On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

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

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

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

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

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

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

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

[youtube][/youtube]

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

But for me none of this is satisfying.

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

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

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

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

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

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

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

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

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

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

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

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

End of copy and paste

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

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

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

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

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this is where I'm coming from.

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

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

[Goat]

I don't see any use of trying to make a 'conceptual problem out of something without real world input of data.

That's the disagreement here, isn't it? You don't think that discussing the distinction of property dualism and reductionism is useful, as it is not an empirical problem. I'm well aware of your position and of the very standard empirical arguments you provide. I am not disagreeing with any of them, there is no disputation there.

I am asking whether a mental event is a physical event, and you are not even attempting to answer the problem. I'm guessing again that it's your materialistic convictions that cause you to vow for reductionism, since the arguments you give don't point to one direction anymore then the other.

Well, I am what is known as 'evidence based'. I don't see how the two can be separated. The mental event boils down to the biochemistry and neurological activity in the brain. I have not seen any way that can distinguish between the two that makes any kind of sense what so ever.

[instantc]

I don't see any use of trying to make a 'conceptual problem out of something without real world input of data.

That's the disagreement here, isn't it? You don't think that discussing the distinction of property dualism and reductionism is useful, as it is not an empirical problem. I'm well aware of your position and of the very standard empirical arguments you provide. I am not disagreeing with any of them, there is no disputation there.

I am asking whether a mental event is a physical event, and you are not even attempting to answer the problem. I'm guessing again that it's your materialistic convictions that cause you to vow for reductionism, since the arguments you give don't point to one direction anymore then the other.

Well, I am what is known as 'evidence based'. I don't see how the two can be separated. The mental event boils down to the biochemistry and neurological activity in the brain. I have not seen any way that can distinguish between the two that makes any kind of sense what so ever.

Consider this problem. Suppose I'm colorblind so I don't what it is like to see colors. I could learn everything there is to know about your brain and its functions, but I would still not know what it is like to see the color red for example. It seems like there is a further fact there, there is still something to know after all the empirical observation is done.

[Goat]

I don't see any use of trying to make a 'conceptual problem out of something without real world input of data.

That's the disagreement here, isn't it? You don't think that discussing the distinction of property dualism and reductionism is useful, as it is not an empirical problem. I'm well aware of your position and of the very standard empirical arguments you provide. I am not disagreeing with any of them, there is no disputation there.

I am asking whether a mental event is a physical event, and you are not even attempting to answer the problem. I'm guessing again that it's your materialistic convictions that cause you to vow for reductionism, since the arguments you give don't point to one direction anymore then the other.

Well, I am what is known as 'evidence based'. I don't see how the two can be separated. The mental event boils down to the biochemistry and neurological activity in the brain. I have not seen any way that can distinguish between the two that makes any kind of sense what so ever.

Consider this problem. Suppose I'm colorblind so I don't what it is like to see colors. I could learn everything there is to know about your brain and its functions, but I would still not know what it is like to see the color red for example. It seems like there is a further fact there, there is still something to know after all the empirical observation is done.

And?? Your point is??? For that matter, we know exactly what causes color blindness... that is the lack of a specific type of cone in the eye.

[keithprosser3]

The point is that if you cured IC's colour blindness and showed him a British pillar box (or my new Ferrari 458) he'd say 'So that's what red looks like!'. There is no other way he could ever know what red looks like, no matter how much information about colour and brains he had.

I think the idea originally comes from this.

Oh, but if you are actually colour blind IC don't worry - your not missing much. Red is just like orange, only less yellow.

[instantc]

I don't see any use of trying to make a 'conceptual problem out of something without real world input of data.

That's the disagreement here, isn't it? You don't think that discussing the distinction of property dualism and reductionism is useful, as it is not an empirical problem. I'm well aware of your position and of the very standard empirical arguments you provide. I am not disagreeing with any of them, there is no disputation there.

I am asking whether a mental event is a physical event, and you are not even attempting to answer the problem. I'm guessing again that it's your materialistic convictions that cause you to vow for reductionism, since the arguments you give don't point to one direction anymore then the other.

Well, I am what is known as 'evidence based'. I don't see how the two can be separated. The mental event boils down to the biochemistry and neurological activity in the brain. I have not seen any way that can distinguish between the two that makes any kind of sense what so ever.

Consider this problem. Suppose I'm colorblind so I don't what it is like to see colors. I could learn everything there is to know about your brain and its functions, but I would still not know what it is like to see the color red for example. It seems like there is a further fact there, there is still something to know after all the empirical observation is done.

And?? Your point is??? For that matter, we know exactly what causes color blindness... that is the lack of a specific type of cone in the eye.

My point is that there seems to be facts about experience that cannot be accounted by empirical observation. In other words, there seems to be more to the conscious experience than that which we can observe in the brain. You have to either admit this, or then engage into the argument I put forward.

The point is that if you cured IC's colour blindness and showed him a British pillar box (or my new Ferrari 458) he'd say 'So that's what red looks like!'. There is no other way he could ever know what red looks like, no matter how much information about colour and brains he had.

I think the idea originally comes from this.

Yep, it's a well known argument against reductionism.

[keithprosser3]

Maybe not so well known on DCR, which would indicate something...

[keithprosser3]

Maybe not so well known on DCR, which would indicate something...

[keithprosser3]

The point is that if you cured IC's colour blindness and showed him a British pillar box (or my new Ferrari 458) he'd say 'So that's what red looks like!'. There is no other way he could ever know what red looks like, no matter how much information about colour and brains he had.

Oh, but if you are actually colour blind IC don't worry - your not missing much. Red is just like orange, only less yellow.

[Philbert]

So you recommend avoiding thought?

I recommend what I recommended in my post above...

Imho, instead of focusing so much attention on the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea) we should be focusing more on the nature of thought itself.

My proposal is that consciousness, and religion, and the human condition, all arise out of the inherently divisive nature of thought. To the degree we understand thought, and we understand consciousness, religion and the human condition.

Here's an example.

Every ideology ever invented tends to do two things.

1) First, the ideology divides against other ideologies. Our ideology is better than your ideology, nana nana na na! Etc

2) Second, the ideology divides within itself. Ten minutes after the ideology is invented one of the believers says, "Yea, but..." and the first faction of that ideology is born.

The fact that all ideologies undergo these division processes both externally and internally reveals the inherently divisive nature of thought, that which all ideologies are made of.

Thought divides within our personal psychology too, and creates the experiencer and the experienced. The phrase "I am thinking" shows the division. There is "me" and there is "that which is being thought about", felt to be two different things.

As I suggested above, the fundamental human condition is that because we are thought, we experience a division between "me" and "everything else".

Religion is an attempt to heal the pain brought by this division, and bring us the reunion with reality we so desperately seek. (The desperation is typically hidden under a mountain of busyness.)

The problem is that most religions emphasize thought as the way to accomplish the reunion (beliefs, ideologies, rules etc). They typically don't realize the solution they are offering is itself the source of the problem. It's kind of like trying to cure alcoholism with a case of scotch, a poring of more fuel on the fire.

And so the endless search for the one true perfect ideology is born. And after something like 10,000 years of looking, we've yet to find it. But we're kinda dumb, and refuse to listen to all this hard won evidence, so we keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Theism vs. atheism is part of this pointless quest.

This post is part of it too. This ideology is just another ideology, proposing itself better than other ideologies, creating warring factions within itself, and so on. This ideology is made of thought just like all the others, and thus shares the same qualities of division.

The problem for most here is surrendering the glorious but pointless theism vs. atheism merry-go-round to nowhere.

The problem for me and many others I'm sure is surrendering the glorious but pointless war against the theism vs. atheism merry-go-round.

We all face the same challenge. If we are to reunite, we have to surrender the separation.

Die to be reborn.

[Philbert]

So you recommend avoiding thought?

I recommend what I recommended in my post above...

Imho, instead of focusing so much attention on the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea) we should be focusing more on the nature of thought itself.

My proposal is that consciousness, and religion, and the human condition, all arise out of the inherently divisive nature of thought. To the degree we understand thought, and we understand consciousness, religion and the human condition.

Here's an example.

Every ideology ever invented tends to do two things.

1) First, the ideology divides against other ideologies. Our ideology is better than your ideology, nana nana na na! Etc

2) Second, the ideology divides within itself. Ten minutes after the ideology is invented one of the believers says, "Yea, but..." and the first faction of that ideology is born.

The fact that all ideologies undergo these division processes both externally and internally reveals the inherently divisive nature of thought, that which all ideologies are made of.

Thought divides within our personal psychology too, and creates the experiencer and the experienced. The phrase "I am thinking" shows the division. There is "me" and there is "that which is being thought about", felt to be two different things.

As I suggested above, the fundamental human condition is that because we are thought, we experience a division between "me" and "everything else".

Religion is an attempt to heal the pain brought by this division, and bring us the reunion with reality we so desperately seek. (The desperation is typically hidden under a mountain of busyness, like you know, um, well, posting on forums all day long.)

The problem is that most religions emphasize thought as the way to accomplish the reunion (beliefs, ideologies, rules etc). They typically don't realize the solution they are offering is itself the source of the problem. It's kind of like trying to cure alcoholism with a case of scotch, a poring of more fuel on the fire.

And so the endless search for the one true perfect ideology is born. And after something like 10,000 years of looking, we've yet to find it. But we're kinda dumb, and refuse to listen to all this hard won evidence, so we keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Theism vs. atheism is part of this pointless quest.

This post is part of it too. This ideology is just another ideology, proposing itself better than other ideologies, creating warring factions within itself, and so on. This ideology is made of thought just like all the others, and thus shares the same qualities of division.

The problem for most here is surrendering the glorious but pointless theism vs. atheism merry-go-round to nowhere.

The problem for me and many others I'm sure is surrendering the glorious but pointless war against the theism vs. atheism merry-go-round.

We all face the same challenge. If we are to reunite, we have to surrender the separation.

Die to be reborn.