Consciousness Always Exists

[nonetheless]

Not sure how we define and describe consciousness, let alone what inherent "true/false" equation whose essence we abstract into being. 

If consciousness is assumed in humans, there seems to be a strong excuse in ascribing elsewhere of its presence, animals, plants, atoms, etc.  Ideas of Panpsychism seems to be our redemption.   Why should only humans have it in this continuity of the universe. Ideas of Leibniz comes to mind, consciousness curve may be plotted across all beings and things, even atoms.  It does not drop off after the ego of humans. 

But then, how do we categorically assume that consciousness will always exist ?

[zapatos]

On 12/21/2022 at 2:29 AM, nonetheless said:

Not sure how we define and describe consciousness, let alone what inherent "true/false" equation whose essence we abstract into being. 

If consciousness is assumed in humans, there seems to be a strong excuse in ascribing elsewhere of its presence, animals, plants, atoms, etc.

No description of consciousness I've ever seen could be applied atoms.

If you are not sure how to "define and describe consciousness", I don't see how you can then say 'if it is in humans then it is also in... atoms". That is like saying "I don't know what the properties of rubber are, but if it is in golf balls then it must be in baseballs."

[nonetheless]

The very definition of consciousness seems to be a question for the future generation to seriously study and explore, not recent us of present, of barely a century of modern science.  So far we understand it is a product of atomic (sub-atomic) interactions within a cramped skull confine, giving rise to an awareness of having it, regardless its mystery and secrets.  Atomic interactions are not limited to a 3 lb beaker of bones and skins that is us.

As any serious lover of animals, especially dogs and cats like many others,  would freely declare they are conscious beings of loyalty, pathos, intelligence, some more than humans. 

I wonder under what definitional basis of consciousness do we reject them from our self-proclaimed perch.  Not long ago, earth stopped being center of the universe as we emerged into light of renaissance from the dark ages of "we know everything that is needed in a singe book."  We got long light years to go.

Any absolute declaration of understanding of what consciousness is (or anything else absolute for that matter) is to assert the final breaching of the gap between the fingers of Adam and the absolute.  It will probably kill philosophy, as it breaths and healthily lives in that gap.

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, nonetheless said:

The very definition of consciousness seems to be a question for the future generation to seriously study and explore,

You wait. We'll go ahead and address the question now.

10 hours ago, nonetheless said:

I wonder under what definitional basis of consciousness do we reject them from our self-proclaimed perch. 

Again, no definition of consciousness I've ever seen suggests dogs and cats are not conscious.

10 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Not long ago, earth stopped being center of the universe as we emerged into light of renaissance from the dark ages of "we know everything that is needed in a singe book." 

Very poetic but seems a bit off-topic.

10 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Any absolute declaration of understanding of what consciousness is (or anything else absolute for that matter) is to assert the final breaching of the gap between the fingers of Adam and the absolute. 

I read that multiple times and do not understand what you are trying to convey.

No one here has made "Any absolute declaration of understanding of what consciousness is" so I don't think you have to worry about that.

[nonetheless]

Apologies for misunderstanding the topic at hand, "Always exists", seems to me quite the absolute indeed.  Always is preceded by a certain presumed idea (or definition) of consciousness that is always, in the first place.

We are not geocentric no more, as a cautionary repeating tale against any philosophical/scientific ideas of certainty, past, now, or forseeable future.  Not to be confused with not thinking about it, of course we should spending time investigating, debating, etc. But without abstract religious ideas of certainty, absolute, nothing, infinity, etc.  It's a matter of humility of our human small existence. Don't know why we declare that god does NOT have a gambling problem with dice games, per our most respected scientist.

One of modern scientific tragedy may be our inability to understand the "the hard problem" of consciousness, the very unknown thing that gives rise to the grand theories of standard model, quantum, string, multi-verse, holographic universe, etc.  Modern physics has degraded into the study of "dead things", atoms.  We seem to accept what the mysterious computer spits out, without a good understanding of how it works.

I would love to hear what our current definition of consciousness is

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by nonetheless

[nonetheless]

I have to admit some influence of my way of looking at consciousness had its start after watching Tarkovsky's masterpiece Solaris (not hollywood remake).  A giant conscious planet interacts with the consciousness of the scientists orbiting it, with deep compelling discussions of what consciousness could be, and as for mere humans, different level of it.

[Genady]

6 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Modern physics has degraded into the study of "dead things", atoms

Modern physics has degraded into the study of Nature's grandeur rather than focusing on one specific type of biological machinery capable to study it, albeit with difficulties. Of course, the latter is important as well. 

 

6 hours ago, nonetheless said:

We seem to accept what the mysterious computer spits out

"We" who? We rather test it.

 

6 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Don't know why we declare that god does NOT have a gambling problem with dice games, per our most respected scientist.

"We" who?

[nonetheless]

11 hours ago, Genady said:

Of course, the latter is important as well.

Yes, very much so.  Understanding the source is as imperative as the destination if not more

As for "who", it's our father of modern physics, Einstein, in disagreement of Quantum Mechanics which seems to challenge his absolute determinism.

One influential insight to human consciousness may be The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.  Dual hemisphere brain anatomy started its necessary interconnection only several thousands of years ago, giving a start to self-introspection of the human mind.   Before this bridging at corpus callosum, our ancient writings reveal the absence of this introspection (to be or not to be, I think therefore I am, etc).  Rather the right hemisphere talked to the left in voices and visions associated with external divine, easily lending itself to religious paradigms.  Its a compelling view of understanding human consciousness at its infancy. 

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

As for "who", it's our father of modern physics, Einstein, in disagreement of Quantum Mechanics which seems to challenge his absolute determinism.

But I didn't ask 'who' has authored that oft repeated quotation.

I've asked 'who' are 'we' in this statement:

18 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Don't know why we declare that god does NOT have a gambling problem with dice games, per our most respected scientist.

 

11 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

Understanding the source is as imperative as the destination if not more

The source is the Nature. Our mind is the destination.

[nonetheless]

"we" is a collective human recognition of limitation.  A telling caution, as even the most brilliant of us stumbles with certainty.   True/False logic applied to consciousness gives us that.

 

[Genady]

2 hours ago, nonetheless said:

"we" is a collective human recognition of limitation.  

Thus, this

21 hours ago, nonetheless said:

we declare that god does NOT have a gambling problem with dice games

reads,

"A collective human recognition of limitations declares that god does not have a gambling problem with dice games."

Is it correct?

[Markus Hanke]

9 hours ago, nonetheless said:

As for "who", it's our father of modern physics, Einstein, in disagreement of Quantum Mechanics which seems to challenge his absolute determinism.

I think it’s important to remember that QM is a completely deterministic model - given the initial state of any quantum system (plus boundary conditions), it tells us exactly how this system will evolve, in a deterministic way. It’s just straightforward linear algebra and differential equations. It’s only the observables that are probabilistic - each eigenvalue (measurement outcome) of these operators appears with a certain well-defined probability. You can’t - in general - predict the actual outcome of an observation, but you can predict the probability for each possible outcome with certainty.

There’s a difference between determinism and predictability - the evolution of quantum systems is deterministic, and at the same time the outcome of individual measurements is not predictable. It is also possible for a system to be both deterministic and predictable, but still not computable by any conceivable real-world computation device, because there are too many variables or degrees of freedom involved. 

So this whole issue isn’t quite as straightforward as often assumed - one sometimes has to consider the entirety of the determinism-predictability-computability triad.

[nonetheless]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think it’s important to remember that QM is a completely deterministic model - given the initial state of any quantum system (plus boundary conditions), it tells us exactly how this system will evolve, in a deterministic way. It’s just straightforward linear algebra and differential equations. It’s only the observables that are probabilistic - each eigenvalue (measurement outcome) of these operators appears with a certain well-defined probability. You can’t - in general - predict the actual outcome of an observation, but you can predict the probability for each possible outcome with certainty.

There’s a difference between determinism and predictability - the evolution of quantum systems is deterministic, and at the same time the outcome of individual measurements is not predictable. It is also possible for a system to be both deterministic and predictable, but still not computable by any conceivable real-world computation device, because there are too many variables or degrees of freedom involved. 

So this whole issue isn’t quite as straightforward as often assumed - one sometimes has to consider the entirety of the determinism-predictability-computability triad.

 

Just now, nonetheless said:

So this whole issue isn’t quite as straightforward as often assumed - one sometimes has to consider the entirety of the determinism-predictability-computability triad

Yes, agreed other than the initial condition which is never the same, why should it be, in this universe of constant evolution and change where nothing is static in xyz-t axis, Subatomic interactions all around us at any moment. QM seems to be valid (and welcomed in breaking the narrow presumed paradigms} with a revolutionary subjective participation in mind that changes expected outcome.  Before QM, subject/object boundary did not matter in the outcome as it is deterministic and same result regardless of the observer. 

But then after QM we face another theory of seeming consistency, string theory.  A pure math mathematical abstraction that lies beyond experimentation and validation, and heavily loaded with derision by the "shut up and calculate" hardcore reductionist/experiment tribe. 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, nonetheless said:

mind that changes expected outcome

It does not. This is misunderstanding. In QM, mind does not change an expected outcome. Nor any other outcome.

[nonetheless]

Per dual-slit experiments, if we set up the experiment to see it as a particle, it shows as such.  If we set it up to detect as a wave, we see interference patterns of waves as such.  This is my understanding of the most exemplified of QM phenomena.  Observer seems to play a part in this drama.

In philosophical reference to this, I can only think of Solipsism

[Genady]

It will happen the same way if an observer is nowhere. For example, you can videotape the experiment and throw the tape away. The results will be the same. It is the fact of measurement rather than that of observing that makes the difference.

[nonetheless]

In QM terms as far as i know, the experiment/and detectors are the observer, as it detects for us, imprinting result for us to review afterwards.  We are guilty of being the observer because we set up the experiment to detect one or the other.

 

 

[Genady]

We set up experiments in classical physics as well. And the outcomes of those experiments depend on our setup. This is not special for QM. 

The detector does not need to have a mind to affect the outcome.

[studiot]

12 hours ago, nonetheless said:

  A telling caution, as even the most brilliant of us stumbles with certainty.   True/False logic applied to consciousness gives us that.

 

Yes there are at least three different meanings to the assignment of a probability of 1.

I don't think however, that you can apply true/false (ie first order) logic to concepts like consciousness or life or many others.

Humans have a propensity to categorize or pigeonhole into preconceived classes and are constantly suprised when the natural world refuses to fit into these neat schemas.

We do not have a definition of consciousness any more than we have a definition of life itself.

The best we can do is to prepare a list of characteristics of living and non living, conscious and non conscious.

But experience shows that these lists have changed considerably over time.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, nonetheless said:

if we set up the experiment to see it as a particle, it shows as such.  If we set it up to detect as a wave, we see interference patterns of waves as such.  This is my understanding of the most exemplified of QM phenomena.  Observer seems to play a part in this drama.

The patterns will be there whether or not there is an observer. The observer is not relevant to the effect. This has nothing to do with consciousness, whatever that is... 

[nonetheless]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

The patterns will be there whether or not there is an observer. The observer is not relevant to the effect. This has nothing to do with consciousness, whatever that is... 

yes, how would you define consciousness

2 hours ago, studiot said:

We do not have a definition of consciousness any more than we have a definition of life itself.

Couldn't agree more

Edited January 10, 2023 by nonetheless

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

yes, how would you define consciousness

I wouldn't, or if I did, I'd likely be wrong regarding whatever I proposed. 

It's a placeholder word that's a bit like the concept of God. Ask 10 people what it means and you'll get 10 totally different answers. 

Then again, it's a bit like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Couldn't agree more

So what's the big problem ?

[nonetheless]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:06 AM, studiot said:

So what's the big problem ?

Consciousness, its lack of meaningful definition, even before the understanding seems to be the big problem.  We have it so intimately, yet little is known.   It seems to be more of a fuzzy logic domain of right hemisphere in its capacity to elicit big pictures, and less of deductive precise resolution logic domain

Real big picture attempt to address this is in Panpsychism line of thinking.  Where consciousness is viewed as an inherent part of all things we observe, as much as energy/matter/time permeates everything.  BIgbang gave us the SW along with the HW sort of idea.  Extension of this goes further to consider consciousness as the prime substrate giving rise to the emergence of atoms, plants, animals, even Kardashians.  A fascinating compelling view that escapes objective validation

One thing for certain as a male consciousness of me is to sympathize the attraction of a proton to the female electron

 

[iNow]

For the curious reader on the panpsychism / integrated information theory front: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/is-consciousness-everywhere/

Edited January 12, 2023 by iNow