foreign to make up a word here and there. Ever try slipping them in on people to see if they notice? Classic.

How about aabbccddee? New enough?

So now we assume that there is a body and a mind. The three popular questions are: why is the mind there, how is the mind there and what is the mind. (from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

To address how and why, there are theories that boil down to the emergence of the mind from the body, and there are theories that try to understand the mind from the knowledge of the components of the body. I like the latter because that is just the way its correlate works, matter + energy, (or mass and energy individually). And it wouldn't seem natural that extra phenomena like a mind just pops out of nowhere when its conserved physical bodies change configuration. That's my reductionist argument.

For the purposes of this explanation of why I like panpsychism, the what question is simply that it is unified, questioning other properties does not seem as relevant.

So, if you will, let's take those assumptions; are you with me?

Now if the mind is truly fundamental to at least a whole thought at a time that I posited as irreducible, then we have to a say mental state M correlated to some brain process/state B. Imagine whatever B is is the minimum necessary for M (M can be pain, a memory, etc.). During the time that M and B occur (simultaneously), we know from particle physics that B, like M, would be discontinuous (memory or pain starts and ends). But unfortunately, that would also appear to mean that B is not a whole; it would be internally discontinuous. Yet we did posit that M is a whole - problem!

This is something called the binding problem which means that panpsychism has a problem here. There is a possible solution around this though, which has actual scientific evidence and theory to back it up. Quantum entanglement has now been shown to exist in warm environments of organisms, something that was thought impossible for decades.

So now we have a possible new option. We can explain the whole/binding of the consciousness by way of an entangled/whole correlate. In entanglement, a single physical object exists in addition to its parts while conserving matter + energy.

It may not be probable, but it is possible and one of my favorite explanations of consciousness. Of course without the confirmation of entangled systems in the brain, I would be less hopeful for panpsychism.

That other stuff is confusing. You're confusing. All of it. Got a better idea. Stare at one of those little gif images of a fractal animation. Visually, that is pretty much the point you're making. Take some drugs and stare at a fractal gif image. Total shortcut for thinking about this.

You had me at panpsychism but lost me at So now we assume. That part is done. It no longer interests me. This whole thing is too involved for me. The script is coming off like... idk you'd just have to hear it read in a narrator. Some echo and slowed down a few paces. Quantum entanglement is something quantum theorists talk about and never understand. The regular Joe on the street could experience it, and flop around like fish in a drug seizure I assume. Never understanding what just happened because it is unexplainable. There is such a thing unfortunately. Unexplainable. At some point things become more feelings than words. Seeing words fail is depressing. It makes individuals feel inferior and it ultimately distorts reality.

This should be easier for stupid people to understand. Everyone needs to know about this stuff. The first book your teacher slaps on your desk when you're six should have a picture of a brain on it. You'd agree that consciousness is the most important thing in the world because it is the world, right? Why are people so timid about it? Why can't someone explain it without the bs? Accomplish that and you've got my respect. This A,B to M stuff is just too much. Dumbify 40% and try again or I'm out. 60% would be ideal. Can you do that? Compare things of great complexity to simple pop culture stuff. Make some nursery rhymes. How hard can this be? I mean really.

 

[ryan]

How about aabbccddee? New enough?

So now we assume that there is a body and a mind. The three popular questions are: why is the mind there, how is the mind there and what is the mind. (from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

To address how and why, there are theories that boil down to the emergence of the mind from the body, and there are theories that try to understand the mind from the knowledge of the components of the body. I like the latter because that is just the way its correlate works, matter + energy, (or mass and energy individually). And it wouldn't seem natural that extra phenomena like a mind just pops out of nowhere when its conserved physical bodies change configuration. That's my reductionist argument.

For the purposes of this explanation of why I like panpsychism, the what question is simply that it is unified, questioning other properties does not seem as relevant.

So, if you will, let's take those assumptions; are you with me?

Now if the mind is truly fundamental to at least a whole thought at a time that I posited as irreducible, then we have to a say mental state M correlated to some brain process/state B. Imagine whatever B is is the minimum necessary for M (M can be pain, a memory, etc.). During the time that M and B occur (simultaneously), we know from particle physics that B, like M, would be discontinuous (memory or pain starts and ends). But unfortunately, that would also appear to mean that B is not a whole; it would be internally discontinuous. Yet we did posit that M is a whole - problem!

This is something called the binding problem which means that panpsychism has a problem here. There is a possible solution around this though, which has actual scientific evidence and theory to back it up. Quantum entanglement has now been shown to exist in warm environments of organisms, something that was thought impossible for decades.

So now we have a possible new option. We can explain the whole/binding of the consciousness by way of an entangled/whole correlate. In entanglement, a single physical object exists in addition to its parts while conserving matter + energy.

It may not be probable, but it is possible and one of my favorite explanations of consciousness. Of course without the confirmation of entangled systems in the brain, I would be less hopeful for panpsychism.

That other stuff is confusing. You're confusing. All of it. Got a better idea. Stare at one of those little gif images of a fractal animation. Visually, that is pretty much the point you're making. Take some drugs and stare at a fractal gif image. Total shortcut for thinking about this.

You had me at panpsychism but lost me at So now we assume. That part is done. It no longer interests me. This whole thing is too involved for me. The script is coming off like... idk you'd just have to hear it read in a narrator. Some echo and slowed down a few paces. Quantum entanglement is something quantum theorists talk about and never understand. The regular Joe on the street could experience it, and flop around like fish in a drug seizure I assume. Never understanding what just happened because it is unexplainable. There is such a thing unfortunately. Unexplainable. At some point things become more feelings than words. Seeing words fail is depressing. It makes individuals feel inferior and it ultimately distorts reality.

This should be easier for stupid people to understand. Everyone needs to know about this stuff. The first book your teacher slaps on your desk when you're six should have a picture of a brain on it. You'd agree that consciousness is the most important thing in the world because it is the world, right? Why are people so timid about it? Why can't someone explain it without the bs? Accomplish that and you've got my respect. This A,B to M stuff is just too much. Dumbify 40% and try again or I'm out. 60% would be ideal. Can you do that? Compare things of great complexity to simple pop culture stuff. Make some nursery rhymes. How hard can this be? I mean really.

There are the 3 questions the what, how and why, but I think the how is what we should focus in on which is really what led me to panpsychism. With physical phenomena it is pretty easy to understand these questions like how/why does a cloud produce rain (condensation) or what is a cloud (H2O molecules).

Here's how strange the how question gets using an all physical analogy instead of a physical and mental example.

In the case of a cloud, the evaporated water, from say puddles, makes the cloud. There is a change in the density of water molecules, likely more dense than the evaporation but much less dense than the puddles. Such differences are only because the water molecules changed positions in space. The water goes from water to water to water. (In more detail, if we assume an isolated system, we won't lose any mass or energy from the transition of puddles to clouds). Everyone is happy; everything makes sense.

Hold that thought, and let's try to split the how question into two different parts.

1) Does the brain (or a part of the brain) make up this consciousness the same way that water makes up clouds (simply by changing the brain particles in space)?

2) Or is it something in of itself, something else, something extra?

If it's (1), that would be so easy. There would be nothing to talk about. The mental image of green is equivalent to some goo in the brain. But nobody is satisfied with that.

So now we are left with (2) and dare to answer "how".

Now remember the puddles-to-cloud story. Think about what the consciousness would mean in a strictly physical world where the consciousness is physical too. Using an analogy, the clouds would form, but a big plane would also form and just float there with clouds. The number of water molecules did not change but there is a plane there too now. And this happens only because the water molecules changed their position in space. Nothing was added to the molecules to produce this plane and nothing was taken away from the molecules.

In this analogy, the cloud is the brain, and the plane is the consciousness. How did the plane/consciousness get there?

Are you with me? One more post to go.

 

[DBT]

I don't see it being proposed as a serious contender or solution for consciousness formation in any of the neuroscience journals that I read, or have read.

I can't provide something that is not there to provide.

It's up to you to provide evidence that it is indeed being proposed.



Making the claim ''It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries'' means nothing if you can't or won't justify your claim.

Mentioned everywhere by whom?

What percentage of researchers 'mention' panpsychism as a possible solution to binding or how brains form subjective experience.

I think you are sliding away from providing evidence for the claims you are making.

Why is it that you don't have to back up what you said about there being virtually no one in neuroscience that believes in panpsychism and its relatives? But if I say the opposite with no support either, suddenly I am just ridiculous. It is a strange way argue with people DBT.

It was you who claimed ''It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries,'' not me.

I can't prove a negative, I can only point out that I don't see it being 'mentioned everywhere' - maybe guys like Penrose and Choptra are mentioning it....plus the absence of evidence that panpsychism is widely considered to be a viable solution is evidence against your claim.

You are obviously avoiding backing your own claims; that panpsychism is mentioned everywhere in academic libraries. Namely, as a viable solution to the the hard problem, binding, etc.

We both know that your claim that panpsychism is being widely mentioned and by default considered to be a viable model is not true.

Yes but what does panpsychism need agency?

Your question is wrong. I didn't say that panpsychism needs agency. I said that if panpsychism is true, panpsychism/universal consciousness/mind is the agent.

That is, if universal mind/consciousness exists, it exists independently of individual brains, brains being mere concentration or focus points for consciousness.

DBT, I don't think you understand that this is philosophy.

If you had bothered to read what I say you'd know that I said that panpsychism is philosophy, not science. Go back and check.

 

[untermensche]

1) Does the brain (or a part of the brain) make up this consciousness the same way that water makes up clouds (simply by changing the brain particles in space)?

In other words: Is consciousness an effect that arises due to the activity of the brain?

2) Or is it something in of itself, something else, something extra?

What else could use it and how could it use it?

We know what advantages in survival hearing the bear has. Animals trying to survive have a use for a consciousness, if that consciousness has the ability to do something.

If the consciousness does nothing, can do nothing, can make no changes, then like anything that does nothing it is not needed.

 

[PyramidHead]

There are the 3 questions the what, how and why, but I think the how is what we should focus in on which is really what led me to panpsychism. With physical phenomena it is pretty easy to understand these questions like how/why does a cloud produce rain (condensation) or what is a cloud (H2O molecules).

Here's how strange the how question gets using an all physical analogy instead of a physical and mental example.

In the case of a cloud, the evaporated water, from say puddles, makes the cloud. There is a change in the density of water molecules, likely more dense than the evaporation but much less dense than the puddles. Such differences are only because the water molecules changed positions in space. The water goes from water to water to water. (In more detail, if we assume an isolated system, we won't lose any mass or energy from the transition of puddles to clouds). Everyone is happy; everything makes sense.

Hold that thought, and let's try to split the how question into two different parts.

1) Does the brain (or a part of the brain) make up this consciousness the same way that water makes up clouds (simply by changing the brain particles in space)?

2) Or is it something in of itself, something else, something extra?

If it's (1), that would be so easy. There would be nothing to talk about. The mental image of green is equivalent to some goo in the brain. But nobody is satisfied with that.

So now we are left with (2) and dare to answer "how".

Now remember the puddles-to-cloud story. Think about what the consciousness would mean in a strictly physical world where the consciousness is physical too. Using an analogy, the clouds would form, but a big plane would also form and just float there with clouds. The number of water molecules did not change but there is a plane there too now. And this happens only because the water molecules changed their position in space. Nothing was added to the molecules to produce this plane and nothing was taken away from the molecules.

In this analogy, the cloud is the brain, and the plane is the consciousness. How did the plane/consciousness get there?

Are you with me? One more post to go.

I think you're setting up a strawman/false dichotomy. No physicalist, as far as I understand, believes that the sensation of seeing something green is literally identical to a bunch of particles arranged in a certain way. It's not quite so simple. A better analogy might be the screen on an iPhone. I have the experience of swiping icons back and forth, pinching to zoom, and navigating around a colorful symbolic environment, but despite the fact that everything on the screen is being generated by the internal processor, I will not find any of these elements if I break open the iPhone and look inside it. It's true that the images can be reduced to pixels with a defined color and position, but the same can be said of photons on the surface of a retina; the point is that a user interface is not identical to any of the parts that are required to generate it, and that's all consciousness is, a user interface for the world of experiences we evolved to regard as important. I still have my suspicions about strict eliminativism/physicalism, but I don't think the cloud analogy is being charitable.

 

[another1]

Gotcha ryan. Well I sense that the cloud doesn't show up until the plane does. Plane is a good enough analogy. Cloud and whatnot. Easy to relate. But the cloud doesn't exist without the plane. Planes actually do make clouds, too. Why would there be a cloud there? There is only the plane. And it may be a toy plane sitting motionless in the first place, ya know. Who says it is going somewhere? Someone glued it together and sat it on a desk. Model planes don't make clouds. They just sit there. Why does there have to be a cloud again? I got what you're saying but the plane is pretty much all you need in my opinion.

 

[fromderinside]

In other words: Is consciousness an effect that arises due to the activity of the brain?

2) Or is it something in of itself, something else, something extra?

What else could use it and how could it use it?

We know what advantages in survival hearing the bear has. Animals trying to survive have a use for a consciousness, if that consciousness has the ability to do something.

If the consciousness does nothing, can do nothing, can make no changes, then like anything that does nothing it is not needed.

Think of it this way: Consciousness is the butterfly effect of the brain leading to feedback leading to other activity relevant to one's situation. Oh, wow.

untermenche proposes feedback is not needed. Oh, wait .....

 

[ryan]

Why is it that you don't have to back up what you said about there being virtually no one in neuroscience that believes in panpsychism and its relatives? But if I say the opposite with no support either, suddenly I am just ridiculous. It is a strange way argue with people DBT.

It was you who claimed ''It's mentioned everywhere in academic libraries,'' not me.

I can't prove a negative, I can only point out that I don't see it being 'mentioned everywhere'

That's better than when you said, " Virtually nobody working in the field of neuroscience considers Panpsychism and its relatives a contender for explaining consciousness".

You are obviously avoiding backing your own claims; that panpsychism is mentioned everywhere in academic libraries. Namely, as a viable solution to the the hard problem, binding, etc.

Integrated information theory is everywhere, and it is a relative of panpsychism.

We both know that your claim that panpsychism is being widely mentioned and by default considered to be a viable model is not true.

So prove IIT false.

Yes but what does panpsychism need agency?

Your question is wrong. I didn't say that panpsychism needs agency. I said that if panpsychism is true, panpsychism/universal consciousness/mind is the agent.

Okay, but you did say that I was supporting agency because I supported panpsychism. You can still have a dual and non-causal relationship between the body and mind with panpsychism.

That is, if universal mind/consciousness exists, it exists independently of individual brains, brains being mere concentration or focus points for consciousness.

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it relates to panpsychism.

DBT, I don't think you understand that this is philosophy.

If you had bothered to read what I say you'd know that I said that panpsychism is philosophy, not science. Go back and check.

Oh I am well aware of that post. I pulled my hair out reading it because a philosophy is not necessarily going to have evidence. This means that it may not be probable or even close to probable; it's a "rational possibility".