Consciousness

[fromderinside]

I want it to be true, please, make it to be true? Descending to new lows.

Yeah, I really want to be a reflection of matter, a shadow of matter. Don't be cynical; some people might actually be trying to figure this out regardless of its appeal.

Yeah, I know you're a bit down the road by now. Still, I thought I should remind you that some people are still trying to find out how to get to heaven too. At some point one has got to accept that consciousness is, if there are any, a multitude in every person. It doesn't really make sense to call such a conglomeration a thing at all. These thoughts come from knowledge we have useless vestigial organs and the facts that genetic change is incremental, isn't directed by a designer . So when you figure out why we have as tail bone, erectile pili and body hair, male nipples, wisdom teeth and an appendix, one might also throw in , just for fun, tonsils and gall bladder. You are so focused on this forest, consciousness, you can't pull back and see it's just a bunch of trees.

You may be amazed but I usually go with evolution trends to optimums viis a vis conditions. But I don't presume that from this kind of pressure singular things are created. Rather I'm reminded that mammalian hearing came from fish lateral line, jaw, and buoyancy evolution and that the organ of corti retains many of the attributes of those organs. As for the eye we are fish out of water - that's an interesting story. Dr. Wall in the '40s suggested fish vision was far inferior to human and some avian species vision, a view that took hold and remained central to vision science until the eighties. Finally scientists figured out that vision was a water evolved organ and that much of the problems with human vision come from nature's attempts to correct for eyes out of water - mainly because vision evolve in water. We now know fishes have excellent vision.

 

[Juma]

"Nice weather": observed by seeing the sun an feeling the warnth.
"Hello neigbour": observed by seein and recognicibg the neighboor
"Wow, Juma dont get it": observed text in post, logical reasonong and finally reached, a faulty, conclusion
"I have awarenes": awareness observed by the brain (thus not an epiphenomen)

You see, every post that you post argues for MY point: epihenomenalism is impossible since awareness definitely do affects the brain.

The brain state of "I have awareness" is the physical correlate to the mental state of "I have awareness". Keep them separated except from the stem of every beginning to every "conscious stream".

It could work mechanically. Because the brain has feedback loops (affects itself), the mental correlate would also affect itself. This could be where the mental identity detects itself.

"Keep them separated" doesnt make sense. The physical "correlate" and the mental state are different descriptions of the same physical events.

It doesnt matter what mechanism you dream up. Either epiphenom OR causing brain action. You cant have both.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah, I really want to be a reflection of matter, a shadow of matter. Don't be cynical; some people might actually be trying to figure this out regardless of its appeal.

Yeah, I know you're a bit down the road by now. Still, I thought I should remind you that some people are still trying to find out how to get to heaven too. At some point one has got to accept that consciousness is, if there are any, a multitude in every person. It doesn't really make sense to call such a conglomeration a thing at all. These thoughts come from knowledge we have useless vestigial organs and the facts that genetic change is incremental, isn't directed by a designer . So when you figure out why we have as tail bone, erectile pili and body hair, male nipples, wisdom teeth and an appendix, one might also throw in , just for fun, tonsils and gall bladder. You are so focused on this forest, consciousness, you can't pull back and see it's just a bunch of trees.

You may be amazed but I usually go with evolution trends to optimums viis a vis conditions. But I don't presume that from this kind of pressure singular things are created. Rather I'm reminded that mammalian hearing came from fish lateral line, jaw, and buoyancy evolution and that the organ of corti retains many of the attributes of those organs. As for the eye we are fish out of water - that's an interesting story. Dr. Wall in the '40s suggested fish vision was far inferior to human and some avian species vision, a view that took hold and remained central to vision science until the eighties. Finally scientists figured out that vision was a water evolved organ and that much of the problems with human vision come from nature's attempts to correct for eyes out of water - mainly because vision evolve in water. We now know fishes have excellent vision.

That which is aware in a way that knows it is aware is not a conglomeration.

It is the same "thing" aware of vision and hearing and thinking and touch and all that a human can be aware of.

A singular entity aware of all.

 

[ryan]

Yeah, I really want to be a reflection of matter, a shadow of matter. Don't be cynical; some people might actually be trying to figure this out regardless of its appeal.

Yeah, I know you're a bit down the road by now. Still, I thought I should remind you that some people are still trying to find out how to get to heaven too. At some point one has got to accept that consciousness is, if there are any, a multitude in every person. It doesn't really make sense to call such a conglomeration a thing at all. These thoughts come from knowledge we have useless vestigial organs and the facts that genetic change is incremental, isn't directed by a designer . So when you figure out why we have as tail bone, erectile pili and body hair, male nipples, wisdom teeth and an appendix, one might also throw in , just for fun, tonsils and gall bladder. You are so focused on this forest, consciousness, you can't pull back and see it's just a bunch of trees.

Yes, I am well aware of how evolution works and how our main features are still useful or vestigial.

Anyways, you bring up an important part of the argument for consciousness not just being its parts when you mention forest and trees. You say that the forest is just trees and spaces between trees, at least that what you appear to be saying right? If this is an accurate assumption about what you meant, then we would only know about individual spaces and individual trees. We would never know that there even 2 trees in the forest because 2 requires a holistic meaning, a singular meaning above and beyond each tree and a space. The simultaneous understanding of 2 trees instead of tree existing and tree existing is not a reducible concept without holistic meanings.

Moreover, there would be nothing that would know that anything beyond an elementary particle exists. There would just be particle, not particle, particle, not particle, etc. There would be no relation between 2 things because relation itself requires a holistic meaning.

 

[fromderinside]

Then ryan jumps to an interpretation of what I meant about one who always sees just forests not taking into account that forests are made of of trees depending on where and how the environment works on them. I particularly like US redwood forests in Northern California where often enough several trees merge and the Chinese redwood we have in our yard that sheds its needles over a three month period each year ....

Maybe ryan can't understand what the rest of us are saying because he always changed what others write and reframes what we said into an argument for his perspective while ignoring the point made by the one he offended.

Here is a suitable topic upon which discussion with ryan should focus?

 

[ryan]

Then ryan jumps to an interpretation of what I meant about one who always sees just forests not taking into account that forests are made of of trees depending on where and how the environment works on them. I particularly like US redwood forests in Northern California where often enough several trees merge and the Chinese redwood we have in our yard that sheds its needles over a three month period each year ....

Maybe ryan can't understand what the rest of us are saying because he always changed what others write and reframes what we said into an argument for his perspective while ignoring the point made by the one he offended.

Here is a suitable topic upon which discussion with ryan should focus?

Perhaps if you would get to the point instead of making me find the meaning in your metaphors, seriously. Although I will say that you have been WAY better at keeping to literal discussions and holding back on the more creative ones.

 

[fromderinside]

Just trying, in my own way, to be kind sir.

 

[Juma]

Yeah, I know you're a bit down the road by now. Still, I thought I should remind you that some people are still trying to find out how to get to heaven too. At some point one has got to accept that consciousness is, if there are any, a multitude in every person. It doesn't really make sense to call such a conglomeration a thing at all. These thoughts come from knowledge we have useless vestigial organs and the facts that genetic change is incremental, isn't directed by a designer . So when you figure out why we have as tail bone, erectile pili and body hair, male nipples, wisdom teeth and an appendix, one might also throw in , just for fun, tonsils and gall bladder. You are so focused on this forest, consciousness, you can't pull back and see it's just a bunch of trees.

Yes, I am well aware of how evolution works and how our main features are still useful or vestigial.

Anyways, you bring up an important part of the argument for consciousness not just being its parts when you mention forest and trees. You say that the forest is just trees and spaces between trees, at least that what you appear to be saying right? If this is an accurate assumption about what you meant, then we would only know about individual spaces and individual trees. We would never know that there even 2 trees in the forest because 2 requires a holistic meaning, a singular meaning above and beyond each tree and a space. The simultaneous understanding of 2 trees instead of tree existing and tree existing is not a reducible concept without holistic meanings.

Moreover, there would be nothing that would know that anything beyond an elementary particle exists. There would just be particle, not particle, particle, not particle, etc. There would be no relation between 2 things because relation itself requires a holistic meaning.

But following that way of thinking then there are no particles either, just fields...
What you fail to realize is that what really goes on is processed in system built by interacting parts.

 

[ryan]

The brain state of "I have awareness" is the physical correlate to the mental state of "I have awareness". Keep them separated except from the stem of every beginning to every "conscious stream".

It could work mechanically. Because the brain has feedback loops (affects itself), the mental correlate would also affect itself. This could be where the mental identity detects itself.

"Keep them separated" doesnt make sense. The physical "correlate" and the mental state are different descriptions of the same physical events.

It doesnt matter what mechanism you dream up. Either epiphenom OR causing brain action. You cant have both.

Well yeah, that's the whole point of epiphenomenalism; there is no effect on the brain from the mental phenomena.

 

[ryan]

Yes, I am well aware of how evolution works and how our main features are still useful or vestigial.

Anyways, you bring up an important part of the argument for consciousness not just being its parts when you mention forest and trees. You say that the forest is just trees and spaces between trees, at least that what you appear to be saying right? If this is an accurate assumption about what you meant, then we would only know about individual spaces and individual trees. We would never know that there even 2 trees in the forest because 2 requires a holistic meaning, a singular meaning above and beyond each tree and a space. The simultaneous understanding of 2 trees instead of tree existing and tree existing is not a reducible concept without holistic meanings.

Moreover, there would be nothing that would know that anything beyond an elementary particle exists. There would just be particle, not particle, particle, not particle, etc. There would be no relation between 2 things because relation itself requires a holistic meaning.

But following that way of thinking then there are no particles either, just fields...
What you fail to realize is that what really goes on is processed in system built by interacting parts.

You have it backwards. There are particles but no fields out there. The fields are really just spaces of probability where a particle travels or emerges from. Conservation allows particles to appear and others to disappear.

Juma there is a very simple way to look at what a process really is. Einstein was exactly half right. He knew that what ever has happened still exists and any object, say a point particle, is really a one dimensional "rod-like" object. He saw a static 4 dimensional structure as the universe of the past and of the future.

However, QM came along and showed that this is not necessarily the case for the future. QM shows us that particles "grow" indeterminately but still not necessarily needing to move. Einstein is still correct here, except that the future of rod/particle does not exist yet.

Processes doesn't move, our consciousness moves with the "growth" of this 4d universe.

 

[Juma]

"Keep them separated" doesnt make sense. The physical "correlate" and the mental state are different descriptions of the same physical events.

It doesnt matter what mechanism you dream up. Either epiphenom OR causing brain action. You cant have both.

Well yeah, that's the whole point of epiphenomenalism; there is no effect on the brain from the mental phenomena.

Well, sigh, you couldnt find something more obvious, less interesting to write, could you?

Of course I know that that is what epiphenomenalism is about SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THE LAST 10+ POST!!!

What on earth made you feel that that post was in anyway a fitting reply? The fekal matter filling the void of your missing brain?

Fuck you for being such a total @%#*#!!

 

[ryan]

Well yeah, that's the whole point of epiphenomenalism; there is no effect on the brain from the mental phenomena.

Well, sigh, you couldnt find something more obvious, less interesting to write, could you?

Of course I know that that is what epiphenomenalism is about SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THE LAST n POST!!!

Fuck you for being such a total @%#*#!!

Okay, calm down, just making sure because that was what I got from your post.

And I am not even sure exactly what your argument is.

Anyways, I tried to give you a reason for how the consciousness observes itself and you just brushed it aside without explaining why it wouldn't work.

 

[Juma]

But following that way of thinking then there are no particles either, just fields...
What you fail to realize is that what really goes on is processed in system built by interacting parts.

You have it backwards. There are particles but no fields out there. The fields are really just spaces of probability where a particle travels or emerges from. Conservation allows particles to appear and others to disappear.

Juma there is a very simple way to look at what a process really is. Einstein was exactly half right. He knew that what ever has happened still exists and any object, say a point particle, is really a one dimensional "rod-like" object. He saw a static 4 dimensional structure as the universe of the past and of the future.

However, QM came along and showed that this is not necessarily the case for the future. QM shows us that particles "grow" indeterminately but still not necessarily needing to move. Einstein is still correct here, except that the future of rod/particle does not exist yet.

Processes doesn't move, our consciousness moves with the "growth" of this 4d universe.

Dude. You need some seriously updating of your knowledge of physics. Particles are features of fields.

 

[ryan]

You have it backwards. There are particles but no fields out there. The fields are really just spaces of probability where a particle travels or emerges from. Conservation allows particles to appear and others to disappear.

Juma there is a very simple way to look at what a process really is. Einstein was exactly half right. He knew that what ever has happened still exists and any object, say a point particle, is really a one dimensional "rod-like" object. He saw a static 4 dimensional structure as the universe of the past and of the future.

However, QM came along and showed that this is not necessarily the case for the future. QM shows us that particles "grow" indeterminately but still not necessarily needing to move. Einstein is still correct here, except that the future of rod/particle does not exist yet.

Processes doesn't move, our consciousness moves with the "growth" of this 4d universe.

Dude. You need some seriously updating of your knowledge of physics. Particles are features of fields.

You seem to have trouble cutting the ontological fat by not noticing redundancies. The field is something in our minds to help make predictions of what is ACTUALLY OUT THERE, and how it all behaves.

If you take the path integral formulation/interpretation, the field would seem to have an actual physical effect on a particle as it and its other possible path interferes with each other, but that's really two of the same particles interfering with each other. So in the case of a double-slit like situation the field would appear to have an ontological existence except that it really only physically matters in the case of interference.

To keep it simple, one particle can have a probabilistic existence in a field. Infinite other particles existing simultaneously and then all disappearing except for one just seems unnecessarily odd.

 

[Juma]

Dude. You need some seriously updating of your knowledge of physics. Particles are features of fields.

You seem to have trouble cutting the ontological fat by not noticing redundancies. The field is something in our minds to help make predictions of what is ACTUALLY OUT THERE, and how it all behaves.

If you take the path integral formulation/interpretation, the field would seem to have an actual physical effect on a particle as it and its other possible path interferes with each other, but that's really two of the same particles interfering with each other. So in the case of a double-slit like situation the field would appear to have an ontological existence except that it really only physically matters in the case of interference.

To keep it simple, one particle can have a probabilistic existence in a field. Infinite other particles existing simultaneously and then all disappearing except for one just seems unnecessarily odd.

You fail to realize that all this are models. There is nothing that makes particles more "real", more basal than the field.
You make the same mistake as uneducated people do when believing that matter is a continuous substance.
No fields -> no particles.
Particles are disturbances, excitations, of the field.

 

[DBT]

There are people who do not remember any yesterdays. They wake up each morning with no memory. There is no "stream of" consciousness, only consciousness.

Consciousness is not a thing. It is a constantly changing mental/virtual representation of the information that is fed into conscious activity by inputs, a collection of ever changing things, connectivity, memory and processing, etc, hence the reference 'stream of consciousness' even though it's not technically correct.

 

[DBT]

The proposition that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter is a hypothetical assumption, therefore does nothing to simplify the problem. Nor does panpsychism explain evidence that links the presence and expression of mind/consciousness to brain states.

For the very last time, I will try to explain why panpsychism is appealing. We will go little by little.

The very last time? Are you sure?

Based on inductive reasoning, we expect things should be conserved. What is here today should be here tomorrow. If something is not in a position anymore, it must have moved to another position. Does this make sense? Do you have any examples of something existing now but might not later? Some people have said that a square disappears when you stretch it; is this something you agree with?

That panpsychism happens to be appealing to some folks doesn't make it valid or true.

I have no idea of what you mean by - ''If something is not in a position anymore, it must have moved to another position.'' - in relation to consciousness or panpsychism.

If it refers to brain generated consciousness, consciousness is either being formed by neural activity or it is not, if the former, consciousness is present within a brain. And if the latter, it is not present, the brain is asleep and not generating consciousness, therefore that brain is currently unconscious.

As for panpsychism, I have no idea how your remark would apply or how panpsychic consciousness is supposed to work, form or interact with brains...the only known source of consciousness.

 

[ryan]

You seem to have trouble cutting the ontological fat by not noticing redundancies. The field is something in our minds to help make predictions of what is ACTUALLY OUT THERE, and how it all behaves.

If you take the path integral formulation/interpretation, the field would seem to have an actual physical effect on a particle as it and its other possible path interferes with each other, but that's really two of the same particles interfering with each other. So in the case of a double-slit like situation the field would appear to have an ontological existence except that it really only physically matters in the case of interference.

To keep it simple, one particle can have a probabilistic existence in a field. Infinite other particles existing simultaneously and then all disappearing except for one just seems unnecessarily odd.

You fail to realize that all this are models. There is nothing that makes particles more "real", more basal than the field.
You make the same mistake as uneducated people do when believing that matter is a continuous substance.
No fields -> no particles.
Particles are disturbances, excitations, of the field.

A field is continuous; the particles of course are not in some ways. If we look at it from Copenhagen interpretation, a field is just a space where a certain kind of particle has a probability > 0 of existing. From Wikipedia, "However, as we have discussed, it is more natural to think about a "field", such as the electromagnetic field, as a set of degrees of freedom indexed by position.".

But you could be right; the field could be something like just one big ocean where certain constructive or destructive "waves of energies" give particles their existence; this would ultimately mean "hidden variables" explain QM. If that's the case, sure, a field exists out there. But the way I was talking about is by having those waves just represent probability distributions in the form of wave functions. With the Copenhagen interpretation, you don't need an actual ontological existence of a field to exist out there.

 

[ryan]

For the very last time, I will try to explain why panpsychism is appealing. We will go little by little.

The very last time? Are you sure?

Yes, the end for me on here so much is near, back to school in a month and again in September.

Based on inductive reasoning, we expect things should be conserved. What is here today should be here tomorrow. If something is not in a position anymore, it must have moved to another position. Does this make sense? Do you have any examples of something existing now but might not later? Some people have said that a square disappears when you stretch it; is this something you agree with?

That panpsychism happens to be appealing to some folks doesn't make it valid or true.

I have no idea of what you mean by - ''If something is not in a position anymore, it must have moved to another position.'' - in relation to consciousness or panpsychism.

If it refers to brain generated consciousness, consciousness is either being formed by neural activity or it is not, if the former, consciousness is present within a brain. And if the latter, it is not present, the brain is asleep and not generating consciousness, therefore that brain is currently unconscious.

As for panpsychism, I have no idea how your remark would apply or how panpsychic consciousness is supposed to work, form or interact with brains...the only known source of consciousness.

Then this might be helpful for you to understand why I take this position. But I absolutely have to know the answers to the 3 questions I presented.

 

[DBT]

The very last time? Are you sure?

Yes, the end for me on here so much is near, back to school in a month and again in September.

Based on inductive reasoning, we expect things should be conserved. What is here today should be here tomorrow. If something is not in a position anymore, it must have moved to another position. Does this make sense? Do you have any examples of something existing now but might not later? Some people have said that a square disappears when you stretch it; is this something you agree with?

That panpsychism happens to be appealing to some folks doesn't make it valid or true.

I have no idea of what you mean by - ''If something is not in a position anymore, it must have moved to another position.'' - in relation to consciousness or panpsychism.

If it refers to brain generated consciousness, consciousness is either being formed by neural activity or it is not, if the former, consciousness is present within a brain. And if the latter, it is not present, the brain is asleep and not generating consciousness, therefore that brain is currently unconscious.

As for panpsychism, I have no idea how your remark would apply or how panpsychic consciousness is supposed to work, form or interact with brains...the only known source of consciousness.

Then this might be helpful for you to understand why I take this position. But I absolutely have to know the answers to the 3 questions I presented.

Good luck in your endeavour to understand consciousness then, ryan. I hope it goes well and you find what you are looking for.