Consciousness

[Antlerman]

A form of ad hominem?

I'm not in the right frame of mind to think much about this now, but Shyone's post didn't strike me as ad hom. It seemed he restricted his criticism to the quote.

That was what I was suggesting. And as a result of using that instead of addressing the points raised in it, could be taken as a demonstration of having no counter argument.

[Antlerman]

A form of ad hominem?

Exactly! The implication of the Alpha and Omega remark was to imply that scientists are more religious than logical and the characterization of materialistic science as an "outworn paradox" was dismissive.

 

But the use of Capital letter to suggest Importance of a Word was just Weird.

The comments were not pejorative at all. I wouldn't quote from him if he was stooping to that, which he doesn't, nor was. It is a figure of speech that means exactly this: That matter is taken as the beginning and the end of all that is. That is the meaning of Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. That is in fact representative of your position, is it not? That matter is the beginning and end of all that is?

 

As far as his style of speaking and writing goes, get over it. He lived in India from 1872 to 1950. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo BTW, I do not believe his use of capital letters was to 'emphasize' words. Usually, it is to notate things that relate to the Divine. That is and how is was using them.

 

So do you have any points you care to challenge, or just dismiss him incorrectly assuming he was insulting you?

 

As far as your response to my speaking of the nature of the Interior, most of it was largely restating your position, but I'll offer a response to a few things later on.

[Shyone]

A form of ad hominem?

I'm not in the right frame of mind to think much about this now, but Shyone's post didn't strike me as ad hom. It seemed he restricted his criticism to the quote.

That was what I was suggesting. And as a result of using that instead of addressing the points raised in it, could be taken as a demonstration of having no counter argument.

What points?

[Legion]

I want to go back and answer LNC's original question. I don't know why. For whatever reason, he seems reluctant to engage me.

 

At this point in time we don't understand minds very well. But mysterious now does not imply mysterious forever. I seriously doubt that reductionism or materialism will succeed at explaining minds. But we need not equate naturalism with reductionism, which LNC seems to be doing.

[LNC]

I just got reminded of how ecstasy makes people very friendly and loving. The emotion of love can be induced, in other words. There are also some people with certain genetic disorders who show extreme love and trust, beyond what is normal. And it's more or less a fact that people fall in love more during spring because of the Sun-induced increase of chemicals in the brain.

 

Love as a chemical reaction, some articles:

 

http://www.howstuffworks.com/love.htm

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature2/index.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/love_02-13.html

 

So, you're convinced that love is merely a chemical reaction within the brain? There is no decision of the will involved, only feelings? That's interesting, although, I don't think it has enough explanatory scope or explanatory power. Could we also say that hatred is the same? If so, would you advocate treating criminals via chemicals and operations?

 

LNC

[LNC]

 

I chemical reaction you too!

 

But seriously, of course "love" is more than just chemicals. "Love" is a word. A word is a symbol. A symbol has been given meanings over the years by humans to a point where the complexity of explaining what the word really means is overwhelming and most likely incomplete. Love is about attraction, desire, decision, action, intent, and so on. So it's not enough to say that love is just a chemical reaction. Most marriages continues long after the first attraction waned off just because love in those situations becomes a decision and commitment rather than a feeling. So yes, love is more than just chemicals, but it's not supernatural.

 

Sorry, I didn't read this before replying to your earlier post. This takes us back to the questions in the OP. Maybe you could go back to them.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Isn't it a bitch how long cherished romantic, theological and philosophical notions about love are totally shredded by the ugly empirical facts of science?

 

It's even stranger how when one comes to accept the reality of the discoveries of science , all the negative, fearful, DREADFUL consequences of falsifying romantic and theological beliefs don't come true!

 

I don't think this explanation does the shredding that you assert it does. If you think so, maybe you could go back to the original questions and explain them from a scientific perspective. That is what I have been encouraging all along, although, no one has really taken up that challenge as of yet. Maybe you?

 

LNC

[LNC]

Really now?

 

I think you may be conflating to issues by relying on the imprecise meaning of "free choice"

 

If, for instance, a person used drugs or manipulation to evoke a feeling of love from another person then we would well say that it was not "real" love. However, the fact that the emotion can be evoked in this manner at all is evidence of loves neurological basis.

 

In any case, I do no think that issue should be confused with the more general notion of free will you are referring too; I do not think the fact that love is rooted in neurology makes it any less real.

 

I think it is you who conflates "feelings of love" with love. Feelings come and go while love continues on as anyone who has been happily married for more than a decade can attest. I beg to differ with you that love that is not solely neurochemistry. Is there some aspect of that to attraction? Sure, but as others have pointed out in this thread, that does not explain why couples remain happily married long after that effect has subsided.

 

LNC

[LNC]

That's a good point. It would make it more real if it's founded on reality instead of imaginary "spirit" concepts.

 

How does it make it "more real"? Who has said anything about "imaginary spirit concepts" in this discussion (other than you)? I would suggest that we stick to the point rather than trying to divert the conversation off topic.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

So, you're convinced that love is merely a chemical reaction within the brain?

Yes and no.

 

There's the part of the emotion of love, which is very much connected to chemical stimuli.

 

And then there's the connotation of what the word "love" stands for, which is a lot more than just a bodily feeling.

 

There is no decision of the will involved, only feelings? That's interesting, although, I don't think it has enough explanatory scope or explanatory power. Could we also say that hatred is the same? If so, would you advocate treating criminals via chemicals and operations?LNC

One day we might.

 

 

 

That's a good point. It would make it more real if it's founded on reality instead of imaginary "spirit" concepts.

How does it make it "more real"? Who has said anything about "imaginary spirit concepts" in this discussion (other than you)? I would suggest that we stick to the point rather than trying to divert the conversation off topic.LNC

Because real is what is here, in this place, real, things you can touch, smell, measure. The ugly reality (based on the word "real"). You might consider your imaginary friend to be real, and you might think that some supernatural (i.e. not natural in real sense) talks to you, but it's not real to me. Real to me, is what is real to me, and your reality is skewed by imaginary things.

[LNC]

This is an important part of consciousness, memory, and being.

 

We change, but we are the same. Atoms change, mollecules change, but the entity and experience persist. It's like a chain of people, and one is lost or replaced. It is still a chain of people.

 

With sufficient redundancy, neural systems maintain the connections even with innumerable changes to the smaller components. Information, however, is maintained and sometimes even restored via persistent connections.

 

Perhaps more difficult to explain is how the loss of such connections results in the loss of memories, then the self, and then consciousness. Well, difficult for the theist.

 

OK, I think you are conflating two concepts. One is who I think I am and the other is who I really am. Even though I (or my computer) may be programmed with information that may persist over time (but does it really or is that information simply a copy of other information?) that doesn't mean that I am the same person over time. I am simply a new person with old memories since my cells change every seven years. So, in essence, I am a new person every seven years with memories that persist from the past. However, there is no "me" that persists over time. No surviving true identity. We are merely a Humean bundle that is, in reality, never the same person from moment to moment as there is no "me" that persists over time.

 

The question is whether an entity (I won't call it a person as that implies surviving identity) that suffers total amnesia is that same person as they were before the amnesia? By your account, I don't see how you could justify that as the memories are what makes the person and given the situation where those memories are destroyed, in essence, so would be that person.

 

The phenomena are not only "explicable by the physical", but completely inexplicable without the physical. "Explicable" means "explainable" and that has been done. It will never be done to a theists satisfaction anymore than fossil history will ever convince a creationist of the fact of evolution. "But there are Gaps!"

 

The physical basis for behavior, emotion, logic, intention and memory are well documented, and physicians deal with damage to the integrity of the system every day. Every day.

 

What does the theist think about when discussing knowledge, intention, memory and perception? Do they think only of themselves? An ideal human being? Is there no attempt to include those who have lost these human abilities, the insane, or the severely mentally retarded?

 

How can people forget about these "exceptions" to the rule that humans have mental properties of this or that?

 

If the phenomena are explicable then will you make a good case for it? Please point me to that documentation that completely explains it from a physicalist perspective as the authors that I am reading (Searle, Tye, Dretske, Dennett, Lycan, Chalmers and others) have not been able to do so. So if you know of someone who has, please point me to that/those author(s). I am surprised that you and others haven't documented these answers up to this point on this thread as I am now 8 pages into in and have yet to read these explanations.

 

I have pointed out what I think consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, and perception mean in the OP and am looking for a naturalistic explanation for these phenomena. When you ask whether theists only think of themselves when looking at these issues, while I can't speak for all theists, I would answer no for myself. I think of others, as well as myself, when thinking about these issues. I wonder why you ask this question? I don't know what you mean when you speak of an ideal human being (especially from a naturalist perspective as that would imply teleology, which is a foreign concept given naturalism). But regarding these issues, I am speaking of normative concepts rather than ideal situations. I don't know what retardation or insanity have to do with these concepts, could you explain your intent and what it has to do with the existence of these phenomena and their explanations?

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

I want to go back and answer LNC's original question. I don't know why. For whatever reason, he seems reluctant to engage me.

He prefers to engage me. Doesn't matter what I say, he will respond in disagreement.

 

You wanna bet he'll respond even to this post? And he'll start it with "I believe you have made a logical fallacy because ..."

[LNC]

Shyone, that reminds me of one of my pet peeves. I really have no respect for those Bible believers who can no longer deny the evidence of evolution, so they conclude that their god created everything but used evolution as his method. Such pussies!

 

There are always those who consider themselves to be "spiritual" in some classic or modern sense. To them, they can understand things like the fossil record, emotions, endorphins, consciousness, neurology, plate tectonics, meteorology, and everything science can prove to be natural occurrences and causes but they will always think there is somehow more to it than we can uncover with science. No matter what happens by explainable mechanisms, there is always an unseen magical force behind it all. Many people have a brain pattern that causes them to feel that they are a spiritual entity temporarily inhabiting a body which, to acknowledge undeniable scientific fact, they magically cause to do all the work of thinking, remembering and feeling. They truly think they exist independently of the body. The feeling that there is another invisible and undetectable half to all that we know to be reality is impossible to extinguish. It is faith. The claim that there are things we can't measure or even detect is impossible to prove wrong. People like us are missing out on the "other part" of reality that can only be hoped for, felt emotionally, or imagined - but never proven. I am doomed to seeing only half of what might be real (or not). I am wired to require evidence in order to believe that a thing is true or factual. I can't accept as evidence someone else' "revelation" or some aberration of my brain chemistry, such as a vision, vivid dream, an unreliable memory or "overwhelming feeling" that suffices for so many others.

 

The last time I suppressed my rational mind and went with feelings and emotion alone, I wound up in a Christian church. That's just one version of the invisible realm, and I have since discovered many other versions to be lacking as well. To me, the undetectable and imaginary amount to the same thing, a thing not worthy of consideration given the richness and diversity of real life.

 

Flo,

 

This is exactly why I started this thread, to get the answers from a naturalistic perspective. You seem to be convinced that science answers all of these issues, could you answer the original questions from a naturalistic (even evolutionary) viewpoint? Let me remind you of the questions in case you have forgotten:

 

1. How do you account for the existence of consciousness (if you accept the existence of such)?

2. How do you explain knowledge from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (knowledge being commonly described as justified true belief)?

3. How do you account for intentionality from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (intentionality being commonly described as the ofness or aboutness by which we interact with things in our world)?

4. Finally, do you believe that we direct apprehend or perceive objects in our world or do you believe that perception is mediated to us?

 

Contrary to what you have posted, I have posited no "magical" explanations, nothing spiritual, in fact, I have posited no answer to these questions. I have merely asked you and the others here to explain these phenomena from your perspective. I'm not sure why you seem so defensive in your post, I'm not asking you to suppress your rational mind, in fact, I am asking you to engage it and provide some explanations. So, if we could get back to the questions I would appreciate it.

 

LNC

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

That's interesting as that would be news to the likes of Einstein and just about every other physicist. Einstein himself saw intelligence in the universe when he said that the "harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." (Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein). So where do you get the idea that intelligence is not possible to detect in the universe? Can you cite a reference or two to back up that assertion?

That was an interesting quote. I had to look that up. Here's the surrounding context:

 

"You will hardly [find] one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

 

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."

 

From here. For context sake, do recall that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God." Good quote, BTW. Doesn't lend itself to supporting the Christian God though.

 

Antlerman, you have such a diplomatic way of pointing out when quote mining has occurred.

[Shyone]

 

If the phenomena are explicable then will you make a good case for it? Please point me to that documentation that completely explains it from a physicalist perspective as the authors that I am reading (Searle, Tye, Dretske, Dennett, Lycan, Chalmers and others) have not been able to do so. So if you know of someone who has, please point me to that/those author(s). I am surprised that you and others haven't documented these answers up to this point on this thread as I am now 8 pages into in and have yet to read these explanations.

 

I have pointed out what I think consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, and perception mean in the OP and am looking for a naturalistic explanation for these phenomena. When you ask whether theists only think of themselves when looking at these issues, while I can't speak for all theists, I would answer no for myself. I think of others, as well as myself, when thinking about these issues. I wonder why you ask this question? I don't know what you mean when you speak of an ideal human being (especially from a naturalist perspective as that would imply teleology, which is a foreign concept given naturalism). But regarding these issues, I am speaking of normative concepts rather than ideal situations. I don't know what retardation or insanity have to do with these concepts, could you explain your intent and what it has to do with the existence of these phenomena and their explanations?

 

LNC

The irony is that the explanation is right in front of you, but you can't (or won't) see it.

 

Maybe you can't understand it. It is the exceptions that prove the physical rule. The mentally retarded, the amnesiac, the insane, the comatose, the disease altered states of the mind that affect memory and personality and all of the traits that interest you.

 

You want a book? Why, you either can't or won't read it, or won't understand it. It's pointless. There are books and journals devoted to consciousness.

 

Just as you can't understand my intent or what it has to do with phenomena, my answers, no matter how detailed, will not enlighten you.

 

When you can tell me how consciousness and cognition are physically based phenomena, then you will understand.

 

The best example of one type of such systems is a healthy and attentive human brain. If the brain is anaesthetized, consciousness ceases. Small lesions in the midbrain and thalamus of patients can lead to a complete loss of consciousness, while destruction of circumscribed parts of the cerebral cortex of patients can eliminate very specific aspects of consciousness, such as the ability to be aware of motion or to recognize objects as faces, without a concomitant loss of vision in general.

 

You know about the bolded part, because that's all you know and see. Yourself.

 

Argument from ignorance does not become you.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Let me give you an example and see if you agree with the definition of atheism given by Dictionary.com and see if you agree with them. Simply put, they define atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Would you agree with that definition? I know a lot of atheists here would not; however, that is what they have in the dictionary.

 

 

it is also defined as

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

a definition I would agree with.

 

Quote mining makes you look dishonest.

It looks like a habit of his.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

I think Evolution Beyond already said it, but my definition of consciousness would be awareness.

 

Your cat is conscious of the fact that you're sitting at your computer and s/he wants your attention, so s/he walks across your keyboard to get it. The eagle is conscious of its prey below, and swoops in to catch it. The mouse is conscious of the snake coming toward it, and tries like hell to avoid getting caught.

 

I just don't see the dilemma. The term 'consciousness' has been around a lot longer than modern day science has. Why try to change its definition now?

[Antlerman]

I think Evolution Beyond already said it, but my definition of consciousness would be awareness.

 

Your cat is conscious of the fact that you're sitting at your computer and s/he wants your attention, so s/he walks across your keyboard to get it. The eagle is conscious of its prey below, and swoops in to catch it. The mouse is conscious of the snake coming toward it, and tries like hell to avoid getting caught.

 

I just don't see the dilemma. The term 'consciousness' has been around a lot longer than modern day science has. Why try to change its definition now?

Which then ties completely into this post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/35362-consciousness/page__view__findpost__p__525060

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Hi Antlerman,

 

I had a little trouble following that post you linked to, but it sounds like you advocate a collective consciousness. Whether such a thing exists or not, I got the impression that the OP was only concerned with human consciousness, with the continual use of the word 'we'. This use of 'we' seems to imply that we are the only beings with consciousness, thus my examples of other animals clearly exhibiting awareness/consciousness. Of course, my impression of his intent might be skewed by the fact that he's a True Christian™ and his arguments look exactly like other True Christians™ who see humans as the only beings that are capable of consciousness.

 

LNC wanted us to give an explanation as to how consciousness can be explained by natural means. We know humans and other animals have awareness of our/their surroundings, which you and I seem to agree defines consciousness. As for a collective consciousness, that all seems like speculation to me, so trying to explain how that happens makes no more sense to me than trying to explain how an interstellar spaceship can sustain 100 generations of beings from some planet we haven't discovered yet. That doesn't mean it isn't possible. I just see no point in trying to figure out how something can happen, at least unless we actually know it can happen.

 

My apologies if you weren't talking about a collective consciousness. It's 1am here, and I'm feeling a bit sleepy.

[NotBlinded]

If I might butt in here.

 

It seems to me that the thing you are describing doesn't exist. There is no awareness before senses. Consciousness=awareness. Plain and simple.

 

Those who insist that there is more to consciousness than the working of the brain seem to make this error. You are inventing an extra mystery and then saying this mystery cannot be explained by science and so concluding that there is more to consciousness than what science can reveal of the workings of the brain.

 

But the fact is that you are over-mystifying consciousness. Consciousness quite simply is the awareness/the information made available to the brain via the senses (and other brain processes). Even the phenomenal aspects of consciousness are what you would expect from such a process. You can hardly 'be aware of' things without being aware of them - and so you experience that which you are aware of. Does that make sense?

 

To me there's no mystery about it anymore.

Hey EB!

 

Are you aware of the processes of your central nervous system or of your glands? Are you aware of how you move your arm? Can you explain to me how you go about moving your arm? Do you have to think about it before you move it, or do you just move it?

 

It seems to me that in order to even be conscious in the first place there has to be nothing. I mean nothing in the sense of an empty slate waiting for experience. This empty state is fully aware before anything can even occur. If not, it would be like a flash of light against the sun. This is what I mean by the "field" of consciousness. This is where all things happen. Consciousness first then awareness of things in the field of concsciousnes.

 

It seems you are stating that the brain somehow just "acquires" consciousness with sensory perception. I don't believe that. I believe that it is there before anything is perceived. To me, it is more fantastical to see consciousness existing as something apart from all else. Alan Watts once said, "You can see consciousness as a complicated form of minerals or you can see minerals as a rudimentary form of consciousness." I'm with the latter.

 

The easy part of consciousness is what could be called concentrated consciousness or attention. This is only a small part of it. We are able to take in much more than we are aware of. I think this is why hypnosis works.

 

This is another fascinating aspect about consciousness. There are processes in the brain that we are not aware of (unconscious), there are others which we are aware of(conscious), and there are still others that we are not immediately aware of but can become aware of if our attention is focused on that information (peripheral consciousness). Sensory information into the brain might not be enough for consciousness but some kind of focus or concentration on the matter by enough of the brain that the event can pass into the memory afterwards.

 

Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained explains this very well.

You see, I wouldn't call that "unconscious". I would actually call that something like Supraconsciousness. Focus is only a small aspect of consciousness and it seems a little trival, IMO, to think that is all consciousness is.

[NotBlinded]

A plant leans towards the light when it grows. Is it aware?

 

No

Of course it is.

[NotBlinded]

The comments were not pejorative at all. I wouldn't quote from him if he was stooping to that, which he doesn't, nor was. It is a figure of speech that means exactly this: That matter is taken as the beginning and the end of all that is. That is the meaning of Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. That is in fact representative of your position, is it not? That matter is the beginning and end of all that is?

And you know what is funny? From what I understand, the root of the word matter can be taken all the way back to Sanskrit to where it goes along with the word maya, or illusion. If so, how true is that after the discoveries in quantum physics? It also comes from the base "ma" meaing "to measure" I think. A measurement of an illusion...

[Shyone]

The comments were not pejorative at all. I wouldn't quote from him if he was stooping to that, which he doesn't, nor was. It is a figure of speech that means exactly this: That matter is taken as the beginning and the end of all that is. That is the meaning of Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. That is in fact representative of your position, is it not? That matter is the beginning and end of all that is?

And you know what is funny? From what I understand, the root of the word matter can be taken all the way back to Sanskrit to where it goes along with the word maya, or illusion. If so, how true is that after the discoveries in quantum physics? It also comes from the base "ma" meaing "to measure" I think. A measurement of an illusion...

AM, sorry to respond indirectly, but somehow I missed your post and can't find it.

 

What I thought was insulting was that while Christians see Alpha and Omega as the beginning and the end, I see it as a reference to blind faith in Jesus (or, since it is generalized, blind faith in whatever). I have never seen that phrase used outside of the book of Revelation. Using capital letters for these terms only reinforces their religious implication. I know they are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, but I would have taken it much better had he said, "Scientists believe that matter is a to z, the beginning to the end, of all that is." It wouldn't be completely correct, but it would not have carried the loaded implications of religion. But then, I think that, as much as the stuff about matter, is exactly what he was trying to do.

 

Is this characterization of the importance of matter to the scientist correct (after removing the reference to religious dogma)? Not entirely, but yes. A live man is not the same as a dead one even though their "matter" is identical. But without matter, there would be no man to begin with.

 

One carbon atom, or one purine mollecule, or one chain of DNA or one cell or one organ or one system or even one body does not tell the whole story. It is the organization of matter that "matters." Chemistry is not just chemicals, it is properties and reactions and interactions.

 

It is characteristic that, given two ways of approaching a problem (e.g. democratic and republican), each side misrepresents the position of the other side. Simplifying ones position makes it easier to dismiss, but that is nothing more than creating a strawman. It's ironic that the two positions are really probably identical, and only the descriptions are different.

[agnosticator]

Here is a relevant video about dualism and consciousness:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA

 

 

I think it is especially interesting how the dualist claims consciousness is non-physical (or immaterial-both are meaningless) and irreducible, while damage and split brains show otherwise. Each half of a split brain exhibits independent awareness, preferences, and beliefs. See this video for split brain proof:

 

[chefranden]

I haven't been following this, but here are some very good resources about how to understand how intelligent things come out of unintelligent things.

 

 

Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid This one doesn't require a good math background but it sure would help.

 

I Am a Strange Loop This one is a simplification of GEB. I had to read this one to understand the other one.

 

MIT Lectures on GEB This requires Real Player which is kind of a downer.