Karma

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It might be a state of awareness, yes, but what is a state of awareness made of if you look inside ?  It is about information flow via biochemical reactions at a cellular level.  A brain is an outgrowth of a nervous system and the earliest forms of consciousness probably evolved as a service of interoception providing a monitoring of an creature's overall internal state from information procured by the nervous system.  Through the Cambrian, vertebrates developed external sensing organs allowing for greater perception of threat and food opportunities and these novel sense streams were incorporated into the base interoception service.  That speaks to the base purpose of consciousness - it is awareness of internal state and immediate external environment and all the contents of consciousness are derived from internal and external sensing.

You've got to admire someone who keeps stoically waxing reductionist when everyone has moved on to emergence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness.  You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered.  But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive.  Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are.  Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction.  You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.

agreed.

[torridon]

You've got to admire someone who keeps stoically waxing reductionist when everyone has moved on to emergence.

Consciousness is not easy, I think we need all the tools in our toolbox to if we are to understand it.

[Alan Burns]

Consciousness is not easy, I think we need all the tools in our toolbox to if we are to understand it.

It might well be much simpler than you think.  Most of the complexity may be in the processing of information to a state in which it can be perceived.  Once the information is in the right place, the perception of it by the entity which is "you" may not require any further physical process.

[Gordon]

Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness.  You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered.  But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive.  Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are.  Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction.  You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.

This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet. 

[Alan Burns]

It's tempting to think of vision being a matter of image projection which can be 'seen' by an internal viewer; the problem with that being that is recursive.  An internal see-er that 'sees' the internal image would require it's own internal see-er.  It is intuitive to conceptualise it that way but it must be wrong.

This is only true if you regard perception as a physical process.

When a penguin looks for its partner on the beach, is there an internal single entity of perception viewing its internal image in the brain  ?

Or it could be just a programmed reaction to the image recognition software in its brain, with no conscious awareness needed.

[jeremyp]

Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness.  You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered.  But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive.  Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are.  Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction.  You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.

This is just the argument from personal incredulity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Consciousness is not easy, I think we need all the tools in our toolbox to if we are to understand it.

Well put. It's something we all have a right to.

[Sebastian Toe]

It might well be much simpler than you think.  Most of the complexity may be in the processing of information to a state in which it can be perceived.  Once the information is in the right place, the perception of it by the entity which is "you" may not require any further physical process.

But then "you" have to process the information surely in order to make concious decisions? How does that happen?

[Alan Burns]

But then "you" have to process the information surely in order to make conscious decisions? How does that happen?

There are two ways to look at this.

One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.

The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.

The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.

[Sebastian Toe]

There are two ways to look at this.

One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.

The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.

The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.

That is postulating what happens. I am asking how the "soul" makes "free will" decisions?

[torridon]

When a penguin looks for its partner on the beach, is there an internal single entity of perception viewing its internal image in the brain  ?

This is only true if you regard perception as a physical process.Or it could be just a programmed reaction to the image recognition software in its brain, with no conscious awareness needed.

This is your stock evasive reply.   'Image recognition software' as you call it, is part of the contents of consciousness, as is hearing, taste and so on.

In #718 you claim the phenomenon of vision requires 'a internal single entity of perception' to turn a mass neurochemical states into the experience of vision.  Evidence suggests that penguins can see also, so by your rationale they too must have this 'internal observer'. I didn't ask the question - 'is the penguin's resulting response an instinctive one, or a considered one ?' It seems in desperation to avoid penguins having souls you have to in effect claim them to be blind, despite having eyes.  You really need to think this through one day.

[torridon]

This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet.

Well put 

[torridon]

There are two ways to look at this.

One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.

The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.

The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.

A decision still has to be made on some or other basis, otherwise it is just a random action with no rationale.  This is your base problem with free will - ultimately, 'outside deterministic laws' means 'random'

[Alan Burns]

A decision still has to be made on some or other basis, otherwise it is just a random action with no rationale.  This is your base problem with free will - ultimately, 'outside deterministic laws' means 'random'

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the soul being able to wilfully generate an event which is not deterministically controlled by a chain of physical events.  If an event is driven by the spiritual power of the soul it is certainly not random, but driven by the power of conscious free will.  The fact that we may find no physical cause for the event does not necessarily make it random - just that the cause can't be detected by physical means.  It is the reason why conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked, because if we have no free will, there is no need for conscious awareness because it just becomes an ineffective spectator upon the deterministically controlled events it sees.

[Alan Burns]

This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet.

Wetness is just a property of a liquid state which can easily be defined by specific behaviour of sub atomic particles and the way they react with each other.  What I am implying is that sub atomic particles do not have the capability of defining awareness because awareness can't be defined as patterns of behaviour of individual particles.  Awareness needs an end recipient of information which is ultimately non definable by the behaviour patterns of particles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There are two ways to look at this.

One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.

The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.

The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.

First, things aren't "driven by the deterministic laws of science" - science describes the laws of the universe.

Second, if you want to posit an "outside the deterministic laws" then you can fill that space with anything at all that happens to take your fancy. It's not a binary choice between the conclusions the evidence points to and "soul": it's choice between the conclusions the evidence points to and chaos.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the soul being able to wilfully generate an event which is not deterministically controlled by a chain of physical events.

Presumably because there's no evidence whatever for it, and because the evidence we do have for consciousness points to a different explanation entirely.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#701

And to hop on over to Sriram's robot analogy, yes the robots could have been made by a superior biological species, and yes, they wouldn't have known that; and yes the higher order biological species might have been made in turn by a yet higher order of conscious silicon synths that the biologicals were unaware of.  But the take home lesson from this, is that this cannot go on forever, we cannot go on climbing an upwards complexity ladder to explain things that we find hard to understand because as an explanatory strategy it is doomed to fail.

It appears to me then that the approach taken is this:

The truth is X. Having X creates an infinite regression. Therefore something other than X must be found.

Which means therefore that whatever else is found, it will be wrong. Sriram’s #536 illustrates why.

In my opinion, there is at least one possible solution to any potential infinite regression. Jack Knave has suggested one; see his #678:

As there is no ex nihilo then something must have always been; be eternal.

Which doesn’t say anything about what the something may be. The truth (or otherwise) of what he said is not affected by knowing something / not knowing anything about what the something is.

[Alan Burns]

Presumably because there's no evidence whatever for it, and because the evidence we do have for consciousness points to a different explanation entirely.

I assume the evidence you are talking about is that derived from human scientific investigation.  But within the current scientific knowledge there is no understanding of what defines conscious awareness, or indeed whether it is possible to define it in physical terms.  You presume that conscious awareness is somehow generated as an emergent property of physical brain activity, but this presumption can't be validated until you can demonstrate how conscious awareness can be defined in physical terms.

Whatever defines my conscious awareness also defines my ability to consciously decide which keys to type on this keyboard.

[Nearly Sane]

#701
It appears to me then that the approach taken is this:

The truth is X. Having X creates an infinite regression. Therefore something other than X must be found.

Which means therefore that whatever else is found, it will be wrong. Sriram’s #536 illustrates why.

In my opinion, there is at least one possible solution to any potential infinite regression. Jack Knave has suggested one; see his #678:

Which doesn’t say anything about what the something may be. The truth (or otherwise) of what he said is not affected by knowing something / not knowing anything about what the something is.

Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I assume the evidence you are talking about is that derived from human scientific investigation.

All evidence is derived from human investigation.

But within the current scientific knowledge there is no understanding of what defines conscious awareness, or indeed whether it is possible to define it in physical terms.

There's a lot more known about consciousness than you think, but as yet there isn't a complete theory. How do you think a gap in current knowledge helps you?

You presume that conscious awareness is somehow generated as an emergent property of physical brain activity, but this presumption can't be validated until you can demonstrate how conscious awareness can be defined in physical terms.

Bit rich from someone who claims the completely undefined "God", "soul" etc but, in any case, I presume no such thing. Rather the argument is that the emergence of adaptive systems from simpler components demonstrably happens, and moreover that that examples of things like ant colonies provide analogous models to neural networks. Absent any evidence of any kind for alternative explanations, emergence therefore provides the working hypothesis for consciousness.

Whatever defines my conscious awareness also defines my ability to consciously decide which keys to type on this keyboard.

No doubt it appears that way to you.

I notice by the way that you still provide no evidence whatever for "soul". Why is that?

[Alan Burns]

Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.

Our human brains just can't grasp the concept of eternal, or indeed anything infinite.  With my limited perception of this world, I have to conclude that everything has to have a beginning and an end, but I also am aware that there must be something beyond these limits, because I also can't grasp the concept of nothing existing at all.  It is a quandary which implies that there is much more to the truth about existence than I can possibly perceive with my limited human senses and intelligence.  I hope one day it will all become clear, but it won't be in this world.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Our human brains just can't grasp the concept of eternal, or indeed anything infinite.  With my limited perception of this world, I have to conclude that everything has to have a beginning and an end, but I also am aware that there must be something beyond these limits, because I also can't grasp the concept of nothing existing at all.  It is a quandary which implies that there is much more to the truth about existence than I can possibly perceive with my limited human senses and intelligence.  I hope one day it will all become clear, but it won't be in this world.

If ever I get around to writing Bluehillside's Compendium of Bad Thinking, I'll use that if I may as an exemplar of the argument from personal incredulity.

[Nearly Sane]

Our human brains just can't grasp the concept of eternal, or indeed anything infinite.  With my limited perception of this world, I have to conclude that everything has to have a beginning and an end, but I also am aware that there must be something beyond these limits, because I also can't grasp the concept of nothing existing at all.  It is a quandary which implies that there is much more to the truth about existence than I can possibly perceive with my limited human senses and intelligence.  I hope one day it will all become clear, but it won't be in this world.

That's a long winded way of you accepting that your beliefs illogical but you will hold them anyway.