Consciousness

[Speakpigeon]

OK. After the two of you finish your refrain what have you said. Consciousness is awareness? What is consciousness one must ask. My reply is that consciousness is most likely a historical articulation of the operable order of all awarenesses attached/associated to to the being at any moment in time. However, it need not be articulation if that isn't available. It can also be a being's readiness to act out a certain set of actions in response to the sorted awarenesses. In other words it is an objectified state in the living process of a social being, in our case that of a human.

A little experiment. Try to detach articulation from what you think is your consciousness. Think without words or pictorial representations. Does thinking stop? Is it difficult to execute what , it it were articulated, you would do if you had left the articulation on?

Forget "consciousness", let's discuss qualia. Anyone with 5 senses are more certain about the existence of their qualia than anything else.

Some say it's a property of matter/energy, okay; I agree. But it is not a physical property of matter/energy since we have already found the basic properties of matter which are just multiplied throughout the universe. So that leaves out the property of the brain that we call qualia.

Because there is a correlation between qualia and brain matter/energy, it could be argued that qualia is an intrinsic property of matter, but a nonphysical one.

So far so very good. What are you having for breakfast nowadays?

But remember, by "nonphysical" I mean parallelism or possibly epiphenomenalism (2 kinds of dualism).

Epiphenomenalism is inconsistent with subjective experience or qualia being unmediated experience. What goes on in the mind is obviously correlated to physical events but subjective experience itself cannot be epiphenomenal. If anything the reverse might be true, i.e. that the physical world, of which none of us will ever have direct evidence, is a subjective construct. But I'm open to the idea that there's some sort of external world.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Absolutely correct.

EB

The so-called neuro-scientists don't even know what they are looking for in terms of consciousness.

It is a joke.

No it's Ok.

Intellectual Workers have been produced by the shitload by the US since WWII and then the whole Western world and then all developed countries. They work hard to earn their wage.

Given this way of coming to the world, it should be expected that most of them won't be particularly brilliant. But they are doing what's expected of them which is toil till some unexpected gem comes out of their arses. And sometimes it does.

Also they are investigating what's accessible to them. They know the basic how-to-do when it comes the physical world. Easy pie, not the Hard Problem.

You could criticise them if you had any beginning of an idea how to tacle the problem of consciousness. But I don't think that's the case.

I would agree that they have moral flaws. Essentially, they've decided to deny the evidence available to all decent human beings and also they liberally use key vocabulary in a way which is deceptive. One regular hardcore materialist poster here even started some time ago to talk of qualia as if it was some kind of objective quantity. Pathetic. But, hey, that's only human!
EB

 

[untermensche]

Just because thinking needs things to think about does not make that which experiences the thoughts the same thing as the thoughts themselves.

The thoughts are one thing.

The awareness of them another.

If there are no thoughts the awareness is still there.

It just isn't aware of any thoughts, but could be aware of other things.

Did you try the experiment I suggested? If so maybe you can give a report?

If you want to address my argument do so.

This does not address it any way.

For there to be awareness TWO things are necessary.

That which is aware of things.

And the things it is aware of.

TWO things, not one.

 

[untermensche]

...You could criticise them if you had any beginning of an idea how to tacle the problem of consciousness. But I don't think that's the case....

The first step is defining what you are looking for.

You are not looking for the representations made by the brain.

You are looking for that which is aware of the representations.

As far as qualia, that is a redundant concept.

The idea of experience already has contained within it the idea of experiencing in a certain way.

No other concept besides experience is needed.

How a brain could create something that can experience? That is the question.

Not the hard problem, but A hard problem.

How a brain creates a sound is probably just as hard.

 

[ryan]

I am quite surprised that you would post this quote because the writer seems to have misused "process" and goes on to explain how the consciousness "cannot be decomposed". From the quote you posted, "Each conscious state comprises a single 'scene' that cannot be decomposed into independent components" consciousness is something that exists as a whole. The stream of consciousness is whole, or as your quote puts it "stream of consciousness is that it is highly unified" while its physical correlates (physical processes) are not.

It's just a matter of semantics and interpretation. Each reader interprets the text according to their own point of view. Wording can be problematic because you can't convey all the information you had in mind within a few sentences or paragraphs.

My point was that the word consciousness refers to a process that has many features and attributes, not all operating at once, some of which may deteriorate or be lost altogether, hence consciousness is not a single indivisible thing....parts of it may be lost.

Do you kind of feel like you are missing the mysterious nature of consciousness? Like for example, physics does not actually understand why curling stones curve towards their spin direction, and physicists are actually quite embarrassed by this inability to explain it.

But the philosophers, even ones who know very little about physics, are not as skeptical that physical problems like the curling stones are not being addressed by science. That goes for philosophers regarding specifically the hard problem. They, and I, believe that it's only a matter of time before the brain is completely modeled. And even when that day comes, there will be mysteries like the phenomenon of "what is it like to be" that model.

Do you kind of see this very strange side of the problem from a philisophical point of view?

 

[ryan]

But if thoughts are generated by the brain, and brains follow the laws of physics, then don't our thoughts also follow the laws of physics and not some other volition? [The good news is that the laws of physics have certain degrees of real freedom, so our thoughts would then also be partly free (obviously because I can't choose between choices/thoughts that are not generated by my brain, but I choose between what is physically generated and presented by my brain)]

I would much more surprised if there was creatures with split conciousnesses... there evolutionary value is very limited.

Did you read the article? The split consciousness helped them solve problems that singular conscious people couldn't.

But a single stresm of conciousness doesnt contradict that the conciousness consists of many parts.

The stream of consciousness is not reducible to those parts though (except if we assume QM). If you cut a third of the parts of the underlying physical process, you may have a third of the parts, but you wouldn't have a third of the stream of consciousness. The stream requires all that makes it a stream, nothing less.

 

[ryan]

Forget "consciousness", let's discuss qualia. Anyone with 5 senses are more certain about the existence of their qualia than anything else.

Some say it's a property of matter/energy, okay; I agree. But it is not a physical property of matter/energy since we have already found the basic properties of matter which are just multiplied throughout the universe. So that leaves out the property of the brain that we call qualia.

Because there is a correlation between qualia and brain matter/energy, it could be argued that qualia is an intrinsic property of matter, but a nonphysical one.

So far so very good. What are you having for breakfast nowadays?

Well thanks but it's the same stuff I have been slinging for years. Maybe I am articulating it better.

But remember, by "nonphysical" I mean parallelism or possibly epiphenomenalism (2 kinds of dualism).

Epiphenomenalism is inconsistent with subjective experience or qualia being unmediated experience. What goes on in the mind is obviously correlated to physical events but subjective experience itself cannot be epiphenomenal. If anything the reverse might be true, i.e. that the physical world, of which none of us will ever have direct evidence, is a subjective construct. But I'm open to the idea that there's some sort of external world.
EB

We see that others claim an "emergence" of consciousness every morning they wake up just like we do ourselves. So we see second hand that there is a world existing without that person's consciousness necessarily accessing it.

And if consciousness does emerge with certain configurations or processes of matter/energy, and if it is correlated with matter, there only appears so far to be a one-way causal relationship. There is not much that I can find showing a physically unexplainable action in the brain. So I see no choice but to assume one-way causation from body to mind.

 

[ryan]

...You could criticise them if you had any beginning of an idea how to tacle the problem of consciousness. But I don't think that's the case....

The first step is defining what you are looking for.

You are not looking for the representations made by the brain.

You are looking for that which is aware of the representations.

As far as qualia, that is a redundant concept.

The idea of experience already has contained within it the idea of experiencing in a certain way.

No other concept besides experience is needed.

How a brain could create something that can experience? That is the question.

Not the hard problem, but A hard problem.

How a brain creates a sound is probably just as hard.

The "how" question is basically the "hard problem".

 

[untermensche]

The first step is defining what you are looking for.

You are not looking for the representations made by the brain.

You are looking for that which is aware of the representations.

As far as qualia, that is a redundant concept.

The idea of experience already has contained within it the idea of experiencing in a certain way.

No other concept besides experience is needed.

How a brain could create something that can experience? That is the question.

Not the hard problem, but A hard problem.

How a brain creates a sound is probably just as hard.

The "how" question is basically the "hard problem".

How the brain does many things are hard problems.

Nobody can really say which problem is hardest.

Right now just about everything in terms of understanding the specific brain activity behind it is impenetrable.

 

[ryan]

The "how" question is basically the "hard problem".

How the brain does many things are hard problems.

Nobody can really say which problem is hardest.

Right now just about everything in terms of understanding the specific brain activity behind it is impenetrable.

It seemed like you were referring to "the hard problem".

 

[untermensche]

How the brain does many things are hard problems.

Nobody can really say which problem is hardest.

Right now just about everything in terms of understanding the specific brain activity behind it is impenetrable.

It seemed like you were referring to "the hard problem".

What some people call "the hard problem" is one of many hard problems.

Understanding how the brain creates representations seems as hard as understanding how it creates that which experiences the representations.

Understanding how the brain creates blue seems as hard a problem as understanding how it creates something that experiences blue.

 

[ryan]

It seemed like you were referring to "the hard problem".

What some people call "the hard problem" is one of many hard problems.

Understanding how the brain creates representations seems as hard as understanding how it creates that which experiences the representations.

Understanding how the brain creates blue seems as hard a problem as understanding how it creates something that experiences blue.

Yeah, you know. I will just add something more about it.

The "hard problem" is a term coined by the philosopher David Chalmers even though the "problem" has been well know for hundreds of years . It is meant to contrast the "easy problems" of explaining the physical brain and brain functions and behavior in general. Here is a TED talk where Chalmers himself explains what I am saying here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ . He sums it up at 6:17 with, "Why is it that all this behavior is accompanied by subjective experience".

 

[fromderinside]

Did you try the experiment I suggested? If so maybe you can give a report?

If you want to address my argument do so.

This does not address it any way.

For there to be awareness TWO things are necessary.

That which is aware of things.

And the things it is aware of.

TWO things, not one.

All that needs be is a process, a brain process, in which reaches a state that arrives at aware linked to another process, a brain process, in which reaches a state of recognition of thing. Some processes reaching aware remain there for some time. Some processes taking aware preserve thingness as a thing memory.

There is no need for a formal creature called aware nor, thing nor, memory, just processes that produce these states and communicate with means to initiate articulate and act - articulation is a form of action - and the brain carries out these processes IAC its function as the sense, control, act mechanism in the machine called man which is carrying out the process of fitness for this individual in this species.

 

[DBT]

You have not made any clarification.

Yes, the tree we experience is a representation.

But consciousness is being aware of the representation, not the representation.

The representation is one thing. The awareness of the representation is something else entirely.

That which is aware of the representation of the tree is also that which is aware of all things.

Consciousness is not tied to the representation of the tree in any way. The representation of the tree is just one of many things it can be aware of.

Consciousness is not any kind of representation itself. It is the awareness, the experiencing of representations.

Consciousness is not a single thing, it is composed of many features and attributes. If you lose your sight, shut your eyes or whatever, you may still still conscious of the tree through your sense of touch, smell or hearing, the tree is being represented other consciously aware sensory forms, tactile imagery, odour, etc.

Consciousness is a single entity.

That which is aware of the tree is also that which is aware of thoughts, that which aware of the bodies position.

The same thing aware of all things.

Consciousness. A single entity.

No wonder you are having so much trouble.

You think the representations created by the brain and that which is aware of the representations are the same thing.

One could not be more lost.

Sorry, but you don't have a clue. That is the sad fact of it.

Try to separate being aware of a tree from what you are seeing: the tree. You cannot. What you are saying is utter nonsense.

Then your claim that consciousness is a single thing when it is clear that what we call consciousness is comprised of many distinct attributes, sensory information: vision, hearing, etc, emotions, thoughts etc, including unconscious processing;

You are so lost I don't know if I can help you.

Considering that the evidence goes against you, I'm not the one that needs help.

Ignoring all evidence being posted which supports what I say and refutes your unfounded claims, your remark is not only defensive but verges on being delusional.

For there to be experience TWO things are required. There must be that which experiences and there must be the things it experiences.

The brain alone forms experience. Partly stemming from internal states, feelings, emotions, etc, and partly from information gathered from the external world via the senses.

All experience is internally generated by the brain.

The thing that experiences the representation of the tree is not the representation of the tree. They are two distinct things.

The brain forms and generates both seeing the tree and self having the experience of seeing and thinking and feeling.

No wonder you have had so much trouble.

Still being defensive, still wrong.

You think that which experiences the representation of the tree is the same thing as the representation.

That remark just demonstrates your complete inability to grasp what I say, as clear and simple as it is:

It is the brain that forms all experience. Experience/consciousness is the subjective experience of a brain formed, according to the evidence, by the complex electrochemical activity of neural networks, connectivity, signals, synapses, ion flow, etc, etc.

It is the same thing (consciousness) that experiences all things.

No, you persistently and willfully ignore the role of unconscious components feeding information into conscious activity....that alone means that consciousness cannot be described as a single indivisible thing.

You fail on just on that point alone.

Not that you ever had many valid points to make.

 

[DBT]

It's just a matter of semantics and interpretation. Each reader interprets the text according to their own point of view. Wording can be problematic because you can't convey all the information you had in mind within a few sentences or paragraphs.

My point was that the word consciousness refers to a process that has many features and attributes, not all operating at once, some of which may deteriorate or be lost altogether, hence consciousness is not a single indivisible thing....parts of it may be lost.

Do you kind of feel like you are missing the mysterious nature of consciousness? Like for example, physics does not actually understand why curling stones curve towards their spin direction, and physicists are actually quite embarrassed by this inability to explain it.

But the philosophers, even ones who know very little about physics, are not as skeptical that physical problems like the curling stones are not being addressed by science. That goes for philosophers regarding specifically the hard problem. They, and I, believe that it's only a matter of time before the brain is completely modeled. And even when that day comes, there will be mysteries like the phenomenon of "what is it like to be" that model.

Do you kind of see this very strange side of the problem from a philisophical point of view?

However inexplicable something may appear, it's not logical to make up explanations that are not supported by evidence and testing.

The human race has been doing that from the very beginning....we don't know how the wind works? why it must be the work of the spirits of the air. We don't know how the world came about? why it must have been created by God or gods.

We don't know how the brain generates consciousness, why it must some disembodied entity, by gosh, that's the solution, now we know, know we have it, yeah, for sure.

 

[ryan]

Do you kind of feel like you are missing the mysterious nature of consciousness? Like for example, physics does not actually understand why curling stones curve towards their spin direction, and physicists are actually quite embarrassed by this inability to explain it.

But the philosophers, even ones who know very little about physics, are not as skeptical that physical problems like the curling stones are not being addressed by science. That goes for philosophers regarding specifically the hard problem. They, and I, believe that it's only a matter of time before the brain is completely modeled. And even when that day comes, there will be mysteries like the phenomenon of "what is it like to be" that model.

Do you kind of see this very strange side of the problem from a philisophical point of view?

However inexplicable something may appear, it's not logical to make up explanations that are not supported by evidence and testing.

The human race has been doing that from the very beginning....we don't know how the wind works? why it must be the work of the spirits of the air. We don't know how the world came about? why it must have been created by God or gods.

We don't know how the brain generates consciousness, why it must some disembodied entity, by gosh, that's the solution, now we know, know we have it, yeah, for sure.

Then why aren't we saying all that about curling stones? Did you read my whole post?

 

[untermensche]

If you want to address my argument do so.

This does not address it any way.

For there to be awareness TWO things are necessary.

That which is aware of things.

And the things it is aware of.

TWO things, not one.

All that needs be is a process, a brain process, in which reaches a state that arrives at aware linked to another process, a brain process, in which reaches a state of recognition of thing. Some processes reaching aware remain there for some time. Some processes taking aware preserve thingness as a thing memory.

There is no need for a formal creature called aware nor, thing nor, memory, just processes that produce these states and communicate with means to initiate articulate and act - articulation is a form of action - and the brain carries out these processes IAC its function as the sense, control, act mechanism in the machine called man which is carrying out the process of fitness for this individual in this species.

You are full of it.

You can't change this with some jargon. This is a simple truism.

For there to be awareness TWO things are necessary.

There must be that which is aware and there must be the things it can be aware of. You cannot only have one.

 

[untermensche]

For there to be experience TWO things are required. There must be that which experiences and there must be the things it experiences.

The brain alone forms experience. Partly stemming from internal states, feelings, emotions, etc, and partly from information gathered from the external world via the senses.

All experience is internally generated by the brain.

This is not responsive to the point.

What I am saying is a truism, nothing that can be argued away. One either understands it or one does not.

The act of experience requires TWO things. It requires that which experiences AND the things it can experience.

Saying the brain is doing both doesn't change this.

You are completely lost.

You think that which is aware of the representation of the tree is the same thing as the representation.

You are so wrong you are completely useless in any discussion of consciousness. You have no clue what it even is.

 

[DBT]

However inexplicable something may appear, it's not logical to make up explanations that are not supported by evidence and testing.

The human race has been doing that from the very beginning....we don't know how the wind works? why it must be the work of the spirits of the air. We don't know how the world came about? why it must have been created by God or gods.

We don't know how the brain generates consciousness, why it must some disembodied entity, by gosh, that's the solution, now we know, know we have it, yeah, for sure.

Then why aren't we saying all that about curling stones? Did you read my whole post?

What I said applies to any mystery. Are you suggesting that we should be looking for non material explanations for curling stones?

 

[DBT]

The brain alone forms experience. Partly stemming from internal states, feelings, emotions, etc, and partly from information gathered from the external world via the senses.

All experience is internally generated by the brain.

This is not responsive to the point.

What I am saying is a truism, nothing that can be argued away. One either understands it or one does not.

The act of experience requires TWO things. It requires that which experiences AND the things it can experience.

Saying the brain is doing both doesn't change this.

You are completely lost.

You think that which is aware of the representation of the tree is the same thing as the representation.

You are so wrong you are completely useless in any discussion of consciousness. You have no clue what it even is.

A good cry in the corner may help. It can't hurt. You'll probably feel better after.

That which is aware of the representation of the tree is the very same mechanism that formed the conscious representation of a tree...and that mechanism is in fact the brain, the brain being the only known source of consciousness formation.

There you have, like it or not. Cry about it if you like. It might help.