Consciousness

[Sriram]

You merely provided a quote from Tononi to the effect that neural correlates may be insufficient (alone) to form a full explanation of consciousness.  Fair enough.   That doesn't mean he would support your dualist interpretation. As far as I understand neither Tononi nor Chalmers (nor Hoffman) are dualists.

I don't know if they are dualists or not ....but they do appear to subscribe to panpsychism...which means that consciousness or mind is fundamental and ubiquitous.

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

[Nearly Sane]

The Self (Consciousness) exists and we all know that. That is what I call the 'User'.   The 'scientific' claim is that Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

I have already provided David Chalmer's and Tononi's views in the matter.

We don't know that the 'self' exists in any real sense. We are back at the issue with Descartes' Cogito. There isn't necessarily an 'I', there is only thinking.

[Sriram]

We don't know that the 'self' exists in any real sense. We are back at the issue with Descartes' Cogito. There isn't necessarily an 'I', there is only thinking.

Is there any evidence that 'thinking' can exist without a 'thinker'?

[Nearly Sane]

Is there any evidence that 'thinking' can exist without a 'thinker'?

Tha's missing the point. The idea of 'Self'  is a single unitary thing. You have to show that exists not ask for evidence that it doesn't.

[Sriram]

Tha's missing the point. The idea of 'Self'  is a single unitary thing. You have to show that exists not ask for evidence that it doesn't.

You suggested that there is only 'thinking' and not necessarily a 'I'.  I am asking for evidence that such a thing is possible.

The fact that 'we' exist and 'we' think, is obvious. You are claiming otherwise.

[torridon]

I don't know if they are dualists or not ....but they do appear to subscribe to panpsychism...which means that consciousness or mind is fundamental and ubiquitous.

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

None of the aforementioned believe that 'mind is fundamental', you are taking liberties of interpretation. For Hofmann, (who does not accept panpsychism, btw) minds are assemblages of 'conscious agents', spatially and temporally unique and fully consistent with the principles of evolution by natural selection; so, no minds before the Cambrian explosion. These are monist mathematical abstractions attempting to define a framework in which minds can evolve from underlying primitives in a way that is consistent with what we already know from biology and neuroscience whilst also attempting to factor in the hard problem of consciousness.  This is science at a leading edge, but it is definately not woo.

[Nearly Sane]

You suggested that there is only 'thinking' and not necessarily a 'I'.  I am asking for evidence that such a thing is possible.

The fact that 'we' exist and 'we' think, is obvious. You are claiming otherwise.

No, you claimed we know that the self exists. You have the burden of proof. I am not claiming that it doesn't exist, just that you haven"t shown your claim to be true.

[Sriram]

No, you claimed we know that the self exists. You have the burden of proof. I am not claiming that it doesn't exist, just that you haven"t shown your claim to be true.

You said that there isn't necessarily a 'I'...only 'thinking'. So, I asked if you have any evidence that 'thinking' can exist without a 'thinker'.

You are a very difficult person to continue a discussion with...NS. 

Cheers.

[Sriram]

None of the aforementioned believe that 'mind is fundamental', you are taking liberties of interpretation. For Hofmann, (who does not accept panpsychism, btw) minds are assemblages of 'conscious agents', spatially and temporally unique and fully consistent with the principles of evolution by natural selection; so, no minds before the Cambrian explosion. These are monist mathematical abstractions attempting to define a framework in which minds can evolve from underlying primitives in a way that is consistent with what we already know from biology and neuroscience whilst also attempting to factor in the hard problem of consciousness.  This is science at a leading edge, but it is definately not woo.

Chalmers and Tononi clearly support panpsychism. If you read the article about the hard problem of consciousness that I linked earlier...you'll see that.

You are again bringing in 'woo'...which shows that we have to deal with the two boxes syndrome.   

[Nearly Sane]

You said that there isn't necessarily a 'I'...only 'thinking'. So, I asked if you have any evidence that 'thinking' can exist without a 'thinker'.

You are a very difficult person to continue a discussion with...NS. 

Cheers.

Saying there isn't necessarily an unitary self is not a claim that there isn't. You made the claim that we know there is one. Your burden of proof.

[Alan Burns]

We don't know that the 'self' exists in any real sense. We are back at the issue with Descartes' Cogito. There isn't necessarily an 'I', there is only thinking.

In depth analysis of current scientific knowledge will lead to a conclusion that our material bodies are part of the continuum of this material universe governed by the same universal laws of that universe, so the concept of "self" does not exist.

The ability to reach this conclusion requires two essential ingredients - perception and thinking.  For perception to occur, there needs to be a source of perception - a perceiver.  For thinking to occur, there needs to be a source of determination of the thinking process - a thinker.  The source is "you".  It is impossible to think yourself out of existence.

[Nearly Sane]

In depth analysis of current scientific knowledge will lead to a conclusion that our material bodies are part of the continuum of this material universe governed by the same universal laws of that universe, so the concept of "self" does not exist.

The ability to reach this conclusion requires two essential ingredients - perception and thinking.  For perception to occur, there needs to be a source of perception - a perceiver.  For thinking to occur, there needs to be a source of determination of the thinking process - a thinker.  The source is "you".  It is impossible to think yourself out of existence.

Current scientific knowledge indicates the opposite  of a unitary self. And you are begging the question as did Sriram about the claim. The burden of proof has not been met.

[torridon]

In depth analysis of current scientific knowledge will lead to a conclusion that our material bodies are part of the continuum of this material universe governed by the same universal laws of that universe, so the concept of "self" does not exist.

Does that then mean that racism does not exist, or Pilgrim's Progress, or animal migration ? I think you are limiting yourself to a very basic definition of 'exists'.

[Alan Burns]

Does that then mean that racism does not exist ...

Of course racism exists.  It is evidence of human free will, - our freedom to choose between good and evil.

[torridon]

The ability to reach this conclusion requires two essential ingredients - perception and thinking.  For perception to occur, there needs to be a source of perception - a perceiver.  For thinking to occur, there needs to be a source of determination of the thinking process - a thinker.  The source is "you".  It is impossible to think yourself out of existence.

To the extent that that is a reasonable characterisation of perception and thinking, it is also a reasonable to conclude that penguins and hedgehogs and hermit crabs are also perceivers and thinkers. To delimit perceiving and thinking to just h. sapiens is hubris gorged anthropocentric special pleading with no justification from observation.

[torridon]

Of course racism exists.  It is evidence of human free will, - our freedom to choose between good and evil.

So when it suits, you take a narrow definition of 'exists', whilst in other circumstances, you can take a more nuanced view.  Why not be more consistent across the board ?

[jeremyp]

The Self (Consciousness) exists and we all know that. That is what I call the 'User'.   The 'scientific' claim is that Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

I have already provided David Chalmer's and Tononi's views in the matter.

If your claim is not a scientific claim, why are you posting in this topic. If it is a scientific claim, tell us how to falsify it.

[Alan Burns]

To the extent that that is a reasonable characterisation of perception and thinking, it is also a reasonable to conclude that penguins and hedgehogs and hermit crabs are also perceivers and thinkers. To delimit perceiving and thinking to just h. sapiens is hubris gorged anthropocentric special pleading with no justification from observation.

I have yet to see any evidence that penguins and hedgehogs and hermit crabs or indeed any other non human animal have the ability to think about the reality of their own existence.  My own observance is that animals react to sensory data in a very predictable way which indicates that such reactions could be derived from programmed instincts and learnt experiences with no need of conscious thought.

[torridon]

I have yet to see any evidence that penguins and hedgehogs and hermit crabs or indeed any other non human animal have the ability to think about the reality of their own existence.  My own observance is that animals react to sensory data in a very predictable way which indicates that such reactions could be derived from programmed instincts and learnt experiences with no need of conscious thought.

To learn anything new requires conscious thought.  Do you think someone could learn to play the piano whilst in a coma ? Its the same with all animals, for a bear cub to learn how to catch a seal takes years of focused concentration.  These skills are too subtle to come 'preprogrammed' in a cubs mind.  It takes cognitive effort, just as it does with human cubs.

[Alan Burns]

To learn anything new requires conscious thought.  Do you think someone could learn to play the piano whilst in a coma ? Its the same with all animals, for a bear cub to learn how to catch a seal takes years of focused concentration.  These skills are too subtle to come 'preprogrammed' in a cubs mind.  It takes cognitive effort, just as it does with human cubs.

The concept of learning is not indicative of conscious awareness.
Computer chess programs learn from past experiences without the need for conscious awareness.
Artistic creativity such as piano playing is a dimension which can only be achieved by a combination of conscious awareness and human free will.

[torridon]

The concept of learning is not indicative of conscious awareness.
Computer chess programs learn from past experiences without the need for conscious awareness.
Artistic creativity such as piano playing is a dimension which can only be achieved by a combination of conscious awareness and human free will.

In case you haven't noticed, there are differences between living things and inaminate things.  We are still quite a way off the day when AGI will approach biological levels of sentience and learning so likening the way non human creatures learn to a chess playing program is way off the mark.  The way a bear cub learns is much closer to the way a human infant learns.  They both have eyes, and so learn through visual experience; chess programs don't have visual awareness.  They both have ears and so learn through auditory experience; chess programs don't have auditory awareness.  Human infants only learn when awake and paying close attention; the same is true of bear cubs, have you ever seen a cub sharpening its skills whilst it was asleep or in hibernation ?  Your understanding display a remarkable depth of ignorance about the natural world

[Stranger]

The concept of learning is not indicative of conscious awareness.
Computer chess programs learn from past experiences without the need for conscious awareness.
Artistic creativity such as piano playing is a dimension which can only be achieved by a combination of conscious awareness and human free will.

Just back to argument by baseless assertions again. And your notion of "free will" is still self-contradictory, and hence impossible.