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

[SteveKlinko]

QUOTE>
"Was also in der inneren Wahrnehmung als Vorstellung, Gefühl, Gedanke von bestimmtem Gehalt und bestimmter Färbung auftritt, das würde, wenn wir uns in demselben Moment zugleich als organischen Körper und in unserer physischen Structur vollkommen durchsichtig vor Augen haben könnten, als eine Coordination molarer und molecularer Bewegungen der Centraltheile in Nervenzellen und Nervenfasern entgegentreten und umgekehrt."
———
"So what appears in inner perception as an image, feeling, or thought with a certain content and a certain tone, that would, if we could view ourselves in the same moment perfectly transparently both as an organic body and in our physical structure, be encountered as a coordination of molar and molecular motions of the central parts in nerve cells and nerve fibers, and vice versa."
[© my transl. from German]

(Jodl, Friedrich. Lehrbuch der Psychologie. [Textbook of Psychology.] Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1896. p. 57)
<QUOTE

But what is Conscious Redness?

[Atla]

Time won't turn the hard problem into a scientific problem. Never was never will be.

I disagree. Science is just about explaining the World. Conscious Experience exists in the World so Science must ultimately Explain it. There is no reason why Conscious Space cannot eventually be a standard understandable component of Science. As long as there is a Hard Problem, Science will be incomplete.

Yes science can address things that exist "in" the world, and the one exception to that is conscious experience. Something can't exist "in" itself.

Don't quite get: Something can't exist "in" itself.

Conscious experience doesn't exist "in" the world, it is the world. How do you find the world using parts of the world (science)?

[Sy Borg]

We all have opinions, but bouncing them off each other just leads us further into assertion and further from facts, such as:

1. Changes to the brain profoundly influence the nature of consciousness. Certainly the quality of consciousness that humans value depends on the brain.

2. However, the hard problem remains unsolved. Some believe that qualia is an epistemic error rather than an ontic phenomenon, despite there being no evidence to back up that claim. Others think conscious experience - that which we value more than anything - cannot be so easily dismissed as illusory.

3. At this stage, the lion's share of research into the hard problem and related issues is in neuroscience. Given that neurological diseases cost the better part of a trillion dollars annually in just the US, it's understandable that many, many billions would go into that field rather than explore more esoteric ideas.

With these basics re-established, we can expect a brain-centric bias in consciousness studies, and for the focus to always be on higher functions rather than experience itself. Thus, at this stage, all pundits are guessing. No one knows. More evidence is needed.

I hold hope that research into the basic sense of being - rather than just human-centric higher brain functions - will be increasingly funded as AI units work their way out of the uncanny valley and start to sow doubts as to their sentience.

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

Yes, for them, the brain would be seen as the most sensitive receiver of general consciousness and shaped by that brain into individual consciousness.

It does seem to me that all consciousness is largely the same. For example, when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

The idea of consciousness as a (fifth?) force is intriguing, if an option taken less seriously than most. The fact that physics cannot explain everything points to limitations in current physical theories and suggests that reality may not be entirely physical, as we understand physicality.

[detail]

The problem is , that consciousness of ones own mind is some sort of computer thread but this thread is not always continous ( for example a knockout during boxing) and can for ones own viewport contain some sort of jumps. Everybody had perhaps sometimes
the feeling that reality became for your own personal feeling totally different. For example a language course in spanish can have the
effect , that you are feeling somhow more in spain although you are quite far away from this county and your location is in germany.
Humans have no simple model for ones own consciousness, like very primitive instinct based animals.

[Belindi]

We all have opinions, but bouncing them off each other just leads us further into assertion and further from facts, such as:

1. Changes to the brain profoundly influence the nature of consciousness. Certainly the quality of consciousness that humans value depends on the brain.

2. However, the hard problem remains unsolved. Some believe that qualia is an epistemic error rather than an ontic phenomenon, despite there being no evidence to back up that claim. Others think conscious experience - that which we value more than anything - cannot be so easily dismissed as illusory.

3. At this stage, the lion's share of research into the hard problem and related issues is in neuroscience. Given that neurological diseases cost the better part of a trillion dollars annually in just the US, it's understandable that many, many billions would go into that field rather than explore more esoteric ideas.

With these basics re-established, we can expect a brain-centric bias in consciousness studies, and for the focus to always be on higher functions rather than experience itself. Thus, at this stage, all pundits are guessing. No one knows. More evidence is needed.

I hold hope that research into the basic sense of being - rather than just human-centric higher brain functions - will be increasingly funded as AI units work their way out of the uncanny valley and start to sow doubts as to their sentience.

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

Yes, for them, the brain would be seen as the most sensitive receiver of general consciousness and shaped by that brain into individual consciousness.

It does seem to me that all consciousness is largely the same. For example, when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

The idea of consciousness as a (fifth?) force is intriguing, if an option taken less seriously than most. The fact that physics cannot explain everything points to limitations in current physical theories and suggests that reality may not be entirely physical, as we understand physicality.

Physical reality, which includes that the physical (let's say the brain) generates the mental, is true as far as it goes. Physical reality which is a powerful generic idea is one of many ideas. Ideas are the origin of physical reality like ideas are the origin also of moral reality, and aesthetic reality.


Sy Borg wrote:

when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

My sympathy does not extend to supernovas but confines itself to living creatures. By heart and soul I agree about dogs. Small furries and birds too, and to an extent trees and small growing things. I read that snails and slugs are now admitted into the church of human kindness and I understand how they too are necessary to life on Earth. Each individual struggles to stay alive. Do you know Burns's poem 'To a Mouse' ?

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/ ... 222ab36e33

[SteveKlinko]

I disagree. Science is just about explaining the World. Conscious Experience exists in the World so Science must ultimately Explain it. There is no reason why Conscious Space cannot eventually be a standard understandable component of Science. As long as there is a Hard Problem, Science will be incomplete.

Yes science can address things that exist "in" the world, and the one exception to that is conscious experience. Something can't exist "in" itself.

Don't quite get: Something can't exist "in" itself.

Conscious experience doesn't exist "in" the world, it is the world. How do you find the world using parts of the world (science)?

What do you mean Conscious Experience IS the World? It is just a Speculation with a little Semantic Acrobatics thrown in.

[SteveKlinko]

We all have opinions, but bouncing them off each other just leads us further into assertion and further from facts, such as:

1. Changes to the brain profoundly influence the nature of consciousness. Certainly the quality of consciousness that humans value depends on the brain.

2. However, the hard problem remains unsolved. Some believe that qualia is an epistemic error rather than an ontic phenomenon, despite there being no evidence to back up that claim. Others think conscious experience - that which we value more than anything - cannot be so easily dismissed as illusory.

3. At this stage, the lion's share of research into the hard problem and related issues is in neuroscience. Given that neurological diseases cost the better part of a trillion dollars annually in just the US, it's understandable that many, many billions would go into that field rather than explore more esoteric ideas.

With these basics re-established, we can expect a brain-centric bias in consciousness studies, and for the focus to always be on higher functions rather than experience itself. Thus, at this stage, all pundits are guessing. No one knows. More evidence is needed.

I hold hope that research into the basic sense of being - rather than just human-centric higher brain functions - will be increasingly funded as AI units work their way out of the uncanny valley and start to sow doubts as to their sentience.

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

Yes, for them, the brain would be seen as the most sensitive receiver of general consciousness and shaped by that brain into individual consciousness.

It does seem to me that all consciousness is largely the same. For example, when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

The idea of consciousness as a (fifth?) force is intriguing, if an option taken less seriously than most. The fact that physics cannot explain everything points to limitations in current physical theories and suggests that reality may not be entirely physical, as we understand physicality.

I agree that Reality may not be entirely Physical, but I don't see Consciousness as being a fifth Force. First, I doubt there is any such thing as general Consciousness. There are only Conscious Experiences. There would have to be many new Forces in that case. One force for each type of Sensory Experience. Redness is certainly very different from Sound and Taste. How could all three of these be only one Force? Consciousness doesn't seem like a Force, rather it seems like something completely different from anything Science deals with at this time.

[Consul]

"To find Redness in the Neurons" is certainly not to find red neurons, but to find the nonred neural elements of redness that collectively constitute it (as we experience it).

So then some Magical Collective of Neurons constitutes Redness. How?

By virtue of some specific form of their connectivity. (I know this is still an imprecise general answer.)

"Brain connectivity refers to a pattern of anatomical links ("anatomical connectivity"), of statistical dependencies ("functional connectivity") or of causal interactions ("effective connectivity") between distinct units within a nervous system. The units correspond to individual neurons, neuronal populations, or anatomically segregated brain regions. The connectivity pattern is formed by structural links such as synapses or fiber pathways, or it represents statistical or causal relationships measured as cross-correlations, coherence, or information flow. Neural activity, and by extension neural codes, are constrained by connectivity. Brain connectivity is thus crucial to elucidating how neurons and neural networks process information."

Source: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Brain_connectivity

[Atla]

Yes science can address things that exist "in" the world, and the one exception to that is conscious experience. Something can't exist "in" itself.

Don't quite get: Something can't exist "in" itself.

Conscious experience doesn't exist "in" the world, it is the world. How do you find the world using parts of the world (science)?

What do you mean Conscious Experience IS the World? It is just a Speculation with a little Semantic Acrobatics thrown in.

It's a fact, anything else is speculation. You call this fact a speculation and treat your own ridiculous speculation as almost a fact.

[Sy Borg]

We all have opinions, but bouncing them off each other just leads us further into assertion and further from facts, such as:

1. Changes to the brain profoundly influence the nature of consciousness. Certainly the quality of consciousness that humans value depends on the brain.

2. However, the hard problem remains unsolved. Some believe that qualia is an epistemic error rather than an ontic phenomenon, despite there being no evidence to back up that claim. Others think conscious experience - that which we value more than anything - cannot be so easily dismissed as illusory.

3. At this stage, the lion's share of research into the hard problem and related issues is in neuroscience. Given that neurological diseases cost the better part of a trillion dollars annually in just the US, it's understandable that many, many billions would go into that field rather than explore more esoteric ideas.

With these basics re-established, we can expect a brain-centric bias in consciousness studies, and for the focus to always be on higher functions rather than experience itself. Thus, at this stage, all pundits are guessing. No one knows. More evidence is needed.

I hold hope that research into the basic sense of being - rather than just human-centric higher brain functions - will be increasingly funded as AI units work their way out of the uncanny valley and start to sow doubts as to their sentience.

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

Yes, for them, the brain would be seen as the most sensitive receiver of general consciousness and shaped by that brain into individual consciousness.

It does seem to me that all consciousness is largely the same. For example, when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

The idea of consciousness as a (fifth?) force is intriguing, if an option taken less seriously than most. The fact that physics cannot explain everything points to limitations in current physical theories and suggests that reality may not be entirely physical, as we understand physicality.

Physical reality, which includes that the physical (let's say the brain) generates the mental, is true as far as it goes. Physical reality which is a powerful generic idea is one of many ideas. Ideas are the origin of physical reality like ideas are the origin also of moral reality, and aesthetic reality.

Yet we can have no idea of a piano about to fall on our head from the first storey.

This has always been the issue for idealism. While we mentally create our reality, it's a kind of messy, somewhat amorphous, but still substantial, outside reality that our senses tidy up to be our functional human sense of what is. A sculptor may start with a large rock, and then trim almost all of it off until they arrive at a useful form.

when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

My sympathy does not extend to supernovas but confines itself to living creatures. By heart and soul I agree about dogs. Small furries and birds too, and to an extent trees and small growing things. I read that snails and slugs are now admitted into the church of human kindness and I understand how they too are necessary to life on Earth. Each individual struggles to stay alive. Do you know Burns's poem 'To a Mouse' ?

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/ ... 222ab36e33

I did not mean that I empathise with supernovas (although Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison may have done towards the end of their short, larger-than-life and explosive lives). My point was that all type 1A supernovas are the same intensity because the explosion always occurs at the same mass threshold.

It was a suboptimal analogy, sorry. Consider that all electrons are the same, and this is why some scientists have proposed that there are no individual electrons, rather manifestations in a universal electron field. Perhaps a tidier analogy.

Burns's language is alien to me at times, but he recognises the kinship that naturally exists between all of us Earth life forms. I suspect that some people would only stop objectifying other animals if we encountered hostile aliens with invasive wildlife. Pretty soon we'd be full of love for our fellow Earthlings.

It is one of the more frustrating ironies of life that nothing seems to bring us together like a common enemy.

[Sy Borg]

We all have opinions, but bouncing them off each other just leads us further into assertion and further from facts, such as:

1. Changes to the brain profoundly influence the nature of consciousness. Certainly the quality of consciousness that humans value depends on the brain.

2. However, the hard problem remains unsolved. Some believe that qualia is an epistemic error rather than an ontic phenomenon, despite there being no evidence to back up that claim. Others think conscious experience - that which we value more than anything - cannot be so easily dismissed as illusory.

3. At this stage, the lion's share of research into the hard problem and related issues is in neuroscience. Given that neurological diseases cost the better part of a trillion dollars annually in just the US, it's understandable that many, many billions would go into that field rather than explore more esoteric ideas.

With these basics re-established, we can expect a brain-centric bias in consciousness studies, and for the focus to always be on higher functions rather than experience itself. Thus, at this stage, all pundits are guessing. No one knows. More evidence is needed.

I hold hope that research into the basic sense of being - rather than just human-centric higher brain functions - will be increasingly funded as AI units work their way out of the uncanny valley and start to sow doubts as to their sentience.

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

Yes, for them, the brain would be seen as the most sensitive receiver of general consciousness and shaped by that brain into individual consciousness.

It does seem to me that all consciousness is largely the same. For example, when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

The idea of consciousness as a (fifth?) force is intriguing, if an option taken less seriously than most. The fact that physics cannot explain everything points to limitations in current physical theories and suggests that reality may not be entirely physical, as we understand physicality.

I agree that Reality may not be entirely Physical, but I don't see Consciousness as being a fifth Force. First, I doubt there is any such thing as general Consciousness. There are only Conscious Experiences. There would have to be many new Forces in that case. One force for each type of Sensory Experience. Redness is certainly very different from Sound and Taste. How could all three of these be only one Force? Consciousness doesn't seem like a Force, rather it seems like something completely different from anything Science deals with at this time.

As per the chat between Belinda and me, it may be a matter of perspective. I personally think all consciousnesses are fundamentally the same. The difference is filtering. When the filters are broken, ie, brain damage, then subjective reality becomes chaotic. One can lose the ability to discern where one thing starts and another thing ends, or to fail to understand the abstractions that we take for granted, eg. being able to see a story in wiggly black marks on a light background. Take away the filters and you have unadulterated reality - blinding, deafening and overpowering - which is a common sensation of those awakening from coma.

[GrayArea]

I think that Neural Activity causes the Conscious Experience, but also...vice versa. They're simply interconnected.

It may sound off-putting at first, but hear me out.

First of all, my assumption is that you agree that the only way the materials that compose our physical body—such as our neuron cells—can move and be active is because each of its components communicate in their own language which is laws of physics which activates one another.

So moving on, the basic idea that I want to propose is that if our standard definition of Conscious Experience is pretty much what controls this whole movement/activation of materials while also being aware of it, then it should theoretically be equal to the dialectic system of language, which laws of physics operate on. As in, the very reason why the laws of physics can be used as a language.

Other than that instance...Conscious Experience, to me, is pointless to bring up when it comes to discussing consciousness, because its role has already been fulfilled through us being what we are.

I see no reason to think that the movement of all things in the universe isn't a given. (Whether or not everything is genuinely moving or only apparently moving, is beside the point here.)

We derive the laws of physics from what is given. Everything is already moving by itself, no additional activation or control seems to be needed.

The movement of all things in the universe is a given, only because what makes them happen is a given. In this case, the laws of physics. Yes, we derive the laws of physics from what is given, but that can also mean that we simply discover the fact that what is given to us(events) is controlled by the laws of physics. Patterns of events or what makes them happen, so to speak.

Adding on, there is no additional activation or controlling of reality when it comes to consciousness. Perhaps I may have been a bit confusing with my wording here, but what I tried to convey in my previous response was that Conscious Experience is simply a "part" of the communication between the consequences of the laws of physics which govern the Neural Experience.
That when I said [Additional] "activation", I meant it as a part of the consequences of the laws of physics, where neuron cells would be activated through electrochemical reactions which follow the laws of physics, causing it to send signals to each other. Not "something required to activate/control" the laws of physics.

Moving on, here you said that:
"And if with neural activity and conscious experience we've described the same thing twice, as the case seems to be, then that one thing can't be two things that are interconnected."

Yes, it is possible for that one unified idea of consciousness to be two things that are interconnected (Neural Experience and Conscious Experience), because it was already solidified to be a description for both of them. As in, because it was already defined as both of those two things that are interconnected.

The only role of Conscious Experience here is allowing us to talk about what creates Conscious Experience, not to be used as one of the key ideas regarding that topic. The key lies in the Neural Experience, which we perceive through Conscious Experience.

And maybe God is pushing stuff around, unnecessary speculation without evidence, Occam's razor cuts it out. Until then it's a probably a mistake to reify the laws of physics and use them as agents.

Bit of a late reply, but just to clarify, are you asking if there is any logical proof that Conscious Experience rises from matter?

[GrayArea]

Don't quite get: Something can't exist "in" itself.

Conscious experience doesn't exist "in" the world, it is the world. How do you find the world using parts of the world (science)?

What do you mean Conscious Experience IS the World? It is just a Speculation with a little Semantic Acrobatics thrown in.

It's a fact, anything else is speculation. You call this fact a speculation and treat your own ridiculous speculation as almost a fact.

Conscious Experience can't be described. The moment we refer to Conscious Experience, we negate it, destroy it. So it is safe to say that the physical world is the world, while not saying anything about Conscious Experience.

[Belindi]

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

Yes, for them, the brain would be seen as the most sensitive receiver of general consciousness and shaped by that brain into individual consciousness.

It does seem to me that all consciousness is largely the same. For example, when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

The idea of consciousness as a (fifth?) force is intriguing, if an option taken less seriously than most. The fact that physics cannot explain everything points to limitations in current physical theories and suggests that reality may not be entirely physical, as we understand physicality.

I agree that Reality may not be entirely Physical, but I don't see Consciousness as being a fifth Force. First, I doubt there is any such thing as general Consciousness. There are only Conscious Experiences. There would have to be many new Forces in that case. One force for each type of Sensory Experience. Redness is certainly very different from Sound and Taste. How could all three of these be only one Force? Consciousness doesn't seem like a Force, rather it seems like something completely different from anything Science deals with at this time.

As per the chat between Belinda and me, it may be a matter of perspective. I personally think all consciousnesses are fundamentally the same. The difference is filtering. When the filters are broken, ie, brain damage, then subjective reality becomes chaotic. One can lose the ability to discern where one thing starts and another thing ends, or to fail to understand the abstractions that we take for granted, eg. being able to see a story in wiggly black marks on a light background. Take away the filters and you have unadulterated reality - blinding, deafening and overpowering - which is a common sensation of those awakening from coma.

"Filters" is useful. Twice I accidentally uncovered cowering mice who gazed up into the eyes of this huge creature looking back at them. In the poor fellow mortals I saw consciousness like mine. The filters then were the anatomical boundaries between mouse and me ---- no nervous system that we shared. The mouse was scared of me , a recognisably conscious being in his environment that might take action against him. On that occasion I figured largely in the Dasein of the mouse.The mouse figured in my Dasein as the focus of my feeling of pity. A matter of perspective is the filter that separates one consciousness from another.

Sheep recognise and obey the gaze of the expert sheepdog. There is even a name for what the expert sheepdog does; It's called 'strong eye'. The different filters/perspectives of sheep and dog are thus utilised by shepherds.

I am convinced supernovas have no feelings and can't gaze back at me or plan for their future pleasures. I therefore believe there is a ontological and moral difference between life forms on the one hand and dead bodies on the other. So that people could worship the Sun or the ocean they first had to personify them.

[GrayArea]

Conscious experience doesn't exist "in" the world, it is the world. How do you find the world using parts of the world (science)?

What do you mean Conscious Experience IS the World? It is just a Speculation with a little Semantic Acrobatics thrown in.

It's a fact, anything else is speculation. You call this fact a speculation and treat your own ridiculous speculation as almost a fact.

Conscious Experience can't be described. The moment we refer to Conscious Experience, we negate it, destroy it. So it is safe to say that the physical world is the world, while not saying anything about Conscious Experience.

Correction: Conscious Experience, while can be described, will not be its full definition, and it never will. But we have no other choice than to try.