Mind Over Matter?

[emjay]

Why would our behavior be exactly the same if we removed a contributing factor?  I would expect it to be altered to an extent commensurate with the alteration in circumstance. 

for instance if you looked at the the binary code of a digitised painting you would not see the same patterns as looking at it as a painting.

You don't speak or think binary....for a machine using binary this is exactly what it sees...the very same patterns, translated to a different language.  I may not see the painting, but the machine that speaks/thinks in binary does.  In the same way.....I may not understand the beautiful lyrics of a song in swahili........meanwhile...those damned swahilis are getting teary eyed.

I'm sorry if I have explained my argument poorly. I'll learn to do better. In #1 I mean to suggest that consciousness as a 'contributing factor' is not removed but just question whether it needs the 'presentational' part that we experience. Roughly equivalent to saying that if a computer simulation is running and you turn off the monitor - the visual output of the system - it makes no difference to the running of the simulation.

As for your second point, I think it's best if I just leave that because I'm totally confused and have lost faith in - and even understanding of - my own argument. At the same time I don't think what I mean is a matter of language but just a matter of how the data is neurally represented, but now I'm starting to think that maybe it is possible to represent colours neurally without resorting to having a single neuron for each colour, I just don't know how.

[Alex K]

I don't disbelieve in the capactiy of a neural network to sustain consciousness.  I disbelieve that there is any function of human behavior that couldn't be replicated as well by a philosophical zombie as by an actually-sentient human being.  If the universe were purely a mechanical one, then there would be nothing but things doing stuff-- no consciousness required.  Therefore, I have to include that the possibility of sentience is intrinsically included in the makeup of the universe: i.e. that it's no less a part of reality than gravity.

And I claim that as soon as you implement these skills  as a neural network (as opposed to a hypothetical collection of prerecorded reactions), there is no such thing as a philosophical Zombie. What you call consciousness is simply what a brain with such skills looks like to itself. You hopelessly overrate how special consciousness is when you make it a fundamental principle of the universe. Or rather, you can declare that, but it makes no discernible difference

[Brian37]

How about the simple solution? You are nothing more than your brain in motion. Just like there is no speed without an in tact car with burning fuel. If atheists don't like the superfluous comic book crap religion gap fills with, how about simple science and accepting our biology and evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Roughly equivalent to saying that if a computer simulation is running and you turn off the monitor - the visual output of the system - it makes no difference to the running of the simulation.

Like a person in a coma?

As for your second point, I think it's best if I just leave that because I'm totally confused and have lost faith in - and even understanding of - my own argument. At the same time I don't think what I mean is a matter of language but just a matter of how the data is neurally represented,

That -is- language, from a systems standpoint. The manner in which data is represented and communicated between systems and between parts within a system is language.  

but now I'm starting to think that maybe it is possible to represent colours neurally without resorting to having a single neuron for each colour, I just don't know how.

It's definitely possible, think of hex.  Theres nothing about hex that a biological machine -couldn't- do.  I'd be surprised if our exact system of handling the data RE: color was quite that efficient or well managed - it;s something that arose, rather than something that was designed task specific.  I'd be willing to wager we use a ton of resources to do what a computer using hex does with very little.  Hell, even if one nueron could do it (and they look to be incredibly robust units)...I bet our wasteful biology would still throw untold numbers of nuerons at the problem. How would it know any better..heheheh?

@Brian....I think that people just don;t like the way that sounds..alot of unspoken negative connotations. A brain in motion is a pretty damned awesome thing...that one little intro "nothing more than" sours the soup..for some, it seems. Being "nothing more than" a human brain is actually a pretty damn awesome thing to be - in context, imo. Could've been a newt...still might end up one...if I piss off the wrong people.

[emjay]

If mind is not more than brain function, then why awareness?  Why should the complex cascade of electrochemical interactions be subjectively experienced?

Given that mind is supervenient on the brain, my question is this: is it possible for a supervenient entity to flip the tables, and become the causal driver rather than a passenger who's just along for the experiential ride?  In other words, is the mind, while rooted in the brain, somehow also separate from it?  I'd argue this must be the case, or there would be no reason for mind to exist.  I'd choose something like your option #2.

If it is something like #1 I have no idea why there would be awareness. People just call it an 'emergent property' but I think that's a bit of a cop out, but unfortunately I have nothing better to offer.

I like your flipping tables idea. But would you be suggesting truly free will - that not materially determined? (I believe in the Clockwork Universe)

---

How about the simple solution? You are nothing more than your brain in motion. Just like there is no speed without an in tact car with burning fuel. If atheists don't like the superfluous comic book crap religion gap fills with, how about simple science and accepting our biology and evolution.

That's basically how I see it when I'm not going into detail, but occasionally - as in now - I like to look at it deeper, as pointless as it is to do so.

[The Grand Nudger]

In that it emerges as a consequence of the system which is pointed to as an explanation for a wide range of observed behaviors.  "If it's something like 1" answers that question.   We are conscious because what we refer to -as consciousness- is the operation of a system which is capable of producing the effect, which we possess..and which is active. When it cannot, when we do not, or when it is not..we are not, or cannot observe those behaviors upon which we make the determination in the first place...and do not possess those abilities which the system does not appear to be capable of (like reading minds or levitating objects). It's not a "why" issue, from that standpoint..it's a "what".

"Why?" is answered almost immediately by -because we can be-. Whatever other reason there may be (if there is another) this will remain equally true.

[emjay]

Roughly equivalent to saying that if a computer simulation is running and you turn off the monitor - the visual output of the system - it makes no difference to the running of the simulation.

Like a person in a coma?

As for your second point, I think it's best if I just leave that because I'm totally confused and have lost faith in - and even understanding of - my own argument. At the same time I don't think what I mean is a matter of language but just a matter of how the data is neurally represented,

That -is- language, from a systems standpoint.  The manner in which data is represented and communicated between systems and between parts within a system is language.   

but now I'm starting to think that maybe it is possible to represent colours neurally without resorting to having a single neuron for each colour, I just don't know how.

It's definitely possible, think of hex.  Theres nothing about hex that a biological machine -couldn't- do.  I'd be surprised if our exact system of handling the data RE: color was quite that efficient or well managed - it;s something that arose, rather than something that was designed task specific.  I'd be willing to wager we use a ton of resources to do what a computer using hex does with very little.  Hell, even if one nueron could do it (and they look to be incredibly robust units)...I bet our wasteful biology would still throw untold numbers of nuerons at the problem.  How would it know any better..heheheh?

@Brian....I think that people just don;t like the way that sounds..alot of unspoken negative connotations.  A brain in motion is a pretty damned awesome thing...that one little intro "nothing more than" sours the soup..for some, it seems.  Being "nothing more than" a human brain is actually a pretty damn awesome thing to be - in context, imo.  Could've been a newt...still might end up one...if I piss off the wrong people.

I didn't really mean like a coma, because there is still experience in that state - dreams etc are not turning off the monitor, just depriving experience of external stimuli (IMO).

OK I stand corrected on your second point, it is a question of language.

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't really mean like a coma, because there is still experience in that state - dreams etc are not turning off the monitor, just depriving experience of external stimuli (IMO).

Sure, people still report experience in a coma - but computers still process when the monitor is off as well.  The manner in which we determine if either a person in a coma or a computer with the monitor turned off are either experiencing or processing is remarkably similar.  To make the analogy work better, with this modification..you would have to say something along the lines of
(and ignoring that many in a coma report copious amounts of input...producing output being the cheif complaint..lol)

-"if I unplugged the keyboard".  We're talking inputs (a monitor is output - though both are UI), yeah? To which I would say...if you removed the inputs...you should expect a change in output, so yeah, it makes a difference.

-The overarching point here (before I forget it) is that "if it's something like 1" does not -lead to the question you then asked...it seeks to answer it. If it's something like 1...then that question is answered from the outset.

[emjay]

In that it emerges as a consequence of the system which is pointed to as an explanation for a wide range of observed behaviors.  "If it's something like 1" answers that question.   We are conscious because what we refer to -as consciousness- is the operation of a system which is capable of producing the effect, which we possess..and which is active.  When it cannot, when we do not, or when it is not..we are not, or cannot observe those behaviors upon which we make the determination in the first place...and do not possess those abilities which the system does not appear to be capable of (like reading minds or levitating objects).  It's not a "why" issue, from that standpoint..it's a "what".

"Why?" is answered almost immediately by -because we can be-.  Whatever other reason there may be (if there is another) this will remain equally true.

I'm really sorry but you've lost me here. What you are saying sounds very much like what C. S. Lewis argues in "Miracles" against the 'naturalist' position. Something along the lines of it being a circular argument. I had to give up on that book because I couldn't wrap my head around the logic he was using as the basis for his argument. I'm no good at the finer points of logic as I'm sure you're aware

[The Grand Nudger]

Not familiar with that one...but Lewis suffered from a sever case of god, for sure.  

Let me try to rephrase.

By saying:

"if it's something like 1" you've answered the question you then asked.  It may not be "something like 1"-granted....but if it is....then consciousness is explained.  What we don't know...is whether or not it's something like 1 - we do know that consciousness is not a problem...-if it is- something like 1.  Because "something like 1"....is an explanation of consciousness...however accurate or inaccurate it may be.

(I think that you're an incredible logic machine..btw.....it's just that being an incredible logic machine doesn't always translate to producing incredibly logical statements. :wink: )

-If consciousness is the visible part of a system - then yes, removing or altering the inputs matters. If the machine is "doing consciousness" then there's no mystery as to why it's there, why it presents itself, or why we notice it.