Mind/matter duality

[little_monkey]

Why is there subjective awareness, in a universe which is supposedly composed only of physical interactions? Why shouldn't even human beings be able to take in data, process it, and output a behavior, without ever actually experiencing this process?

You realize that all living things do that, including the most primitive forms such as viruses and bacteria - they all process data from their environment, in various degrees. Humans have the extra ability to do one more step: invent symbols ( alphabet & numbers) to describe the world. After over "100,000 years" of homo sapiens appearing on this planet (that number gets to be bigger over time), we've only began to understand atoms and cells in the last 100 years. So there's plenty of room to increase our understanding.

Joe

[Baalzebutt]

The question isn't the link between the brain and mind-- it's why a purely physical process ends up manifesting as conscious awareness at all-- rather than just grinding through its chemical calculations with no experience of itself. Is this really a property of the brain, or is it a property of complexity of information, or is it that mind is actually ingrained into the fabric of the universe?

Your failure is assuming that consiouness is somehow special. While I don't know HOW it works or WHY our brains produce conciousness, I do know that it is a result of physical processes in our brains.

You seem to be tied to the belief that there is some strange phenomenon that imparts self awareness to human (and several other species) brains. All I am saying is that conciousness seems to be a product of the functioning brain, not something extra like a blob of whipped cream on a sundae.

I am as interested in you in finding out why and how. I just can't allow myself to believe that conciousness is anything particularly special from a biological standpoint.

As I said in my first post, I think it is the result (or by product, if you will) of our evolutionarily developed brain. It serves a biological purpose. It helps us survive and thrive.

[bennyboy]

The question isn't the link between the brain and mind-- it's why a purely physical process ends up manifesting as conscious awareness at all-- rather than just grinding through its chemical calculations with no experience of itself. Is this really a property of the brain, or is it a property of complexity of information, or is it that mind is actually ingrained into the fabric of the universe?

Your failure is assuming that consiouness is somehow special. While I don't know HOW it works or WHY our brains produce conciousness, I do know that it is a result of physical processes in our brains.

You seem to be tied to the belief that there is some strange phenomenon that imparts self awareness to human (and several other species) brains. All I am saying is that conciousness seems to be a product of the functioning brain, not something extra like a blob of whipped cream on a sundae.

I am as interested in you in finding out why and how. I just can't allow myself to believe that conciousness is anything particularly special from a biological standpoint.

As I said in my first post, I think it is the result (or by product, if you will) of our evolutionarily developed brain. It serves a biological purpose. It helps us survive and thrive.

Nobody yet has explained why a machine that functions exactly like the brain, but without subjective awareness, couldn't perform all the same evolutionary functions. Chemistry is chemistry with or without consciousness. Electric signals are electric signals with or without consciousness. The contraction of muscles is the contraction of muscles with or without consciousness. DNA is DNA with or without consciousness.

There are two possibilities:
1) The physics of humanity would function exactly the same without consciousness. In this case, the evolution of consciousness would be pointless-- all the genetic interactions with the environment would have deterministically led to non-aware beings that function exactly as we do. There's no "need" for an actual sense of awareness.

2) Consciousness adds something to our genetic fitness that goes beyond the pure physics of the body. In this case, whether it's dependent on brain structures is irrelevant-- consciousness is an extra layer that transcends the pure mechanics of the human body (including brain function).

I think assuming that because the brain is a precondition of mind, therefore the mind is a happenstance coincidence of brain function, is likely wrong. There has to be a reason why we are aware, rather than not, and "just because" is a patently unsatisfying answer.

---

Why is there subjective awareness, in a universe which is supposedly composed only of physical interactions? Why shouldn't even human beings be able to take in data, process it, and output a behavior, without ever actually experiencing this process?

You realize that all living things do that, including the most primitive forms such as viruses and bacteria - they all process data from their environment, in various degrees. Humans have the extra ability to do one more step: invent symbols ( alphabet & numbers) to describe the world. After over "100,000 years" of homo sapiens appearing on this planet (that number gets to be bigger over time), we've only began to understand atoms and cells in the last 100 years. So there's plenty of room to increase our understanding.

Joe

This is part of the problem. We cannot know to what degree various organisms actually experience their world as we do, rather than just being organic machines.

My personal belief is that consciousness scales with the complexity of data-processing an organism can do, which you also seem to be implying. However, is there an "atomic" consciousness which is irreducible and still organic (requiring at least 1 nerve for example), or is it possible that on a primitive level, a kind of basic "awareness" exists where ANY two particles are brought into a relation with each other-- say by a chemical bond, or by gravity?

In the latter case, then there is an intrinsic dualism between information and awareness. This wouldn't surprise me, because now we have spacetime, and wave-particles. Why not wave-particle-mind? This would fit in with some of the QM experiments.

[Angrboda]

Nobody yet has explained why a machine that functions exactly like the brain, but without subjective awareness, couldn't perform all the same evolutionary functions.

Are you asserting that a machine like the brain without subjective awareness could perform all the same evolutionary functions as a brain with subjective awareness? Perhaps I missed this, but if this is what you are claiming, I'd like to see your evidence for this claim. Until you provide some reasonable case for believing this is so, nobody has any obligation to prove the negative of it; what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can't just make arbitrary claims and suggest there is something wrong because nobody has disproved your claim. That's bullshit.

[little_monkey]

This is part of the problem. We cannot know to what degree various organisms actually experience their world as we do, rather than just being organic machines.

My personal belief is that consciousness scales with the complexity of data-processing an organism can do, which you also seem to be implying. However, is there an "atomic" consciousness which is irreducible and still organic (requiring at least 1 nerve for example), or is it possible that on a primitive level, a kind of basic "awareness" exists where ANY two particles are brought into a relation with each other-- say by a chemical bond, or by gravity?

In the latter case, then there is an intrinsic dualism between information and awareness. This wouldn't surprise me, because now we have spacetime, and wave-particles. Why not wave-particle-mind? This would fit in with some of the QM experiments.

I don't think that self-awareness and free will will be found at the atomic level, and nor at the individual cell level, but more with configurations of gazillions of cells such as neurons and synapses. Look at Gabrielle Giffords who was shot in the head, suffered extensive damage, but recovered a good part of all of her faculties. Some experts have said had the bullet gone a few millimeters either to the right or the left, and she wouldn't have made it alive or never recovered and would have remained in a vegetable state.

[Baalzebutt]

There are two possibilities:
1) The physics of humanity would function exactly the same without consciousness. In this case, the evolution of consciousness would be pointless-- all the genetic interactions with the environment would have deterministically led to non-aware beings that function exactly as we do. There's no "need" for an actual sense of awareness.

2) Consciousness adds something to our genetic fitness that goes beyond the pure physics of the body. In this case, whether it's dependent on brain structures is irrelevant-- consciousness is an extra layer that transcends the pure mechanics of the human body (including brain function).

That is quite a jump in thought. How can you justify that statement?

Assuming that the mind is a product of the brain, then by its very definition, it is a product of the mechanics of the brain. To say otherwise is to invoke a transcendent or supernatural explanation that has absolutely no grounding in the reality we currently know.

Really, the two possibilities are:

1. The mind is a direct product of the mechanics of the brain

2. The mind is of supernatural origin and is something beyond the mechanics of the brain.

Mind you, I am not silly enough to argue that these are the only possibilities for the mind/brain dichotomy. But within the bounds of this discussion, these are the options we come down to.

So I have to ask, what do you believe? Is the mind supernatural?

[bennyboy]

Nobody yet has explained why a machine that functions exactly like the brain, but without subjective awareness, couldn't perform all the same evolutionary functions.

Are you asserting that a machine like the brain without subjective awareness could perform all the same evolutionary functions as a brain with subjective awareness? Perhaps I missed this, but if this is what you are claiming, I'd like to see your evidence for this claim. Until you provide some reasonable case for believing this is so, nobody has any obligation to prove the negative of it; what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can't just make arbitrary claims and suggest there is something wrong because nobody has disproved your claim. That's bullshit.

I'm not asserting anything except that if the brain is a purely physical mechanism, it should be able to perform all its functions without any added bonuses like the magi-wonderful creation of sentience.

[Baalzebutt]

Nobody yet has explained why a machine that functions exactly like the brain, but without subjective awareness, couldn't perform all the same evolutionary functions.

We are not yet in a position to determine if this is true or not. It mat very well be that, at the level of complexity where our brains operate, consciousness may be absolutely required.

In other words, perhaps consciousness is absolutely unavoidable once a brain achieves a certain level of complexity.

[bennyboy]

There are two possibilities:
1) The physics of humanity would function exactly the same without consciousness. In this case, the evolution of consciousness would be pointless-- all the genetic interactions with the environment would have deterministically led to non-aware beings that function exactly as we do. There's no "need" for an actual sense of awareness.

2) Consciousness adds something to our genetic fitness that goes beyond the pure physics of the body. In this case, whether it's dependent on brain structures is irrelevant-- consciousness is an extra layer that transcends the pure mechanics of the human body (including brain function).

That is quite a jump in thought. How can you justify that statement?

Assuming that the mind is a product of the brain, then by its very definition, it is a product of the mechanics of the brain. To say otherwise is to invoke a transcendent or supernatural explanation that has absolutely no grounding in the reality we currently know.

Really, the two possibilities are:

1. The mind is a direct product of the mechanics of the brain

2. The mind is of supernatural origin and is something beyond the mechanics of the brain.

Mind you, I am not silly enough to argue that these are the only possibilities for the mind/brain dichotomy. But within the bounds of this discussion, these are the options we come down to.

So I have to ask, what do you believe? Is the mind supernatural?

The short answer is I don't know. I don't like the word supernatural, though.

The particular speculation that I gravitate to is the one that I just said-- I think it's more likely that mind of some kind is intrinsic to the physics of the universe, rather than miraculously spawning due to the arrangement of particular organic structures on a little blue dot in an inconsequential solar system in one of a gazillion galaxies. THAT is an assumption that I find hard to swallow.

---

Nobody yet has explained why a machine that functions exactly like the brain, but without subjective awareness, couldn't perform all the same evolutionary functions.

We are not yet in a position to determine if this is true or not. It mat very well be that, at the level of complexity where our brains operate, consciousness may be absolutely required.

In other words, perhaps consciousness is absolutely unavoidable once a brain achieves a certain level of complexity.

It may be that consciousness IS complex information processing, and is not dependent on any particular physical structure (i.e. the brain).

[Angrboda]

I'm not asserting anything except that if the brain is a purely physical mechanism, it should be able to perform all its functions without [subjectivity].

You just made the assertion. Now please provide some evidence.