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.

[instantc]

It might be the argument from Descartes, but it sill is a logical fallacy to say there is when we have no evidence for it. And, that is the argument from ignorance.. no matter who said it.

Lets make one thing clear, I don't like throwing out these accusations of random fallacies, as if that would make your posts somehow better. Argument from ignorance is simply put an argument that uses something that we don't know as a founding premise. This has nothing to do with the indivisibility argument, premises of which state that physical entities can be divided to parts and that minds cannot be. That's also what olavisjo suggested, that there can't be such thing as half a thought or half a consciousness.

The evidence we have that 'if we organize phyiscal matter correctly', it becomes self aware is that in all the cases we see self awareness, we see a certain complexity and pattern to the brain, and if this pattern gets disrupted, awareness goes away.

That's a complete non-sequitur, I have no idea how the fact that damaging the brain damages the mind is supposed to show that the mind is a physical entity with purely physical properties. Only thing I have to say is please make better arguments. I have seen good debating on the issue and quite convincing arguments for the brain/mind materialism in the other threads of this forum, I suggest you do some searching and take a look at those.

[Goat]

It might be the argument from Descartes, but it sill is a logical fallacy to say there is when we have no evidence for it. And, that is the argument from ignorance.. no matter who said it.

Lets make one thing clear, I don't like throwing out these accusations of random fallacies, as if that would make your posts somehow better. Argument from ignorance is simply put an argument that uses something that we don't know as a founding premise. This has nothing to do with the indivisibility argument, premises of which state that physical entities can be divided to parts and that minds cannot be. That's also what olavisjo suggested, that there can't be such thing as half a thought or half a consciousness.

The evidence we have that 'if we organize phyiscal matter correctly', it becomes self aware is that in all the cases we see self awareness, we see a certain complexity and pattern to the brain, and if this pattern gets disrupted, awareness goes away.

That's a complete non-sequitur, I have no idea how the fact that damaging the brain damages the mind is supposed to show that the mind is a physical entity with purely physical properties. Only thing I have to say is please make better arguments. I have seen good debating on the issue and quite convincing arguments for the brain/mind materialism in the other threads of this forum, I suggest you do some searching and take a look at those.

You don't?? The brain has to be orgianized in a specific manner to be aware. When it is not organized in that fashion, we are not aware.

A conclusion is that 'The matter consisting of the brain has to be in a specific pattern to be aware'... which leads to the conclusion that 'Matter is specific arrangements might be aware.

[instantc]

The brain has to be orgianized in a specific manner to be aware. When it is not organized in that fashion, we are not aware.

Agreed.

A conclusion is that 'The matter consisting of the brain has to be in a specific pattern to be aware'...

Yes.

which leads to the conclusion that 'Matter is specific arrangements might be aware.

I don't understand what this means. What has this got to do with the initial claim that consciousness is purely a physical property?

[Ooberman]

.

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

Good point, if there were no 'I', then all of my thoughts would be unconscious. But that is not the case, so there is an 'I' inside of me, and that 'I' can't be material the way we understand matter and energy.

Why not? Please explain your position. You are making a claim that "I can't be material the way we understand matter and energy".


Why not?

Imagine a 3-D printer that prints on the atomic level. And you began to slowly assemble a human brain. At what point would it become self aware? Would you add one atom to the trillions and suddenly the brain would cry out "I am alive!" Or would it become self aware gradually. Then what would it mean to be 50% self aware? "I sort of know that I exist but I am not entirely certain!"

I see no reason to think that self awareness is a property of matter and energy.

Argument from ignorance. We don't know how it happened, but we can be sure that if we printed it correctly, it would happen.

This is not an argument from ignorance. It's the indivisibility argument for the immateriality of the mind, put forward by Descartes, and appreciated by the elite of the philosophic community today.

You on the other hand are begging the question, how exactly can you be sure that if we organized physical matter correctly, it would become self-aware? You are presupposing what you are intending to prove.

How can a bunch of molecules become a tree? I can't understand it! It must be magic!

How can a bunch of atoms become a car? It's too much!

It seems completely rational to think an exact copy of a brain would operate as a brain, just as an exact copy of a car would operate as a car.

[Ooberman]

The brain has to be orgianized in a specific manner to be aware. When it is not organized in that fashion, we are not aware.

Agreed.

A conclusion is that 'The matter consisting of the brain has to be in a specific pattern to be aware'...

Yes.

which leads to the conclusion that 'Matter is specific arrangements might be aware.

I don't understand what this means. What has this got to do with the initial claim that consciousness is purely a physical property?

It was very clear to me. Why are we talking past each other?

It really seems you guys have dug in your heels on your position. We are explaining our view and you keep offering "something else".

Perhaps we should hear your version of how things work since we obviously aren't convincing you?

Also, if you've heard better arguments, why not address them here? It's called Philosophical Charity. If we mention something that doesn't move you, mention the thing that did.

Otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels.

[Ooberman]

A possible hurdle with Dualists seems to be the idea that there is an Emperor, or that we are observing our thoughts.

I think this is simply a way of thinking they need to change to understand our position.

Think of it this way: Your brain is the observer and consciousness. You are front and center in observing your life. you don't float above, or float somewhere watching your body. You are your body, thoughts, brain etc.

All the data your senses receive are directly assessed by your brain. Some of them become thoughts that you may or may not be aware of. Some of them may even be regulated within your brain.


We have explained our position, Dennett has (the video in the OP), and instanc has alluded to even better arguments for our position.

I think it's time for the arguments for the other side. Personally, I'm getting tired of the arguments from ignorance.

[instantc]

How can a bunch of molecules become a tree? I can't understand it! It must be magic!

How can a bunch of atoms become a car? It's too much!

Who has made that argument regarding the mind here? Nobody. Quit straw manning, and respond to the argument olavisjo put forward, that the mind cannot be a physical property, since it cannot be divided in parts, as there is no such thing as half a thought or half a consciousness.

It seems completely rational to think an exact copy of a brain would operate as a brain, just as an exact copy of a car would operate as a car.

That's not a relevant question though, the question on the table is whether the consciousness is a physical property of the brain or not. So far you haven't made any arguments to suggest that it is, you just keep asserting it.

[instantc]

It really seems you guys have dug in your heels on your position. We are explaining our view and you keep offering "something else".

Perhaps we should hear your version of how things work since we obviously aren't convincing you?

Otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels.

This is what theists usually say to atheists, e.g. if you don't believe my explanation, offer a better one. Just like atheists are rejecting the claim that God exists, I am rejecting your claim that the mind is a physical property of the brain, as you haven't showed it to be the case.

So far I haven't asserted anything that I should back up, I haven't even represented 'the other side'. I have merely criticized you for not properly backing up your assertion that the mind is a physical property of the brain.

We have explained our position, Dennett has (the video in the OP), and instanc has alluded to even better arguments for our position.

I think it's time for the arguments for the other side. Personally, I'm getting tired of the arguments from ignorance.

There are certainly good arguments for the brain/mind materialism out there, user Scourge99 makes some good points in this thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

On the other side there are conceptual arguments, such as the conceivability argument. The mind and the brain seem to be categorically different, which would suggest that one cannot be reduced to the other. The law of identity dictates that if it is logically possible for A to exist without B, then concept A in fact is not identical to B. Now, Descartes and many others have wrote lengthy books to show that it is logically possible for the mind to exist independently from the brain (note that nobody is claiming that this would be actually possible, merely a logical possibility). If that is true, then it is illogical to hold that properties of the mind, such as pain, would in fact be merely fibres and neurons firing in the brain. In my opinion material dualism (the one endorsed by theism) can be proved wrong quite conclusively. The middle ground, which makes an interesting case I think, holds that the mind is indeed an emergent property of the brain, but that it is not a physical property.

[Divine Insight]

The brain has to be orgianized in a specific manner to be aware. When it is not organized in that fashion, we are not aware.

A conclusion is that 'The matter consisting of the brain has to be in a specific pattern to be aware'... which leads to the conclusion that 'Matter is specific arrangements might be aware.

Allow me, if you will, to totally agree with your observations here and still hold that this does not reduce my position one iota.

You claim that our awareness is caused by, or is the result of, matter in specific arrangements.

Fine. Let's say that I totally agree with this. The question then still remains, "What is it that is actually aware of anything?"

Well, you might say, "Well obviously is the specific arrangement of matter that is aware".

Ok, fine. Then when you pass out that arrangement is gone. Thus "you" are gone where this "you" refers to your conscious awareness.

Now when you reawaken "you" begin to be conscious again. This happens when you pass out, it also happens when you go to sleep and aren't dreaming, etc.

It even happens if you are to have amnesia. You black out, and become aware again, only this time you can't even remember that you had previously been aware. Yet it is still you that is having an experience.

In other words, all you are is this conscious experience that is created when matter comes together in a certain arrangement.

But now we have the extremely mystical question?

What then is the difference between your conscious awareness and mine?

Nothing.

Now you might say, "Well sure there's a difference, your brain isn't configured precisely the same as mine so we are having different experiences?"

But I say, "So what?" How does this change the you that is having this experience?

It's just like in the case of amnesia. It's still the same you even when you can't remember what experiences you had had before.

In other words, every conscious awareness in the universe would be the very same thing.

Moreover, just like with amnesia where the physical arrangement of matter blacks out (consciousness goes away temporarily) and then returns when conditions are right again, why can't this same thing occur between bodies?

In other words, when you die and your brain no longer serves as a valid arrangement of consciousness, but a new baby is born that does have a brain that serves as a valid arrangement of consciousness. Why wouldn't that you in the baby be the same you that had existed in the previous brain in a previous life.

In other words, what would make any consciousness "unique" if your model is true?

Consciousness would be like electrons. No two electrons are different. No two consciousnesses can be different.

Therefore every consciousness is ultimately the same you. Even the ones that are existing simultaneously with time.

In other words, every person you talk to is basically this same "You".

Whatever you do to the least of your brethren you do to yourself.

Because conscious awareness is a property of the configuration of spacetime and matter just as you have suggested. Therefore, ultimately, it is spacetime and matter that is having this conscious experience.

The you ultimately belongs to the you-inverse of consciousness.

There are not "separate" yous. All yous are the same phenomenon.

They only seem separate because they keep popping up in different situations.

If you can be the you of this configuration, then there is no reason why you can't be the you of some other configuration.

So you've just explained scientifically how reincarnation works.

You've also explained why we are all ONE, and that anything you do unto the least of your brethren, you also do unto you.

[instantc]

The brain has to be orgianized in a specific manner to be aware. When it is not organized in that fashion, we are not aware.

A conclusion is that 'The matter consisting of the brain has to be in a specific pattern to be aware'... which leads to the conclusion that 'Matter is specific arrangements might be aware.

Allow me, if you will, to totally agree with your observations here and still hold that this does not reduce my position one iota.

You claim that our awareness is caused by, or is the result of, matter in specific arrangements.

Fine. Let's say that I totally agree with this. The question then still remains, "What is it that is actually aware of anything?"

Well, you might say, "Well obviously is the specific arrangement of matter that is aware".

Ok, fine. Then when you pass out that arrangement is gone. Thus "you" are gone where this "you" refers to your conscious awareness.

Now when you reawaken "you" begin to be conscious again. This happens when you pass out, it also happens when you go to sleep and aren't dreaming, etc.

It even happens if you are to have amnesia. You black out, and become aware again, only this time you can't even remember that you had previously been aware. Yet it is still you that is having an experience.

In other words, all you are is this conscious experience that is created when matter comes together in a certain arrangement.

But now we have the extremely mystical question?

What then is the difference between your conscious awareness and mine?

Nothing.

Now you might say, "Well sure there's a difference, your brain isn't configured precisely the same as mine so we are having different experiences?"

But I say, "So what?" How does this change the you that is having this experience?

It's just like in the case of amnesia. It's still the same you even when you can't remember what experiences you had had before.

In other words, every conscious awareness in the universe would be the very same thing.

Moreover, just like with amnesia where the physical arrangement of matter blacks out (consciousness goes away temporarily) and then returns when conditions are right again, why can't this same thing occur between bodies?

In other words, when you die and your brain no longer serves as a valid arrangement of consciousness, but a new baby is born that does have a brain that serves as a valid arrangement of consciousness. Why wouldn't that you in the baby be the same you that had existed in the previous brain in a previous life.

In other words, what would make any consciousness "unique" if your model is true?

Consciousness would be like electrons. No two electrons are different. No two consciousnesses can be different.

Therefore every consciousness is ultimately the same you. Even the ones that are existing simultaneously with time.

In other words, every person you talk to is basically this same "You".

Whatever you do to the least of your brethren you do to yourself.

Because conscious awareness is a property of the configuration of spacetime and matter just as you have suggested. Therefore, ultimately, it is spacetime and matter that is having this conscious experience.

The you ultimately belongs to the you-inverse of consciousness.

There are not "separate" yous. All yous are the same phenomenon.

They only seem separate because they keep popping up in different situations.

If you can be the you of this configuration, then there is no reason why you can't be the you of some other configuration.

So you've just explained scientifically how reincarnation works.

You've also explained why we are all ONE, and that anything you do unto the least of your brethren, you also do unto you.

Great post, my compliments.

I have also thought about this issue sometimes. Theoretically it would make sense to say that a person is new at every moment of time. But yet, even when we go through significant changes of character, we still identify ourselves as ourselves. One can change into an entirely different person within a few days, and yet he still has the same identity.

Why are me and you different persons, while the now me and the yesterday me are the same person, even though in both cases there is a distinction between two differently arranged conscious minds. Theoretically it could even be that me and you are more identical to each other than the now me and the yesterday me.

Suppose you lose a good friend. Would you still miss your friend, if an exact copy of that person would be brought to your life? Given that the body of the person you loved would still rot in the grave, technically you haven't got your friend back, but it would still be the same.