On naturalism and consciousness

[Neo-Scholastic]

I said that mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Wow! how profound. Do you even know the difference between 'weaak' and 'strong' emergence? Did you know the term 'emergence' is over a hundred years old and still, still has no precise definition? You gave it a word and now you think you understand consciousness. You've only proved that you can cut-and-paste things of which you have no understanding. Your posts contribute nothing new.

[ShaMan]

When did you lose your faith, btw Shaman>?

Are you asking when I moved beyond religious belief, or does this question in some way have to do with consciousness and adherence to perception?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, nah, been watching your "religious views" tag.

[Surgenator]

In my view, the brain is the collection of neurons; the mind is the processes that run on those neurons. So a mind can exist on other mediums if we know what processes/algorithms need to run.

Re-reading the above has me wondering if we aren't ignoring something important in the nature of human consciousness, that is physical sensation as component of self-awareness. Any assertion that human consciousness can operate normally without sensory input can be described as somewhat absurd in the light of the effects of prolonged sensory deprivation upon the human mind/brain mechanism.

Here is my theory of how self awareness comes about. For the record, I'm not an expert on the brain or philosophy. In the brain, the mind accesses short term memory, long term memory, sensory information. Each access and interaction is stored in the short term memory, like a memory version of a log file. So when the mind accesses the memory log file, it can see what it recently processed. The mind can also see when it accessed the log file; hence, it knowns it accessed the log file. That is self awareness.

Also, long term sensory deprivation causes hallucinations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation

[The Grand Nudger]

Also, long term sensory deprivation causes hallucinations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation

Whatever the sensory apparatus may be observing is secondary to what the system assumes in order to do work. This is a CTM explanation, obviously. In the absence of (or even in the presence of) observational input, the system is capable -of- (and has an impetus -to-) "create" external "observations". There is no such thing as a "no state" computation. A state must be supplied or assumed for the system to do work. The blind, for example......are still capable of visualization (presuming they were not born blind). There is no sensory input from the relevant apparatus, only the assumption in order to do work. IIRC those born blind lack any analog for this experience. They are incapable of the assumption as it is not part (nor has it ever been) of their computational system. "Non-visual imagery" being their lot. They still make assumptions and create spatial "maps", but the contents of their experience is directly tied to their hardware (malfunctioning, in this case) and doesn't include sight.

More than one way to skin a cat, or input. Frankly, with just what we -do- know about qualia and how it can be manipulated it's beyond me to understand why anyone wonders whether or not mind and brain are interchangeable. Damaged brains lead to damaged minds - and they lead to damaged minds along the exact lines that the brain is damaged. Those born blind have absolutely no qualia related to sight, while those that become blind later in life can and do. The experience doesn't seem to be- related- to the apparatus...but entirely reliant upon it - and comprised of it. No apparatus, no qualia.

I did some sensory dep once as part of a training exercise, fucking horrifying (it's a common interrogation method).

I wonder if they've ever done sensory dep studies on those born blind? Do they have auditory and tactile hallucinations (sans visual)? LOL, I wouldn;t want to be the guy that administered that experiment, though, to be honest. LOL, depriving the blind of their remaining sensory input even for a moment - as someone who enjoys sight to begin with- sounds like torture. "So, Joe, I know the world is already a little dark for you - but I'm about to make it go pitch black - how does that sound?"

[MusicLovingAtheist]

Here's my philosophy. If I know something exists and I can observe it and experience it, I have faith in it's existence. Yes, I use the word faith here because I don't actually know how consciousness works. Experience tells me that things that are empirical aught to be scientific. Since you're saying that there cannot be a natural explanation for consciousness, that only leaves on other alternative - magic, god, superstition (one in the same kind of bullshit). I don't know what the fuck that philosophical mental gymnastics you said means about the spoon, but I think I already get where you are going with this just based off what you said about consciousness. The only way of explaining the world is scientific and even science can't explain everything. Everything else falls under the category of we don't know. Not magic.

[dissily mordentroge]

If mind is an emergent property of the brain, then there is no reason, in
principle, that mind could not be created from a non-living device.
This is the stance of "Strong AI".

To think otherwise requires either dualism or the idea that mind is inextricably tied to the biological brain.

I see no problem with the mind being inextricably tied to the biological brain. Possibly you're sub-consciously anticipating a technology ablt to transplant your mind into a non-biological entity after your demise thus attaining a form of immortality?
The stance of so called Strong AI invariably avoids the central problem of consciousness as I attempted to explain in my post.

[The Grand Nudger]

If consciousness is ultimately material in origin then such a technology probably isn't possible. You could conceivably create a substrate and set all of the "gates" (or whatever the hell they're made of) to the proper position to perfectly encapsulate a persons experience......but having done that, when said "you" wakes up......you'd still have the sticky business of getting rid of the old "you". The new "you" may not even realize this has occurred - but one of you will still be kicking the bucket. Immortality for the -individual- doesn't seem to be a possibility from this angle, though a sort of immortality for the data might be. But - imagining some future where this is possible.....personally, I don't think that I:

a- have enough going on to warrant this treatment (my experience is not of enough value to justify the effort)
b- give a shit whether or not some other -me- gets to live past me, or forever....fuck that guy.......and to hell with forever.....Take it away Freddie

---

....okay...Brian, don't be a bitch, you can have some credit too.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

---

[Chas]

I said that mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Wow! how profound. Do you even know the difference between 'weaak' and 'strong' emergence? Did you know the term 'emergence' is over a hundred years old and still, still has no precise definition? You gave it a word and now you think you understand consciousness. You've only proved that you can cut-and-paste things of which you have no understanding. Your posts contribute nothing new.

Did I claim to understand consciousness? No, so go fuck yourself.

I have quite a good understanding of emergence, thank you.

Suggested reading: The Mind's I: Fantasies And Reflections On Self & Soul, Douglas Hostadter and Daniel Dennet

---

If mind is an emergent property of the brain, then there is no reason, in
principle, that mind could not be created from a non-living device.
This is the stance of "Strong AI".

To think otherwise requires either dualism or the idea that mind is inextricably tied to the biological brain.

I see no problem with the mind being inextricably tied to the biological brain. Possibly you're sub-consciously anticipating a technology ablt to transplant your mind into a non-biological entity after your demise thus attaining a form of immortality?
The stance of so called Strong AI invariably avoids the central problem of consciousness as I attempted to explain in my post.

I don't have a problem with mind being inextricable from a biological brain except for the lack of a mechanism and the lack of evidence.

Possibly you're subconsciously masking your arrogance by using pseudo-psychology on people?

Strong AI doesn't avoid the problem of consciousness so much as assuming it emerges from complexity and interconnectedness.

[dissily mordentroge]

I don't have a problem with mind being inextricable from a biological brain except for the lack of a mechanism and the lack of evidence.
Possibly you're subconsciously masking your arrogance by using pseudo-psychology on people?

An extraordinary assumption given the paucity of evidence to hand.

Strong AI doesn't avoid the problem of consciousness so much as assuming it emerges from complexity and interconnectedness.

Chas, making such an assumption could be considered a form of unconscious masking in itself.