Eise

Compressing a string. A compressed string has potential energy, and so the string is slightly heavier (very, very, very slightly....)

Where did I say the brain cannot force itself? This is what I said: There is no 'you' independent of your brain processes. 'You' is brain processes. It makes no sense to say some process is forced by itself. Saying 'you' is forced by brain processes is like saying that something is forced to happen because it happens. I am not mistaken (this argument is as strong as yours). That is as vague as vague can be. If consciousness is always running behind, how then can it be more than a spectator? Yes, I use another definition of control and choice: one that applies to persons as a whole, and not to some subsystem of the brain. To be free or in control we must be free and in control: not a subsystem of ours. Just to be clear: I am not defending that consciousness is in control over the brain. What I am defending is that all the processes that enable us to flee for dangers, think about what to do next, doing science, are consciousness. That everything we do has a 'causal foreplay' is for me clear. If neurologists can measure this causal foreplay, great. But would you say that e.g. theory building in science is a process that could occur without consciousness? If not, what then is the role of consciousness?

Yes, that is what I meant. Using the terminology of Einstein, the more you are able to subsume your actions on superpersonal principles, instead of more personal interests ("good means good for me"), the more morally developed one is. And where you are right that morality is an innate quality of many creatures, it is more like a moral faculty that can be developed. I think it is less precise. I would say it is more encompassing. And maybe Einstein would agree with you. But I did not want to get into a discussion about what wisdom is. (Had I known that I would get into a discussion about 'moral development', I would better have used 'wisdom'...)

I think you are confusing deism with pantheism. Einstein mentions explicitly 'the God of Spinoza': Spinoza is well known as pantheist (par excellence, I would say). You're completely right about the 'superpersonal'. I even think that for Einstein this has a dimension that one could call religious. I think that Einstein did not just apply this to science, but also to morality, meaning that we in our life should not live according to our small self interests, but must orient us to more universal values. In this sense science without religion really is blind: if we use science, and its derivation, technology, for every aim we have in life, how stupid it might be, nothing good comes from it. With our technology we can perfection killing other people, eavesdropping on them, pollute our environment etc., (in contrast with the good things that science enables us to). So in my interpretation, Einstein wanted to warn us that our moral development lags wide behind our scientific development.

I would suggest to read Einstein's article completely, he definitely has a different understanding of what 'religious' means:

I only wanted to show the OP that there is a difference between space and spacetime. 'Standing still' in space does not mean 'standing still' in spacetime. I don't think the OP understands what you are discussing now. Trying to have all details right will not lead to at least a bit understanding of lay people. It possibly will shy them away. And as I said, the analogy as shown in the video is much better than the rubber sheet. But of course, still an analogy.

An argument that helps me to understand it: Imagine this small mass infinite far from any masses. It travels through spacetime along the time axis only, because it stays where it is in space. Now add a mass. It will curve spacetime, which means that now the small mass will deviate from the timeaxis, so it moves in space. This video explains it pretty good (and I wonder why physicists still try to explain spacetime curvature with the rubber sheet analogy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTVIMOix3I

So which premise of assumption explicitly? Surely not this: Where did I deny this, or where does my argument explicitly build on the idea that the brain would be a single, unified whole? Yes, in some sense you are right. But my point is that the 'you' is not caused by this chemistry, but can be identified by it. The relationship between the low level physics and chemistry of the brain on one side, and the higher cognitive functions of the brain on the other, is not a causal relation, but an identity relation. Therefore it makes no sense to say that 'you' are forced to do anything by your brain processes', because 'you' is part of the brain processes themselves. Or do you think that 'you', or more general consciousness, is a recognisable subsystem of the brain? A place where everything comes together, but powerless against all the other parts of the brain, a spectator only? Then what do you think initiated the response, and what do you think I am proposing? Can you explain this, please? What role does consciousness play in relation to freedom and control? It is also a quite simplified version of what I think. Of course I think consciousness plays a role, otherwise it would be difficult to me being aware of my wishes and beliefs. In many sports the needed reaction time is too short to have consciousness involved in every step and action. But I will still recognise my actions as my own actions, i.e. as free actions. Simply said: Benjamin Libet could not have done his experiments if he could not instruct his subjects first. And for understanding instructions, one needs consciousness.

If philosophy contradicts scientifically established facts, it is useless. This restricts logically where philosophy has something to say. See here for what philosophy's task is.

This is what you said: And then you give a list that does not contain one single proposition of mine concerning 'our nervous system'. You just compiled a list of propositions you do not agree with. Nowhere I am contradicting present 'understanding of how our nervous system actually functions'. I am contradicting some of your philosophical ideas. Your problem is that you think that these are scientific ideas. Yep, you still do not understand this, do you? There is no 'you' independent of your brain processes. 'You' is brain processes. It makes no sense to say some process is forced by itself. Saying 'you' is forced by brain processes is like saying that something is forced to happen because it happens. Yep. Try to understand chess by studying the workings of the flip-flops of a computer running a chess program. Next try to understand mathematics by studying the brain processes of a mathematician. Yep. You took this out of its context. If you take my definition of free will ('A person is said to have free will if he is able to act according his own motivations') then it is not relevant. If I brake for a child on the road and this action is already induced before I am completely conscious of my action, it is still according to my motivation. I am really very motivated not to overrun children.

Please name me these fallacious premises.

Do you recognise these sentences with the question marks at the end? The first sentence with the question mark is a real question, the second is a possible suggestion, which might correct or not, therefore I also put a question mark at the end. It does matter because I would like to follow your thinking. I can't see how you come to the conclusion that 'my understanding of of how our nervous system actually functions is flawed', and I want to understand that.

According your definition of sensation. KipIngram more or less showed everything that can be said about it here. Instead of understanding it, you keep discussing who is right. It is so simple: using your definition, you are right. Using Carrock's and StringJunky's you are wrong. Also, how do you conclude that I have a f'lawed understanding of of how our nervous system actually functions'? Because I, as KipIngram, noticed that the truth of you proposition ('that is untrue') depends on the meaning you use for the word 'sensation'?

You said this: I took this as a real process in the mind. As such I think this does not exist. If I am aware of my computer mouse, then I am aware of it. Full stop. There is no awareness of awareness of something. Try it out, but really, not as logical construction. I am pretty sure it is a huge difference in the brain. But that is rather speculative, but that holds for your remark too. But in reality there are no infinite regressions. The bug always stops somewhere. The best place to stop an infinite regression is at the first step, as in the awareness of a mouse, of which you are aware, and of which you are aware again, etc. What does the bold phrase mean? So you in fact only deny a definition, not an empirical fact. Pretty strong then, to say that something is 'untrue' just because you use another definition of the word 'sensation' than Carrock.

No, the dichotomy is not false. The 'we' according to the article applies to 1/3 of the people, 2/3 obviously do not have this. And further the way you present it suggests that the kind of pain the injured and the observers feel is exactly the same. Were that the case they would not be able to distinguish pain inflicted on directly on them, or on others. I very much doubt that is the case. But of course, it is an interesting phenomenon. With your background in neurology, you might be able to answer the main question of KipIngram: how to explain awareness (the feeling of having experiences yourself) scientifically.

Of course, but we have to distinguish what these inner states are: For the person having the pain it is the pain itself For the observer it is seeing (and hearing?) that a person reports pain

Good point. I was aware (!) that I am a bit vague with 'universal'. What I do not mean is all-knowing. What I do mean goes in the direction that the world of an 'universal anticipator' is not artificially limited, which is, I assume, the same as that there is no principal limit to what we can learn. Now of course there are chess programs that can learn, but this capability is limited to an artificial limited world. So no, the central heating system is not aware. It just has sensors for the faults it can report, and that is not an inner state. You do as if consciousness for inner states is the same as for objects I observe through the senses, in other words, that the 'awareness of a sensation' is in itself again a sensation. I do not believe that. Try it out. If I look at my computer mouse, I am aware of something black. I am also aware that I am aware of something that is black. But for me it stops there. What you really describe is just a logical construction, that does not occur in the mind. I do not understand what you mean here. If I say 'I am aware that you are conscious of pain' I am not reporting that I am in pain. That another person is in pain is not a report of an inner state of mine. But maybe I did not get your point.

It can also give you a more analytical and critical mind. Something for you to study? Not really... But I am doing something useful: I am participating in philosophical questions on the science forum!

No, no and no. Physics can and never will explain the basis of consciousness. I thought we were past this point? Consciousness will be explained by neurology and cognitive science. Its explanation will be based on a functional analysis, not on the accidental stuff that implements these structures. Every physical basis that implements the functions needed has consciousness. That is the reason you can forget to explain consciousness by any fundamental law of physics, because these details do not matter. Awareness is the capability of a system to universally anticipate possible events and how its own actions might affect them. It is also capable to reflect on its own inner states. Every system that shows it has such capabilities, is conscious. Saying that you can imagine such a system but that it is not conscious, is not a valid argument. I would even say: you cannot imagine it. See DD's quote above. Your gut feeling is underestimating how terrible complex the brain is. When thinking about machines, we might think about steam engines, or nowadays' modern computers. That is the thinking behind sayings that consciousness is '...basically just chemistry reactions along a biological substrate that is itself plastic'. No. To say it cryptically: consciousness is basically not basic. It can exist only in very complex structures, how complex we still have to find out. But the basis is the structure, not the substrate. Therefore, if you are looking for consciousness, do not look at basic physical or chemical laws: look for complex structures! You always avoided to answer one of my main questions to you: what form could a possible explanation of consciousness have, that you would really call it an explanation? Two thoughts to that: Would you ever accept an explanation that somehow makes the step from something not conscious, to something that is conscious? If not, the only way out seems to be 'reality is fundamentally conscious' as basic proposition. No explanation possible. (Or become religious, or believe in a soul: which is more or less the same as 'No explanation possible') The concept of 'explanation' implies that something can be explained to others. But that is a 3rd person viewpoint. How can a 3rd person explanation explain 1st person awareness? My conclusion is clear: your road to understanding consciousness is a dead end. To say it pretty bold: it is your gut feeling against my arguments (and of many others, of course...).

Yes, of course. But the question is 'what do I leave out' when I present a complete theory of consciousness. If a theory of consciousness explains how a person honestly reports about his inner states, must we add then some mystical extra? Do you need, together with a report of an inner state, also that the person says 'and I am conscious of this inner state'? Or is the reporting of the inner state consciousness? But of another rainbow. The person next to you does not see the rainbow at exactly the same place. You have your brain, I've got mine. I have my inner states, you have yours. Again, you lay higher constraints for an explanation on consciousness than you do for other phenomena. At some point also the physicist stops explaining. Having a complete theory is enough. There will always be left some basic elements that cannot be explained. Same for consciousness. DD presents his ideas as more or less 'complete' explanation of consciousness. Why should his theory not be the exlplanation of the 'feeling aware of oneself'? If you accept that science cannot explain first person experiences, then you also should not try. Science is just the methodological way of structuring the 3rd person view: so any explanation that you can share with others is bound to fail, because it presupposes the 3rd person view. So also Donald Hoffman's views are no use. BTW, I asked your reaction for the quote from DD's book. Do you have one? Why would the defence of vitalism be wrong, but your defence of the incompleteness of DD's theory not? They have exactly the same structure!

If you literally got nothing out of it, then surely you read it wrong. DD does not ignore the 1st person at all. However, the only way we have access to this 1st person is by a person's actions and speech. So we must find the conditions in the brain and the 'software running on it' that make e.g. the reporting of inner states possible. That is all what science can do, because science is the 3rd person view per definition. DD presents his view on what these conditions are, and refutes all kind of arguments against his views. The crux of your argument is refuted by the character of it: 'I can imagine systems that conform to all these conditions, but are not conscious'. DDs reaction to this is (in my words) that you are lying. Nobody can really imagine this (Chapter 9.5): What is your reaction to this? Right. Here lies the problem, at least it seems so. In reality I am fully convinced that you are aware. Only conscious programs can write such texts as you do. Yes. And I am the only person that is standing in the middle of the rainbow, only I have a glory around my head, and at sunrise above the sea the light mirroring in the water is pointing at me.

Thank you for the accolades. I hope I will not disappoint you. However, you made a lot of statements: o You never had use for philosophy o You never had use for philosophers o You never had respect for philosophy o You never had respect for philosophers Which ones apply? And which did I (hopefully) end? Can you use philosophers now?

Completely right of course. It is even worse what was done here. Dennett has this sentence 'foot noted' So where did you find this quote, MattMVS7?

Minor correction: all elements above helium. From here.

No, it isn't. And what do you mean with just speculation? In the first place there are different kinds of speculation: By lack of knowledge about certain facts, one can speculate about what would be the case (e.g. crime cases). Theory developing in science. One tries to find a theory that explains more facts than existing ones, but which empirical verification (or falsification) is still outstanding. Speculation in science however should always be consistent with most known facts. So 'Einstein was wrong!' is a very bad speculation, because relativity has been confirmed by many facts. Not bothered by any real knowledge in the field, propose all kinds of wild ideas. Thinking about reality 'behind the scenes', e.g. questions about what reality really is, about God, etc. Good philosophy is neither of them, accept maybe some questions in the fourth category; but I personally do not favour such kind of questions. Not quit clear what you mean. Philosophy surely is not about empirical reality. For that we have the sciences. And it certainly is not some 'assertion'. But philosophy is the reflection on how we think about reality. Its aim is to uncover the presumptions we use, ambiguities in concepts, and eventually to criticise them. It tries to find out how we think, and how we should think if we want to get at valid conclusions. No, no, and no. None of the 4 forms of speculation above is philosophy. Philosophy is an academic discipline, a training in clear thinking in the domain of reflections on fundamental questions. Thereby it might be that philosophy never finds final answers: but that does not mean it is therefore speculation. One could say philosophy's aim is intellectual insight. As Strange already did, a philosopher would point out to you that you mixup causes and reasons. There are 2 ways you can explain why a building exists: it exists because stones were piled together with the correct cement between them etc. it exists because people needed a place to live in. The first is the question for the cause, the second for the reason. We know that in nature many things exist without a reason, they only have causes. For the universe as a whole the question might not be that clear, but at least there is no logical reason to assume that there is a reason why the universe exists. The philosopher would show you that your '... why ...' (in 'all that exist must have an explanation why they exist') is ambiguous, because it can refer to an explanation in term of causes, or an explanation in terms of reasons. You shift the meaning of what an explanation is between 'Buildings exist because of the builder's reason to build' and 'all that exist must have an explanation why they exist'.