Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.

One of the confusing features of the puzzle is that the brain, which senses
the body and the external environment, is imperceptible to itself. There are at
least two reasons for this; one is that the brain does not have to be sensitive
because it is well protected by the hardness of the skull and by the sensitivity
provided by the hair and scalp. The second reason is that the brain, as the last
member of the sensory chain, must be itself insensitive to avoid the infinite
regress implied in sensing the sensors that sense the brain sensors and so on

https://rcweb.dartmouth.edu/CANlab/brai ... er.pdf_%3B

The above is a physicalist (materialist )explanation, and that is okay for the panpsychist, as panpsychism overarches physicalism(materialism) as does idealism(immaterialism).

[Pattern-chaser]

Qualia is generated by brains.

I do not dispute this. I have no grounds on which to dispute this. But I think this is one of those problems centred on 'abstract distance'.

For example, we can say that Microsoft Word - the computer program itself - is a collection of bytes. This is true enough. We can also comment on Word as a sophisticated manipulator of literary documents, and that is true too. But when we try to merge those two correct observations, we run into difficulties. Those difficulties are down to an enormous abstract chasm between a collection of bytes, and the text-processing abilities it seems to confer. The abstract difference is just too wide for us to bridge.

Thus I find it not-useful - but not wrong! - to link qualia to brains directly. The abstract gap is just too wide to be useful to us humans.

How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Exactly.

How to go from bytes to data entry seems more straightforward. It is just a sequence of translations as the information is passed through various media. So the letter "T" is depressed, corresponding with binary 1010100. So a switch sends that byte to places that you would know much better than me. So, computers process information like very simple versions of brains, but the missing element is qualia.

Actually, that letter "T" is often represented in Unicode, not ASCII, and may also have other formatting applied - font, colour, bold/italic, and so on. And even that is still quite far from the abstract peak of what I am talking about. At that peak, Word is a tool used by literary creative artistes. It is used to imbue their writing with ... I don't know, because (sadly) I am not a talented writer. We aren't talking about the technical details of how Word works, but about how language works, and the artistic purposes to which Word is put. The contrast here is between a bucket of bytes and textual art, and the gap is too wide to jump, I think.

As you say, none of this (directly) addresses qualia.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg wrote:

Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.

One of the confusing features of the puzzle is that the brain, which senses
the body and the external environment, is imperceptible to itself. There are at
least two reasons for this; one is that the brain does not have to be sensitive
because it is well protected by the hardness of the skull and by the sensitivity
provided by the hair and scalp. The second reason is that the brain, as the last
member of the sensory chain, must be itself insensitive to avoid the infinite
regress implied in sensing the sensors that sense the brain sensors and so on

https://rcweb.dartmouth.edu/CANlab/brai ... er.pdf_%3B

The above is a physicalist (materialist )explanation, and that is okay for the panpsychist, as panpsychism overarches physicalism(materialism) as does idealism(immaterialism).

Our organs generally aren't known for their senses, although they tend to have many neurons and ganglia. Still, if they are injured, they can become painful. What of the brain? Headaches occur when the fluid builds up and puts pressure on the brain. I don't know the processes, though.

[Sy Borg]

Qualia is generated by brains.

I do not dispute this. I have no grounds on which to dispute this. But I think this is one of those problems centred on 'abstract distance'.

For example, we can say that Microsoft Word - the computer program itself - is a collection of bytes. This is true enough. We can also comment on Word as a sophisticated manipulator of literary documents, and that is true too. But when we try to merge those two correct observations, we run into difficulties. Those difficulties are down to an enormous abstract chasm between a collection of bytes, and the text-processing abilities it seems to confer. The abstract difference is just too wide for us to bridge.

Thus I find it not-useful - but not wrong! - to link qualia to brains directly. The abstract gap is just too wide to be useful to us humans.

How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Exactly. 👍

How to go from bytes to data entry seems more straightforward. It is just a sequence of translations as the information is passed through various media. So the letter "T" is depressed, corresponding with binary 1010100. So a switch sends that byte to places that you would know much better than me. So, computers process information like very simple versions of brains, but the missing element is qualia.

Actually, that letter "T" is often represented in Unicode, not ASCII, and may also have other formatting applied - font, colour, bold/italic, and so on. And even that is still quite far from the abstract peak of what I am talking about. At that peak, Word is a tool used by literary creative artistes. It is used to imbue their writing with ... I don't know, because (sadly) I am not a talented writer. We aren't talking about the technical details of how Word works, but about how language works, and the artistic purposes to which Word is put. The contrast here is between a bucket of bytes and textual art, and the gap is too wide to jump, I think.

As you say, none of this (directly) addresses qualia. 👍

I stopped at "T" because at that point is is acting as an extension of consciousness, but the machine's processes are not ostensibly conscious. By my reckoning, the art could be produced via a range of media and is thus, not dependent on those machine processes. If we work backwards from the moment of data entry, there is a hand and finger movement. I'm sketchy on the anatomical details but the general gist is that, once we formulate a task like typing a reply, the signal is translated from the brain, down to the motor neurons and then the ligaments and muscles. This echoes computer processes (actually, vice versa), where each stage translates the original message.

The more seamless the connection between human and PC - between mind and data entry - the closer we come to realising what looks to be our likely destiny in the medium-term - cyborgism.

AI may act as an extra primary layer of being rather than just an addition to the brain. Consider how brains evolved. First it was just some ion channels or ganglia. Nervous systems become ever more capable and complex. Brains then improved the functionality again. In humans, brains have evolved to the point where it, rather than the metabolic organs, is now the body's primary organ. In a sense, brains usurped stomachs, relegating them to basic functions.

Similarly, AI can be expected to develop to the point that it controls all of the higher mental functions, relegating brains to their original role of caring for the metabolism.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.

One of the confusing features of the puzzle is that the brain, which senses
the body and the external environment, is imperceptible to itself. There are at
least two reasons for this; one is that the brain does not have to be sensitive
because it is well protected by the hardness of the skull and by the sensitivity
provided by the hair and scalp. The second reason is that the brain, as the last
member of the sensory chain, must be itself insensitive to avoid the infinite
regress implied in sensing the sensors that sense the brain sensors and so on

https://rcweb.dartmouth.edu/CANlab/brai ... er.pdf_%3B

The above is a physicalist (materialist )explanation, and that is okay for the panpsychist, as panpsychism overarches physicalism(materialism) as does idealism(immaterialism).

Our organs generally aren't known for their senses, although they tend to have many neurons and ganglia. Still, if they are injured, they can become painful. What of the brain? Headaches occur when the fluid builds up and puts pressure on the brain. I don't know the processes, though.

Headaches are not sore brains they are sore scalp muscles, or maybe sore dura.

[Pattern-chaser]

I stopped at "T" because at that point is is acting as an extension of consciousness, but the machine's processes are not ostensibly conscious.
...

Yes, but this doesn't address my point. I know you already get it, so maybe that doesn't matter. See here:

How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Exactly. You get it. We can't go from the most primitive of details to the most abstract of concepts in one mental leap. The abyss is far too wide.

[Consul]

We can say that being Self Aware is being aware of our Conscious Minds. However, the Conscious Mind is not a Conscious Experience, but rather the Conscious Mind is the Thing that Experiences the Conscious Experiences.

Then the mind is a (material or immaterial) substance and a subject of mental properties or states, such that (as I said) there is a real distinction between the experiencer and its experiences (experiencings).

The upshot of all this is that, since we cannot Experience the Conscious Mind as an Experience, we cannot really be Self Aware. We can only be Aware of our Experiences. I remember the first time I tried to experiment with Self Awareness. I concentrated real hard and was thinking: There it is, I got it. But I quickly realized that I was just being aware of some muscle tensions in my forehead and eyes. I eventually came to the conclusion that it was not possible to be Self Aware. Sure, we can conceptually speculate about a Conscious Self, but I don't think we can be Aware of the actual Conscious Self Thing. For now, with the state of our understanding being what it is, we should just say that it is the unobservable Observer. But thinking about this further we realize that without Experience the Observer is nothing. We can ask the question: Does an Observer actually even exist? If the Observer is nothing without Conscious Experience, then we can conclude that the Observer is the Conscious Experience, and we are that Conscious Experience. The limit of this is that we realize there is no Observer, but only the Experiences. But we most certainly ARE the Experiences even if there is an Observer because this is all generated inside our Minds.

The subject becomes aware of itself by perceiving itself through its experiences. I think subjects are material objects, so by "being aware of some muscle tensions in [your] forehead and eyes", you are aware of (a part of) yourself as a corporeal subject.

[Consul]

How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Exactly.

Having certain patterns of neuroelectrical spike trains or waves instantiated in one's brain means "being immersed in a broad suite of sensations"!

[Sy Borg]

How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Exactly. 👍

Having certain patterns of neuroelectrical spike trains or waves instantiated in one's brain means "being immersed in a broad suite of sensations"!

This is the most popular viewpoint at this stage. I am not convinced. There is no analogy for the generation of conscious experience, unless one embraces soft panpsychism. That is, if we consider a computer's processing to be proto-conscious or minimally conscious, then the claim that neuron activity is conscious experience. If anything, that claim seems akin to saying that burning fuel is the same as driving to the shops.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg wrote:

Qualia is generated by brains. Personally, I think the mechanisms would have been found by now, given the depth of brain studies. Still, you never know.

One of the confusing features of the puzzle is that the brain, which senses
the body and the external environment, is imperceptible to itself. There are at
least two reasons for this; one is that the brain does not have to be sensitive
because it is well protected by the hardness of the skull and by the sensitivity
provided by the hair and scalp. The second reason is that the brain, as the last
member of the sensory chain, must be itself insensitive to avoid the infinite
regress implied in sensing the sensors that sense the brain sensors and so on

https://rcweb.dartmouth.edu/CANlab/brai ... er.pdf_%3B

The above is a physicalist (materialist )explanation, and that is okay for the panpsychist, as panpsychism overarches physicalism(materialism) as does idealism(immaterialism).

Our organs generally aren't known for their senses, although they tend to have many neurons and ganglia. Still, if they are injured, they can become painful. What of the brain? Headaches occur when the fluid builds up and puts pressure on the brain. I don't know the processes, though.

Headaches are not sore brains they are sore scalp muscles, or maybe sore dura.

Wouldn't that also be the case for heart and lung pain? There is an intrinsic pain from loss of functionality - weakness when the heart is injured, from the heart, a sense of suffocation when lungs are injured, and confusion and emotional discord when brains are injured. These would seem a more basic type of pain, a more "inner" pain than most other types.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:





https://rcweb.dartmouth.edu/CANlab/brai ... er.pdf_%3B

The above is a physicalist (materialist )explanation, and that is okay for the panpsychist, as panpsychism overarches physicalism(materialism) as does idealism(immaterialism).

Our organs generally aren't known for their senses, although they tend to have many neurons and ganglia. Still, if they are injured, they can become painful. What of the brain? Headaches occur when the fluid builds up and puts pressure on the brain. I don't know the processes, though.

Headaches are not sore brains they are sore scalp muscles, or maybe sore dura.

Wouldn't that also be the case for heart and lung pain? There is an intrinsic pain from loss of functionality - weakness when the heart is injured, from the heart, a sense of suffocation when lungs are injured, and confusion and emotional discord when brains are injured. These would seem a more basic type of pain, a more "inner" pain than most other types.

I don't remember much of anatomy but I think whether or not an organ can be sore depends on whether or not it's supplied with feed-back nerves to the central system
of nerves (mainly the brain).

If you block the feedback nerves locally you have local anaesthesia or a surgical intervention. Brains don't need feedback nerves to cerebral centres as they are well protected by skull and dura. I daresay brains would need feedback nerves if brains were external as are the roots of trees. I suppose there must exist diagrams of all this and I may look for them. Unless someone else already knows of such diagrams?

[stevie]

... I will stipulate that the theory must address Conscious Experience and not just talk about some vague generalized Consciousness concept. I will state that there actually is no such thing as just Consciousness. It is always some kind of Conscious Experience. ...

That appears to be a reasonable approach because I am conditioned by the view that there is no consciousness without object ("object" = that which is experienced). That implies that consciousness is necessarily dualistic because where there is an object there necessarily is a subject and that the experience of self and experience of 'other than self' always arise together although not necessarily equally clear.
However being committed to scientific evidence I have to admit that what I've just said of course isn't supported by science but is only an expression of an arbitrary philosophical view which I am inclined to due to earlier conditioning not because I believe it to be true ... which leads me to conclude that due to the current state of neuroscience the topic of this thread necessarily is a quagmire of speculations and maybe the best is to not get further involved in it.

[Pattern-chaser]

How to go from dynamic electrical patterns to being immersed in a broad suite of sensations?

Exactly.

Having certain patterns of neuroelectrical spike trains or waves instantiated in one's brain means "being immersed in a broad suite of sensations"!

Yes, and yet the abstract distance between the two things you describe - neuro-waves and "a broad suite of sensations" - remains too huge for a human brain to cross in one jump. I do not dispute the truth of what you say, but only the accessibility of its meaning and the ramifications thereof.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't remember much of anatomy but I think whether or not an organ can be sore depends on whether or not it's supplied with feed-back nerves to the central system of nerves (mainly the brain).

If you block the feedback nerves locally you have local anaesthesia or a surgical intervention

...or MS, as I have.

Brains don't need feedback nerves to cerebral centres as they are well protected by skull and dura. I daresay brains would need feedback nerves if brains were external as are the roots of trees. I suppose there must exist diagrams of all this and I may look for them. Unless someone else already knows of such diagrams?

The central nervous system is divided into sensory and motor nerves. They have even invented the compound word 'sensorimotor' for when we wish to talk of both at the same time. The 'feedback' nerves you refer to are the sensory nerves.

[SteveKlinko]

We can say that being Self Aware is being aware of our Conscious Minds. However, the Conscious Mind is not a Conscious Experience, but rather the Conscious Mind is the Thing that Experiences the Conscious Experiences.

Then the mind is a (material or immaterial) substance and a subject of mental properties or states, such that (as I said) there is a real distinction between the experiencer and its experiences (experiencings).

The upshot of all this is that, since we cannot Experience the Conscious Mind as an Experience, we cannot really be Self Aware. We can only be Aware of our Experiences. I remember the first time I tried to experiment with Self Awareness. I concentrated real hard and was thinking: There it is, I got it. But I quickly realized that I was just being aware of some muscle tensions in my forehead and eyes. I eventually came to the conclusion that it was not possible to be Self Aware. Sure, we can conceptually speculate about a Conscious Self, but I don't think we can be Aware of the actual Conscious Self Thing. For now, with the state of our understanding being what it is, we should just say that it is the unobservable Observer. But thinking about this further we realize that without Experience the Observer is nothing. We can ask the question: Does an Observer actually even exist? If the Observer is nothing without Conscious Experience, then we can conclude that the Observer is the Conscious Experience, and we are that Conscious Experience. The limit of this is that we realize there is no Observer, but only the Experiences. But we most certainly ARE the Experiences even if there is an Observer because this is all generated inside our Minds.

The subject becomes aware of itself by perceiving itself through its experiences. I think subjects are material objects, so by "being aware of some muscle tensions in [your] forehead and eyes", you are aware of (a part of) yourself as a corporeal subject.

Of course I am aware of my Physical Body. But I am trying to be aware of my Conscious Self, the thing that is not a Physical Body but yet is part of what I am.