Consciousness

[untermensche]

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.

The point is, consciousness does not exist on the cellular level. There is no explanation for it what-so-ever. Which aspect of a bunch of cells is creating it is unknown.

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

The salient point was that more is unknown than known, more not in the models than in, not your nit-picking.

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.

They can only account for all detectable effects, not all possible effects.

You cannot account for what you cannot detect.

Are you claiming that if humans can't detect it it definitely doesn't exist?

That is pure religious dogmatism.

 

[Speakpigeon]

To dismiss an idea, just say it's folk terminology.


The notion of consciousness as we use it here was created by rationalist and empiricist philosophers, people like Locke, Descartes, Hume etc. It's a folk term only in that the idea was accepted, even embrassed, by 'folks'.

We can say we are just human. We can even choose to embrasse Behaviourism for example. Or the theory of evolution. But that won't remove the inevitability of the notion of consciousness. It would be just as absurd to dismiss consciousness as it would be to dismiss reality.

There's also nothing as dramatically noteworthy as consciousness about being human. Being human is even irrelevant because we can conceive of the existence of any number of other naturally occurring organisms that wouldn't be humans but would possess consciousness.
EB

To me, consciousness seems to be one of those terms that exists, but which we haven't quite nailed down, much like the word mind. Everyone talks about it, and is sure we have it, but isn't 100% clear on what it is or what it means.

What I'm proposing by stating that 'we are human', is that there is an objective reality to the experience of being human. What we experience is that reality, whatever it is. Maybe, then, if we aren't clear on what 'consciousness' or 'mind' mean, these terms are our best guess at that objective reality, but not quite hitting the nail on the head.

Personally, I'm very clear as to what I mean when I talk of consciousness. But I do accept that what other people understand of whatever I may say may not make much sense to them. So you have to make this distinction between what the subject knows about his own subjective experience and what he can successfuly convey to others. Our limitations come from our poor means of communication (as dilby would say, we can't communicate directly between our minds). Still, that doesn't make the experience of consciousness unclear. What is really unclear in relation to consciousness is how consciousness relates, and indeed could possibly relate, to the physical world. Yet, this unclarity has nothing to do with consciousness itself, or our private experience of it, which can truly be said to be perfect, and has everything to do with our limitations in what we know of the physical world, for the thing which is really unclear is truly the physical world. Humanity has spend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to understand it and we certainly have made significant progress but not to the point where our scientific theories could help us relate what we understand of the physical world to what we know as our subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, except to say something we've always known that what we mean by "physical world" is essentially the thing we believe must somehow determine what's going on within our subjective experience.

It seems to me that people want to believe that there is a mover in the system, because we have a sense that there is, but that does not make it true. Rather, I state 'we are human', because whatever the objective reality behind our experience is, it is static and unchangeable. Discussing 'mind' and 'consciousness' won't change it, whatever it is.

It seems to me that people want to believe that there is a mover in the system, because we have a sense that there is, but that does not make it true. I mean that it may not be true that there's anything like a physical world which would somehow explain what's going on within our subjective experience.

See, it works both ways.

My best guess? We're living things which have an inherent relationship to the environment via our sensory systems, and neural mechanisms developed to react to stimulus in the context of the society in which we evolved. What people term 'consciousness' is actually just describing 'awareness', the constant input and processing of sensory stimuli from the environment.

What I experience as consciousness, especially two aspects, that of qualia and that of subjective experience, certainly are not explained as some kind of effect of our brain processes. If you feel differently it certainly explains why we would disagree, not why we would have differing experiences.

Think about this one: if we were born with no sensory receptors would 'consciousness' be possible? So, in that way to be conscious is analogous with being aware.

It's not clear to me that subjective experience stops if sensory inputs are cut off or even if the brain is removed or destroyed. What would clearly stop, presumably, would be the particular kind of qualia associated with the particular kind of brain humans have. So it all depends on the actual 'nature' of consciousness. Obviously, if you choose to 'guess' that consciousness is entirely a physical product of the activity of the brain then it would stop entirely. But then again you have no basis for so guessing except straws in the wind.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This looks furiously like somebody in need of explaining away something that's somewhat grating.

If you were capable of thinking consciousness entirely in terms of something like a piece of software there would be no need for the explaining away because there would be nothing to be explained away. So, just the fact that you have this urge, which is obviously a widespread ailment among this forum's usual posters, shows that there is a mystery to be explained away, a mystery for you as much as it is one for all human beings.

The mirror neurons in me deeply feel for you.
EB

Dealing with something like consciousness in a universe populated with machines and mechanics as the olny known being able to express such a notion is a bit like examining a phenomenon as a scientific object. Humans are the only known thing reporting consciousness, the only known observers of consciousness, therefore as it is a singular object lacking in comparisons or other instances of consciousness with other beings. There is no other instance of it with which it can be compared so scientific empirical methods cannot truly be applied.

Metaphors always make bad arguments.

For instance:

Humans are the only known thing reporting on physical reality, the only known observers of physical reality, therefore as it is a singular object lacking in comparisons or other instances of reality with other beings. There is no other instance of it with which it can be compared so scientific empirical methods cannot truly be applied. So we should withdraw our consent as to the existence of anything like a physical reality.

See?

Of course, we don't have to think in those terms. Evolution scientists have developed their own brand of science adapted to their object and it would be idiotic to dismiss evolution on the basis that we haven't been able to find anything like the fundamental particle or the field equations of evolution. Consciousness has its own properties and should be investigated on their face values, not some idiotic benchmark that we don't see any clear relation with. You may not be interested doing it but that doesn't mean it not doable. Let's just wait for humanity to grow up a bit, say, another million years or so. When things like Trump won't get us so distracted with tears and laughs.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Talk to yourself out loud like you think to yourself , now there's a problem.

I actually do talk to myself out loud.

Is that a problem, really?

No, not a bit.

I would even suggest to all here that it's probably a very good thing to be doing as long as you don't get carried away and keep loudness with reason (think of your neighbours and of the police).

The cat doesn't mind. But a dog maybe would.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We experience a world of physical matter, via the 'Ghost in the Machine' that we call consciousness.
Physicality and consciousness are the sum total of our experience.

Not even true.

We experience consciousness, full stop.

Then we happen to believe it is somehow a reflection of something we think of as a physical world. Which we don't seem to be able to experience as such.

Go figure.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

His arguments are no better than yours.

We certainly can detect some things and we certainly have a complete model from the things we can detect.

This says absolutely nothing about what we might not be able to detect.

You are claiming we can detect all things.

Unsupportable.

I can try to explain it for you. But I am not going to try to understand it for you.

You are, as usual, dogmatic in your ignorance. That may prevent you from accepting that you are wrong; But it does nothing to prevent you from being wrong.

Here, you started it.


EB

 

[bigfield]

The point is, consciousness does not exist on the cellular level. There is no explanation for it what-so-ever. Which aspect of a bunch of cells is creating it is unknown.

Of course there is an explanation for consciousness: it is a property of the synaptic activity of the brain myriad neurons. The so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness is merely an argument from incredulity; the disbelief that qualia can be produced by what is effectively a very complex computer. It's a groundless argument.

David Chalmer's argument for property dualism can be found here: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

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.

They can only account for all detectable effects, not all possible effects.

You cannot account for what you cannot detect.

We've accounted for every significant effect at the quantum, chemical and cellular levels. The activity of individual neurons is entirely predictable. What we don't yet understand is the architecture of the complex systems that those neurons form, but that problem is no different than trying to understand a (very complex) computer's software when we can look at the hardware but not connect to it.

Are you claiming that if humans can't detect it it definitely doesn't exist?

Yes, but only within the precision of our existing technology, which is more than adequate for dealing with anything on the scale of the brain. We've accounted for every significant effect at the quantum, chemical and cellular levels. The activity of individual neurons is predictable using existing models. If there are undetected effects then they are insignificant.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

It's not a very good idea.

We actually know our subjective experience but it's all we really know. "Interactions between neurons" is at best a poor man's tentative description of something he doesn't really know. A description entirely based on a second-hand report, i.e. what we want to believe is sensory information about the physical world. Your idea is not a very good idea because there is very little in conciousness that we can conceive of as similar to a physical property we would be familiar with through our description of the physical world.

It's a lost cause.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Of course there is an explanation for consciousness: it is a property of the synaptic activity of the brain myriad neurons.

Absolute nonsense.

That is no explanation.

It is a very crude description of what is going on from a certain perspective.

An explanation is a step by step description of how some activity results in conscious experience.

You pretend we have an explanation. Nothing more.

We've accounted for every significant effect at the quantum, chemical and cellular levels. The activity of individual neurons is entirely predictable. What we don't yet understand is the architecture of the complex systems that those neurons form, but that problem is no different than trying to understand a (very complex) computer's software when we can look at the hardware but not connect to it.

Again, absolute nonsense.

We know some quantum effects.

This is not close to evidence we know all possible quantum effects and no more can possibly be discovered.

That is extraordinarily ridiculous.

 

[bigfield]

Of course there is an explanation for consciousness: it is a property of the synaptic activity of the brain myriad neurons.

Absolute nonsense.

That is no explanation.

It is a very crude description of what is going on from a certain perspective.

An explanation is a step by step description of how some activity results in conscious experience.

You pretend we have an explanation. Nothing more.

I can break it down into steps, but that is not actually what gives an explanation power. Rather, explanatory power increases as the ability to describe a phenomenon in finer, lower-level detail increases.

While a more powerful explanation, that describes the software of the brain in detail, would be desirable, the lack of such an explanation does not invalidate the more basic explanation that the mind is an emergent property of the brain's neural activity.

The only objection you have offered is an appeal to incredulity.

We've accounted for every significant effect at the quantum, chemical and cellular levels. The activity of individual neurons is entirely predictable. What we don't yet understand is the architecture of the complex systems that those neurons form, but that problem is no different than trying to understand a (very complex) computer's software when we can look at the hardware but not connect to it.

Again, absolute nonsense.

We know some quantum effects.

This is not close to evidence we know all possible quantum effects and no more can possibly be discovered.

That is extraordinarily ridiculous.

Any additional quantum effects we discover Cannot be significant at the scale of neurons. Neurons consist of trillions of atoms; in order for quantum effects to have any influence on synaptic activity, very large numbers of quantum effects must act in concert.

Your argument hinges on the highly unlikely event that we discover some hitherto unknown quantum effect that only occurs in the human brain and which governs what otherwise appears to be an emergent property of trillions of neural connections in the brain.

I do not see why you aren't satisfied with the most parsimonious explanation.

 

[untermensche]

I can break it down into steps, but that is not actually what gives an explanation power. Rather, explanatory power increases as the ability to describe a phenomenon in finer, lower-level detail increases.

No you can't. Stop lying.

You can't even begin.

On one side is everything we know about the human nervous system and on the other is the experience of consciousness.

And there is NOTHING, not one bit of human knowledge, that connects the two.

Any additional quantum effects we discover Cannot be significant at the scale of neurons.

You keep repeating this dogmatic bit of faith.

But you have no argument to demonstrate it.

You have no idea what might possibly be discovered in the future.

But like many adherents to a religion believe you do.

 

[bigfield]

No you can't. Stop lying.

You can't even begin.

On one side is everything we know about the human nervous system and on the other is the experience of consciousness.

And there is NOTHING, not one bit of human knowledge, that connects the two.

Of course there is.

We know that consciousness is connected to the brain because altering the state of the brain using chemicals or trauma alters the state of that person's consciousness.

And even David Chalmers, the champion of property dualism, recognises that there is a neurobiological explanation for various functions of the brain. Yet for some reason he feels that qualia are inexplicable in this manner.

Any additional quantum effects we discover Cannot be significant at the scale of neurons.

You keep repeating this dogmatic bit of faith.

But you have no argument to demonstrate it.

You have no idea what might possibly be discovered in the future.

But like many adherents to a religion believe you do.

As I keep repeating, whatever there is left to discover cannot be significant at the relevant scale. Neural activity is governed by electrical charge and chemical reactions, phenomena that are well-explained by existing science. No new discovery is going to change that.

We know what governs the synaptic activity of a neuron, and by extension we know what governs neural activity in general. What we can't model is the trillions of connections between billions of neurons.

 

[untermensche]

We know that consciousness is connected to the brain because altering the state of the brain using chemicals or trauma alters the state of that person's consciousness.

That is not an explanation of anything. If I cut off your leg you can't run, that doesn't explain how muscles work.

Of course altering the brain alters what it can do, but how the activity of the brain and the experience of consciousness are connected is completely unknown.

If you don't know what consciousness even is you can't say what can and can't affect it.

As I keep repeating...

Repeating an unsupported falsehood doesn't make it better.

 

[fromderinside]

Dealing with something like consciousness in a universe populated with machines and mechanics as the olny known being able to express such a notion is a bit like examining a phenomenon as a scientific object. Humans are the only known thing reporting consciousness, the only known observers of consciousness, therefore as it is a singular object lacking in comparisons or other instances of consciousness with other beings. There is no other instance of it with which it can be compared so scientific empirical methods cannot truly be applied.

Metaphors always make bad arguments.

For instance:

Humans are the only known thing reporting on physical reality, the only known observers of physical reality, therefore as it is a singular object lacking in comparisons or other instances of reality with other beings. There is no other instance of it with which it can be compared so scientific empirical methods cannot truly be applied. So we should withdraw our consent as to the existence of anything like a physical reality.

Going back to my example one must conclude using your analysis that phenomena aren't worthy of examination so applying such to an analysis of science is, at best, moot, a waste of time, less than an ort, meaningless, .............

 

[bilby]

Repeating an unsupported falsehood doesn't make it better.

Then STOP already!

 

[bigfield]

We know that consciousness is connected to the brain because altering the state of the brain using chemicals or trauma alters the state of that person's consciousness.

That is not an explanation of anything.

It was not intended to be such. It was merely an objection to your claim that "there is NOTHING, not one bit of human knowledge, that connects the two."

Of course altering the brain alters what it can do, but how the activity of the brain and the experience of consciousness are connected is completely unknown.

Consciousness is one of the things that the brain 'can do', which is why we can alter consciousness by altering the brain.

If you don't know what consciousness even is you can't say what can and can't affect it.

We already know several things that affect consciousness. Nitrous oxide, for instance.

As I keep repeating...

Repeating an unsupported falsehood doesn't make it better.

Ironic.

Since you fail to address the relevant details, I will continue to repeat myself:

As I keep repeating, whatever there is left to discover cannot be significant at the relevant scale. Neural activity is governed by electrical charge and chemical reactions, phenomena that are well-explained by existing science. No new discovery is going to change that.

Scientists postulate the existence of dark matter because they observed that it was not baryonic matter. No-one has done the same with respect to consciousness and neural activity.

 

[untermensche]

Repeating an unsupported falsehood doesn't make it better.

Then STOP already!

You are beyond the point of any use. Go away.

 

[bilby]

Then STOP already!

You are beyond the point of any use. Go away.

After you.

 

[untermensche]

That is not an explanation of anything.

It was not intended to be such. It was merely an objection to your claim that "there is NOTHING, not one bit of human knowledge, that connects the two."

Excuse me, you don't understand the point.

There is no information that connects the workings of a brain to the production of consciousness. We don't understand the connection in the least.

This is not to say there is not evidence connecting the consumption of certain drugs with changes in human consciousness.

An obvious and mundane point that demonstrates nothing.

Consciousness is one of the things that the brain 'can do', which is why we can alter consciousness by altering the brain.

Saying a "brain does consciousness" does not tell us what consciousness is in the least.

It is not an understanding of consciousness in the least.

And without an understanding of what consciousness is you cannot make statements about what can't possibly affect it.

As I keep repeating, whatever there is left to discover cannot be significant at the relevant scale....

Unsupported nonsense. A complete fantasy.

- - - Updated - - -

You are beyond the point of any use. Go away.

After you.

I'm still saying things.

You are doing nothing but soaking in your vomit.

 

[rousseau]

To me, consciousness seems to be one of those terms that exists, but which we haven't quite nailed down, much like the word mind. Everyone talks about it, and is sure we have it, but isn't 100% clear on what it is or what it means.

What I'm proposing by stating that 'we are human', is that there is an objective reality to the experience of being human. What we experience is that reality, whatever it is. Maybe, then, if we aren't clear on what 'consciousness' or 'mind' mean, these terms are our best guess at that objective reality, but not quite hitting the nail on the head.

Personally, I'm very clear as to what I mean when I talk of consciousness. But I do accept that what other people understand of whatever I may say may not make much sense to them. So you have to make this distinction between what the subject knows about his own subjective experience and what he can successfuly convey to others. Our limitations come from our poor means of communication (as dilby would say, we can't communicate directly between our minds). Still, that doesn't make the experience of consciousness unclear. What is really unclear in relation to consciousness is how consciousness relates, and indeed could possibly relate, to the physical world. Yet, this unclarity has nothing to do with consciousness itself, or our private experience of it, which can truly be said to be perfect, and has everything to do with our limitations in what we know of the physical world, for the thing which is really unclear is truly the physical world. Humanity has spend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to understand it and we certainly have made significant progress but not to the point where our scientific theories could help us relate what we understand of the physical world to what we know as our subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, except to say something we've always known that what we mean by "physical world" is essentially the thing we believe must somehow determine what's going on within our subjective experience.

It seems to me that people want to believe that there is a mover in the system, because we have a sense that there is, but that does not make it true. Rather, I state 'we are human', because whatever the objective reality behind our experience is, it is static and unchangeable. Discussing 'mind' and 'consciousness' won't change it, whatever it is.

It seems to me that people want to believe that there is a mover in the system, because we have a sense that there is, but that does not make it true. I mean that it may not be true that there's anything like a physical world which would somehow explain what's going on within our subjective experience.

See, it works both ways.

My best guess? We're living things which have an inherent relationship to the environment via our sensory systems, and neural mechanisms developed to react to stimulus in the context of the society in which we evolved. What people term 'consciousness' is actually just describing 'awareness', the constant input and processing of sensory stimuli from the environment.

What I experience as consciousness, especially two aspects, that of qualia and that of subjective experience, certainly are not explained as some kind of effect of our brain processes. If you feel differently it certainly explains why we would disagree, not why we would have differing experiences.

Think about this one: if we were born with no sensory receptors would 'consciousness' be possible? So, in that way to be conscious is analogous with being aware.

It's not clear to me that subjective experience stops if sensory inputs are cut off or even if the brain is removed or destroyed. What would clearly stop, presumably, would be the particular kind of qualia associated with the particular kind of brain humans have. So it all depends on the actual 'nature' of consciousness. Obviously, if you choose to 'guess' that consciousness is entirely a physical product of the activity of the brain then it would stop entirely. But then again you have no basis for so guessing except straws in the wind.
EB

What do you mean by 'qualia'? What do you mean by 'subjective experience'?