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]

There is a huge difference between a computer, and , for example, a mammals.
The chess playing computer is a very narrow range of instructions. Animals can react to the environment, and figure out new solutions to a brand new problem.

That's exactly what the chess playing computer does, isn't it? Often people think that a computer sort of calculates the outcomes of all possible scenarios and chooses the most optimal, but that's not the case. It actually creates new strategies and responds to new circumstances.

They can recognize individuals, and react differently to different people.

They exhibit emotions.

they can communicate desires

A number of animals will also pass the 'mirror test' and recognize themselves in the mirror.

Artificial intelligence at its present stage can do all of these. Perhaps animals have wider range of more complicated functions than any machines that we have created so far, but in principle I don't see a difference here. Can you show something that an animal can do and an AI can't? Can you show that animals have consciousness?

[instantc]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

[bernee51]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

Do you mean conscious awareness or conscious self-awareness?

I suggest you have a look at the the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness which holds states in part

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

[keithprosser3]

Interesting that that the Cambridge Declaration shies away at the last minute from stating non-human animals are conscious. Rather a bit of wimping out there I feel.

Is consciousness a basic aspect of reality?

Consciousness is an important element of reality - a universe with consciousness is different from one without it. Without consciousness, there are a no values, no good or evil, no goals or aspirations. When consciousness comes into existence it brings with it such things as values and 'mattering', perhaps also such things as love, duty and justice.

The importance of the advent of consciousness is such that I have called it 'The second big bang'. To aphorise, the first big bang brought about matter, the second brought about mattering. I believe a large part of the 'problem of consciousness' is that conventional science has developed to describe our universe as if consciousness did not exist. Hence science is very good at explaining 'how', but can say nothing about 'why'. It can say a lot about pair-bonding, but nothing about love. Our version of science has implicitly outlawed considering consciousness, so naturally it is going to have problems explaining consciousness. The problem is how to expand the realm of science to include consciousness without science becoming any less 'sciencey'.

btw - I don't offer any solutions.

[instantc]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

Do you mean conscious awareness or conscious self-awareness?

I suggest you have a look at the the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness which holds states in part

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Interesting article, there's certainly some new information for me. However, I'm still not convinced that animals necessarily have conscious awareness. I don't see why an object has to be conscious in order to exhibit intentional behavior, a chess playing computer exhibits intentional behavior. Furthermore, the bit about neurological substrates that generate consciousness sounds like speculation to me. Once we figure out what consciousness is exactly and how it is generated, only then can we say which objects have conscious awareness and which don't.

[Goat]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

Do you mean conscious awareness or conscious self-awareness?

I suggest you have a look at the the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness which holds states in part

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Interesting article, there's certainly some new information for me. However, I'm still not convinced that animals necessarily have conscious awareness. I don't see why an object has to be conscious in order to exhibit intentional behavior, a chess playing computer exhibits intentional behavior. Furthermore, the bit about neurological substrates that generate consciousness sounds like speculation to me. Once we figure out what consciousness is exactly and how it is generated, only then can we say which objects have conscious awareness and which don't.

Would figuring out a puzzle and having an extraordinary memory count for consciousness?

[instantc]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

Do you mean conscious awareness or conscious self-awareness?

I suggest you have a look at the the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness which holds states in part

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Interesting article, there's certainly some new information for me. However, I'm still not convinced that animals necessarily have conscious awareness. I don't see why an object has to be conscious in order to exhibit intentional behavior, a chess playing computer exhibits intentional behavior. Furthermore, the bit about neurological substrates that generate consciousness sounds like speculation to me. Once we figure out what consciousness is exactly and how it is generated, only then can we say which objects have conscious awareness and which don't.

Would figuring out a puzzle and having an extraordinary memory count for consciousness?

A computer can figure out puzzles and has a very extraordinary memory. You seem to be under the misconception that once information processing becomes complicated enough, that automatically entails consciousness, but the two are not the same, there is a qualitative difference. In my view, there are currently two ways of verifying consciousness, you would need to either experience it first hand or be able to communicate with the one who experiences it first hand.

[Goat]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

Do you mean conscious awareness or conscious self-awareness?

I suggest you have a look at the the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness which holds states in part

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Interesting article, there's certainly some new information for me. However, I'm still not convinced that animals necessarily have conscious awareness. I don't see why an object has to be conscious in order to exhibit intentional behavior, a chess playing computer exhibits intentional behavior. Furthermore, the bit about neurological substrates that generate consciousness sounds like speculation to me. Once we figure out what consciousness is exactly and how it is generated, only then can we say which objects have conscious awareness and which don't.

Would figuring out a puzzle and having an extraordinary memory count for consciousness?

A computer can figure out puzzles and has a very extraordinary memory. You seem to be under the misconception that once information processing becomes complicated enough, that automatically entails consciousness, but the two are not the same, there is a qualitative difference. In my view, there are currently two ways of verifying consciousness, you would need to either experience it first hand or be able to communicate with the one who experiences it first hand.

Yes, a computer can, if it is properly programed. How about a new and unique puzzle is presented? A computer can only do what it is programed to do, and giving a puzzle that is beyond what it is programed will do it ignored.

[instantc]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

Do you mean conscious awareness or conscious self-awareness?

I suggest you have a look at the the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness which holds states in part

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Interesting article, there's certainly some new information for me. However, I'm still not convinced that animals necessarily have conscious awareness. I don't see why an object has to be conscious in order to exhibit intentional behavior, a chess playing computer exhibits intentional behavior. Furthermore, the bit about neurological substrates that generate consciousness sounds like speculation to me. Once we figure out what consciousness is exactly and how it is generated, only then can we say which objects have conscious awareness and which don't.

Would figuring out a puzzle and having an extraordinary memory count for consciousness?

A computer can figure out puzzles and has a very extraordinary memory. You seem to be under the misconception that once information processing becomes complicated enough, that automatically entails consciousness, but the two are not the same, there is a qualitative difference. In my view, there are currently two ways of verifying consciousness, you would need to either experience it first hand or be able to communicate with the one who experiences it first hand.

Yes, a computer can, if it is properly programed. How about a new and unique puzzle is presented? A computer can only do what it is programed to do, and giving a puzzle that is beyond what it is programed will do it ignored.

I think I know what you are getting at. But, what if you programmed a computer so conclusively that it would be able to respond to pretty much everything we can come up with? That would be some grand design, but at no point would it magically become conscious. How do you define 'new puzzle'? Monkeys can solve puzzles, so can computers. Monkeys can't solve all puzzles, nor can computers. On what basis do you make a distinction that monkeys can solve 'new puzzles' that computers can't? As far as I can see both monkey brains and computers can do what they are programmed to do. Both can demonstrably show creativity, so that's not a distinctive feature.

[Goat]

But these days I think pretty much everyone would agree that pigs do have conscious awareness - and probably snakes and fish too!

I don't think it is possible in principle to deduct from the behavior of an animal whether or not it has conscious awareness, you would need to be able to communicate with it in order to get the answer.

Do you mean conscious awareness or conscious self-awareness?

I suggest you have a look at the the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness which holds states in part

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Interesting article, there's certainly some new information for me. However, I'm still not convinced that animals necessarily have conscious awareness. I don't see why an object has to be conscious in order to exhibit intentional behavior, a chess playing computer exhibits intentional behavior. Furthermore, the bit about neurological substrates that generate consciousness sounds like speculation to me. Once we figure out what consciousness is exactly and how it is generated, only then can we say which objects have conscious awareness and which don't.

Would figuring out a puzzle and having an extraordinary memory count for consciousness?

A computer can figure out puzzles and has a very extraordinary memory. You seem to be under the misconception that once information processing becomes complicated enough, that automatically entails consciousness, but the two are not the same, there is a qualitative difference. In my view, there are currently two ways of verifying consciousness, you would need to either experience it first hand or be able to communicate with the one who experiences it first hand.

Yes, a computer can, if it is properly programed. How about a new and unique puzzle is presented? A computer can only do what it is programed to do, and giving a puzzle that is beyond what it is programed will do it ignored.

I think I know what you are getting at. But, what if you programmed a computer so conclusively that it would be able to respond to pretty much everything we can come up with? That would be some grand design, but at no point would it magically become conscious. How do you define 'new puzzle'? Monkeys can solve puzzles, so can computers. Monkeys can't solve all puzzles, nor can computers. On what basis do you make a distinction that monkeys can solve 'new puzzles' that computers can't? As far as I can see both monkey brains and computers can do what they are programmed to do. Both can demonstrably show creativity, so that's not a distinctive feature.

IF we could do that, and it could think and act creatively, and react to the environment in a way that is indistinguishable form a man, and write huge essays on awareness, would it not be conscious?

As far as I can see, both Gorilla brains and human brains do what they are programmed to do.