Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote: ↑July 6th, 2018, 5:53 pm....painful treatment for arthritis....

My mom used to call it her good friend Arthur. Arthur Itis.

I made her a hand muff by sowing rice into a quilt. You put in in the microwave for a few seconds and the heat goes into the rice. On a cold day you stick your hands in it for warmth. Wish I could say it did more than distract her a little.

Justintruth wrote: ↑July 5th, 2018, 7:08 am... cannot derive that material systems will become conscious (nor derive what they will be conscious of) from the pattern or behavior of the system....

It depends how deeply the patterns of behaviour are analysed, doesn't it?

Actually I think not. Analyzing the pattern of behaviour of a physical system, even if you end up completely understanding it will not yield a prediction that they will become conscious. It's a non sequitor. The complexity of a system, nor the type of system, implies that it will be conscious.

All that complexity does is increase the dimension of the state space that the initial and final vectors have. It does nothing to change the fact that the final vector, is just another vector in the same state space and none of the available operators, position, momentum, angular momentum etc, and the properties or charges of the system, color, charm etc nor the flavor of the system speak at all of the system becoming aware.

Look, here is how you can prove me wrong. Look through the descriptions of quantum mechanics for an operator that will have as input the state of the system (a vector in Hilbert space) and have as output the probability that the system will be conscious and/or be conscious in a specific way. If you find one let me know and I will yield the point.

But if you don't find it, remember that adding complexity just increases the dimension of the state space. It does not add the missing operators, nor does it define the phenomenological spectrum, the set of possible qualia if you like, where "possible" here means what kind of experiencing can be produced given an arbitrary state of matter.

At a very basic level, nervous system activity is a kind of behaviour. Dare I say it, it could be a quantum thing LOL

Yea I agree that the nervous system activity is a kind of "behaviour" if by that you mean it does something. And it is of course described best by quantum mechanics. But the interesting thing is that in addition to basically "moving" which is what physical systems do given a generous definition of the term, and that is all they do according to the existing physics, still they seem to cause awareness.

...If I'm to throw off the shackles of the verifiable - as if writing a sci fi story or creating a myth - then I might speak about the possibility of pantheism or panentheism.

I sort of use Occam's razor. I think that we know that even small changes in the chemistry of the synapses of our brain can render us unconscious. On the other hand much of the complexity of our brain is to render our senses and provide motor neuron activity. But some aspect of it also seems to create conscious awareness. There is a need to posit that that happens just based on our experience but I just don't see a reason to believe rocks are conscious. Nor thermostats. I think though, that the production of consciousness probably does not require connectivity to senses nor motor activity. At least logically it does not. We will see when a clear definition of what causes it is obtained.

.... To relate back to the river analogy, long term memory would be the river channel - the groove caused by long term erosion - while short term memory would be more akin to the slight, constant eroding of the outer surfaces of the river's channel.

Never ceases to amaze me that river analogy. We use the word "current" for the water passing by in a river. Upstream is the past. Downstream is the future. Being and Time. Seems like consciousness requires time. Not sure being in general does. Look at the Pythagorean theorum. Imagine that all contingent being ceased, or even never was. Wouldn't the theorm still *be* true?

One of the finest of all minds had the same issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s

As Feynman says, names matter when you are trying to communicate, but the names in themselves don't constitute knowledge.

I think the link might be wrong? Anyway, I have read that story Feynman tells of his father and the leaves. But I do think Feynman never actualized metaphysical awareness. I do not think he ever experienced ontology in the non-standard ways available to us. And consequently, absent those experiences, he couldn't really do metapysics very well.

But he was a great physicist and I love that about him. He had an honest mind. I was amazed that, in the end it was Sally Ride that figured out the challenger disaster, or rather, no figuring out was required, the cognizant engineer fully expected the explosion and knew what was going to cause it prior to launch, but he trusted her to get the story out and to avoid damage to her carreer the message was passed to Feynman only after her death. For years, the story was about how Feynman was passed the message via motorcycle parts.

That disaster was negligent homicide at best, and frankly it was worse. Feynman was right in his annex. NASA lies.

I also remember the second loss of a shuttle. I was lying in bed and watched it practically live. Went nuts when NASA said the foam hitting the wing could not have been the problem. Yes, they said it because I saw them on TV sat it. Latter in life I was showed a memo recommending that a test be done by firing a piece of ice at a wing section. Once you see that video, you just shut up. Case closed. In both cases it was the Air Force generals who kind of pricked the bubble of NASA's attempts to bury the story. They were no friends of the shuttle because they knew how much of the program cost was fraudulently burried in military budgets. Money corrupts, that is for nearly sure.

That wing video was the second disasters' analogy to Feynman's O-Ring material in the cold beaker.

I mean it made me very angry. Ok, you have a piece of ice hit the wing. So in descent, one by one your thermisters in the wheel well RIGHT BEHIND WHERE THE WING WAS HIT, start to fail... and then the spacecraft yaws and disintegrates and you don't think there is some possibility that it was the ice? Well a first year engineering student might think otherwise. And as you can see in the first disasters annex by Feynman, the o-rings were not the only problem NASA was burying. I went to NASA once at Johnston and swore I would never return. But I have to admit once you get inside the ring of astronaut groupies to the real operations teams they were great. I think of NASA as a donut with a core of solid ops people surrounded by a disastrous managment team.

As a team they failed twice. In both cases I think Feynman was right. The problem was the way the managers biased their judgements.

Justintruth wrote:Be careful with the word "flow" as someone will think you mean "flow of something"....

Actually, in these thought experiments I envisage a flow of atoms and/or quanta.

It's easy to think of "something flowing"...but that is never going to be "awareness". It is simple equivocation. "Something flowing" may cause "awareness" but it is not as a result of that the awareness of which we speak. You can however, change the properties of "something flowing" and in the material case then have flows that are conscious.

[/quote]
For instance, if I picture a green equilateral triangle on a white backing that completes the "field of mental vision" then a neuroscientist could readily identify the neuronal patterning resulting in that visualisation. If I ask you to visualise that triangle, one might expect significant similarities between the neuron patterning.

What has happened to transfer that pattern from here to there? How do we trace "A" - the pattern in my neurons - with "B", that similar pattern in yours? The figure in my mind is transferred into English words, a pattern of finger movements, electric flow along the tracks of a keyboard, a digital pattern of electricity that travels along the cable to the PC, the black and white squiggles on a screen that we somehow understand, etc.
[/quote]

These are excellent questions. Maybe you should get into a lab and try to answer them? Some of the material is known already.

Greta wrote: ↑July 6th, 2018, 5:53 pm....painful treatment for arthritis....

My mom used to call it her good friend Arthur. Arthur Itis.

I made her a hand muff by sowing rice into a quilt. You put in in the microwave for a few seconds and the heat goes into the rice. On a cold day you stick your hands in it for warmth. Wish I could say it did more than distract her a little.

Justintruth wrote: ↑July 5th, 2018, 7:08 am... cannot derive that material systems will become conscious (nor derive what they will be conscious of) from the pattern or behavior of the system....

It depends how deeply the patterns of behaviour are analysed, doesn't it?

Actually I think not. Analyzing the pattern of behaviour of a physical system, even if you end up completely understanding it will not yield a prediction that they will become conscious. It's a non sequitor. The complexity of a system, nor the type of system, implies that it will be conscious.

All that complexity does is increase the dimension of the state space that the initial and final vectors have. It does nothing to change the fact that the final vector, is just another vector in the same state space and none of the available operators, position, momentum, angular momentum etc, and the properties or charges of the system, color, charm etc nor the flavor of the system speak at all of the system becoming aware.

Look, here is how you can prove me wrong. Look through the descriptions of quantum mechanics for an operator that will have as input the state of the system (a vector in Hilbert space) and have as output the probability that the system will be conscious and/or be conscious in a specific way. If you find one let me know and I will yield the point.

But if you don't find it, remember that adding complexity just increases the dimension of the state space. It does not add the missing operators, nor does it define the phenomenological spectrum, the set of possible qualia if you like, where "possible" here means what kind of experiencing can be produced given an arbitrary state of matter.

At a very basic level, nervous system activity is a kind of behaviour. Dare I say it, it could be a quantum thing LOL

Yea I agree that the nervous system activity is a kind of "behaviour" if by that you mean it does something. And it is of course described best by quantum mechanics. But the interesting thing is that in addition to basically "moving" which is what physical systems do given a generous definition of the term, and that is all they do according to the existing physics, still they seem to cause awareness.

...If I'm to throw off the shackles of the verifiable - as if writing a sci fi story or creating a myth - then I might speak about the possibility of pantheism or panentheism.

I sort of use Occam's razor. I think that we know that even small changes in the chemistry of the synapses of our brain can render us unconscious. On the other hand much of the complexity of our brain is to render our senses and provide motor neuron activity. But some aspect of it also seems to create conscious awareness. There is a need to posit that that happens just based on our experience but I just don't see a reason to believe rocks are conscious. Nor thermostats. I think though, that the production of consciousness probably does not require connectivity to senses nor motor activity. At least logically it does not. We will see when a clear definition of what causes it is obtained.

.... To relate back to the river analogy, long term memory would be the river channel - the groove caused by long term erosion - while short term memory would be more akin to the slight, constant eroding of the outer surfaces of the river's channel.

Never ceases to amaze me that river analogy. We use the word "current" for the water passing by in a river. Upstream is the past. Downstream is the future. Being and Time. Seems like consciousness requires time. Not sure being in general does. Look at the Pythagorean theorum. Imagine that all contingent being ceased, or even never was. Wouldn't the theorm still *be* true?

One of the finest of all minds had the same issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s

As Feynman says, names matter when you are trying to communicate, but the names in themselves don't constitute knowledge.

I think the link might be wrong? Anyway, I have read that story Feynman tells of his father and the leaves. But I do think Feynman never actualized metaphysical awareness. I do not think he ever experienced ontology in the non-standard ways available to us. And consequently, absent those experiences, he couldn't really do metapysics very well.

But he was a great physicist and I love that about him. He had an honest mind. I was amazed that, in the end it was Sally Ride that figured out the challenger disaster, or rather, no figuring out was required, the cognizant engineer fully expected the explosion and knew what was going to cause it prior to launch, but he trusted her to get the story out and to avoid damage to her carreer the message was passed to Feynman only after her death. For years, the story was about how Feynman was passed the message via motorcycle parts.

That disaster was negligent homicide at best, and frankly it was worse. Feynman was right in his annex. NASA lies.

I also remember the second loss of a shuttle. I was lying in bed and watched it practically live. Went nuts when NASA said the foam hitting the wing could not have been the problem. Yes, they said it because I saw them on TV say it. Latter in life I was showed a memo recommending that a test be done by firing a piece of ice at a wing section. Once you see that video, you just shut up. Case closed. In both cases it was the Air Force generals who kind of pricked the bubble of NASA's attempts to bury the story. They were no friends of the shuttle because they knew how much of the program cost was fraudulently burried in military budgets. Money corrupts, that is for nearly sure.

That wing video was the second disasters' analogy to Feynman's O-Ring material in the cold beaker.

I mean it made me very angry. Ok, you have a piece of ice hit the wing. So in descent, one by one your thermisters in the wheel well RIGHT BEHIND WHERE THE WING WAS HIT, start to fail... and then the spacecraft yaws and disintegrates and you don't think there is some possibility that it was the ice? Well a first year engineering student might think otherwise. And as you can see in the first disasters annex by Feynman, the o-rings were not the only problem NASA was burying. I went to NASA once at Johnston and swore I would never return. But I have to admit once you get inside the ring of astronaut groupies to the real operations teams they were great. I think of NASA as a donut with a core of solid ops people surrounded by a disastrous managment team.

As a team they failed twice. In both cases I think Feynman was right. The problem was the way the managers biased their judgements.

Justintruth wrote:Be careful with the word "flow" as someone will think you mean "flow of something"....

Actually, in these thought experiments I envisage a flow of atoms and/or quanta.

It's easy to think of "something flowing"...but that is never going to be "awareness". It is simple equivocation. "Something flowing" may *cause* "awareness" but it is not then the awareness of which we speak. That is the mistake Jackson made in his recant. You can however, change the properties of "something flowing" and in the material case then speak and think of flows that are conscious.

For instance, if I picture a green equilateral triangle on a white backing that completes the "field of mental vision" then a neuroscientist could readily identify the neuronal patterning resulting in that visualisation. If I ask you to visualise that triangle, one might expect significant similarities between the neuron patterning.

What has happened to transfer that pattern from here to there? How do we trace "A" - the pattern in my neurons - with "B", that similar pattern in yours? The figure in my mind is transferred into English words, a pattern of finger movements, electric flow along the tracks of a keyboard, a digital pattern of electricity that travels along the cable to the PC, the black and white squiggles on a screen that we somehow understand, etc.

These are excellent questions. Look at the structure of them. They have a phenomenological description and then a search for the material correlates. Maybe you should get into a lab and try to answer them? Some of the material is known already. What does produce a green triangle seeing instead of a red triangle seeing anyway. Almost for sure it has nothing to do with the optics of vision or the sensory pathway. We could almost for sure create it with electrical signals directly.

Sorry again for the long post...

Looks like my post went out once unfinished... sorry - must have it submit instead of preview.

RJG wrote: ↑July 9th, 2018, 7:13 am Consciousness is therefore the singular experience of 'recognition', which is only possible in those entities that possess memory.

Those of us with eyes, are capable of seeing. Those of us with memory, are capable of consciousness (knowing/recognizing).

How are we to determine what has a memory and what does not?

RJG

Consciousness is therefore the singular experience of 'recognition', which is only possible in those entities that possess memory.

A person is conscious when he, she, or it, is able to be aware of, have knowledge of, Realities that do not exist in the material sense of the word; for an entity that has an Imagination, is Rational.

Big difference between being logical and being Rational.

Logic leading to the experience of the recognition of material Reality, while Rationality leads to the creation of Realities that have no substance, no material words, leads to Illusion, Knowledge having a dual quality, Illusions of Reality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge, the creation of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, leads to, makes manifest Absolutely Bad Knowledge that is easily mistaken by the Imagination, Rationalization, to be Absolutely Good Knowledge.

Consciousness is the ability to see, to recognize, to have a sense of Realities that do not exist, that do not have substance, that has no Material Worth; exists as the ability to Rationalize.

Conscious allows One to recognize Realities that could or should be, or that once existed but no longer exist.

RJG wrote:Consciousness is therefore the singular experience of 'recognition', which is only possible in those entities that possess memory. Those of us with eyes, are capable of seeing. Those of us with memory, are capable of consciousness (knowing/recognizing).

anonymous66 wrote:How do you know what does or does not have a memory?

Anything that has the ability to hold/store and repeat/replay past experiences (i.e. past bodily reactions), in this respect, has "memory".

So in this sense, and at one extreme, even billiard balls have 'memory', albeit very short ones. Although humans may have upwards of 80+ years of storing/replaying memories (past experiences), billiard balls may only have 80 milliseconds worth of memory capacity. When the cue ball strikes a billiard ball, not only does the entire billiard ball move according to the laws of physics, but there is also an internal bodily reaction as well. This internal reaction, (i.e. 'memory' of the impacting experience) is replayed internally via vibrations/waves.

But memory does not necessarily imply consciousness. But consciousness does necessarily imply memory.

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory (as seeing is made possible by eyes). It is the experience of 'recognition'; that 'aha' moment, wherein the 'matching' of a current experience to that held in memory, occurs. If we had no memory, there could be nothing to match to, and hence no 'recognition', and further hence no 'consciousness'.

RJG wrote: ↑July 9th, 2018, 9:55 am

RJG wrote:Consciousness is therefore the singular experience of 'recognition', which is only possible in those entities that possess memory. Those of us with eyes, are capable of seeing. Those of us with memory, are capable of consciousness (knowing/recognizing).

anonymous66 wrote:How do you know what does or does not have a memory?

Anything that has the ability to hold/store and repeat/replay past experiences (i.e. past bodily reactions), in this respect, has "memory".

So in this sense, and at one extreme, even billiard balls have 'memory', albeit very short ones. Although humans may have upwards of 80+ years of storing/replaying memories (past experiences), billiard balls may only have 80 milliseconds worth of memory capacity. When the cue ball strikes a billiard ball, not only does the entire billiard ball move according to the laws of physics, but there is also an internal bodily reaction as well. This internal reaction, (i.e. 'memory' of the impacting experience) is replayed internally via vibrations/waves.

But memory does not necessarily imply consciousness. But consciousness does necessarily imply memory.

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory (as seeing is made possible by eyes). It is the experience of 'recognition'; that 'aha' moment, wherein the 'matching' of a current experience to that held in memory, occurs. If we had no memory, there could be nothing to match to, and hence no 'recognition', and further hence no 'consciousness'.

It could be the case that consciousness implies memory. Let's assume it's the case. If memory is a requirement for consciousness, and if panpyschism, then it follows that everything has a memory.
What we need to do is to determine what we mean by "mental properties". If panpsychism then mental properties are just as basic as physical properties. If panpsychism, and if memory is a mental property, then it follows that everything has a memory.

Wayne92587 wrote:Consciousness is the ability to see, to recognize, to have a sense of Realities that do not exist, that do not have substance, that has no Material Worth; exists as the ability to Rationalize.

Not so.

Firstly, it is impossible to recognize, or be conscious of 'nothing'; (i.e. of something that "does not exist"). Without 'something' to be conscious of, there is NO consciousness. (Without 'something' to see, there is NO seeing.)

Secondly, we are only conscious of our physical bodily reactions, that's it. In other words, we are only conscious of our bodily "experiences" (which include thoughts, feelings/urges, and sensory experiences).

If there is no bodily experience, then there is no consciousness (i.e. nothing to be conscious of).

anonymous66 wrote:It could be the case that consciousness implies memory. Let's assume it's the case. If memory is a requirement for consciousness, and if panpyschism, then it follows that everything has a memory.

What we need to do is to determine what we mean by "mental properties". If panpsychism then mental properties are just as basic as physical properties. If panpsychism, and if memory is a mental property, then it follows that everything has a memory.

If panpsychism is true, then yes, everything has memory. But this is an awfully big, and improbable "if".

Firstly it is doubtful that everything has memory. Secondly, memory, by itself, doesn't give us consciousness. To get consciousness, we also need a means of 'recognizing'; a means/mechanism of 'matching' present experiences with past experiences. There are only a few objects in reality that seem to possess this second ingredient. Although "billiard balls" may have the technical ingredient of "memory", they are certainly missing the means of matching past-to-present experiences.

RJG wrote: ↑July 9th, 2018, 11:00 am

anonymous66 wrote:It could be the case that consciousness implies memory. Let's assume it's the case. If memory is a requirement for consciousness, and if panpyschism, then it follows that everything has a memory.

What we need to do is to determine what we mean by "mental properties". If panpsychism then mental properties are just as basic as physical properties. If panpsychism, and if memory is a mental property, then it follows that everything has a memory.

If panpsychism is true, then yes, everything has memory. But this is an awfully big, and improbable "if".

Firstly it is doubtful that everything has memory. Secondly, memory, by itself, doesn't give us consciousness. To get consciousness, we also need a means of 'recognizing'; a means/mechanism of 'matching' present experiences with past experiences. There are only a few objects in reality that seem to possess this second ingredient. Although "billiard balls" may have the technical ingredient of "memory", they are certainly missing the means of matching past-to-present experiences.

What method do you propose we use in order to determine what has a memory, and what does not?

anonymous66 wrote: ↑July 9th, 2018, 11:14 am If panpsychism is true, then yes, everything has memory. But this is an awfully big, and improbable "if".

I don't see this as necessarily following. Memory is a cognitive function. Perhaps everything would have, in panpsychism, a bare awareness. From there, some things would have more cognitive functions.

anonymous66 wrote:What method do you propose we use in order to determine what has a memory, and what does not?

I'm not proposing any method.

But if your goal is to find out what is "conscious" (instead of what has "memory"), then save yourself some time and go straight to looking for that which possesses 'recognition' of past experiences.

Detecting memory by itself won't tell you much, as you would still have to then detect for recognition. Some objects may have memory without recognition (such as billiard balls). But if you find recognition, then you will have also found memory (as recognition cannot be possible without memory). And once you find recognition, then you have found consciousness.

Some methods for detecting recognition have already been developed by those treating mentally impaired people (dementia, alzheimers, etc). This might give you a starting point to develop more specific methods.

RJG wrote: ↑July 9th, 2018, 9:55 amConsciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory (as seeing is made possible by eyes). It is the experience of 'recognition'; that 'aha' moment, wherein the 'matching' of a current experience to that held in memory, occurs. If we had no memory, there could be nothing to match to, and hence no 'recognition', and further hence no 'consciousness'.

So when Mary the color scientist first sees the color red, it’s not a conscious experience because she has no memory of seeing the color red?

*

RJG wrote: ↑July 9th, 2018, 11:00 amFirstly, it is impossible to recognize, or be conscious of 'nothing'; (i.e. of something that "does not exist"). Without 'something' to be conscious of, there is NO consciousness. (Without 'something' to see, there is NO seeing.)

So you’re saying that we cannot be conscious of abstractions? We cannot be conscious of the idea that 3 is greater than 2?

*

You can be conscious of an Illusion because an Illusion is a Reality, is given a definition, a Name.

Metaphors make it possible to have knowledge of an abstraction as long as you give it a proper Name, an Identity.

RJG wrote:Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory.

JamesOfSeattle wrote:So when Mary the color scientist first sees the color red, it’s not a conscious experience [of 'red'] because she has no memory of seeing the color red?

Your statement is true only with the addition "[of 'red']". It is NOT true to claim she has NO conscious experience.

If this is Mary's first time ever to see the color red, then she doesn't have a conscious experience of 'red'. But she still has a conscious experience nonetheless, but instead, of something that she knows, perhaps a blend of dark orange with a light purple. Now that she has experienced this new color 'red' to log away in her memory, the next time she experiences it, she will say "I see red!".

If you have never ever seen a car before, then all you will see is a big metal thing with glass windows around it, and 4 black donut rings holding it up. Once you know (been told/taught) that this is a "car", then the next time you see one, you'll recognize as a car, and proclaim "I see car!"

RJG wrote:Firstly, it is impossible to recognize, or be conscious of 'nothing'; (i.e. of something that "does not exist"). Without 'something' to be conscious of, there is NO consciousness. (Without 'something' to see, there is NO seeing.)

JamesOfSeattle wrote:So you’re saying that we cannot be conscious of abstractions? We cannot be conscious of the idea that 3 is greater than 2?

Not so. Are abstractions/ideas 'something', or are they 'nothing'? If they are 'something', then we can be conscious of them. If they are 'nothing', then we can't.