Pantheism and panpsychism

[bilby]

Right, we don't even know if words or maths will be enough to create a model for it.

Does consciousness need building blocks...? Can it be divided, merged, overlapped with others etc. My prediction is that with brain-to-computer tech, Neuralinks, brain to brain tech, we might begin to experiment with these questions.
If I remember correctly, split brain experiments already has some clues though?

Question: is any electromagnetical activity conscious? If we can connect our brain to a computer which is doing it's own neural activity. If that activity then appears in our consciousness, then maybe we could assume that it was like merging two clouds of consciousnesses?



That's not necessarily true. A "philosophical zombie", a "mindless machine", could be programmed to react to external stimuli and avoid danger.
That's what a self driving car does. Evolution could equally well have given rise to philosophical zombies that does exactly what we and other animals does.
I would argue, that the existence of an inner experience of 'being something', must therefore be part of the universe in some fundamental way.

Consciousness must interact with the physical world (and vice versa).

All possible physical interactions at the relevant scales are now fully understood. There cannot be any unknown physical interactions.

So either consciousness is a physical phenomenon (presumably an emergent property of extremely complex electromagnetic interactions); Or consciousness has zero influence on the physical universe (which renders the concept meaningless).

Consciousness cannot challenge materialism; Materialism is demonstrably correct.

There are two kinds of people. Those who understand that materialism is proven, and those who are wrong.

This isn't an open question. It's been answered unequivocally. Sadly, many philosophers simply don't believe that physics can make such a declaration. But that's because they don't believe something that, if they had the relevant education, they would know to be true.

It's not necessary to approach the question from both sides - unless neither gives a definitive answer, in which case it's useful to approach the subject from as many directions as possible. Once a definite answer is known, approaching from another direction can only either tell you nothing, or tell you what you already know (or would know if you had the relevant education).

Consciousness IS a behaviour in physics.

Why would it have to interact with the physical world? Not if it IS some aspect of the physical world.
To have an analogy. Colors doesn't really exist, they are just mental representations of wave lengths. It's like saying red has to interact with the wavelength it is represented by.
I'm trying to argue that consciousness itself could be represented by some aspect of the physical world, maybe electromagnetism, maybe a certain complex structure of electromagnetism, maybe all of physics, maybe some other quantum phenomena.

"Consciousness cannot challenge materialism; Materialism is demonstrably correct.
There are two kinds of people. Those who understand that materialism is proven, and those who are wrong."

I'm not taking a stance against materialism. I've been a materialist most of my life but I also have to give the devil his due. No one you meet can prove to you they are real. You can't prove you weren't created 1 second ago with all your memories of past experiences.
Even physicists like Lawrence Krauss admits this. And goes on to say it's highly unlikely. And I agree. Materialism is by 99% likely true. But the only thing that prevents it from being 100% likely is this argument that the only thing you really know is your own consciousness.
I know it's not pleasant to admit it. I can't know for a fact that the keyboard I'm typing on right now is there for real. I can feel it, but those sensations are just nerve impulses in my brain. There's a tiny probability I'm in an advanced VR game, a dream, tripping on an alien drug, etc.

Red DOES have to interact with the wavelength it is represented by. If it didn't, how would that wavelength produce that quale, but not green, or hairy?

And my own consciousness is all I know or ever can know. But as it contains a model of reality that is (by definition) identical in its behaviour to reality, it's real.

I think, therefore everything is.

There's no point is speculation about things that we know we can never experience.

The ability to formulate a question in no way renders that question meaningful, important, or valuable.

If everything was different than I imagine, it would all still be the same. So why should anyone give shit the first?

 

[veclock]

Red DOES have to interact with the wavelength it is represented by. If it didn't, how would that wavelength produce that quale, but not green, or hairy?

And my own consciousness is all I know or ever can know. But as it contains a model of reality that is (by definition) identical in its behaviour to reality, it's real.

I think, therefore everything is.

There's no point is speculation about things that we know we can never experience.

The ability to formulate a question in no way renders that question meaningful, important, or valuable.

If everything was different than I imagine, it would all still be the same. So why should anyone give shit the first?

The wavelength gives rise to red. Red does not give rise to the wavelength. That's the difference.

"But as it contains a model of reality that is (by definition) identical in its behaviour to reality, it's real."
No, it doesn't. When you dream, you experience worlds that feel as real as reality, but is not... or is it? When you trip on DMT or high doses of LSD, you experience realities that feel as real, or sometimes even more real, than reality.
These are aspects or consciousness that we have to deal with.

"I think, therefore everything is", would be a consciousness centered world view, right?

 

[untermensche]

Does consciousness need building blocks...? Can it be divided, merged, overlapped with others etc. My prediction is that with brain-to-computer tech, Neuralinks, brain to brain tech, we might begin to experiment with these questions.
If I remember correctly, split brain experiments already has some clues though?

Computers can help sometimes with some things.

But what is needed is insight.

I can build a complicated tree with a computer but that tree will not suddenly become conscious just by being complicated.

Consciousness shows the brain has incredible and durable control of information.

How does the brain control it's activity to the point it can create a durable consciousness?

How does activity move from here to there in the brain?

Where are the controls?

That's not necessarily true. A "philosophical zombie", a "mindless machine", could be programmed to react to external stimuli and avoid danger.
That's what a self driving car does. Evolution could equally well have given rise to philosophical zombies that does exactly what we and other animals does.
I would argue, that the existence of an inner experience of 'being something', must therefore be part of the universe in some fundamental way.

What would program this "zombie"?

If the zombie has controls and does not need a consciousness it is because something with a consciousness gave it those controls.

The zombie says nothing about a human living in the world surviving with it's wits.

 

[veclock]

Does consciousness need building blocks...? Can it be divided, merged, overlapped with others etc. My prediction is that with brain-to-computer tech, Neuralinks, brain to brain tech, we might begin to experiment with these questions.
If I remember correctly, split brain experiments already has some clues though?

Computers can help sometimes with some things.

But what is needed is insight.

I can build a complicated tree with a computer but that tree will not suddenly become conscious just by being complicated.

Consciousness shows the brain has incredible and durable control of information.

How does the brain control it's activity to the point it can create a durable consciousness?

How does activity move from here to there in the brain?

Where are the controls?

That's not necessarily true. A "philosophical zombie", a "mindless machine", could be programmed to react to external stimuli and avoid danger.
That's what a self driving car does. Evolution could equally well have given rise to philosophical zombies that does exactly what we and other animals does.
I would argue, that the existence of an inner experience of 'being something', must therefore be part of the universe in some fundamental way.

What would program this "zombie"?

If the zombie has controls and does not need a consciousness it is because something with a consciousness gave it those controls.

The zombie says nothing about a human living in the world surviving with it's wits.

So yeah you have insight of your own consciousness. If connecting a computer directly to your brain, letting your brain activity be connected with and read activity in the computer.
If your consciousness is expanded and lets you experience from inside the computer, then the experiment would teach us something very valuable about consciousness.

Evolution would still have programmed the zombie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

"If the zombie has controls and does not need a consciousness it is because something with a consciousness gave it those controls."
This claim does not make any sense to me.

Currently we can't prove insects or bacteria aren't philosophical zombies. They still have control. Would you really argue someone had to give them control? Then it sounds like you're a theist, which perhaps you are? I don't know, are you?

 

[bilby]

Red DOES have to interact with the wavelength it is represented by. If it didn't, how would that wavelength produce that quale, but not green, or hairy?

And my own consciousness is all I know or ever can know. But as it contains a model of reality that is (by definition) identical in its behaviour to reality, it's real.

I think, therefore everything is.

There's no point is speculation about things that we know we can never experience.

The ability to formulate a question in no way renders that question meaningful, important, or valuable.

If everything was different than I imagine, it would all still be the same. So why should anyone give shit the first?

The wavelength gives rise to red. Red does not give rise to the wavelength. That's the difference.

"But as it contains a model of reality that is (by definition) identical in its behaviour to reality, it's real."
No, it doesn't. When you dream, you experience worlds that feel as real as reality, but is not... or is it? When you trip on DMT or high doses of LSD, you experience realities that feel as real, or sometimes even more real, than reality.
These are aspects or consciousness that we have to deal with.

I see people saying that, but in my experience it's not true. My dreams aren't much like reality, and certainly couldn't be mistaken for it. Perhaps others have a different experience. I have never taken DMT or LSD, so I don't know what that's like.

"I think, therefore everything is", would be a consciousness centered world view, right?

I neither know nor care. Is it important or even useful to categorise it as such?

 

[untermensche]

So yeah you have insight of your own consciousness. If connecting a computer directly to your brain, letting your brain activity be connected with and read activity in the computer.
If your consciousness is expanded and lets you experience from inside the computer, then the experiment would teach us something very valuable about consciousness.

Evolution would still have programmed the zombie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

"If the zombie has controls and does not need a consciousness it is because something with a consciousness gave it those controls."
This claim does not make any sense to me.

Currently we can't prove insects or bacteria aren't philosophical zombies. They still have control. Would you really argue someone had to give them control? Then it sounds like you're a theist, which perhaps you are? I don't know, are you?

That's just a difference in understanding of terms.

I thought you meant a human constructed zombie as opposed to something that is the product of evolution. A human constructed zombie would have instructions for behavior designed by a human.

You walk into a room and that cockroach knows you are there is and it behaves defensively.

The brain is nothing but cells. Nothing but a bunch of zombies. Less than ants.

But consciousness, experience, for a human is knowing you are experiencing what you are experiencing.

A human is not a zombie and zombies won't survive as well as humans with minds or zombies would walk the Earth right now.

A mind is better than a lot of mindless instructions.

 

[veclock]

I see people saying that, but in my experience it's not true. My dreams aren't much like reality, and certainly couldn't be mistaken for it. Perhaps others have a different experience. I have never taken DMT or LSD, so I don't know what that's like.

"I think, therefore everything is", would be a consciousness centered world view, right?

I neither know nor care. Is it important or even useful to categorise it as such?

Well that's from person to person. Some people are good at lucid dreaming, some think it's real until they wake up.
But either way, even if your dreams aren't like reality and you know its not real, it goes against your original claim.

You said: "But as it contains a model of reality that is (by definition) identical in its behaviour to reality, it's real."
Your dream world is not real.

I have very weird dreams and think they are real until I wake up.
People with psychosis are another example.

I neither know nor care. Is it important or even useful to categorise it as such?
Since you claimed materialism were proven, then went on to say something that didn't sound like materialism at all, I was curios to know.

That's just a difference in understanding of terms.

I thought you meant a human constructed zombie as opposed to something that is the product of evolution. A human constructed zombie would have instructions for behavior designed by a human.

You walk into a room and that cockroach knows you are there is and it behaves defensively.

The brain is nothing but cells. Nothing but a bunch of zombies. Less than ants.

But consciousness, experience, for a human is knowing you are experiencing what you are experiencing.

A human is not a zombie and zombies won't survive as well as humans with minds or zombies would walk the Earth right now.

A mind is better than a lot of mindless instructions.

So when I say zombie I mean philosophical zombie as the article describes.

"zombies won't survive as well as humans with minds or zombies would walk the Earth right now"
Here's the issue. A human philosophical zombie would function EXACTLY the same as we do. They would process memories, external stimuli, sight, thoughts etc. They would just lack an inner experience of it all. They would not be conscious. They would still attend university, build cities, plan for the future. See the issue?

No human can prove to you they aren't a philosophical zombie. You can't prove to anyone else you aren't one, because you can't share your consciousness with anyone.

Now, this is equally a philosophical problem in the opposite way. We can't know individual cells are philosophical zombies. They might have microscopic consciousnesses. We can't know a self driving car is a philosophical zombie.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It sounds to me like, consciousness is mysterious, therefore we can apply it to anything and say it's conscious, without saying anything. Isn't it just to make the mundane seem more mysterious and cool?

I'm cool about that. But then just say that. Why the extra steps?

No... we might be able to test it, with brain-to-computer and with brain-to-brain technology.
Why would it be like saying nothing? It has huge existential implications.

It does? What are the implications?

 

[veclock]

It does? What are the implications?

If consciousness is a fundamental part of physics, then our consciousness might not go totally black after death. If we can share and overlap consciousness with others, it would create a feeling of union compared to today's individuals and separates minds. The whole universe would not only consist of physical laws... it would consist of physical laws and experience of it.

 

[untermensche]

Here's the issue. A human philosophical zombie would function EXACTLY the same as we do. They would process memories, external stimuli, sight, thoughts etc. They would just lack an inner experience of it all. They would not be conscious. They would still attend university, build cities, plan for the future. See the issue?

Who says they would function as we do?

We use our minds. We have minds shaped by a lifetime of experiences.

If it has no mind it must function through pre-ordained rules that it cannot escape from.

A memory is an experience.

A memory that is not experienced is nothing to a zombie. It is not a lesson, not a new instruction. It is information that cannot be used at all for anything.

I do not believe at all that something without a mind, without experience as we experience, could survive very long.

It would not even be a Mars rover.

It would not be able to deal with anything it was not specifically programmed to deal with. Unique situations would present problems over and over since there is no mechanism to learn.

No human can prove to you they aren't a philosophical zombie.

No human can prove to me they exist and are not just a figment of my mind.

But I know beyond doubt I am not a zombie.

I have thoughts and experiences and know I am having them.

I am that which experiences and knows it is experiencing. I don't just have experiences. I judge them as I have them with knowledge and opinions gained throughout my life.

That is a mind.

I assume I am not the center of all existence and assume the other people around me are like me in this regard.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It does? What are the implications?

If consciousness is a fundamental part of physics, then our consciousness might not go totally black after death. If we can share and overlap consciousness with others, it would create a feeling of union compared to today's individuals and separates minds. The whole universe would not only consist of physical laws... it would consist of physical laws and experience of it.

Sure, but that's a rediculous idea, on par with the world resting on the back of a turtle. Why even bother with formulating this hypothesis? While we may not understand what consciousness is for, we can fuck with it experimentally. I suggest reading the Ego Tunnel by Metzinger or Consciousness, a brief introduction by Susan Blackmore.

No matter what it is it's pretty clear that the consciousness is a product of the brain, and as such a brain, like ours, is required for something to have consciousness.

There may be other ways to be aware of ones surroundings and able to self reflect. But that would be a fundamentally different way of being conscious. That's why we talk about stuff like "embodied consciousness". If we'd remove the brain from the body, we'd essentially become another person. We're not our brains, and our consciousness isn't only a product of our brains. It's the result of a complicated interaction between all manner of neural activities. But we still don't know what it's for or the function it has to our brains.

Your statement is also self contradictory. If consciousness is a fundamental part of physics it would be part of our physical laws. If the world is dependent of our experience of it then it would be part of what we call physical laws.

I feel you're making the common religious mistake of positing God outside of the physical universe. Makes perfect sense on a powerpoint presentation. It looks great and is punchy. But ignores the fact that our bodies can only interact with physical laws. A God that acts outside our physical laws is as invisible as it is powerless. It's like trying to watch a movie behind an invisible three meters tall basketball player with a huge afro. It's not going to be a problem. You'll be able to see the movie just fine, just as if the basketball player wasn't there at all.

 

[veclock]

Here's the issue. A human philosophical zombie would function EXACTLY the same as we do. They would process memories, external stimuli, sight, thoughts etc. They would just lack an inner experience of it all. They would not be conscious. They would still attend university, build cities, plan for the future. See the issue?

Who says they would function as we do?

We use our minds. We have minds shaped by a lifetime of experiences.

If it has no mind it must function through pre-ordained rules that it cannot escape from.

A memory is an experience.

A memory that is not experienced is nothing to a zombie. It is not a lesson, not a new instruction. It is information that cannot be used at all for anything.

I do not believe at all that something without a mind, without experience as we experience, could survive very long.

It would not even be a Mars rover.

It would not be able to deal with anything it was not specifically programmed to deal with. Unique situations would present problems over and over since there is no mechanism to learn.

No human can prove to you they aren't a philosophical zombie.

No human can prove to me they exist and are not just a figment of my mind.

But I know beyond doubt I am not a zombie.

I have thoughts and experiences and know I am having them.

I am that which experiences and knows it is experiencing. I don't just have experiences. I judge them as I have them with knowledge and opinions gained throughout my life.

That is a mind.

I assume I am not the center of all existence and assume the other people around me are like me in this regard.

If physics leads to consciousness, but consciousness it self can't affect physics, then a human without consciousness would still behave like it does with a consciousness.

An artificial neural network inside a computer also uses its experience to react to input signals. Yet it can't escape its programming. We can't escape our programming either, yet we do have a consciousness.
An artificial neural network or even a classical computer program has memory it can use.

Wouldn't you agree that we are programmed by evolution? We have software in our minds that is activated by different stimuli and situations.

True, you know beyond doubt you're not a zombie. "I think, therefore I am". That's the only thing we know for sure.
We must assume that the outside world exists objectively and not just subjectively.

Sure, but that's a rediculous idea, on par with the world resting on the back of a turtle. Why even bother with formulating this hypothesis? While we may not understand what consciousness is for, we can fuck with it experimentally. I suggest reading the Ego Tunnel by Metzinger or Consciousness, a brief introduction by Susan Blackmore.

No matter what it is it's pretty clear that the consciousness is a product of the brain, and as such a brain, like ours, is required for something to have consciousness.

There may be other ways to be aware of ones surroundings and able to self reflect. But that would be a fundamentally different way of being conscious. That's why we talk about stuff like "embodied consciousness". If we'd remove the brain from the body, we'd essentially become another person. We're not our brains, and our consciousness isn't only a product of our brains. It's the result of a complicated interaction between all manner of neural activities. But we still don't know what it's for or the function it has to our brains.

Your statement is also self contradictory. If consciousness is a fundamental part of physics it would be part of our physical laws. If the world is dependent of our experience of it then it would be part of what we call physical laws.

I feel you're making the common religious mistake of positing God outside of the physical universe. Makes perfect sense on a powerpoint presentation. It looks great and is punchy. But ignores the fact that our bodies can only interact with physical laws. A God that acts outside our physical laws is as invisible as it is powerless. It's like trying to watch a movie behind an invisible three meters tall basketball player with a huge afro. It's not going to be a problem. You'll be able to see the movie just fine, just as if the basketball player wasn't there at all.

That would only be ridiculous if we would currently know what consciousness is. We don't, so it's not ridiculous at all.

Consciousness doesn't need to have a function at all. It could just be a side effect of our brain activity.
Just imagine the brain totally mechanistic, materialistic, deterministic by the laws of physics, all the behaviors leading from the activity. But also the "inner experience" is a result from the physics. The "inner experience" / consciousness wouldn't communicate back to the physics.

Your statement is also self contradictory. If consciousness is a fundamental part of physics it would be part of our physical laws. If the world is dependent of our experience of it then it would be part of what we call physical laws.
Where do I contradict myself? Yes, if consciousness for example is a complex form of electromagnetism, it is part of our physical laws. It would even be those laws. That doesn't mean the world is dependent on our experience.
You seem to argue or think that I'm arguing physics <---> consciousness. I'm arguing physics -> consciousness but also consciousness = physics.

Also, I'm not religious. This is a philosophical discussion. I only believe in the universe.

"I feel you're making the common religious mistake of positing God outside of the physical universe."
I think you've misunderstood the whole subject of this thread then. The whole discussion is about placing consciousness within the laws of physics, so much so as to find it on a quantum level.

 

[veclock]

Anyone who's interested in this philosophical problem should listen to this discussion between Sam Harris and David Chalmers.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reXicvNUS_s[/YOUTUBE]

I don't feel like people are really grasping the subject yet.
Maybe I'm just not explaining it good enough, but it should be very clear if you listen to this.

 

[Tharmas]

Hello there veclock. I’d just like to check in and affirm that I too am a pantheist. I realize that pantheism can be called “atheism lite,” and perhaps it is, but I have positive reasons for my beliefs.

That said, I do not accept panpsychism, for many of the reasons others have suggested. There are many things in nature we can not fully explain, but that does not free us to create un-evidenced suppositions willy-nilly.

So, I’m not going to make an argument, but am just casting a vote as it were.

 

[bilby]

It does? What are the implications?

If consciousness is a fundamental part of physics, then our consciousness might not go totally black after death. If we can share and overlap consciousness with others, it would create a feeling of union compared to today's individuals and separates minds. The whole universe would not only consist of physical laws... it would consist of physical laws and experience of it.

And there it is.

The entire 'hard problem' isn't really a problem at all - it's a refusal to grow up and accept that life after death isn't a thing.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of hugely complex systems. It's not really well understood, and may never be; But that's not a unique situation. Meteorological phenomena are also emergent, chaotic, and likely impossible to predict or model - any model must be more complex and/or slower than the system being modelled, so it's impossible to forecast exactly what will happen, despite that being completely deterministic. Still, nobody angsts all over the Internet about the "hard problem of tropical cyclones".

The centuries long dominance of theology in Western thought has led to this "problem"; But it's not "what is consciousness?", it's "how do we rescue the cherished but incoherent concept of life after death, now that gods and souls are demonstrably fictional?".

And the answer is "grow up".

We are all going to die, and when we do, our consciousness will stop. Too bad, so sad.

 

[veclock]

Hello there veclock. I’d just like to check in and affirm that I too am a pantheist. I realize that pantheism can be called “atheism lite,” and perhaps it is, but I have positive reasons for my beliefs.

That said, I do not accept panpsychism, for many of the reasons others have suggested. There are many things in nature we can not fully explain, but that does not free us to create un-evidenced suppositions willy-nilly.

So, I’m not going to make an argument, but am just casting a vote as it were.

Hi Tharmas, thanks for sharing! I myself prefer "sexed up atheism", as Richard Dawkins described pantheism.

I mean, it's hard to prove. Consciousness could be an emergent property of complex brain activity. And when you tune down the complexity, the activity, there's no trace of consciousness left. Completely gone. But there are issues with this stance also.

The entire 'hard problem' isn't really a problem at all - it's a refusal to grow up and accept that life after death isn't a thing.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of hugely complex systems. It's not really well understood, and may never be; But that's not a unique situation. Meteorological phenomena are also emergent, chaotic, and likely impossible to predict or model - any model must be more complex and/or slower than the system being modelled, so it's impossible to forecast exactly what will happen, despite that being completely deterministic. Still, nobody angsts all over the Internet about the "hard problem of tropical cyclones".

The centuries long dominance of theology in Western thought has led to this "problem"; But it's not "what is consciousness?", it's "how do we rescue the cherished but incoherent concept of life after death, now that gods and souls are demonstrably fictional?".

And the answer is "grow up".

We are all going to die, and when we do, our consciousness will stop. Too bad, so sad.

Oh come on. Why the disrespectful tone all of a sudden. You have no right what so ever calling someone a child for trying out a particular stance in a philosophical discussion.
If I'm gonna continue the discussion with you, I suggest you stay away from that attitude.

The hard problem has nothing to do with life after death at all either, where did you get that from?

Yeah, I think consciousness as an emergent phenomena is very likely. But as a metrological phenomena like a cloud or rainbow could be described as an emergent phenomena, we still can find its building blocks. We can find the water molecules making up the cloud even when it vanishes. We can find the light rays from individual water droplets refracting the sunlight, resulting in a rainbow. All I'm asking is, can we at some fundamental point find a quantum representation of consciousness. What is the building block resulting in consciousness as an emergent phenomena?

If you can't answer this then don't pretend it's a childish question. It's a serious fucking philosophical problem.

The centuries long dominance of theology in Western thought has led to this "problem"; But it's not "what is consciousness?", it's "how do we rescue the cherished but incoherent concept of life after death, now that gods and souls are demonstrably fictional?".

I have a background as a materialistic atheist. The hard problem of consciousness leads me to wonder about pantheism and panpsychism (or rather panprotopsychism). It's not an argument that comes from the fear of death.

 

[untermensche]

If physics leads to consciousness, but consciousness it self can't affect physics, then a human without consciousness would still behave like it does with a consciousness.

Consciousness arises out of "reality".

But what are we conscious of? The mind is not conscious of the apple on the table. It is conscious of the thing the brain creates to represent the apple within the visual experience. The mind is only conscious of things that exist in the a way a mind can experience them. The mind is not conscious of "reality".

One question is:

On what scale does experience take place? How big is the mind?

Just because the brain has cells does not mean experience is created on a scale a human can observe.

An artificial neural network inside a computer also uses its experience to react to input signals. Yet it can't escape its programming. We can't escape our programming either, yet we do have a consciousness.

We cannot say we have programming. We have inclinations. We have abilities that need experience to flourish.

Computers have programming.

What humans have is unknown. We have memory and cognitive skills and a language ability and drives and experience. All from cells.

Wouldn't you agree that we are programmed by evolution?

We have inclinations and abilities that need experience to flourish.

I do not know if programming is involved.

I do not know how it is done.

True, you know beyond doubt you're not a zombie. "I think, therefore I am". That's the only thing we know for sure.
We must assume that the outside world exists objectively and not just subjectively.

I experience therefore I am. Thoughts are just one experience.

You can try to survive pretending the representations of the world in your mind don't correspond to things in the world but you won't survive long.

 

[bilby]

Hello there veclock. I’d just like to check in and affirm that I too am a pantheist. I realize that pantheism can be called “atheism lite,” and perhaps it is, but I have positive reasons for my beliefs.

That said, I do not accept panpsychism, for many of the reasons others have suggested. There are many things in nature we can not fully explain, but that does not free us to create un-evidenced suppositions willy-nilly.

So, I’m not going to make an argument, but am just casting a vote as it were.

Hi Tharmas, thanks for sharing! I myself prefer "sexed up atheism", as Richard Dawkins described pantheism.

I mean, it's hard to prove. Consciousness could be an emergent property of complex brain activity. And when you tune down the complexity, the activity, there's no trace of consciousness left. Completely gone. But there are issues with this stance also.

The entire 'hard problem' isn't really a problem at all - it's a refusal to grow up and accept that life after death isn't a thing.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of hugely complex systems. It's not really well understood, and may never be; But that's not a unique situation. Meteorological phenomena are also emergent, chaotic, and likely impossible to predict or model - any model must be more complex and/or slower than the system being modelled, so it's impossible to forecast exactly what will happen, despite that being completely deterministic. Still, nobody angsts all over the Internet about the "hard problem of tropical cyclones".

The centuries long dominance of theology in Western thought has led to this "problem"; But it's not "what is consciousness?", it's "how do we rescue the cherished but incoherent concept of life after death, now that gods and souls are demonstrably fictional?".

And the answer is "grow up".

We are all going to die, and when we do, our consciousness will stop. Too bad, so sad.

Oh come on. Why the disrespectful tone all of a sudden. You have no right what so ever calling someone a child for trying out a particular stance in a philosophical discussion.

I am not calling 'someone' a child. I an calling theologians infantile.

If I'm gonna continue the discussion with you, I suggest you stay away from that attitude.

The hard problem has nothing to do with life after death at all either, where did you get that from?

But it does. The only reason it's considered a 'problem' at all is that theologians are promoting it as such, and they are doing so because they have a rather pathetic requirement for consciousness to survive the death of its host, if their ramblings are not to be exposed for the nonsense they are.

Yeah, I think consciousness as an emergent phenomena is very likely. But as a metrological phenomena like a cloud or rainbow could be described as an emergent phenomena, we still can find its building blocks. We can find the water molecules making up the cloud even when it vanishes. We can find the light rays from individual water droplets refracting the sunlight, resulting in a rainbow. All I'm asking is, can we at some fundamental point find a quantum representation of consciousness. What is the building block resulting in consciousness as an emergent phenomena?

If the building block of a cloud is the water droplet, then the building block of consciousness is the neuron. If you gather enough neurons together in the appropriate conditions, the result is consciousness.

If you can't answer this then don't pretend it's a childish question. It's a serious fucking philosophical problem.

The centuries long dominance of theology in Western thought has led to this "problem"; But it's not "what is consciousness?", it's "how do we rescue the cherished but incoherent concept of life after death, now that gods and souls are demonstrably fictional?".

I have a background as a materialistic atheist. The hard problem of consciousness leads me to wonder about pantheism and panpsychism (or rather panprotopsychism). It's not an argument that comes from the fear of death.

But the reason it's even widely considered by philosophers is that the churches are obsessed by it. Sure, that inspires others to also consider the question, but really, it's not as big a deal as philosophical tradition would have it. There really is a "hard problem of tropical cyclones", but philosophers leave it to the meteorologists. Perhaps they shouldn't.

 

[veclock]

Consciousness arises out of "reality".

But what are we conscious of? The mind is not conscious of the apple on the table. It is conscious of the thing the brain creates to represent the apple within the visual experience. The mind is only conscious of things that exist in the a way a mind can experience them. The mind is not conscious of "reality".

One question is:

On what scale does experience take place? How big is the mind?

Just because the brain has cells does not mean experience is created on a scale a human can observe.



We cannot say we have programming. We have inclinations. We have abilities that need experience to flourish.

Computers have programming.

What humans have is unknown. We have memory and cognitive skills and a language ability and drives and experience. All from cells.

Wouldn't you agree that we are programmed by evolution?

We have inclinations and abilities that need experience to flourish.

I do not know if programming is involved.

I do not know how it is done.

True, you know beyond doubt you're not a zombie. "I think, therefore I am". That's the only thing we know for sure.
We must assume that the outside world exists objectively and not just subjectively.

I experience therefore I am. Thoughts are just one experience.

You can try to survive pretending the representations of the world in your mind don't correspond to things in the world but you won't survive long.

Very true, we are only conscious of the mental representation that the brain creates.

And yes, that's a really good question, at what scale does experience take place... and one could think of other scales that consciousness could exist. For example, humans as neurons and the internet as the connections.
Or an ant nest, with ants as neurons and pheromones and ant-to-ant communication as connections. Or even a forest, science has shown all trees and fungi are connected and are communicating.

On the programming. We do have programming. Did you really have to learn that the smell of food should trigger hunger... Did you have to fall from a high place to be afraid of heights or be bitten by a spider to be afraid of them? Did you have to be attacked by something unknown in the dark to be afraid of the dark as a child? These are examples of preprogrammed instincts.

"I experience therefore I am."
Yes, that's a better way of putting it.

"You can try to survive pretending the representations of the world in your mind don't correspond to things in the world but you won't survive long."
This is true, but even a philosophical zombie would agree on that, yet lack an inner experience. A philosophical zombie would react to the outside world exactly the way we do it, yet lack an inner experience. So it would survive as well as humans with a conscious inner experience.

I am not calling 'someone' a child. I an calling theologians infantile.
But it does. The only reason it's considered a 'problem' at all is that theologians are promoting it as such, and they are doing so because they have a rather pathetic requirement for consciousness to survive the death of its host, if their ramblings are not to be exposed for the nonsense they are.

I'm not a theologian, and I would stand on your side in a debate against them. But the atheist-theist debate is many times like a war. That's why debating is such a non constructive tool.
I'm not debating here, I'm trying to co-philosophy together with you. I'm leaning towards the ideas I'm putting forward, but I'm not claiming I hold them as strong beliefs. Because I'm putting forward different alternative explanations at the same time, to see how well they hold up. If you leave the memories of all your atheist-theist debates aside, then perhaps you could consider having a more interesting discussion here with someone who is tackling these ideas from a different approach.

If the building block of a cloud is the water droplet, then the building block of consciousness is the neuron. If you gather enough neurons together in the appropriate conditions, the result is consciousness.

So this is interesting. (And I'm not arguing against you, but I see implications that leads from this)
What makes the neuron a building block for consciousness? What exactly? Is it the way it communicate with other neurons, is it some biology within the neuron?
Because I can create an artificial neuron in a computer that communicates with billions of other artificial neurons. Scientists are doing this all the time in Artificial Neural Networks. And the results seem like magic, for example out of numbers they can create photo realistic artificial faces. But are these artificial "brains" conscious? While they are doing their thing, are they having an inner experience of it? Because their neurons mimic our neurons, and they are interconnected in a very complex way. Maybe it's the flow of information in a specific way that leads to consciousness. Consciousness would then be made out of information and information would be a fundamental building block? If you'd say that this is only a simulation and it's not conscious, then we're back discussing the role of physics in consciousness, and maybe more specifically the role of electromagnetics instead of pure information. The computer is using electromagnetism though, so the question would bounce back to the computer yet again. But the neurons in the simulation is sending information to one another, not electrons. But furthermore, if the holographic principle of physics is true, namely that we only exist as pure information as the edge of the universe, then we don't have much choice of considering the "information theory" of consciousness. But what implications does that have? Any self interacting system is sending information.

Another question that I must pose if the neuron is the building block of consciousness. Could a brain be a building block for a higher consciousness?
Because, an ants nest is far more intelligent and aware than a single ant. Could the ants nest also be more conscious? An ants brain is quite small and primitive, it's hard to know what its inner experience is like.
So if the ant is like a neuron and the ants nest is like a brain, could you imagine that this system is conscious? Because fundamentally, this system has the same building blocks as we were talking about, namely the neurons.
And it's interconnected with ant-to-ant communication with pheromones and such. If you'd say that they would need to be interconnected with direct impulses then we would be back at discussing the role of electromagnetism as a fundamental part of consciousness.

These two examples can lead us to new interesting routes of the problem, but it can also very easily lead us back to electromagnetism. Let's see where it takes us!

But the reason it's even widely considered by philosophers is that the churches are obsessed by it. Sure, that inspires others to also consider the question, but really, it's not as big a deal as philosophical tradition would have it. There really is a "hard problem of tropical cyclones", but philosophers leave it to the meteorologists. Perhaps they shouldn't.

There are probably aspects of chaos theory that is philosophers still think about. But consciousness is such a different problem that its hard to compare it to anything.

 

[untermensche]

Very true, we are only conscious of the mental representation that the brain creates.

That is why I don't believe there is any "easy" problem of consciousness.

Nothing about it is easy.

Experience is both the creation of some "thing that can experience" a subject, but not only experience but experience with opinions and the triggering of memories and emotions which are also experienced as the experience happens, and experience is also all the things this "thing that can experience" can experience.

I reject the idea that the brain has any idea what the "mind" is experiencing.

The brain has reflexes and controls of some kind but it does not have a separate mind from the mind that is the subjective individual.

Only the subjective individual experiences the white horse.

The brain has no idea it is there.

Just like the gene has no idea what protein it leads to the brain has no idea what the mind it creates is experiencing.

For example, humans as neurons and the internet as the connections.

That is simply human cultural evolution. It is nothing new.

Me talking to somebody is nothing new just because I can talk to strangers on line.

Human cultural evolution is what sets humans apart from all other animals.

We each have been incredibly helped by the rare geniuses that arose because their knowledge has become our knowledge.

On the programming. We do have programming. Did you really have to learn that the smell of food should trigger hunger...

You're looking at the end result, a drive to eat, and thinking you know how it arises.

You say it arises because of programming.

I have no idea if that is how it arises. I have no idea how anything about subjective experience arises.

It is a completely unknown phenomena.

A philosophical zombie would react to the outside world exactly the way we do it, yet lack an inner experience.

I don't think they would.

We have these internal experiences because that is a trait that enabled survival.

Impossible to know how something without these internal experiences would do.

You claiming they would survive just fine is not data and I don't accept it.