Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Waving at the brain isn't showing a "mechanism." So far, science has done exactly zero in determining how material structures or interactions cause things to actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to.

The evidence for dualism is that there is mind, and the objects which a mind perceives and thinks about. You can insist that the mind supervenes on the brain-- certainly, the content of ideas and thoughts seems to do so. But not only can we not show a mechanism for the supervenience of consciousness on the brain, we can't even show why it would be that a physical structure which can input and process information and produce a behavioral output would cause/need actual subjective awareness.

When Siri version 2050 arrives with actual subjective awareness, will the monism/dualism debate be over?

It depends on what type of hardware Siri utilizes. I think if Siri can present psi phenomenon consistent with some of the most recent results like Dean Rad in has shown to exist, then yes, the debate will be over.

[bennyboy]

The evidence for dualism is that there is mind, and the objects which a mind perceives and thinks about. You can insist that the mind supervenes on the brain-- certainly, the content of ideas and thoughts seems to do so. But not only can we not show a mechanism for the supervenience of consciousness on the brain, we can't even show why it would be that a physical structure which can input and process information and produce a behavioral output would cause/need actual subjective awareness.

The evidence you cite is for the mind in general and not particular to dualism. You are right to be critical of the lack of demonstrated mechanism for the monist position, but dualism has the same problem with the added burden of location issues and the effect of physical trauma on the mind.

Yes, that's why I made a thread about idealism a couple months back. All our reality is processed as ideas anyway, including ideas about space and time.

[Cato]

And the additional burden for monism is explaining why some neural systems are associated with consciousness and others are not. There is clearly an additional process beyond just neural activity.

I think you are skirting dangerously close to the fallacy of composition here. The experimental evidence for NCC isn't invalidated because some neural networks cannot be shown to contribute to conscious events.

[bennyboy]

When Siri version 2050 arrives with actual subjective awareness, will the monism/dualism debate be over?

The debate is, and always will be, whether Siri actually will have subjective awareness, or just seem to. Do androids dream of electric sheep?

[Neo-Scholastic]

And the additional burden for monism is explaining why some neural systems are associated with consciousness and others are not. There is clearly an additional process beyond just neural activity.

I think you are skirting dangerously close to the fallacy of composition here. The experimental evidence for NCC isn't invalidated because some neural networks cannot be shown to contribute to conscious events.

Until you can show a compositional difference between one set of neurons and another, both of which perform information process and of which only one is conscious, then you are presenting a 300 year old promissory note. How long can the materialist answer fail to deliver before it is considered a failure? The materialist approach to mind-body dates back to Newton! Physics has changed a lot since then, from classical ideas of particles bumping together to quantum processes. I fully accept the findings of neuroscience but do not accept interpretations that beg the question.

[Cato]

Yes, that's why I made a thread about idealism a couple months back. All our reality is processed as ideas anyway, including ideas about space and time.

Certainly a fair statement, but it doesn't contradict physical monism. Space and time will survive the death of my brain; my subjective experience of them will not.

[Ben Davis]

Other than misdirection, I'm not clear why people keep bringing physics in to this. Consciousness has only ever been observed/measured/recorded in living creatures with some sort of brain. Fact. That makes this a question for biologists not physicists. Everything else is just misdefinition of terms in an attempt to support supernatural and unfalsifiable speculation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The evidence you cite is for the mind in general and not particular to dualism. You are right to be critical of the lack of demonstrated mechanism for the monist position, but dualism has the same problem with the added burden of location issues and the effect of physical trauma on the mind.

Yes, that's why I made a thread about idealism a couple months back. All our reality is processed as ideas anyway, including ideas about space and time.

I cannot go that far. Since ideas are continually in flux, finding what remains constant between ideas is a philosophical question that demands an answer. I think idealism in this regard stops short of giving a sufficient account of what's going on.

---

Other than misdirection, I'm not clear why people keep bringing physics in to this. Consciousness has only ever been observed/measured/recorded in living creatures with some sort of brain. Fact. That makes this a question for biologists not physicists. Everything else is just misdefinition of terms in an attempt to support supernatural and unfalsifiable speculation.

Because Von Neuman brought consciousness into physics with the orthodox interpretation. As Henry Stapp explains, big things, like biological systems, are made from small things, like atoms. The measurement problem requires an observer that sits outside the physical system in which the wave collapse occurs. The Copenhagen interpretation is a pragmatic approach that glosses over the underlying ontological reality. If you want to understand consciousness you must look to the orthodox interpretation.

[Cato]

Until you can show a compositional difference between one set of neurons and another, both of which perform information process and of which only one is conscious, then you are presenting a 300 year old promissory note. How long can the materialist answer fail to deliver before it is considered a failure? The materialist approach to mind-body dates back to Newton! Physics has changed a lot since then, from classical ideas of particles bumping together to quantum processes. I fully accept the findings of neuroscience but do not accept interpretations that beg the question.

I was unaware that neuroscience was on a shot clock requiring everyone to accept an unsupported supernatural explanation when the buzzer sounds.

[Mudhammam]

When Siri version 2050 arrives with actual subjective awareness, will the monism/dualism debate be over?

The debate is, and always will be, whether Siri actually will have subjective awareness, or just seem to. Do androids dream of electric sheep?

"Ethiopians imagine their gods as black and snub-nosed; Thracians blue-eyed and red-haired. But if horses or lions had hands, or could draw and fashion works as men do, horses would draw the gods shaped like horses and lions like lions, making the gods resemble themselves." - Xenophanes.

Presumably, yes, they will dream of and in automation, similar to their ancestral cousins, man.