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.

[Divine Insight]

Moved to a new thread

Why Cantor's Diagonalization Proof is Flawed

[olavisjo]

.

Here is a Youtube video, under 10 minutes, of Cantor's diagonalization argument.

One to one correspondence between positive integers and real numbers between 0 and 1.

1 - 0.0
2 - 0.1
3 - 0.2
...
10 - 0.9
11 - 0.00
12 - 0.01
13 - 0.02
...
20 - 0.09
21 - 0.10
22 - 0.11
23 - 0.12
...
110 - 0.99
111 - 0.000
112 - 0.001
113 - 0.002
...
1110 - 0.999
1111 - 0.0000
1112 - 0.0001
1113 - 0.0002
...
11110 - 0.9999
11111 - 0.00000
11112 - 0.00001
11113 - 0.00002
...

[micatala]

.

Here is a Youtube video, under 10 minutes, of Cantor's diagonalization argument.

One to one correspondence between positive integers and real numbers between 0 and 1.

1 - 0.0
2 - 0.1
3 - 0.2
...
10 - 0.9
11 - 0.00
12 - 0.01
13 - 0.02
...
20 - 0.09
21 - 0.10
22 - 0.11
23 - 0.12
...
110 - 0.99
111 - 0.000
112 - 0.001
113 - 0.002
...
1110 - 0.999
1111 - 0.0000
1112 - 0.0001
1113 - 0.0002
...
11110 - 0.9999
11111 - 0.00000
11112 - 0.00001
11113 - 0.00002
...

You are defining a function from the positive integers to the rational numbers, and I am not quite sure you are hitting all of those. It is actually possible to match up the positive integers and the rationals.

The problem is that not all the numbers between 0 and 1 are rational. The proof for this is not too difficult.


Rational numbers are those which can be expressed as the ratio of two integers. I won't prove it here, but one can prove that rational numbers have decimal expressions that are either finite or repeating.


Here is a proof that the square root of 2 is not rational. We'll proceed by contradiction.

Suppose root 2 is rational. So, root 2 is equal to m/n for some integers m and n, with n not zero, and you might as well assume both m and n are positive.

Now, for any given ratio of integers, there are infinitely many ways to express that ratio. m/n = 2m/2n = 3m/3n, etc.

However, since m and n are finite, they can only have finitely many factors. 12 = 2*2*3 for example. Given this, if m and n have any common factors, there will be finitely many such common factors, and you could divide them out, reducing the fraction to lowest terms. For example, 36/48 becomes 3/4.

So, assume m/n is in lowest terms and equals root 2. Square both sides and clear the fraction. You get m^2 = 2n^2.

Now, the right hand side is an even integer and so the left hand side is as well. But, if m^2 is even, m must also be even. The square of an odd m would be odd.

So, m = 2k for some integer k. Substituting, we get

m^2 = (2k)^2 = 4k^2 = 2n^2.

Dividing by 2, we get 2k^2 = n^2. As before, this implies n^2 is even and so n is even. Thus, both m and n have to be even.

But if both m and n are even, that contradicts that we had already reduced m and n to lowest terms.

So, the upshot is either that root 2 is not rational, or it is impossible to reduce some fractions to lowest terms. Since the later is clearly not true, it follows that root 2 cannot be rational.



Note for DI. This proof is an old proof and is included in Euclid. It does not depend on any infinite processes. It does not depend on anything to do with the empty set. It does not by itself imply nor does it depend on any uncountability theorems or concepts.

Do you somehow still reject that irrational numbers exist?

[Divine Insight]

Note for DI. This proof is an old proof and is included in Euclid. It does not depend on any infinite processes. It does not depend on anything to do with the empty set. It does not by itself imply nor does it depend on any uncountability theorems or concepts.

Do you somehow still reject that irrational numbers exist?

I have no problem with the irrationality of the square root of 2. I fully understand precisely why it is irrational. It's not a cardinal number, no.

It's actually the quantity that when added to itself precisely the same number of times that it represents, equals 2.

It's this self-referenced situation that gives rise to its property of irrationality.

It is not a cardinal quantity. (i.e. It is not the quantitative property of a collection of individual objects)

So it's not a cardinal number, no. And therefore it shouldn't be treated as one. It's the result of a self-referenced relative relationship.

[keithprosser3]

It's actually the quantity that when added to itself precisely the same number of times that it represents, equals 2.

I must have been off sick the day we did the 1.41421356237.... times table at school because I don't know how to add 1.41421356237.... to itself 1.41421356237.... times.

[olavisjo]

.

The problem is that not all the numbers between 0 and 1 are rational. The proof for this is not too difficult.

I think that I am hitting all the numbers, I will simplify it by including 0 as an integer and rearrange the real numbers as a mirror image of the integers.

0 - 0.0
1 - 0.1
2 - 0.2
...
9 - 0.9
10 - 0.01
11 - 0.11
12 - 0.21
...
99 - 0.99
100 - 0.001
101 - 0.101
102 - 0.201
...

Naturally the square root of two would not be here but the square root of two minus one would be here.

1.4142135623730950488016887242097... - 1.0 =

0.4142135623730950488016887242097...

Then an integer will correspond to the squre root of two minus one like this...

...7902427886108840590373265312414 - 0.4142135623730950488016887242097...

All real numbers are covered.

[olavisjo]

.

I must have been off sick the day we did the 1.41421356237.... times table at school because I don't know how to add 1.41421356237.... to itself 1.41421356237.... times.

It has been a long time, this is all I can remember.

• 1.414213562...
  0.565685425...
  0.014142136...
  0.005656854...
  0.000282843...
  1.41421...E-05
  4.24264...E-06
  7.07107...E-07
  8.48528...E-08
  2.82843...E-09
  ...

Sum is -----------------

• 1.999999999...

[keithprosser3]

Thanks. I remember it now

1 times 1.41421356237.... is 1.41421356237....
1.4 times 1.41421356237.... is 1.979898987...
1.41 times 1.41421356237.... is 1.994941123...
1.414 times 1.41421356237.... is 1.999697977....
....

1.41421356237.... times 1.41421356237.... is 2 (near as dammit)

Oh happy days learning how to do anti-logarithmic hyperboloid differentiation in your head. In 4 dimensions and hex notation, mind. Kindergarten was tough in those days.

[micatala]

.

The problem is that not all the numbers between 0 and 1 are rational. The proof for this is not too difficult.

I think that I am hitting all the numbers, I will simplify it by including 0 as an integer and rearrange the real numbers as a mirror image of the integers.

0 - 0.0
1 - 0.1
2 - 0.2
...
9 - 0.9
10 - 0.01
11 - 0.11
12 - 0.21
...
99 - 0.99
100 - 0.001
101 - 0.101
102 - 0.201
...

Naturally the square root of two would not be here but the square root of two minus one would be here.

1.4142135623730950488016887242097... - 1.0 =

0.4142135623730950488016887242097...

Then an integer will correspond to the squre root of two minus one like this...

...7902427886108840590373265312414 - 0.4142135623730950488016887242097...

All real numbers are covered.

First off, I should give olavisjo and Divine Insight mucho puntos for getting into the technical details of a difficult mathematical subject. Despite my (legitimate ) criticisms, I admire the effort.



However, having said that, no, you are missing root 2 - 1. In fact, you are missing 1/3.

Your function basically takes an integer of d digits, reverses the order of the digits, and then puts a decimal point in front.

Thus, you will never include any number for which the decimal expansion is infinite. This would include root 2 -1.


You are also excluding 1/3, since that is expressed as .333 . . .

You would have a sequence of numbers in your list whose limit is 1/3.

.3, 0.33, 0.333, . . .

But, nowhere in your list would you actually have 1/3.

[olavisjo]

.

You are also excluding 1/3, since that is expressed as .333 . . .

You would have a sequence of numbers in your list whose limit is 1/3.

.3, 0.33, 0.333, . . .

But, nowhere in your list would you actually have 1/3.

For the same reason that...

1.0 = 0.999...

1/3 = 0.333...

1/3 would be on the list.