On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

This topic is an offshoot from another thread which was on another topic altogether.

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

I wouldn't pass judgements. My biggest question is why you have a brain type that is willing to jump into the unknown with some assurance, while I seem to have a brain type that doesn't. If I don't know, I leave it at not knowing.

I don't think it comes down to just the brain alone. I think there are many other factors involved. Clearly even from a secular point of view it is recognize that the brain "evolves" as we grow as individuals based much on how we experience life, etc.

For example the very concept of the "unknown" may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. I mean, sure we could get out a dictionary and look up the term, but that really wouldn't help much because what you believe you know and what I believe I know are going to clearly be two different things. Especially considering my last sentence of the above paragraph. Our knowledge and beliefs evolve in our own brains based upon our own experiences, which clearly are not going to be the same experiences.

Consciousness: I don't know of any scientist that makes his or her living studying it who declares they know what it is.

This is true, but there may be quite a few scientists who feel like Daniel Dennett. Even though he is just a philosopher.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

End of copy and paste

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

[Goat]

So, you believe that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity. That is a clear claim that you think the mind is immaterial.

But it's not, property dualists, such as Thomas Nagel, argue that consciousness cannot be reduced to physical brain activity, while the evidence dictates that it doesn't exist separately as an immaterial entity either.

He argues that.. Yet.. can he provide any experiment that shows otherwise? No, he can not. That's because he is a philosopher, and suffers from "I don't need evidence to make claims"


If you say there is something more to consciousness that the actions in the brain, show a way to show that.

[scourge99]

So, you believe that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity. That is a clear claim that you think the mind is immaterial.

But it's not, property dualists, such as Thomas Nagel, argue that consciousness cannot be reduced to physical brain activity, while the evidence dictates that it doesn't exist separately as an immaterial entity either.

He argues that.. Yet.. can he provide any experiment that shows otherwise? No, he can not. That's because he is a philosopher, and suffers from "I don't need evidence to make claims"


If you say there is something more to consciousness that the actions in the brain, show a way to show that.

Instantc also doesn’t claim to be a property dualist even though he argues on behalf of them all the time. His personal position is apparently a secret so he can constantly move the goal posts.

[instantc]

So, you believe that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity. That is a clear claim that you think the mind is immaterial.

But it's not, property dualists, such as Thomas Nagel, argue that consciousness cannot be reduced to physical brain activity, while the evidence dictates that it doesn't exist separately as an immaterial entity either.

He argues that.. Yet.. can he provide any experiment that shows otherwise? No, he can not. That's because he is a philosopher, and suffers from "I don't need evidence to make claims"


If you say there is something more to consciousness that the actions in the brain, show a way to show that.

Instantc also doesn’t claim to be a property dualist even though he argues on behalf of them all the time. His personal position is apparently a secret so he can constantly move the goal posts.

I change my exact views from day to day, often as a consequence of the arguments I read here. For example, when I came to this forum I thought that material dualism would be somewhat plausible, but after our conversation and some independent reading I came to the conclusion that it's just wishful thinking. I then wanted to discus some of Nagel's arguments earlier, but instead of a proper responses most people rule them out as 'idiotic thought experiments' that don't carry any weight in the real world. I don't have strong convictions, because there are plausible arguments for both sides.

[scourge99]

So, you believe that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity. That is a clear claim that you think the mind is immaterial.

But it's not, property dualists, such as Thomas Nagel, argue that consciousness cannot be reduced to physical brain activity, while the evidence dictates that it doesn't exist separately as an immaterial entity either.

He argues that.. Yet.. can he provide any experiment that shows otherwise? No, he can not. That's because he is a philosopher, and suffers from "I don't need evidence to make claims"


If you say there is something more to consciousness that the actions in the brain, show a way to show that.

Instantc also doesn’t claim to be a property dualist even though he argues on behalf of them all the time. His personal position is apparently a secret so he can constantly move the goal posts.

I change my exact views from day to day, often as a consequence of the arguments I read here. For example, when I came to this forum I thought that material dualism would be somewhat plausible, but after our conversation and some independent reading I came to the conclusion that it's just wishful thinking. I then wanted to discus some of Nagel's arguments earlier, but instead of a proper responses most people rule them out as 'idiotic thought experiments' that don't carry any weight in the real world. I don't have strong convictions, because there are plausible arguments for both sides.

So what is your position on property dualism? Materialism? You seem to argue for property dualism on every thread this subject comes up on. And i don't think I've ever seen you argue for materialism. From my observations it's quite clear you've got strong convictions on the topic, contrary to your statement above.


Perhaps you can understand the frustration of trying to debate someone who claims to not have any particular position when cornered by difficult questions but then seems to always argue the same position.

[JohnA]

And here you come and deny that you made this claim, by offering an argument from authority.

I didn't offer an argument from authority, I stated a fact regarding Thomas Nagel's position

Not only that, you contradict yourself saying immaterial is an entity and can have evidence.

I didn't say this or anything remotely like this

Can you elaborate about this evidence that dictates that it doesn't exist separately as an immaterial entity?

Not interested, that has been talked through many times in this thread

Who and when was the immaterial discovered to be an entity?

I didn't say that "the immaterial" has been discovered "to be an entity".

I thought entities are material by nature? Who discovered the immaterial and when?

I didn't say that anybody has discovered an immaterial entity, nor did I say that they exist.

Well done. It has been fun, but this is my last response to you.

So, if you did not offer an argument of authority you offered a red herring (someone else says what you try to "prove").

I can understand why you say this is your last repose to me. When shown your fallacies you blame it on someone else, refusing to address the post I made to YOU. Well, I guess a red herring is a way to end it.

The irony is that you still haven not addressed my post, nor have you evidenced your claim that the consciousness is is immaterial or your claim of:

Notice that I have presented reasons to believe that the mind cannot be reduced to physical activity.

Your projection that you do not believe that I pointed out your disbelieve in your own writings is a belief stemmed from ignorance is fallacious.

Please do not make claims if you can not back it up. And if you can not, why not just admit?

[instantc]

So what is your position on property dualism? Materialism? You seem to argue for property dualism on every thread this subject comes up on. And i don't think I've ever seen you argue for materialism. From my observations it's quite clear you've got strong convictions on the topic, contrary to your statement above.

My best guess is that materialism of the brain is true in one way or another, but I am not fully convinced, since there are also seemingly good arguments for property dualism that haven't been properly answered. So my position is really one of uncertainty.

[keithprosser3]

Materialism and property dualism are effectively the same thing so what's the problem?

[keithprosser3]

Materialism and property dualism are effectively the same thing so what's the problem?

[instantc]

Materialism and property dualism are effectively the same thing so what's the problem?

That's what I'm often wondering as well. We all agree that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. My question is whether mental events can be reduced to the physical brain activity that we observe. I don't even know how to approach this question scientifically, nor have I ever heard of anyone trying. I think this is a conceptual problem that belongs to the field of philosophy.

[JohnA]

Materialism and property dualism are effectively the same thing so what's the problem?

That's what I'm often wondering as well. We all agree that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. My question is whether mental events can be reduced to the physical brain activity that we observe. I don't even know how to approach this question scientifically, nor have I ever heard of anyone trying. I think this is a conceptual problem that belongs to the field of philosophy.

How can this belong to philosophy since I have shown your argument from authority wrong?

How can philosophy solve this? They have been at the morality for thousands of years and still nothing; because they reject empirical observation / tests.
It seem to me you keep on hammering the same thing, and actually what you are trying to argue is that philosophy is a better way to find how things work versus science. -> That is your ultimate goal, your unpublished agenda; you are arguing for philosophy, arguing against science. You are wrong. Deal with it, and stop with this drivel.


s