Do

[ryan]

I agree, but I don't see that being a problem for my argument. The entanglement also needs a heart in the body, lungs to breath, food, veins, etc.

added: oh I see what you mean. The entanglement probably won't "live" on since there would be such a major change to everything that it depends on.

Well its obviously a problem for quantum as a source of consciousness. Quantum underlies all things, but not all things appear to have consciousness.

So by "consciousness" what exactly do you mean then? Is it a behavioral definition, neurological definition, a dualistic definition ... etc? If it's neurological, can this set of neurological processes that give consciousness have their carbon atoms replaced with silicon atoms if the processes behave the exact same way? In other words, is the consciousness just something that we define, or is it something fundamental that exists a certain way no matter how we define it?

For example, aliens will define an electron the same way we do because an electron is fundamental (assuming it actually is fundamental). But aliens will not necessarily define a book the same as we do. Books are given their definitions; their definitions are created. But electrons are self evidently defined by their properties.

 

[DBT]

Well its obviously a problem for quantum as a source of consciousness. Quantum underlies all things, but not all things appear to have consciousness.

So by "consciousness" what exactly do you mean then? Is it a behavioral definition, neurological definition, a dualistic definition ... etc? If it's neurological, can this set of neurological processes that give consciousness have their carbon atoms replaced with silicon atoms if the processes behave the exact same way? In other words, is the consciousness just something that we define, or is it something fundamental that exists a certain way no matter how we define it?

For example, aliens will define an electron the same way we do because an electron is fundamental (assuming it actually is fundamental). But aliens will not necessarily define a book the same as we do. Books are given their definitions; their definitions are created. But electrons are self evidently defined by their properties.

Consciousness, as I've said before, refers to a collection of attributes and features, sight, sound, touch, smell, hearing....some of which may be functional while others are in decline. And of course, thoughts and feelings, desires and fears related to what we see and hear, etc. All coming under the heading of consciousness.

 

[ryan]

So by "consciousness" what exactly do you mean then? Is it a behavioral definition, neurological definition, a dualistic definition ... etc? If it's neurological, can this set of neurological processes that give consciousness have their carbon atoms replaced with silicon atoms if the processes behave the exact same way? In other words, is the consciousness just something that we define, or is it something fundamental that exists a certain way no matter how we define it?

For example, aliens will define an electron the same way we do because an electron is fundamental (assuming it actually is fundamental). But aliens will not necessarily define a book the same as we do. Books are given their definitions; their definitions are created. But electrons are self evidently defined by their properties.

Consciousness, as I've said before, refers to a collection of attributes and features, sight, sound, touch, smell, hearing....some of which may be functional while others are in decline. And of course, thoughts and feelings, desires and fears related to what we see and hear, etc. All coming under the heading of consciousness.

Do you think that the consciousness is more than a collection of its physical properties? In other words, do you believe that subjectivity exists and cannot be adequately described using physical analysis of any sort, and therefore believe it is a nonphysical property in the universe?

 

[DBT]

Consciousness, as I've said before, refers to a collection of attributes and features, sight, sound, touch, smell, hearing....some of which may be functional while others are in decline. And of course, thoughts and feelings, desires and fears related to what we see and hear, etc. All coming under the heading of consciousness.

Do you think that the consciousness is more than a collection of its physical properties?

Probably not. Unless there are unknown factors at work, the process of acquiring and processing sensory information is physical, detectable and testable.

In other words, do you believe that subjectivity exists and cannot be adequately described using physical analysis of any sort, and therefore believe it is a nonphysical property in the universe?

I know nothing about nonphysical properties, so can't even make a guess on what nonphysical properties might be or, if they exist (strange for something that has non physical properties). The term itself appears to be an oxymoron.

 

[ryan]

Do you think that the consciousness is more than a collection of its physical properties?

Probably not. Unless there are unknown factors at work, the process of acquiring and processing sensory information is physical, detectable and testable.

Getting back to your architecture issue, how do you know that there would have to be a difference in the architecture of the neural networks in order for a decision to be made probabilistically by quantum processing with nonlocal entanglement rather than the classical processing?

In other words, do you believe that subjectivity exists and cannot be adequately described using physical analysis of any sort, and therefore believe it is a nonphysical property in the universe?

I know nothing about nonphysical properties, so can't even make a guess on what nonphysical properties might be or, if they exist (strange for something that has non physical properties). The term itself appears to be an oxymoron.

It would be a property that has no physical interaction with other physical properties. Subjectivity does not interact with matter, as far as we know. So all physical changes to a brain can be explained without the need for qualia for example, yet we know qualia exists.

My argument attempts to make sense of this.

 

[DBT]

Probably not. Unless there are unknown factors at work, the process of acquiring and processing sensory information is physical, detectable and testable.

Getting back to your architecture issue, how do you know that there would have to be a difference in the architecture of the neural networks in order for a decision to be made probabilistically by quantum processing with nonlocal entanglement rather than the classical processing?

It's the neural architecture and its information processing activity that enables decision making. Without it, there is no information processing and no decision making. A failure of connectivity entails a glitch in the system, a memory or a set of memories not integrated and/or recalled, therefore either a pause or if the condition is chronic, the loss of the capacity to make decisions. Decisions being related to the objects and events of the macro world and not to quantum probability.

It could be said that I would most probably choose chocolate ice cream of vanilla, but this is probability assigned by external observers, I myself would never choose vanilla unless compelled for some reason.

It would be a property that has no physical interaction with other physical properties. Subjectivity does not interact with matter, as far as we know. So all physical changes to a brain can be explained without the need for qualia for example, yet we know qualia exists.

My argument attempts to make sense of this.

''Subjective'' is merely a word we use in reference to the internal workings of a brain, which are not 'non material' but physical. What we experience internally, qualia, can be altered physically, chemically and electrically, thoughts and feeling stimulated by electrodes, Delgado, et al.

 

[ryan]

Getting back to your architecture issue, how do you know that there would have to be a difference in the architecture of the neural networks in order for a decision to be made probabilistically by quantum processing with nonlocal entanglement rather than the classical processing?

It's the neural architecture and its information processing activity that enables decision making. Without it, there is no information processing and no decision making. A failure of connectivity entails a glitch in the system, a memory or a set of memories not integrated and/or recalled, therefore either a pause or if the condition is chronic, the loss of the capacity to make decisions. Decisions being related to the objects and events of the macro world and not to quantum probability.

It could be said that I would most probably choose chocolate ice cream of vanilla, but this is probability assigned by external observers, I myself would never choose vanilla unless compelled for some reason.

You can still have all of your infrastructure. We don't have the ability to know if it's a classical network or a quantum network yet. In other words, you could have something that resembles, but you wouldn't necessarily know if it is q-bit processor or a classical bit processor.

It would be a property that has no physical interaction with other physical properties. Subjectivity does not interact with matter, as far as we know. So all physical changes to a brain can be explained without the need for qualia for example, yet we know qualia exists.

My argument attempts to make sense of this.

''Subjective'' is merely a word we use in reference to the internal workings of a brain, which are not 'non material' but physical. What we experience internally, qualia, can be altered physically, chemically and electrically, thoughts and feeling stimulated by electrodes, Delgado, et al.

Subjectivity is how we acquire information about the experience of sensations. This information cannot be detected from instruments, biotic or abiotic, the way we can with all physical properties.

 

[DBT]

You can still have all of your infrastructure. We don't have the ability to know if it's a classical network or a quantum network yet. In other words, you could have something that resembles, but you wouldn't necessarily know if it is q-bit processor or a classical bit processor.

We know what happens when the classical infrastructure is damaged or its functionality effected by chemical change or electrical input, whatever quantum function the brain may utilize (just a hypothesis at this point) doesn't change that.

It would be a property that has no physical interaction with other physical properties. Subjectivity does not interact with matter, as far as we know. So all physical changes to a brain can be explained without the need for qualia for example, yet we know qualia exists.

My argument attempts to make sense of this.

Subjectivity just refers to mental representation of information. Information itself being objective; EMR wavelength, pressure waves stimulating inner ear structures, airborne molecules, shapes and forms and events of the external world that are there for all observers.

Subjectivity is how we acquire information about the experience of sensations. This information cannot be detected from instruments, biotic or abiotic, the way we can with all physical properties.

The wavelengths of light entering the system being objective, detectable and testable, it being the mental representation of colour that is subjective. Same with pressure waves/sound, airborne molecules/smell. etc. Colour, however it is perceives can be related to wavelength. People who are not colour blind are able to agree that this is 'red' or that is 'green' and what they point to can be detected, tested or presented as a colour or a shade..

 

[ryan]

We know what happens when the classical infrastructure is damaged or its functionality effected by chemical change or electrical input, whatever quantum function the brain may utilize (just a hypothesis at this point) doesn't change that.

Of course it wouldn't change that. What would make you think that it would?

It would be a property that has no physical interaction with other physical properties. Subjectivity does not interact with matter, as far as we know. So all physical changes to a brain can be explained without the need for qualia for example, yet we know qualia exists.

My argument attempts to make sense of this.

Subjectivity just refers to mental representation of information.

I would think that it is the processing of the information that gives the mental representation of, say, the color red. Either way, because of subjectivity and the mind, brain processes have a new feature from qualia, and not just the physical/chemical properties of the processes.

Information itself being objective; EMR wavelength, pressure waves stimulating inner ear structures, airborne molecules, shapes and forms and events of the external world that are there for all observers.

I agree.

Subjectivity is how we acquire information about the experience of sensations. This information cannot be detected from instruments, biotic or abiotic, the way we can with all physical properties.

The wavelengths of light entering the system being objective, detectable and testable, it being the mental representation of colour that is subjective. Same with pressure waves/sound, airborne molecules/smell. etc. Colour, however it is perceives can be related to wavelength. People who are not colour blind are able to agree that this is 'red' or that is 'green' and what they point to can be detected, tested or presented as a colour or a shade..

That's because they are "projecting" their own experiences onto the brain processes that they are studying that they would know are correlated to the experience of red. They would be matching known processes that correlate to redness and filling in the information from qualia based their own experiences. But they cannot detect qualia the way they detect all other physical properties of the processes.

Assuming that redness is a process in the brain, a color blind scientist might discover and detect all of the physical properties and chemical processes of a functioning brain, but the qualia information would be left out. So, to understand the physical properties and chemical processes is not sufficient to gain all of the information about an active brain namely the qualia of its subjective experiences.

 

[DBT]

Of course it wouldn't change that. What would make you think that it would?

I don't think that it would. I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out the problem with your ''q-bit processor'' hypothesis. Namely, that it is the state of the macro scale architecture that determines function and output and not the possibility that the brains architecture may utilize quantum effects as a part of its information processing activity.

That's because they are "projecting" their own experiences onto the brain processes that they are studying that they would know are correlated to the experience of red. They would be matching known processes that correlate to redness and filling in the information from qualia based their own experiences. But they cannot detect qualia the way they detect all other physical properties of the processes.

That's not what I meant. However a person may mentally perceive colour, anyone and everyone who is not colour blind can point to a red traffic light and identify it as being red, not blue or purple or green....that being because the wavelength of light being emitted by the traffic light is known to represent 'red' in the mind of any observer who is not colour blind or has some brain abnormality that interferes with discerning colours.

 

[ryan]

I don't think that it would. I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out the problem with your ''q-bit processor'' hypothesis. Namely, that it is the state of the macro scale architecture that determines function and output and not the possibility that the brains architecture may utilize quantum effects as a part of its information processing activity.

Sure the macro scale architecture is part of it. We are mentally and physically limited to the number and function of neurons, nerves, muscles, etc. But the electrochemical activity is what makes the macro scale activate its options, potential and abilities. We may have quantum indeterminacy of various abilities within the framework and constraints of the macro scale architecture.

That's because they are "projecting" their own experiences onto the brain processes that they are studying that they would know are correlated to the experience of red. They would be matching known processes that correlate to redness and filling in the information from qualia based their own experiences. But they cannot detect qualia the way they detect all other physical properties of the processes.

That's not what I meant. However a person may mentally perceive colour, anyone and everyone who is not colour blind can point to a red traffic light and identify it as being red, not blue or purple or green....that being because the wavelength of light being emitted by the traffic light is known to represent 'red' in the mind of any observer who is not colour blind or has some brain abnormality that interferes with discerning colours.

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

 

[bilby]

Sure the macro scale architecture is part of it. We are mentally and physically limited to the number and function of neurons, nerves, muscles, etc. But the electrochemical activity is what makes the macro scale activate its options, potential and abilities. We may have quantum indeterminacy of various abilities within the framework and constraints of the macro scale architecture.

That's because they are "projecting" their own experiences onto the brain processes that they are studying that they would know are correlated to the experience of red. They would be matching known processes that correlate to redness and filling in the information from qualia based their own experiences. But they cannot detect qualia the way they detect all other physical properties of the processes.

That's not what I meant. However a person may mentally perceive colour, anyone and everyone who is not colour blind can point to a red traffic light and identify it as being red, not blue or purple or green....that being because the wavelength of light being emitted by the traffic light is known to represent 'red' in the mind of any observer who is not colour blind or has some brain abnormality that interferes with discerning colours.

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

The experience is completely internal; We have no way to tell whether an instrument does or does not experience red, and that fact remains true even when we extend the meaning of 'instrument' to include human brains other than our own.

As far as I can tell, nothing - not even other humans - can have the experience of sensing the colour red; it is unique to ME.

I guess that other humans, and even other animals, might have the same or a similar experience; But that's a pure guess with no particular reason to accept it as true.

I guess that computers don't have the same or a similar experience; But again, that's a pure guess with no particular reason to accept it as true.

It is just as (un)reasonable to guess that any sufficiently complex computer (biological or otherwise) has 'experiences' and 'consciousness'.

Personally, I think that all this guessing is pretty futile; If we make the assumption that a particular system - whether that system is another person, or a computer, or a piece of photographic film - has the 'experience of red', and having made that assumption, our predictions of how that system will behave are bourne out by observation, then it's a good assumption. If the future behaviour of the system is in contradiction to the assumption, then it was a poor assumption. And if the behaviour is equivocal, we know nothing about the quality of the assumption.

After a few iterations, if it is still not possible to assign the assumption the label 'good' or 'bad', then it's time to stop wasting time on this pointless quest to understand something about which we cannot collect any data, and to think about something else, until such time as fresh data is available, or we think up a new experiment that might collect such fresh data.

 

[ryan]

Sure the macro scale architecture is part of it. We are mentally and physically limited to the number and function of neurons, nerves, muscles, etc. But the electrochemical activity is what makes the macro scale activate its options, potential and abilities. We may have quantum indeterminacy of various abilities within the framework and constraints of the macro scale architecture.

That's because they are "projecting" their own experiences onto the brain processes that they are studying that they would know are correlated to the experience of red. They would be matching known processes that correlate to redness and filling in the information from qualia based their own experiences. But they cannot detect qualia the way they detect all other physical properties of the processes.

That's not what I meant. However a person may mentally perceive colour, anyone and everyone who is not colour blind can point to a red traffic light and identify it as being red, not blue or purple or green....that being because the wavelength of light being emitted by the traffic light is known to represent 'red' in the mind of any observer who is not colour blind or has some brain abnormality that interferes with discerning colours.

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

The experience is completely internal; We have no way to tell whether an instrument does or does not experience red, and that fact remains true even when we extend the meaning of 'instrument' to include human brains other than our own.

As far as I can tell, nothing - not even other humans - can have the experience of sensing the colour red; it is unique to ME.

I guess that other humans, and even other animals, might have the same or a similar experience; But that's a pure guess with no particular reason to accept it as true.

That's philosophy though. We guess rather than test. Guesses have a mysterious way of eventually leading to a hypothesis. Millions of people walk in this darkness, and maybe only a few find light switches.

 

[DBT]

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

No, that's not what I said. I said our perception of colour (qualia), red, green, blue or whatever is related to objective information; wavelength of light (information theory) and that observers who are not colour blind or impaired, are able to agree that the red traffic light (for example) is indeed red, even though each individuals mental experience of colour may differ. Which it does even for an individual over the course of their life, colours being brighter and more vivid in childhood but duller and washed out with aging eyes and decline in visual acuity .

 

[untermensche]

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

Loosely we are all machines that experience red, those with vision.

Can you know what anyone else is experiencing?

If you made a machine that could experience, do you think you would somehow be able to know what it was experiencing?

 

[ryan]

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

No, that's not what I said. I said our perception of colour (qualia), red, green, blue or whatever is related to objective information; wavelength of light (information theory) and that observers who are not colour blind or impaired, are able to agree that the red traffic light (for example) is indeed red, even though each individuals mental experience of colour may differ. Which it does even for an individual over the course of their life, colours being brighter and more vivid in childhood but duller and washed out with aging eyes and decline in visual acuity .

The light is just an arbitrary link in a chain of causal events that leads to the conscious experience of color. The light may be replaced by anything that could cause an action potential of the receptors that lead to whatever process is necessary to experience color in the brain. And we know this can happen since we experience color when we are dreaming. Something (could be spontaneous QM) must "trigger" internal processes required to experience colors.

I had a TERRIBLE dream about 4 years ago. It was one of those dreams where I knew I was dreaming. Some guy tied me to a stake and said that he is going to start torturing me. DBT if I have any integrity from your point of view I am telling you the honest truth; I told the guy that I am dreaming and that I would not feel the pain that he says he was going to inflict on me. But he began torturing me anyways, and I remember feeling such pain and thinking that this doesn't make sense, yet it hurt really bad the way conscious pain does. I woke up, and just couldn't believe it as I reflected on what had just happened.

The point is that inputs leading to experiences are not unique to one type.

 

[ryan]

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

Loosely we are all machines that experience red, those with vision.

Can you know what anyone else is experiencing?

If you made a machine that could experience, do you think you would somehow be able to know what it was experiencing?

That is an even harder problem than the hard problem, IMO. Although, if this integrated information theory acquires the technology it needs one day to sense stuff in the q-space (qualia dimension), then maybe we might get somewhere with that question.

 

[bilby]

Sure the macro scale architecture is part of it. We are mentally and physically limited to the number and function of neurons, nerves, muscles, etc. But the electrochemical activity is what makes the macro scale activate its options, potential and abilities. We may have quantum indeterminacy of various abilities within the framework and constraints of the macro scale architecture.

That's because they are "projecting" their own experiences onto the brain processes that they are studying that they would know are correlated to the experience of red. They would be matching known processes that correlate to redness and filling in the information from qualia based their own experiences. But they cannot detect qualia the way they detect all other physical properties of the processes.

That's not what I meant. However a person may mentally perceive colour, anyone and everyone who is not colour blind can point to a red traffic light and identify it as being red, not blue or purple or green....that being because the wavelength of light being emitted by the traffic light is known to represent 'red' in the mind of any observer who is not colour blind or has some brain abnormality that interferes with discerning colours.

So are you ultimately saying that an instrument can detect the human experience of sensing the color red?

The experience is completely internal; We have no way to tell whether an instrument does or does not experience red, and that fact remains true even when we extend the meaning of 'instrument' to include human brains other than our own.

As far as I can tell, nothing - not even other humans - can have the experience of sensing the colour red; it is unique to ME.

I guess that other humans, and even other animals, might have the same or a similar experience; But that's a pure guess with no particular reason to accept it as true.

That's philosophy though. We guess rather than test. Guesses have a mysterious way of eventually leading to a hypothesis. Millions of people walk in this darkness, and maybe only a few find light switches.

Just as long as you know that you have the option to nip outside and take a stroll in the sunshine of science.

 

[DBT]

No, that's not what I said. I said our perception of colour (qualia), red, green, blue or whatever is related to objective information; wavelength of light (information theory) and that observers who are not colour blind or impaired, are able to agree that the red traffic light (for example) is indeed red, even though each individuals mental experience of colour may differ. Which it does even for an individual over the course of their life, colours being brighter and more vivid in childhood but duller and washed out with aging eyes and decline in visual acuity .

The light is just an arbitrary link in a chain of causal events that leads to the conscious experience of color. The light may be replaced by anything that could cause an action potential of the receptors that lead to whatever process is necessary to experience color in the brain. And we know this can happen since we experience color when we are dreaming. Something (could be spontaneous QM) must "trigger" internal processes required to experience colors.

Lightwave is the information upon which the brain bases it's representation of colour. This is not an arbitrary representation. It is a representation that is tested on a daily basis....mistaking the colours of traffic signals at a busy intersection can get you into a lot of trouble.

I had a TERRIBLE dream about 4 years ago. It was one of those dreams where I knew I was dreaming. Some guy tied me to a stake and said that he is going to start torturing me. DBT if I have any integrity from your point of view I am telling you the honest truth; I told the guy that I am dreaming and that I would not feel the pain that he says he was going to inflict on me. But he began torturing me anyways, and I remember feeling such pain and thinking that this doesn't make sense, yet it hurt really bad the way conscious pain does. I woke up, and just couldn't believe it as I reflected on what had just happened.

The point is that inputs leading to experiences are not unique to one type.

Nobody has claimed that inputs are all identical. Inputs come in a huge variety of types and shades. Dreams are a symbolic rearrangement of past events, memory projected into current fears and desires....sometimes understood by the conscious mind, sometimes not. More often forgotten even as they occur.

 

[ryan]

The light is just an arbitrary link in a chain of causal events that leads to the conscious experience of color. The light may be replaced by anything that could cause an action potential of the receptors that lead to whatever process is necessary to experience color in the brain. And we know this can happen since we experience color when we are dreaming. Something (could be spontaneous QM) must "trigger" internal processes required to experience colors.

Lightwave is the information upon which the brain bases it's representation of colour. This is not an arbitrary representation. It is a representation that is tested on a daily basis....mistaking the colours of traffic signals at a busy intersection can get you into a lot of trouble.

I had a TERRIBLE dream about 4 years ago. It was one of those dreams where I knew I was dreaming. Some guy tied me to a stake and said that he is going to start torturing me. DBT if I have any integrity from your point of view I am telling you the honest truth; I told the guy that I am dreaming and that I would not feel the pain that he says he was going to inflict on me. But he began torturing me anyways, and I remember feeling such pain and thinking that this doesn't make sense, yet it hurt really bad the way conscious pain does. I woke up, and just couldn't believe it as I reflected on what had just happened.

The point is that inputs leading to experiences are not unique to one type.

Nobody has claimed that inputs are all identical. Inputs come in a huge variety of types and shades. Dreams are a symbolic rearrangement of past events, memory projected into current fears and desires....sometimes understood by the conscious mind, sometimes not. More often forgotten even as they occur.

Okay, there is a miscommunication of my whole post. What I meant is that the brain does not necessarily require a particular input to give a particular output of experience. For example, I may experience red (see red) without the input of the usual wavelength. I might hit my head, dream it, have an illusion of it, etc.

And, I am not saying that you think that the brain to mental input output is one-to-one as I look back at the posts. I can't remember why I was brining this up in the first place. I don't think we are actually in any kind of a disagreement, for once.