If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[Whateverist]

I agree that studying what disrupts consciousness isn't the same as explaining it. Also, a map showing which portions of the brain are involved in various subjective experiences doesn't satisfy my curiosity about consciousness either. There are basically two approaches to studying consciousness: the physiological approach which studies it from the outside and phenomenology which studies it from the inside. First hand phenomenon are only directly available for study on a personal basis, so there is no apparent way to satisfactorily generalize ones findings. Brain scans and the rest only ever get at a correlation between biological systems which are active during first hand experiences of consciousness. It is a conundrum for traditional scientific methods.

On the other hand, not being able to account for "the fact of its existence" isn't unique to the study of consciousness. How about life itself? We know lots about how various life processes are carried out but why are these materials organic? Biological organisms are not composed of a different set of elements from those which make up inorganic materials. Yet somehow, properly arranged, they become life.

Or look at evo-devo, specifically the way an organism assembles itself. Sure there is information in the DNA which seems determinative of what the organism becomes .. but how? Creating tissues and organs and systems are all pretty amazing. But it happens. I don't think we have any more to say about the fact of this phenomenon's existence than we do the fact of consciousness' existence, but we do have a much more detailed account for the sequence of steps necessary for a single cell to become a complex organism such as ourselves.

[bennyboy]

On the other hand, not being able to account for "the fact of its existence" isn't unique to the study of consciousness. How about life itself? We know lots about how various life processes are carried out but why are these materials organic? Biological organisms are not composed of a different set of elements from those which make up inorganic materials. Yet somehow, properly arranged, they become life.

In this context, what does "life" really mean? We are still talking about particles acting in accordance with mechanical principles, about which we already know. Even human behavior, when viewed through the mechanism of neurons, might (at least theoretically) be fully explained without reference to "actual" qualia-- operational responsiveness to the environment might explain all.

Or look at evo-devo, specifically the way an organism assembles itself. Sure there is information in the DNA which seems determinative of what the organism becomes .. but how? Creating tissues and organs and systems are all pretty amazing. But it happens. I don't think we have any more to say about the fact of this phenomenon's existence than we do the fact of consciousness' existence, but we do have a much more detailed account for the sequence of steps necessary for a single cell to become a complex organism such as ourselves.

It's true that there are many mysteries.

One is a mystery because we have not finished a fully-refined inquiry into its mechanical nature. The other is a mystery because we don't understand why any kind of mechanism allows/requires it, and because we cannot even make mechanical observations to confirm its existence in specific systems.

The problem with mind is that it is "extra" if it is assumed to be a representation of brain function and nothing more. It's easy to see why a brain would develop the ability to process information from its environment and produce behaviors that would promote the promulgation of its DNA. It's easy to see why the human body would cry to relieve tension, or sigh in relief. It's not at all easy to see why any of these (purely mechanical) processes need the body to be a sentient agent with actual experience of qualia. Why evolve such a wondrous property when in theory a "dead" mechanical system should perform all the same functions?

It is for this reason that I believe consciousness is not evolved, but rather is intrinsic to the framework of the universe. If the universe has always existed, I would therefore expect mind always to have existed-- which eternal mind might be sensibled coined "god." If the universe was created, then because its framework has the capacity for experience, the seed for that capacity must have been there at the beginning-- which basically represents the X-tian view of creation.

[Whateverist]

The problem with mind is that it is "extra" if it is assumed to be a representation of brain function and nothing more. It's easy to see why a brain would develop the ability to process information from its environment and produce behaviors that would promote the promulgation of its DNA. It's easy to see why the human body would cry to relieve tension, or sigh in relief. It's not at all easy to see why any of these (purely mechanical) processes need the body to be a sentient agent with actual experience of qualia. Why evolve such a wondrous property when in theory a "dead" mechanical system should perform all the same functions?

Sense data and its interpretation is a pretty common life function and also seems to lie at the very heart of what we experience as qualia and consciousness. From there, it doesn't seem too great a leap to see self awareness, strategic planning, cooperation and communication as adaptions. It isn't a slam dunk and you're certainly welcome to go on thinking qualia is something seeded into the universe by a galactic entity with qualities beyond our imagining. But I'm not tempted to follow you.

The only quality of consciousness which you might think still qualifies as a mysterious extra could be sapience and what seems to be an ability to reflect and change course consciously against what otherwise might be our immediate inclination. But even that would have obvious survival value and seemingly just an accentuation of other features of being a creature with perceptual, cognitive awareness.

[Angrboda]

"Cerebral achromatopsia is a type of color-blindness caused by damage to the cerebral cortex of the brain, rather than abnormalities in the cells of the eye's retina."
~ Wikipedia

Cortical colour blindness is caused by brain damage to the ventro-medial occipital and temporal lobes. A possible explanation is that the pathway responsible for transmitting information about wavelength and its subsequent elaboration as colour has been destroyed at the cortical level. However, several signs of chromatic processing persist in an achromatopsic subject who, despite his inability to tell colours apart, can still detect chromatic borders, perceive shape from colour, and discriminate the direction in which a striped pattern moves when the determination of direction requires the viewer to ‘know’ which stripes have a particular colour. Perhaps only the information about wavelength that leads to conscious awareness of colour has been destroyed.

http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sci...%2901043-7 (italics mine)

Would it be useful to an organism to "know" the color of objects in its environment? Their shape? Their relative location?

[bennyboy]

The problem with mind is that it is "extra" if it is assumed to be a representation of brain function and nothing more. It's easy to see why a brain would develop the ability to process information from its environment and produce behaviors that would promote the promulgation of its DNA. It's easy to see why the human body would cry to relieve tension, or sigh in relief. It's not at all easy to see why any of these (purely mechanical) processes need the body to be a sentient agent with actual experience of qualia. Why evolve such a wondrous property when in theory a "dead" mechanical system should perform all the same functions?

Sense data and its interpretation is a pretty common life function and also seems to lie at the very heart of what we experience as qualia and consciousness. From there, it doesn't seem too great a leap to see self awareness, strategic planning, cooperation and communication as adaptions. It isn't a slam dunk and you're certainly welcome to go on thinking qualia is something seeded into the universe by a galactic entity with qualities beyond our imagining. But I'm not tempted to follow you.

The only quality of consciousness which you might think still qualifies as a mysterious extra could be sapience and what seems to be an ability to reflect and change course consciously against what otherwise might be our immediate inclination. But even that would have obvious survival value and seemingly just an accentuation of other features of being a creature with perceptual, cognitive awareness.

Yes, but there's awareness as a function, and awareness as the experience of qualia. If qualia is only the experience of brain function, then it is not adding anything to the evolutionary fitness of a species. The purely mechanical function of converting photons to patterns, and matching patterns to stored patterns, and producing behaviors, can be done by robots.

[The Grand Nudger]

It can, and even if there's some fundamental disconnect deep down where we can't see it (between function and qualia), we appear to utilize the same sorts of architecture that our own robots would to accomplish the task. Qualia may not be "advantageous" (I would disagree but give it to you for the sake of discussion).....but all of the hardware that seems to be -at least- associated -is- advantageous. It could be a bundle deal, or perhaps not - we don't know. We aren't required to know in order to attempt a scientific explanation.

Personally, I feel that separating experience from function makes "experience" a meaningless concept. The experience -is- a function (lacking a better explanation). But I have a bias, so, meh. Just what are we talking about if we put qualia in it's own little box? How could we apply any science to the contents of that box?

[bennyboy]

"Cerebral achromatopsia is a type of color-blindness caused by damage to the cerebral cortex of the brain, rather than abnormalities in the cells of the eye's retina."
~ Wikipedia

Cortical colour blindness is caused by brain damage to the ventro-medial occipital and temporal lobes. A possible explanation is that the pathway responsible for transmitting information about wavelength and its subsequent elaboration as colour has been destroyed at the cortical level. However, several signs of chromatic processing persist in an achromatopsic subject who, despite his inability to tell colours apart, can still detect chromatic borders, perceive shape from colour, and discriminate the direction in which a striped pattern moves when the determination of direction requires the viewer to ‘know’ which stripes have a particular colour. Perhaps only the information about wavelength that leads to conscious awareness of colour has been destroyed.

http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sci...%2901043-7 (italics mine)

Would it be useful to an organism to "know" the color of objects in its environment? Their shape? Their relative location?

Not sure if you're responding to what whateverist and I are talking about, or to the general idea of beauty as an idea of evolutionary significance.

There are lots of document effects like the one you are talking about: loss of left-right integration in split-brain experiments, loss of ability to recognize faces, etc., that result from damage to very specific brain parts.

---

It can, and even if there's some fundamental disconnect deep down where we can't see it (between function and qualia), we appear to utilize the same sorts of architecture that our own robots would to accomplish the task. Qualia may not be "advantageous" (I would disagree but give it to you for the sake of discussion).....but all of the hardware that seems to be -at least- associated -is- advantageous. It could be a bundle deal, or perhaps not - we don't know. We aren't required to know in order to attempt a scientific explanation.

No doubt the functions are highly advantageous. However, IF qualia is only the subjective experience of brain functions, then qualia isn't actually doing anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

And? Exhaust steam isn't "doing anything" either, even if the steam engine is doing work. Amusingly, we seem to be as unaware of what our brain is doing as the steam is of the engine which produced it.

[bennyboy]

And? Exhaust steam isn't "doing anything" either, even if the steam engine is doing work. Amusingly, we seem to be as unaware of what our brain is doing as the steam is of the engine which produced it.

Exhaust steam is totally doing something. It's moving, expanding, and transfering energy. It can be measured and controlled. The steam is an entity separate from other parts of the engine function. Consciousness as qualia is not considered separate in any way from the brain functions responsible for the processing of information from the environment.

[Whateverist]

Would it be useful to an organism to "know" the color of objects in its environment? Their shape? Their relative location?

Certainly it would if you like your fruit ripe, or are looking for a sexual display of a certain color, or require color vision to spot a predator in time. Consciousness for the win.