why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[Alan V]

Really?  You don't think that scientists have now proven, beyond a doubt, that brains generate consciousness?  You asked for specific scientific observations.  What about studies of how drugs affect consciousness, how brain injuries affect consciousness, how conscious states are correlated with brain states, and so on?  

I won't answer the rest of your very long post right now, because I don't want to provide too many distractions to a very simple question: how do you know that any physical system you are studying is conscious at all, without simply declaring it so by fiat?  What scientific observations can you make which demonstrate that such a thing as subjective experience exists at all, in any form, in the Universe?

Easy. We observe our conscious states in ourselves first of all. Then people tell us, all the time, what's going on inside their heads. We can even infer them in animals, by proxies. All of these things fall within the realm of scientific observations for certain sciences.

That robots can imitate humans and essentially lie about such states means nothing whatsoever to our evolved abilities.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse.  We first need to establish:
1)  That consciousness exists at all, in any form.
2)  That subjective experience actually DOES add any additional functionality to a complex processing mechanism without it.

I'm not going down your philosophical rabbit hole. We observe these things. Science is built on such observations. If you say such observations are illusory, you have the burden of proof for denying appearances.

---

What indicates to me that you have a problem with scientific consciousness studies is that you seem to be taking a reductionistic approach.  This is indicated by the way you frame your questions, like "How do electrochemical activities present themselves to us as experiences?"  In other words, you seem to want some simple answer to this question, when the answer must necessarily be very complex and discussed a bit at a time. You guys therefore seem impatient with a point-at-a-time approach.

Why do you think a complex answer will present itself? What bits can be assembled in a chain to lead us from electrochemical events to experiences? What point-at-a-time approach offers an answer to the question? 

We can find out various things about brain activity. We can find out various things about experience. Nobody's denying that. But the study of the realm of mental phenomena is not the study of electrochemical events in the brain. 

Because consciousness is an emergent property of very complex arrangements of matter, if you want to understand how it arises you have to study the particulars and how they work together, in the end, to produce it.

Here is my wife's analogy: Music doesn't exist in particular notes or instruments, it exists at an emergent level in the relationships between different notes played by different instruments at different times. You will never understand music if you study only single notes, but you won't understand it without that either.

[Dmitry1983]

I won't answer the rest of your very long post right now, because I don't want to provide too many distractions to a very simple question: how do you know that any physical system you are studying is conscious at all, without simply declaring it so by fiat?  What scientific observations can you make which demonstrate that such a thing as subjective experience exists at all, in any form, in the Universe?

Easy.  We observe our conscious states in ourselves first of all.  Then people tell us, all the time, what's going on inside their heads.  We can even infer them in animals, by proxies.  All of these things fall within the realm of scientific observations for certain sciences.

That robots can imitate humans and essentially lie about such states means nothing whatsoever to our evolved abilities.

What is evolutionary purpose of consciousness/subjective experience? Robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival

[bennyboy]

Easy.  We observe our conscious states in ourselves first of all.  Then people tell us, all the time, what's going on inside their heads.  We can even infer them in animals, by proxies.  All of these things fall within the realm of scientific observations for certain sciences.

That robots can imitate humans and essentially lie about such states means nothing whatsoever to our evolved abilities.

What is evolutionary purpose of consciousness/subjective experience? Robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival

This is the essence of the material monist problem:
(1)  Believe in a deterministic, mechanistic, objective monism.
(2)  Still say that subjective experience is important. Hint at some kind of evolutionary narrative, but don't bother to explain how subjective experience has anything to do with the behavior of the evolved system.

Unless someone can demonstrate substantial differences between subjective experiencing machines (e.g. brains) and non-subjective experiences machines (e.g. super-convincing androids 50 years from now), then there's a problem.

The first step would be-- demonstrate that subjective experience exists, anywhere and in any form, using purely objective observation (hint: it can't be done!)

---

---

I won't answer the rest of your very long post right now, because I don't want to provide too many distractions to a very simple question: how do you know that any physical system you are studying is conscious at all, without simply declaring it so by fiat?  What scientific observations can you make which demonstrate that such a thing as subjective experience exists at all, in any form, in the Universe?

Easy.  We observe our conscious states in ourselves first of all.  Then people tell us, all the time, what's going on inside their heads.  We can even infer them in animals, by proxies.  All of these things fall within the realm of scientific observations for certain sciences.

That robots can imitate humans and essentially lie about such states means nothing whatsoever to our evolved abilities.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse.  We first need to establish:
1)  That consciousness exists at all, in any form.
2)  That subjective experience actually DOES add any additional functionality to a complex processing mechanism without it.

I'm not going down your philosophical rabbit hole.  We observe these things.  Science is built on such observations.  If you say such observations are illusory, you have the burden of proof for denying appearances.

---

Why do you think a complex answer will present itself? What bits can be assembled in a chain to lead us from electrochemical events to experiences? What point-at-a-time approach offers an answer to the question? 

We can find out various things about brain activity. We can find out various things about experience. Nobody's denying that. But the study of the realm of mental phenomena is not the study of electrochemical events in the brain. 

Because consciousness is an emergent property of very complex arrangements of matter, if you want to understand how it arises you have to study the particulars and how they work together, in the end, to produce it.

Here is my wife's analogy: Music doesn't exist in particular notes or instruments, it exists at an emergent level in the relationships between different notes played by different instruments at different times.  You will never understand music if you study only single notes, but you won't understand it without that either.

---

You are making very many positive factual assertions.  What you aren't doing is demonstrating that any of your assertions are factually correct.

[Belacqua]

Because consciousness is an emergent property of very complex arrangements of matter, if you want to understand how it arises you have to study the particulars and how they work together, in the end, to produce it.

Here is my wife's analogy: Music doesn't exist in particular notes or instruments, it exists at an emergent level in the relationships between different notes played by different instruments at different times.  You will never understand music if you study only single notes, but you won't understand it without that either.

In Molière's play, the patient asks the doctor why the sleeping medicine works. The doctor says it works due to its "dormative property." The audience all laughed at this, because they knew that "it works because it has the property of working" wasn't really an explanation. 

"Electrochemical events in the brain are perceived by the subject as experiences because it's an emergent property and someday we'll know why that is" is about the same.

[bennyboy]

^

Even IF you think that consciousness is of the brain, exactly what level of organization it supervenes on matters. From smallest to largest, it could be that:
1) All energetic interchange allows for awareness. So every single release or reception of a photon or electron might be associated with a "subatomic spark of consciousness," so to speak.
2) The most essential awareness might supervene on the neuronal level-- which could mean that only organic systems can be conscious.
3) Any complex self-referential processing which models both the external environment and some kind of internal state could be conscious..
4) It could be that very specific functions, as seen in complex brains, must be all be represented in order to allow for consciousness.

Given the complexities of quantum mechanics, it seems not unreasonable to me to suppose that literally ALL matter may have the capacity to interact with its environment in a gnostic way, i.e. that there really is no separation of mind and matter at all, which would mean that mind is not actually a supervenient property, but rather a brute fact, a true peer to material existence.

[Angrboda]

Easy.  We observe our conscious states in ourselves first of all.  Then people tell us, all the time, what's going on inside their heads.  We can even infer them in animals, by proxies.  All of these things fall within the realm of scientific observations for certain sciences.

That robots can imitate humans and essentially lie about such states means nothing whatsoever to our evolved abilities.

What is evolutionary purpose of consciousness/subjective experience? Robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival

Evidence?

---

Unless someone can demonstrate substantial differences between subjective experiencing machines (e.g. brains) and non-subjective experiences machines (e.g. super-convincing androids 50 years from now), then there's a problem.

Are you seriously asking people to demonstrate something about a future event that hasn't happened yet and may never happen? That's the stupidest argument I've heard in a while.

[Dmitry1983]

What is evolutionary purpose of consciousness/subjective experience? Robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival

Evidence?

Evolutionists usually explain purpose of different traits in animals as consequence of survival of the fittest. Evidence is not enough.

---

Given the complexities of quantum mechanics, it seems not unreasonable to me to suppose that literally ALL matter may have the capacity to interact with its environment in a gnostic way, i.e. that there really is no separation of mind and matter at all, which would mean that mind is not actually a supervenient property, but rather a brute fact, a true peer to material existence.

Brain can simply be a transceiver.

[Angrboda]

What is evolutionary purpose of consciousness/subjective experience? Robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival

Evidence?

Evolutionists usually explain purpose of different traits in animals as consequence of survival of the fittest. Evidence is not enough.

I'm not going to comment on that as it's irrelevant to my request. What is your evidence that a robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival?

[Dmitry1983]

Evolutionists usually explain purpose of different traits in animals as consequence of survival of the fittest. Evidence is not enough.

I'm not going to comment on that as it's irrelevant to my request.  What is your evidence that a robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival?

By definition of p-zombie their behavior is identical to conscious humans. So from evolutionary point of view there is no need for subjective experience.

[Angrboda]

I'm not going to comment on that as it's irrelevant to my request.  What is your evidence that a robot-like p-zombie would be just as good at survival?

By definition of p-zombie their behavior is identical to conscious humans. So from evolutionary point of view there is no need for subjective experience.

Okay, that simply shifts the question without altering the substance any. What evidence do you have that a p-zombie would have behavior identical to humans? If you're simply defining a being to existence, then I'm not impressed. That would be nothing more than an assertion that a being without consciousness could have the same behavior as a conscious being, and is little more than begging the question. I'm interested in what evidence you have that a consciousness serves no function that would differentiate the behavior of a p-zombie from that of a conscious human being. Simply assuming that it serves no such function is pointless.