I've come across this very thought-provoking article that I thought I'd share with all of you. It tries to solve the hard problem of consciousness by rethinking the problem. Instead of reducing consciousness to a material explanation, it reduces the material world into an explanation of consciousness. As the article puts it:

Quote:

---

We have two alternatives here: either both [matter and consciousness] are of material/physical type or both are of intangible/immaterial type since consciousness/experience seem to be immaterial. At this point, we don’t know which alternative is true, but we do know that materialistic alternative of reducing consciousness to physical terms leads us to incomprehensible conceptual difficulties...

---

https://theproblemofconsciousness.wordpr...ciousness/

I think the first option, that consciousness can be explained materially, simply isn't sufficient. The best way of showing the difficulties of this are highlighted in the article:

Quote:

---

Some insist that consciousness/experience is a mere information processing and integration, but somehow they fail to realize that even though consciousness does have characteristics of information processing/integration and of intelligence and these characteristics can be simulated in a computer (aka artificial intelligence), these characteristics only abstract certain aspects of consciousness while forgetting about the experience itself, which is really the key characteristic. As Christof Koch beautifully put it: “You can simulate weather in a computer, but it will never be ‘wet’.”

---

The key to this theory is that what we perceive as the outside world isn't necessarily *the* outside world. What I mean is that although things seem to be solid and matter-like looking, it doesn't mean that there's a material outside world producing this. As the article puts it:

Quote:

---

we believe we look into outside world and feel its solidity. But the image of the outside world and the feeling of solidity as well as all other sensations of it are just that – immaterial sensations inside our consciousness, sense data...we only see our sense data (we don’t see photons striking the optic nerve of our eyes – we only see colors correlated to the above process). The presence of this sense data in our consciousness does not prove at all that it is produced by the physical universe – it only proves it is produced by something.

---

To cut a long story short, the article tries to justify that the universe is simply a Grand Mathematical Structure, since mathematics is purely concepts, immaterial thoughts, that don't reside within matter. This means that all that exists are literally mathematical equations - a literal matrix of "illusions" that produce what we experience.

A nice little feature about this way of perceiving the universe is that things such as particle entanglement and the duality of light (as waves and particles) aren't a problem. The mathematical equations that describe such behaviour *are* the actual reality of both phenomena, since the physical world doesn't exist under this theory.

One thing I don't agree with, and of course something that you all saw coming from the very beginning, is that the author then places God at the centre of it all - the Cosmic Consciousness that is responsible for, quite literally, thinking up this universe. He states that we are all smaller ripples of a larger consciousness, and that's why it's said we are created in God's 'image'. But the problem I see is the same as in the traditional materialistic view of the universe: why does there need to be a god that created everything?

Another problem I see, but with the whole theory in general, is that the universe is now quite fragmented. I'll explain what I mean by first explaining how in the traditional view, the universe isn't fragmented: everything that exists is causally related. Matter can't escape this closed system and be it's own entity because everything is being affected by something else at all times. Our minds are a physical construct that are bound by the material universe. Now, with this new theory, it seems like minds are in their own personal "space". There is no unity from me to you like there would be in a material world. There is only the illusion that we share, but beyond that, it seems like you're off "somewhere" else that isn't where I "am". And maybe it's a bias I have, that some Grand Theory of Everything should intrinsically have this unity, because it's quite the romantic idea. Or maybe I'm afraid to think that we're all truly alone, that pure conscious intimacy isn't enough.

This is my version of Idealism, and there's a thread about it already. I won't link it, though, because it would be epic necro.

As I see it, there's no way to "prove" that the material world exists. All you can really say is that the relationships among objects in our experience are consistently true, which makes the material model of experience very useful. Whether a bridge is data, or a collection of formulas which manifest as an experience, or an idea in the mind of God, or just a physical thing in an actually-existent space, it's going to stand up if made properly, and you are going to get hurt if you jump off of it.

I do not like the process of taking a philosophical position of convenience, i.e. that there's a real physical universe, and then using physical observations to prove that philosophical position. This seems to me to represent a nasty circle, akin to God and the Bible supporting each other. It seems to me that the relationships we have labeled the "physical universe" work just as well as ideas as they do as existent "things," but that the mental world does NOT work well when expressed in physicalist terms.

(January 29, 2015 at 12:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: This is my version of Idealism, and there's a thread about it already. I won't link it, though, because it would be epic necro.

Ah, my bad. I haven't been around these areas for a while, or consistently enough, so I may have missed that thread!

Quote:As I see it, there's no way to "prove" that the material world exists. All you can really say is that the relationships among objects in our experience are consistently true, which makes the material model of experience very useful. Whether a bridge is data, or a collection of formulas which manifest as an experience, or an idea in the mind of God, or just a physical thing in an actually-existent space, it's going to stand up if made properly, and you are going to get hurt if you jump off of it.

I completely agree there.

Quote:I do not like the process of taking a philosophical position of convenience, i.e. that there's a real physical universe, and then using physical observations to prove that philosophical position. This seems to me to represent a nasty circle, akin to God and the Bible supporting each other.

Agreed. I think that's why Descartes was so revolutionary, because he began his project with a clean slate, and logically tried to formulate a theory. I don't agree that God is necessary in his conclusion though.

Quote:It seems to me that the relationships we have labeled the "physical universe" work just as well as ideas as they do as existent "things," but that the mental world does NOT work well when expressed in physicalist terms.

Precisely. And it's not just a matter of being ignorant of how consciousness works physically. It's that there are conceptual inconsistencies, things that physics inherently can't posses, that we know the mind does. Unless you want to take the road less traveled and say that consciousness itself is an illusion.

I guess I'll be the first to say that this sound like bullshit. One reason is the requirement that our independent consciouness have to all share the same environment when we are awake, but not when we are asleep or reading a story. Another reason is that mathematics provides multiple non-physical solutions. So I don't trust the mathematics representation reality without checking it with observations.

(January 29, 2015 at 12:10 am)FallentoReason Wrote: To cut a long story short, the article tries to justify that the universe is simply a Grand Mathematical Structure, since mathematics is purely concepts, immaterial thoughts, that don't reside within matter. This means that all that exists are literally mathematical equations - a literal matrix of "illusions" that produce what we experience.

Bullshit. You can easily demonstrate how much consciousness is inherent to matter itself by hitting your head with a rubber hammer, or taking something that only very subtly inhibits the communication of neurons - bang, consciousness is gone. It's in the workings of the neural network.

The "experience of consciousness" itself needs no separate explanation unless you can give me a solid reason why this experience can't be how the network experiences itself under certain conditions.

(January 29, 2015 at 2:30 am)Surgenator Wrote: I guess I'll be the first to say that this sound like bullshit. One reason is the requirement that our independent consciouness have to all share the same environment when we are awake, but not when we are asleep or reading a story.

But so what? Who says the only thing you're "allowed" to experience is the one reality? What's the problem in wandering off into our own thoughts?

Quote:
Another reason is that mathematics provides multiple non-physical solutions.

Please elaborate, because I can see the same problem with physics, unless you mean something that I haven't grasped properly.

---

(January 29, 2015 at 2:36 am)Alex K Wrote: Bullshit. You can easily demonstrate how much consciousness is inherent to matter itself by hitting your head with a rubber hammer, or taking something that only very subtly inhibits the communication of neurons - bang, consciousness is gone. It's in the workings of the neural network.

You haven't proven anything. You've only given yourself an experience of sense-data, not a one-to-one relationship with matter. Refer to Plato's cave.

Quote:The "experience of consciousness" itself needs no separate explanation unless you can give me a solid reason why this experience can't be how the network experiences itself under certain conditions.

So you're saying that you believe matter can experience itself i.e. atoms, electrons, quarks, the lot, can become aware of themselves. Let's expand on this network that you talk about:

Suppose that our brain is an arrangement of cables and batteries. A successful arrangement then, you would say, would bring about consciousness i.e. the cables and batteries become aware of their own arrangement - of themselves. But if this actually does bring about awareness, then where is this awareness? It must be a material thing, because that's all that exists. Yet, there's nothing more than copper, lithium and electrons. You can't point to where the awareness exists. Now if we compare this to an *unsuccessful* arrangement, we obviously know its lacking awareness. Yet, the only difference lies in how it's built, and *not* what's in it. Thus, since matter can't be created nor destroyed, it means awareness came about through a means other than material since the awareness itself isn't materially inherent in the first arrangement, by virtue of this awareness not being materially present.

I think it's conceptually impossible to have an arrangement of matter that is then aware of it's own arrangement. At least, not 100% through material means. But if you'll allow immaterial things into your world view, then the project is simply pointless.

(January 29, 2015 at 2:36 am)Alex K Wrote: Bullshit. You can easily demonstrate how much consciousness is inherent to matter itself by hitting your head with a rubber hammer, or taking something that only very subtly inhibits the communication of neurons - bang, consciousness is gone. It's in the workings of the neural network.

Sounds like a pretty horrible experience to me.

I think you and the others are missing the point a little. All the things we consider physical reality work AS IDEAS. Saying that reality is idealistic is not to throw away science, or the Big Bang, or the joy of getting hit in the head with a hammer. It is to say that deep down under the hood, there is no reality to be found except for formulas, experiences, ideas, and relationships between them. There's no pot of gold at the end of the physics rainbow where we find the most fundamental "thing" of which other things are made.

Not true, you say? Okay, what shape is a photon, and how much volume does it occupy?

(January 29, 2015 at 5:35 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 2:36 am)Alex K Wrote: Bullshit. You can easily demonstrate how much consciousness is inherent to matter itself by hitting your head with a rubber hammer, or taking something that only very subtly inhibits the communication of neurons - bang, consciousness is gone. It's in the workings of the neural network.

Sounds like a pretty horrible experience to me.

I think you and the others are missing the point a little. All the things we consider physical reality work AS IDEAS. Saying that reality is idealistic is not to throw away science, or the Big Bang, or the joy of getting hit in the head with a hammer. It is to say that deep down under the hood, there is no reality to be found except for formulas, experiences, ideas, and relationships between them. There's no pot of gold at the end of the physics rainbow where we find the most fundamental "thing" of which other things are made.

That may be true. But how does what you say here have any connection to the OP?

Quote:Not true, you say? Okay, what shape is a photon, and how much volume does it occupy?

They are very small and pointy.

But in seriousness, to remain in your vein - according to our current theoretical description of photons, they are quantum mechanical point particles occupying no volume in space as particles. Their wave functions can be extended in space in the theory, but are not observable per se. This does not mean that nature itself has these properties, and it's not even clear what it would mean if it had.

---

---

(January 29, 2015 at 3:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 2:36 am)Alex K Wrote: Bullshit. You can easily demonstrate how much consciousness is inherent to matter itself by hitting your head with a rubber hammer, or taking something that only very subtly inhibits the communication of neurons - bang, consciousness is gone. It's in the workings of the neural network.

You haven't proven anything. You've only given yourself an experience of sense-data, not a one-to-one relationship with matter. Refer to Plato's cave.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

Quote:

Quote:The "experience of consciousness" itself needs no separate explanation unless you can give me a solid reason why this experience can't be how the network experiences itself under certain conditions.

So you're saying that you believe matter can experience itself i.e. atoms, electrons, quarks, the lot, can become aware of themselves.

Not quite, not individual electrons. I'm precisely arguing against that. A complex network of matter as we have it in our brains can process information, and I see it as the most likely explanation that this includes what one might call internal experiences of its own making, and exhibit one is the fact that interrupting these internal workings ever so slightly makes the latter go away. So it's apparently in the constellations and interactions.

Quote:Let's expand on this network that you talk about:

Suppose that our brain is an arrangement of cables and batteries.

And switches which receive input voltages and generate a weighted output based on them - i.e. neurons.

Quote: A successful arrangement then, you would say, would bring about consciousness i.e. the cables and batteries become aware of their own arrangement - of themselves.

So it seems.

Quote:But if this actually does bring about awareness, then where is this awareness?

Why would it be anywhere in particular. It's in the interactions of the system.

Quote:It must be a material thing, because that's all that exists. Yet, there's nothing more than copper, lithium and electrons.

A highly complex arrangement of these things with switches, feedback loops, memory...

Quote:You can't point to where the awareness exists.

Why should I need to?

Quote:Now if we compare this to an *unsuccessful* arrangement, we obviously know its lacking awareness. Yet, the only difference lies in how it's built, and *not* what's in it.

Yes, that's exactly my argument why awareness, consciousness or what have you, is not some kind of transcendent property of matter. It obviously depends on the arrangement, the interactions, the whole process.

Quote:Thus, since matter can't be created nor destroyed,

I'm not sure whether that is 1. correct and 2. why it is relevant here

Quote:it means awareness came about through a means other than material

No that doesn't follow. How do you conclude that again? Connecting a passed-out brain such that it gains consciousness again does not require some substance called consciousness to be created. What happens is that the interactions between the parts, which were cut off, are now possible again, and the machine runs unhindered.

Quote: since the awareness itself isn't materially inherent in the first arrangement, by virtue of this awareness not being materially present.

I don't know at all what "materially inherent" means, can you elaborate?

Quote:I think it's conceptually impossible to have an arrangement of matter that is then aware of it's own arrangement.

Is this a conclusion from what you've said before? Because I don't see how

(January 29, 2015 at 5:49 am)Alex K Wrote: They are very small and pointy.

Quote:But in seriousness, to remain in your vein - according to our current theoretical description of photons, they are quantum mechanical point particles occupying no volume in space as particles. Their wave functions can be extended in space in the theory, but are not observable per se. This does not mean that nature itself has these properties, and it's not even clear what it would mean if it had.

So take relativity, which we've talked about a little: there's no "set" scale for time or space, only a description of how different references relate to each other. Now, we have a "thing" which occupies no space and is describable only mathematically.

By what criteria do you differentiate from this view, which is supposed to be descriptive of physical reality, from an idealistic reality, in which these things we cannot see are considered only universal (forgive the apparent equivocation) expressions of ideas?

(January 29, 2015 at 6:50 am)bennyboy Wrote: By what criteria do you differentiate from this view, which is supposed to be descriptive of physical reality, from an idealistic reality, in which these things we cannot see are considered only universal (forgive the apparent equivocation) expressions of ideas?

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by idealistic reality?