iNow Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: The idea of "house" an emergent property of the arrangement of bricks, rather than a thing in its own right or a property of the bricks. Consciousness is a property of an arrangement of matter, rather than a property of the brain's matter itself. Interesting analogy, potentially made stronger by replacing the word “house” with “home.” 1
DrmDoc Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 43 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said: Yes, but science can only test if consciousness is incarnate in a physical organism, i.e. it can only look for the signs that it recognizes as consciousness in physical beings and postulate theories on what we are able to observe directly in the interrelation between that organism and conscious behavior. Science does not as yet possess sufficient knowledge to understand what consciousness really is, nor does it wield instrumentation subtle enough to test if there is conscious activity occurring beyond the apparatus of the physical entity. So while we can assume what consciousness is and where it originates, that's about all we can do. I disagree; science does indeed have sufficient knowledge to understand the nature of consciousness because it is a known quality emerging from physical existence. The concept of consciousness would not have emerge in us (humanity) without our physical existence. It is because of humanity's ability to determine and understand the intricacies of its physical nature that we are able to determine and understand that consciousness emerges from brain structure and function.
Moontanman Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said: Not necessarily. You're positing that the brain is the generator of consciousness, and once the generator is damaged, consciousness itself ceases. This is sometimes true on the individual level: people with dementia lose cognitive ability, wither away, and die. The same degeneration is seen with TBI or as a result of encephalopathy. So yes, on the surface what you're saying seems to be correct, that the mind and brain are one. Yes it "seems" to be supported by the available evidence. 12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said: But there is another alternative, and that is the brain is not the generator of consciousness but the receptor of it; that consciousness is a supra-material phenomena that exists independently of the brain. To analogize the situation the brain could be like a radio, and consciousness the radio wave or signal that the individual radio is tuning into. If someone didn't understand how radios work, it would seem as if the radio signal is being generated by the radio, as the radio is generating the soundwaves, music, etc. So when you damage the radio itself, the ability to produce sounds is impaired, and one might logically assume that it is the source of the signal, never realizing that the radio-waves are being generated another source, and the individual radio unit is merely picking them up. Again that alternative has zero supporting evidence other than baseless assertions. Invisible pixies might be broadcasting consciousness but there is no evidence to support this. 12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said: In this way so our brains might be the receptors of consciousness, not the generators of it. Yes, we generally require a healthy physical brain to adequately process this signal and act in intelligent way, but there do seems to be exceptions, such as those people who lose large amounts of brain matter but still function normally. Again where is your evidence of this? What is the mechanism of this? Where does the broadcast come from? 12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said: Another anomaly in my view are the incredibly complex behaviors exhibited by organisms that do not possess highly developed brains. Take insects, for example, and in particular the behavior shown by hornets and bees in this video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M). Yes, insects have a basic brain that acquires sensory information and controls their central nervous system, but the behavior displayed in this video is of such a high order of complexity that their rudimentary physical brain should not account for it in the traditional materialist paradigm. The behavior of these two species in the video is strategic and intelligent, and to me indicates that some other factor is at play, a factor that is supra-material. I would suggest that you provide evidence for this assertion, I see no reason think these behaviors are anything but evolutionary pathways that result in behaviors that evolved over time with no decision making at all.. 12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said: Yes, but science can only test if consciousness is incarnate in a physical organism, i.e. it can only look for the signs that it recognizes as consciousness in physical beings and postulate theories on what we are able to observe directly in the interrelation between that organism and conscious behavior. Science does not as yet possess sufficient knowledge to understand what consciousness really is, nor does it wield instrumentation subtle enough to test if there is conscious activity occurring beyond the apparatus of the physical entity. So while we can assume what consciousness is and where it originates, that's about all we can do. We can assume (ass/u/me) many things not supported by available evidence, science does not work that way and to suggest it does it a strawman... Show some evidence that consciousness originates outside the brain and we can go forward with that bald speculation. But in the face of no evidence the default position is not to believe the assertion, this applies quite nicely to the idea of consciousness originating outside the brain, no evidence for it, then it shouldn't asserted as possible.. 12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said: I don't. I think the scientific method is the best way to fully understand the material world. Develop a hypothesis and figure out a way to test for it, what could be more simple and direct? However, it's typical of human nature to not ask novel questions and to castigate those who do. It's also human nature to remain in the comfort zone of collectively held views and not venture into unknown territory with the objective of discovering something new, and to attack those who do challenge the established paradigm. Such bias is a contamination of scientific inquiry and the methods that support it. You seem to be fixating on this despite the processes that science uses to filter out biases. Is it perfect? Of course not, but simply asserting what you think adds any weight to your speculation is a much more extreme bias...
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 13 hours ago, John Cuthber said: "Consciusness IS NOT MATTER" Had anyone said it was? If I make a house out of Lego bricks, then pull the bricks apart, where did "the house" go? The idea of "house" an emergent property of the arrangement of bricks, rather than a thing in its own right or a property of the bricks. Consciousness is a property of an arrangement of matter, rather than a property of the brain's matter itself. If we take into account your explanation, we still have the same problem we have with quantum decoherence.
Strange Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 Just now, elias_marquez_zoho said: If we take into account your explanation, we still have the same problem we have with quantum decoherence. What? You will need to explain that. What does quantum decoherence have to do with consciousness? (Apart from the pointless reductionist argument that everything is fundamentally due to quantum effects.)
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 12 hours ago, DrmDoc said: I disagree; science does indeed have sufficient knowledge to understand the nature of consciousness because it is a known quality emerging from physical existence. The concept of consciousness would not have emerge in us (humanity) without our physical existence. It is because of humanity's ability to determine and understand the intricacies of its physical nature that we are able to determine and understand that consciousness emerges from brain structure and function. You are wrong again, consciousness doesnt only emerge from brain structure and function, you need to receive light/photons/information/electromagnetism from your surroundings for consciusness to happen. -1
Strange Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 45 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: You are wrong again You are very good with assertions, but not too good with evidence. 1
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, Strange said: You are very good with assertions, but not too good with evidence. I explained the argument; for consciusness to happen we need information from our surroundings.
DrmDoc Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 24 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: You are wrong again, consciousness doesnt only emerge from brain structure and function, you need to receive light/photons/information/electromagnetism from your surroundings for consciusness to happen. If you haven't sufficiently studied the nature of brain function and brain evolution, which seems quite obvious, then it's easy to understand your misperception. If you have, then you should know that consciousness is an output of a system evolved for that purpose. "light/photons/information/electromagnetism" (sensory) are merely the forms of input that system might receive to produce consciousness. Empirically, unequivocally, unquestionably that system is brain function and consciousness is merely an output arising, emerging, originating from how this system (brain function) processes and integrates the sensory input it receives. Nothing is more evident of the role of brain function in producing consciousness than the profound changes in perception, personality, behavior, and quality of life we observe through sufferers of brain damage.
Alex_Krycek Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 9 hours ago, Moontanman said: Yes it "seems" to be supported by the available evidence. Really? What evidence do you have that consciousness originates in the brain? Can you dissect the brain and isolate the key processes involved? Can you provide at least a model of how consciousness arises within the brain and how that relates to our subjective experiences (our imagination, our emotions, our understanding of reality, etc)? 9 hours ago, Moontanman said: Again that alternative has zero supporting evidence other than baseless assertions. Invisible pixies might be broadcasting consciousness but there is no evidence to support this. But we're not discussing "invisible pixies", we're discussing a very simple metaphor for how consciousness might work. This is a hypothetical discussion as none of us have direct evidence. Even the illustrious Richard Dawkins sees fit to employ metaphors when he attempts to explain matters such as these, calling human beings "lumbering robots" among other "vivid phrases". 9 hours ago, Moontanman said: Again where is your evidence of this? What is the mechanism of this? Where does the broadcast come from? In this frontier we can only hypothesize. Perhaps the universe itself is intelligent, in that it has inherent properties of a conscious, living mind. As to evidence of this intelligence, what you accept will differ according to your personal philosophy of what the universe is. If you believe that everything is random and there is no such thing as a higher intelligence, you will see everything as random and accept nothing as evidence of a higher intelligence, in accordance with your beliefs. Personally, I think that the evolution of life and the development of complex living systems with self directed goals and conscious behavior is a strong indicator of an intelligent force underpinning our universe. 9 hours ago, Moontanman said: I would suggest that you provide evidence for this assertion, I see no reason think these behaviors are anything but evolutionary pathways that result in behaviors that evolved over time with no decision making at all.. Positing that these phenomena are the result of "evolutionary pathways" does not explain how or why they occurred. It is an assumption. 9 hours ago, Moontanman said: We can assume (ass/u/me) many things not supported by available evidence, science does not work that way and to suggest it does it a strawman... Show some evidence that consciousness originates outside the brain and we can go forward with that bald speculation. But in the face of no evidence the default position is not to believe the assertion, this applies quite nicely to the idea of consciousness originating outside the brain, no evidence for it, then it shouldn't asserted as possible.. Well, either we don't discuss consciousness at all as neither side has any evidence to support their position, or we proceed with a hypothetical discussion of the possible origins of consciousness in which we afford each other some modicum of impartial open-mindedness in the spirit of free inquiry. I prefer the latter. -1
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: If we take into account your explanation, we still have the same problem we have with quantum decoherence. So...?
Strange Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: I explained the argument; for consciusness to happen we need information from our surroundings. Even if true (you have provided no evidence for this assertion) that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't arise in the brain, just that it also requires external stimuli. (Which, if true, wouldn't be too surprising.) 20 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said: What evidence do you have that consciousness originates in the brain? You are trying to compare an idea which is consistent with the evidence (neural correlates of consciousness, changes to the brain changing consciousness, etc) with something for which there is zero evidence (a magical external source of consciousness). The latter may be correct, but as there is zero evidence for it, I'm not going to spend any time on it. 2 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: If we take into account your explanation, we still have the same problem we have with quantum decoherence. You still haven't explained the relevance of this apparent non sequitur. 1
DrmDoc Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Really? What evidence do you have that consciousness originates in the brain? If I may interject, EEG studies in brain death connects the nonexistence and non-expression of consciousness with brain function cessation. Quote Can you dissect the brain and isolate the key processes involved? Can you provide at least a model of how consciousness arises within the brain and how that relates to our subjective experiences (our imagination, our emotions, our understanding of reality, etc)? If not Moontanman, I certainly could in discussion if you are will to sit through several hours of instruction in brain evolution and function, which would include dissection in illustrations and peer-reviewed science spanning nearly 200 years of brain research. Our brain structure provides a remarkably clear record of how it evolved to its present state. I learned as much while researching a book on the dreaming brain's neuropsychology. 1
Strange Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Can you dissect the brain and isolate the key processes involved? That is rather like the person on another thread asking where in the genes the shape of a hand is described. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the complete structure of the brain. 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Can you provide at least a model of how consciousness arises within the brain and how that relates to our subjective experiences (our imagination, our emotions, our understanding of reality, etc)? Although I have no expertise in this, I have read many articles that give a plausible explanation of how this could happen. An entertaining read on this, and several other related subjects, is Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.
Moontanman Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Really? What evidence do you have that consciousness originates in the brain? Every bit of evidence we have so far points to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain. What evidence do you have that consciousness is something the brain picks up like a radio from the outside? 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Can you dissect the brain and isolate the key processes involved? Can you provide at least a model of how consciousness arises within the brain and how that relates to our subjective experiences (our imagination, our emotions, our understanding of reality, etc)? https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness https://www.seeker.com/physical-location-of-consciousness-found-in-brain-2086918268.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: But we're not discussing "invisible pixies", we're discussing a very simple metaphor for how consciousness might work. If you are asserting that the brain is a receiver from consciousness that is broadcast from some unknown source outside the brain then yes we are... 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: This is a hypothetical discussion as none of us have direct evidence. Yes, yes we do, please read my links to get your google search started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Even the illustrious Richard Dawkins sees fit to employ metaphors when he attempts to explain matters such as these, calling human beings "lumbering robots" among other "vivid phrases". So now you are going to quote mine Richard Dawkins? "We are biological robots" is actually quite an accurate metaphor for biology. 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: In this frontier we can only hypothesize. Perhaps the universe itself is intelligent, in that it has inherent properties of a conscious, living mind. As to evidence of this intelligence, what you accept will differ according to your personal philosophy of what the universe is. If you believe that everything is random and there is no such thing as a higher intelligence, you will see everything as random and accept nothing as evidence of a higher intelligence, in accordance with your beliefs. Perhaps monkeys will fly out of my rectum... Belief is not evidence of anything except what you think is true. As has been said many time, non random has no connection with a higher intelligence, order can and does arise from chaos and your personal philosophy of what the universe is and a couple $ will get you a coke in many vending machines... 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Personally, I think that the evolution of life and the development of complex living systems with self directed goals and conscious behavior is a strong indicator of an intelligent force underpinning our universe. What you personally think is not evidence and even in speculation you have to backup your assertions, read the rules of the forum... 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Positing that these phenomena are the result of "evolutionary pathways" does not explain how or why they occurred. It is an assumption. Natural selection is is the scientific consensus of why evolutionary pathways result from random factors. 1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said: Well, either we don't discuss consciousness at all as neither side has any evidence to support their position, or we proceed with a hypothetical discussion of the possible origins of consciousness in which we afford each other some modicum of impartial open-mindedness in the spirit of free inquiry. I prefer the latter. The spirit of free inquiry, at least in science, requires you to back up your speculation with something other than baseless assertions. What you prefer is not relevant...
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 19 hours ago, DrmDoc said: I agree with Strange, chemistry = physics is a specious argument given the position you appear to support. The position you espouse would suggest that all matter is consciousness, which it is not given human equivalency as the only scientifically verifiable mean by which we are able to quantify the true nature of consciousness. Human equivalency assures humanity that it is indeed conscious and our equivalency in brain structure assures us of the means by which we are able to determine that quality. That's a straw man right there. The only empirical proof we have of consciousness is our personal experience. Cogito ergo sum I don't experience consciousness in your body or in my father's body. 5 hours ago, Strange said: What? You will need to explain that. What does quantum decoherence have to do with consciousness? (Apart from the pointless reductionist argument that everything is fundamentally due to quantum effects.) According to user John Cuthbert, consciousness is only the product of matter structured in certain way. That would mean that if you structure protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks in certain way you will obtain consciousness, while if your structure protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks in other way you will obtain a handkerchief or a rock, and not consciousness. It doesn't solve the problem because they are still the same things. According to that, consciousness would be the fifth state of matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, and Conscious. If you both don't agree to this, you are implicitly admitting consciousness doesn't exist. The relation with quantum decoherence is quite understandable. Physics in certain scales work one way and in bigger scales work in a completely different way, with different laws of nature. This is parallel to my former statements about protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. 3 hours ago, DrmDoc said: If you haven't sufficiently studied the nature of brain function and brain evolution, which seems quite obvious, then it's easy to understand your misperception. If you have, then you should know that consciousness is an output of a system evolved for that purpose. "light/photons/information/electromagnetism" (sensory) are merely the forms of input that system might receive to produce consciousness. Empirically, unequivocally, unquestionably that system is brain function and consciousness is merely an output arising, emerging, originating from how this system (brain function) processes and integrates the sensory input it receives. Nothing is more evident of the role of brain function in producing consciousness than the profound changes in perception, personality, behavior, and quality of life we observe through sufferers of brain damage. You haven't studied the nature of our universe and the 4 physical forces who govern it, then it's easy to understand your misperception. In pure science (physics), there is no such thing as "separate universes" between the outputs and inputs of a system. A system works with the universe, physicists regard the Laws of Nature as Universal, thanks to the confirmations made by the experiments. Empirically, unequivocally, unquestionably, scientifically, a system works with the Laws of Nature of our universe, and not separated from those Laws of Nature. This means the light/information (one of the 4 forces of Nature) the system uses, is as basic for the functioning of the system as it is the brain or the neuron. Laws of nature are universal for all the systems involved. I invite you to know more about the electromagnetic field. QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) is the quantum theory for the electromagnetic force. It is the MOST ACCURATE THEORY ever made by the human being. 12 decimal numbers of accuracy: 1
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: According to user John Cuthbert, consciousness is only the product of matter structured in certain way. That would mean that if you structure protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks in certain way you will obtain consciousness, while if your structure protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks in other way you will obtain a handkerchief or a rock, and not consciousness. It doesn't solve the problem because they are still the same things. According to that, consciousness would be the fifth state of matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, and Conscious. You seem to have missed a bit. I said that consciousness was like a house made from toy bricks. According to your "logic" there are 6 states of matter, the five you mention and "house". Does that really make sense to you?
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: You seem to have missed a bit. I said that consciousness was like a house made from toy bricks. According to your "logic" there are 6 states of matter, the five you mention and "house". Does that really make sense to you? Nope. According to my logic your "house" is made by bricks and those bricks are electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. They can't be anything else.
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 19 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: Nope. According to my logic your "house" is made by bricks and those bricks are electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. They can't be anything else. Same goes for consciousness. It's made of electrons + stuff. It can't be anything else (because there isn't anything else for it to be made of. There are lots of other emergent properties. Do you consider "green" to be a state of matter? If not, why do you consider "self aware" to be any different? I like that fact that, if you get a lot of hydrogen and wait long enough, some of it starts to wonder where it came from.
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Same goes for consciousness. It's made of electrons + stuff. It can't be anything else (because there isn't anything else for it to be made of. There are lots of other emergent properties. Do you consider "green" to be a state of matter? If not, why do you consider "self aware" to be any different? I like that fact that, if you get a lot of hydrogen and wait long enough, some of it starts to wonder where it came from. 1.You sure? What about fields? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics) For example, it seems there is the "Higgs Field"... which creates matter... What about a field which creates consciousness? Wasn't Nobel Physics laureate Roger Penrose pointing out to that? 2. Yep. The properties of that particular matter reflect green light (for human consciousness).
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 OK, I apologise for trying to be succinct. 10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Same goes for consciousness. It's made of electrons + stuff. It can't be anything else (because there isn't anything else any other form of matter for it to be made of. 3 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: 2. Yep. The properties of that particular matter reflect green light (for human consciousness). And the properties of a particular form of matter* make it conscious. * For example, you and me
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: OK, I apologise for trying to be succinct. And the properties of a particular form of matter* make it conscious. * For example, you and me Consciousness is not like light... it WORKS with light and matter but it is a distinct phenomenon.
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 Just now, elias_marquez_zoho said: Consciousness is not like light I didn't really say that it was. I just used colour as an example of an emergent property. 1 minute ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: it WORKS with light and matter Are you saying that blind people are not conscious?
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 Just now, John Cuthber said: I didn't really say that it was. I just used colour as an example of an emergent property. Are you saying that blind people are not conscious? Blind people still hear, smell, talk, touch... they still receive information/photons in the other senses.
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: Blind people still hear, smell, talk, touch... they still receive information/photons in the other senses. Obviously, but they don't sense light So, why mention light in this? 5 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said: Consciousness is not like light... it WORKS with light and matter but it is a distinct phenomenon. Is there anything special about light, or is it just one of teh ways we get information?
Recommended Posts