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.

[olavisjo]

.

Sigh.

I can tell you still rely heavily on obscrantism!


All molecules, atoms, and even particles are all abstractions of more fundamental objects. Even natural law, math and logic are mere abstractions, descriptions of what we think it is. Therefore one could argue that reality is an abstraction, since we have no direct experience of it. We are merely interpreting signals coming from our material brain using an explanation. That is how we create our subjective experience which we mostly share to become mainstream explanations.

Our subjective experience comprises knowledge of or skill of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event.


There is your 'mystical' experience easily explained, no need for obscrantism.

I do not understand you post at all.

I told you already what this experience is. Read my posts and tell em what is so unclear.

If you find fault with it, tell me, but do not just offer me a fallacy of assertion.

It is not impossible to communicate it, hence we have science that tells us what it is, to strip out subjectivity.


Go for it.

The floor is yours! Let the obscurantist in you shine!

Can you tell me what this "we" is? It can't be the material brain since the "we" is "interpreting signals coming from our material brain using an explanation".

[JohnA]

.

Sigh.

I can tell you still rely heavily on obscrantism!


All molecules, atoms, and even particles are all abstractions of more fundamental objects. Even natural law, math and logic are mere abstractions, descriptions of what we think it is. Therefore one could argue that reality is an abstraction, since we have no direct experience of it. We are merely interpreting signals coming from our material brain using an explanation. That is how we create our subjective experience which we mostly share to become mainstream explanations.

Our subjective experience comprises knowledge of or skill of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event.


There is your 'mystical' experience easily explained, no need for obscrantism.

I do not understand you post at all.

I told you already what this experience is. Read my posts and tell em what is so unclear.

If you find fault with it, tell me, but do not just offer me a fallacy of assertion.

It is not impossible to communicate it, hence we have science that tells us what it is, to strip out subjectivity.


Go for it.

The floor is yours! Let the obscurantist in you shine!

Can you tell me what this "we" is? It can't be the material brain since the "we" is "interpreting signals coming from our material brain using an explanation".

Grammar lessons:

1. We = you and me and everyone else.

2. We explain the signals. We call that experience.

I asked to find fault, nor for me to teach primary school grammar.

[keithprosser3]

It is not impossible to communicate it

Now that really is an example of the assertion fallacy!

Instead of asserting it's possible to communicate it, please communicate it. Although I have to admit I have forgotten what 'it' is now.

[Divine Insight]

I wonder if JohnA is saying science can't investigate the issue, i.e. accepting that there are areas where science cannot go. That would put him right in your Mystical camp, wouldn't it DI?

Recognizing that the scientific method of investigation has limitations is certainly a start. Preaching that "Schools Out" on the topic because science has already answered all these questions is simply false and a misrepresentation of what can even be scientifically known.

Whether a person wants to consider any other possible hypotheses is certainly up to them. But claiming that science has settled the issue is false. It's far from settled. And it may very well be beyond the reach of science altogether.

In that case what sense does it make to claim that "Schools Out" on the topic?

All we can conclude from this situation is that science is insufficient to address the question.

[keithprosser3]

All we can conclude from this situation is that science is insufficient to address the question.

It depends on what you mean by science. I think science may need to extended in some way to handle problems like this - and then maybe we'll get a proper handle on consciousness and free will too!

I understand why some people are reluctant to even contemplate any modification of science - no-one wants to lose science's qualities of rationality, rigour and being 'evidence based'.

Extending science so it can handle 'mental phenomena' without losing those essential qualities is not something that can be done easily, but if science is ever to be able answer a wide class of questions I think its current limitations may have to faced up to and addressed.

PS - what does 'schools out' mean in this context? Not au fait with modernisms!

[Divine Insight]

I understand why some people are reluctant to even contemplate any modification of science - no-one wants to lose science's qualities of rationality, rigour and being 'evidence based'.

There are two important things to consider here.

First off, what are you calling "science"? Just any rational method of inquiry? If it's rational then it's scientific? If you define science in that way, then science may very well expand to include methods it doesn't currently consider to be science today.

But this is almost a cheat just support the semantic term "science". Moreover, it's also a pipe dream. It's a dream of what science might someday become. It's not a statement of what science can actually explain today using it's current methodologies.

Secondly, it actually a 'faith-based' dream that modifications to science will produce any specific results. After all, who's to say that an expanded modified science will ultimately conclude that the seat of experience is actually within the brain? It's possible that such an advanced science could come to a totally different conclusion.

I've already pointed out hard-core scientific reasons why there is no physical reason to suspect that the brain itself could ever experience anything. From a pure scientific point of view it's pretty simple. We assume as a prerequisite that matter and energy are themselves no capable of having an experience. And then we move on to recognize that the brain itself is made of nothing other than matter and energy. So we've basically painted ourselves into a scientific corner. What are we going to attribute experience to now? An imaginary "emergent property".

What rational sense does it truly make to believe that an abstract notion of an "emergent property" could have an experience?

Perhaps the mistake was our original assumption that matter/energy wasn't already an entity capable of having an experience itself.

Maybe our initial assumptions and premises were wrong?

Maybe the mystics are right and the thing that is actually having an experience is this matter/energy that is manifesting itself as a physical universe?

Either one could be the truth. I personally see the mystical picture as actually being more rational.

It's more rational in my mind to believe that some entity that is capable of having an experience became manifest as a physical world, than it is to assume that some some inert stuff came into into being for no apparent reason and just accidentally had the properties that it could evolve into living conscious beings that could then have an experience as an "emergent property" of this totally accidental consciously inert stuff.

So for me, the mystical picture actually represents a higher degree of rationality.

So a sufficiently advanced science may actually discover a truth far different from what many secular atheists envision today.

Who knows? We certainly can't say that schools out on this question yet. It's way too early to say what the ultimate answer might be.

[keithprosser3]

It's not a statement of what science can actually explain today using it's current methodologies.

Quite. I think I made it fairly clear that I think science -as it is constituted today - is probably unable to solve a class of problems that can be called 'mental', for want of a better word not coming to mind.

I do not say that lightly. I am not of a mystically inclined nature (I don't even know what that means). It is with reluctance that I find myself questioning the sufficiency of the current scientific paradigm. But what can one do? The problems posed by 'mind' are not getting solved. It is not scientific to not face facts, and the fact is that (althouh JohnA might not agree) science seems helpless in the face of certain problems posed by mind, or consciousness.

JohnA can protest until he is blue in face, but he hasn't addressed my simple problem of translating 'red looks like this' into Braille. I can't translate it into Braille either, but neither can anyone else. It annoys me intensely that such a simple looking thing is so intractable.

I think one difference between me and some others is that there are people who are very happy that science can't answer such a simple question. They like the idea of the mysterious. Such people are liable to claim their 'insight' that science can't do something makes them superior in some way to the honest toilers who work hard looking for answers. I think that negatively anti-scientific attitude is what gets up JohnA's nose. It gets up mine as well.

There was a very famous (and very, very good) mathematician called Hilbert who believed all mathematical truths could be proved using what are called 'formal methods'. Mathematics was equated with Hillbertian 'formal methods' until well into the 20th century. But Godel showed that there is more to mathematics than formal methods after all. I think the same is happening in science today. The problems of mind are showing us science is bigger than the methods it currently uses. Science isn't wrong, but it has somehow painted itself into a corner where it almost stops itself from addressing at least one class of very important question.

I reject the labels 'anti-scientific' and 'mystic' for myself. But I think science need to change, and that change might be more than a minor tweak.

[Divine Insight]

I think one difference between me and some others is that there are people who are very happy that science can't answer such a simple question. They like the idea of the mysterious. Such people are liable to claim their 'insight' that science can't do something makes them superior in some way to the honest toilers who work hard looking for answers. I think that negatively anti-scientific attitude is what gets up JohnA's nose. It gets up mine as well.

I don't negate any of the accomplishments of science. I highly admire all scientists, even those who have made wrong guesses or hypotheses. Even making a wrong hypothesis can often times contribute to forward movement and a deeper understanding overall.

I consider myself to be a scientist and an avid supporter of continued scientific research for sure, especially in the areas where it can have technological benefits in the physical world. I even support the scientific investigation into things that may currently seem to be beyond the reach of science.

But what I don't support is a stance by hardcore secular atheists that science has already proven their position or has even supported it beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither of those positions are true, IMHO.

There was a very famous (and very, very good) mathematician called Hilbert who believed all mathematical truths could be proved using what are called 'formal methods'. Mathematics was equated with Hillbertian 'formal methods' until well into the 20th century. But Godel showed that there is more to mathematics than formal methods after all. I think the same is happening in science today. The problems of mind are showing us science is bigger than the methods it currently uses. Science isn't wrong, but it has somehow painted itself into a corner where it almost stops itself from addressing at least one class of very important question.

I agree, mathematics has some serious issues itself. In fact I really should write a book on that subject because I am actually aware of some of the major flaws in modern day mathematical formalism. I can point to them specifically and even point out why they have been accepted and why they have led mathematicians "astray"*.

* To clarify what I mean by astray allow me to present my objections in a formal logical conditional statement.

IF mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative properties of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong

I hold that this conditional statement is true. In other words, if the proposition is accepted as true, then I can show the conclusion is also true. On the other hand if someone chooses to reject the proposition (i.e. they don't accept that mathematical formalism needs to correctly describe the quantitative properties of our physical universe) then the statement is still true logically anyway.

So I hold that this is an absolutely true conditional statement. And I really should write a book on it. But unfortunately I'm just not interested enough to devote my time and effort to the project. Sadly though, if I had spent all my time posting on here writing this book instead, I would have already been done several years ago.

I reject the labels 'anti-scientific' and 'mystic' for myself. But I think science need to change, and that change might be more than a minor tweak.

Well, I'm certainly not 'anti-science', if anything I may be 'anti-mathematical-formalism' as described above, but only in detailed areas.

For me the term "mystic" really just means "Accepting Mystery" and at this point in time I'm certainly open to that.

[keithprosser3]

I see no disagreement between us worth a fig. I look forward to JohnA's rejoinder.

I hope you write do your book. Is it too much to hope you send me a complimentary copy?

[olavisjo]

.

Can you tell me what this "we" is? It can't be the material brain since the "we" is "interpreting signals coming from our material brain using an explanation".

Grammar lessons:

1. We = you and me and everyone else.

2. We explain the signals. We call that experience.

I asked to find fault, nor for me to teach primary school grammar.

Good enough, it seems like we are are in agreement then, that "you and me and everyone else" is not a material brain.