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.

[keithprosser3]

I can tell you have not read up on this "hard problem" vs "small problem" in consciousness.

You tell wrong, my friend. In my reading of things, it is not that scientists haven't tried, but that they tried and gave up when they discovered it was not so easy after all. In 1968 AC Clark imagined an a computer by 2001. No one at the time thought that was too much of a stretch. But 12 years after 2001 later HAL 9000 seems further away than it did 45 years ago.

By all means insist that consciousness is not magical. But I don't think you can claim that it is not a deep and difficult problem - as is free-will let me add!

[JohnA]

I can tell you have not read up on this "hard problem" vs "small problem" in consciousness.

You tell wrong, my friend. In my reading of things, it is not that scientists haven't tried, but that they tried and gave up when they discovered it was not so easy after all. In 1968 AC Clark imagined an a computer by 2001. No one at the time thought that was too much of a stretch. But 12 years after 2001 later HAL 9000 seems further away than it did 45 years ago.

By all means insist that consciousness is not magical. But I don't think you can claim that it is not a deep and difficult problem - as is free-will let me add!

It is not a "hard problem" or deep one at all.
There is only one "hard and deep question" : the origin of the universe.

And to date, we have:
A logical explanation how something can come from nothing. It is indeed a an interesting "nothing" we have. It is logical (no deity required), but not "proven/falsified" by science yet. Maybe it never will (as speed of light is constant and we have the plack constraint..)
The irony (if you wanna call it that) is that the same logic (math) that predicted the Higgs boson, was used to make this same logical conclusion (everything came from nothing), it took some only some ~50 years to almost confirm (we are very close to it, when we start the CERN LHC again, maybe we will) the Higgs. The same logic (math) shows us currently (subject to the empirical evidence) that all of this came from nothing, and we are just living in an interested nothing that we observe. We could not live in a universe that did not permit otherwise.

Maybe this is not solved in my or your life time, but it will get solved. [and if a deity was involved, then shame on him for not telling us in the book that this god authored or presented otherwise].


Am interested in the deep questions, not this consciousness "easy" ones.

[keithprosser3]

I can tell you have not read up on this "hard problem" vs "small problem" in consciousness.

[keithprosser3]

I can tell you have not read up on this "hard problem" vs "small problem" in consciousness.

[instantc]

I spend time typing my response to your claims you hold that apparently logic excels/outstrips scientific observation/experiment. And this is what I get in return. You should turn around and say : "well thank you, you were bright enough to spot and appreciate the ignorance, since you took the time to address the logical fallacies".

I'm still not sure whether you are not being serious or whether you really don't understand what a logical fallacy is. Lets take a sample of your criticism:

You are offering premises:

1) Thought experiment is superior, as it provides 100% certainty because it is logical. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise. People use to think that the earth is flat as it was logical at the time...people use to argue that heavier objects logically will fall faster...)
2) Scientific experiment is not superior, as it shows that at the time of the experiment. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise, completely ignoring falsification and the fact that today we know )

Therefore you are now arguing that scientific experiments is faith based, but thought experiment is not faith based.

You are once again contradicting yourself. Not only that, you are offering a weak argument.

This just doesn't make any sense. I don't know how to say it any clearer. I never said that scientific experiments are faith based, nor does it follow even from your above misrepresentation of my position.

If you don't understand why the above is a complete non-sequitur, I cannot explain it any clearer, I am sorry but that's the case. You insist that I respond to your 'criticism', but I cannot have a conversation with you if you keep drawing conclusions that do not even remotely seem to follow and making false representations.

Lastly, I responded quite some time ago to another quote of yours where you unsuccessfully argued that you presented that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 653#595653

In that thread you ask me to demonstrate that the mind is an immaterial entity. Since I never claimed this, I don't know how to respond.

I honestly don't know how to have a conversation with you. I guess your response to this will be that I'm contradicting myself.

[JohnA]

I spend time typing my response to your claims you hold that apparently logic excels/outstrips scientific observation/experiment. And this is what I get in return. You should turn around and say : "well thank you, you were bright enough to spot and appreciate the ignorance, since you took the time to address the logical fallacies".

I'm still not sure whether you are not being serious or whether you really don't understand what a logical fallacy is. Lets take a sample of your criticism:

You are offering premises:

1) Thought experiment is superior, as it provides 100% certainty because it is logical. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise. People use to think that the earth is flat as it was logical at the time...people use to argue that heavier objects logically will fall faster...)
2) Scientific experiment is not superior, as it shows that at the time of the experiment. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise, completely ignoring falsification and the fact that today we know )

Therefore you are now arguing that scientific experiments is faith based, but thought experiment is not faith based.

You are once again contradicting yourself. Not only that, you are offering a weak argument.

This just doesn't make any sense. I don't know how to say it any clearer. I never said that scientific experiments are faith based, nor does it follow even from your above misrepresentation of my position.

If you don't understand why the above is a complete non-sequitur, I cannot explain it any clearer, I am sorry but that's the case. You insist that I respond to your 'criticism', but I cannot have a conversation with you if you keep drawing conclusions that do not even remotely seem to follow and making false representations.

Lastly, I responded quite some time ago to another quote of yours where you unsuccessfully argued that you presented that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 653#595653

In that thread you ask me to demonstrate that the mind is an immaterial entity. Since I never claimed this, I don't know how to respond.

I honestly don't know how to have a conversation with you. I guess your response to this will be that I'm contradicting myself.

What a nice subtle insult you offer, just because I pointed out your ridiculous drivel of claims.

How can someone debate with you when you are in denial of your own authorship and content?

Surely if you do not understand something then you should ask for clarification, not launch into stifling attack mode?

I know you can not answer my questions since you have a very different understanding of evidence or claims; a complete lack of comprehension of anything science (given your post content).

Keep on making incoherent claims, and I will keep on questioning them. We know you will never admit your mistakes or appreciate your own incoherency; your belief is grounded in fallacies - you have pointed them out yourelf. Hypocrisy at its best, swimming in it. You.

[JohnA]

I spend time typing my response to your claims you hold that apparently logic excels/outstrips scientific observation/experiment. And this is what I get in return. You should turn around and say : "well thank you, you were bright enough to spot and appreciate the ignorance, since you took the time to address the logical fallacies".

I'm still not sure whether you are not being serious or whether you really don't understand what a logical fallacy is. Lets take a sample of your criticism:

You are offering premises:

1) Thought experiment is superior, as it provides 100% certainty because it is logical. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise. People use to think that the earth is flat as it was logical at the time...people use to argue that heavier objects logically will fall faster...)
2) Scientific experiment is not superior, as it shows that at the time of the experiment. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise, completely ignoring falsification and the fact that today we know )

Therefore you are now arguing that scientific experiments is faith based, but thought experiment is not faith based.

You are once again contradicting yourself. Not only that, you are offering a weak argument.

This just doesn't make any sense. I don't know how to say it any clearer. I never said that scientific experiments are faith based, nor does it follow even from your above misrepresentation of my position.

If you don't understand why the above is a complete non-sequitur, I cannot explain it any clearer, I am sorry but that's the case. You insist that I respond to your 'criticism', but I cannot have a conversation with you if you keep drawing conclusions that do not even remotely seem to follow and making false representations.

Lastly, I responded quite some time ago to another quote of yours where you unsuccessfully argued that you presented that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 653#595653

In that thread you ask me to demonstrate that the mind is an immaterial entity. Since I never claimed this, I don't know how to respond.

I honestly don't know how to have a conversation with you. I guess your response to this will be that I'm contradicting myself.

Let me give you an example of the ocean of hypocrisy that you are swimming in:

Your comment from this post:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 692#570692

The above is merely an outline of my position. Notice that I have presented reasons to believe that the mind cannot be reduced to physical activity.

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.
And to be fair, I actually asked you if you are trying to make an argument that the mind is immaterial. I did not even assume from your obvious claim. Remember I wrote "if you are trying to argue that the mind is immaterial, then can you please explain: ... ?" Do you understand the "IF" and the "?"


And yes, we both know that you made an argument that science is based on faith, that thought experiments outweighs physical experiments, and that logic (math) can be used to superseded scientific law. The evidence is in your post, YOUR POSTS, not mine.

Keep on making incoherent claims, and I will keep on questioning them.
We know you will never admit your mistakes or appreciate your own incoherency; your belief is grounded in fallacies - you have pointed them out yourself.
Hypocrisy at its best, swimming in it. You.

I am asking you nicely, if you do not understand science, then learn it. Start with the basics. If it is too hard, then stay away from it. DO NOT make extraordinary claims about science using your ignorance of instances of antiquity and/or math (that you do not understand), if you do not understand science. Sorry, your can not borrow my reason filter. Ordering an upgrade for a antique reason filter does not work, one has to work at it to install it correctly to keep the rubbish from coming through.

When I suggested that you pause to reflect on your belief I did not imply you to run from criticism and offer mere baseless personal insults. Maybe I was not clear, or the antiquity of your reason filter could be past its service date.

Good day.

[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.

[JohnA]

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.

So, let me understand what you just did:

You completely ignored my last post. The post that I typed so painstakingly to help you.
And here you come and deny that you made this claim, by offering an argument from authority.
Not only that, you contradict yourself saying immaterial is an entity and can have evidence. Can you elaborate about this evidence that dictates that it doesn't exist separately as an immaterial entity? Who and when was the immaterial discovered to be an entity? I thought entities are material by nature? Who discovered the immaterial and when?

This circular promotion of incoherence to incoherence is not helping you navigate out of the sea of hypocrisy you are in.
It seems your filter of reasoning is completely broken.


Yep.

[instantc]

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.