Consciousness Always Exists

[Adhanom Andemicael]

Consciousness Always Exists

 

 

Part I:

Let us consider the following statements:

A. No situation exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.(1)
E. Consciousness exists.
F. Statement A can never be true.

***

I claim that statement F is true.

***

Proof:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.(2) If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.(3)

Since A can never be true, it follows that F is true.

***

If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false.

If A is always false, D is always true. A is always false. Therefore, D is always true.

We conclude the following: A situation always exists.(4)

 

Part II:

 

Suppose a situation S persists for zero seconds. Then S exists for "no length of time."(5) If S exists for "no length of time," S never exists. Therefore, if S persists for zero seconds, S never exists.

Suppose a situation exists. Then the situation must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a situation persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.(6) If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.(7) Therefore, if a situation exists, consciousness must exist.

 

***

If statement D is true, E is true. D is true. Therefore, E is true.

***

If statement D is always true, E is always true. D is always true. Therefore, E is always true.(8)

***

We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.(9)

***

 

Notes:

1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.
2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)
3. It can never be the case that statement A is true.
4. A situation must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no situation exists.")
5. Zero seconds is "no length of time."
6. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.)
7. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. (I discuss the relationship between time flow and consciousness in my paper "Temporal Passage.")
8. If a situation exists, consciousness exists.
9. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.")

 

 

Commercial website link removed

 

Adhanom Andemicael
andemicaela@yahoo.com

Edited December 10, 2022 by Phi for All
commercial link removed by moderator

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

Consciousness Always Exists

How do you define “consciousness”?

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

Let us consider the following statements:

A. No situation exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.(1)
E. Consciousness exists.
F. Statement A can never be true.

This is a classic fallacy / 'paradox', due to trying to combine too many mutually statements into one.

If you break down statement A into singleton statements you can see this.

[TheVat]

Has a St. Anselm feel to it, for sure.

 

Unicorns always exist.  

[Adhanom Andemicael]

On 12/10/2022 at 1:37 AM, Markus Hanke said:

How do you define “consciousness”?

When I say "consciousness exists," I mean the following:

"One or more conscious experiences occur."

 

 

Adhanom Andemicael

On 12/10/2022 at 7:11 AM, studiot said:

This is a classic fallacy / 'paradox', due to trying to combine too many mutually statements into one.

If you break down statement A into singleton statements you can see this.

What precisely is the "flaw" in the argument?

***

What are the "singleton statements" associated with statement A?

 

Adhanom Andemicael

[swansont]

On 12/10/2022 at 12:28 AM, Adhanom Andemicael said:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.(2) If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.(3)

No, what you’ve shown is that A and D aren’t true at the same time. As you’ve demonstrated, it’’s possible to create contradictory logical premises (A, and not A)

The fact that there is a contradiction only shows that one or more of the premises aren’t true. You can also conclude that D is false.

 

You’re also playing fast and loose with “situation”

Your later logic is similarly flawed.

 

[studiot]

A  No situation exists

This assumes

1) That an undefinened term 'situation' is capable of existing or not existing. and nothing else.

2) That statement A is capable of having a truth value.

 

This sort of paradox caused much heart searching in the foundations of Mathematics, particularly set theory, when they were first introduced and still have not been fully resolved.

The only thing we have determined for certain is that some part of the underlying definitions have to be restricted.

'Type Theory' was one was to do this by restricting the nature of what can be a 'set'.

my underline and nothing else is another way leading to what is called second order logic, with does away with the 'Law of the excluded middle'.

Other ways have also been found but we cannot proceed here until you provide / fireproof definitions that you have been asked for.
Note the definitions have been spread over several similar threads by yourself and others have also asked for them.

[Adhanom Andemicael]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, what you’ve shown is that A and D aren’t true at the same time. As you’ve demonstrated, it’’s possible to create contradictory logical premises (A, and not A)

The fact that there is a contradiction only shows that one or more of the premises aren’t true. You can also conclude that D is false.

 

You’re also playing fast and loose with “situation”

Your later logic is similarly flawed.

 

It seems to me that the argument is valid.  ("D is false" is just another way of saying that "A is true.")

***

Please note that the premise "D is false" leads to a contradiction.(1) (It leads to the conclusion that "D is true.")

 

***

Let us consider the following statements:

S1: If A is true, D is false.
S2: If A is true, D is true.

I think you are claiming that statement S1 is true.

I agree that S1 is true. Note however that S2 is also true.

Since S1 and S2 are both true, a contradiction arises.

 

***

 

I don't believe that there is a "flaw" in the "later logic."

 

Notes:

1. The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction.

 

 

Adhanom Andemicael

[Markus Hanke]

7 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

When I say "consciousness exists," I mean the following:

"One or more conscious experiences occur."

But that doesn’t answer the original question. How do you define “conscious”? It seems to me that there’s really no objective standard for this; it relies entirely on either self-reporting, or on behavioural analysis, neither of which are reliable indicators.

Or let me put the question differently - suppose you build a machine the goal of which is to approach the anatomy and function of the human brain as closely as possible. The basic building blocks are miniaturised computers that process inputs and produce outputs in the same way as neurons do, ie as electrochemical potentials with the proper timing. You start with a single one of these - I think we can all agree that there’s no conscious experience here yet. Now you begin to add more and more of these computers, and connect them together at the same degree of network complexity as would be found with real-life neurons in the human brain. Further assume that along the way you provide sensory channels similar to those us humans have, but all based on miniature computers.

Will this network ever become conscious? At what point does this network become “conscious”? And how can you tell that it has become conscious?

Remember we will eventually have an exact replica of the human brain, except that, instead of biological neurons, it is made of computers. 

[Intoscience]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

But that doesn’t answer the original question. How do you define “conscious”? It seems to me that there’s really no objective standard for this; it relies entirely on either self-reporting, or on behavioural analysis, neither of which are reliable indicators.

Or let me put the question differently - suppose you build a machine the goal of which is to approach the anatomy and function of the human brain as closely as possible. The basic building blocks are miniaturised computers that process inputs and produce outputs in the same way as neurons do, ie as electrochemical potentials with the proper timing. You start with a single one of these - I think we can all agree that there’s no conscious experience here yet. Now you begin to add more and more of these computers, and connect them together at the same degree of network complexity as would be found with real-life neurons in the human brain. Further assume that along the way you provide sensory channels similar to those us humans have, but all based on miniature computers.

Will this network ever become conscious? At what point does this network become “conscious”? And how can you tell that it has become conscious?

Remember we will eventually have an exact replica of the human brain, except that, instead of biological neurons, it is made of computers. 

This is a very interesting question and one not easily answered. I presume from this experiment you are supposing that consciousness resides as an independent entity not born from the mechanical/chemical, process/connectivity or complexity of neuron evolution?  

Edited December 12, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[JustJoe]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

Remember we will eventually have an exact replica of the human brain, except that, instead of biological neurons, it is made of computers. 

You might want to add five inherent senses to that because for sentient beings to be conscious , that is a necessity . Consciousness is a sentient beings ability to experience the universe via the five inherent senses . Although some sentient beings may be limited in this ability due to species . 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by JustJoe

[Intoscience]

30 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

You might want to add five inherent senses to that because for sentient beings to be conscious , that is a necessity . Consciousness is a sentient beings ability to experience the universe via the five inherent senses . Although some sentient beings may be limited in this ability due to species . 

 

 

You can easily program a machine/computer having discerning senses. It just takes some form of receptor / probe and then software. So it may not necessarily guarantee consciousness. However, the ability to "experience" may require a certain amount of perceptual input and indeed maybe a requirement for consciousness.   

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This is a very interesting question and one not easily answered. I presume from this experiment you are supposing that consciousness resides as an independent entity not born from the mechanical/chemical, process/connectivity or complexity of neuron evolution?  

No, not really. I was just aiming at the question of how to define “conscious”, as opposed to a machine that merely appears to be conscious. The difference between these is surprisingly hard to define. As for the nature of consciousness itself, I would conjecture that it probably arises as a global property of a complex system such as the brain, so I would think it resides in the global connectome and signal timings of the brain, rather than the nature of the individual building blocks. So if you were to replace all the neurons with machines that process inputs and outputs in the same manner, and are connected in the same way, then that new machine brain should be just as conscious. But of course, that’s purely conjecture - perhaps I’m entirely wrong on this.

3 hours ago, JustJoe said:

You might want to add five inherent senses to that because for sentient beings to be conscious

Yes, I did mention that we need to provide sensory channels, or else the results will be unpredictable. It would also be an ethical issue - imagine finding yourself conscious as a disembodied brain with all sensory channels turned off? Not good.

[JustJoe]

5 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

Yes, I did mention that we need to provide sensory channels, or else the results will be unpredictable. It would also be an ethical issue - imagine finding yourself conscious as a disembodied brain with all sensory channels turned off? Not good.

How would you be conscious if all sensory channels were turned off ? Wouldn't you then just be words ? 

[geordief]

10 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

tputs in the same manner, and are connected in the same way, then that new machine brain should be just as conscious. But of course, that’s purely conjecture - perhaps I’m entirely wrong

I have often wondered exactly  the same thing

Has anyone else wondered the same thing?

Is it just "suck it and see" or is there anything that can be said either way?)or is there even a middle way?)

 

If the answer is that the entity that was built by "filling in the gaps" in the existing conscious entity was exactly the same ,then that would presumably shape our understanding of what it is to be conscious on the first place.

Would consciousness show its face to be banal rather than the be all and end all  it feels like to me?

Would it preclude  "degrees of consciousness "?

Edited December 12, 2022 by geordief

[swansont]

 

8 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

It seems to me that the argument is valid.  ("D is false" is just another way of saying that "A is true.")

***

Please note that the premise "D is false" leads to a contradiction.(1) (It leads to the conclusion that "D is true.")

You’re missing the point. “D is false” is the conclusion from the contradiction, not the premise. The premise is, as you say, that D is true, but that leads to a contradiction.

 

8 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

 

***

Let us consider the following statements:

S1: If A is true, D is false.
S2: If A is true, D is true.

I think you are claiming that statement S1 is true.

I agree that S1 is true. Note however that S2 is also true.

Since S1 and S2 are both true, a contradiction arises.

 

S2 is not true.

 

8 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

I don't believe that there is a "flaw" in the "later logic."

Therein lies the problem.

 

8 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

 

Notes:

1. The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction.

So D and A can be true at the same time? You were arguing that this isn’t the case.

 

 

[Markus Hanke]

21 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

How would you be conscious if all sensory channels were turned off ? Wouldn't you then just be words ? 

Well, it would be like being confined to a perfect sensory deprivation chamber that is somehow able to completely suppress all external inputs. All that remains than are internal inputs, ie thoughts, memories, dreams, etc etc. Most people will probably consider this the highest form of torture.

22 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is it just "suck it and see" or is there anything that can be said either way?)or is there even a middle way?)

 

If the answer is that the entity that was built by "filling in the gaps" in the existing conscious entity was exactly the same ,then that would presumably shape our understanding of what it is to be conscious on the first place.

Would consciousness show its face to be banal rather than the be all and end all  it feels like to me?

Would it preclude  "degrees of consciousness "?

I can’t really answer these questions, also because this is not my area of expertise. Out of all the current attempts to explain consciousness, Integrated Information Theory seems to make the most sense to me, in which case the precise nature of the physical substrate underlying consciousness really isn’t relevant. Neurons are an extremely efficient solution, but in principle at least a network of machines that work in similar ways should do the job just as well. And yes, if IIT holds any water at all, then there should be degrees of consciousness, depending on complexity and structure of the network in question. In the future there might be ways to experimentally test this, but right now I think it’s pretty much all conjecture.

[TheVat]

An interesting experiment (gedankenexperiment, at this point) would be to hook up a conscious volunteer to a device that transfers the function of each neuron and synapse (nondestructively, so that neuron stays alive) to a silicon analogous unit.  After all neurons have transferred, you would then show something to the resulting silicon brain through artificial sensory channels, a set of images perhaps, while having a chat with it.  Then you would have this silicon analog transfer its current state (of each neuron analog) back to the biological brain, shut it down, and wake the volunteer.  Then ask them what they remembered.  Would they have any memory of briefly existing as the silicon-based brain?  

IIRC philosopher Derek Parfit came up with a series of thought experiments like this.  Mine is a modification of one of them.

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by TheVat
Pytos

[Adhanom Andemicael]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

You’re missing the point. “D is false” is the conclusion from the contradiction, not the premise. The premise is, as you say, that D is true, but that leads to a contradiction.

 

 

S2 is not true.

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

So D and A can be true at the same time? You were arguing that this isn’t the case.

 

 

The premise "A is true" is problematic. It leads to the conclusion that A and D are both true. 

The premise "D is true" is not problematic. It does not lead to the conclusion that D and A are both true. 

***

The premise "D is true" does not lead to the conclusion "D is false." 

***

Suppose we start out assuming that "A is true." Then "A is true" is the premise.

The premise "A is true" leads to the conclusion "D is true."

Here's the argument:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true. If C is true, D is true. Therefore, if A is true, D is true.

***

Let's extend this argument a little:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true. If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false.

***

The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction.(1)

 

***

 

Suppose we start out assuming that "D is true." Then "D is true" is the premise.

The premise "D is true" leads directly to the conclusion "A is false."

Here's the argument:

If D is true, A is false.(2),(3)

***

 

Notes:

1. The premise "A is true" leads to the conclusion "A is false."
2. The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction.
3. The premise "D is true" does not lead to the conclusion "D is false."

 

 

 

Adhanom Andemicael

[Intoscience]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No, not really. I was just aiming at the question of how to define “conscious”, as opposed to a machine that merely appears to be conscious. The difference between these is surprisingly hard to define. As for the nature of consciousness itself, I would conjecture that it probably arises as a global property of a complex system such as the brain, so I would think it resides in the global connectome and signal timings of the brain, rather than the nature of the individual building blocks. So if you were to replace all the neurons with machines that process inputs and outputs in the same manner, and are connected in the same way, then that new machine brain should be just as conscious. But of course, that’s purely conjecture - perhaps I’m entirely wrong on this.

Ok thanks for clearing that up. 

If a system appeared by all attempts close enough to be conscious then is there any reason to assume it wasn't? How would you define which is and which isn't "conscious".

Tricky I guess.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

The premise "A is true" is problematic. It leads to the conclusion that A and D are both true. 

The premise "D is true" is not problematic. It does not lead to the conclusion that D and A are both true. 

”problematic” is your bias applied to the situation. If you made a blanket, generic syllogistic argument you couldn’t assess anything as “problematic”

1. Z is true

2. Z is not true

There is a contradiction, but you can’t say which one is the false premise 

 

2 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

***

The premise "D is true" does not lead to the conclusion "D is false." 

Neither does the premise A is true lead to the conclusion A is false.

 

2 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

***

Suppose we start out assuming that "A is true." Then "A is true" is the premise.

The premise "A is true" leads to the conclusion "D is true."

Here's the argument:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true. If C is true, D is true. Therefore, if A is true, D is true.

There is more than one premise. Buried in your charade is a premise that A is false. 

 

2 hours ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

***

Let's extend this argument a little:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true. If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false.

***

The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction.(1)

 

Making it more complicated does not improve the argument. It’s a fallacy of distraction.

 

 

[Markus Hanke]

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If a system appeared by all attempts close enough to be conscious then is there any reason to assume it wasn't? How would you define which is and which isn't "conscious".

Yes, that was precisely the problem I was getting at.

[Adhanom Andemicael]

On 12/12/2022 at 4:59 PM, swansont said:

”problematic” is your bias applied to the situation. If you made a blanket, generic syllogistic argument you couldn’t assess anything as “problematic”

1. Z is true

2. Z is not true

There is a contradiction, but you can’t say which one is the false premise 

 

Neither does the premise A is true lead to the conclusion A is false.

 

There is more than one premise. Buried in your charade is a premise that A is false. 

 

 

Making it more complicated does not improve the argument. It’s a fallacy of distraction.

 

 

The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. 

The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction.

***

Let us consider the following statement:

S1: If B is true, C is true.(1)

***

The premise in this statement is "B is true." (Please note that "A is false" is not a premise in S1.(2))

***

 

Notes:

1. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)
2. The premise "A is false" is not present at any level in my argument. 

 

 

Adhanom Andemicael

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. 

The premise "D is true" does not lead to a contradiction.

A situation exists 

No situation exists.

There is a conflict between the two, but you can’t assign the contradiction to one or the other, since the conflict is between the two.

If you remove either if them, there is no contradiction. So claiming that only one of them leads to a contradiction is blatantly incorrect.

 

39 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

***

Let us consider the following statement:

S1: If B is true, C is true.(1)

***

The premise in this statement is "B is true." (Please note that "A is false" is not a premise in S1.(2))

***

No, one premise is “If B is true, C is true.” Another is “B is true” The conclusion is “C is true”

Basic syllogisms have two premises (though you can have more), and a conclusion.

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/syllogism

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

 

Notes:

1. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)
2. The premise "A is false" is not present at any level in my argument. 

All this shows is that D is unnecessary. But there is a contradiction between A and D; if you have D, then B is an unnecessary statement. (i.e. you don’t need both B and D. You don’t need C, either.) All you’ve done is add statements to make the situation more complicated. Red herrings. Sloppy argument.

 

 

[studiot]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

A situation exists 

No situation exists.

There is a conflict between the two, but you can’t assign the contradiction to one or the other, since the conflict is between the two.

If you remove either if them, there is no contradiction. So claiming that only one of them leads to a contradiction is blatantly incorrect.

 

Absolutely first class observation that is so often forgotten when people discuss logical analysis.

Paradoxes, conflicts etc so often arise because of an inappropriate combination of statements.

+1