Mind Over Matter?

[emjay]

Not familiar with that one...but Lewis suffered from a sever case of god, for sure.  

Let me try to rephrase.

By saying:

"if it's something like 1" you've answered the question you then asked.  It may not be "something like 1"-granted....but if it is....then consciousness is explained.  What we don't know...is whether or not it's something like 1 - we do know that consciousness is not a problem...-if it is- something like 1.  Because "something like 1"....is an explanation of consciousness...however accurate or inaccurate it may be.

(I think that you're an incredible logic machine..btw.....it's just that being an incredible logic machine doesn't always translate to producing incredibly logical statements. :wink: )

-If consciousness is the visible part of a system - then yes, removing or altering the inputs matters.  If the machine is "doing consciousness" then there's no mystery as to why it's there, why it presents itself, or why we notice it.

LOL. In that case I hope it's not #1 cos that leaves little room for further intrigue - which is the fun part

Still not sure I understand your next point about the visible part of the system. I'm sorry, this must be frustrating for you

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that if consciousness is just the visible part of the system (as per #1) then any inputs are routed to the underlying hardware and processed there and their outputs presented in consciousness, but that these outputs would be the same whether the processing was done by the hardware or somehow in consciousness. But I'm not sure where unplugging the keyboard has come into it.

[Brian37]

Like a person in a coma?


That -is- language, from a systems standpoint.  The manner in which data is represented and communicated between systems and between parts within a system is language.   


It's definitely possible, think of hex.  Theres nothing about hex that a biological machine -couldn't- do.  I'd be surprised if our exact system of handling the data RE: color was quite that efficient or well managed - it;s something that arose, rather than something that was designed task specific.  I'd be willing to wager we use a ton of resources to do what a computer using hex does with very little.  Hell, even if one nueron could do it (and they look to be incredibly robust units)...I bet our wasteful biology would still throw untold numbers of nuerons at the problem.  How would it know any better..heheheh?

@Brian....I think that people just don;t like the way that sounds..alot of unspoken negative connotations.  A brain in motion is a pretty damned awesome thing...that one little intro "nothing more than" sours the soup..for some, it seems.  Being "nothing more than" a human brain is actually a pretty damn awesome thing to be - in context, imo.  Could've been a newt...still might end up one...if I piss off the wrong people.

I didn't really mean like a coma, because there is still experience in that state - dreams etc are not turning off the monitor, just depriving experience of external stimuli (IMO).

OK I stand corrected on your second point, it is a question of language.

What is a matter of language?

No one claims speed is separate from the car in tact and running when it is in motion. If they do they are idiots. 

Destroy the structure there is nothing to allow the process.

[bennyboy]

I don't disbelieve in the capactiy of a neural network to sustain consciousness.  I disbelieve that there is any function of human behavior that couldn't be replicated as well by a philosophical zombie as by an actually-sentient human being.  If the universe were purely a mechanical one, then there would be nothing but things doing stuff-- no consciousness required.  Therefore, I have to include that the possibility of sentience is intrinsically included in the makeup of the universe: i.e. that it's no less a part of reality than gravity.

And I claim that as soon as you implement these skills  as a neural network (as opposed to a hypothetical collection of prerecorded reactions), there is no such thing as a philosophical Zombie. What you call consciousness is simply what a brain with such skills looks like to itself. You hopelessly overrate how special consciousness is when you make it a fundamental principle of the universe. Or rather, you can declare that, but it makes no discernible difference

Pretty confident statement of material monism you have there.  And yet we are talking about something you can't see, interact with directly, or even prove conclusively that it exists anywhere.  Material monists don't normally spend time writing posts about things that they can neither see, nor are required to explain what can be seen. That you do talk about it seems to indicate that YOU think it's pretty special, too.

[emjay]

I see consciousness as being a highly conserved property of complex life probably
present in forms as diverse as cuttlefish, cats, parrots and humans.

It's common because it's useful.
Self preservation becomes much easier if self is recognized to be preserved.
Self awareness is a complex pattern in the brain used for self preservation, no
more surprising a construction of functional molecules than a leg
is when used for locomotion.
Your disbelief in the capacity of a neural network to sustain consciousness is
suspect given the brain's evident ability to do so.  

For a plausible meso-scale theory of how the brain creates consciousness I recommend Antonio Damasio:
The Feeling of What Happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damasio%27...sciousness
In it, human minds are constructed of:

1. Protoself: Where a representation of somatic internal status is maintained and continuously updated.
   
2. Core Consciousness: A second system which monitors this internal movie.  This system provides moment by moment awareness of self.
   
3. Extended Consciousness: A third system, involving long term storage, maintains continuity of self perception over time resulting in a personal history.
   

Even the least complex of these processes is significantly abstracted from the level of synaptic membrane permeability.  We'll have to trust to Moore's law a while before detailed connections between the lower and higher functions can be determined.  The BRAIN initiative is wildly ambitious like Bush's Mars program or the Human Genome Project.  We'll see if it is useless like the one or useful like the other.


This study is hampered by the extreme complexity of the systems and ethical concerns over experimentation on individuals with minds sophisticated enough to be interesting.  Damasios work is based on case studies of brain pathology and disciplines of neurophysiology, anatomy and histology.  Not so much on neural networks as studied by computer scientists. 

I think consciousness of one form or another is in all animals from the 'lowest' to the 'highest'. Nor have I any difficulty in believing that a non-biological machine could be conscious. I read somewhere but I can't remember where that it can almost be implied by the 'informational' complexity of the data being integrated, and that the 'richness' of consciousness could be mathematically 'predicted' based on that. That theory really struck a chord with me.

I agree also that it is common, useful, and preserved through evolution. But my question in this thread is not whether it exists or not but whether it needs to have a 'visible' (or 'experiential') aspect in order to work... whether all its features could be handled 'under the hood' so to speak.

I'll definitely give the book you suggest a read as it sounds right up my street

---

Mind over matter is retarded.  It is basically a pagan concept.

It states that the mind can overcome anything, yet reality contradicts that.

I didn't mean it like that. I don't believe in psychics or anything like that. But as much as I try to keep 'dualism' out of my theories it still always finds a way in, much to my annoyance.

---

What is mind? No matter!

What is matter? Never mind!

Or so they say...



@emjay

I don't agree with your dichotomy 1 vs. 2;
What is this consciousness which you are talking about? Can you give me a short definition?

I don't necessarily agree with it either any more - there's definitely more than two

Sorry about using so vague a term as consciousness. I mean more than sentience - just the 'qualia'... all of subjective experience.

---

I don't disbelieve in the capactiy of a neural network to sustain consciousness.  I disbelieve that there is any function of human behavior that couldn't be replicated as well by a philosophical zombie as by an actually-sentient human being.  If the universe were purely a mechanical one, then there would be nothing but things doing stuff-- no consciousness required.  Therefore, I have to include that the possibility of sentience is intrinsically included in the makeup of the universe: i.e. that it's no less a part of reality than gravity.

Are you talking about Panpsychism? I have read a few books on that and the jury's still out for me but I have to say I am a biased against it for the reason that the particular form of consciousness in an animal (not that I can do anything but guess what other species experience) is very highly correlated with the brain and its functions. In other words it seems too brain/body specific to be universal.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL. In that case I hope it's not #1 cos that leaves little room for further intrigue - which is the fun part

Oh, I don't know..I find the successful, practical application of complicated and robust systems to be pretty damned intriguing.   For me, anyway, conceptualizing consciousness as the operation of a system doesn't diminish or increase the intrigue.  You are likely conceptualizing consciousness as a system of some sort as well (just a different system than the one I might) - why doesn't it remove the intrigue when you think about your system.....if it removes the intrigue when you think about mine?  

In all of this, it goes without saying that neither of our hopes are a reliable indicator of reality.  

Still not sure I understand your next point about the visible part of the system. I'm sorry, this must be frustrating for you

That when you ask "if its something like 1" the question..."why consciousness" becomes redundant....."consciousness exists because -it's- something like 1".   If you make the assumption, the question becomes meaningless in that context - ask and answered all at once.  That question "why consciousness" may be a problem for some other explanation, it isn't a problem for this one.  It's a good question, of course....just not one that fits into a scenario where that "if" is true.  

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that if consciousness is just the visible part of the system (as per #1) then any inputs are routed to the underlying hardware and processed there and their outputs presented in consciousness, but that these outputs would be the same whether the processing was done by the hardware or somehow in consciousness. But I'm not sure where unplugging the keyboard has come into it

The keyboard came in only to correct the analogy of consciousness to a computer.  As we continue.....you seem to be talking about location - regardless of inputs or outputs.  I don;t know that they'd be the same - unless the system of meaty bits and the system of consciousness bits were the same.   I don't expect a shovel to produce the same kind of drizzle of syrup on a cake as I expect from a spoon.  Different systems, different results.

OTOH, maybe they are similar systems, or maybe they produce a similar effect by dissimilar means.  I can only refer to what systems I see and how they accomplish things which we, when we do them, call consciousness or experience.  Maybe there is a "system of consciousness" separate from the brain, that'd be one hell of a way to waste a brain that we cashed all our chips in to develop.  Stranger than we can suppose...sometimes.

[emjay]

LOL. In that case I hope it's not #1 cos that leaves little room for further intrigue - which is the fun part

Oh, I don't know..I find the successful, practical application of complicated and robust systems to be pretty damned intriguing.   For me, anyway, conceptualizing consciousness as the operation of a system doesn't diminish or increase the intrigue.  You are likely conceptualizing consciousness as a system of some sort as well (just a different system than the one I might) - why doesn't it remove the intrigue when you think about your system.....if it removes the intrigue when you think about mine?  

In all of this, it goes without saying that neither of our hopes are a reliable indicator of reality.  

Still not sure I understand your next point about the visible part of the system. I'm sorry, this must be frustrating for you

That when you ask "if its something like 1" the question..."why consciousness" becomes redundant....."consciousness exists because -it's- something like 1".   If you make the assumption, the question becomes meaningless in that context - ask and answered all at once.  That question "why consciousness" may be a problem for some other explanation, it isn't a problem for this one.  It's a good question, of course....just not one that fits into a scenario where that "if" is true.  

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that if consciousness is just the visible part of the system (as per #1) then any inputs are routed to the underlying hardware and processed there and their outputs presented in consciousness, but that these outputs would be the same whether the processing was done by the hardware or somehow in consciousness. But I'm not sure where unplugging the keyboard has come into it

The keyboard came in only to correct the analogy of consciousness to a computer.  As we continue.....you seem to be talking about location - regardless of inputs or outputs.  I don;t know that they'd be the same - unless the system of meaty bits and the system of consciousness bits were the same.   I don't expect a shovel to produce the same kind of drizzle of syrup on a cake as I expect from a spoon.  Different systems, different results.

OTOH, maybe they are similar systems, or maybe they produce a similar effect by dissimilar means.  I can only refer to what systems I see and how they accomplish things which we, when we do them, call consciousness or experience.  Maybe there is a "system of consciousness" separate from the brain, that'd be one hell of a way to waste a brain that we cashed all our chips in to develop.  Stranger than we can suppose...sometimes.

What I meant by no more intrigue wasn't a dig at your theory or mine. I just meant that if it was #1 there was nowhere else to go with it if it was asked and answered in the same question. Another misunderstanding I think.
But what you say next is still very true: neither of our hopes is a reliable measure of reality. That's what I like about Atheism - IMO we are all equals.

So what exactly is your theory?

[The Grand Nudger]

Regarding consciousness?  Computational mind.  Not my theory, as it were, just the one with which I'm most familiar and the one with which I'm most comfortable.  Your number 1 (even if it was a mirror of pixie dust and fairy farts I;d be inclined to say that pixie dust and fairy farts were performing computation).  There would still be plenty of questions, plenty of things to wonder about and figure out (probably all the things you're wondering about).  Knowing, for example, that we have a comp mind - knowing that alone..being able to establish it - would leave most of the questions regarding mind as unanswered as they were before.  There are just a few that comp mind makes meaningless -if true-, is all.

Knowing that a car has an engine which runs on tiny little explosions doesn;t really exhaust the subject of car knowledge either, after all.

[Alex K]

And I claim that as soon as you implement these skills  as a neural network (as opposed to a hypothetical collection of prerecorded reactions), there is no such thing as a philosophical Zombie. What you call consciousness is simply what a brain with such skills looks like to itself. You hopelessly overrate how special consciousness is when you make it a fundamental principle of the universe. Or rather, you can declare that, but it makes no discernible difference

Pretty confident statement of material monism you have there.  And yet we are talking about something you can't see, interact with directly, or even prove conclusively that it exists anywhere. 

You (or the opponents of monism) seem to be claiming the separate existence of this thing called consciousness, not me. Burden of proof not on my side

Material monists don't normally spend time writing posts about things that they can neither see, nor are required to explain what can be seen.  That you do talk about it seems to indicate that YOU think it's pretty special, too.

It is sufficient reason to talk about it that we all seem to share a pervasive illusion that it's special in a metaphysical sense. It's not necessary to actually be special in order to talk about it.
Skeptics talk about ghosts because people believe they exist. That's not a tacit admission that they really do exist. That's a very stupid argument.

[JuliaL]

[

I think consciousness of one form or another is in all animals from the 'lowest' to the 'highest'. Nor have I any difficulty in believing that a non-biological machine could be conscious. I read somewhere but I can't remember where that it can almost be implied by the 'informational' complexity of the data being integrated, and that the 'richness' of consciousness could be mathematically 'predicted' based on that. That theory really struck a chord with me.

I agree also that it is common, useful, and preserved through evolution. But my question in this thread is not whether it exists or not but whether it needs to have a 'visible' (or 'experiential') aspect in order to work... whether all its features could be handled 'under the hood' so to speak

I expect there will be arguments over the nature of consciousness even after the phenomenon has been exhaustively characterized, reproduced and even shared.  There are still arguments over the non/existence of the celestial beings that live in heavenly bodies and sing praises to God.  If Turing Church is correct and if brain function is computable, there should be no problem with simulating consciousness in a Turing complete machine (which we fundamentally have now, we just need bigger, faster ones) even if that takes a few trillion simulated neurons and their simulated support cells.  So far, there is no evidence that something other than wet chemistry is involved in the system under investigation.

Rather than 'coma' to describe a conscious person without I/O, I'd point to the (chilling) locked-in syndrome.  The best evidence that personhood continues during that condition comes from reports from people who've recovered.  It is possible that consciousness does disappear during this and the recollections of personal existence are actually from times around the fault rather than during the failure itself (like NDEs where faulty memories of being dead probably arise during the process of brain shutdown and reboot rather than during the flatline time.) Philosophers will continue to argue about the actual vs virtual existence of experience long after practical application of their conclusions have been mooted.  The ball exists?  The ball doesn't exist? The play is at second, throw the ball!

[emjay]

Regarding consciousness?  Computational mind.  Not my theory, as it were, just the one with which I'm most familiar and the one with which I'm most comfortable.  Your number 1 (even if it was a mirror of pixie dust and fairy farts I;d be inclined to say that pixie dust and fairy farts were performing computation).  There would still be plenty of questions, plenty of things to wonder about and figure out (probably all the things you're wondering about).  Knowing, for example, that we have a comp mind - knowing that alone..being able to establish it - would leave most of the questions regarding mind as unanswered as they were before.  There are just a few that comp mind makes meaningless -if true-, is all.

Knowing that a car has an engine which runs on tiny little explosions doesn;t really exhaust the subject of car knowledge either, after all.

If it is what it sounds like it doesn't sound much different from mine. I believe that consciousness is virtual reality software running in the brain. I'm just struggling over the somewhat pedantic question of where the processing takes place. For instance in your framework, when you make a decision is that decision really occurring in the neural networks of your brain and then being presented in your consciousness as a fait accompli albeit with the illusion of it being a free willed choice? That's what I believe because I am a (very) hard determinist. After all some studies show that there is a time delay between the intitiation of an action and our feeling of willing that action. The alternative is that the decision somehow occurs in consciousness and interfaces with the brain - that would be my #2.