Eise

Would a mind exist, when it never was connected to the senses (which would include no dialogues with other people too...)? We are the software of the brain, and without any input there would be no useful program running on the brain.

Hmm. I am a bit disappointed by your reaction. You wrote extensively about free will, I reacted on it, and now you simply drop the topic. Of course the topics of consciousness and free will are related. For both you claim that the traditional scientific attitude is bankrupt. And for both you propose solutions with QM, that have a strong odour of dualism. And besides, my last posting was not just about free will... Let me know when you are not interested anymore. But I think my arguments have earned a reaction.

QM predicts probabilities. EPR experiments show that underneath the determined probability distribution do not lie local causes. And that is exactly what you seem to suggest: that QM-events allow room for the will to interfere with nature. Well, we might get in a discussion about terms, but if I compare the different words with their opposites, I have following picture: free actions vs coerced actions determinism vs randomness freedom vs oppression Free will for me means being able to act freely (first bullet). If my choice were completely uninfluenced, then my actions would have nothing to do with the circumstances I am in, and also with who I am: my character, the things I learned in my life, my self-knowledge. That kind of free will is a chimera. Well I think I have written that pretty clearly. Of course we need determinism to act freely. In the first place, we cannot know any outcome of our actions, i.e. choose certain outcomes, if the result of my actions would be random. I need, so to speak, a reliable nature; that in similar circumstances occur similar outcomes. In the second place, the only way I can even be made responsible for my actions is when I determined my actions (I really like the word in this context... Somebody who is sure in his actions is said to be very determined). Now you are suggesting that there must be something (mind, soul), that sits in the control room, using the controls, getting information via the senses, but not subject of causality. But now you have only moved the problem to some subentity. No. Determinism and fatalism are two very different things. Fatalism means that I have no influence: things take their course independently of what I want. In determinism however, my motives, beliefs, feelings etc are causal factors. And to these factors belong also moral considerations. So there is no contradiction between moral behaviour and determinism at all. And of course you have choices: there is a relevant sense in which you have a choice when you are given a menu card in the restaurant, where e.g. a prisoner just has to eat what he gets. And if nobody forces you to pick something you do not want, you have a free choice. You just state this argument as if it is obvious. But it is not at all. Nothing would change, except that we might become a little bit less harsh in our verdicts, because we know there is nothing like ultimate responsibility, absolute free will, and the Evil (with capital 'E'). No! Exactly the opposite. Because I am conscious of my behaviour, the choices I make, the ideas and feelings these are based on, I must conclude that others are self aware too. I can even talk about the ideas and feelings with others. Obviously they have them too. In other words: philosophical zombies do not exist. Entities that behave exactly as we do, which includes talking about their inner feelings, thoughts, doubts, etc, but are not conscious are a pure philosophical fantasy. Therefore I know: certain complex processes can lead to self awareness. If we have found the conditions that such processes arise, we will have understood consciousness. If you think we don't, then you are applying harder constraints on explanations of consciousness than any other science does on its explanations.

I think it has to do with the 'hear-say' mechanism. Einstein felt very bad under Prussian discipline at school in Germany. He was pretty unconventional already in his youth. In this time his parents left for Italy, but poor Albert stayed behind in a guest family. I do not remember by heart, but I think his uncomfortness led him to emigrate to Switzerland (Aargau) where he finished school with great grades. Also at the technical University in Zürich, he was pretty unconventional: he did not visit lectures, and learnt on his own, partially with notes made by companions. I would say he did work pretty on his own (but not in complete isolation!). His revolutionary take on special relativity came as a complete surprise for the outer world (only one friend knew what he was working on). With general relativity he needed the help because of the math ("Hey I have a great idea, but I have some trouble with the math...."). Marcel Grossmann introduced him to the math of curved spaces, and much later he sought also support from David Hilbert. This nearly costed him his primary on general relativity, because Hilbert also started to work on it. They were ready at nearly the same time, but Hilbert gave all the credits to Einstein. But Einstein definitely knew what was going in the world of physics, and was completely uptodate in all the important disciplines. Contrary to crackpots who say 'I have a great idea, but I need help for the math...' Sounds similar, but there is a world of difference. Might be a reason too, but it would be extreme: in Switzerland, grades go from 1 to 6, 6 being the best. In Germany, it is the opposite. But with nearly only 1's in Switzerland one would never get at a University, as Einstein in fact did.

Sorry, that is not what I meant. I meant he gave up on the road of cognitive science explaining consciousness. Yes, I am such an opponent. Free will is not free will by 'breaking through the stream of determinism', but by causing actions based on our mental state (intentions, beliefs, ...). So even if QM effects play a role in my brain, it would only be a disturbing one, possibly breaking the causal chain from my motivation to my action. Yes. In order to be free, determinism must be true, or at least there must be sufficient determinism. But this is not an example of free will at all. Free actions are actions that are not overruled by the actions of others. The best examples of free actions are where I want something (motivation) and can actually do it (action). Bad examples are where I do not care what action will come out, and you gave such a kind of example. A quantum amplifier would mean that my free actions are random actions. That is definitely not what free will is.

I see progress. But it is slow, but in my opinion this can be explained by the complexity of the subject; and by the emotional barriers that it might be possible to understand ourselves as what we are: wet information processing machines. Please, re-read GEB; and read Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. (This is a few months of work, I know...). I would say this is just not true. There are some great ideas around. I would be happy to discuss above mentioned books with you. I would say that you give up the naturalist agenda too early. Consciousness seems to be the most complicated issue to tackle in science, and therefore a solution seems to be far away. But maybe we just need another perspective. To give up explaining, and postulate conscious agents as fundamental, is too much the move of an 'old universe creationist'. If it is just proposed as that, and nothing more then you are right. But in my opinion this is just a very high level abstract of the idea. I think there is a long way to go from Hoffman's conscious agents, to explaining human consciousness. And it might be (good that we are in the speculation forum) that if a research programme would be based on it, in the end the consciousness agent is thrown out as a superfluous assumption of the theory. Newton believed in God as a creator of the universe. But his mechanics was a great stepping stone in forgetting God as just a superfluous hypothesis. You are doing it again... No, no. That will not ever happen. But it is not necessary. It must only be possible to implement a functionality, in complexity more or less equivalent to neural structures in the brain. Does evolution pop out nicely out of mainstream physical theory? Or chess programs? Sorry to repeat my self so often: read GEB again. If we will understand consciousness one day, it will not be directly derived from physical theory. But conscious entities will be implemented in physical structures. I think Hoffman is much farther away from 'prime time'. In fact, it seems to me, he has given up.

Just forgot to mention it again: Every nerve cell is still a nerve cell, and each signal just a chemically transported potential difference. You should get rid of this kind of emotional pictures if you want to understand consciousness, it is a blockade to look into the processing character of consciousness. Maybe you should do this to get rid of it: every time you think of AI in terms of 'it is just ...' , build the same sentence but then with brain equivalents. And then do not forget we are conscious, even if we are 'just ...'.

It is not just a pattern of course. It is a very complicated process, with many levels, where higher levels can have influence on the lower levels. Really, re-read GEB, you probably would get a lot out of it. Why 'suddenly'? Wouldn't consciousness exist in gradations? And why are you looking at just at the smallest components, and 'view them as mechanisms only'? Seems the precise recipe never to understand consciousness. This is basically the 'Chinese room' argument. See also the arguments against it. You can read it online, taken from 'The mind's I', including a critique of Hofstadter. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe we should just get used that some complicated processes are conscious processes, independently from how they are realised, in nerve cells or flip-flops.

Philosophy does not just describe stuff. It is an academic subject. During my study at university AbnormallyHonest's stuff never was a topic. For good reasons. Very good reasons... Philosophy is not the trash bin of science.

No, it is not philosophy. AbnormallyHonest makes empirical claims; philosophy does not. But because he presents no logical or empirical evidence, and he contradicts science, these are just wild speculations.

A nerve cell neither.

No, definitely not. But one can distillate a kind of 'core-Buddhism' which fits pretty well to a scientific outlook. E.g. the teaching of 'no-soul'. It doesn't literary say that a soul does not exist, but it says a soul does not exist independently: it is build up from the 5 Skandhas, and when we die the soul dissolves. One way of understanding Buddhism is that it is a kind of humanism. And just as humanism usually does not contradict science, so neither does this 'core-Buddhism'. However: one must be clear that it is the 'believer' (or 'practitioner') who brews this 'core-Buddhism'. Many traditional Buddhists do not accept such a stripped-of Buddhism. But there is a rather strong movement in Europe and America known as 'Secular Buddhism'. See also here. I am practising Zen meditation. I see this as a helpful method not just to know that the Ego has no independent existence (based on scientific and philosophical arguments (many of the modern philosophical arguments can already be found in Buddhist texts)), but also to feel that way. In other words: Buddhist practice (not all its teachings!) might fit to a modern scientific world view. It gives hints how to get on par with a universe that is deaf to your needs, which might have created you, but will also destroy you in the end. It might be a way to have peace with the radical contingency of life.

These sources were already discussed in this thread. Your link is to a Christian website (the one you give later too). If you want to cite sources, then better do this of a critical, historical source. Where I agree with you that Jesus is mentioned in some secular sources, I would never point to a page that begins with: 'The' New Testament does not exist. It is a collection of writings of different sources, some only about 10 years after Jesus' death (some letters of Paul), until more than 70 years after his death. Critical historical investigation has shown that the gospels are inconsistent, partially wrong, and therefore not accurate at all. If you want to build a case, please use sources that are based on the best of historical science.

This Luc Montagnier, in the words of PZ Meyers: I have two other Nobel price winnners for you: Linus Pauling and Brian Josephson.

I said: Scientific speculations are at least not in contradiction with most of established science. And then you ask if I agree with: A speculation that is in contradiction with some of established science is not a scientific speculation. Ehhh? Didn't you understand what I wrote? Let's take the Bohr example: Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom was in contradiction with established theories about electromagnetism. Bohr's model explained the spectrum of hydrogen numerically precisely. So at one side it contradicted established science, on the other side it could explain something that physics until then couldn't. There obviously is a tension here: Bohr himself of course knew that he proposed something that couldn't be the last word. But Bohr's atom model was not in contradiction with the whole body of physics. Another important point is that established science can mean (at least) two things: scientific facts and scientific theories. Scientific theories can always be amended again. e.g. when we try to apply a theory in a domain where it does not lead to acceptable empirical predictions. But scientific facts cannot be denied. It is empirically measured that clocks slow down by high velocities, so there is no point to deny it, and yell 'relativity is wrong!'. It is an empirical fact that in a homeopathic solution of C100 there is no single molecule of the original substance in it. So if a speculation is in contradiction with scientific facts, then forget it. If your speculation is against established theories, then be sure you explain more facts than present theories do. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing (in principle) against wild speculations. It seems there are also people who collect stamps. But I have something against people who think scientists should all listen to their ideas, and get angry that their ideas are suppressed. In case of e.g. climate change I heavily have something against people who take their speculations as truths, and act upon them. I think I gave a kind of difference, but this is not dictionary-ripe. A hypothesis can be tested in the immediate future. A speculation's empirical confirmation lies in an unknown future. (Multiverse? String Theory?).

I have never heard of 'pseudo-speculations'. Something that looks like a speculation, but isn't one? 'I think Molly is home' might be speculation. Is it a pseudo-speculation because in fact I know she is home, because I just called her with my cell phone? But maybe it is useful to talk about a scientific speculation, and speculations in general. Or maybe founded speculations (we are not only speculating in science, but also in daily life), and wild speculations. Scientific speculations, are at least not in contradiction with most of established science, and ideally increases the domain of explained facts. If (empirical) tests are imminent, then we could better use the word 'hypotheses'.

True. One of the shallowest arguments is 'I cannot imagine how this is possible, so I postulate a simple answer': Universal Consciousness! (Never forget the capitals). As Strange already said above: this is quantum woo. You obviously explain something you do not understand, with something else you do not understand. Now that is shallow thinking.

Hi KipIngram, First a compliment for the way you show your ways of thought. The quality of your posting is high above many of the postings made in the philosophy forum. You ask for people if they can bring something new. Reading all your thoughts, I am not sure I can, but I give it a few tries. As a take-off, I would take that you know you are conscious. As you were born from humans, grew up, live and communicate with humans, I hope you agree that this is a sufficient basis to state that all humans are conscious. A second point is that we are animals: we descended from other animals, those from simpler organisms, even from organisms that do not have nervous systems. The fact that changes in our central nervous system (drugs, concussion) change our consciousness, is a basis for supposing that consciousness is related to brain processes, so we can safely assume that organisms without nervous systems are not conscious. So where would the spirit enter organisms in the historical evolution? I think the question makes no sense at all. Therefore I think we can safely assume that consciousness is a function of nervous systems above certain complexity. This of course is not a theory of consciousness: but for me it is enough to see this as an empirical fact: that complex nervous systems can give rise to consciousness. The next question is then if completely different systems, like complex electronic devices (aka computers, but we might need some completely different kinds of hardware as we have now) principally could have consciousness. Elsewhere I described what I think are necessary attributes of of a system to call it conscious: being able to observe the environment, react on it in ways that show that the system evaluates possible courses of actions, and is able to reflect on reasons for its actions, and communicate them, and understand reasons of other systems (organic or not). You say the hardware of a computer is a machine, and nothing more. That is of course not true. It is a very special machine. And it is this specialty in which it differs from machines with other specialties, like cars or pumps. One should always be aware of expressions like '... is nothing more than...', or '... is just...'. You can be sure when hearing or thinking such a thought, that exactly that attribute that is important is cut off. You should put a trigger on those words, something like 'over-generalisation alarm!'. A steam engine is nothing more than iron, coal and water. But you cannot ride a train with a heap of iron, a heap of coal and a tank with water. And the essence of the train is not that it is steam engine: it could also be a diesel engine. Different material components, but does the same: it pulls a train. So I would say: we are complex electro-chemical engines, so complex that consciousness can arise. (So we are not just electro-chemical engines, we are very complex ones.) There is no reason beforehand to exclude the possibility that a system built on other underlying principles could be conscious too. But it must at least share some of the complex structures that we are. In this thread you are referring to Gödel, Escher, Bach. I think you really should reread it. The essence of the book is not what you write there: that is just a global formulation of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I see the main point of GEB in the hypotheses that consciousness can arise in systems that are built up of different layers of complexity built on each other, and where the higher levels can change the system on lower levels (see strange loop). I think you can get a quick overview of Hofstadter's thinking if you read one of the final chapters of GEB, called 'speculations', if I remember it correctly. All this is of course not consciousness explained. But one should ask what one expects from such an explanation. I think that if we would know the necessary conditions for a system to be consciousness, we understand consciousness. A philosopher like Daniel Dennett even thinks that we know what these conditions are. So if you are ready with GEB, go on with Dennett, 'Consciousness Explained'. Hope I gave you a few new thoughts... Happy to investigate further, but I will not have always so much time...

I think you do not quite understand the scientific 'mind set'. New entities are only hypothesised when there is something that cannot be explained by existing scientific means, when we know that existing explanations fall short. To give an example: dark matter. We know we cannot explain the movements of galaxies as we see them, or the gravity lensing effect. So there is an obvious hole in our explanations. There might be more than one hypotheses that can explain what we observe, but dark matter is surely one of them. For consciousness this is not clear at all. Quite the opposite, neurology is progressing fast, and there also no compelling philosophical reasons to assume something like you propose here. Only when we are sure that known mechanisms cannot explain consciousness, we must look farther. But we do not know that yet, because we know we do not know all mechanisms. A lot is already known of course, but you should ask a biologist and/or neurologist. But there is no reason at all to suppose that the causal chains are somewhere incomplete. Therefore the interesting question here is why it feels that 'I' move my hand. If you carefully observe and reflect on how you move your hand, you will even discover that you even do not know how you do it. You just do it.

This is plainly false. You obviously never read the gospels. Get informed. Then you can go on, e.g. reading a few books of Bart Ehrman

That's why I took the one paragraph that is contradicting all science I know of. . NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! (Sorry this had to be... )

You do realise you are asking a question to somebody who wasn't on this forum for 4 years?

Shall I put it in a disclaimer? Everytime I say something like 'All the empirical evidence' you may add 'I am aware of' in your mind. Also when I say sentences like 'A is B' you may think that I really mean 'I think that A = B'. OK? And otherwise I am totally curious if you know of empirical evidence consciousness can exist with being implemented in 'chemical and physical changes'.

All the empirical evidence shows in the opposite direction: that consciousness is a function of the processes in the brain. Philosophy contradicting empirical evidence is very poor philosophy, and in fact worthless.

I agree with this summary. I never disputed your descriptions of how our brains work, and I indeed argue that these inner workings are irrelevant. Any system that has the same capabilities as we have (reflect on future developments, on the effects of its own possible actions on these, on reasons it has, being able to explicate these reasons to other systems with the same capabilities etc etc, on the long term) can be assigned to act freely or not, independent of our knowledge of its inner workings. Just to add: it makes no sense to apply the category free/not free action to systems that do not have afore mentioned capabilities. A planet is not forced in its orbit by the gravity of it central star. (One could also say that a planet wants to be in its orbit, because the presence of its central star. That makes no sense too.) Causal laws are in fact no laws. Laws of nature are not enforced, like human laws. They are descriptions of how natural objects happen to behave. This also applies to the workings of neurons and the brain. But if the system behaves in the way I described above, then this 'spherical cow' expresses very complex behaviour (verbal and non-verbal). But such complex behaviour hardly justifies to call it a 'spherical cow'. Surely, one day neurologists might find out what the difference between free and coerced actions is. But the differences will be in how different subsystems of the brain react on each other and on sense inputs, and not in a conscious 'captain system' in the brain. Every process will be determined all the same.