Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The concept of "information exchange" is entirely derived from the conscious awareness of human beings.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive something which we can label as "information" and then our conscious observation is used to track its movement or dissipation.  Take away our awareness and everything is just basic material particles reacting with each other.  Any complexity is labelled as such only in our human awareness.

You fundamentally misunderstand information theory. Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality" is as good a place to start as any.

You're also incidentally going full on Bishop Berkeley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I talked about suppressing the argument which you appeared to be doing in your post.

What suppression?

Come to think of it, what "argument"?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You fundamentally misunderstand information theory. Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality" is as good a place to start as any.

You're also incidentally going full on Bishop Berkeley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

You misunderstand me.  I am not proposing Berkely's idea that things do not exist until we perceive them.  Data such as binary code or written text have no meaning outside human perception.  You might argue that binary code has meaning within a computer program, but the meaning is only apparent when the internal processing within a computer, or the end result is perceived by a human being.  And the information potential within a DNA molecule is only perceived in human conscious awareness which can recognise the process of life formation.  Outside human perception it is just material particles reacting with each other.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You misunderstand me.  I am not proposing Berkely's idea that things do not exist until we perceive them.  Data such as binary code or written text have no meaning outside human perception.  You might argue that binary code has meaning within a computer program, but the meaning is only apparent when the internal processing within a computer, or the end result is perceived by a human being.  And the information potential within a DNA molecule is only perceived in human conscious awareness which can recognise the process of life formation.  Outside human perception it is just material particles reacting with each other.

As is “human perception” itself. Or more accurately, the evidence we have tells us that human perception (ie, consciousness) is an emergent property of the extraordinarily complex interactions of the sub-atomic particles of which our brains consist.

You do realise incidentally that birds flocking, water, ant colonies etc are all examples of emergence too? The only difference between them and consciousness is the complexity of the system – there’s no qualitative bar that would put consciousness alone in the category “cannot be an emergent property” as your personal feelings on the matter suggest to you.   

Essentially all you have here is, "It stretches my personal incredulity too far to think that consciousness is a naturalistic phenomenon so I don't care what the evidence actually says". And that's not a good place to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

As is “human perception” itself. Or more accurately, the evidence we have tells us that human perception (ie, consciousness) is an emergent property of the extraordinarily complex interactions of the sub-atomic particles of which our brains consist.

You do realise incidentally that birds flocking, water, ant colonies etc are all examples of emergence too? The only difference between them and consciousness is the complexity of the system–

Citation

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Citation

Presumably by this typically charmless eructation you actually meant something like, "would you mind posting a citation for your recent post please"?

Oh well. Here's as good a summary of the arguments and evidence as any (from Scholarpedia):

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness

You're welcome.

Coda: Incidentally, if you want a summary of AB's position I can do that too: "Yes, but consciousness looks like, you know, really complicated so, um...

...soul!"

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As is “human perception” itself. Or more accurately, the evidence we have tells us that human perception (ie, consciousness) is an emergent property of the extraordinarily complex interactions of the sub-atomic particles of which our brains consist.

You do realise incidentally that birds flocking, water, ant colonies etc are all examples of emergence too? The only difference between them and consciousness is the complexity of the system – there’s no qualitative bar that would put consciousness alone in the category “cannot be an emergent property” as your personal feelings on the matter suggest to you.   

Essentially all you have here is, "It stretches my personal incredulity too far to think that consciousness is a naturalistic phenomenon so I don't care what the evidence actually says". And that's not a good place to be.

Emergent properties are not conscious.
Take for example the population of China.  The people within the country each do their bit, and as a result there are several emergent properties perceived in country as a whole as seen in trade, manufacture, education etc.  But these are just observations of the collective, complex interactivity of the individual components of the country.  This collective activity can never constitute conscious awareness of the country itself.

[jeremyp]

Emergent properties are not conscious.

No. Consciousness is an emergent property.

[Gordon]

On the subject of consciousness this episode from 'The Life Scientific' is worth a listen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xxhvy

Alan

I posted this a few pages back: I suggest you listen to this chap (who is a professional in this field).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Emergent properties are not conscious.

You have it backwards still. The evidence is that consciousness itself is an emergent property of our physical selves (and indeed of the physical selves of other conscious animals too).

Take for example the population of China.  The people within the country each do their bit, and as a result there are several emergent properties perceived in country as a whole as seen in trade, manufacture, education etc.  But these are just observations of the collective, complex interactivity of the individual components of the country.

More or less, yes. Whether you could call those emergent properties as a sort of proto-consciousness though (as ant colonies are sometimes described) is moot.

This collective activity can never constitute conscious awareness of the country itself.

That collective activity probably never can because there aren’t enough Chinese people nor means of interactions between them. Brains on the other hand are by magnitudes more complex and closely interconnected than populations of any country. Still you have no reason in logic or fact to discount the model of consciousness as an emergent property of brains, and still you have pretty much the entire scientific and philosophical consensus from multiple disciplines against you.

Why then should anyone take your personal assertions to the contrary seriously?

[Alan Burns]

No. Consciousness is an emergent property.

So how do you define how consciousness works in this context?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So how do you define how consciousness works in this context?

By "define" presumably you mean something like, "demonstrate".

First, consciousness as an emergent property is an explanatory model rather than a working demonstration. It's a model moreover supported by evidence and logic from multiple and independent sources - have a look at the link I posted for Vlad a few replies back.

Second, even if that wasn't true then still you'd have not one jot of a scrap of an iota of evidence for "soul", and still that conjecture would founder immediately on the contradiction of being neither random nor deterministic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Presumably by this typically charmless eructation you actually meant something like, "would you mind posting a citation for your recent post please"?

Oh well. Here's as good a summary of the arguments and evidence as any (from Scholarpedia):

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness

You're welcome.

Coda: Incidentally, if you want a summary of AB's position I can do that too: "Yes, but consciousness looks like, you know, really complicated so, um...

...soul!"

I'm still keeping your posts under surveillance on emergence for signs of the reductionist tendency.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm still keeping your posts under surveillance on emergence for signs of the reductionist tendency.

Meanwhile, everyon else is watching your posts for any signs of logic emerging!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Meanwhile, everyon else is watching your posts for any signs of logic emerging!

everyon? or nearlyeveryon.

If you are going to attempt a belter Spike get yer spellings right.

[Sebastian Toe]

everyon? or nearlyeveryon.

If you are going to attempt a belter Spike get yer spellings right.

[torridon]

Emergent properties are not conscious.
Take for example the population of China.  The people within the country each do their bit, and as a result there are several emergent properties perceived in country as a whole as seen in trade, manufacture, education etc.  But these are just observations of the collective, complex interactivity of the individual components of the country.  This collective activity can never constitute conscious awareness of the country itself.

That would be because the system has low complexity and low connectivity.  Connectivity in a neural system is far higher and consciousness which is a phenomenon of synthesised and integrated information flow emerges, subject to hormonal regulation, under conditions of high cross brain neural connectivity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm still keeping your posts under surveillance on emergence for signs of the reductionist tendency.

You asked for (OK, demanded) a citation for current evidence on consciousness as an emergent property. I provided it. You then ignored it, and posted instead a stupid comment.

Why?

Here's what you could have said instead: "OK blue, thanks fort that. It makes for interesting reading, and I can see now why the consensus from science and philosophy is that consciousness is an emergent property of our physical selves."

Oh well.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

That would be because the system has low complexity and low connectivity.  Connectivity in a neural system is far higher and consciousness which is a phenomenon of synthesised and integrated information flow emerges, subject to hormonal regulation, under conditions of high cross brain neural connectivity.

Oddly, AB has form for using a relatively simple system as an analogue for a more complex system in order to draw a conclusion about what the complex system could not do. He does it with computers and brains too - "computer aren't self-aware, so nor could brains be" – apparently oblivious to the effect of huge increases in complexity and connectivity. A heart that's all he has - "Consciousness is very complicated, and I can't find other models around me that are also conscious, therefore..." etc. 

The problem here I think is that, having latched on to a very bad idea decades ago, his cognitive dissonance is now so embedded that he can't allow for the fact that all the evidence is against him. It's quite chilling really.

[Alan Burns]

torri,

Oddly, AB has form for using a relatively simple system as an analogue for a more complex system in order to draw a conclusion about what the complex system could not do. He does it with computers and brains too - "computer aren't self-aware, so nor could brains be" – apparently oblivious to the effect of huge increases in complexity and connectivity. A heart that's all he has - "Consciousness is very complicated, and I can't find other models around me that are also conscious, therefore..." etc. 

The problem here I think is that, having latched on to a very bad idea decades ago, his cognitive dissonance is now so embedded that he can't allow for the fact that all the evidence is against him. It's quite chilling really.

But complexity and interconnectivity in themselves do not define conscious awareness.  Any property emerging from the activity of material components is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from an outside observer.  It does not exist an an entity in its own right.  The content of my many brain cells is perceived by a single conscious entity, which I assume to be my spiritual soul.   In computers, the content of the central processor and memory can produce programmed reactions, but at no point in the process is there anything which constitutes awareness - everything just comprises individual reactions, and the whole process and end results can be perceived only in human conscious awareness, so any property emerging from the computer process is only seen in human perception.  Outside human perception, it is just lots of individual reactions.

[torridon]

But complexity and interconnectivity in themselves do not define conscious awareness.  Any property emerging from the activity of material components is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from an outside observer.  It does not exist an an entity in its own right.  The content of my many brain cells is perceived by a single conscious entity, which I assume to be my spiritual soul....   

And can you define what a soul is, or how it functions or how it interacts with a body ?  I think not. 

How is it that this soul is able to look at brain cells but is seemingly unable to see anything else ? If I were able to look at brain cells and determine by reverse engineering what they were experiencing then I would also be able to look at the world directly and bypass all that wet stuff.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But complexity and interconnectivity in themselves do not define conscious awareness.

You’re still getting confused here by using the term “define”. The evidence (from global workspace models, from multiple drafts theory, from dynamic core studies, from information integration theory, from thalamocortical rhythms, from neural coalitions, from field models, from subcortical models, from internal simulation and self-modelling, from sensorimotor theory, and from various other cognitive models) is that emergence is the best supported model we have for how consciousness comes about. Models don’t "define" in the sense that they provide a complete parts list and working diagrams – they just model.

If you think you have a model that better fits the available data though, by all means present it.

Any property emerging from the activity of material components is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from an outside observer.

Wrong. The “self-“ of “self-aware” is the critical part here. No “outside observer” is necessary for a self-aware system. That’s the point.

It does not exist an an entity in its own right.

Yes it does, or at least that’s what the evidence suggests (see above).

The content of my many brain cells is perceived by a single conscious entity, which I assume to be my spiritual soul.

But that's an unnecessary and logically fundamentally flawed assumption that you cannot moreover "define" (or even model) at all.

In computers, the content of the central processor and memory can produce programmed reactions, but at no point in the process is there anything which constitutes awareness - everything just comprises individual reactions, and the whole process and end results can be perceived only in human conscious awareness, so any property emerging from the computer process is only seen in human perception.  Outside human perception, it is just lots of individual reactions.

Whether it’s “just lots of individual reactions” is moot, but either way it’s irrelevant. Essentially you’re saying here the equivalent of, “an abacus cannot produce spreadsheets or e-mails, therefore a calculating machine could never do that”. 

You fail utterly in other words to grasp the significance of huge increases in complexity and interconnectedness, and of the potential they have to produce emergent properties by magnitudes more sophisticated than those that emerge from simpler systems.

[torridon]

In computers, the content of the central processor and memory can produce programmed reactions, but at no point in the process is there anything which constitutes awareness - everything just comprises individual reactions, and the whole process and end results can be perceived only in human conscious awareness, so any property emerging from the computer process is only seen in human perception.  Outside human perception, it is just lots of individual reactions.

Every reaction is a tiny piece of awareness; every piece of information exchange is a tiny fragment of awareness.  The phenomenon of conscious perception that occurs in higher animals is the aggregation and flow of trillions of such tiny individual fundamental pieces of awareness.

[Alan Burns]

And can you define what a soul is, or how it functions or how it interacts with a body ?  I think not.

I define the soul by what it does - providing conscious awareness and free will interaction with this world via our physical body.  Despite all the scientific jargon, there is still no definition for how these properties arise from material entities.  I do not know how the soul works, but I can offer my postings (and yours) as evidence for its existence

Every reaction is a tiny piece of awareness; every piece of information exchange is a tiny fragment of awareness.  The phenomenon of conscious perception that occurs in higher animals is the aggregation and flow of trillions of such tiny individual fundamental pieces of awareness.

These are just assumptions because there is no scientific definition of what "awareness" is.  All you have is correlation of brain activity, but this does not comprise the full story.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I define the soul be what it does - providing conscious awareness and free will interaction with this world via our physical body.

But your complaint about all the evidence ranged against you is that it does not "define" consciousness. Why are the definitions we do have any less definitions than the one you've just attempted for "soul"? 

Despite all the scientific jagon, there is still no definition for how these properties arise from material entities.

Are you reading anything that's being said to you here? Anything at all?

I do not know how the soul works...

So you're guessing then.

...,but I can offer my postings (and yours) as evidence for its existence

No you can't. They're no more evidence for "soul" than they are evidence for the man in the moon.

These are just assumptions because there is no scientific definition of what "awareness" is.  All you have is correlation of brain activity, but this does not comprise the full story.

No, they're not "just assumptions" at all. They're the conclusions obtained from robust and multiply-sourced models that show consciousness probably to be an emergent property of our physical brains. You're right inasmuch a it's not "the full story", but it's a big part of it and, in the absence of any part of the story at all from your alternative but evidence-free conjecture, you have no basis on which to reject it.