Consciousness

[Legion]

"Life is to organism as mind is to brain." - Robert Rosen

 

This is an analogy provided to us by a pioneer in relational (non-reductionistic) biology. In my opinion it is worth considering.

[NotBlinded]

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

I looked at this and read about it and the reviews. It seems to be about the potential for consciousness in all things when they are in certain relationships. It is a progression of levels of consciousness. It looks very good.

[LNC]

I'm curious about your highlighted statement above. Is that an open admission of not being open to something because it violates a priori beliefs?

 

Not to worry, I'm not arguing for reductionism in pointing that out. I'm just making an observation.

 

I find that reductionism is too problematic for what we intuitively seem to experience (free will, consciousness, etc.) which is why I think it would end up being a self-refuting concept. How would we ever know it was true? In fact, we couldn't even achieve the status of knowledge given physical reductionism according to research I recently completed. To avoid the quote limitations, I will put your comments in blue and mine in black.

 

If I can demonstrate how it can avoid reductionism (or property dualism) will it make you happy?

 

First, sorry for my delay in responding. I wasn't familiar with Wilber's model and wanted time to read up on it.

 

OK then... I'll be referencing mainly from the model created by the philosopher Ken Wilber citing many scientists within the fields of complexity theory. From Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (SEC):

 

1. Let's start with the category of a Holon, that everything in the Universe is neither things nor processes, but holons: whole/parts. There is no individual in the strictest sense, but rather whole/parts. Nothing is fully independent, nor is everything a simple strand of a greater web where there is no "individuality". Rather each "individual" is a whole, not isolated from other wholes, but interlinked with them. Everything in the Universe from the atom to human societies fit within this understanding. Everything is interconnected, and wholes, or put another way, "fields within fields within fields within fields", all the way up and all the way down.

 

Here I found some similarity with panpsychism, a view with which I am familiar. One question that I had for a professor who recently came in to speak to a discussion group with which I am involved is how one avoids an infinite regress, which has its share of logical problems. He hadn't considered that issue and, I believe, was caught a bit off guard by it. So, I will ask you how you avoid this problem given Wilber's model? In reading up on it I have seen others hint at this problem as well.

 

2. Each of these holons displays four-dimensional capacities: self-preservation; self-adaptation; self-transcendence; and self-dissolution

 

This is where his model seems to differ from Panpsychism as the latter model says that the initial entities (as was presented to us by the professor) start out in a sub-four dimensional state and combine to eventually take on four dimensions. He also didn't attribute all of these conditions to the entities (I've forgotten what term he used for them) although it doesn't mean that he wouldn't give them these attributes, he simply didn't mention that they necessarily had them. So far, very similar to panpsychism as the professor presented it.

 

3. New holons emerge. Due to this capacity of self-transcendence of holons, new holons emerge.

 

"The emergent holons are in some sense novel; they possess properties and qualities that cannot be strictly and totally deduced from their components; and therefore they, and their descriptions, cannot be reduced without remainder to their component parts"

 

Wiber, SEC pg 54

 

This is where it gets more speculative in that he first assumes the existence of these holons, then assumes certain attributes of them, including self-transcendence. However, we'll see how it progresses before commenting further.

 

4. Holons emerge holarchically, that is a series of increasing whole/parts. "Organisms contains cells, but not vice versa; molecules contain atoms, but not vice versa". Wilber (SEC pgs 56-59):

 

"And it is that

not vice versa

stage, that constitutes unavoidable asymmetry and nested hierarchy (holarchy). Each deeper and higher holon embraces its junior predecessors and then

adds

its own new and more encompassing pattern or wholeness - the new code or cannon or morphic field or agency that will define this as a whole and not merely a heap (as Aristotle clearly spotted). This is Whitehead's famous dictum: "The many become one and are increased by one."

 

It is in this hierarchy of levels that both reductionism and 'wholism" is answered. Wilber again:

 

"Virtually all deep ecologists and ecofeminists reject the notion of holarchy, for rather confused reasons, it seems to me. From what I can tell, they seem to think that hierarchy and atomism are "bad," and that their "wholism" is the opposite of both. But no less that the patron saint of deep ecology, Arne Naess, clearly points out that "wholism" and "atomism" are actually two sides of the same problem, and that the cure for both is hierarchy. All reality, he points out, consists of what he calls "subordinate wholes" or "subordinate gestalts" - that is, holons. "We have therefore," he says, "a complex realm of gestalts, in a vast hierarchy. We can therefore speak of lower - and higher - order gestalts.'"

 

He then quotes from Jantsch,

 

"Evolution [appears] as a multilevel reality in which the evolutionary chain of autopoietic levels of existence appear in hierarchic order. Each level includes all lower levels - there are systems within systems within systems... within the total system in question. However, it is essential that this hierarchy is not a control hierarchy in which information streams upward and orders are handed from the top down. Each level maintains a certain [relative] autonomy and lives its proper existence in horizontal relations [heterachy] with its specific environment. [For example:] The organelles within our cells go about their business of energy exchange in an autonomous way and maintain their horizontal relationships within the framework of the world-wide Gaia system."

 

I see his attempt to avoid reductionism here, but I don't see it being necessarily successful. Just because the parts of my car are brought together to make a new entity (my car) doesn't mean that it is not still reducible to its parts. When broken down to its parts it is no longer my car, per se, but it is still reducible to its parts nonetheless.

 

5. Each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessor(s).

 

6. The lower sets the possibility of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower. "It cannot be reduced to the lower level; it cannot be determined by the lower level; but neither can it ignore the lower level." pg. 61

 

The language here is imprecise. Would we not say that lower level (genes) determine the higher level (hair, eye, & skin color, etc.)? In that case it is the lower that determines the higher. We could also say that a holon of a community of people is determined by the lower level (the people within that community).

 

7. The number of levels which a hierarchy comprises determines whether it is 'shallow' or 'deep'; and the number of holons on any given level we shall call its 'span' (pg. 64)

 

8. "Each successive level of evolution produces GREATER depth and LESS span." pg 64-68

 

Injecting some thoughts from this point:

 

• 
   
  
• "The greater the depth of a holon, the greater its degree of consciousness.
   
  
• We must distinguish between depth and span - to fail to do so reintroduces subtle reductionism - all depth is erased"
   
  
• "Holons translate their reality according to the patterns of their agency... In transformation, however, new forms of agency emerge and this means a whole new world of available stimuli."
   
  
• "Translation shuffles parts; transformation produces wholes."
   
  
• "The point, then, is that evolution is first and foremost a series of transformations ("self-realization through self-transcendence")."
  

 

Could you explain why a greater depth of a holon would increase its degree of consciousness? I am not sure that I follow you on that one. How are you defining consciousness and how are you determining that consciousness emerges in the first place?

 

9. Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.

 

Examples would be if you destroyed all biological life, atoms would continue to exist. If you destroyed all atoms, all forms above in the hierarchy would cease to exist.

 

This, of course, assumes that the development of all holons are symmetrical and that they could not develop asymmetrically.

 

10. Holarchies coevolve. (pg 71)

 

"The "unit" of evolution is not an isolated holon but a holon plus its inseparable environment. Evolution, that is, is ecological in the broadest sense."

 

"Jantesh refers to this as the interdependence of microevolution and macroevolution"

 

This one is one of the more problematic points scientifically as it seems that atoms formed hundreds of millions of years before their macroevolutionary environment came about.

 

11. The micro is relational exchange with the macro at all levels of its depth. (pg 73)

 

Examples of this would be humans at 3 levels: matter, life, mind: physical body exists in a system of relational exchange with gravity, light, water, etc we reproduce through food production and consumption, etc; we reproduce through emotional-sexual relations organized in a family and social environment; we reproduce mentally through exchanges with cultural and symbolic environments.

 

This seems to be the payoff level for Wilber, the way that he connects consciousness with the physical. This is similar with panpsychism in that they find a way to connect mind with the physical in order to overcome the apparent problems with dualism. However, all of this is dependent on the prior tenets and their ultimately proving out.

 

12. Evolution has directionality (pg 74)

 

A) Increasing complexity

B ) Increasing differentiation/integration

C) Increasing organization/structuration

D) Increasing relative autonomy

E) Increasing telos: "The regime, canon, code, or deep structure of a holarchy acts as a magnet, an attractor, a miniature omega point , for the actualization of that holon in space and time."

 

This point has already been critiqued by others on this site so I won't go into any more detail except to echo that this is speculative and problematic in that it assumes a telos for evolution and as most evolutionists will tell you, evolution has no ultimate telos, it just is. There is no overarching driving purpose, we just end up with entities surviving due to selection and chance (the entity wasn't eliminated by some other freak occurrence outside of its control).

 

 

Now there's considerable depth to uncover in each of those high points, let alone exploring the implications of this. Believe me when I say it ties into this topic about consciousness. But the main point of this post is to show that in fact there are those who very much take emergence as something that reductionism cannot and does not adequately address. Here's your example, at some labor to produce for you, I'll add.

 

It is an interesting model and I enjoyed getting introduced to it. As I have mentioned a few times, it is highly speculative and doesn't fit, in many aspects, what we know both intuitively, logically and scientifically so I don't believe I would be swayed to adopt it as my view of consciousness anymore than I was swayed by the presentation and my reading on panpsychism. What are your thoughts on this model? You didn't really say where you stood on it.

 

LNC

[LNC]

You stated "it cannot be answered by physical explanations". This implies that you have the answer which excludes a physical explanation.

 

No, it just means that there has not been an adequate answer given that encompasses only the physical. Some believe that, for a number of reasons, this cannot be done. At this point, I would say that they make a good argument; however, I am still open to those arguments which was the purpose of this thread.

 

I didn't say that. I realize non-theists hold that position too. I was asking why theists think they know the answer rather than admitting their ignorance with the rest of us. If consciousness is an "immaterial" or "ghost" mind that is able to become totally separate from the brain, then where are all those floating minds?

 

You seem to group all theists into one camp, which is not the case. You also seem to exclude non-theists from this position, which is also not the case. Many people have an idea of what they think the answer is. That would include people like Daniel Dennett (a physicalist), to people like John Searle (a biological naturalist), to people like Donald Davidson (a property dualist), to people like (Dallas Willard (a substance dualist). Each has a different perspective and each is confident in his perspective (each writes extensively on his particular view). Each would hold that there is a degree of uncertainty as no one can have complete certainty. Regarding your last question, it is simply a misunderstanding of my view of substance dualism as I don't hold to Ryle's "ghost in the machine" view, however, I do hold that the mind/soul is an immaterial part of who we are. I believe that the Bible explains clearly what happens to the soul upon death and would suggest that you look to it for your answer to you question.

 

I began this thread to find answers to the four initial questions that I posted that would help us to determine whether these phenomena could be addressed adequately via physicalism, so again I will refer you back to those questions for your answer.

 

See Shyone's post #148, since I could not say it better or more accurately.

 

I'm not sure to which post you are referring as I see your post as being #148. Maybe you mean #144, in which case it doesn't really explain how we maintain the same identity, maybe at best, it explains how we maintain memories (although we could never prove that they were our memories given naturalism, just that we have thoughts that we attribute to memories). So, I believe the question still stands.

 

Am I a friggin' philosopher? I have much more to read about these philosophical questions, but I'll say this:

 

What exists apart from the physical brain, with it's neurobiology? Where and what is the distinct and nonphysical part of the brain that dualists believe to be consciousness? We know how consciousness can be altered and damaged. If it is nonphysical, how could it be altered? How could it be changed? If the dualist believes the physical changes it, how can consciousness be an "immaterial ghost-mind"?

 

Consciousness is not a "thing", just as sight, taste, smell, and hearing are not. I think the nonphysical/physical way of looking at the brain is a mistake and will not solve anything. The mind is so intertwined with and dependent upon the brain's physical electrochemical activity...that explaining the subjective experience of consciousness as being responsible for its' own existence apart from the brain is a fantasy.

 

Again, I maintain the link between consciousness and the physical, but still maintain that it is not completely explained by the physical, which is the purpose of the initial questions - to determine whether anyone here has an adequate answer to these questions from a physicalist perspective. So, your questions to me don't change or affect my view.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "thing". If you mean that consciousness is not a something, then I would say that you are wrong, otherwise why name it? Second, you have already said that it is something that can be altered and we know it is something that can be lost, so I would say it is a thing in that sense.

 

I would agree with you that we should not look at the brain in a nonphysical/physical way, but that is not the purpose of the discussion, we are looking at consciousness which is not equivalent to the brain in my view. If you think differently, then please provide adequate answers to the questions posed in the OP. Otherwise, what you are doing is stating an opinion and making unsubstantiated assertions, nothing more.

 

I should have said "unconscious processes" rather than "unconsciousNESS". Conscious and unconscious processes can't be separated. That is what I pointed out in the other post. This says that consciousness is not a "thing" that can be separated from the brain, just as unconscious processes aren't separate from conscious processes. I'm not meaning they aren't "separate phenomenon", but that they are physically communicating and inseparable. There is no consciousness without unconscious processes.

 

I think that you are avoiding the true discussion as I don't say that consciousness is necessarily separate from the brain; I say that it is not completely reducible to the brain. In other words, you cannot explain all aspects of consciousness by brain activity, which again is the reason for the questions in the OP (I hate to sound like a broken record on this point, but it is important and the reason I started the conversation off in this way), so I direct you back there to address those questions in order to keep the conversation on track.

 

LNC

[Antlerman]

Thank you for your response to what I offered as a high-level outline. I will readily grant that there will be a lot of room for improving understanding due to it being fairly involved. I will take the time later to address a few points, but for the time to say that it really isn't as speculative as you seem to have been impressed by. It is based on considerable research by those involved in complex systems theories. What the brilliance of Wilber is, IMO, is in taking many fields of the systems sciences, along with many philosophic traditions and creating an overall model, an "integral" model as he calls it. The 20 'tenenets' are actually based on the general systems theorist Laszlo, along with others. If one wishes to dispute their research as unsubstantiated speculation, that is a matter of opinion. It is however a respect field of science.

 

To offer a criticism of Wilber I can direct you here: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Great_Nest_of_Being.html The reason that it can offer some details into what he is attempting to do. I personally find a considerable good effort at his attempt to bridge these fields of understanding, and personally find tying spirituality into it a critical important element missing in your reductionist philosophies, which in my opinion are quite partial and sapping of that creative soul of being in the mix in making what life is to us, "feeling" beings.

 

I'll try to make the time to formulate my thoughts in some manner that will be meaningful. In the meantime, I appreciate your engaging in this discussion.

[LNC]

I do plan to offer an adequate reply to the rest of your response to me, but I had to jump at this at this moment.

 

Do you think Sri Aurobindo is a reductionist? A materialist? An atheist?

 

Perhaps the reason you don't see him addressing this is because this is a brief two paragraph quote from his book of over 1100 pages! Would you like me to type the whole thing in here?

 

The name of his book is The Life Divine, and he very much makes a strong case for things that you might find helpful to your point of view, even though I see the Christian perspective as a bit too restricted. Aurobindo most definitely was not a reductionist or an atheist. If you even reread what I posted from his book above, you may find a great many layers in it that says things I'm quite certain you overlooked. Let me see if I can find one example...

 

Heck, even in what I highlighted in red above is a clear indication you lept to incorrect conclusions:

 

"Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism

had done for the

Divine

and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge."

 

"Atheism had done for the Divine", with a capital D?? Does this sound like an atheist?

 

Another example:

 

"In emerging, therefore,

out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge

we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains"

 

Say, there's a reference to emergence... But the point is he is seeing us beginning to move beyond the reductionist/materialist philosophy. You missed that, it seems?

 

Another example:

 

"Well, if it could always be, as it has been

in the great period we are leaving

, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."

 

He sees us as in our pursuit of the naturalistic understanding of the world, to have made many, extraordinarily beneficial gains to help deepen and further our development in our ultimate goal towards a depth of knowledge and apprehension of the Divine. Science and reason are handmaidens of that Truth. You missed the entire meaning of what he was saying. And very likely my own in what I say.

 

Not a lie, a partial truth. Just as I see you have.

 

When you catch up to my post where I laid out the principles of emergence, take my word that I haven't made the case for consciousness yet. But it's not from the reductionist point of view. It does tie into that post, but it shouldn't be cause to rejoice that you can start with that and leap to the conclusion that your religious doctrines are Truth with a capital T. They too are partial truth, and as much as anything else, contain that Truth with a capital T.

 

You're going to need to make a shift in tactic in discussing with me these views. They're not what you've trained for. In fact, it's all a glorious exploration. Much different than arguing for a doctrine. The fact you in response to my quote from Sri Aurobindo missed so much - pretty all of what he said actually, let alone the rest that I'll have to correct, seems to indicate some missteps here. I'm more than happy to sit down and discuss, but suspect your apologetics won't serve you in this.

 

I found a site with his writings and had a chance to read larger portions for context. First, he seems to still be a pantheist, so he would not be a physical reductionist, atheist, or materialist as you ask. Second, he is giving credit to the materialist/rationalist era that we went through as it grounded many from his belief system who, it seems he believes, were becoming too idealistic and irrational. So, he is not crediting materialism as much as rationalism. I would say that every movement has its good and bad points and rationalism was good in that it made us look at ideas rationally. It was bad in that it promoted the idea that all truth could be arrived at purely by using rationality, which is not true (as axioms would bear out).

 

So, I don't think that Sri Aurobindo makes the points that it seems you would have us believe. He is not promoting emergentism as understood in philosophy of the mind, even though he uses the word "emerging." He is not using it in context of consciousness emerging from the physical as is the understanding in mind studies. I also don't believe that he is a materialist, so in that sense, he believes that consciousness and mind are real entities; although for him, mind is the real thing (the Divine, God) and matter is the thing that is to be denied. As he says:

 

Even if the dualistic appearance of Matter and Force be insisted on, it does not really stand in the way of this Monism. For it will be evident that essential Matter is a thing non-existent to the senses and only, like the Pradhana of the Sankhyas, a conceptual form of substance; and in fact the point is increasingly reached where only an arbitrary distinction in thought divides form of substance from form of energy.

 

You might call him a material non-realist. He is all about life being ultimate mind, force, God. Now, since I don't think that pantheism can explain reality sufficiently, I am not a pantheist either. Would you consider yourself one?

 

LNC

[LNC]

I wasn't meaning to conclude anything, but was honest in expressing my thoughts. I said I may be wrong, and would be happy to be. If I feel someone is open-minded then it in fact does change the nature of discussion from defense postures, to open discussion - which can be very exciting indeed.

 

As to what I highlighted in red above, yes, very much I say being tied to a set of beliefs is a bad thing. I will say that repeatedly without fail. Being tied to it, being married to it, means you are unwilling to let it go, unwilling to entertain the possibility you may need to let it go, or at the least shift how you look at it. I always make the observation that so many Christians I know worship their beliefs and not God. I see that as an entirely valid assessment. Couldn't you say that as well in your experience with various believers? Any? Surely.

 

So then being tied to a belief is not a good thing at all.

 

Should you believe your beliefs? Obviously. Just like you should love your wife. But is love putting chains on her legs? Is belief clutching them with a tight grip and fighting anyone and anything that threatens that marriage? Are you seeing my point?

 

There are some beliefs that are worth holding onto. Not all beliefs should be held lightly. The belief that love of others is the highest good is a belief that I will hold tightly to, no matter what someone might say otherwise. The belief that hatred of others, racism, rape, torture, etc. are wrong behaviors and attitudes is one that I will hold onto, no matter what others might say. I am tied to these beliefs, even married to them. So, you see, some beliefs, as I said, are worth holding onto. This is not true of all beliefs, however.

 

I don't think that love involves chains, in fact, I believe that real love breaks chains as it involves the will, not compulsion. With that said, yes, I will fight for my marriage, my kids, etc. when they are threatened. Does that mean fighting others? Only if they threaten my family and only in a way that will either prevent my family from physical harm or lead to the redemption of that other person. I will also fight in the way that I cherish and love my family to protect those relationships. But, I assume that is a different type of fight than you had in mind.

 

You raise good points here. But he felt he had the evidence as a Christian as well. What's with that? Could it be that we seek to rationally defend our beliefs to ourselves because those beliefs serve us in some way?

 

Knowledge is constantly changing our ideas and notions of what is fact. Isn't there something more existential on which to anchor our souls? (I realize I just opened a door for you... but you best be truly prepared to enter that realm, a realm where your apologetics will be irrelevant).

 

Sometimes that is the case, whether it is a Christian, an atheist, or any number of other belief systems. I don't think that most people put a lot of intellectual effort into what they believe. Often, if it is good enough for the parents, it is good enough for them. Other times, if it was good enough for the parents, it is the last thing the son or daughter would want to believe. However, in either case, if that is the reason for that person's belief, it is not well grounded.

 

Knowledge is justified true belief (philosophical definition), so unless there was faulty justification for what one believes, then it should not be constantly changing. Facts don't change, only our beliefs about them may. I believe that the highest existential reality is to know God who is the one in whom all truth is grounded, that is a realm in which I am very comfortable, so let's go there.

 

I don't know where to begin to unravel this mess. I scarcely can see anything in your response here that relates to anything I said or meant. I never said you are speaking authoritatively, etc, etc... ( hmmmm... quite a curious leap there). All I can say is try rereading it and if you still walk away with what you seem to have got out of it, then I'll come back to it and break it apart for you.

 

Edit: all I meant was that you look to those you see as authoritative to justify your beliefs to yourself. Curious you thought I was seeing you as presenting yourself as an authority. If it helps, I don't see you that way.

 

Alright, enough for now.

 

OK, now I get what you were saying. Still, you quote, in a previous post, Sri Aurobindo as some type of authority on a subject. The question I asked is do you believe him (is what he said true?) We all look to others who may have more education or experience as authority figures, otherwise, we would have to recreate the wheel in every generation. That is what sets humans apart from other animals in that we can build on the learning of those who have gone before us. I am reading now in ethics and how Aristotle build from Plato. Augustine built from Aristotle and Plato. Aquinas built from Aristotle and Augustine, etc. They didn't just buy into everything of the previous generation, they built upon it and took what they thought was right and discard where they thought the person(s) was/were off. We do the same. I don't just buy into all that anyone in authority tells me anymore than you do. We read, process, accept what makes sense and discard what doesn't. The great thing is that we have the capacity to learn from them.

 

LNC

[NotBlinded]

snip

 

First, sorry for my delay in responding. I wasn't familiar with Wilber's model and wanted time to read up on it.

 

snip

 

LNC

LNC, I have to honestly say that I do admire your willingness to look at other points of view and discuss them.

[agnosticator]

...I do hold that the mind/soul is an immaterial part of who we are. I believe that the Bible explains clearly what happens to the soul upon death and would suggest that you look to it for your answer to you question.

 

We begin life as a fertilized ovum. No mind or soul. We need a brain for consciousness to exist. I already know what the bible has to say about death and the soul.

 

 

 

I began this thread to find answers to the four initial questions that I posted that would help us to determine whether these phenomena could be addressed adequately via physicalism, so again I will refer you back to those questions for your answer.

 

I would rather say that it is naturalism that would adequately answer, as opposed to super-naturalism.

 

I have answered question #1 in all the previous posts. I will not answer #3, as I would have to read alot more to even gain an opinion! I'll attempt #2 and #4 when I'm done reading up on those subjects.

 

 

 

Maybe you mean #144, in which case it doesn't really explain how we maintain the same identity, maybe at best, it explains how we maintain memories (although we could never prove that they were our memories given naturalism, just that we have thoughts that we attribute to memories). So, I believe the question still stands.

 

See the video in my post #274 (hope that's the right number), at 6 minutes and 8 seconds through to 7 minutes and 52 seconds. Cellular changes enable us to continue to function. The continuity of structure, function, and identity remain the same.

 

 

 

Again, I maintain the link between consciousness and the physical, but still maintain that it is not completely explained by the physical...

 

I don't quite understand what you mean by "maintain the link". Do you mean in this life before death, and after death the link is broken with consciousness freed?

 

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "thing". If you mean that consciousness is not a something, then I would say that you are wrong, otherwise why name it? Second, you have already said that it is something that can be altered and we know it is something that can be lost, so I would say it is a thing in that sense.

 

I agree with your usage of the term. I was meaning consciousness is nothing apart from the brain. It is mental states and activities that correlate with brain states. Your definition: "Consciousness would encompass mental activities including self-reflection, introspection, sentience (sensing), wakefulness, and understanding what it is like (i.e., to be you, etc.)." I meant it is not a thing like a soul after death. It is not an immaterial substance, as it is a state and activity.

 

 

I think that you are avoiding the true discussion as I don't say that consciousness is necessarily separate from the brain; I say that it is not completely reducible to the brain. In other words, you cannot explain all aspects of consciousness by brain activity,...

 

Do you think mind is a separate and immaterial substance from the brain?

[chefranden]

A monk, asking for instruction, said to Bodhidharma: "I have no peace of mind. Please pacify my mind."

"Bring your mind here before me," replied Bodhidharma, "and I will pacify it!"

"But when I seek my own mind," said the monk, "I cannot find it."

"There!" snapped Bodhidharma, "I have pacified your mind!"

 

When I seek my own "I", I cannot find it.

 

Without giving it much thought people classify self as an object of some sort: Here am I in the same manner as here is a stone. When some thought is given to it "I" is a bit more illusive than that. If asked who you are the answer is a story or a description -- or better a descriptive story. If I asked you to hand your "I" to me so that I can examine it for what ever reason, you could not do it.

 

When I examine my own "I" I find that usually, that is for a rather large period of the day, I am not here. That is most of the time I do not reference my self. For example in typing this most of what is in consciousness is not "I". Most of what is in consciousness is this thought and how to get it on the screen so that it makes some sense. I only seem to get "I" out when I need it for self reference as in I'll go to the store or, I don't feel good.

 

On one hand the "I" is an abstraction, a symbol that stands for something else: a story, a set of tastes, a bundle of hope, a thing that is thirsty, a set of fears, some sort of talent, a pile of failings, a certain degree of wttiness, some other degree of absentmindedness, and so on and so forth. On the other hand the "I" is an object denoting a certain set of trillions of cells acting in concert to be a human. But "I" doesn't seem to be a thing in and of itself.

 

From a physical point of view it seems obvious that "I" is a recursive reference of a set of cells doing certain processes. The self reference is designed to accomplish an number of tasks related to the whole of the cell collective, but one thing it is not designed for is to know directly what it is made of. On a very much more complicated level the "I" is designed to "know" things like a thermostat "knows" the temperature. That is it is not necessary for the thermostat to know what it is made of or how it knows that the temperature is what it is supposed to be in order to know that the temperature is what is suppose to be.

 

A collective of cells can know things without knowing how it knows. One of the things that a collective of cells can know is itself. This knowledge of self is as a collective whole and not as individual parts. This knowledge of "I" is a zoomed out version of what is really going one like viewing a photo on a screen. You can zoom in on the photo and see that it is a collection of pixels arranged in a certain pattern or you can view it as the whole scene. The self is roughly analogous to this except that there is no zoom function built into it. I cannot see exactly what I am -- like my eye cannot see itself. That is I am not designed with the capacity to see what my "I" is.

 

But I can use a mirror so that my eye can see it's reflection. That is I can use a tool to circumvent a design limitation. Like this humans are beginning to develop a tool, cognitive science to circumvent the design limitations and zoom in on what is going on in there.

[agnosticator]

Well said Chef!

[chefranden]

Well said Chef!

 

Thank you.

[chefranden]

Another thing about consciousness is that it is only the tip of the iceberg. It seems like a mighty colossus, but no matter how grand consciousness appears to itself most of what happens in the brain is out of sight. The brain does many different processes and one of these processes is self or self awareness. Some of the bits that produce a self in a particular brain can be damaged and consequently the self that is generated in that brain isn't what we are used to. Some times the self isn't there at all even if the body keeps chugging along.

 

Another indication that self is something the brain does is that the self has to develop as the brain grows. It is does not spring from the womb fully formed like Stewie. We tend to feel that the self is a continuous whole, but if you examine it i.e. examine the story, the self is quite episodic. Rather than being a single novel the self is a collection of short stories. If you follow the story back as far as you can you will find that the story/self doesn't go back to the beginning. I can remember one and only one story from my 3rd year, and after that there is nothing until age 5 save maybe some vague jumble of Christmas impressions and the Lone Ranger. It was then that I made the decision to grow up to be a horse. Some say I succeeded in that quest.

 

We feel as if the conscious is in charge of the system because the conscious is only conscious of what the brain assigns to it. It is not conscious of the rest of what the brain is doing. For example, there are some studies that indicate that the the conscious bit is the last to know what is going on in making a decision by as much as half a second.

[Ouroboros]

We feel as if the conscious is in charge of the system because the conscious is only conscious of what the brain assigns to it. It is not conscious of the rest of what the brain is doing. For example, there are some studies that indicate that the the conscious bit is the last to know what is going on in making a decision by as much as half a second.

Thank you for mentioning that. I just remembered it while reading your first paragraph. We make decisions and act on them more or less subconsciously, then the consciousness says: "Oh, I told you so."

[Saviourmachine]

1. I don't care so much about philosophical discussions about the existence of conscious. For me it is quite obvious that I am aware of things. :-) I just want to make the robots that I built, aware of the same kind of things (their body, their environment, time, their own mind) as we are aware off;

2. The robots will acquire knowledge that is useful for them. It doesn't need to be necessarily elegant or true;

3. Intentionality involves choice, which at least involves disregarding the options that are not chosen, which involves prediction of the result of actions, which also involves preferences regarding those results. Even if preferences are pre-programmed, a robot is still able to become a better predictor of its actions, or to go for actions with more unpredictable results. In other words: by learning. Different robots can develop different personality styles with respect to making choices. What would you want additionally to that to call a robot intentional?;

4. The embodiment paradigm states that we learn objects by interacting with them, put them in our mouths, etc. To live is a life long learning process.

 

It seems that unless you understand the basis of consciousness you will never know whether you could ever cause a robot to become conscious. I wonder why you aren't more interested in the philosophical discussion of consciousness as it is at the foundation of understanding consciousness.

 

Unless robots can attain consciousness and intentionality, then knowledge will not obtain either. I think you may not understand the concept of knowledge, however, as knowledge is defined as justified true belief (i.e., it is true by definition); therefore, contra to what you said, knowledge must be true, otherwise it is not knowledge.

 

If you will look back at my original post you will realize that you have a mistaken idea of what intentionality is philosophically. Intentionality is the mental state that we have when we think of or about a perceived object. It doesn't involve decisions as you say, that is the more common usage of the term, but not the philosophical understanding. So, maybe you could restate your answer with this definition and let me know how you think it might apply to robots.

 

So, the question I have regarding your last answer is whether you believe that we (or a robot) can perceive an object as it is or whether it is mediated? I don't think I could determine from your answer which was the case and you didn't mention why either would be the case either.

 

LNC

 

A. A robot will not become conscious because someone defines it conscious. Philosophers are, sorry to say, most often decades lagging behind science. Nothing to gain from them. If you have theories about the mind, why not test them in simulations and on robots?

 

B. The definition of knowledge - as justified, as true, and as believed - needs then repair. :-) A robot can learn its environment by interacting with it in a certain way. It learns invariances of its own body and invariances of the environment by virtue of those interactions. Those interactions are really dependent on the environment. For example, a crawling baby of say 8 months learns that it will fall over on a slope and - after three or four times - it will not go down the slope anymore. However, if the baby learns to walk in say 13 months, it sees this slope from a different angle, and needs again three or four times falling down, to not to go down that same slope anymore. In both cases the baby learned, which in my - I admit - simple world, means acquiring knowledge. So, it means that knowledge is highly context-dependent. If knowledge need to be "true" in all imaginable universes, I will throw this type of philosophy once more in the garbage bin.

 

C. If intentionality only means that something is a representamen in a semiotic sense for that what it represents, what can I say? Of course a robot can have mental phenomena that are directed upon an object, whether real or imaginary. There is nothing magic about that.

 

 

Do you have the same difficulties in defining if something is alife? Most kids do quite well. What purpose has philosophy if it makes things only more complex? Why not use it to explain things?

[chefranden]

Are you a indivisible quantum dollop of soul, identity, or consciousness?

 

Consider the possibility of a transporter a la Star Trek.

 

The thing works by deconstructing your molecules and recording their exact state at the time of the transport and then the information is sent to Mars via radio transmission and you are reconstructed as an exact copy down to the scratches you got from your cat yesterday out of local Martian material. As far as your copy can tell it went to sleep on Earth and woke up a short time later on Mars.

 

Is this reconstruction you?

 

Let's say that there is a glitch and you are transmitted to Venus and Mars at the same time and are faithfully reconstructed in both places. As far as your copies can tell they both went to sleep for a short time and then woke up in a new place. Both copies think they are you. They think therefore are they? Which one is you?

 

Let's say that the glitch transmitted the two copies to a receiving station two floors up from the transmission station. Now each of you is aware of the other? For a moment they are both you but then they diverge because their experience begins to be different from the other. Today they are pretty much the same. Tomorrow they will be a little bit different. In a couple of years they will be a lot different. One of them will be married to your wife or husband and the other will be out on his/her ear.

 

You may suppose that you are the same quantum dollop of identity that you were ten years ago, but just like the accidental twins above you have diverged from that 10 younger copy of yourself. What changed? It couldn't be your indivisible quantum dollop of identity that is always you because that would fuck up the idea of one and only one soul.

 

Consider a new branch of philosophy called leafpiology that is concerned with the nature of leaf piles especially the notion of Leaf Pileishness. What is it that makes a leaf pile a leaf pile if it is not Leaf Pileishness? Leafpilogists insist that it is this mysterious supernatural Leaf Pileishness that distinguishes leaf piles from non-leaf piles.

 

There is something about a leaf pile that one could call leaf pileishness but would any sane person really consider leaf pileishness to be Leaf Pileishness a supernatural something separate from the leaves and their positions that gives the leaf pile its pileishness? I doubt it.

 

But take a pile of cells in the shape of a human and all of a sudden there must be something other than the cells, their patterns, and processes that somehow supplies humanness to a human.

[Saviourmachine]

...I do hold that the mind/soul is an immaterial part of who we are. I believe that the Bible explains clearly what happens to the soul upon death and would suggest that you look to it for your answer to you question.

 

We begin life as a fertilized ovum. No mind or soul. We need a brain for consciousness to exist.

Thursday I was in Zürich on the conference "Cognitive Systems" where O'Regan was a keynote speaker who talked about the notion of "feel" (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3Ao%27regan%20feel for some of his articles). He spoke about the rubber hand illusion, see e.g. this movie:

After you see a rubber hand stroked synchronously with your own invisible hand, in the end you are thinking that the rubber hand is yours. If someone then attacks the rubber hand, the reaction is quite obvious. :-) Anyway, I was asking O'Regan if it is the case that a robot would "feel" if it is possible to induce a rubber hand illusion in a robot. He thought that it was not only a prerequisite, but that it would be sufficient indeed. (Nice for me, because I think I might happen to have something on the shelf which I can implement on a robot. I'll tell you later if I succeed.)

 

Just a story to tell that we might perhaps not need a human brain for consciousness to exist. But the substrate should probably have some brain-like characteristics. In this "speciest" era it is already hard for people to think that animals are aware of their environment and themselves, have emotions, or heaven forbid, feel pain. Indoctrinated by our Judeo-Christianese descent and our dietary habits, we might be encountering quite some surprises regarding the real nature of consciousness.

 

Perhaps we just want ourselves to be the only thing conscious...

[Shyone]

Just a story to tell that we might perhaps not need a human brain for consciousness to exist. But the substrate should probably have some brain-like characteristics. In this "speciest" era it is already hard for people to think that animals are aware of their environment and themselves, have emotions, or heaven forbid, feel pain. Indoctrinated by our Judeo-Christianese descent and our dietary habits, we might be encountering quite some surprises regarding the real nature of consciousness.

 

Perhaps we just want ourselves to be the only thing conscious...

That was beautiful, and echoes my sentiments exactly. We have a problem even appreciating what consciousness is, and we have problems recognising it in other species, much less a "totally different kind of animal" made of metal, plastic and glass.

 

I love my computer.

 

We want equal rights.

[agnosticator]

That's very interesting stuff, Saviormachine! O'Regan offers an answer to LNC's questions, so I'll post a link. I'm also interested in your robot project.

[agnosticator]

...In this "speciest" era it is already hard for people to think that animals are aware of their environment and themselves, have emotions, or heaven forbid, feel pain. Indoctrinated by our Judeo-Christianese descent and our dietary habits, we might be encountering quite some surprises regarding the real nature of consciousness.

 

Perhaps we just want ourselves to be the only thing conscious...

 

Yes, it seems to me that many christians (and other religions) don't want animals to be like us, perhaps to feel better about treating them like "things" to be used.

[agnosticator]

Naturalistic explanations/theories are the only explanations backed up by research, LNC. Philosophy cannot fully explain consciousness.Here is one theory of consciousness:

 

The model, called the “global workspace” model, posits that incoming information becomes conscious only when three conditions are met. First, the information must be represented by networks of sensory neurons, such as those in the primary visual cortex at the rear of the brain, that process incoming visual signals. Second, this representation must last long enough to gain access to (“come to the attention of”) a second stage of processing, distributed across the brain's cortex, and especially involving the prefrontal cortex, which is believed to be a major center for associating multiple kinds of information. Third and finally, this combination of bottom-up information propagation and top-down amplification through attention must “ignite” to create a state of reverberating, coherent activity among many different brain centers. That, according to the model, is what we experience as consciousness.

 

 

 

Another theory

 

Much work on the brain basis of vision and visual consciousness rests on the idea that for

every conscious state of seeing (for every visual experience) there is a neural substrate

whose activation is sufficient to produce it. It is widely supposed, in addition, that the

function of this neural substrate is to produce sensory experience by generating a

“representation” of what is experienced (Chalmers 2000). On this way of thinking, then,

vision is the process in the brain whereby such a representation is produced.

 

 

According to this view, vision is not a process in the brain. Though the brain is necessary

for vision, neural processes are not, in themselves, sufficient to produce seeing. Instead,

we claim that seeing is an exploratory activity mediated by the animal’s mastery of

sensorimotor contingencies. That is, seeing is a skill-based activity of environmental

exploration. Visual experience is not something that happens in us. It is something we do.

 

Seeing, on this view, is comparable to dancing with a partner. Just as dancing consists in

a delicate interaction between two partners, so seeing, we argue, depends on patterns of

interaction between the perceiver and the environment. There is no doubt that neural

activity is necessary to enable one’s skillful participation in a dance, but it is unlikely this

neural activity is sufficient to give rise to the dancing. After all, the dance, with its

weight changes, moments of disequlibria and rebounds, depends on the actions

and reactions of the partner (not to mention the nonbrain body). For exactly similar reasons,

we argue,neural activity is not sufficient to produce visual experience. Seeing does not

consist in the activation of neural structures (even though it causally depends upon such activation).

A further consequence of this approach to seeing and visual experience — seeing is

something we do, not something that takes place inside us — is that it allows us to

develop a new framework for thinking about the qualitative character of experience. One

of the chief advantages of this new framework, we argue, is that it enables us to

overcome the famous problem of the explanatory gap (Levine 1983).

 

 

Consciousness involves the processes of both brain and body, and direct interaction (and experiences) with the environment. Though the mind "views" a representation of reality, our sense of touch is direct. IOW, our skin directly interacts with the environment. We are sensory beings, and our senses serve us well. They adequately provide us with knowledge that enables us to thrive.

[LNC]

There may be no logical entailment from physical facts to facts about consciousness, but I don't think that means consciousness can't be a result of physical brain activities. The scientific method has given us reliable knowledge of many things, and will continue to do so.

 

Whether or not scientific methods give reliable knowledge of things is not completely relevant. The fact is that scientific findings are regularly adjusted and modified as we gain new methods and information, so its findings are probabilistic at best. So, to say that we can somehow rely on science to explain consciousness based purely on physicalism at some point in the future is problematic on many levels. First, it is a faith statement, and not itself a statement of knowledge. Second, I believe that it would be self-defeating in that it would mean that all intentionality (including intentionality about ourselves) would be derived and therefore untrustworthy. Third, I don't see how we could then ever achieve the status of knowledge (justified true belief) as it requires intrinsic intentionality, which is not possible given physicalism as far as I can see. That is the reason that I specifically laid out the first four questions as I believe that they are the ones that have to be adequately answered in order to explain consciousness and intentionality given naturalism or any other viewpoint for that matter.

 

When mental states can be altered by physical changes, that demonstrates a direct causal connection. Nature (and the brain) is made up of mass, energy, electrons, etc., and these aren't all physical. IOW, the brain isn't just physical; it's more than mass.

 

(edited to add:) Eliminativism doesn't describe what I said. Wiki says,"Its primary claim is that people's common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist."

 

"Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that that class of entities does not exist.[3] For example, all forms of materialism are eliminativist about the soul;" This is where it may be relevant, but not when it comes to mental states.

 

What do you mean by "direct causal connection"? Do you mean that all conscious states can be reduced to physical states? If that is what you mean, then I don't think you have the evidence for that degree of causal connection. If you mean that physical state may affect mental states, then I would agree. If you take a different position from eliminativism, then maybe you could explain your position in more detail.

 

 

??

 

The Bible uses the term "nephesh" to speak of soulish creatures, which would be creatures that have minds, although, they are not as developed as human minds.

 

 

I know I am made up of water, carbon, calcium, nitrogen, phosphorus, and minerals, and that I came from the uniting of sperm and ovum from my parents. Where else did life come from, since we are made from stardust?

 

Scientists are working on how the brain produces consciousness. Their research is beginning to shed some light on it. Of course, nobody has completed the research.

 

I think you are referring to what Aristotle referred to as the material cause (that of which something is made), which is different from discussing what that entities efficient cause is (that which caused the thing to exist) or its formal cause (that from where its form came) or its final cause (the purpose for which it was brought into existence). Maybe you could focus on the efficient cause for life.

 

I think it is quite evident that scientists and philosophers are working on this problem, it is another question as to whether consciousness will or can be explained by physicalism. That is the point of these four basic questions.

 

LNC

[LNC]

OK, since you seem confident of your assertions, maybe you can back them up with some evidence. Can you explain the origin of intelligence? First, please define intelligence as you understand it and then give your theory as to how it has arisen with details, timelines, etc.

I really don't want to mess with this. You wouldn't understand anyway.

 

"origin of intelligence" = evolution.

 

See? What did I tell you?

 

That's it? You give me one work, evolution, and that is supposed to serve as your evidence? Maybe you could put in a little more effort and explain how evolution explains intelligence (ontologically).

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

 

I would agree that Einstein had a different view of God from me and I would debate many of the points that he raised from this piece; however, my point is that he did see intelligence behind all of it. I believe that there are other arguments that get us to the God of the Bible.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

OK, since you seem confident of your assertions, maybe you can back them up with some evidence. Can you explain the origin of intelligence? First, please define intelligence as you understand it and then give your theory as to how it has arisen with details, timelines, etc.

I really don't want to mess with this. You wouldn't understand anyway.

 

"origin of intelligence" = evolution.

 

See? What did I tell you?

 

That's it? You give me one work, evolution, and that is supposed to serve as your evidence? Maybe you could put in a little more effort and explain how evolution explains intelligence (ontologically).

 

LNC

I tried. I really tried, but after you have shown willful ignorance, I can't repeat myself ad infinitum and expect a different response from you.

 

It is so clearcut, so simple, and easy to understand.

 

Question to any Ex-Christian: Is the connection between the developement of intelligence and evolution too complicated?

 

One cell ......................................... Human

----------------------Evolution of intelligence----

 

Just as any organ evolves, it is clear the nervous system has evolved over the past several billion years. Res ipsi loquitur.

 

If one studies evolution, one learns these things.