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

[Pattern-chaser]

The Razor is not any kind of Scientific principle. The Razor is actually Folk Science.

Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, a way of guessing about stuff. Nothing more; nothing less.

[Atla]

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

Right, especially as, unlike brains, immaterial souls and "interminds" are unobservable and unexaminable in principle.

The scientific theories don't actually see PM and CM as one and the same thing either, of course. Eliminativism, emergentism etc. are just tricks where we claim to have solved the problem, while we actually maintain the intellectual double vision and solve nothing.

[SteveKlinko]

People who are serious about the consciousness problem, don't make the problem worse by inventing a third component like the IM, instead they try to understand how it can be that the PM and the CM are actually one and the same thing, we just have intellectual double vision.

Right, especially as, unlike brains, immaterial souls and "interminds" are unobservable and unexaminable in principle.

You should also say that Conscious Experience is unobservable and unexaminable in principle, if Souls and the Inter Mind are unobservable and unexaminable. If you say that we can Observe and Examine our Conscious Experiences, because they are in our Minds, then because the Inter Mind is proposed to be the stage of processing where Neural Activity gets converted to Conscious Experience, that we are certainly able to Observe and Examine the output of the Inter Mind.

[Consul]

Right, especially as, unlike brains, immaterial souls and "interminds" are unobservable and unexaminable in principle.

You should also say that Conscious Experience is unobservable and unexaminable in principle, if Souls and the Inter Mind are unobservable and unexaminable. If you say that we can Observe and Examine our Conscious Experiences, because they are in our Minds, then because the Inter Mind is proposed to be the stage of processing where Neural Activity gets converted to Conscious Experience, that we are certainly able to Observe and Examine the output of the Inter Mind.

Experiences are introspectively observable; and if—what I think is the case—they are neural processes, they are also extrospectively observable.

By the way, I still don't know whether your "Inter Mind" is a material or an immaterial substance.

[SteveKlinko]

Right, especially as, unlike brains, immaterial souls and "interminds" are unobservable and unexaminable in principle.

You should also say that Conscious Experience is unobservable and unexaminable in principle, if Souls and the Inter Mind are unobservable and unexaminable. If you say that we can Observe and Examine our Conscious Experiences, because they are in our Minds, then because the Inter Mind is proposed to be the stage of processing where Neural Activity gets converted to Conscious Experience, that we are certainly able to Observe and Examine the output of the Inter Mind.

Experiences are introspectively observable; and if—what I think is the case—they are neural processes, they are also extrospectively observable.

By the way, I still don't know whether your "Inter Mind" is a material or an immaterial substance.

The Inter Mind could be a part of the Physical Mind (Brain) or the Conscious Mind or it could stand alone as a separate Mind. Whatever the case may be there must be something somewhere that has the functionality of the Inter Mind. If the Inter Mind is found to be an aspect of the Physical Mind, then that aspect should be called the Intr Mind aspect of the Physical Mind.

[Joshua Cummins]

You may have heard of the concept that consciousness, or the mind, is merely an ‘illusion’. The idea that consciousness is an illusion is primarily put forward to counter the dualistic stance that we, as humans, consist of a physical body and a separate ethereal consciousness or mind.

The concept of dualism was initially founded in ancient beliefs and philosophy which is thousands of years old and lacked the contextual benefit of contemporary physiology and science. Even so, I do not think that this is sufficient to explain why we developed dualism in the first place.

The belief in our ethereal selves also sprang from a desire to explain what we experienced in the past, and still experience today, as that undefinable seemingly undiscernible thing within ourselves that is perceived as a presence aware of our bodies, sentience and place in our environment.

So, what is this ‘thing’ that we seemingly observe in ourselves?

The concept that the mind or consciousness is an illusion does not mean that we are all mindless robots but rather our perception of this illusion is not what it seems. The interplay of subjective awareness can be explained by underlying biological processes within the human body. This body consists of a nervous system which contains multiple organs, one of which is the brain.

The body and the brain work together to produce sensory responses that form patterns of neuron-firing within the brain structure. I will call these patterns ‘activation matrices’ for want of a better term. Various activated matrices can affect cognitive areas of the brain prompting predisposed recognition and active response. This activity is supplemented by the release of neurotransmitter chemicals.

These matrices can also cause the formation of wave patterns across the brain structure which can activate different brain areas. These processes are further nuanced by time variance in that the quality of cognitive activation can vary dependant on the time delay between pattern propagation and brain area stimulation.

We are not conscious of these dynamic, complex and layered processes. We are only aware of their consequence. For example, when we pat a dog, we may experience seeing the dogs tail wag and feeling the texture of its coat.

We do not experience the light meeting our retina, travelling to our optic nerve as an electrical signal and into the brain structure and IT cortex where 16 million neurons activate in different patterns and register seeing a dog.

Nor do we experience the simultaneous chemical changes in the brain that may alter our mood and the firing of neurons in the somatosensory cortex that create a response that registers as ‘feeling dog hair’.

When we think about the dog, we do not experience the electrical activity of neurons in the visual and auditory cortexes, the prefrontal cortex or the activation of the motor cortex in preparation for saying ‘good dog’.

These consequences do not require an ethereal intermediary mind or consciousness entity to occur. They simply, or more accurately complexly, just happen. The combined inherent ability of the nervous system and brain to recognise and produce sensory responses simultaneously does all the work.

Our experience of our bodies, our sentience and its presence in our environment is a complex biological, electrical and chemical process. These processes are necessarily filtered and prioritised in order for us to efficiently react, intellectualise and behave in a way that makes sense in our environment.

I believe that nowadays, with the benefit of modern science and an understanding that the source ancient ‘thinking’ that led to dualism was relatively uninformed, we can dispense with the illusion of consciousness, or the mind, and shift our perspective away from these imagined ethereal forms.

[Belindi]

You may have heard of the concept that consciousness, or the mind, is merely an ‘illusion’. The idea that consciousness is an illusion is primarily put forward to counter the dualistic stance that we, as humans, consist of a physical body and a separate ethereal consciousness or mind.

The concept of dualism was initially founded in ancient beliefs and philosophy which is thousands of years old and lacked the contextual benefit of contemporary physiology and science. Even so, I do not think that this is sufficient to explain why we developed dualism in the first place.

The belief in our ethereal selves also sprang from a desire to explain what we experienced in the past, and still experience today, as that undefinable seemingly undiscernible thing within ourselves that is perceived as a presence aware of our bodies, sentience and place in our environment.

So, what is this ‘thing’ that we seemingly observe in ourselves?

The concept that the mind or consciousness is an illusion does not mean that we are all mindless robots but rather our perception of this illusion is not what it seems. The interplay of subjective awareness can be explained by underlying biological processes within the human body. This body consists of a nervous system which contains multiple organs, one of which is the brain.

The body and the brain work together to produce sensory responses that form patterns of neuron-firing within the brain structure. I will call these patterns ‘activation matrices’ for want of a better term. Various activated matrices can affect cognitive areas of the brain prompting predisposed recognition and active response. This activity is supplemented by the release of neurotransmitter chemicals.

These matrices can also cause the formation of wave patterns across the brain structure which can activate different brain areas. These processes are further nuanced by time variance in that the quality of cognitive activation can vary dependant on the time delay between pattern propagation and brain area stimulation.

We are not conscious of these dynamic, complex and layered processes. We are only aware of their consequence. For example, when we pat a dog, we may experience seeing the dogs tail wag and feeling the texture of its coat.

We do not experience the light meeting our retina, travelling to our optic nerve as an electrical signal and into the brain structure and IT cortex where 16 million neurons activate in different patterns and register seeing a dog.

Nor do we experience the simultaneous chemical changes in the brain that may alter our mood and the firing of neurons in the somatosensory cortex that create a response that registers as ‘feeling dog hair’.

When we think about the dog, we do not experience the electrical activity of neurons in the visual and auditory cortexes, the prefrontal cortex or the activation of the motor cortex in preparation for saying ‘good dog’.

These consequences do not require an ethereal intermediary mind or consciousness entity to occur. They simply, or more accurately complexly, just happen. The combined inherent ability of the nervous system and brain to recognise and produce sensory responses simultaneously does all the work.

Our experience of our bodies, our sentience and its presence in our environment is a complex biological, electrical and chemical process. These processes are necessarily filtered and prioritised in order for us to efficiently react, intellectualise and behave in a way that makes sense in our environment.

I believe that nowadays, with the benefit of modern science and an understanding that the source ancient ‘thinking’ that led to dualism was relatively uninformed, we can dispense with the illusion of consciousness, or the mind, and shift our perspective away from these imagined ethereal forms.

I agree in the light of modern neuroscience substance dualism is not tenable. However the subjective experience that is called conscious awareness or consciousness is not reducible to epiphenomenon, as it's unlikely that such an enormous experience as subjective consciousness evolved to be as relatively useless as the small and quite dispensable vermiform appendix.

The panoplies of consciousness may be illusory in the sense of maya. However idealism and materialism(physicalism ) are not the only monisms. There is also dual -aspect monism.

[Joshua Cummins]

Not really a fan of dual-aspect monism. It seems like a bit of a cop out in that it gives up on the mind-body issue and proposes a third, as yet unknown, 'thing' as the solution.

I disagree that consciousness is not reducible and believe that it will ultimately prove to be so.
Probably the most important point of my post was that the brain is a time-variant system, the behaviours of which might explain the 'qualia' gap.

[SteveKlinko]

You may have heard of the concept that consciousness, or the mind, is merely an ‘illusion’. The idea that consciousness is an illusion is primarily put forward to counter the dualistic stance that we, as humans, consist of a physical body and a separate ethereal consciousness or mind.

The concept of dualism was initially founded in ancient beliefs and philosophy which is thousands of years old and lacked the contextual benefit of contemporary physiology and science. Even so, I do not think that this is sufficient to explain why we developed dualism in the first place.

The belief in our ethereal selves also sprang from a desire to explain what we experienced in the past, and still experience today, as that undefinable seemingly undiscernible thing within ourselves that is perceived as a presence aware of our bodies, sentience and place in our environment.

So, what is this ‘thing’ that we seemingly observe in ourselves?

The concept that the mind or consciousness is an illusion does not mean that we are all mindless robots but rather our perception of this illusion is not what it seems. The interplay of subjective awareness can be explained by underlying biological processes within the human body. This body consists of a nervous system which contains multiple organs, one of which is the brain.

The body and the brain work together to produce sensory responses that form patterns of neuron-firing within the brain structure. I will call these patterns ‘activation matrices’ for want of a better term. Various activated matrices can affect cognitive areas of the brain prompting predisposed recognition and active response. This activity is supplemented by the release of neurotransmitter chemicals.

These matrices can also cause the formation of wave patterns across the brain structure which can activate different brain areas. These processes are further nuanced by time variance in that the quality of cognitive activation can vary dependant on the time delay between pattern propagation and brain area stimulation.

We are not conscious of these dynamic, complex and layered processes. We are only aware of their consequence. For example, when we pat a dog, we may experience seeing the dogs tail wag and feeling the texture of its coat.

We do not experience the light meeting our retina, travelling to our optic nerve as an electrical signal and into the brain structure and IT cortex where 16 million neurons activate in different patterns and register seeing a dog.

Nor do we experience the simultaneous chemical changes in the brain that may alter our mood and the firing of neurons in the somatosensory cortex that create a response that registers as ‘feeling dog hair’.

When we think about the dog, we do not experience the electrical activity of neurons in the visual and auditory cortexes, the prefrontal cortex or the activation of the motor cortex in preparation for saying ‘good dog’.

These consequences do not require an ethereal intermediary mind or consciousness entity to occur. They simply, or more accurately complexly, just happen. The combined inherent ability of the nervous system and brain to recognise and produce sensory responses simultaneously does all the work.

Our experience of our bodies, our sentience and its presence in our environment is a complex biological, electrical and chemical process. These processes are necessarily filtered and prioritised in order for us to efficiently react, intellectualise and behave in a way that makes sense in our environment.

I believe that nowadays, with the benefit of modern science and an understanding that the source ancient ‘thinking’ that led to dualism was relatively uninformed, we can dispense with the illusion of consciousness, or the mind, and shift our perspective away from these imagined ethereal forms.

You have just used more fancy language while saying it is Neural Activity. Science has recognized the Correlation between certain types of Neural Activity and Conscious Experience for a hundred years. That's nothing new. But Science has Zero Explanation as to how that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of the Neurons. Let me repeat, Science has Zero Explanation. That Wide Screen, High Def, Multi Colored, Conscious Visual Experience that is embedded in the front of your face is not going to disappear just because you wish it would. That Conscious Visual Experience is happening in the Manifest Universe that we live in. It must be Explained. You cannot sweep it under the rug of the Ignorance of Science. Not knowing and not even having a Clue what Conscious Experience is, is an Embarrassment to Science. But it is more Embarrassing to Science when people try to make Conscious Experience just go away. Science needs to get its act together and figure out what this Conscious Visual Experience thing is.

[Joshua Cummins]

I also added time-variant system mechanics to the mix.

[Belindi]

Not really a fan of dual-aspect monism. It seems like a bit of a cop out in that it gives up on the mind-body issue and proposes a third, as yet unknown, 'thing' as the solution.

I disagree that consciousness is not reducible and believe that it will ultimately prove to be so.
Probably the most important point of my post was that the brain is a time-variant system, the behaviours of which might explain the 'qualia' gap.

Nothing wrong with materialism within its explanatory capability. I know little neuroscience and your description of brain function seems to me to be well written, credible, and informative.

But what do you mean by "the 'qualia' gap"? are your referring to the hard problem of consciousness? Do you not consider neural feed back mechanisms and their absence from the brain is worth mentioning?

By " time -variant system" I may presume you refer to intermittent surge of each neurochemical. But maybe not.

[SteveKlinko]

I also added time-variant system mechanics to the mix.

Hahhhh! Of course you know that is Irrelevant and is merely more descriptions of what the Neural Activity is doing.

[Joshua Cummins]

Perhaps a better fundamental definition of consciousness is needed.

Consciousness.

What we perceive, feel, and think is experienced from a unique internal perspective. According to the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ some of these mental states are separate to and not reducible to physical systems in the human body.

This includes the inner aspect of thought and perception. The way things feel when we experience visual sensations, music, happiness or the mediative quality of a moment lost in thought. That seemingly undiscernible thing within ourselves that coalesces into a unique individual.

This is opposed to the ‘easy problem of consciousness’ where objective mechanisms of the cognitive system are reducible to physical processes. These include discriminating sensory stimuli, reacting to stimuli, speech, intellectual thought and integrating information to control behaviour.

For me it seems intuitive that the ‘easy stuff’ would be harder to explain than the ‘hard stuff’ that we all have a direct and personal relationship. But that’s me.

As far as the complex processes of the body that spark a consciousness go, I suspect that activated matrices of neurons and electromagnetic (EM) fields play a part in activating dispersed areas of the brain to form coherent qualitative conscious responses.

This would somewhat explain our preoccupation with consciousness being an ethereal non-physical thing, as EM fields are essentially invisible to human perception. It would also seem to explain the relative transience of consciousness that can sleep, be unconscious and ‘zone out’ without any great force being exerted upon it.

I think it is also interesting that consciousness combines two perspectives of ourselves; our inner view and external view. By combining these two perspectives we are able to identify our capabilities and competencies and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of our environment and gain a competitive advantage. This likely creates an evolutionary priority effect.

I think that it is likely that the concurrent experience of these two perspectives is what we experience as consciousness. Our internal quasi-perceptual awareness combined with what we are able to perceive directly.

As an example, you may feel the apprehension that someone has broken into your house on the basis of actually perceiving a broken window and an empty space where the TV used to be.

Another observation I will make is that newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as ‘basic consciousness’ but they still have to mature to reach the level of adult consciousness. This would seem to draw a correlation between physical growth and consciousness.

So, there would seem to be an evolutionary advantage in having both ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ consciousness, a correlation to physical development and an imperceivable reducible process that might explain how it manifests.

Having both an inner and outer appreciation of self and environment is integral to consciousness. Consciousness itself is just an abstract word for this process.

Any organism that can construct a concurrent internal and external viewpoint is able to identify capabilities and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of their environment and gain a competitive advantage; be conscious.

Internal and External Environments

If there is anything that is steadfast and unchanging, it is change itself. Change is inevitable, and organisms that don't accept change and make adjustments to their behaviour to keep up with changes are doomed to fail. There are events or situations that occur that affect an organism in a positive or negative way. These events or situations can have either a positive or a negative impact on an organism and are called environmental factors.

There are two types of environmental factors: internal environmental factors and external environmental factors. Internal environmental factors are events that occur within an organism. Generally speaking, internal environmental factors are easier to control than external environmental factors. Some examples of internal environmental factors are:

• Shift in priorities
• Morale
• Evolutionary priority effects
• Other issues

External environmental factors are events that take place outside of the organism and are harder to predict and control. External environmental factors can be more dangerous for an organism given the fact they are unpredictable, hard to prepare for, and often bewildering. Some examples of external environmental factors are:

• Changes to economy (quid pro quo)
• Threats from competition
• Social factors
• Accepted normalities
• The organism’s species itself

Consciousness allows a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis to take place that looks at internal and external factors that can affect an organism. Internal factors are your strengths and weaknesses. External factors are the threats and opportunities.

This is not a linear but a dynamic process.

[SteveKlinko]

Since the original posting, I have recognized several other theories of Consciousness. I would like to add these paragraphs to the to the OP:

Next, I would like to talk about the Projective Consciousness Model (PCM) with respect to Conscious Experience. The PCM specifies what functionality needs to be implemented in order to produce a Conscious Experience like the Visual Experience. It claims to present the Math that makes the Visual Experience and Visual Illusions more understandable. The PCM does not specify How the Brain accomplishes this Math. It could be that this Math is implemented in the IM, because it sure doesn't seem to be in the Brain. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. Please, will someone show me how this theory Explains any Conscious Experience?

Next, I would like to talk about Quantum Consciousness and Holographic Brain Theory with respect to Conscious Experience. Both of these theories claim that Consciousness is the result of certain Quantum Mechanical effects like Entanglement, Superposition, and Tunneling. Quantum Consciousness, in particular, has been branded as Pseudo Science by many in the Scientific community. Both theories talk about a generalized Consciousness but neither theory can Explain any particular Conscious Experience. The theories are speculations about the functioning of the Brain and so they actually can only claim that they Explain some more Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience. There is no way either of these theories can Explain what the IM is within the theory. Again, I must ask please, will someone show me how either theory can Explain any Conscious Experience?

Next, I would like to talk about the Computational Theory Of Mind (CTM) with respect to Conscious Experience. This is also called Computationalism. The basic premise here is that Computations are the basis for Consciousness, and therefore the Brain and Computers are Conscious merely because they both do their own kinds of Computations. But what is the chain of Logic that gets you from Computations to something like the Experience of Redness or the Salty Taste? The Theory is Incoherent without an answer to that question. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. Again, I must ask please, will someone show me how this theory can Explain any Conscious Experience?

[Belindi]

Perhaps a better fundamental definition of consciousness is needed.

Consciousness.

What we perceive, feel, and think is experienced from a unique internal perspective. According to the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ some of these mental states are separate to and not reducible to physical systems in the human body.

This includes the inner aspect of thought and perception. The way things feel when we experience visual sensations, music, happiness or the mediative quality of a moment lost in thought. That seemingly undiscernible thing within ourselves that coalesces into a unique individual.

This is opposed to the ‘easy problem of consciousness’ where objective mechanisms of the cognitive system are reducible to physical processes. These include discriminating sensory stimuli, reacting to stimuli, speech, intellectual thought and integrating information to control behaviour.

For me it seems intuitive that the ‘easy stuff’ would be harder to explain than the ‘hard stuff’ that we all have a direct and personal relationship. But that’s me.

As far as the complex processes of the body that spark a consciousness go, I suspect that activated matrices of neurons and electromagnetic (EM) fields play a part in activating dispersed areas of the brain to form coherent qualitative conscious responses.

This would somewhat explain our preoccupation with consciousness being an ethereal non-physical thing, as EM fields are essentially invisible to human perception. It would also seem to explain the relative transience of consciousness that can sleep, be unconscious and ‘zone out’ without any great force being exerted upon it.

I think it is also interesting that consciousness combines two perspectives of ourselves; our inner view and external view. By combining these two perspectives we are able to identify our capabilities and competencies and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of our environment and gain a competitive advantage. This likely creates an evolutionary priority effect.

I think that it is likely that the concurrent experience of these two perspectives is what we experience as consciousness. Our internal quasi-perceptual awareness combined with what we are able to perceive directly.

As an example, you may feel the apprehension that someone has broken into your house on the basis of actually perceiving a broken window and an empty space where the TV used to be.

Another observation I will make is that newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as ‘basic consciousness’ but they still have to mature to reach the level of adult consciousness. This would seem to draw a correlation between physical growth and consciousness.

So, there would seem to be an evolutionary advantage in having both ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ consciousness, a correlation to physical development and an imperceivable reducible process that might explain how it manifests.

Having both an inner and outer appreciation of self and environment is integral to consciousness. Consciousness itself is just an abstract word for this process.

Any organism that can construct a concurrent internal and external viewpoint is able to identify capabilities and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of their environment and gain a competitive advantage; be conscious.

Internal and External Environments

If there is anything that is steadfast and unchanging, it is change itself. Change is inevitable, and organisms that don't accept change and make adjustments to their behaviour to keep up with changes are doomed to fail. There are events or situations that occur that affect an organism in a positive or negative way. These events or situations can have either a positive or a negative impact on an organism and are called environmental factors.

There are two types of environmental factors: internal environmental factors and external environmental factors. Internal environmental factors are events that occur within an organism. Generally speaking, internal environmental factors are easier to control than external environmental factors. Some examples of internal environmental factors are:

• Shift in priorities
• Morale
• Evolutionary priority effects
• Other issues

External environmental factors are events that take place outside of the organism and are harder to predict and control. External environmental factors can be more dangerous for an organism given the fact they are unpredictable, hard to prepare for, and often bewildering. Some examples of external environmental factors are:

• Changes to economy (quid pro quo)
• Threats from competition
• Social factors
• Accepted normalities
• The organism’s species itself

Consciousness allows a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis to take place that looks at internal and external factors that can affect an organism. Internal factors are your strengths and weaknesses. External factors are the threats and opportunities.

This is not a linear but a dynamic process.

The status is insufficient that you allocate to the environment of the subject of experience. Without a perceived object of experience a subject of expreience does not exist.