Consciousness

[fromderinside]

What you're talking about is different from what I'm asking.

Too comments. I don't presume consciousness nor mental sates as they are both inventions with little other than dated threadbare support. Second my notion of monism is the way the brain works makes clear its meaning by its articulation and gestured representation which is strong monism.

As for the rest who have taken issue with my recent posts, my last two posts summarize my thinking on monism and qualia.

 

[untermensche]

If the person has seen red he has memories of the color in context of the image in which it is contained. Calling up that memory and running it through processing will probably recall the image, the blue image, as a processed fact at some point in that exercise. That event is sufficient for me to say the individual believes the red in the image is red and he will represent that to others. That is his characterization of red when he points to the image with the red information in it.

In other words, red is something experienced by that which has the ability to be conscious of things.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing in the world has any color.

Color only exists as something experienced.

It is something the brain creates whole. Something evolving brains created to increase the ability to discriminate between objects and better survive.

Color is a survival tool, nothing more.

But what is interesting is the brain "presents" color, this creation, to consciousness.

Why give consciousness information like this if consciousness is not that which can act on the information?

 

[Juma]

We experience qualia. We are qualia. We don't know how qualia/self awareness is formed by the sole known source of qualia/self awareness, a functional brain generating the activity of qualia/self awareness formation.

But there's more. There is knowing that you are aware of green and not red. Structurally, this is part of the "unity" phenomenon/problem of consciousness. And this unity is more than the sum of the parts; it acts as a sort of an internal partial omniscience of what's going on mentally.

It is a problem because physical components/particles of the brain are "free", spatially segregated and discrete; they don't represent this kind of absolute unity. There is no wholeness like what we have that gives us the very meaning to everything including our own logic.

(This is why quantum entanglement should be found in the brain)

Why bringing up particles? The mind is no low level property of particles. It his a hig level phenomen created by billions of coworking high level structures.

 

[DBT]

We experience qualia. We are qualia. We don't know how qualia/self awareness is formed by the sole known source of qualia/self awareness, a functional brain generating the activity of qualia/self awareness formation.

But there's more. There is knowing that you are aware of green and not red. Structurally, this is part of the "unity" phenomenon/problem of consciousness. And this unity is more than the sum of the parts; it acts as a sort of an internal partial omniscience of what's going on mentally.

It is a problem because physical components/particles of the brain are "free", spatially segregated and discrete; they don't represent this kind of absolute unity. There is no wholeness like what we have that gives us the very meaning to everything including our own logic.

(This is why quantum entanglement should be found in the brain)

Quantum entanglement is practically universal. Recognition; distinctions between colours, objects, events and so on, is a function of memory.

 

[ryan]

We are talking about how the consciousness is like QM. The consciousness is described as a unified structure like QM.

QM is not a unified structure. It is many separate models of discreet phenomena. The only thing connecting them is they occur in the same universe.

Sorry, I have been talking about quantum entanglement to correlate to the unity of consciousness. I thought you knew what part of QM I was referring to.

You seem to be arguing about what they are and not thinking about any similar properties that they may share.

They have no similar properties.

Yes: (1) conscious unity and QE/QM (2) mathematically described behaviors (3) causal correlations

Yes, the math is only a description of what it behaves like. It's like saying a person accelerating in a spaceship behaves like gravity on a massive body. QM behaves like decision-making mathematically.

Math does not describe how anything behaves. It is an abstraction.

"The Schrödinger equation is the fundamental equation of physics for describing quantum mechanical behavior." from Wolfram

As I said nothing moves in a perfectly straight line.

Points do not exist.

Mathematics is always an approximation. Always an abstraction of behavior. Never a perfect description.

This has nothing to do with being exact. But if there is an exact behavior in space-time, there is an exact mathematical formula. Will we ever achieve the real description, probably not, but it is there anyways.

Be more specific; are you talking about a one-way causal connection from mind to body or from body to mind?

I am talking about the place of observation in QM. It has a place.

But that does not mean QM has a place in the explanation of consciousness.

Okay but what about the other way around? Does consciousness have a place in explaining QM? If so, there is definitely a similarity as they are causally related.

 

[ryan]

But there's more. There is knowing that you are aware of green and not red. Structurally, this is part of the "unity" phenomenon/problem of consciousness. And this unity is more than the sum of the parts; it acts as a sort of an internal partial omniscience of what's going on mentally.

It is a problem because physical components/particles of the brain are "free", spatially segregated and discrete; they don't represent this kind of absolute unity. There is no wholeness like what we have that gives us the very meaning to everything including our own logic.

(This is why quantum entanglement should be found in the brain)

Why bringing up particles? The mind is no low level property of particles. It his a hig level phenomen created by billions of coworking high level structures.

We are back to "structures"!? Besides entanglement, properties of a truly elementary particle and mental phenomena, structures don't exist. All other "structures" are manmade concepts that don't exist out there. The particles of your "structures" are always in different places; a structure in its purest form can't be constantly changing. It doesn't make sense to randomly assign actual structures to dynamic systems.

And that's the whole point of the unity problem. We have actual structures in the mind, but we have not found a physical correlate unified like it yet.

 

[ryan]

But there's more. There is knowing that you are aware of green and not red. Structurally, this is part of the "unity" phenomenon/problem of consciousness. And this unity is more than the sum of the parts; it acts as a sort of an internal partial omniscience of what's going on mentally.

It is a problem because physical components/particles of the brain are "free", spatially segregated and discrete; they don't represent this kind of absolute unity. There is no wholeness like what we have that gives us the very meaning to everything including our own logic.

(This is why quantum entanglement should be found in the brain)

Quantum entanglement is practically universal. Recognition; distinctions between colours, objects, events and so on, is a function of memory.

I will try to explain the unity problem the way I understand it.

Imagine you are consciously experiencing red; you see red. But this experience is really just a bunch of neurons that either fire or don't. There is spatial separation between them. So we should only have separate moments of 1 bit of information at a time (binary function being action potential or no action potential). We should only ever have 1 bit of information about reality at a time, specifically conscious existence or no conscious existence. Yet we know that we saw a color from a variety of possible colors. Assuming we can distinguish, say, 64 colors, information theory says that we have log2(64) = 6 bits of information when we see one color. from Wiki n bits = log2(m possible options)

So neuroscience is at best incomplete in that neurological processes are the foundation for the consciousness. There is no such mapping from separated single bits of information to multiple bits of conscious information "sense data".

 

[Juma]

Quantum entanglement is practically universal. Recognition; distinctions between colours, objects, events and so on, is a function of memory.

I will try to explain the unity problem the way I understand it.

Imagine you are consciously experiencing red; you see red. But this experience is really just a bunch of neurons that either fire or don't. There is spatial separation between them. So we should only have separate moments of 1 bit of information at a time (binary function being action potential or no action potential). We should only ever have 1 bit of information about reality at a time, specifically conscious existence or no conscious existence. Yet we know that we saw a color from a variety of possible colors. Assuming we can distinguish, say, 64 colors, information theory says that we have log2(64) = 6 bits of information when we see one color. from Wiki n bits = log2(m possible options)

So neuroscience is at best incomplete in that neurological processes are the foundation for the consciousness. There is no such mapping from separated single bits of information to multiple bits of conscious information "sense data".

bullshit: you no nothing about what experience is and definitely dont not know that it is a single neuron input.

 

[Juma]

Why bringing up particles? The mind is no low level property of particles. It his a hig level phenomen created by billions of coworking high level structures.

We are back to "structures"!? Besides entanglement, properties of a truly elementary particle and mental phenomena, structures don't exist. All other "structures" are manmade concepts that don't exist out there. The particles of your "structures" are always in different places; a structure in its purest form can't be constantly changing. It doesn't make sense to randomly assign actual structures to dynamic systems.

And that's the whole point of the unity problem. We have actual structures in the mind, but we have not found a physical correlate unified like it yet.

what? the world is full of structures: humans, molecules, atoms, waves, and probably the quarks.

and what is this stupid remark of *structures in their purest form*?

saying that these structures dont exist because they arent the basic building blocks is both ignorant and stupid.

 

[OLDMAN]

Color is simply objects giving off more of one level of the light spectrum. Different animals have different abilities to pick it up. It is a survival advantage. Some people are color blind, some people can't even image any objects at all. It is called Aphantasia. Seems that their conscious flow must be blocked...lol.

 

[George S]

Nothing in the world has any color.

True

Color only exists as something experienced.

False

Color only exists as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Plans only exist as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Self only exists as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Qualia only exist as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Of course, I don't know what is going on in your consciousness as you read the above sentences. I can only guess. Perhaps you see yourself as separate from your body. A mind separate from your neurology. Perhaps you see the firing of neurons presenting experience to something other than another firing of neurons. Something you name consciousness which I name self.

Neurology is that which can act on information. Sometimes by reflex -- unconscious reaction. Sometimes by executing a learned program (like reading). Sometimes by making a conscious plan in imagination and executing that plan.

There is no mind separate from the body. We are a body-mind.

 

[untermensche]

Color is simply objects giving off more of one level of the light spectrum. Different animals have different abilities to pick it up. It is a survival advantage. Some people are color blind, some people can't even image any objects at all. It is called Aphantasia. Seems that their conscious flow must be blocked...lol.

The fact that objects reflect different frequencies of light allows brains to create colors from it.

But color has nothing to do with objects in the world. None have any color.

Color is something added by brains to allow for greater distinctions.

It is an amazing thing that evolving brains created color.

- - - Updated - - -

True

Color only exists as something experienced.

False

Color only exists as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Plans only exist as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Self only exists as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Qualia only exist as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Of course, I don't know what is going on in your consciousness as you read the above sentences. I can only guess. Perhaps you see yourself as separate from your body. A mind separate from your neurology. Perhaps you see the firing of neurons presenting experience to something other than another firing of neurons. Something you name consciousness which I name self.

Neurology is that which can act on information. Sometimes by reflex -- unconscious reaction. Sometimes by executing a learned program (like reading). Sometimes by making a conscious plan in imagination and executing that plan.

There is no mind separate from the body. We are a body-mind.

You are pretending to know something.

A pattern of firing neurons is just a pattern of cells with electricity being moved along.

Nothing about that can be shown to result in color.

 

[George S]

The fact that objects reflect different frequencies of light allows brains to create colors from it.

But color has nothing to do with objects in the world. None have any color.

Color is something added by brains to allow for greater distinctions.

It is an amazing thing that evolving brains created color.

- - - Updated - - -

True

Color only exists as something experienced.

False

Color only exists as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Plans only exist as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Self only exists as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Qualia only exist as a pattern of firing of neurons.

Of course, I don't know what is going on in your consciousness as you read the above sentences. I can only guess. Perhaps you see yourself as separate from your body. A mind separate from your neurology. Perhaps you see the firing of neurons presenting experience to something other than another firing of neurons. Something you name consciousness which I name self.

Neurology is that which can act on information. Sometimes by reflex -- unconscious reaction. Sometimes by executing a learned program (like reading). Sometimes by making a conscious plan in imagination and executing that plan.

There is no mind separate from the body. We are a body-mind.

You are pretending to know something.

A pattern of firing neurons is just a pattern of cells with electricity being moved along.

Nothing about that can be shown to result in color.

Oh, but it can. You seem to be ignorant of the science here. I would suggest reading  Color Center and  Electrical Brain Stimulation. Certain areas of the brain can be artificially stimulated by electricity to generate the experience of color.

See

 

[untermensche]

Oh, but it can. You seem to be ignorant of the science here. I would suggest reading  Color Center and  Electrical Brain Stimulation. Certain areas of the brain can be artificially stimulated by electricity to generate the experience of color.

See

Neither of those links point to anything.

Patterns of firing is a hypothesis that has not demonstrated anything.

We do not have a clue how the brain creates color.

We do not know how the brain creates that which can be conscious or the things it can be conscious of.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What we don't have is your acceptance of the pretty evident fact that experience is a state in a process after it's analysis of whatever went on just before.

Clearly you haven't a clue what people mean by consciousness and subjective experience.

Probably because all you have is your damned notion of experience with no supporting evidence. but as I said before, I don't know this because it's your belief. All I can do is point to evidence which a rational person would use to falsify such a belief. Apparently not you though.

You're completely wrong.

It's like the Cogito. Each of us can assess for themselves whether what is asserted of subjective experience is true. Maybe it's not true of you, so what? You don't even understand logic, why would it matter that anything be true or not?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, but it can. You seem to be ignorant of the science here. I would suggest reading  Color Center and  Electrical Brain Stimulation. Certain areas of the brain can be artificially stimulated by electricity to generate the experience of color.

See

The irrelevance of your reply shows how little you understand of the question of subjective experience. You know what relevance is don't you?

It's also pathetic. There's no need to call on science at all to make the point you think is so compelling. Any idiot can wave his hand and see for himself how it affects his subjective experience. Big deal.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Qualia only exist as a pattern of firing of neurons.

What does that even mean?

Do you mean that qualia are correlated to patterns of neuron activity?

That wouldn't help. We certainly all think, without even the help of science at all, that our subjective experience is correlated to what is going on in the material world and that doesn't make us understand what subjective experience is. If it did we would have known for a very long time now and we don't.


Or do you mean that qualia are just patterns?

Well, that sounds like a terribly idiotic suggestion. It would be idiotic even if you had taken the precaution of saying it was at least what you believed. So, how on earth would you know qualia are patterns?! Or are you actually saying that correlation is good enough in and of itself to claim that you know?!

So, how do you figure? Our subjective experience is actually some kind of perception of the patterns of some activity of our neurons?

Or you mean qualia are those patterns!!!

So, how would you possibly know?



Wait. No. There's no conversation here. You're just one of those dreadful ideologues who prefer to wave away the question of subjective experience by systematically reducing the question to what you think is scientific knowledge. You're not trying to understand what people say. You're not trying to understand the question. You're not trying to provide any meaningful answer. You're just one of those dreadful ideologue who is going to repeat over and over again that qualia are patterns of neurons firing because at least you know what patterns of neurons firing are.


You know there's no difference between you and the guy who's looking for his lost keys around the lamp post just because that's where the light is.
EB



EB

 

[fromderinside]

What we don't have is your acceptance of the pretty evident fact that experience is a state in a process after it's analysis of whatever went on just before.

Clearly you haven't a clue what people mean by consciousness and subjective experience.

Probably because all you have is your damned notion of experience with no supporting evidence. but as I said before, I don't know this because it's your belief. All I can do is point to evidence which a rational person would use to falsify such a belief. Apparently not you though.

You're completely wrong.

It's like the Cogito. Each of us can assess for themselves whether what is asserted of subjective experience is true. Maybe it's not true of you, so what? You don't even understand logic, why would it matter that anything be true or not?
EB

RE your first: You say that because you observe I have rejected that point of view as fiction unrelated to reality or the pursuit of truth

To your second: I'm interested in philosophy rather than what people can assess. One's assessment is is one's belief. The reason I've stayed with materialism is that it is demonstrably better, more reliable, more grouping capable of approximating truth.

As for understanding logic what I don't understand is your pronouncements about each of us and truth then shifting gears to why would it matter that anything be true or not.

Given human nature, it doesn't matter that anything be true or not. Finding truth, fact, reality, is an exercise in knowledge gaining. That is only meaningful to understanding and probably one having ability to do with, to, and for nature. Naw, I wouldn't want to bother with that.

 

[fromderinside]

If the person has seen red he has memories of the color in context of the image in which it is contained. Calling up that memory and running it through processing will probably recall the image, the blue image, as a processed fact at some point in that exercise. That event is sufficient for me to say the individual believes the red in the image is red and he will represent that to others. That is his characterization of red when he points to the image with the red information in it.

In other words, red is something experienced by that which has the ability to be conscious of things.

Using your analysis of what I wrote you could say, in reference to falling things, "In other words gravity is something experienced by that which has ability to be conscious of feathers falling slower than rocks."