Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I understand there is a bit of a problem in some quarters of neuroscience of saying for lots of things that the brain does this and the brain does that on account of brain only being part of how something is perceived. In other words it discounts the involvement of the nervous system and externalities.

There is also the problem of the qualia and consciousness.

I understand Dennett has something to say but what is his concrete notion of what the brain actually does rather than being a shorthand for the whole organism....Not to mention mere disparagement of Dualism.

[Alan Burns]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

Right. I don't have a problem with that, that's broadly what I've been saying is the case.

O.

So how can the state of many discrete sub atomic particles be pulled together into the single point of conscious awareness which is you?

Not so much a single point, more a focal point, I would say.  Each and every neuron, each and every synapse is a tiny fragment of knowledge about the world, and a brain is so architected as to integrate, refine, blend and focus all those trillions of tiny fragments of sentience into a focal point of subjectivity; a mind is the upshot of all that.

A computer could be programmed to replicate must human behaviour from the data provided from sensory inputs, but there would be no focal point of awareness, just lots of sub atomic particles behaving according to natural laws.  Is it possible to define a focal point of subjectivity entirely in material terms without using the eye of an outside obsever?

[Alan Burns]

The pressure waves are simply vibrating air molecules.  They can only be interpreted as sound through conscious perception.

The vibrating molecules can only be interpreted through conscious perception, everything can only be interpreted through conscious perception, but their existence is independent of the interpretation.

O.

I suppose it all depends on whether sound is defined by what is perceived or what it comprises of.  A printed word comprises of ink stains on paper, but exists as a word in human perception.

[torridon]

So how can the state of many discrete sub atomic particles be pulled together into the single point of conscious awareness which is you?

Not so much a single point, more a focal point, I would say.  Each and every neuron, each and every synapse is a tiny fragment of knowledge about the world, and a brain is so architected as to integrate, refine, blend and focus all those trillions of tiny fragments of sentience into a focal point of subjectivity; a mind is the upshot of all that.

A computer could be programmed to replicate must human behaviour from the data provided from sensory inputs, but there would be no focal point of awareness, just lots of sub atomic particles behaving according to natural laws.  Is it possible to define a focal point of subjectivity entirely in material terms without using the eye of an outside obsever?

That is what the neural architecture of a brain is doing, it provides the connectedness and integratedness of information flow that we experience as mind.  The greater the degree of integration, the more rich and vigilant state of consciousness you are in. In a state of low information integration, you are probably sound asleep. The computer on your desktop could not be programmed to develop conscious awareness because it is designed for linear information processing; however artificial brains whose hardware architecture is modelled on the neural architecture of a brain may well develop awareness of some sort.

[Alan Burns]

That is what the neural architecture of a brain is doing, it provides the connectedness and integratedness of information flow that we experience as mind.  The greater the degree of integration, the more rich and vigilant state of consciousness you are in. In a state of low information integration, you are probably sound asleep. The computer on your desktop could not be programmed to develop conscious awareness because it is designed for linear information processing; however artificial brains whose hardware architecture is modelled on the neural architecture of a brain may well develop awareness of some sort.

Neural networks are composed of basic atomic particles.  The network will generate results or reactions, but the complexity and information within it can only be perceived by an outside observer.  There is nothing inside a neural network to perceive itself as a whole.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torridon,

No I argue for the mind as being the subjective aspect of a brain and brains are definately material.

So you did - my apologies for misreading your earlier post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I understand there is a bit of a problem in some quarters of neuroscience of saying for lots of things that the brain does this and the brain does that on account of brain only being part of how something is perceived. In other words it discounts the involvement of the nervous system and externalities.

No brain = no perception. Where's the "bit of a problem"?

There is also the problem of the qualia and consciousness.

What problem?

I understand Dennett has something to say but what is his concrete notion of what the brain actually does rather than being a shorthand for the whole organism....Not to mention mere disparagement of Dualism.

Given your track record, why not point us toward what Dan Dennett actually says so we can comment on that rather than on your version of it?

[torridon]

That is what the neural architecture of a brain is doing, it provides the connectedness and integratedness of information flow that we experience as mind.  The greater the degree of integration, the more rich and vigilant state of consciousness you are in. In a state of low information integration, you are probably sound asleep. The computer on your desktop could not be programmed to develop conscious awareness because it is designed for linear information processing; however artificial brains whose hardware architecture is modelled on the neural architecture of a brain may well develop awareness of some sort.

Neural networks are composed of basic atomic particles.  The network will generate results or reactions, but the complexity and information within it can only be perceived by an outside observer. 

I see no reason why that should be the case.

The brain is already doing that by integrating multimodal sensory experience into a small space inside your head, it is already bringing that singularity of focus that gives us a sense of self and subjectivity.  'You' are those trillions of particles.  Put a bit of your skin under a microscope and you will see you are made of particles of matter. A human body is fashioned from a billion billion carbon atoms and the numbers of synapses in your head is even more boggling.  The individual ionic state of each of those synapses is a little bit of 'you'. The collective whole is what we call mind.

[jeremyp]

Neural networks are composed of basic atomic particles.  The network will generate results or reactions, but the complexity and information within it can only be perceived by an outside observer.  There is nothing inside a neural network to perceive itself as a whole.

Well the human brain is a neural network composed of atomic particles and yet it has the power to perceive itself. Quite a lot of other animal species have self awareness too, by the way.

[Alan Burns]

That is what the neural architecture of a brain is doing, it provides the connectedness and integratedness of information flow that we experience as mind.  The greater the degree of integration, the more rich and vigilant state of consciousness you are in. In a state of low information integration, you are probably sound asleep. The computer on your desktop could not be programmed to develop conscious awareness because it is designed for linear information processing; however artificial brains whose hardware architecture is modelled on the neural architecture of a brain may well develop awareness of some sort.

Neural networks are composed of basic atomic particles.  The network will generate results or reactions, but the complexity and information within it can only be perceived by an outside observer. 

I see no reason why that should be the case.

The brain is already doing that by integrating multimodal sensory experience into a small space inside your head, it is already bringing that singularity of focus that gives us a sense of self and subjectivity.  'You' are those trillions of particles.  Put a bit of your skin under a microscope and you will see you are made of particles of matter. A human body is fashioned from a billion billion carbon atoms and the numbers of synapses in your head is even more boggling.  The individual ionic state of each of those synapses is a little bit of 'you'. The collective whole is what we call mind.

The words and detailed descriptions you use do not alter the fact that the brain is just a collection of atomic particles complying with the laws of science.  Human perception can see it as a complex network, just as it would see a complex man made computer, but this does not in any way define inner perception within the network.  The atomic particles exist and react to each other, but they do not perceive.

[Alan Burns]

 Quite a lot of other animal species have self awareness too, by the way.

You can't be certain of this unless you can enter the mind of the animal.  All you can say is that they appear to have self awareness.  It would be possible for humans to construct animal like robots which appear to have self awareness, but they would just be man made machines.

[Nearly Sane]

 Quite a lot of other animal species have self awareness too, by the way.

You can't be certain of this unless you can enter the mind of the animal.  All you can say is that they appear to have self awareness.  It would be possible for humans to construct animal like robots which appear to have self awareness, but they would just be man made machines.

same for all humanity too, but you use the method of similarity to establish that and then inconsistenlyand biologically abandon it for other animals.

[Alan Burns]

 Quite a lot of other animal species have self awareness too, by the way.

You can't be certain of this unless you can enter the mind of the animal.  All you can say is that they appear to have self awareness.  It would be possible for humans to construct animal like robots which appear to have self awareness, but they would just be man made machines.

same for all humanity too, but you use the method of similarity to establish that and then inconsistenlyand biologically abandon it for other animals.

But animals are seen to behave in a much more predictable manner than humans.  Also humans can attach meaning to what they perceive, not just react to it.

[Alan Burns]

Well the human brain is a neural network composed of atomic particles and yet it has the power to perceive itself.

But does it perceive itself, or does the soul perceive what is in the brain?

[Nearly Sane]

 Quite a lot of other animal species have self awareness too, by the way.

You can't be certain of this unless you can enter the mind of the animal.  All you can say is that they appear to have self awareness.  It would be possible for humans to construct animal like robots which appear to have self awareness, but they would just be man made machines.

same for all humanity too, but you use the method of similarity to establish that and then inconsistenlyand biologically abandon it for other animals.

But animals are seen to behave in a much more predictable manner than humans.  Also humans can attach meaning to what they perceive, not just react to it.

The first part is irrelevant, the second part an assertion.


The method you are using to attach the concept of perception to other humans would work for other animals (btw we are animals and you use of the term as of we are not is illustrative of an incorrect assumption that is part of the inconsistency of your position).

If you use the method to make the statement for humans about perceptuon, not using it for other animals is illogical and inconsistent. Try again.

[Outrider]

So how can the state of many discrete sub atomic particles be pulled together into the single point of conscious awareness which is you?

Because awareness is a pattern within the activity of those interacting particles...

O.

[torridon]

 Quite a lot of other animal species have self awareness too, by the way.

You can't be certain of this unless you can enter the mind of the animal.  All you can say is that they appear to have self awareness.  It would be possible for humans to construct animal like robots which appear to have self awareness, but they would just be man made machines.

If we succeed in constructing conscious machines we might not ever be able prove that they are conscious as that would require being one.  But we could say the same about David Cameron or Bob Dylan, there is no way we can be certain, but we assume they are. The same goes for other higher animals, they appear to experience pain, hunger, fear etc like us so what is your justification for imagining that their brains are not doing that translation of sensory input into lived-in inner experience as with humans.

[Outrider]

A computer could be programmed to replicate must human behaviour from the data provided from sensory inputs, but there would be no focal point of awareness, just lots of sub atomic particles behaving according to natural laws.

We aren't capable of building a sufficiently advanced computer to know - we have no idea if such a computer would be conscious or aware or not - it'd be a fantastic experiment to run and find out, though.

Is it possible to define a focal point of subjectivity entirely in material terms without using the eye of an outside obsever?

Is it possible to define 'a focal point of subjectivity' at all? Why would an outside observer (me, say) somehow validate the description of someone else's awareness being material in origin?

O.

[Outrider]

Neural networks are composed of basic atomic particles.  The network will generate results or reactions, but the complexity and information within it can only be perceived by an outside observer.

Why? This is just assertion - you have no basis for this claim that I can see.

There is nothing inside a neural network to perceive itself as a whole.

Perception is part of the activity of the network.

O.

[Outrider]

The words and detailed descriptions you use do not alter the fact that the brain is just a collection of atomic particles complying with the laws of science.

Nobody's suggesting anything different, that I can see.

Human perception can see it as a complex network, just as it would see a complex man made computer, but this does not in any way define inner perception within the network.

Why not?

The atomic particles exist and react to each other, but they do not perceive.

No, the network's activity includes what we define as 'perception'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 Quite a lot of other animal species have self awareness too, by the way.

You can't be certain of this unless you can enter the mind of the animal.  All you can say is that they appear to have self awareness.  It would be possible for humans to construct animal like robots which appear to have self awareness, but they would just be man made machines.

If we succeed in constructing conscious machines we might not ever be able prove that they are conscious as that would require being one.  But we could say the same about David Cameron or Bob Dylan, there is no way we can be certain, but we assume they are. The same goes for other higher animals, they appear to experience pain, hunger, fear etc like us so what is your justification for imagining that their brains are not doing that translation of sensory input into lived-in inner experience as with humans.

Why consciousness? When the universe could get by without it?

[Shaker]

Why do you think there has to be a why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you think there has to be a why?

Why do you think there doesn't have to be one?

[Shaker]

Why do you think there has to be a why?

Why do you think there doesn't have to be one?

I asked first.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you think there has to be a why?

Why do you think there doesn't have to be one?

I asked first.

Well let's take something that is useless and vestigial....say, an appendix......Appendices were selected for. But awareness of self when shear unconsciousness with intelligence could give us exactly the same actions? so why is it selected? Also can partial consciousness exist?........or is that like a partial pregnancy? So does it fit the central dogma?