On naturalism and consciousness

[Surgenator]

Here's my problem with looking for the fundaments of consciousness in anything larger than the most fundamental particles: how do flowing electrons "know" as they flow through a transistor that they are representing data? Would you say that every eddy and whirl of river water represents a "gate" condition right at that point where a single current splits? How about a crack in a rock which splits one way or the other depending on slight variations in temperature? Is it doing a super-advanced environmental calculation, or is it just random stuff that happened?
...
The last question is whether ALL actions at the QM level are logical decisions, or just "stuff happening." And I think this brings us back to a philosophical decision-- is something data only if we call it so?

For the love all things rational, stop spreading your misrepresentation of physics. You clearly don't know how electricity works and definetly not QM.

[pocaracas]

I think the great unknown in this discussion is how a brain goes from a gazillion "gates" to a thought.
I doubt the gates are at some sub-particle level. I'd put them at the axon level, but I can't be sure... and I also seriously doubt those would be standard digital logic gates... more like "Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output"gates, with multiple levels in each of the multiple outputs...

[bennyboy]

Here's my problem with looking for the fundaments of consciousness in anything larger than the most fundamental particles: how do flowing electrons "know" as they flow through a transistor that they are representing data? Would you say that every eddy and whirl of river water represents a "gate" condition right at that point where a single current splits? How about a crack in a rock which splits one way or the other depending on slight variations in temperature? Is it doing a super-advanced environmental calculation, or is it just random stuff that happened?
...
The last question is whether ALL actions at the QM level are logical decisions, or just "stuff happening." And I think this brings us back to a philosophical decision-- is something data only if we call it so?

For the love all things rational, stop spreading your misrepresentation of physics. You clearly don't know how electricity works and definetly not QM.

So have we officially moved on to the trolling phase of this thread? Are you going to call me a poo-poo face and make fun of me with hilarious meme pictures?

If you think that my understanding of QM is insufficient in the context of this argument, go ahead and set me straight. Explain the difference between gates at the macro level and events at the quantum level. Or, since you know so much more than me, let's head to 1-vs-1 debate, and you can bring the details of your apparently much-superior mechanical theory of mind. I doubt you'll do that, though, since you said:

In physical monism, a mind is not necessary. So it is not required to prove how a mind arises.

As for me, I don't claim to have all the answers, but there are many layers and levels involved in the mind, whatever philosophical perspective you take on it, and in my opinion each of them is worth discussing in turn.

---

I think the great unknown in this discussion is how a brain goes from a gazillion "gates" to a thought.
I doubt the gates are at some sub-particle level. I'd put them at the axon level, but I can't be sure... and I also seriously doubt those would be standard digital logic gates... more like "Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output"gates, with multiple levels in each of the multiple outputs...

Well, that's a tricky one. In mechanical terms, a picture of some neurons should let us see pretty readily that what you're saying is correct. (rat neurons)



But I'm not sure rhythm is necessarily referring only to digital logic. Wouldn't an analog comparator with multiple inputs still be a kind of gate?

My question is still this: what separates any complex physical process, which necessarily can be seen as having inputs and outputs, from an official, mind-producing "gate"?

[Whateverist]

My question is still this: what separates any complex physical process, which necessarily can be seen as having inputs and outputs, from an official, mind-producing "gate"?

Uh .. the flesh and blood mind asking the question? The effrontery of the human mind and its attempts to tell reality how it must work never ceases to amaze me.

[bennyboy]

My question is still this: what separates any complex physical process, which necessarily can be seen as having inputs and outputs, from an official, mind-producing "gate"?

Uh .. the flesh and blood mind asking the question? The effrontery of the human mind and its attempts to tell reality how it must work never ceases to amaze me.

Could you please elaborate a little more? This sentence interests me, but I don't want to misunderstand you.

[Surgenator]

For the love all things rational, stop spreading your misrepresentation of physics. You clearly don't know how electricity works and definetly not QM.

If you think that my understanding of QM is insufficient in the context of this argument, go ahead and set me straight. Explain the difference between gates at the macro level and events at the quantum level. Or, since you know so much more than me, let's head to 1-vs-1 debate, and you can bring the details of your apparently much-superior mechanical theory of mind.

If you want argue about a physical explanation of the mind, Rythm is more informed than myself. If you want to argue about QM or basic science, bring it on.

[bennyboy]

If you think that my understanding of QM is insufficient in the context of this argument, go ahead and set me straight. Explain the difference between gates at the macro level and events at the quantum level. Or, since you know so much more than me, let's head to 1-vs-1 debate, and you can bring the details of your apparently much-superior mechanical theory of mind.

If you want argue about a physical explanation of the mind, Rythm is more informed than myself. If you want to argue about QM or basic science, bring it on.

I want to talk about about whether QM events can be considered in Rhythm's gate-based model of mind, and whether my idea that all energetic exchanges may be said to involve a kind of fundamental "mind stuff"-- i.e. single-substance, dual-property physico-idealism, is compatible with his view. If you have something useful to say about QM in this context, which I don't know, then I'm all ears, and I'll swallow my pride and learn something.

[pocaracas]

My question is still this: what separates any complex physical process, which necessarily can be seen as having inputs and outputs, from an official, mind-producing "gate"?

A "gate"?
It seems that's your greatest hurdle, here... one single "gate", one single neuron can't do much more than react to some input. Perhaps insects and other very small animals operate like this... a particular sensory input triggers a handful of neurons which result in a particular response.

Like it's been said too often in this thread (and other like it) a thinking mind is probably an emergent property of many, many, many, many such "gates" working together. Instead of a direct trigger from sensory "data" to action, we have several intermediary steps which aid in the decision to act... some don't even lead to any action...

[bennyboy]

Like it's been said too often in this thread (and other like it) a thinking mind is probably an emergent property of many, many, many, many such "gates" working together. Instead of a direct trigger from sensory "data" to action, we have several intermediary steps which aid in the decision to act... some don't even lead to any action...

This opens up a lot of questions. For example, would a boolean "on" qualify as an idea, and would a cascade following such an idea be called thinking?

As for emergence, I'd start pulling out gates one by one, and look for that critical mass at which processing could no longer be called mind. Is there really such a line, or is it purely arbitrary? My own take would be that if gates are mind, then a single gate would be the "atomic" element of mind, though it would no more resemble a human mind than a photon resembles a human brain. In other words, I wouldn't describe a human mind as being supervenient on the brain; I'd describe mental elements as being supervenient on (or equivalent to) the simplest gates, and the human mind as being super-supervenient on those elements.

[The Grand Nudger]