Consciousness

[agnosticator]

The mapping that has been done wrt brain function is extensive. Although most of the information has to do with "destruction" of certain parts of the brain and/or pathways, The information can be reconstructed like a series of reservoirs, channels and valves.

 

Starting with the brainstem, imagine closing off all connections to the rest of the brain. Then open them one by one. Brain functions are both general and local, so there is considerable redundancy, but you can still see which pathways are necessary to conciousness, function, coordination, perception, memory, intention and emotions.

 

I'm not saying that it is "simple". Far from it. It is, however, understandable, repeatable and clearly all physical.<SNIP> (to save space)

 

 

Many thanks Shyone, for the clear explanation! The brain is truly amazing, and I look forward to learning more.

[par4dcourse]

Me too. I love the subject.

[agnosticator]

I don't know that I have it all figured out as there are many questions to be answered which I have not even brought into this discussion. However, there are certain things that seem to be apparent and offer only few alternative explanations. We need to consider these and determine which makes the most sense and is the best explanation of the phenomena that we observe. I am not considering consciousness or intrinsic intentionality outside of this universe, I am merely asked about that which appears to exist within our universe. So I will be content to limit our conversation there if you agree.

 

I understand and agree.

 

Again, I will not argue that the brain plays no role in consciousness, simply that I don't think it is the complete explanation of consciousness. If it cannot fully explain consciousness, what is the explanation for that which the physical cannot explain from a naturalist/physicalist vantage point?

 

What besides the brain could explain consciousness? What else would exist to explain it?

 

If scientists don't know everything presently that is needed to fully explain consciousness to your satisfaction, how do you know they won't be able to in the future? How can you draw a conclusion if they only have partial knowledge of an explanation? How do you know the brain cannot fully explain consciousness, given the limited knowledge they have at present?

[Shyone]

I don't know that I have it all figured out as there are many questions to be answered which I have not even brought into this discussion. However, there are certain things that seem to be apparent and offer only few alternative explanations. We need to consider these and determine which makes the most sense and is the best explanation of the phenomena that we observe. I am not considering consciousness or intrinsic intentionality outside of this universe, I am merely asked about that which appears to exist within our universe. So I will be content to limit our conversation there if you agree.

 

I understand and agree.

 

Again, I will not argue that the brain plays no role in consciousness, simply that I don't think it is the complete explanation of consciousness. If it cannot fully explain consciousness, what is the explanation for that which the physical cannot explain from a naturalist/physicalist vantage point?

 

What besides the brain could explain consciousness? What else would exist to explain it?

 

If scientists don't know everything presently that is needed to fully explain consciousness to your satisfaction, how do you know they won't be able to in the future? How can you draw a conclusion if they only have partial knowledge of an explanation? How do you know the brain cannot fully explain consciousness, given the limited knowledge they have at present?

I wouldn't mind calling it an unknown that needs further research, but the tendency to extrapolate anything unknown to something metaphysical is nothing but the argument from ignorance.

 

"If there is no God, then who pops up the next Kleenex." We understand pretty much all of the physical requirements to pop up the next kleenex, but if we didn't, it wouldn't mean that God did it. Likewise, just because every pathway for all of the 10 billion neurons hasn't been mapped doesn't mean that it hasn't been done for every region of the brain, and the specific pathways and how they relate to brain functions are pretty well understood.

 

I'm not even sure why the question of "something else" about consciousness is even being asked. It is a matter relating to materials, function, and connections. The brain has more connections than there are stars in the milky way galaxy.

 

From an introduction to the brain and consciousness:

 

So this model that Hobson has developed shows that:

 

 

• the level of consciousness changes as a function of activation;
  
• the focus of consciousness changes as a function of input/output gating; and
  
• the form (or perhaps the state) of consciousness changes as a function of modulatory neurotransmitter ratios.
  

 

He concludes that

 

"Consciousness is the forebrain's representation of the world, our bodies and ourselves. It is always a construction whose level, focus and form depends upon the brain stem."

 

I realize that scientists don't know everything, but the relationship of consciousness (in particular) to the brain is clear. The specific parts of the brain required are well known (e.g. Intra-laminar Nuclei which is a subpart of the Thalamus, frontal lobes, and the extended reticulo-thalamic activating system), and their relation to other parts of the brain is also well known.

 

What's the mystery?

[agnosticator]

I realize that scientists don't know everything, but the relationship of consciousness (in particular) to the brain is clear. The specific parts of the brain required are well known (e.g. Intra-laminar Nuclei which is a subpart of the Thalamus, frontal lobes, and the extended reticulo-thalamic activating system), and their relation to other parts of the brain is also well known.

 

What's the mystery?

 

Hmmm... thanks for the link and for informing me. I am in need of reading more on the subject.

[oddbird1963]

Shyone,

 

I too appreciate the link!

 

I want to know more about this subject.

[Shyone]

Shyone,

 

I too appreciate the link!

 

I want to know more about this subject.

I am like a baby that dangles the shiny mind in front of me as a destraction. My knowledge does not compare with those who specialize in neuroanatomy or neurophysiology.

 

Having only opened the box to get a closer look at my shiny toy, I'm still in a better position to describe the contents than one who hasn't even opened the box.

 

I recently mined YouTube for some sequences relating to mind/brain for a project, and even that was quite impressive. Everything from the chemical fluxes during neuronal firing, to the biochemistry of the synapse, to the receptors, circuits, functional units and integrated pathways was all pretty well illustrated in entertaining and visually exciting ways.

 

Shiny impulses traveling hither, thither and yon make us what we are.

[Evolution_beyond]

I used to be a panpsychist (the universe is conscious)

 

but now I'm a functionalist.

 

Consciousness is simply what brains do. All the connections and processes add up to consciousness. Quite possibly there are degrees of consciousness and our human variety is the most complex example. I believe that animals are conscious, in varying degrees.

 

Senses take in information about the outside world - that results in a kind of consciousness. I mean, of course it does. How could you be aware of something else without, you know, being aware of it? Add to sensory consciousness all our words and concepts and thoughts - and hey presto! Complex human consciousness.

 

It's no big mystery to me anymore. And I no longer need to believe that all interactions lead to consciousness. I don't think you necessarily need to be a biological entity to be conscious (I think a robot could in principle be conscious) - but I do think you need to have senses.

[LNC]

OK, fair enough. But I think I know where you're going with this.

 

I am simply trying to pursue this topic to its logical conclusion - whatever that may be. That is why I pose it as questions that anyone is free to answer and to defend his or her answer.

 

A by-product of the evolution of the human brain into a pattern-recognition machine as a survival skill. Consciousness as we call it may be simply an advanced state of pattern recognition, or a happy side-effect of evolution.

 

It was already stated by someone else on this thread that evolution does not explain the totality of consciousness. For example, how do we account for our appreciation of aesthetics? In fact, how do we account for our perception of those items that we appreciate? However, I will look on to your answer of that question.

 

I don't understand this question (knowledge). Please put it in layman's terms.

 

Paul and Patricia Churchland are philosophers who have posed a problem for naturalism and knowledge (they are naturalists) in that evolution is about getting our body parts in the right place at the right time, no more, no less. Therefore, they believe that knowledge, which is defined as justified true beliefs, does not fit into that evolutionary model. Truth is not necessary, nor are beliefs, as long as we act in the right way. We could hold false beliefs that would lead to right behavior. Therefore, they and others believe that knowledge cannot be accounted for. In a recent paper that I did, I looked at some of the elements of knowledge as proposed by philosopher Dallas Willard from USC. He proposes three necessary elements, truth, logical relations and noetic unity. We have already seen the problem of truth from the perspective of the Churchlands and given that they are right, which I have no reason to question or think otherwise, then the other two aspects that Willard lays out fall in succession as they are dependent upon the foundation of truth. These are reasons that I think that knowledge is a problem from a naturalistic perspective.

 

I don't understand this question (intentionality) either.

 

Intentionality, as I mentioned in my OP is the discussion of the ofness or aboutness of our mental states. What this means is that yesterday in my book discussion group we watched a video about Frederich Nietzsche, we thought of and about Nietzsche and the video as we discussed it afterwards. We perceived the video and the sound along with it and then spoke about what we perceived afterward, not while the video was playing. In other words, we had to directly perceive the video, understand what it was about and then discuss it afterward as if we had all seen and heard the same thing. This is a difficult problem given naturalism in that most naturalists don't believe that we can perceive a thing as it is, but that we all perceive indirectly as mediated by concepts that we have collected along the way. Since none of us has had the same experiences, then none of us actually perceived the same thing, yet it appears from our conversation that we did. The second problem is that none of the concepts that we hold, given naturalism, are intrinsic concepts (originating within us), they are all derived from other sources. Therefore, it is impossible for any of us to actually perceive the same thing. Third, to acquire these concepts assumes that we have some capacity to acquire them and we must answer the question as to from where those concepts came. In other words, there seems to be a need at some point to have intrinsically held concepts, but naturalism has no explanation for these. All we end up with, given naturalism, is an infinite regress of concepts which is problematic. This still may be confusing, so let me know and I will try to flesh it out further in a later post.

 

I believe that our eyes detect differences in light, our ears detect differences in sound, our noses detect differences in smell, our fingers detect differences in feel and our tongues detect differences in taste. Our brains put all this information together through a meat-based computer processor and give us a framework in which to move through this world. I suppose this could be considered mediation through our brain's perceptive framework.

 

So, I gather by your post that there is no direct perception of a thing in itself, but only perception of variances in colors (actually light waves of different wave lengths), touch sensations, etc. That is consistent with a naturalist position, but still requires the intentional concepts mentioned above to put them all together and that does not allow us to arrive at truth or true perception as it is mediated by those concepts, which themselves cannot be tested for veridicality. I think you have arrived at the problem that many naturalists face. Thanks for your answers and thoughts.

[NotBlinded]

What's the mystery?

Well...since you asked.

 

Is consciousness a function of the brain or is the brain a function of consciousness? Or...is it a combination of both?

 

 

 

I swore I wouldn't touch this thread, but, but...sometimes I can't help myself.

[NotBlinded]

Shiny impulses traveling hither, thither and yon make us what we are.

Oh, no one better to pick on than you! (You know I luv ya!)

 

Anyway...why do they travel? It sounds as if they have intent or dare I say...intelligence?

 

Okay, I gotta go before I'm drawn again to Chalmer's website.

[Shyone]

 

What's the mystery?

 

Well...since you asked.

 

Is consciousness a function of the brain or is the brain a function of consciousness? Or...is it a combination of both?

 

 

 

Shiny impulses traveling hither, thither and yon make us what we are.

Oh, no one better to pick on than you! (You know I luv ya!)

 

Anyway...why do they travel? It sounds as if they have intent or dare I say...intelligence?

 

Okay, I gotta go before I'm drawn again to Chalmer's website.

I see dogs and aligators as "conscious." Self-aware? Who knows? But they have other states including unconsciousness. So consciousness is a function of the brain necessary for survival.

 

We could view the impulses in many ways. Each impulse is "caused" by another impulse, and these are in turn triggered by several things; body clocks, external stimuli, or even internal stimili (like hunger). They "travel" in the same way that dominoes "fall." Each triggered by something.

 

Let me speak of the heroism of a single cell. I am imparting human characteristics to something that is "programmed" but that is, after all, what is required for survival of the greater organism.

 

A bacterium has penetrated the outer layer of defenses and, as it gathers nutrients to reproduce, it destroys surrounding cells. The cells call for help, or give off other signals as they die that begin chain reactions including the release of Kallikreins (sp) and other things that stimulate an immune response. A white blood cell, following the call for help, leaves the security of the circulatory system, and it will never return. It engages the attacking bacteria and absorbs the bacteria and its toxins. Victorious in death, it is nonetheless deprived of its individual life.

 

Intention? Not really; just chemical response and programmed actions, like an ant as the ant hill is disturbed. Or is that really a form of intent?

 

Intelligence? Not really; although the potential actions of this cell, while limited, are backed up by eons of evolution and the actions are appropriate for the circumstances.

 

On the grand scale is the organism, not the system or the cell. But the "intent" of the organism is to support the system and the cells. Mutual support. If intelligence is a carefully arranged dance of functions that support the organism, then it's all intelligent. It's all life.

 

A tribe is an organism, and the members are like the cells. The shamanic cult is a system within the organism made of cells. Each component, working with it's innate capabilities, supports the organism.

 

Sometimes things go haywire, and the immune system mistakes normal cells for foreign cells, and pre-programmed cell death goes awry, and diseases win. I suppose that's why religion has become the bane of civilization. Our organism has no more use for the shamanic cult, and that cult has now become destructive.

[NotBlinded]

I see dogs and aligators as "conscious." Self-aware? Who knows? But they have other states including unconsciousness. So consciousness is a function of the brain necessary for survival.

You see, I think it is both. But, I also think that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature.

 

We could view the impulses in many ways. Each impulse is "caused" by another impulse, and these are in turn triggered by several things; body clocks, external stimuli, or even internal stimili (like hunger). They "travel" in the same way that dominoes "fall." Each triggered by something.

 

Let me speak of the heroism of a single cell. I am imparting human characteristics to something that is "programmed" but that is, after all, what is required for survival of the greater organism.

 

A bacterium has penetrated the outer layer of defenses and, as it gathers nutrients to reproduce, it destroys surrounding cells. The cells call for help, or give off other signals as they die that begin chain reactions including the release of Kallikreins (sp) and other things that stimulate an immune response. A white blood cell, following the call for help, leaves the security of the circulatory system, and it will never return. It engages the attacking bacteria and absorbs the bacteria and its toxins. Victorious in death, it is nonetheless deprived of its individual life.

 

Intention? Not really; just chemical response and programmed actions, like an ant as the ant hill is disturbed. Or is that really a form of intent?

 

Intelligence? Not really; although the potential actions of this cell, while limited, are backed up by eons of evolution and the actions are appropriate for the circumstances.

You don't really see that as some form of intelligence innate in the cell? I'm thinking that there may be a difference in how I see intelligence vs the way you do. There are processes going on in my body that I don't personally control (singing to the choir here!). I don't have to think about releasing hormones or beating my heart but it gets done. So, does intelligence require an awareness of the function?

 

That would then lead me to ask if moving my arm is intelligent. I'm not aware of the process of how I'm doing it, but it gets done and I would say that I have intent, but yet, I'm not aware of how I do it. Is there a difference between voluntary and involuntary movements/functions afterall? Is being self-aware really help us with intent or if we were beyond being aware of ourselves, could we actually make better decisions? Have you ever just reacted without having to think about it? You have heard people say that they didn't have time to think, they just acted when asked how they did what they did?

 

 

 

On the grand scale is the organism, not the system or the cell. But the "intent" of the organism is to support the system and the cells. Mutual support. If intelligence is a carefully arranged dance of functions that support the organism, then it's all intelligent. It's all life.

Yes...are you agreeing or am I not understanding?

 

A tribe is an organism, and the members are like the cells. The shamanic cult is a system within the organism made of cells. Each component, working with it's innate capabilities, supports the organism.

And every part of the set has an element of intelligence. Yes?

 

Sometimes things go haywire, and the immune system mistakes normal cells for foreign cells, and pre-programmed cell death goes awry, and diseases win. I suppose that's why religion has become the bane of civilization. Our organism has no more use for the shamanic cult, and that cult has now become destructive.

Well, there are differing levels of intelligence...

[NotBlinded]

LNC,

 

I appreciate the fact that you provided your working definition of consciousness.

 

Can you also please provide quotes (just a few lines each) and summaries from David Chambers, Hume, Kant, etc. that demonstrate that these writers hold the position you claim.

 

You, for instance, say "Some, like philosopher David Chalmers believe they have given good arguments to show that there is an unbridgeable gap which physicalists cannot overcome in explaining consciousness. " Fine and dandy. But why does he believe this? I know you want to raise questions and have us answer them. But since I don't have a huge library of tomes to pour through finding these arguments, it might be nice to know the gyst of the actual arguments you want us to counter.

 

I've spent all my book money for a while on other works also.

 

Sincerely,

 

OB '63

OB read this: Consciousness and its Place in Nature

 

It's awesome.

[oddbird1963]

 

OB read this: Consciousness and its Place in Nature

 

It's awesome.

 

 

Thanks NBBB! I'll look it over when I get some time!

[Shyone]

But, I also think that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature.

 

What would nature look like if it were unconscious? Consciousness is a state distinct from a lack of consciousness, but I can't see nature's consciousness manifest in any specific way.

 

You don't really see that as some form of intelligence innate in the cell? I'm thinking that there may be a difference in how I see intelligence vs the way you do. There are processes going on in my body that I don't personally control (singing to the choir here!). I don't have to think about releasing hormones or beating my heart but it gets done. So, does intelligence require an awareness of the function?

Cells intelligent? Fair question. I have to say no. They "do what they are told" or else "blindly reproduce." Following instructions has never been the hallmark of intelligence. If it were, my computer would be brilliant.

 

And that may be the case, but it becomes a semantic and philosophic nightmare.

 

Automatic processes, including cycles beyond human control, are "programmed" in much the same way that the sun "rises and sets" as the earth turns. Cycles of seasons, sleeping and waking, and even breathing are excellent examples of things that change without being intelligent or even showing intelligence.

 

I would put a sharp dividing point between true "intelligence" and basic biologic drives. It may be such drives that motivate and the "solution" to the drive may manifest intelligence, but the drives themselves are common to virtually everything alive.

 

Even plants reproduce. Parasites reproduce. Viruses reproduce. It's physical and chemical, not intelligent.

 

The "blindly reproduce" comment above refers to cancer cells. I attribute nothing more to cancer than mutation and gene expression. It has no purpose, the cells are stupid - they don't follow rules because there is a command at the top of the list that says "reproduce". But even cancer cells come from somewhere, and their genes have some differentiation. They are like cars without drivers with their gas pedal stuck, and they don't care what they hit as they blindly follow the simple command "Go."

 

Even though the car radio is playing.

 

I've seen too many people who have lost their intelligence to treat intelligence so lightly as to say a rock is intelligent.

[Shyone]

LNC,

 

I appreciate the fact that you provided your working definition of consciousness.

 

Can you also please provide quotes (just a few lines each) and summaries from David Chambers, Hume, Kant, etc. that demonstrate that these writers hold the position you claim.

 

You, for instance, say "Some, like philosopher David Chalmers believe they have given good arguments to show that there is an unbridgeable gap which physicalists cannot overcome in explaining consciousness. " Fine and dandy. But why does he believe this? I know you want to raise questions and have us answer them. But since I don't have a huge library of tomes to pour through finding these arguments, it might be nice to know the gyst of the actual arguments you want us to counter.

 

I've spent all my book money for a while on other works also.

 

Sincerely,

 

OB '63

OB read this: Consciousness and its Place in Nature

 

It's awesome.

I read it, and basically reject the tentative conclusions. The arguments used for a non-materialist view of consciousness amount to argument from ignorance, argument from absurdity and argument from obfuscation. These are the same arguments used to justify the existence of God philosophically, and they don't hold water there either.

 

"It is often held that even though it is hard to see how materialism could be true, materialism must be true, since the alternatives are unacceptable."

 

Or, to rephrase the above, take away the materials, and there isn't any intelligence remaining. Intelligence requires material, but materials alone are not intelligent.

 

Intelligence (and consciousness) is a very tenuous result of the process of growing according to the programs outlined in the DNA (and RNA) in only certain species. It requires not just material per se, but living material, and when that material is no longer living, intelligence (and consciousness) vanishes.

 

It can also dissipate with slight variations of homeostasis; a low blood pressure, a narrow artery, a tumor or trauma, a bodily reaction to infection that raises the temperature too high (greater than 104 degrees F).

 

If one person is more intelligent than another person, and people are more intelligent than any animal, and some animals are smarter than other animals, then there is eventually a point at which no intelligence remains and/or intelligence cannot be measured. At the very least, we can say that inanimate material is not intelligent because it shows in signs of intelligence - although out tendency towards pattern recognition can mistake an occurrence for an intelligent act. If a rock falls down and nearly hits us, we may say the mountain is angry with us. It is primative to attribute intent to inanimate objects, although if a rock had been tossed down the mountain by a creature (or human) intent may be inferred.

 

The larger scale geologic events also have no intellgence or intent. Earthquakes do not punish humans, hurricanes are weather patterns, not angry beings with intent. The same applies to the solar system, the galaxy, the local group and the universe. Matter acting without intent, awareness, consciousness or intelligence. It's just a bunch of rocks.

[NotBlinded]

But, I also think that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature.

 

What would nature look like if it were unconscious? Consciousness is a state distinct from a lack of consciousness, but I can't see nature's consciousness manifest in any specific way.

 

You don't really see that as some form of intelligence innate in the cell? I'm thinking that there may be a difference in how I see intelligence vs the way you do. There are processes going on in my body that I don't personally control (singing to the choir here!). I don't have to think about releasing hormones or beating my heart but it gets done. So, does intelligence require an awareness of the function?

Cells intelligent? Fair question. I have to say no. They "do what they are told" or else "blindly reproduce." Following instructions has never been the hallmark of intelligence. If it were, my computer would be brilliant.

 

And that may be the case, but it becomes a semantic and philosophic nightmare.

 

Automatic processes, including cycles beyond human control, are "programmed" in much the same way that the sun "rises and sets" as the earth turns. Cycles of seasons, sleeping and waking, and even breathing are excellent examples of things that change without being intelligent or even showing intelligence.

 

I would put a sharp dividing point between true "intelligence" and basic biologic drives. It may be such drives that motivate and the "solution" to the drive may manifest intelligence, but the drives themselves are common to virtually everything alive.

 

Even plants reproduce. Parasites reproduce. Viruses reproduce. It's physical and chemical, not intelligent.

 

The "blindly reproduce" comment above refers to cancer cells. I attribute nothing more to cancer than mutation and gene expression. It has no purpose, the cells are stupid - they don't follow rules because there is a command at the top of the list that says "reproduce". But even cancer cells come from somewhere, and their genes have some differentiation. They are like cars without drivers with their gas pedal stuck, and they don't care what they hit as they blindly follow the simple command "Go."

 

Even though the car radio is playing.

 

I've seen too many people who have lost their intelligence to treat intelligence so lightly as to say a rock is intelligent.

Again, I'm not saying that a rock is intelligent in a human sense. What I am saying is that a rock can manifest intelligence. We are here and we are from rock. Now unless there is something wrong with my logic, we are not put on this planet, but we come out of it which is the 3rd rock from the sun. Are we living birds on a dead tree or are we a part of a living planet. As Alan Watts would say, "This planet peoples exactly the same way as an apple tree apples."

 

You talk of commands, orders and programs. With this language, it implies that there is a command giver, or a programmer. This separates the intelligence from the matter and that gives people the idea that there must be a God that issues these commands. This thinking is the exact same among theists and materialists. One says God, the other says that it "just happens". I say both are looking at it wrong. This isn't true in all philosophies.

 

We talked about that in the thread about reductionism that OM started. If these were things that just happen, I would watch my wooden chair turn into a sloppy blob on the floor right in front of my eyes. There is something within the interactions of the molecules and atoms for them to behave the way they do, IMO.

 

You say it's physical and chemical, but what does that mean? I don't understand how intelligence can come from nonintelligent matter. Of course there are differing degrees, but the potential to achieve higher states of intelligence is inate in a rock. It will never become a higher state of intelligence without eveything else to interact with. a "holistic" approach. Hey...I had to say it!

[NotBlinded]

"It is often held that even though it is hard to see how materialism could be true, materialism must be true, since the alternatives are unacceptable."

 

Or, to rephrase the above, take away the materials, and there isn't any intelligence remaining. Intelligence requires material, but materials alone are not intelligent.

 

Chalmers states Jackson's version:

 

(1) There are truths about consciousness that are not deducible from physical truths.

 

(2) If there are truths about consciousness that are not deducible from physical truths, then materialism is false.

 

Intelligence (and consciousness) is a very tenuous result of the process of growing according to the programs outlined in the DNA (and RNA) in only certain species. It requires not just material per se, but living material, and when that material is no longer living, intelligence (and consciousness) vanishes.

 

It can also dissipate with slight variations of homeostasis; a low blood pressure, a narrow artery, a tumor or trauma, a bodily reaction to infection that raises the temperature too high (greater than 104 degrees F).

 

If one person is more intelligent than another person, and people are more intelligent than any animal, and some animals are smarter than other animals, then there is eventually a point at which no intelligence remains and/or intelligence cannot be measured. At the very least, we can say that inanimate material is not intelligent because it shows in signs of intelligence - although out tendency towards pattern recognition can mistake an occurrence for an intelligent act. If a rock falls down and nearly hits us, we may say the mountain is angry with us. It is primative to attribute intent to inanimate objects, although if a rock had been tossed down the mountain by a creature (or human) intent may be inferred.

 

The larger scale geologic events also have no intellgence or intent. Earthquakes do not punish humans, hurricanes are weather patterns, not angry beings with intent. The same applies to the solar system, the galaxy, the local group and the universe. Matter acting without intent, awareness, consciousness or intelligence. It's just a bunch of rocks.

I never claimed anything of the sort I don't think. I reject that we are speaking about human intelligence being applied to matter. No, earthquakes do not punish humans. That's a human concept of intelligence. I can only see the results of the play of intelligence in differing degrees. I don't expect a rock to give me the evil eye, but I do expect it to remain a rock while I'm talking to it.

 

I wish I was lucid enough to put forth some arguments about consciousness from Bohm, Wilber and even Chalmers, but I'm just not today. Lucidity is rare with me most times.

[LNC]

LNC,

 

I appreciate the fact that you provided your working definition of consciousness.

 

Can you also please provide quotes (just a few lines each) and summaries from David Chambers, Hume, Kant, etc. that demonstrate that these writers hold the position you claim.

 

You, for instance, say "Some, like philosopher David Chalmers believe they have given good arguments to show that there is an unbridgeable gap which physicalists cannot overcome in explaining consciousness. " Fine and dandy. But why does he believe this? I know you want to raise questions and have us answer them. But since I don't have a huge library of tomes to pour through finding these arguments, it might be nice to know the gyst of the actual arguments you want us to counter.

 

I've spent all my book money for a while on other works also.

 

Sincerely,

 

OB '63

 

OB,

 

I might suggest Chalmers article Consciousness and its Place in Nature where he goes through three different physicalists positions (Type A, B & C physicalism), giving detailed explanations as to why each has problems that seem insurmountable. He lays out the epistemic argument as follows (as descended from Descartes and others):

 

(1) There is an epistemic gap between physical and phenomenal truths.

(2) If there is an epistemic gap between physical and phenomenal truths, then there is an ontological gap, and materialism is false.

(3) Materialism is false.

 

He then goes on to look at the various arguments for physicalism to determine whether they can close the epistemic gap, showing that the various materialistic models cannot, in fact, close that gap. Since the arguments are too complex to summarize easily, I will refer you to the actual article (follow link above) to read them for yourself.

 

Hume says in Treatise on Human Nature, "We may observe, that 'tis universally allow'd by philosophers, and is besides pretty obvious of itself, that nothing is ever really present with the mind but its perceptions or impressions and ideas, and that external objects become known to us only by those perceptions they occasion." (Sect. VI)

 

Kant wrote, "Now a thing in itself cannot be known through mere relations; and we may therefore conclude that since outer sense gives us nothing but mere relations, this sense can contain in its representation only the relation of an object to the subject, and not the inner properties of the object in itself" Critique of Pure Reason (B67)

 

Let me know if these help.

 

LNC

[LNC]

What besides the brain could explain consciousness? What else would exist to explain it?

 

If scientists don't know everything presently that is needed to fully explain consciousness to your satisfaction, how do you know they won't be able to in the future? How can you draw a conclusion if they only have partial knowledge of an explanation? How do you know the brain cannot fully explain consciousness, given the limited knowledge they have at present?

 

Apparently, there would appear to be an aspect to us that cannot be merely boiled down to the physical realm. Now, this doesn't mean that philosophers necessarily jump to a supernatural explanation to account for consciousness; however, it appears that the physical alone (brain, etc.) is not sufficient to explain this phenomenon called consciousness. I don't know that science will or won't eventually explain conscious phenomena; however, I can't necessarily count on science to do so and many philosophers (not all of whom hold to a supernatural explanation) doubt that science will be able to fill the epistemic gap (Chalmers being one of those). What I am saying is that there are epistemic gaps that apparently cannot be filled in by a physical explanation according to many philosophers, and that is not based upon what we don't know, it is based upon what we do know.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I wouldn't mind calling it an unknown that needs further research, but the tendency to extrapolate anything unknown to something metaphysical is nothing but the argument from ignorance.

 

"If there is no God, then who pops up the next Kleenex." We understand pretty much all of the physical requirements to pop up the next kleenex, but if we didn't, it wouldn't mean that God did it. Likewise, just because every pathway for all of the 10 billion neurons hasn't been mapped doesn't mean that it hasn't been done for every region of the brain, and the specific pathways and how they relate to brain functions are pretty well understood.

 

I'm not even sure why the question of "something else" about consciousness is even being asked. It is a matter relating to materials, function, and connections. The brain has more connections than there are stars in the milky way galaxy.

 

From an introduction to the brain and consciousness:

 

So this model that Hobson has developed shows that:

 

• 
   
  
• the level of consciousness changes as a function of activation;
  
• the focus of consciousness changes as a function of input/output gating; and
  
• the form (or perhaps the state) of consciousness changes as a function of modulatory neurotransmitter ratios.
  

 

He concludes that

 

"Consciousness is the forebrain's representation of the world, our bodies and ourselves. It is always a construction whose level, focus and form depends upon the brain stem."

 

I realize that scientists don't know everything, but the relationship of consciousness (in particular) to the brain is clear. The specific parts of the brain required are well known (e.g. Intra-laminar Nuclei which is a subpart of the Thalamus, frontal lobes, and the extended reticulo-thalamic activating system), and their relation to other parts of the brain is also well known.

 

What's the mystery?

 

I would disagree that this is an argument from ignorance and until you read some of the philosophers on this subject, then I don't know that this is a fair assessment on your part. Instead, I think that it is an argument from what we do know both about consciousness and about the limits of physical explanations to account for what we know.

 

I haven't brought God into this conversation, if you will look back at my posts, I have simply asked some questions that I would like for you to attempt to answer from a naturalist/physicalists viewpoint. So, if you could limit your comments to those questions it would be helpful in keeping the conversation on track.

 

Regarding a relationship between consciousness and the brain, if you will look back at my posts, I don't make the case that there is no connection, merely that it appears that consciousness is not fully explained by the brain (or the physical aspect of beings) alone. If you believe otherwise, I would welcome you making that case and providing the basis for that belief. I think that if you will go ahead and address the questions that I asked it will help focus our conversation as those are the aspects of consciousness that I believe prove the most problematic from a naturalist/physicalist perspective.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I used to be a panpsychist (the universe is conscious)

 

but now I'm a functionalist.

 

Consciousness is simply what brains do. All the connections and processes add up to consciousness. Quite possibly there are degrees of consciousness and our human variety is the most complex example. I believe that animals are conscious, in varying degrees.

 

Senses take in information about the outside world - that results in a kind of consciousness. I mean, of course it does. How could you be aware of something else without, you know, being aware of it? Add to sensory consciousness all our words and concepts and thoughts - and hey presto! Complex human consciousness.

 

It's no big mystery to me anymore. And I no longer need to believe that all interactions lead to consciousness. I don't think you necessarily need to be a biological entity to be conscious (I think a robot could in principle be conscious) - but I do think you need to have senses.

 

Interesting! My book discussion group brought in a professor who is also a panpsychist this Summer to speak to us. I found that there were some problems with panpsychism that he hadn't considered including the problem of having an instantiated infinite which seems a necessity for panpsychism, as well as other issues that don't immediately come back to my mind. I think that if I wasn't a substance dualist and a theist, panpsychism would be an interesting alternative. Why did you abandon it?

 

I would be interested in having you go back to my original questions and answering them from a functionalist perspective as I would like to see how you would address these issues.

 

Thanks,

 

LNC

[LNC]

I see dogs and aligators as "conscious." Self-aware? Who knows? But they have other states including unconsciousness. So consciousness is a function of the brain necessary for survival.

 

I wonder whether consciousness is really necessary for survival. Suppose, for example, that we weren't conscious, but merely had sense preceptors that received stimuli and moved our parts to the right place to survive (i.e. toward food, away from enemies, and toward a mate)? Could we not survive just as well in that situation without the ability to have the conscious experiences that we do? It seems that consciousness is merely gratuitous as, given evolution, there was a time when beings survived without it. We can also look at the fact that most organisms in the universe are not conscious and seem to survive just fine as you go on to indicate.

 

We could view the impulses in many ways. Each impulse is "caused" by another impulse, and these are in turn triggered by several things; body clocks, external stimuli, or even internal stimili (like hunger). They "travel" in the same way that dominoes "fall." Each triggered by something.

 

Let me speak of the heroism of a single cell. I am imparting human characteristics to something that is "programmed" but that is, after all, what is required for survival of the greater organism.

 

A bacterium has penetrated the outer layer of defenses and, as it gathers nutrients to reproduce, it destroys surrounding cells. The cells call for help, or give off other signals as they die that begin chain reactions including the release of Kallikreins (sp) and other things that stimulate an immune response. A white blood cell, following the call for help, leaves the security of the circulatory system, and it will never return. It engages the attacking bacteria and absorbs the bacteria and its toxins. Victorious in death, it is nonetheless deprived of its individual life.

 

Intention? Not really; just chemical response and programmed actions, like an ant as the ant hill is disturbed. Or is that really a form of intent?

 

Intelligence? Not really; although the potential actions of this cell, while limited, are backed up by eons of evolution and the actions are appropriate for the circumstances.

 

On the grand scale is the organism, not the system or the cell. But the "intent" of the organism is to support the system and the cells. Mutual support. If intelligence is a carefully arranged dance of functions that support the organism, then it's all intelligent. It's all life.

 

A tribe is an organism, and the members are like the cells. The shamanic cult is a system within the organism made of cells. Each component, working with it's innate capabilities, supports the organism.

 

Sometimes things go haywire, and the immune system mistakes normal cells for foreign cells, and pre-programmed cell death goes awry, and diseases win. I suppose that's why religion has become the bane of civilization. Our organism has no more use for the shamanic cult, and that cult has now become destructive.

 

So, based upon this part of your post, I ask again, why consciousness? It seems completely gratuitous to existence. Maybe you could go back to the questions and address those in light of these ideas.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

You talk of commands, orders and programs. With this language, it implies that there is a command giver, or a programmer.

 

I really have a problem with that, but semantics can really screw things around.

 

The Law of Gravity does not require a lawgiver. It is a description, not legislation. Semantics.

 

Likewise, the accumulation of mollecules of water in the upper atmosphere when the temperature is freezing tends to form symmetric patterns (without a "pattern maker") that are crystalline. The patterns formed are the result of an order established by the shape of the mollecule and some random input regarding the initial seed of ice. It is ordered, but does not require an orderer or command giver. Its shape is the equivalent of the result of a program of gradual accumulation, but without a programmer.

 

Human language is not adapted to speak of things that don't have human attributes very well, and we use terms that are ambiguous to describe things, and along comes the baggage humans attached to the word.

 

And that's why I don't like discussing philosophy. Y'all use words wrong.