Consciousness, Mind and Matter

[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?

[Divine Insight]

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?

Allow me to say right up front that I have serious problems with the "scientific" perspective on "consciousness". And my objections are purely scientific objections, without any desire to support any sort of theism.

Allow me to also make clear in the very beginning that I personally feel that religions that have an egotistical God who supposedly creates individual conscious "souls" is extremely problematic as well. So this rules out all of the Abrahamic religions and any type of egotistical Gods who created humans as totally separate conscious entities.

If I were going to go with any type of "spiritual" or "mystical" view of reality I would need to go with something more along the lines of pantheism, or panentheism. Such as Buddhism, Taoism, Animism, etc.

Having said the above it is not my intention to support any specific spiritual or mystical view. However, I have serious problems with the scientific approach.

So let's me address that right now.

You say:

… "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).

I would disagree that the term "simply" could even remotely be applied to this highly problematic view.

The problem isn't whether complex "thinking machines" could evolve naturally. A computer is a "thinking machine", but there is no reason to believe that a computer is actually "having an experience".

The question isn't to ask how "thought" could evolve. Thought alone does not address the question. We can easily imagine a world of "thinking robots" that have no actual experience at all. In fact, we can even build thinking robots and this doesn't cause us to believe that these robots are actually having an experience. It's just a "computer" but "nobody's home" so-to-speak.

The real question that needs to be answered is the following:

Just exactly what is it that is "having an experience"?

For example, you said, "ultimately based on electrical and chemical interactions at the molecular level, ie. purely 'matter' based"

But let's look at the assumptions of science:

We have energy (which we actually have absolutely NO CLUE what energy actually is)

We have "matter". However Einstein shows us that matter is just standing waves of energy. E=mc² So all that exists is "energy" which we have no clue about really. And we don't assign matter any actual properties other than to observe the following four forces that it can exhibit:

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Strong Nuclear Force
4. Weak Nuclear Force

This is all we currently know about save for the new discoveries of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter". But insofar as we know there are no new forces associated with these new types of energy and matter.

So this leaves us with the following FIVE things. But I'm going to label them from zero to four because we never really list energy as a "force" itself.

0. Energy/Matter (same stuff in different configurations)
1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Strong Nuclear Force
4. Weak Nuclear Force

So that's it. That is the assumptions made in science.

So what is it that is "having an experience"?

Gravity?
Electromagnetism?
Strong Nuclear Force?
Weak Nuclear Force?

Of the four forces Electromagnetism is certainly the most promising candidate. But still the question remains. What is it that is "having an experience"?

In fact, we typically forget about energy itself. We don't even know what energy is. Perhaps energy itself is what is having an experience?

If that's the case, and the entire universe is made of energy where the four forces are simply behaviors that energy exhibits. Then perhaps it's energy itself that is this mysterious "God" thingy that we continually question.

And of course if that's the case, then we are clearly a manifestation of "God" because we are clearly a manifestation of "Energy".

I address this entire topic quite seriously. I just don't see where science has even come close to answering the question of exactly what it is that is having an experience.

We could say, "Well duh? It's the brain that is having an experience!"

But that really misses the entire point I just made. What is the brain other than a configuration of energy that exhibits four forces, NONE OF WHICH explain exactly what it is that is actually having an experience.

So I'm not convinced that science is even equipped to answer this questions.

Perhaps science has missed an important premise from the get go? If we assume that energy can have an experience, then it's built-in to the system. But without that assumption science cannot explain what is having an experience.

David Chalmers addresses this problem in a Ted Talk.

[youtube][/youtube]

Like I say, I'm not in support many religions, especially the Abrahamic religions. But I do feel that there is definitely something to the idea of various pantheistic or animistic worldviews.

Science itself, as it has been defined, appears to be ill-equipped to address this question of just what it is that is having an experience.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Of the four forces Electromagnetism is certainly the most promising candidate. But still the question remains. What is it that is "having an experience"?

I can appreciate your points, but to me the "thing" having the experience is a system, that system being the functioning brain. The system is made up of component parts: atoms held together with strong and weak nuclear forces, atoms combining to make molecules, molecules combining to make more complicated structures, which further combine and interface to nerves, neural networks, cellular chemical pathways, etc. to make a far more complex system. None of these individual components have any ability to "experience", but combined into the functioning system (brain) there is the ability to realize functions that are impossible for any individual component.

So my counter would be that energy, the 4 basic forces, etc. are just the ingredients that make the cake, and it is only after their combination into a far more complex system that a thing that can realize "experience" is created. This thing is the complex and integrated system, that has capabilities far more than the individual components and forces that it arises from.

[Divine Insight]

So my counter would be that energy, the 4 basic forces, etc. are just the ingredients that make the cake, and it is only after their combination into a far more complex system that a thing that can realize "experience" is created. This thing is the complex and integrated system, that has capabilities far more than the individual components and forces that it arises from.

This is basically the "emergent properties" theory.

I reject this notion because we really have no credible examples of any "emergent properties" prior to the idea of using this concept to explain consciousness. Everything else that we can point to as being an "emergent property" can actually be explained using just known physics and the four known forces as complex as the system may be.

However, when it comes to something actually having an experience that method no longer works as an explanation.

Also what you are actually talking about is Integrated Information Theory (IIT) introduced by Giulio Tononi in 2004. IIT is a great idea for attempting to quantify consciousnesses in terms of the amount of information being processed. However, does this truly explain how anything can or should actually have the experience of processing that information?

In fact, I argue against Giulio IIT theory as follows:

If the degree of information processed were a true measure of consciousness many computers should be far more conscious than myself to be sure. Yet, we don't typically consider these computers to be conscious at all.

Also just because a large degree of information is being "processed" IIT doesn't really offer any reason or explanation for why the processor should suddenly start to become consciously cognizant of the information being processed.

In other words, even Integrated Information Theory requires the assumption that any processing of information fundamentally constitutes some level of consciousness. And this brings us full-circle back to the question of whether information processing is the fundamental nature of consciousness, and if so, what actually constitutes information processing?

All of these questions lead back to the primal question of whether there isn't something innate about "energy" (or the basic stuff that makes up our world) that has an innate primal ability to have an experience. Even if that experience is the experience of processing information.

In short, IIT doesn't seem to help much at all actually. It might potentially be useful as a means of measuring consciousness, but even that is in question. If I'm standing next to an Internet Server that is processing information on a busy day of the Internet, then according to IIT theory that Internet Server should have a higher level of consciousness than myself. But no one thinks that this is the case save for those who would make a joke that the server probably is more conscious than myself.

It just doesn't appear that IIT is actually panning out even as a reliable means of attempting to quantify consciousness, much less explain it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Also what you are actually talking about is Integrated Information Theory (IIT) introduced by Giulio Tononi in 2004.

I don't buy into the ITT thing at all, but could swallow something more similar to the emergent properties idea. Regardless of the actual mechanisms involved in creating "mind" (ie. the details of how the 4 fundamental forces, chemical reactions, electrical signals, etc. interact to create consciousness), I think it is safe to say that it all happens within the skull of a human (restricting this discussion only to humans). When someone dies their conscious existence ends with that event. Their physical and mental existence in the universe is over. Obviously, there are many people who strongly believe that this is not the case, and that the "soul" can continue in all sorts of scenarios such as heaven or hell for the religious, reincarnations, cosmic energy fields of some sort, etc. But there is no evidence for any of these things actually existing, or any way to prove that they don't via experiment and measurement. These kinds of ideas are all based on speculation or faith.

If the entire existence of a "mind" is solely within the skull of a human, it is hard to see any alternative for its explanation other than the physiology of the organ that resides in this space (the brain). How is having an "experience" really any different than having a memory, a new idea, an inspiration to create a song or a painting, etc.? All of these things come from a complex thought process that is the result of mechanistic processes within the brain, which we don't fully understand yet. But how can "mind" exist otherwise, if it is contained entirely within the space occupied by our brains?

[Divine Insight]

Obviously, there are many people who strongly believe that this is not the case, and that the "soul" can continue in all sorts of scenarios such as heaven or hell for the religious, reincarnations, cosmic energy fields of some sort, etc. But there is no evidence for any of these things actually existing, or any way to prove that they don't via experiment and measurement. These kinds of ideas are all based on speculation or faith.

I understand what you are saying here. However, what you have stated here is entirely based on the idea that an "ego" is actually having the experience.

Where the "ego" is the perception of being a specific individual who has a history, and a memory of that history. In fact this is what religions like Christianity totally depend upon. Not only do they believe that the "soul" is the "ego" but they believe that the "soul" will be judged based on precisely how a particular "ego" has behaved. After all, it's ultimately the ego that will be either punished or granted eternal life in heaven.

When Christians imagine going to heaven they don't imagine going there as a completely purged spirit devoid of any memory of having ever been a human. Not at all. They expect that when they go to Heaven (or Hell) they will be the basically the same person they are right now with the same memories and the same history they currently have. If they go to Heaven they actually expect to see their loved ones there and be able to recognize them as individual egos as well.

This is the whole idea behind a "soul" being nothing more than a "ego" that is ultimately eternal in the afterlife, either in heaven or in hell.

But that's just ONE religious theme. Of course it's the theme adopted by all the Abrahamic religions since they are all based on the same folklore. It's also the theme the ancient Greeks imagined, as well as many other religions of the Middle East, Mediterranean, and European regions.

However the religions of the far east viewed the "soul" as being totally different from the "ego". You've probably heard that Buddhism often teaches that the ego is an "illusion". So the Buddhists definitely don't see the ego being the same thing as the "soul" (or the real you).

For Buddhists, the "Real You" is the very thing that is having this experience in life. And when this life is over the experiences you are currently having will indeed come to an end, INCLUDING your entire illusion and memory of being a specific "ego" (or separate individual).

So will DrNoGods and Divine Insight cease to exist and all memory of them be wiped out when their bodies die? Yes. Does this mean that this is the end of them and they will never have another experience again? Not according to Buddhism, Taoism, and many other pantheistic worldviews.

~~~~~

Now you might at first object and say, "Well, if when we die we lose all memory of who we were and how we had lived then what would it mean to be reincarnated in yet another life? What is it that would be reincarnated? Certainly not the egos we have been referring to as DrNoGods and Divine Insight."

That much is true, the "egos" will not be preserved. But the actual consciousness that experienced being DrNoGods and Divine Insight will continue on because it is innate to reality. It is not transient like the physical bodies of DrNoGods and Divine Insight.

And you are the thing that is having this experience. That is the ultimate essence of your true nature. At least, this is the belief of some mystics such as Buddhists.

Now lets go back to focus on this part of the most common misunderstanding of this. A moment ago I said that you might object and say something like: ""Well, if when we die we lose all memory of who we were and how we had lived then what would it mean to be reincarnated in yet another life?"

Well, the answer to that question can be found in examples of amnesia. In this life it's possible that you could have complete amnesia. You forget who you are. Your name. Your history. What you did for a living. Your spouse and family. It's even possible that you can be informed about all these things even by your spouse and family and yet you still can't remember any of it.

What then? Are you still YOU?

Of course you are. But you are no longer MrNoGods, other than the fact that your family is telling you that you WERE DrNoGods before you got amnesia.

But now let's change the scenario ever so slightly. You were in a plane crash in a remote region of the planet, and everyone in the plane was killed by you. Authorities could never find the location of the crash. Once again, you are stricken with complete amnesia. Even to the point where you don't even remember the plane crash. You remember NOTHING. Now you aren't even DrNoGods anymore. At least as far as you are concerned. You don't even know the name anymore, much less the details of what DrNoGods had ever done. You are found by a tribe of natives and they nurse you back to health and you resume you life living with this primative tribe. As far as you are concerned at this point this is all you have ever known.

QUESTION: Would this person still be YOU?

In other words would YOU still be having a conscious experience?

My answer to this would be "yes" this would still be me having a conscious experience. And life would still be just as meaningful as it was before I had amnesia. Maybe even more so if I'm actually happier living with this primitive tribe than I had been in my previous "life" (i.e. before amnesia).

In other words, the "ego" doesn't need to be carried through a reincarnation for reincarnation to be meaningful. Every reincarnation would be no different from just waking up from having amnesia.

If the crux of our consciousness is innate to the stuff we are made of (i.e. innate to energy), then this idea of reincarnation has total merit.

Many people do not like this kind of eternal "soul" because the "ego" dies!!!

What religions like Christianity are truly concerned with is not the preservation of the "soul" but rather the preservation of the "ego". That's what physical "resurrection" has to offer. They dream of being resurrected as they ego they are currently in love with. And they also like the idea of "bad egos" being punished and getting what they "deserve".

But those are the ideas of Christianity and the Abrahamic religions that basically worship the ego.

When I ask whether consciousness might be innate to the stuff of the universe, I ask this in the more practical terms of pantheistic mysticism where consciousness is innate to the whole of reality.

So, he idea that "egos" need to be preserved is not required when it comes to the question of eternal consciousness. Consciousness may not "belong" to the ego. Instead the "ego" may be nothing more than an illusion brought about by consciousness as the Buddhist suggest.

In fact, that's an interesting question right there:

Is the ego conscious? Or is it consciousness that creates the illusion of an ego?

That's no doubt a very interesting question right there to ponder. The Buddhists have pondered this for centuries and they have concluded that it is consciousness that creates the illusion of the ego. And they see consciousness as being primal to reality.

Actually the worldview you are proposing has it precisely the other way around. You are basically suggesting that it is indeed the ego that has become conscious and therefore when the ego dies so does consciousness.

Unfortunately we aren't going to know the answer until after we die. And if Buddhism is true, at that point we won't even remember that we had ever asked the question as the amnesia of reincarnation will quickly set in.

So we may never know the answers to these questions.

By the way, I am Agnostic on these issues.

I'm not claiming that the Buddhists are right or that a pantheistic mysticism is reality.

But I do point out that science is very FAR from having a compelling answer to these questions at this point in time. They are basically just GUESSING that they made the right choice by NOT granting the universe primal consciousness as part of the postulates of science.

By the way, the mystics would point out that conscious awareness is the very FIRST phenomenon that we actually "observe" in this life. In fact, we can't even make any other observations without it. Our own conscious experience is the ONLY thing we can be absolutely certain of 100%. We can't even be sure that solipsism isn't true! We can only assume that it seems "reasonable" to assume that everyone else is having a conscious experience just like we are having.

So ironically the mystics are basing their philosophy upon the solid rock of the only thing they can be certain of (i.e. their own conscious experience), whilst scientists ignore this observation entirely and try to explain conscious in retrospect using some sort of reductionism.

In some sense the Mystics seem to be starting out on firmer ground. They at least accept the ONE THING that we can know for certain. Everything else (all of spacetime, etc.) could potentially be nothing more than an illusion brought on by this primal consciousness? Who knows?

I'm just not sold that science has the upper hand on this particular issue.

Science seems to ignore the ONE THING we can actually be certain of.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

But now let's change the scenario ever so slightly. You were in a plane crash in a remote region of the planet, and everyone in the plane was killed by you.

Well, now that I am a murderer as well as a reductionist I may have to rethink my position (sorry, couldn't resist). Looks like this topic has scared off even the philosophers around here!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]


[center]
Do we really have to assume that energy exists?[/center]

But let's look at the assumptions of science:

We have energy (which we actually have absolutely NO CLUE what energy actually is)

Why do you call an observation an "assumption"?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]


[center]
Do we really have to assume that energy exists?[/center]

But let's look at the assumptions of science:

We have energy (which we actually have absolutely NO CLUE what energy actually is)

Why do you call an observation an "assumption"?

Well, the "assumption" is that their observation is "complete".

They look at the universe and see something they can't explain. So they call this thing "energy". After many years of observing how energy behaves they have concluded that energy can has (or exhibits) the following properties.

1. Energy can become "matter" apparently in some sort of standing wave patterns. E=mc², or if you prefer m = E/c².

2. When energy becomes matter gravity is created as distortions in spacetime.

3. Energy also appears to have a time element, both in being dynamic (changeable) and in directional (entropy).

4. Energy appears to have the ability to create electromagnetic forces between standing wave particles of matter.

5. Energy appears to also have the ability to create strong and weak forces between specific standing wave patters of energy.

Science has no clue what energy is, but it clearly exhibits all these "properties".

BUT WAIT!

What about the conscious experience of making these observations by the scientists themselves? That's certainly a quite interesting property of this mysterious "energy".

Nah. 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.

And far more importantly science has made absolutely NO PROGRESS in trying to explain conscious experience in some other way. All its been able to do thus far is explain what it is that is being experienced. But it has no way of explaining what it is that is actually "having" this experience.

You could explain completely how a human brain works and all you will have done is describe what is being experienced. But you won't be any closer at all to answering the question of what it is that is actually "having" this experience.

All you can possibly end up doing is pointing to the standing wave patterns of electromagnetic activity in the brain and say, "That standing wave pattern is what is having the experience".

But there are two problems with this.

The first is that it doesn't really make any sense. Why should a "standing wave pattern of energy" being having an experience?

And the second is that, in the end, the only conclusion is that the energy that has become this standing wave pattern is indeed the think that is having the experience, but that brings us right back full-circle to what the mystics have been saying all along.

So it seems to me that even if science is "successful" in concluding that it must be the standing waves patterns of electromagnetic energy that is having the experience, all they would be doing is confirming the claims of the mystics.

So it's not clear that a purely secular worldview could ever truly evade mysticism in the end anyway.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

And far more importantly science has made absolutely NO PROGRESS in trying to explain conscious experience in some other way. All its been able to do thus far is explain what it is that is being experienced. But it has no way of explaining what it is that is actually "having" this experience.

You could explain completely how a human brain works and all you will have done is describe what is being experienced. But you won't be any closer at all to answering the question of what it is that is actually "having" this experience.

All you can possibly end up doing is pointing to the standing wave patterns of electromagnetic activity in the brain and say, "That standing wave pattern is what is having the experience".

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).

Only this system, operating as an entity, can realize certain functions like experience. 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.

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.

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). 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. But I can't see how a divine connection is needed to explain either, 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).