Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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.

But what perceives the pattern?

[torridon]

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?

We might casually think that there are only two states of consciousness - awake and asleep for instance.  But if we dig a little deeper we find there are a whole range of consciousness states. Hibernation, a deeper form of sleep that lasts for months; coma, vegetative state; altered consciousness states due to neurotoxins or religious ecstasy, hypnotised, hallucination due to illness such as psychosis; dreaming, drowsy, depressed, drunk, delerious, daydreaming; some dolphins and whales do unihemispheric sleep in which half the brain sleeps while the other half remains awake, how cool is that.  Maybe we have only scratched the surface of the range of mental states found in nature, who knows how an octopus feels, or an eagle when it is soaring, how does a tadpole feel when it finds it is now a frog, surprised or what ? what state of mind is a caterpillar in during its metamorphosis into a butterfly. Who knows.

[jeremyp]

 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.

I see, so when I make claims about brains that are backed up by experiment I "can't be certain" but your wild speculation is absolutely fine.

[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?

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

O.

But what perceives the pattern?

You do.

But what are 'you' comprised of ? You are comprised of matter. You might think you are a person, but the 'you' is more fundamentally a collective of trillions of tiny particles each of which is 'sentient' in a tiny sense; all matter is in communication with all other matter, and the tightly bound intimate collective of a brain promotes the emergence of a well defined focal point of enriched sentience.  We can observe similar phenomena on a looser scale in many places in nature. A large shoal of fish can confuse its predators. An ant is a pretty dim creature, but a large colony of ants can make intelligent choices.  Flowering plants use chemical messaging when a herbivore comes a-munching. At scale, collectives underwrite the emergence of higher intelligence and sentience, this is what is happening in a brain, nature's tour de force showing what can be acheived through simple interconnectedness on a vast scale.

[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.

But what perceives the pattern?

The perceiver - what we subjectively feel as perception is objectively described as a pattern of brain activity. What we subjectively feel as our awareness of that perception is also a pattern of brain activity - all those subjective feelings are patterns of brain activity.

Why, when you feel something, do you presume there must be something else, somewhere else feeling it for you and telling you what you feel?

O.

[Outrider]

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?

Appendices were selected for after the fact - that doesn't explain why appendices emerged in the first place, only why they hung around.

Likewise, any evolutionary argument about consciousness won't give any valid explanation of 'why' it emerged, only possible conjectures on why it provided sufficient advantage to remain in circulation.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

Appendices were selected for after the fact - that doesn't explain why appendices emerged in the first place, only why they hung around.

Likewise, any evolutionary argument about consciousness won't give any valid explanation of 'why' it emerged, only possible conjectures on why it provided sufficient advantage to remain in circulation.

O.

True of course.

But we can now determine the function of the Appendix.

What is the function of consciousness when any activity could be done without it? For instance you and I could be carrying out this exchange without consciousness even entering into it.

One only has personal knowledge of consciousness therefore, surely any scientific treatment of it like, say, any evolutionary theory of it is not actually scientific.

Also what is the appendix evolved from?........... and is consciousness similarly evolved from something else?

[Outrider]

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?

Appendices were selected for after the fact - that doesn't explain why appendices emerged in the first place, only why they hung around.

Likewise, any evolutionary argument about consciousness won't give any valid explanation of 'why' it emerged, only possible conjectures on why it provided sufficient advantage to remain in circulation.

O.

True of course.

But we can now determine the function of the Appendix.

What is the function of consciousness when any activity could be done without it? For instance you and I could be carrying out this exchange without consciousness even entering into it.

One only has personal knowledge of consciousness therefore, surely any scientific treatment of it like, say, any evolutionary theory of it is not actually scientific.

Also what is the appendix evolved from?........... and is consciousness similarly evolved from something else?

We might be able to determine several uses for any given trait or organ, given that they can adapt in different species to provide different benefits (or none at all).

Not all traits that develop are selected for or against some are selectively insignificant, some simply are 'window-dressing' - traits that have emerged that have no significant benefit or penalty, or byproducts of other traits which do confer an advantage but which have no significant evolutionary impact of their own.

Whichever it is, it still doesn't define a purpose for those traits, just a use after the fact.

We only have personal knowledge of anything, but we have a reasonable confirmation of the concepts from interaction with other conscious agencies, and we can measure physical activity alongside that personal knowledge to build up an objective understanding of the events that surround it.

I don't know what - if anything - the appendix evolved from, likewise consciousness. Consciousness is not an organ, it may not have 'evolved' from anything, it may well be an emergent trait from the complexity of larger brains that were apparently selected for the intelligence benefits they gave.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

Appendices were selected for after the fact - that doesn't explain why appendices emerged in the first place, only why they hung around.

Likewise, any evolutionary argument about consciousness won't give any valid explanation of 'why' it emerged, only possible conjectures on why it provided sufficient advantage to remain in circulation.

O.

True of course.

But we can now determine the function of the Appendix.

What is the function of consciousness when any activity could be done without it? For instance you and I could be carrying out this exchange without consciousness even entering into it.

One only has personal knowledge of consciousness therefore, surely any scientific treatment of it like, say, any evolutionary theory of it is not actually scientific.

Also what is the appendix evolved from?........... and is consciousness similarly evolved from something else?

We might be able to determine several uses for any given trait or organ, given that they can adapt in different species to provide different benefits (or none at all).

Not all traits that develop are selected for or against some are selectively insignificant, some simply are 'window-dressing' - traits that have emerged that have no significant benefit or penalty, or byproducts of other traits which do confer an advantage but which have no significant evolutionary impact of their own.

Whichever it is, it still doesn't define a purpose for those traits, just a use after the fact.

We only have personal knowledge of anything, but we have a reasonable confirmation of the concepts from interaction with other conscious agencies, and we can measure physical activity alongside that personal knowledge to build up an objective understanding of the events that surround it.

I don't know what - if anything - the appendix evolved from, likewise consciousness. Consciousness is not an organ, it may not have 'evolved' from anything, it may well be an emergent trait from the complexity of larger brains that were apparently selected for the intelligence benefits they gave.

O.

Again much to agree with here.

Some questions raised though.....what counts as insignificant? is it that which has zero function? Are you in agreement that the consciousness has no function? I certainly cannot find one in a mechanical materialism where intelligence does any conceivable job.

Secondly state that all knowledge is personal knowledge. Where does that leave scientific knowledge as against say, religious knowledge? It seems that religious knowledge is in the same category as knowledge of consciousness since science cannot actually demonstrate consciousness.  You seemed to have dodged that one.

Look forward to hearing your reply.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Surely our definition of intelligence has a concept of consciousness wrapped up in it? We wouldn't generally describe a computer as intelligent, I would suggest, because we believe it not to be conscious?

[Outrider]

Some questions raised though.....what counts as insignificant? is it that which has zero function?

In the context of natural selection to which it was referring, where having the trait or not makes little or no difference in the frequency of survival of offspring.

Are you in agreement that the consciousness has no function? I certainly cannot find one in a mechanical materialism where intelligence does any conceivable job.

I think it's too difficult to deduce what of our intelligence requires consciousness - which is a vaguely defined concept at best - to know whether it contributes or not. Given we've not got a solid definition, no reliable means to determine if any given organism displays it, and no way to clearly delineate it from other abstract attributes of our 'personalities', I don't think it's possible to tell.

Secondly state that all knowledge is personal knowledge. Where does that leave scientific knowledge as against say, religious knowledge?

Scientific knowledge is a) provisional, and b) based on the presumption that physical reality is persistent and consistent. Religious knowledge is based on the presumption that there's some supernatural effect. Scientific knowledge is validated by its consistent performance, reinforcing the legitimacy of the initial presumption through methodological enquiries and is largely (though not entirely) independent of the cultural background of the recipient. Religious knowledge, by contrast, is erratic, inconsistent, lacks a methodology and has obvious cultural biases.

It seems that religious knowledge is in the same category as knowledge of consciousness since science cannot actually demonstrate consciousness.

The reason science cannot demonstrate consciousness is because we lack a consistent definition of it. Science adequately demonstrates the link between awareness and brain activity, and consciousness seems almost certain to be a subset of awareness.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some questions raised though.....what counts as insignificant? is it that which has zero function?

In the context of natural selection to which it was referring, where having the trait or not makes little or no difference in the frequency of survival of offspring.

Are you in agreement that the consciousness has no function? I certainly cannot find one in a mechanical materialism where intelligence does any conceivable job.

I think it's too difficult to deduce what of our intelligence requires consciousness - which is a vaguely defined concept at best - to know whether it contributes or not. Given we've not got a solid definition, no reliable means to determine if any given organism displays it, and no way to clearly delineate it from other abstract attributes of our 'personalities', I don't think it's possible to tell.

Secondly state that all knowledge is personal knowledge. Where does that leave scientific knowledge as against say, religious knowledge?

Scientific knowledge is a) provisional, and b) based on the presumption that physical reality is persistent and consistent. Religious knowledge is based on the presumption that there's some supernatural effect. Scientific knowledge is validated by its consistent performance, reinforcing the legitimacy of the initial presumption through methodological enquiries and is largely (though not entirely) independent of the cultural background of the recipient. Religious knowledge, by contrast, is erratic, inconsistent, lacks a methodology and has obvious cultural biases.

What? science has never been erratic? or inconsistent?
science knowledge is derived differently from religious knowledge that is true.
Your definition of religion actually shows bias towards grouping positions together which is not necessary. Science is a clear cut method or tool.

I still observe that you are talking about consciousness as though it is knowledge gained through science. It isn't.

[Outrider]

What? science has never been erratic? or inconsistent?

Science, no. The applications of it, sometimes, the outcome of it, sometimes, but the founding precepts - no.

Religion, by conrast... there are gods, there is only one god, there are three gods that are one god, we are god, everything is god, god is everything... these are foundational precepts, and they change depending on where you go and when.

science knowledge is derived differently from religious knowledge that is true.

That difference is what differentiates what we call knowledge from what we call belief - there is a justification for citing scientifically determined ideas about reality 'knowledge', but there is no such justification for religious claims because there's no validatory methodology.

Your definition of religion actually shows bias towards grouping positions together which is not necessary. Science is a clear cut method or tool.

You grouped them, I showed where I thought there were differences.

I still observe that you are talking about consciousness as though it is knowledge gained through science. It isn't.

No, it's an observed phenomena which is explored through science. What we know of it we know from scientific exploration, that it exists is something we accept from sensory input. We trust that sensory input is consistent because we test other people to see if they have a similar sensation.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What? science has never been erratic? or inconsistent?

Science, no. The applications of it, sometimes, the outcome of it, sometimes, but the founding precepts - no.

Religion, by conrast... there are gods, there is only one god, there are three gods that are one god, we are god, everything is god, god is everything... these are foundational precepts, and they change depending on where you go and when.

science knowledge is derived differently from religious knowledge that is true.

That difference is what differentiates what we call knowledge from what we call belief - there is a justification for citing scientifically determined ideas about reality 'knowledge', but there is no such justification for religious claims because there's no validatory methodology.

Your definition of religion actually shows bias towards grouping positions together which is not necessary. Science is a clear cut method or tool.

You grouped them, I showed where I thought there were differences.

I still observe that you are talking about consciousness as though it is knowledge gained through science. It isn't.

No, it's an observed phenomena which is explored through science. What we know of it we know from scientific exploration, that it exists is something we accept from sensory input. We trust that sensory input is consistent because we test other people to see if they have a similar sensation.

O.

An observed phenomena? We cannot say that in any investigation we are not merely observing intelligence or mere stimulus and response. We cannot demonstrate consciousness. There is no need for consciousness to explain any of the findings you have stated.

We can debate how far religion agrees or whether it is defined by the New Atheist definitions or not or whether it is, like science agreed, or whether it develops but for now let's stick with consciousness. Your raising the science V religion schtick was a Red Herring.

The only evidence of consciousness is that which one holds oneself and which cannot be demonstrated scientifically.

I do not deny consciousness exists........... you have to fit it into science like a square peg in a round hole.

[Outrider]

An observed phenomena? We cannot say that in any investigation we are not merely observing intelligence or mere stimulus and response.

That's one possible explanation for the phenomenon, yes - arguably the most likely, and currently the best supported.

We cannot demonstrate consciousness.

Whilst the precise designation of how we differentiate between consciousness, awareness, intelligence and the like remains fluid, and therefore the boundaries are unclear, certainly there's something to the experience of being alive; surveying suggests that experience is a near-universal human one, and we therefore have a reason to think consciousness is 'a thing'. What it might be, how we examine it more closely are further questions, but we have reason to think that it's there.

There is no need for consciousness to explain any of the findings you have stated.

We aren't looking to deduce consciousness as an explanatory mechanism for other things, we're looking for explanatory mechanisms for the observed phenomenon of consciousness.

We can debate how far religion agrees or whether it is defined by the New Atheist definitions or not or whether it is, like science agreed, or whether it develops but for now let's stick with consciousness. Your raising the science V religion schtick was a Red Herring.

You suggesting I raised is just a blatant error, but never mind, if you want to drop it feel free.

The only evidence of consciousness is that which one holds oneself and which cannot be demonstrated scientifically.

Each of us attests to a sense of self - unless you wish to revert to 'how do we prove other people'. Even if we only have ourselves, we still have an observed phenomenon to investigate.

I do not deny consciousness exists........... you have to fit it into science like a square peg in a round hole.

I don't have any trouble fitting consciousness into a scientific understanding of reality - maybe it's just you?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An observed phenomena? We cannot say that in any investigation we are not merely observing intelligence or mere stimulus and response.

That's one possible explanation for the phenomenon, yes - arguably the most likely, and currently the best supported.

We cannot demonstrate consciousness.

Whilst the precise designation of how we differentiate between consciousness, awareness, intelligence and the like remains fluid, and therefore the boundaries are unclear, certainly there's something to the experience of being alive; surveying suggests that experience is a near-universal human one, and we therefore have a reason to think consciousness is 'a thing'. What it might be, how we examine it more closely are further questions, but we have reason to think that it's there.

There is no need for consciousness to explain any of the findings you have stated.

We aren't looking to deduce consciousness as an explanatory mechanism for other things, we're looking for explanatory mechanisms for the observed phenomenon of consciousness.
.

Yes but that just brings us back to the problem.......How do we know we are observing self awareness/consciousness rather than just intelligence and stimulus and response.

You are either conflating these or you are not actually observing self awareness or consciousness,

Only we can observe consciousness Outrider. There is no machine to measure it. no science or method that can observe it.

[Alan Burns]

But what are 'you' comprised of ? You are comprised of matter. You might think you are a person, but the 'you' is more fundamentally a collective of trillions of tiny particles each of which is 'sentient' in a tiny sense; all matter is in communication with all other matter, and the tightly bound intimate collective of a brain promotes the emergence of a well defined focal point of enriched sentience.  We can observe similar phenomena on a looser scale in many places in nature. A large shoal of fish can confuse its predators. An ant is a pretty dim creature, but a large colony of ants can make intelligent choices.  Flowering plants use chemical messaging when a herbivore comes a-munching. At scale, collectives underwrite the emergence of higher intelligence and sentience, this is what is happening in a brain, nature's tour de force showing what can be acheived through simple interconnectedness on a vast scale.

The examples of collectives that you give have no collective awareness of their own.  The patterns of activity are formed from individual elements with no central connection.  The patterns are perceived by an outside observer, not from within.  The "well defined focal point of enriched sentience" you mention can only comprise of individual atomic particles, because that is all there is in the material view.

[Alan Burns]

the network's activity includes what we define as 'perception'.

But the activity of lots of atomic particles does not define perception in my mind, because there is no "perceiver" defined within the particles.

[jeremyp]

there is no "perceiver" defined within the particles.

Clearly there is. I am capable of perception and yet I am ultimately made of atomic particles. Same as you, in fact.

[Alan Burns]

The perceiver - what we subjectively feel as perception is objectively described as a pattern of brain activity. What we subjectively feel as our awareness of that perception is also a pattern of brain activity - all those subjective feelings are patterns of brain activity.

Why, when you feel something, do you presume there must be something else, somewhere else feeling it for you and telling you what you feel?

O.

So you must believe that you are conversing with a pattern of basic atomic elements (the same elements as found in a lump of rock).  And these elements are fully constrained in their behaviour by the natural laws of this universe.  I know you will label this as personal incredulity, but I believe I am conversing with a free spirit of awareness which perceives the meaning of my words and is in control of the keys being typed in reply.  Yes it is personal incredulity to believe I am conversing solely with an uncontrolled group of protons, neutrons and electrons - absolute total 100% irreversible incredulity. 

You are so much more than a bit of reconstituted rock!

[torridon]

The perceiver - what we subjectively feel as perception is objectively described as a pattern of brain activity. What we subjectively feel as our awareness of that perception is also a pattern of brain activity - all those subjective feelings are patterns of brain activity.

Why, when you feel something, do you presume there must be something else, somewhere else feeling it for you and telling you what you feel?

O.

So you must believe that you are conversing with a pattern of basic atomic elements (the same elements as found in a lump of rock).  And these elements are fully constrained in their behaviour by the natural laws of this universe.  I know you will label this as personal incredulity, but I believe I am conversing with a free spirit of awareness which perceives the meaning of my words and is in control of the keys being typed in reply.  Yes it is personal incredulity to believe I am conversing solely with an uncontrolled group of protons, neutrons and electrons - absolute total 100% irreversible incredulity. 

You are so much more than a bit of reconstituted rock!

and when it suits, you are happy to quote Fred Hoyle, who was the first to realise that we are all made of not just rock, but of stardust, or stellar nuclear waste, as you prefer. We are all made of particles of matter, trillions of them, and yet none of them are 'alive' in themselves, and none of them know that they are part of us. When we die, all those particles will go off and be part of something else for a while. The same applies to hummingbirds and giraffe and jellyfish. And to complicate things even more, we are also bacterial colonies on legs, only a small fraction of the cells in your body are actually human. Much of the DNA in your cells is non-human;  stretches of ancient viral insertions play a significant role in coding for the structure of the brain, and so, much of our defining intelligence owes a debt to long extinct viruses. Of course rather than trying to understand and accept what we discover through research, it is much easier to simply run with the naive idea that we are magic creatures created by a magic god. Simples.

[Outrider]

Yes but that just brings us back to the problem.......How do we know we are observing self awareness/consciousness rather than just intelligence and stimulus and response.

And until we have a clear definition of consciousness/awareness we won't be able to clearly state it. Why do you presume that consciousness is not an aspect of intelligence, stimulus and response?

You are either conflating these or you are not actually observing self awareness or consciousness,

Or you are arbitrarily deciding the are different.

Only we can observe consciousness Outrider. There is no machine to measure it. no science or method that can observe it.

Why? Even if, it turns out, our current equipment isn't measuring consciousness, why are you deciding it's in principle undetectable?

O.

[Outrider]

the network's activity includes what we define as 'perception'.

But the activity of lots of atomic particles does not define perception in my mind, because there is no "perceiver" defined within the particles.

No, the perceiver is determined in the pattern of activity, along with the perception.

O.

[Outrider]

So you must believe that you are conversing with a pattern of basic atomic elements (the same elements as found in a lump of rock).  And these elements are fully constrained in their behaviour by the natural laws of this universe.

Yes, pretty much. We are a pattern of activity that, currently, resides in the electro-chemical interactions within a brain. I believe that a sufficiently advanced computer network could duplicate that personality and effectively clone me. I am not a body, that's merely a vehicle through which I experience the world, but I'm nothing more than that ongoing series of biological processes, there is no mystic, undetectable, back-seat 'spirit' at work.

I know you will label this as personal incredulity, but I believe I am conversing with a free spirit of awareness which perceives the meaning of my words and is in control of the keys being typed in reply.

Even if I were to accept the idea of a non-physical component interacting with the body, somehow, I still fail to see how it would be 'free' - it's either under the influence of a basic nature and the experiences you've undergone, or it's random. Neither of those appears to be what you are suggesting.

Yes it is personal incredulity to believe I am conversing solely with an uncontrolled group of protons, neutrons and electrons - absolute total 100% irreversible incredulity.

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually like that realisation, it's.... dehumanising, ironically. We build our understanding of what we are on the idea that we have choices, that we are agents of our own destiny, and I live my everyday life as though that were the case, but when pressed on the issue I have to concede that the evidence suggests we're a collection of physical parts acting in a deterministic fashion.

You are so much more than a bit of reconstituted rock!

Yes, and no. A dog is so much more than lichen, Angel Falls is so much more than the Meon River, the moon is so much more than a pebble... It's not what you look at, it's how you see it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Even if I were to accept the idea of a non-physical component interacting with the body, somehow, I still fail to see how it would be 'free' - it's either under the influence of a basic nature and the experiences you've undergone, or it's random. Neither of those appears to be what you are suggesting.

You seem to be ignoring the third and (to me) most obvious option.  The self awareness incorporates a "will" which is certainly not random, nor is it deterministic, but is able to interact with and control certain parts of our brain in order to enact what it desires.