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

[bennyboy]

Let's talk about this.

If mind is emergent on complexity, then the question is: complexity of what? Everything in the universe is related. And the universe includes all brains, so the complexity of the universe is necessarily greater than that of all brains. This indicates a possibility (or in this case semantic necessity) of a universal consciousness.

Why is it that some collections of matter are thought of as singular agents with many parts, and others are thought of as just a bunch of stuff happening? Why are the energetic interactions between brain cells considered more complex than those between galaxies?

Non sequitur, equivocation.
To equate the local complexity of a brain with the complexity of all brains is truly fallacious.

Latin debatey words aren't a good substitution for either ideas or evidence. It has been said that mind is supervenient on complexity. I've pointed out that the universe is more complex than a brain. However, this idea has been met with what appears to be special pleading: "No no no. Only the LOCAL complexity of the brain spawns qualia." Therefore, the assumption that mind supervenes on complexity must have been either incorrect or incomplete.

I think what you meant to say is that the mind supervenes on a very special kind of complexity. But what, pray tell, might be the exact nature of complexity required? Given that the brain is the ONLY entity known to have qualia, how are we to determine what exact properties of the brain are responsible, and which are incidental? Does qualia require:
-exactly and only the brain, including all its organic structures, the exact same neurotransmitters, etc?
-only a special relationship of information about the universe-- specifically, encoded past states of the environment being compared with present states?
-only the ability to receive information from the "outside" universe?

The first of these is specific to the brain, the second is specific to any complex processing of data which is self-referential over time, and the last is intrinsic to all matter. If the first is true, qualia cannot generalize to non-brains no matter how complex-- for example very complex computer systems. If the second is true, qualia generalizes to all structures which interact with the universe in a particular way. In the third, qualia generalizes to all matter. So tell me-- in what way has any scientist established control over these variables to such a degree that you are confident that system X may be said to experience qualia, and system Y not so?

---

Fallacy of composition. Just because my heart pumps blood does not mean that my body as a whole pumps blood.

Just because ________ (any part or function of the brain) generates qualia doesn't mean that the brain as a whole generates qualia.

Organic molecules and cells are more complex than collections of stars because of the atomic, molecular, and cellular interactions required to produce a brain.

No. The complexity of the parent node is always at least as great as the sum of its child nodes. And the human brain is contained IN a solar system, a galaxy, and ultimately the universe. Therefore, all of those things are more complex than a brain. If you want to establish a local effect, you'll have to demonstrate that it is a local property of the brain which is resposible for the existence of qualia-- specifically, that qualia is not a property of all exchanges of information.

[Chas]

Non sequitur, equivocation.
To equate the local complexity of a brain with the complexity of all brains is truly fallacious.

Latin debatey words aren't a good substitution for either ideas or evidence. It has been said that mind is supervenient on complexity. I've pointed out that the universe is more complex than a brain. However, this idea has been met with what appears to be special pleading: "No no no. Only the LOCAL complexity of the brain spawns qualia." Therefore, the assumption that mind supervenes on complexity must have been either incorrect or incomplete.

Not special pleading. The evidence supports minds existing in brains, and one mind to one brain. That is why your comparison fails.

I think what you meant to say is that the mind supervenes on a very special kind of complexity. But what, pray tell, might be the exact nature of complexity required? Given that the brain is the ONLY entity known to have qualia,

I think it more correct to say the mind has qualia, not the brain. Brains are the only things know to be complex enough for mind, but there is no good reason to believe that different hardware can do the same job.

how are we to determine what exact properties of the brain are responsible, and which are incidental?

With science - the only known way to get knowledge.

Does qualia require:
-exactly and only the brain, including all its organic structures, the exact same neurotransmitters, etc?

Not known - no reason to believe it is.

-only a special relationship of information about the universe-- specifically, encoded past states of the environment being compared with present states?

No reason to suppose that.

-only the ability to receive information from the "outside" universe?

There is no reason to believe that is even possible, or that there is an "outside".

The first of these is specific to the brain, the second is specific to any complex processing of data which is self-referential over time, and the last is intrinsic to all matter.

You have yet to support that, let alone demonstrate it.

If the first is true, qualia cannot generalize to non-brains no matter how complex-- for example very complex computer systems. If the second is true, qualia generalizes to all structures which interact with the universe in a particular way.

Maybe - but there is no reason to accept either premise.

In the third, qualia generalizes to all matter.

No. Until you can demonstrate consciousness in 'all matter', you can't ascribe qualia to it.

So tell me-- in what way has any scientist established control over these variables to such a degree that you are confident that system X may be said to experience qualia, and system Y not so? You make a positive assertion about the nature of mind-- where's YOUR evidence?

I haven't made that assertion.

[Rampant.A.I.]

There you go.

Oh maybe I misunderstood "wild speculation".

no ... it clearly is not "wild speculation". Thinking that the "pieces" we see around us probably add up to something more than we know.

I would actually say it is sheer science ignorance to say they don't.

Riiiight. Because clearly, making wild speculations based on a lack of available evidence is a sign of scientific knowledge.

What could the pieces add up to?

[Angrboda]

Can an universal "awareness" emerge from the "pieces that we see? The answer is far more probably "yes" than "no". In fact so much so that it is silly not to assume it. as silly as assuming there were no planets elsewhere in the 1970's.

There you go.

Oh maybe I misunderstood "wild speculation".

no ... it clearly is not "wild speculation". Thinking that the "pieces" we see around us probably add up to something more than we know.

That's the very definition of wild speculation. And you're moving your goalposts: you didn't assert that "something more" was probable, you asserted that a universal consciousness emerging was probable. That's even wilder.

[bennyboy]

Not special pleading. The evidence supports minds existing in brains, and one mind to one brain. That is why your comparison fails.

You keep dismissing specific candidates for the supervenience of mind, because you have to. It's a "mind of the gaps" argument-- you have no idea what it is about the brain that causes the existence of qualia, but you insist that there is evidence it can only be in the brain.

My argument is simple, and you've steadfastly avoided it. GIVEN THAT the brains of others actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to, I argue:
1) The brain has many properties.
2) Qualia supervene on some or all of these properties.
3) Some of these properties are unique to the brain, and some are universal.
4) It is not known on which of these properties qualia supervene.
5) It is therefore not known whether qualia are unique to the brain or universal.

Stop hiding behind appeals to evidence and address the argument, if you can. Either that, or provide this "evidence" for brain:mind 1:1 relationship that you keep referring to, and watch it torn to pieces.

[pocaracas]

Sorry for the interruption, Chas...

Not special pleading. The evidence supports minds existing in brains, and one mind to one brain. That is why your comparison fails.

You keep dismissing specific candidates for the supervenience of mind, because you have to. It's a "mind of the gaps" argument-- you have no idea what it is about the brain that causes the existence of qualia, but you insist that there is evidence it can only be in the brain.

My argument is simple, and you've steadfastly avoided it. GIVEN THAT the brains of others actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to, I argue:
1) The brain has many properties.
2) Qualia supervene on some or all of these properties.
3) Some of these properties are unique to the brain, and some are universal.
4) It is not known on which of these properties qualia supervene.
5) It is therefore not known whether qualia are unique to the brain or universal.

What do you mean by "universal", here?

Stop hiding behind appeals to evidence and address the argument, if you can. Either that, or provide this "evidence" for brain:mind 1:1 relationship that you keep referring to, and watch it torn to pieces.

There's no absolute proof that there's a brain:mind 1:1 relationship, but the existing evidence sure points that way:

- Influence of drugs on cognitive processes (not restricted to humans!)

- Personality shift upon brain damage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/prof...nge-part-i, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)

[bennyboy]

What do you mean by "universal", here?

I mean not specific to brains.

re: scientific studies
I don't think we're on the same page. I'm not talking about the content of mind, which is clearly affected by brain chemistry or the contributions of brain parts. I'm talking about the existence, rather than the non-existence, of qualia. Specifically, WHAT properties of the brain allow/require the supervenience of qualia?

[pocaracas]

What do you mean by "universal", here?

I mean not specific to brains.

re: scientific studies
I don't think we're on the same page. I'm not talking about the content of mind, which is clearly affected by brain chemistry or the contributions of brain parts. I'm talking about the existence, rather than the non-existence, of qualia. Specifically, WHAT properties of the brain allow/require the supervenience of qualia?

Qualia seems to be a lot of stuff which can be bundled together under the definition "the ways things seem to us".
If we can agree to use this simplistic definition, then drugs acting on the brain DO cause a difference in perception and, thus, a difference in the way things seem to us.
From this, we can see that chemistry seems to play a part in qualia.

But yeah... we've seen before (a long time ago) that we don't see eye to eye on this subject... why rehash it?

[Chas]

You keep dismissing specific candidates for the supervenience of mind, because you have to. It's a "mind of the gaps" argument-- you have no idea what it is about the brain that causes the existence of qualia, but you insist that there is evidence it can only be in the brain.

I will say for about the third time that qualia are not a property of brain but of mind/consciousness.

And what's with this bullshit 'you have to'?

My argument is simple, and you've steadfastly avoided it.

I haven't avoided anything - you have not made your argument clear to me.

GIVEN THAT the brains of others actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to, I argue:
1) The brain has many properties.
2) Qualia supervene on some or all of these properties.
3) Some of these properties are unique to the brain, and some are universal.
4) It is not known on which of these properties qualia supervene.
5) It is therefore not known whether qualia are unique to the brain or universal.

You assume that qualia are a property of the brain. I do not.

Stop hiding behind appeals to evidence and address the argument, if you can. Either that, or provide this "evidence" for brain:mind 1:1 relationship that you keep referring to, and watch it torn to pieces.

I am not hiding behind anything, and that's a really lousy discussion device.

All of the evidence of neuroscience indicates that the mind depends on a brain.

There is no evidence that it depends only on the brains we use.
There is no reason to believe that a silicon-based 'brain' of appropriate complexity couldn't host a mind.

[pocaracas]

There is no reason to believe that a silicon-based 'brain' of appropriate complexity could host a mind.

I'm agnostic on this... could or could not?...