On naturalism and consciousness

[stonedape]

Aren't we all over philosophising this whole concept a little too far.
Before you know it, we're going to start suggesting that we didn't evolve from apes!

The natural phenomenon called intelligence does have a negative side effect! this!

Knowing you're an ape is the fun part. We used to fling poop, now we fling the side effects of intelligence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why does that seem impossible? We can run a program that holds the same "belief" about curves and things that possess that attribute on a computer made of string. That's how seamstresses calculated firing solutions during WW2 and radio'd them to the front. Our brains and their chemistry are a bit more complicated than string based computers - so I fail to see why they couldn't contain the same.

[FallentoReason]

Ah, Rhythm my main man! Good to see you around this place again.

Well, what about the program tells you it's inherently a belief about curved spoons?

It isn't, inherently. It is a variable that can be defined, and then handled.

All I hypothetically see are pixels being lit up by electricity that just so happen to spell out possibly what would be a mathematical expression of a curved spoon,

Which is all -I- see with regards to our "beliefs" - "all" implies some sort of negative connotation - and I don;t want it to come across that way because I think it;s awesome that this is even possible, regrdless of whatever is doing "it"

of which would be completely meaningless

Hardly, p=spoons are curved is nothing -if not- a statement of what p means. It is entirely comprised of meaning..you might even call it...meangful :wink:

and void of any belief if it weren't for my hypothetical technical skills required to interpret said output i.e. an already conscious being is required in order to connect one set of particles to another in a fashion we would call "belief".

Hardly, unless you think that a string computer is conscious.

[Lucanus]

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Thoughts, beliefs and attitudes stem from the connections the neurons in your brain make after having an experience and consist of the flow of electrical charges in the brain. The brain is then capable of recalling past information by activating the same areas that were activated during the experience, thus creating memories.

Sure, but all we've ever been able to do is point to the parts of the brain responsible for certain aspects of our consciousness, such as the ones you've mentioned. But can you point to the area of the brain where you yourself exist, where your 'soul' resides?

I think that what we are, our "soul" as you call it, is the memories we have of what we were and what we have done. It's our past experiences that shape our present; it's our knowledge of the world that, intertwined with our ancestral instincts, makes us who we are.

I think that you saying that it's impossible for "particles to be about something " is arguing from ignorance. Of course we still don't know many important things about our brain and our consciousness, but there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical realm "pulling the strings" of our sentience. Saying that "it seems impossible" simply cuts the case clear and does not add anything to what we already know.

This topic reminds me of the time when organic chemistry was considered completely different from inorganic chemistry because most people believed it was impossible for atoms alone to form the complex lifeforms we know and postulated the existence of a "vital force" that made life itself possible. Guess what, the "vital force" didn't exist. Sometimes we like to think we are completely separated from the rest of the universe, don't we?

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, particles can clearly be "about something" or else computing would be impossible. Machine language and computational architecture depends upon particles having the ability to be "about something". Having something like programs, or services, or users (I would consider consciousness a service or user or program) enhances that capability, but even without any of those things a PCB is capable of "doing work" - of describing and then handling propositions. All you need to "do work" is an ALU and some inputs. It doesn't matter where those inputs come from, and it doesn't matter what the ALU is made out of, or how it's arranged. As such, it;s not conceptually impossible, or even conceptually difficult...for particles to be "beliefs".

[Angrboda]

I don't believe consciousness can be explained by way of a naturalistic account. Why? Because I don't think particles have it in them to act in such a way as to recreate what we mean by consciousness i.e. our thoughts, beliefs, attitudes etc.

Let's use an example; my belief that spoons are curved. So to make things easier, let's call this belief p. Now, how can we possibly arrange particles in such a way that they would express p? How could some physical arrangement *ever* describe p? I don't think it's possible to physically arrange particles in such a way that would then inherently possess the belief that other sets of particles - aka spoons - have the property of being curved.

The first thing to note is that what you have is an argument from ignorance. "I can't imagine X, therefore not X." This is a minor point, so let's move on.

I note that in many discussions, the meat of the argument rests on a specific theory of meaning. You may not think of it as such, but at bottom, this is a theory about how meaning works. In your theory, if I'm not misreading you, thoughts can "inherently" be about other things, but matter can never have this property of being "inherently" about something else. This reminds me a lot of William Lane Craig's argument about objective morality. His point is that the atheist cannot demonstrate objective morality without God. The question that matters though, is can he demonstrate objective morality with God? Likewise with you, I'd ask what you mean when you say thoughts are "inherently" about other things and how that business works, because I think you've assumed it uncritically. Presuming that you're not a Chinese speaker, suppose I teach you the phonemes "qū xiàn." When you think about it, they're not "inherently" about anything. But they translate as curved. What makes these phonemes not inherently "about" curved objects before I teach you its meaning? Once you've been taught their meaning, do they then magically have a new property that the thought of them in your mind is now "inherently about" curved things? In what way are thoughts "inherently about" things. Your theory of meaning doesn't only have to account for how matter is not inherently about things, it must also explain how thought is inherently about things. Until you can do that, you're left with the rather unsatisfying "it just is." If that's all the explanation you have, then I'd suggest that all you've done is push the question one step back. Like dualists who assert that souls "just do" have free will, what you've done is little more than beg the question. You've given a respectable sheen to your argument from ignorance; you've distracted your interlocutor from the fact that you lack as much in the theory of meaning department as she does.

I'll defer on laying out my theory of meaning just yet, other than to say that I think meaning is a property of systems, not isolated parts. So "qū xiàn" isn't inherently about curved objects, its meaning is a consequence of it being embedded in a system; the word itself has no meaning apart from the system. In short, nothing is "inherently" meaningful or inherently "about" something else. That's an illusion.

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Thoughts, beliefs and attitudes stem from the connections the neurons in your brain make after having an experience and consist of the flow of electrical charges in the brain. The brain is then capable of recalling past information by activating the same areas that were activated during the experience, thus creating memories.

Sure, but all we've ever been able to do is point to the parts of the brain responsible for certain aspects of our consciousness, such as the ones you've mentioned. But can you point to the area of the brain where you yourself exist, where your 'soul' resides?

I just want to point out that this is another argument from ignorance.

[Welsh cake]

Consciousness?

Its an illusion of millions and millions processes of perception and sensory experiences. Brain chemistry. That's all "we" are. Objectively speaking, there is no real "you" or "I", not within the chemical, physical or biological worlds.

But can you point to the area of the brain where you yourself exist, where your 'soul' resides?

Define soul.

[ignoramus]

Define soul.

That's easy!
It's a cracker you eat at church!

[Mudhammam]

but there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical realm "pulling the strings" of our sentience. Saying that "it seems impossible" simply cuts the case clear and does not add anything to what we already know.

But is Reason, not the cognitive exercise, but the very principles that cohere any Universe at all, physical phenomena? I don't think so... in fact it seems Reason is in some way a prerequisite for any empirical, intelligible experience.

[Lucanus]

To me, reason is just an instrument we have to make sense of an otherwise arational universe. It's us who give meaning to the world and find patterns in its chaos.
I really don't see why there should be a reason above and beyond the physical realm. All we know is that the (material) universe exists and it can be explained through reason.

Reason is surely inside our heads; we can't be sure it exists outside of them though.