Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #1

Post by DrNoGods »

This posting is partly to continue a discussion in another section related to mind, matter, consciousness, etc. and how these are explained in via science vs. philosophy or religion, and partly to include debate on the validity of the "Argument from Consciousness."

There has been much discussion here about sentience and consciousness, and their origin in humans, as well as whether certain ideas from religion and philosophy can refute the evolutionary science viewpoint that brains have become progressively more complex in structure and function over long periods of time, eventually reaching a level in humans where sentience and symbolic thought are possible, and that these are nothing more than the result of normal physiological functions of the human brain. No supernatural beings required … "mind" is simply a manifestation of normal brain function in humans involving complex interactions of sensory inputs, neural networks, and memory mechanisms (themselves ultimately based on electrical and chemical interactions at the molecular level, ie. purely "matter" based).

What arguments from the theistic or philosophic sides of the fence can be offered to disprove this scientific position, or seriously challenge it? The "theory of coconsciousness also rejects the evolutionary science viewpoint and assigns a theistic basis for consciousness, but how can that particular argument be defended given what we know in in the 21st century about brain evolution and function?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #11

Post by Divine Insight »

DrNoGods wrote: I'll wade back into the"system" explanation for what it is that is actually having the experience since that seems to me to be far better than trying to reduce it to just electromagnetic forces, or combinations of the fundamental forces, which alone cannot experience anything. It is only when molecules are combined into structures and interfaced in very complex ways with electrical signals and chemical reactions, involving hundreds of billions of neurons, that the far more capable system is produced (the brain).
I'm with you up to this point. In other words I understand that this is the idea. However, I have problems concerning how far this idea can actually be taken.

For example you suggest:
DrNoGods wrote: Only this system, operating as an entity, can realize certain functions like experience.
The problem I have is in calling something like "experience" a "function" without explaining how this should even be possible based on our understanding of physics.

Before I get into that let me comment on a few other points you've made:
DrNoGods wrote: Breaking it down into component parts would destroy the system and therefore also any functions it is capable of carrying out ... at least those that require the complete, integrated system. Just like the metal, glass, rubber, etc. components that make up an automobile are not carrying out any system level functions by themselves, when put together in a certain way they can operate as an automobile and perform more complicated tasks. The automobile is infinitely simpler than a brain, but it cannot function until the whole system is assembled in a specific way.
I fully understand this idea. However, I would argue here that even though an automobile performs far more "complicated" tasks, the bottom line is that it's not doing anything that can't be explained using the basic laws of physics. No scientist looks at an automobile as a difficult problem to explain. Also there is no need to actually proclaim any "emergent properties" that aren't innate to physics. Everything about an automobile can be explain pretty much by using various forms of F=MA. There's really no need to proposed any new "emergent properties" of physics.
DrNoGods wrote: This is different than something like gene expression which is a series of complex steps that all have to be completed sequentially to produce the protein, but it is not an integrated system like the brain is, or even like an individual cell is. A system can perform functions that are orders of magnitude more complex than any component part, and they can only perform these functions as the integrated system, which has its own set of properties and functions separate from any properties of the individual components.
But again, is this really true? For the most part everything can be explained just using F=ma and identifying what the forces are.

The only additional thing that comes into play is when we start building logic circuits that can actually start doing calculations and making logical "decisions". However, even when we reach that point this is no surprise. Nothing NEW has really emerged at all. Everything can still be explained just using the fundamental laws of physics, AND perhaps the recognition of more complex forms of "information".

But even at this point we don't stand in awe of our computers wondering how in the world they can do what they do. Instead (assuming that we personally know how they actually work) we can explain everything using nothing more than the basic laws of physics, and a recognition that these laws are operating on complex information.

But still nothing "new" has emerged. There's nothing happening that leaves us puzzled asking for more explanations. We fully understand the entire system. We can build them from scratch, program, and fully understand how they work. No mystery at all for those of us who understand how they work.
DrNoGods wrote: We don't know exactly how memory works, but we know it occurs in the brain and that there are different detailed mechanisms for short and long term memory, episodic memory, etc. We can't reduce these to standing waves or the like either, but I would argue that memory is similar to consciousness and "experience" (and in fact a fundamental component of these) in that it is a brain function that we just can't pin down the exact mechanistic details of (yet).
Well that's a very interesting point. Clearly we FULLY understand how memory works in our computers. We build memory banks and write programs to access them.

Precisely how memory works in the brain is a mystery because it clearly doesn't work in the same way as a digital computer. In fact, I've seen several studies that suggest that our memory doesn't actually exist anywhere, but rather it is "reconstructed" from various fragments less than precise memories. It has actually been suggested (and supposedly confirmed via scientific tests) that our memories cannot be trusted because we do have a tendency to "reconstruct" situations and events from "memory" than never actually happened.

So how well our memories can be trusted is unknown.

None the less, memory itself is not having an experience. We "experience" the event of recalling, or reconstructing what we call memories.

So "memory" itself does not require anything beyond known physics. But the ability to actually have the experience of recalling these memories cannot be explained via known physics.
DrNoGods wrote: People seem more willing to accept that the mechanism of memory may be free of any divine influences, compared to consciousness, which is up another level in complexity.
Keep in mind that memory alone does not constitute "experience".

My computer has plenty of memory, but it has no experience of that memory. Only I can experience this memory by calling it up and looking at it.

So memory itself is as mundane as an automobile. F=ma is sufficient to explain memory.

Memory is not a problem. It only becomes a problem when someone experiences that memory.
DrNoGods wrote: But I can't see how a divine connection is needed to explain either,
Well if you can't see the difference between memory and the conscious experience of that memory, then I would suggest that you haven't given this enough though. There is no problem with "memory" that no one is having any experience of. That can be explained using just plain old physics. Like I say, my computer has plenty of memory and no one is baffled by that.
DrNoGods wrote: and believe we will eventually learn enough of the mechanistic details on how the brain does these things to push the argument towards a naturalistic conclusion (long after I am gone no doubt, and of course I may be wrong, but it is certainly still an open argument at this point).
Well, the first thing I would agree with you on complete is, "but it is certainly still an open argument at this point". That's for sure. And that's a large part of what I'm saying. :D

One thing I think is also very important is that there is no need to have a memory of anything in order to be conscious of existing. So memory can indeed be fully attributed to the physical brain. Consciousness has no need for memory.

Consciousness is the ability to experience a memory when that memory is available to be experienced.

Explaining how the brain produces things that can be experienced, such as memory, logical thinking, an all manner of physical sensory input is one thing. That can all be explained via normal physics. So making any progress in that area should not be confused with making progress on consciousness.

Consciousness is the ability to actually experience all these things that a brain makes available to be experienced.

Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that science will never explain consciousness. I just want to make it clear that understanding the brain as a computational device that produced experience that can be had is in no way the same thing as understanding how a brain could actually experience these things.

Producing something that can be experienced, and having the experience of it are to entirely different thing.

I can set up a distance senor to my computer (in fact I just did that recently). This allows the computer to "experience distance" from this sensor. I can then program the computer to tell me how far away I am standing from the distance sensor, and the computer can "experience" the input from the distance sensor, do some logical calculations on that "experience" and then output in simulated voice telling me how far I am standing from the computer.

In a sense you could say that this computer is experiencing this distance sensory input. But is it really? I don't think so. Technically the computer is getting the signal, "thinking" about it in terms of processing that information, and then outputting the result of the whole shebang.

But would anyone say that this computer actually has a conscious experience of this event? I don't think so.

So we don't want to confuse things that can be "experienced" with the actual conscious experience of something. These are entirely different things. And as conscious beings we are certainly experiencing the sensor I/O of our brains. But that's not the same thing as explaining that sensory I/O.

Explaining the sensory I/O of a brain doesn't get us any closer to explaining conscious experience.

Now let me close this post with the following suggestions for how science might actually solve this problem in a purely secular way.

You say:
DrNoGods wrote: and believe we will eventually learn enough of the mechanistic details on how the brain does these things to push the argument towards a naturalistic conclusion (long after I am gone no doubt)
I have ideas of how consciousness might be explained. And it won't really have anything to do with the current work that is being done, (such as studying how memory works ect.)

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that our brains are analog computers, and not digital computers. This is very important because it's highly unlikely that a digital computer could ever become conscious in the same way that a human is.

However, an analog computer might actually have this capability. And that is what our brains are. If this is possible, it will indeed be a "standing wave pattern" of information. Most likely in the form of some type of feedback loop that feeds back upon itself.

I actually have some ideas along those lines. And the truly exiting thing is that if this is the answer to consciousness, then not only will we be able to fully understand how consciousness works, but we will also be able to create conscious minds ourselves. We will have gained the ability to create a "living conscious being" from scratch.

In other words, we could then create a living android and fully understand precisely why this android is every bit as conscious as we are.

The irony is that the secular celebration will be short-lived. Yes, this will indeed be a totally secular explanation of consciousness. But strangely it will also confirm that consciousness is indeed nothing more than a standing wave pattern of energy and information. In other words, this will simultaneously confirm that energy as a standing wave pattern is indeed the "thing" that is having an experience. So the mystics will be at the party too. :D

It is a fascinating problem and like you I fear that by the time the problem is truly solved this standing wave pattern of energy will no longer be waving.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #12

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

[center]

The "argument from ignorance comes to mind...
[/center]


Divine Insight wrote:
Well, the "assumption" is that their observation is "complete".
Who on earth thinks they know everything?

Divine Insight wrote:
Science has no clue what energy is, but it clearly exhibits all these "properties".
Well they finally got a name for what lights my lights.
I was wondering about that.

I thought for a while it was "light juice" or something.

Divine Insight wrote:
We don't want to attribute consciousness as a fundamental property of energy. Let's try to explain it in some other way.

That's the "assumption" of science.
My lights are thinking at me?

Divine Insight wrote:
So it's not clear that a purely secular worldview could ever truly evade mysticism in the end anyway.
Therefore.. God?


:)

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #13

Post by Divine Insight »

Blastcat wrote: Therefore.. God?

:)
Nope. Therefore... mysticism. :D

The term "God" carries with it too much egotistical baggage due to the way it has been sculpted by the Abrahamic potters. ;)

There's no reason that the spiritual essence of the universe would need to have an ego or even an "intelligence" as we would perceive that concept to mean. Keep in mind that we basically see "intelligence" as an ability to reason logically. But actually that ability may be entirely a property of our brains. The spiritual essence of reality may have no need to "reason" about anything. And therefore it wouldn't have any use for "intelligence" as we perceive "intelligence" as humans.

In short, it could be pure awareness with no need for logical reasoning.

And beside wouldn't it be one WHALE of a mystery if some sort of "energy" just happened to exist and be capable of evolving into conscious sentient beings who are capable of logical reasoning?

So ironically a purely secular world would itself be a "Mysticism".(i.e. a mystery)

There doesn't seem to be any escape from mysticism anyway.

Even devoted secularists can't avoid the mystery. And that holds true even if they succeed in explaining consciousness in purely mechanistic terms. They would still be faced with the mystery of why such a mechanical universe exists in the first place.

So mysticism appears to be the end product of all inquisitions. 8-)

May as well surrender to that unavoidable fate now. Resistance is futile.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #14

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]
Well that's a very interesting point. Clearly we FULLY understand how memory works in our computers. We build memory banks and write programs to access them.


Of course ... I wasn't referring to memory of the type used in computers, USB sticks, etc. as we obviously know how that works, but to the details of the mechanisms for how memory works in a human brain ... eg. how the hippocampus (and whatever else is involved) interacts with neural networks to create the phenomenon of memory in the brain.
It has actually been suggested (and supposedly confirmed via scientific tests) that our memories cannot be trusted because we do have a tendency to "reconstruct" situations and events from "memory" than never actually happened.


Yes ... this is how dreams work and a lot of work has been done in this area. The brain tries to "create a storyline" by piecing together various memories, prior experiences, etc. based on how these are recalled during a partially conscious state. This same process has been proposed to explain many of the near death experiences people report (like seeing lights, floating above themselves and watching their bodies from above, etc.), which makes a lot of sense. These are basically the result of the same process as dreaming ... neurons firing semi randomly and the brain trying to make sense of it all.
But would anyone say that this computer actually has a conscious experience of this event? I don't think so.


I would certainly agree with this. I have interfaced countless sensors of different types to computers since the late 1970s and wrote programs to communicate with them, interpret the results, built the circuits for the interfaces, etc. This is all just straightfoward electronics and software. I would never claim a computer has any level of experience or consciousness, even the best AI systems that exist now. To me this kind of thing has nothing whatsoever to do with memory, consciousness, etc. as these exist in a human brain. And I don't think there are any analogies between the two that make sense other than that both computers and brains can "compute" and have "memory", but the way they go about it is completely different. We thoroughly understand how computers do these things, but don't yet understand the details of how a human brain does them at the molecular level or even the system level except in very general terms.
Well if you can't see the difference between memory and the conscious experience of that memory, then I would suggest that you haven't given this enough though.


I didn't say that memory and conscious experience of memory were the same thing, or the difference not understood. I said that memory was a component of consciousness, as is the processing of sensory inputs and the complicated interactions of neural networks that all comprise the complicated system (brain) that is capable of creating this thing called consciousness.
Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that science will never explain consciousness. I just want to make it clear that understanding the brain as a computational device that produced experience that can be had is in no way the same thing as understanding how a brain could actually experience these things.


This is where I get lost. If we can understand how the brain can manage memory, process sensory inputs, perform logical analysis of these inputs to create responses, emotions, physical actions, etc., and if we can understand all of these as the result of the operation of the brain as an integrated system (even if the mechanistic details are not known yet), why would consciousness not follow as simply a manifestation of these normal brain functions? To me consciousness is just the result of the combination of all of these component functions working together to create awareness, experience, etc.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #15

Post by Divine Insight »

DrNoGods wrote: To me consciousness is just the result of the combination of all of these component functions working together to create awareness, experience, etc.
I hear this from many proponents of the idea that consciousness is merely an emergent property of all these mechanism. I guess this is where I part ways from that view.

The problem I have with this is that this idea seems to be saying that if all these things are in place, then conscious awareness should be the natural result. The reason I feel this conclusion is flawed is because I feel that we almost already have examples where many of these things can be "emulated" yet it doesn't follow from that that conscious subjective awareness should automatically arise from this.

As one scientist to another (forgetting any mystical or spiritual ideas) I propose the following:

Digital computers are capable of emulating or simulating algorithms that can pretty much mimic anything a human brain can do save perhaps for true subjective consciousness itself.

In fact, I go further and make an assertion (one that you may or may not agree with). Digital computers process algorithms basically sequentially, one operation at a time. They may have multiple processors or even multiple threads within a single CPU architecture. However, the bottom line is that they are only processing finite steps at a time. And these steps are always just machine instructions. After all, this is really all that a CPU can process.

So from the above, I conclude (or claim of you like) that it is extremely unlikely that a digital computer could ever become truly conscious in the same manner that a human is subjectively aware of what's going on. Yet there doesn't seem to be much limitation on what a digital computer can "simulate". So in theory we could propose that a digital computer could be programmed to behave and react in life in ways that, to an outside observer, would be impossible to distinguish from actual human behavior. Yet, just because this computer gives the "appearance" of being conscious and "aware" of what's going on, the ultimate truth may actually be that it's not aware of anything at all. It's just running a program that appears to be aware.

Now you may not accept this assertion. But my point in making it is that just because all these mechanisms for reacting to experiences are in place, there's really neither any guarantee, nor even good reason, to believe that an actual subjective awareness would "automatically arise" from this situation.

So I don't find this type of argument very compelling as an "explanation" for subjective awareness.

Now, I will confess, that when we move over to a purely analog computer things have a potential to be quite different. The reason being that an analogy computer does not compute in "bits", or "bytes" or any other step-wise digital fashion. In fact, an analog computer doesn't even "run a program". This is why back in the 60's when computers were first becoming available there was some competition between analogy and digital computers to see which would really take off. Obviously the digital computer won hands-down very early on. And the reason for this is precisely becasue digital computers "Run Programs". This is what makes them so versatile. If you want to change what they do, just change the programming which can be done very quickly and easily. (although perhaps not so easily in the early 60's when digital computers were still being programmed by throwing toggle switches to code in each bit of information. :D

But obviously when keyboards came alone and the disk drive storage system the digital computers won the battle by leaps and bounds and the analog computers were basically written off as pretty useless, especially by the masses.

Now analog computers work quite a bit differently from digital computers as you are probably aware. There is no "program" save for the actual wiring of the computer. But because the way that the computer is wired is the "program" this allows the program to be "executed" in an endless variety of simultaneous ways.

In other words, the whole analog computer basically becomes a "standing wave pattern of thought". Or perhaps a better way to say it would be that it becomes a "huge configuration of simultaneously accessible information". This allows an analog computer to become more "simultaneously aware" (if you will) of far more than just a few machine coded steps of a digital sequential program.

Of course we need to be careful when we say that an analog computer is "simultaneously aware" of anything because there's still no obvious reason why this thing should be subjectively "aware" of anything. But at least the potential for a larger awareness is there and that's certainly a step in the right direction.

~~~~~~~

But now, allow me to back up a bit and go back to your proposal.

You say:
DrNoGods wrote: To me consciousness is just the result of the combination of all of these component functions working together to create awareness, experience, etc.
I hope at this point you'll agree at least somewhat that this isn't likely to be the case in a digital computer simply because of the sequential nature of how it works, (i.e. just performing "machine instructions" one-at-a-time.) In fact, that's all it's really doing. It just performing "machine instructions". So even if it is simulating all of these functions that gives an external appearance of them all working together, in truth they can't be working together. They are only taken into a sequential program, operated on one-at-a-time, and then a result is calculated and produced for what the program decides "should be" the result of all that input.

So while a digital computer could potentially simulate this behavior, it could never truly "emulate" it precisely. And thus a digital computer would not be a candidate for a potential sentient mind.

Would you agree that this is reasonable? :-k

If so, then we can move over to the analog computer (or true neural network, not merely a digitally simulated one). If there is an answer to conscious awareness it must lie in this analogy type of computer.

If you agree with my arguments to this point then we have made quite a bit of progress because we have at least recognized that conscious awareness most likely arises from this analogy type of situation. That would then give us a very big clue of what we need to look for.

After all, all the "components" that we have been discussing like memory, sensory input, etc., and even program algorithms themselves can be ruled out as not being sufficient in and of themselves for "true awareness". And if true awareness arises from the analog situation then the key to how this occurs would lie in understanding the contribution that simultaneous (and instantaneous) access to large amounts of information might somehow give rise to an "entity" that can then somehow become "aware" of all this activity.

For me, this is still a quite difficult problem because it's still by no means clear exactly what it is that has become "aware". The whole configuration of analog wiring?

This still leaves me with the question of, "What exactly is it that has become aware?"

It's true that in the analog situation we at least have the potential for the underlying "computer" to have access to far larger quantity of real-time information than a digital computer could ever hope to have. But it's still very far from being clear how this then leads to an actual subjective awareness.

Does this just happen automatically when large amounts of information are simultaneously available? And if so, why? Or perhaps more scientifically, how?

There still doesn't seem to be any real explanation here.

I have proposed the idea that this analog computer somehow creates a central "I" character. Perhaps even more than one of them. And then this "I" character somehow gets caught up in a "Feedback Loop" where it feeds back upon itself in a mirror like configuration, and this feedback loop then become that "Thing" that is having an experience of "awareness".

However, to be perfectly honest with you, I don't actually find my own idea very compelling. :(

Although having worked with feedback systems in electronic and oscillators etc., I do see how electronic circuits can seem to "come alive" when feedback is present. In fact, we would even refer to a servo system that isn't working as "dead" and one that is responsible to feedback as "alive". :D

And there's good reason for using those terms, because a "live" servo system does seem to have some sort of "life" to it. In fact, sometimes they seem to even take on a "life of their own" doing things they aren't told to do. 8-)

So I do have experience with how "feedback systems" can seem to "come alive".

But still, to become so much "alive" that they actually become aware of what's going on? That's pretty profound I think.

In the end, from a purely scientific or mechanistic perspective the best I can imagine is a "machine" (be it a fully functional human brain) that could give the appearance of "being alive" (or having a subjective experience). But moving forward to offering an actual explanation of how or why this should naturally occur from purely physical processes seems like a major leap to me.

This is why I'm leaning toward the type of solution offered by David Chalmers and others who are suggesting that the ability to be "aware" is some sort of fundamental property of the stuff we are made of.

This doesn't offer an "explanation" either, other than it's the same "explanation" we have for why any of the forces of nature exist. They just are. They are fundamental properties of what the universe is made up. Could conscious "awareness" be a primal property of the universe? If so, this would be the "Mystical" view.

By the way keep in mind that in your OP you stated:
What arguments from the theistic or philosophic sides of the fence can be offered to disprove this scientific position, or seriously challenge it?
I feel that my argument is neither theistic nor philosophic necessarily. In some sense I feel my argument is actually quite scientific. Just as David Chalmers has proposed, allowing that some sort of fundamental "awareness" might be a primal property of reality is not exactly unscientific. This could be something that we just haven't yet considered. After all, science has only "assumed" that reality doesn't have a primal innate property of awareness. But what was the reason for assuming that?

So I feel that my arguments actually are coming from a scientific perspective. I often point to things like Buddhism only to show that other cultures have actually assumed that awareness is fundamental as well. So the idea that it's not is actually a western idea.

I have no clue what the truth might be. And I would be very happy to know the answer whatever it might be.

In fact, the secular answer would be extremely exciting. Because if we could actually determine precisely what the cause of "awareness" is in mechanistic terms, we would then have figured out how to create "sentient life" from scratch. That would indeed be quite profound.

If science answers this question we would then have the knowledge of how to build a sentient human from scratch. Even potentially using no biological parts. A totally sentient android made entirely of inorganic materials.

Maybe that is the answer. And if it is the answer it will indeed be quite profound.

The scientists who actually make this discovery for the first time will have uncovered the greatest secret the universe holds. The secret to sentient subjective awareness.

This would be the most exciting discovery ever made. Even far more than understanding abiogenesis which will seem extremely mundane in comparison.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #16

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]


[center]
How do you define mysticism?[/center]

Blastcat wrote: Therefore.. God?
Divine Insight wrote:
Nope. Therefore... mysticism. :D
Could you define that for us?

Because I know what a MYSTERY means.. it's something that I don't know.. or sometime that I am IGNORANT of.

Do you mean that because I don't know everything that what I don't know is mysterious to me?

Because I would agree with that.
What I don't know IS kinda mysterious.



:)

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]


[center]
How do you define mysticism?[/center]

Blastcat wrote: Therefore.. God?
Divine Insight wrote:
Nope. Therefore... mysticism. :D

Could you define that for us?

Because I know what a MYSTERY means.. it's something that I don't know.. or sometime that I am IGNORANT of.

Do you mean that because I don't know everything that what I don't know is mysterious to me?

Because I would agree with that.
What I don't know IS kinda mysterious.



:)
Well, I think this is best explained by pointing to the large amount of ignorance surrounding mysticism. Mystics don't claim to "know" the true nature of reality, and they especially don't claim to know how its done via any sort of comprehensible explanation. In fact, this is why mysticism is call mysticism, it is an open confession that reality is indeed a mystery.

However, just as with science, the mystics also recognize that not everything is unknown. There are things we can indeed know. The mystic would even take this a step further and say that there is actually only one thing that we can know with absolute certainty, and that is the fact of our own subjective awareness. That is the one thing we can be absolutely confident about. Everything else could be some sort of illusion or artificial simulation of some sort.

Science takes the opposite approach. Science observe an apparent physical world "out there" and assumes that this physical world is the foundation of reality and that the subjective awareness of the scientist somehow arises from this assumed physical world. This is the assumption of science that may potentially be incorrect. I'm not saying that it is incorrect, but it certainly could be incorrect, because after all, it's just an assumption with no other basis for defining an entire system of inquiry into nature upon it.

In fact, in the days of classical physics this system was taken to the max. The world was believed to be made up of "atoms" (indivisible particles) not unlike tiny billiard balls, and that these particles moved around in an absolute space and in accordance with absolute time. This was the classical clockwork universe worldview.

This discovery of Relativity shattered the our assumption of absolute time. And the discovery of Quantum Mechanics shattered our assumption of absolute particles. Now we have embraced a malleable fabric of "spacetime" that is intimately entangled and apparently even interchangeable. We have learned how to dilate time in exchange for spatial change. Of course, one could argue that this is still a type of classical picture since this fabric of spacetime has now become the "thing" of interest and can now be treated as a more complex yet still complete entity. Although no one truly understand how space and time can be the same "thing". But at least now, thanks to Albert Einstein we have equations that at least allow us to quantitatively describe this behavior.

The discovery of Quantum Mechanics has shattered our classical balls. Now we see that particles aren't really "particles" at all but instead they are some sort of vibrations or standing wave patterns of energy. Scientists are desperately trying to get their balls back in the form of wiggling strings, but even that idea is far from fleshed out. String theory is just yet another attempt to save our balls.

But there may not even be any balls or strings at all. The standing waves that make up reality may actually be standing waves of thought. In fact, the controversy over where these standing waves end and where a conscious observer begins is still alive and well. Some have even suggested that we are actually in an 'observer created" reality where conscious awareness is what actually creates everything else. Of course, that has not been established to be the case, but it can't be ruled out either.

So here's what we end up with:

Mystics say the following:

We observe that we are having a conscious experience of awareness. Everything else we know obviously depends upon this. Everything else could be some sort of illusion, but clearly the conscious awareness is "real". It's the one thing we can know for certain. Everything else is a mystery.

Thus let's call this view "mysticism".

Scientist say the following:

We observe that there is an obvious physical world out there. At first we thought it consisted of absolute space and time with tiny balls floating around in accordance with Newton's F=ma. But then one day we lost our balls. And space and time dissolved into a single dynamic entity that is not the absolute framework/stage that we first thought it was. Now we are trying to resurrect our balls as tiny wiggly strings but that's not really panning out the way we had hoped. And now we have dark energy and dark matter to deal with! But give us more time, we'll eventually figure it all out with out subjective awareness that we believe arises from wiggly strings somehow. Right now it's all a mystery, but we're working on it so don't convert to mysticism yet!

What?

Excuse me but science itself is a "mysticism". It's a mysticism that is based on the idea that tiny wiggly strings "might" exist and due to their ability to vibrate they ultimately end up creating subjective awareness in complex forms such a human brain.

I'm not saying that science won't ultimately achieve its goal of explaining everything in terms of physical particles or wiggling strings, but I am saying that this is an approach that is based on the assumption that this is indeed how the world works. In short they basically have a "hypothesis" that they are trying to prove is right.

I don't see where they are any further ahead than the mystics.

As far as I can see Mysticism and Science are pretty much on equal footing, either one could potentially be true at this point.

However, my own personal view is that, as a physicist and lover of mechanisms, I have trouble imagining wiggling strings creating self-awareness. Of course, just because I can't imagine this doesn't mean that it can't be true. But my point is that this proposal is clearly not a compelling answer at this point in time.

In other words, what I'm arguing against is the idea that science is very close to the answer. I don't think that's true.

I'm not saying that science should quit. I'm all for scientific research and continued investigations. In fact, if the scientific method can ultimately discover the secret of conscious awareness I think that would be absolute fantastic!

My only argument is that we aren't anywhere near that point yet. So it's not like science is making "progress" on this particular question. Like David Chalmers has suggested, understanding which parts of the brain are related to certain experiences is great. But that just shows what there is available to experience. It doesn't say anything at all about exactly what it is that is "having" this experience.

I don't see where science is anywhere near addressing that question.

I'm not saying they never will. I'm just saying they haven't offered anything yet that even remotely addresses this question.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #18

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 14 by DrNoGods]
So from the above, I conclude (or claim of you like) that it is extremely unlikely that a digital computer could ever become truly conscious in the same manner that a human is subjectively aware of what's going on. Yet there doesn't seem to be much limitation on what a digital computer can "simulate". So in theory we could propose that a digital computer could be programmed to behave and react in life in ways that, to an outside observer, would be impossible to distinguish from actual human behavior. Yet, just because this computer gives the "appearance" of being conscious and "aware" of what's going on, the ultimate truth may actually be that it's not aware of anything at all. It's just running a program that appears to be aware.


I would agree with that completely.
Now analog computers work quite a bit differently from digital computers as you are probably aware. There is no "program" save for the actual wiring of the computer. But because the way that the computer is wired is the "program" this allows the program to be "executed" in an endless variety of simultaneous ways.


My father was an electrical engineer with Western Electric (and then to Bell Labs) and in the 1960s he built a tic-tac-toe machine purely from analog circuitry, including various levels of play capability, and built in delays to make it appear the machine was thinking of its next move. It was a hit at one of their open houses. I learned a lot about analog electronics from him and that gadget, and building a lot of Heathkits!
So while a digital computer could potentially simulate this behavior, it could never truly "emulate" it precisely. And thus a digital computer would not be a candidate for a potential sentient mind.

Would you agree that this is reasonable?


Absolutely. But I find it easy to believe that sensory inputs, memory mechanisms and neural networks could develop into a sentient mind through their complicated interactions, even if I can't explain the details of how it all works at a molecular level, or make an analogy with a modern computer, or analog computer (or quantum computer where qbits can be in multiple states simultaneously). The fact that there are brains of all levels of capability in animals, that all seem to have evolved from an early version (possibly in a worm), suggests that our capabilities as humans (to use the old phrase) is a matter of degree and not kind. And I'd ask where one draws the line between a brain that could be said not to exhibit sentience, and one that does. Humans clearly do, and we have a huge amount of neocortex compared to anything else (about 6x more volume than a chimp). Since that is the brain region responsible for advanced functions, it seems to me a rational explanation for our increased intelligence, and sentience, regardless of the mechanistic details of how it all works which we do not understand yet.

On the "energy" issue, there is no doubt that science is still grappling with the physics of things at the subatomic level; whether string theory is valid, what is dark matter and dark energy, how to detect gravitons, etc., but I'd argue that none of this is relevant to the biology and functioning of the brain (or anything else in a human body). You can stop at the atomic level, or even the molecular level, to explain biological functions, wholly independent of any consideration of the physics of subatomic particles or string theory, etc. (although ultimately all of that stuff underpins "everything" in the physical world).

I've mentioned a recent book before ("Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering how the Brain Decodes our Thoughts", Stanislas Dehaene, 2015) and he summarizes a lot of experiments done by his own group, and others, on identifying signals of conscious awareness. One thing they have shown is that subconscious stimuli (words, images, other sounds) travel only briefly through peripheral brain sections, while signals that cross the boundary to awareness behave completely differently. The conscious signals start out the same as the subconsciousness ones, but cross a barrier and create a "global avalanche" (one of the book's phrases) of neuronal activity that they have identified as clear signals of conscious awareness of a stimulus. Whatever the stimulus, this global avalanche of brain activity was always required for it to breach the barrier from subconscious to conscious awareness.

I'm grossly simplifying the book's discussions as several chapters are devoted to the experiments and their results, but a so-called "P3" wave representing global brain activity seems to be a good indicator of a stimulus that has crossed the barrier from subconscious to conscious awareness. Interesting book, but this does more support an analog-type of system where many brain sections are involved for conscious awareness, and they all act together to create this function. It is not a simple path where an image is created by retinal response to the incoming photons, corresponding optic nerve response to the visual cortex where the image becomes "visible" to the brain. Large sections of brain "light up" for any conscious event and the whole process is a very complex interaction of many brain sections. Another interesting point they found is that it takes about 300 ms for this process to complete, so we are living in the past by about that much time.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #19

Post by Divine Insight »

@ DrNoGods, You make a lot of very keen observations and I can see that you are deeply interested in this subject matter and have studied it in some depth. None the less, I tend to be hesitant in drawing the conclusions that you seem to readily accept.
DrNoGods wrote: I learned a lot about analog electronics from him and that gadget, and building a lot of Heathkits!
I too was a lover of Heathkits. I built quite a few of them, mostly electronic test equipment. I actually wanted to build their analog computer kit but I couldn't afford to buy everything. :D Instead I bought an Altair 8800 digital computer. That was probably the wiser thing at the time since digital computers were the way to go. But still I often wonder how much more I would have learned from the analog computer? I know how they work in theory, but I never actually built one.
DrNoGods wrote: Absolutely. But I find it easy to believe that sensory inputs, memory mechanisms and neural networks could develop into a sentient mind through their complicated interactions, even if I can't explain the details of how it all works at a molecular level, or make an analogy with a modern computer, or analog computer (or quantum computer where qbits can be in multiple states simultaneously).
This is the leap I can't make. I can certainly understand how an extremely complex system could be built (or even evolve), potentially even "technically" recognizing itself to be a unique unit (at least in terms of logical decisions making). But I'm still troubled by how even that recognition would translate into an entity that is actually "aware" of what's going on like we are.


In other words, it's the actual experience of awareness that causes me difficulty when trying to explain human consciousness.
DrNoGods wrote: The fact that there are brains of all levels of capability in animals, that all seem to have evolved from an early version (possibly in a worm), suggests that our capabilities as humans (to use the old phrase) is a matter of degree and not kind. And I'd ask where one draws the line between a brain that could be said not to exhibit sentience, and one that does. Humans clearly do, and we have a huge amount of neocortex compared to anything else (about 6x more volume than a chimp). Since that is the brain region responsible for advanced functions, it seems to me a rational explanation for our increased intelligence, and sentience, regardless of the mechanistic details of how it all works which we do not understand yet.
My take on this is that lowly animals are probably having an experience. In other words, they are most likely "aware" of what they are sensing. A worm is probably "aware" of what it is feeling, but it's not likely to be thinking of this in abstract terms like a human would. My guess is that the consciousness of a worm would be somewhat similar to the consciousness of a human who is in an extremely groggy and disoriented state of mind. Potentially not even self-aware anymore, or even able to think clearly, but still having the "experience" of bodily sensations.

When we get up to more advanced animals like dogs and cats, etc. I personally believe they are quite "sentient" in the sense of being aware that they exist. But they haven't abstracted this to the level that we humans have. And they aren't aware of things like death, especially in the abstract sense of knowing that they will eventually die.

The abstract sentience that humans experience is entirely due to the brain. I have no problem with that. However, keep in mind that the fundamental property of "awareness" in general did not require that level of abstraction as we see in things like worms, or cats and dogs, for example.

In other words, abstract sentience is clearly not important to "awareness" in general. Even a human who has been mentally disabled to the point where abstract reasoning is no longer possible and a clear sense of sentience is also gone, could (and probably does) continue to experience bodily sensations even in this limited capacity of sentience.

So sentience is not the same as awareness. But becoming sentience does require a level of abstract thinking that perhaps is indeed provided by the brain.

One thing you need to understand about the "mystical" point of view. The mystics don't dismiss the importance of the brain in the human experience. The brain is indeed what enables us to have the experiences of being "human". The question isn't whether or not the brain is required to produce these experience. The real question is whether a brain is required to actually be "aware" of these experiences.

This is often a difficult distinction to grapple with, but the reason this is important to me is because I have studied enough idea of "mysticism" to understand this distinction and why it is not problematic for the mystics that a brain provides material that can be experienced. The mystics don't dismiss the importance of the brain to the human experience. They just question whether it is the source of awareness.
DrNoGods wrote: On the "energy" issue, there is no doubt that science is still grappling with the physics of things at the subatomic level; whether string theory is valid, what is dark matter and dark energy, how to detect gravitons, etc., but I'd argue that none of this is relevant to the biology and functioning of the brain (or anything else in a human body). You can stop at the atomic level, or even the molecular level, to explain biological functions, wholly independent of any consideration of the physics of subatomic particles or string theory, etc. (although ultimately all of that stuff underpins "everything" in the physical world).
This is another area where I think dramatically differently. I've heard a lot of arguments that quantum effects cannot affect the brain because the brain is a macro object made of large molecules, etc. However, this is hardly the case. Actually that vast majority of activity that takes place with in the brain is indeed electromagnetic energy (i.e. photons, and electrons), or even ions which can also exhibit quantum effects. So a brain, although a seemingly macro machine, is actually intimately connected and submersed in the quantum level. So the idea that the brain is somehow "isolated" from quantum effects seems like a very poor argument to me.
DrNoGods wrote: I've mentioned a recent book before ("Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering how the Brain Decodes our Thoughts", Stanislas Dehaene, 2015) and he summarizes a lot of experiments done by his own group, and others, on identifying signals of conscious awareness. One thing they have shown is that subconscious stimuli (words, images, other sounds) travel only briefly through peripheral brain sections, while signals that cross the boundary to awareness behave completely differently. The conscious signals start out the same as the subconsciousness ones, but cross a barrier and create a "global avalanche" (one of the book's phrases) of neuronal activity that they have identified as clear signals of conscious awareness of a stimulus. Whatever the stimulus, this global avalanche of brain activity was always required for it to breach the barrier from subconscious to conscious awareness.
I haven't read that book, but I have seen several YouTube lectures and Ted Talks on this topic. One problem I have with this is that just because we see an "avalanche" of brain activity when consciousness is present, it doesn't automatically follow that this avalanche of activity is the "cause" of conscious awareness, or whether conscious awareness is the "cause" of this avalanche of activity.

So this can be taken either way, and I've seen talks that address this issue as well.

There is this other strange question though too concerning where consciousness "goes" when we are apparently unconscious. When we are in a dream state it is unclear exactly how conscious awareness works. It seems that many times we are not "Consciously aware" of a dream when we are having it, but we might remember having had it when we wake up. Other times we seem to have lucid dreams where we are both conscious and aware that we are dreaming simultaneously.

So consciousness seems to always been there even when we aren' t "aware" of it.

It's an interesting phenomenon to be sure.
DrNoGods wrote: I'm grossly simplifying the book's discussions as several chapters are devoted to the experiments and their results, but a so-called "P3" wave representing global brain activity seems to be a good indicator of a stimulus that has crossed the barrier from subconscious to conscious awareness. Interesting book, but this does more support an analog-type of system where many brain sections are involved for conscious awareness, and they all act together to create this function. It is not a simple path where an image is created by retinal response to the incoming photons, corresponding optic nerve response to the visual cortex where the image becomes "visible" to the brain. Large sections of brain "light up" for any conscious event and the whole process is a very complex interaction of many brain sections. Another interesting point they found is that it takes about 300 ms for this process to complete, so we are living in the past by about that much time.
I have a hard time reading books anymore because my eyesight is failing. I'll try to find a lecture or summary on YouTube. :D

Although, like I say, I have heard similar lectures and talks on these subjects already. I just don't see them as being conclusive when it comes to drawing conclusions.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Consciousness, Mind and Matter

Post #20

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]



[center]The mysteriousness surrounding mysticism[/center]

Divine Insight wrote:
Well, I think this is best explained by pointing to the large amount of ignorance surrounding mysticism.
I am nothing if not just a wee tad ignorant. :)
Mysticism about the mysticism, if you will.

Divine Insight wrote:
Mystics don't claim to "know" the true nature of reality, and they especially don't claim to know how its done via any sort of comprehensible explanation. In fact, this is why mysticism is call mysticism, it is an open confession that reality is indeed a mystery.
In that case, every thinking person is a mystic.
I might be one of the best over-qualified mystics there is.. to me, everything is pretty darn mysterious. There is so MUCH that I don't know.

My guru hours are between 9-5 weekdays, by the way.

Divine Insight wrote:
However, just as with science, the mystics also recognize that not everything is unknown. There are things we can indeed know.
Again, I am a very qualified mystic.
There are things that I know.

Divine Insight wrote:
The mystic would even take this a step further and say that there is actually only one thing that we can know with absolute certainty, and that is the fact of our own subjective awareness.
A would go a few steps further than that.
These days.. I'd dance them.

Divine Insight wrote:
That is the one thing we can be absolutely confident about. Everything else could be some sort of illusion or artificial simulation of some sort.
I know of a mystic who dances away from such absolute corners, my friend.

Divine Insight wrote:
Science takes the opposite approach. Science observe an apparent physical world "out there" and assumes that this physical world is the foundation of reality and that the subjective awareness of the scientist somehow arises from this assumed physical world.
As soon as a scientist starts to "assume" he is working himself out of a job.
She might be better placed with a job in the Department of Assuming Too Much.

Divine Insight wrote:
This is the assumption of science that may potentially be incorrect. I'm not saying that it is incorrect, but it certainly could be incorrect, because after all, it's just an assumption with no other basis for defining an entire system of inquiry into nature upon it.
I'm assuming that you assume other people assume it.

Divine Insight wrote:
In fact, in the days of classical physics this system was taken to the max.
The world was believed to be made up of "atoms" (indivisible particles) not unlike tiny billiard balls, and that these particles moved around in an absolute space and in accordance with absolute time. This was the classical clockwork universe worldview.
I know of a mystic who observes "progress" in science.

Divine Insight wrote:
This discovery of Relativity shattered the our assumption of absolute time.
Yeah, I used to think that science was jumping from one assumption to another.. and not really anything else. Now, I think it's also something else.

Divine Insight wrote:
Although no one truly understand how space and time can be the same "thing". But at least now, thanks to Albert Einstein we have equations that at least allow us to quantitatively describe this behavior.
We are in need of an Albert Einstein 2.0

Divine Insight wrote:
String theory is just yet another attempt to save our balls.
I have a quite different way of defining the pursuit of knowledge.

Divine Insight wrote:
Mystics say the following:

We observe that we are having a conscious experience of awareness.
I'm one of those mystics.

Divine Insight wrote:
Everything else we know obviously depends upon this. Everything else could be some sort of illusion, but clearly the conscious awareness is "real". It's the one thing we can know for certain. Everything else is a mystery.
What I don't know sure is a mystery to me.

Divine Insight wrote:
Thus let's call this view "mysticism".

Scientist say the following:

We observe that there is an obvious physical world out there.
Exactly like the mystics, no?

Divine Insight wrote:
At first we thought it consisted of absolute space and time with tiny balls floating around in accordance with Newton's F=ma.
You have a ballsy way of explaining science.

Divine Insight wrote:
But then one day we lost our balls.
Where oh where can those lost balls be?

Divine Insight wrote:
And space and time dissolved into a single dynamic entity that is not the absolute framework/stage that we first thought it was.
Sciency guys learn a lot of stuff.

Divine Insight wrote:
Now we are trying to resurrect our balls as tiny wiggly strings but that's not really panning out the way we had hoped.
Science gals don't know all the stuff.

Divine Insight wrote:
And now we have dark energy and dark matter to deal with!
Makes me wanna look under the couch for them balls. ( It's an obvious place )

Divine Insight wrote:
But give us more time, we'll eventually figure it all out with out subjective awareness that we believe arises from wiggly strings somehow. Right now it's all a mystery, but we're working on it so don't convert to mysticism yet!
Too late.
I've sailed into the Mystic.

Divine Insight wrote:
What?

Excuse me but science itself is a "mysticism".
I can dig it.

Were all of us mystics..and I want to rock your gypsy soul, just like back in the days of old.

Divine Insight wrote:
It's a mysticism that is based on the idea that tiny wiggly strings "might" exist and due to their ability to vibrate they ultimately end up creating subjective awareness in complex forms such a human brain.
String theory is a nice hypothesis.

Divine Insight wrote:
I'm not saying that science won't ultimately achieve its goal of explaining everything in terms of physical particles or wiggling strings, but I am saying that this is an approach that is based on the assumption that this is indeed how the world works.
To me, Santa does it.

Divine Insight wrote:
In short they basically have a "hypothesis" that they are trying to prove is right.
Sometimes at night when I look up I see a moving light that some people might call "Satellites". I like to hypothesize "Santalights."

Divine Insight wrote:
I don't see where they are any further ahead than the mystics.
Might must be that the scientists are using scientific methods instead of seat of their pants.

Divine Insight wrote:
As far as I can see Mysticism and Science are pretty much on equal footing, either one could potentially be true at this point.
Santa vs String Theory.

Why not?
Enjoy.

Divine Insight wrote:
However, my own personal view is that, as a physicist and lover of mechanisms, I have trouble imagining wiggling strings creating self-awareness. Of course, just because I can't imagine this doesn't mean that it can't be true. But my point is that this proposal is clearly not a compelling answer at this point in time.

I'm looking for a mystery that is compelling for you


Divine Insight wrote:
In other words, what I'm arguing against is the idea that science is very close to the answer. I don't think that's true.
And who holds onto this idea?
Mystics?

Not this one, sir.

Divine Insight wrote:
I'm not saying that science should quit. I'm all for scientific research and continued investigations. In fact, if the scientific method can ultimately discover the secret of conscious awareness I think that would be absolute fantastic!
Me 2.

Divine Insight wrote:
My only argument is that we aren't anywhere near that point yet.
That's not really an argument, is it?
It's more of an opinion, instead.

Divine Insight wrote:
I don't see where science is anywhere near addressing that question.
As we float upon the mystic.

Divine Insight wrote:
I'm not saying they never will. I'm just saying they haven't offered anything yet that even remotely addresses this question.
When that fog horn blows
You know I will be coming home

And when that fog horn whistle blows
I got to hear it, I don't have to fear it

And I wanna rock your gypsy soul
Just like way back in the days of old

And together we will float
Into the mystic


- Van Morrisson



:)

Post Reply