Consciousness is Fundamental
It seems most people think consciousness is emergent:
Quoting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Yes, there is overlap between this and my Proto-Consciousness thread. But that's only one possible explanation for consciousness being fundamental. (Maybe consciousness is a ubiquitous field.) I would like to discuss the overall idea, rather than a particular explanation for it.
The idea is that consciousness is always present. In everything, everywhere, at all times. The definition of consciousness is very important here. Of course, it is usually important. But I think moreso here. I know many will always think this is nonsense. But the definition needs to be clear for those willing to consider the idea.
In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "[I]felt[/I] experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it [I]feel[/I] like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.
Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness.
The differences and details are in the nature of the things experiencing their own existence. Let me try an analogy. Think of consciousness like vision. I can look at a blank sheet of paper. I can look at the Grand Canyon. I can look at my wife. I can look at a Monet painting. I can look at a bolt of lightning racing across the sky. I can look at a blade of grass. My vision does not change depending on what I'm looking at. The things being looked at are what's different. Let's compare rocks and humans.
A rock experiences being a rock. What does that entail? Well, not much, from my point of view. A rock doesn't have any mental characteristics or processes. It doesn't think about being a rock. It doesn't have memories of being a rock. It doesn't have preferences of any sort, to any degree, in regards to anything. It doesn't have perceptions, of itself or anything other than itself. It doesn't even have any activity that's what we think of as purely physical. No part of a rock is moving relative to any other part of the rock. If a rock is scratched, the discussion of its experience of the scratch begins and ends with the simple fact that it was scratched. The rock's experience of its existence is different after the scratch, because some of it was scraped away. But there is no discussion of the rock being scratched, because it has no memory, thought, or feeling of the event.
A human experiences being a human. Being human entails very different things than being a rock. A rock is an object. Of course, we are as much physical objects as rocks are. But our consciousness is about far more than just our physical bodies. A human is processes. If a human is scratched, the discussion of their experience is far more than the simple fact that they were scratched. We have all kinds of sensory input, of ourselves and of things not ourselves. We are information processing system upon information processing system, with feedback loop upon feedback loop. These things are not human consciousness. Rather, these things are what humans are conscious of.
I don't know what this line of thinking might lead to. I don't know if it makes any difference to think worms have lesser consciousness and we have greater, or worms have a felt experience of a smaller number of information processing systems and feedback loops and we have felt experience of a larger number of information processing systems and feedback loops. As the saying goes, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make? But maybe one of you can take this somewhere significant, or at least interesting.
For those who want to argue the premise, I won't be participating. Most threads dealing with consciousness, regardless of their intent, soon turn into debates about Physicalism vs Idealism vs Panosychism vs... I obviously can't keep the thread on the track, or system of tracks, I want. But I won't be taking part in derailing it. Maybe there really isn't anything to say aside from the debate, and my lack of participation in it will doom it to a very small thread. But I can hope.
Quoting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Emergence is a notorious philosophical term of art. A variety of theorists have appropriated it for their purposes ever since George Henry Lewes gave it a philosophical sense in his 1875 [I]Problems of Life and Mind[/I]. We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) arise out of more fundamental entities and yet are novel or irreducible with respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.)There are plenty of discussions from that stance. I would like to try to explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental.
Yes, there is overlap between this and my Proto-Consciousness thread. But that's only one possible explanation for consciousness being fundamental. (Maybe consciousness is a ubiquitous field.) I would like to discuss the overall idea, rather than a particular explanation for it.
The idea is that consciousness is always present. In everything, everywhere, at all times. The definition of consciousness is very important here. Of course, it is usually important. But I think moreso here. I know many will always think this is nonsense. But the definition needs to be clear for those willing to consider the idea.
In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "[I]felt[/I] experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it [I]feel[/I] like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.
Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness.
The differences and details are in the nature of the things experiencing their own existence. Let me try an analogy. Think of consciousness like vision. I can look at a blank sheet of paper. I can look at the Grand Canyon. I can look at my wife. I can look at a Monet painting. I can look at a bolt of lightning racing across the sky. I can look at a blade of grass. My vision does not change depending on what I'm looking at. The things being looked at are what's different. Let's compare rocks and humans.
A rock experiences being a rock. What does that entail? Well, not much, from my point of view. A rock doesn't have any mental characteristics or processes. It doesn't think about being a rock. It doesn't have memories of being a rock. It doesn't have preferences of any sort, to any degree, in regards to anything. It doesn't have perceptions, of itself or anything other than itself. It doesn't even have any activity that's what we think of as purely physical. No part of a rock is moving relative to any other part of the rock. If a rock is scratched, the discussion of its experience of the scratch begins and ends with the simple fact that it was scratched. The rock's experience of its existence is different after the scratch, because some of it was scraped away. But there is no discussion of the rock being scratched, because it has no memory, thought, or feeling of the event.
A human experiences being a human. Being human entails very different things than being a rock. A rock is an object. Of course, we are as much physical objects as rocks are. But our consciousness is about far more than just our physical bodies. A human is processes. If a human is scratched, the discussion of their experience is far more than the simple fact that they were scratched. We have all kinds of sensory input, of ourselves and of things not ourselves. We are information processing system upon information processing system, with feedback loop upon feedback loop. These things are not human consciousness. Rather, these things are what humans are conscious of.
I don't know what this line of thinking might lead to. I don't know if it makes any difference to think worms have lesser consciousness and we have greater, or worms have a felt experience of a smaller number of information processing systems and feedback loops and we have felt experience of a larger number of information processing systems and feedback loops. As the saying goes, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make? But maybe one of you can take this somewhere significant, or at least interesting.
For those who want to argue the premise, I won't be participating. Most threads dealing with consciousness, regardless of their intent, soon turn into debates about Physicalism vs Idealism vs Panosychism vs... I obviously can't keep the thread on the track, or system of tracks, I want. But I won't be taking part in derailing it. Maybe there really isn't anything to say aside from the debate, and my lack of participation in it will doom it to a very small thread. But I can hope.
Comments (184)
More importantly, from my perspective, you (the one doing the looking) are different too. The expectations, beliefs, aesthetic impulses, and preferences that are awakened or activated by different phenomena and contexts shape what you see. And what you think you see. Its not just the object that changes, but the subject who encounters it. 'The looking' is nothing without the rest of our experince. Or something like that.
But being that you don't want that, then perhaps I can say that consciousness may be epistemically fundamental but not ontologically so. Unless you want to say something like the world is at bottom a kind of sensation, then maybe this distinction may be of some use.
It's your thread after all. :)
How so? I find this analogy strange as a rock is not actually a rock to anything other than that which consciously adheres to it as an object. To an ant, assuming some minimal form of consciousness, the rock is likely nothing more than a surface. A rock cannot 'be' it is the 'beings' that frame a rock as a rock.
Quoting Patterner
The feelings-of are consciousness-of.
Quoting Patterner
Quoting Patterner
Okay. But you then talk about a 'rock' as conscious? Or was that merely an analogy of an analogy.
I would like to know in more detail - where possible - what you mean by consciousness being "fundamental" please.
That's sounds right.
Quoting PunshhhYes. Thank you.
Quoting Punshhhindeed. Heh. I take part in those discussions often enough. But I'd like to have a different discussion at the moment.
Quoting I like sushiNo, I don't mean it as any kind of analogy. I mean it literally. It's important to disassociate any kind of mental activity from the definition of consciousness. A rock has no mental activity. So when I talk about a rock's consciousness, I'm not talking about anything mental. It cannot experience what it does not have.
Humans experience quite a bit more than rocks do. We have a lot of information processing going on within us, and a lot of feedback loops. That's in addition to all of our physical characteristics. Unlike rocks, which have no mental content, our physical characteristics are part of our mental content. We have senses that send signals from (as in the case of nerves in the skin) and about (as in the case of eyes perceiving an arm) all parts of our physical bodies to our brains, where are the information is processed in various ways.
Ehen I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it.
Quoting I like sushiI am, indeed.
Agreed, I like the idea youre proposing. I have a sneaky feeling though, that you are describing something which is identical to what we understand as Matter(as in physics). While saying it is something quite different, like something that plays a role in human awareness. I can see how any living organism can be conscious, which I subscribe to. But as for matter, I dont have a line of thought that takes me there.
Understood.
Quoting Patterner
I am having real trouble here in distinguishing what you are trying to say and exactly how it is different from panpsychism? I cannot seem to find a way to divide the two.
I believe how you are trying to define 'experience' and 'feeling' on different terms here might lead me to understand this better perhaps?
I like your thread a lot. My biggest gripe when it comes to discussions about consciousness is that people never get around to defining what they really mean. It pleases me that youve been so careful to do that.
Quoting Patterner
I especially like this. Its not that I agree with it. Its just the clarity youve put into saying what you mean. Youve made me feel a little bit of what it might feel like to be rock.
Quoting Patterner
Since I cant really buy into your premise, I wont be participating anymore. But I did want you to know how much I appreciate what youve put into this.
I have a thread on "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" here. So, the mind is fundamental; the mind is a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide when needed, and cause. It is the mind that causes change.
What are you expecting from this discussion? The position that you outlined is pretty much orthodox contemporary panpsychism. You could have just written: "Panpsychism: discuss (but do not debate)."
Interestingly, I have usually read that 'consciousness' is a specific kind of 'mind'. So, for instance, a bacterium has a very rudimentary 'mind' but it isn't 'conscious'. I'll try to use 'consciousness' in the way you are using it, in what follows (i.e. that 'mind' is a particular type of 'consciousness').
Let's call 'instance of consciousness' any kind of experience. So, any moment in which I am 'conscious of' something is an instance of consciousness.
I would say that, regardless the precise ontological theory one has, it's quite interesting to ask oneself if consciousness persists as instances of consciousness change. So, when I was born clearly I experienced something different than what I am experiencing now but, maybe, consciousness itself remains the same in time.
On the other hand, it might be the case that, instead, consciousness changes at every moment. That is, at each instance of experience there is a related consciousness and when experiences change so also consciousness itself changes. All these 'felt experiences' can be called 'consciousness' not because they are the same 'thing' but actually because they are different things but of the same type*.
Also, some would argue that when one is in general anesthesia consciousness temporarily ceases (I believe that those who experienced general anesthesia report a different 'feeling' when they 'wake up' than the feeling they have when they wake up from sleep. Also, even in deep sleep it seems to be that there is a level of attentiveness which is absent in that state). So, if consciousness can temporarily cease, when it 'restarts' is it the same consciousness or not?
And what about the 'privateness' of experience? I and you have, it would seem, different consciousness (or 'streams' of consciousness if the 'changing consciousness model' is right). Personally, I would believe that consciousness is, perhaps, precisely what establish an 'identity', i.e. the property of being 'an entity', which is truly distinct from other 'entities'. So, in a sense, I would say that perhaps 'consciousness' is really fundamental: it is what distinguish an entity from other entities.
*Interestingly, this problem has been discussed a lot among Indian philosophical schools. Buddhists generally take the view that consciousness is always changing like a stream (they use terms like the sanskrit 'citta-samtana' which means something like 'mental continuum'). Instead, their opponents argue that consciousness is something unchanging. The Advaita Vedanta school, in particular, argues that there is, ultimately, only one consciousness.
How could we tell the difference between being causal, and simply identifying with something causal?
If matter is fundamental and moves according to the laws of nature, and consciousness is an emergent property from matter. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be causally efficacious because the motion of matter is determined!
Quoting T Clark Again, thank you. I do try very hard on these things. It takes me a long time, writing, rewriting, take a break for a couple days...
Quoting T ClarkIf you're ever bored :rofl: perhaps you would be interested in "playing along" with it. "For the sake of argument, let's say you're right..." I don't know how to finish that idea. What would it imply?
I understand that. Need not turn out this way, in so far as that debate even makes any sense at all.
Quoting Patterner
Got you.
Quoting I like sushiI believe there phrase "subjective experience" is more commonly used. I just think "felt experience" says it more clearly. I'm not sure "subjective" must mean "felt". But I might be wrong. Really, I'm good with either word. I just prefer "felt".
I dont know if youve paid much attention to any of my posts. If you had you would find I am obsessed with metaphysics and the difference between metaphysics and everyday knowledge of the world, including science. As I understand it, what you are talking about is exactly that - metaphysics. And for me, metaphysics is not about whats true or false, its about what is a useful way to think about things.
It doesnt seem to me that kind of a discussion is really what youre looking for in this thread.
:up: :up:
Quoting Punshhh
:cool:
I just want to understand it, before contributing anything. Mainly the use of "experience." You write:
Quoting Patterner
Does a dead human experience being a dead human? Can you sketch what that would mean?
I do not think the physical properties we are familiar with can explain consciousness. The explanation I'm proposing is that consciousness is fundamental.
One hypothetical explanation for consciousness in the "consciousness is fundamental" category is proto-consciousness. I wrote about about this in my Property Dualism thread. All particles, in addition to physical properties like mass and electrical charge, have an experiential property. So every particle experiences itself. And particles functioning as a unit experience as a unit.
Another hypothetical explanation is that consciousness is a field that exists everywhere. Kind of the way the cosmic microwave background radiation exists everywhere. Everything is, shall we say, steeped in consciousness. So everything experiences itself.
If either proto-consciousness or a field of consciousness is the explanation, then it's easy to imagine the universe without it. All the things we know of from our sciences would still be here. There would still be living organisms, with photons hitting retinas, signals going up the optic nerve to the brain, etc etc. But there would be no consciousness. Any living things would be empty automotons.
Quoting PunshhhIt's important to disassociate consciousness with anything mental. I believe we have been confusing the two things all along.
The kind of conversation I'm looking for is what I just said to Sophisticat. A long time ago, people might have had a conversation that began with, "Ok, fine, let's just say the earth and planets revolve around the sun. What does that imply? Where does that lead us?" Einstein came up with some entirely uniques ideas. When people began discussing them as if they were true, they produced some pretty amazing results. I didn't come up with the idea that consciousness is fundamental. I just want to see if it can be discussed for itself, rather than debating whether or not it is the answer.
I agree with the intent, but interpret the words differently. Based in part on scientific Quantum & Information theories, I have come to believe that Consciousness is indeed emergent from Evolutionary processes. So, I reserve that generally-applied term for specific instances of human self awareness & intelligence, in order to avoid the absurdity of referring to atoms as sapient or sentient. However, contrary to Materialism, the stuff we see & touch is also emergent.
Therefore, what is Fundamental is Causation*1 : the power to transform (e.g. hylemorph). The causal force is similar to Plato's universal Form, and Aristotle's instantiation as Morph, but in modern scientific terms is essentially Energy. Which Einstein claimed could transform from invisible Potential (photons) into mathematical Mass (inertia), and thence into the objects we experience as Matter (actual stuff).
If we extend that idea to the last few million years of evolutionary emergence, we will need to somehow explain how immaterial Mind emerged from dumb Matter. One possible explanation is that the Potential was in there from the Big Bang beginning as general universal Causation : First Cause. :smile:
*1. Emergence, Phase Transitions, and Quantum Leaps :
EnFormAction theory takes a leap of imagination, to envision a more holistic interpretation of the evidence, both empirical and philosophical. Contrary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, EFA implies a distinct direction for causation, toward the top rung in the hierarchy of Emergence, as denoted by the arrow of Time. Pure Randomness would just go around in circles. But selection (Entention) works like the ratchet in a clock-work to hold the latest cycle at a useful, and ultimately meaningful, stable state : a Phase Transition, or a step on the ladder of Being. Aimless Darwinian Evolution is going nowhere, but EnFormAction (directional causation) is going out-there into the unexplored future. . . . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
You havent presented any reason for why you would think that.
Well, you should. If you want to make an OP it has to stand on its own two feet, especially for a major topic such at this.
I don't think you're actually open to discussions. You're stipulating what others must accept as the case, before having the discussion. You say, you don't want to engage in the back-and-forth or give reasons for why you are saying it. So - are you talking to yourself?
These claims are demonstrably false.
:up:
Quoting Patterner
Define (non-sapient, non-sentient, non-mental) "consciousness" with an example that contrasts "consciousness" with non-consciousness.
Fwiw ...
Quoting 180 Proof
:up: :up:
But that is the nature of this subject. Panpsychism, by definition, is a philosophical theory of mind, alongside materialism and idealism. You don't get to change that. It's like saying, let's discuss supply-side economics, without talking about economics.
Quoting Patterner
This is self-evidently false, and yet you then declare that you have no interest in discussing the possibility that it is mistaken with anyone. You basically want to dictate what others might say, in advance.
Quoting Patterner
This is a critique of Harris' panpsychism: Panpsychism: Bad Science, Worse Philosophy, Medium (requires registration).
This article critically examines Annaka Harriss contribution to the popular resurgence of panpsychismthe view that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter. While philosopher Philip Goff argues for panpsychism as an alternative to the explanatory failure of materialism, Harris claims to remain a materialist while advocating for a form of consciousness-as-inherent-to-matter. To address the "combination problem"how scattered micro-qualia could yield a unified conscious subjectshe denies the existence of the self altogether. In her view, consciousness is just content arising, like bubbles in a pot, with no unified subject or experiencer. (My view is that in this, she draws on a popular but inaccurate interpretation of Buddhist philosophy, likely taken from her husband Sam Harris, who espouses a kind of Buddhist materialism: the notion that "the Buddha says there is no self." In fact, the Buddhist principle is that "all phenomena are devoid of self" (anatta), which is a much more subtle principle. Saying there is no self tout court completely undercuts any possibility of moral agency. It is, in fact, a form of nihilism, which was always rejected in Buddhism.)
The article contends that Harriss move dissolves the very phenomenon needing explanationcoherent, first-person conscious experienceby asserting it to be an illusion. Moreover, it notes that the appeal to panpsychism, while framed as scientifically open-minded, ends up preserving the ontological blind spots of materialism in a new guise. Her reliance on common-sense distinctions (e.g., socks and rocks arent conscious) sits uncomfortably beside her claim that all matter entails consciousness.
By way of concusion, the author suggests that if one truly wishes to move beyond materialist assumptions, it must be done with a philosophical frameworksuch as idealismthat can account for the unity, structure, and intelligibility of consciousness, rather than erasing them in favor of a scattered field of unintelligible qualia.
However, all things, living and non, experience.
I think the mistake we have made is equating consciousness with things like sapience, sentience, and mental. Which is understandable, because those are things we experience. I would say those are the defining characteristics of the species; the things that are unique, sometimes in degree and sometimes in kind, to humans.
But it lead us wrong. It made us think this is what consciousness is, yet has not even lead to a definition that all can agree on. What is consciousness. What is human consciousness? My position is that there is no such thing as "human consciousness". There is only the consciousness of each human. Human X experiences being biologically male, 6 feet tall, having perfect pitch, having sickle cell anemia, being great with the ladies, on and on. Human Y experiences being biologically female, having an eidetic memory, having arachnophobia, and loving pecan pie. Human Z experiences being biologically female, has no measurable IQ, has been wheelchair bound since birth, and has the brightest smile when you talk to her.
Compare:
"The idea is that there is no non-matter. Everything is material."
The interesting thing about both these positions is that they can't be argued either for or against. They both involve an interpretation or construal of their key term -- "consciousness" and "matter" -- in such a way as to mean "everything there is." So all one can reply is, "OK, that's what you mean," but it's hard to know where to go from there. I guess one can say, "Almost nobody else means that," but that's not an argument, it's an expostulation.
I wonder, then, why you want to say this. It pretty much forecloses discussion.
Yes, but that "idea" doesn't define (or describe it in a way that discerns it from its negation / absence): according to you, what is consciousness?
I'm interested in another idea. I don't know where it could lead. I don't know if it can lead anywhere. There are many theories about consciousness. Many internally consistent, but unprovable. But I don't see discussions about this idea. Debates between adherents of different theories giving pros and cons of each, but not discussion about a given theory. I think it could be interesting.
In some sense we can frame those that say consciousness is emergent as being onboard with the idea of universal consciousness as the 'property' of consciousness exists by some means it is just that they cannot elaborate on the how or why to any significant extent. Perhaps they would be willing to talk of a latent consciousness sitting and waiting for a certain amalgam of mundane matter through which to flourish?
I think where you could come to meet the more common expression of 'consciousness' is to understand it as 'emerging'/'awakening'.
Quoting Patterner
This is going to be problematic in expressing your thoughts I feel. The word we have for this is 'exist' not 'experience'. I think if you expressed your thoughts more along the lines of reestablishing what we mean by 'exist' it would get your view point across more clearly.
I think you may also need to address some problems of reductionism here when expressing these ideas. What I mean is we are all, as is everything, made up of parts and these parts are all 'experiencing'/'existing' items. The problem herein is that you say 'rock' or 'person,' but are we then to say that this or that molecule, wavefunction or organ is 'experiencing'/'existing' separate from or entangled with the experiencing of a mental subject?
It could be that consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe that can morph from one form to another. We know this is the case with Energy and Matter so I see no reason to assume that there are no other key elements that make up all we know of given our limited scope of the entire existence of the universe.
This is certainly an interesting and rich landscape to explore but due to this it is also prone to blind speculation - a large reason I stay clear of discussions on consciousness.
What have you read on this subject? I have just started reading Ian McGilchrist's 'The Matter With Things' and feel you may find some useful discussions in this. If short of time I recommend watching an interview or two with him or reading Philosophy Now Issue 164 (which focuses on him and other sin this area; although I confess I have not read the articles in this issue yet).
Patterner, you remarkably described consciousness as a universal "sensory experience" inherent in everything from stones to people. Your analogy with vision, where consciousness remains unchanged, and only what is realized changes, is very bright. But what if consciousness is not something static, like a property or essence, but a dynamic process that manifests itself only in systems that can actively interact with the world? For example, in organisms with neural networks or behavioral responses, where consciousness is associated with information processing, adaptation or reflection.
You mentioned that a stone "survives itself" like a stone, but does not have mental activity, perception or movement. But what if it is the lack of active interaction that makes the idea of ? ? stone consciousness functionally redundant? If consciousness is a process associated with dynamics (for example, perception, feedback or choice), then a stone whose existence is static and determined by external physical laws may not need consciousness. Even if we assume that he has some kind of "experience," it does not affect his being - unlike, say, a person or animal, where consciousness is associated with adaptive processes.
Which brings me to another thought covered in the discussion, like plants. Tree growth is a process, but it is genetically programmed and does not involve active choice or reflection. But what if consciousness arises only where there is an opportunity to manipulate the environment or react to it at your own "discretion"? Then plants whose dynamics are deterministic may not require consciousness, even if we admit that they have some basic experience.
My idea is that consciousness as a process is associated with the dynamics of interaction and adaptation. This eliminates the need to ascribe consciousness to static or strictly deterministic systems such as rocks or plants, and focuses us on what makes consciousness meaningful - its role in active being. But what if this approach helps us avoid a substantialist framework in which consciousness is seen as "something" - be it a universal property or an emergent quality?
Ok, Im on board now. I agree with your idea that consciousness is fundamental, but I think it needs teasing out a bit. The way I do this is to break apart the preconditioned ideas around the subject. To see the issue from a fresh perspective.
Let me suggest that physical material, the physical universe (that we know, Ill call it X) is an artificial construct. That the real world Y is immaterial, there are things, beings, space, time, things happen, just like in X, but there is no physical material. In Y there is an equivalent to material, because there are forms and there is extension in time and space. But this material is composed of ideas, concepts, axioms, consciousness and experiences. Things that we typically (here in X) see as mental states and processes.
Now X, being artificial requires a whole series of technologies and infrastructure to produce and maintain. But also it requires, or produces constraints, because it is very rigid and dense. One of those constraints is that consciousness cant easily be transposed and requires biological structures to bring it into that world. The reason why we see consciousness, ideas, concepts experiences as mental states is because the only place in X where they happen is in biological brains. Whereas in Y, they are everywhere, in everything and form the very material of that world. Remember Y is real, X is artificial.
Agreed. Consciousness is a state, mental activity is differing types of computation.
I am not a physicalist myself but it's controversial to assume that an 'anesthetized person' has consciousness. Even more problematically, you also abscribed some form of consciousness to a 'dead person'. Let's concede that, indeed, in some sense there is consciousness in both cases. My question is: is the 'consciousness' of a 'dead person' the same entity of the 'consciousness' of the 'living person' before she died? Is the 'consciouesness' of the 'anesthetized person' the very same entity of the 'consciousness' of the person when she was in a normal, waking state? Do the 'dead person' and 'anesthetized person' have a unitary, private experience?
Or are different entities of the same type?
Notice that the 'privateness' of our experience, of our 'consciousness' is something to be addressed even in a panpsychist model. If all my constituents have their own 'consciousness', how does that explain the arising of 'my' consciousness, which seems separate from 'theirs'?
Going back to the 'anesthetized person', even a panpsychist might say that while in that state there is no 'consciousness' of the 'whole person' but only of its parts.
You say that 'consciousness is fundamental'. In order to have a meaningful discussion it's also IMO important to clarify what we mean by 'consciousness' and provide a clear model for it. Do you think that, for instance, there is one fundamental consciousness or that there are many distinct consciousnesses? Do you think that any composite object has its own consciousness or only some composites have consciousness?
Sorry for the many questions, but I'd like to understand more your view.
Quoting Patterner
In a way, I agree.
But we can make reasonable assertions IMO by analysing the behavior of inanimate objects and living beings. In the latter case, we do see that the behavior has charateristics that seem unique to living beings, which seem to point to the fact that, for instance, even the simplest life forms seem to behave as 'wholes' and in a purposeful way. This might be wrong, of course. But it does seem so. It seems to me a reasonable deduction.
Quoting Patterner
Yes, I agree. Also, theories that are presented are mostly vague.
But what can now be said about it? It's either true or it isn't, and we don't have any way of evaluating which. Moreover, if everything is consciousness, we can't talk about what it might be like if some thing(s) were not. The position prevents us from being able to specify an alternative.
Consciousness isn't a definable object or property, but a grammatical background (grammar in a Wittgensteinian sense), a requirement for the possibility of thought, language, and knowledge.
It's not something we know about, but something we presuppose in all knowing. Like Wittgenstein's hinge propositions, consciousness is not justified by evidence but functions as an unspoken certainty that underlies our epistemic and linguistic practices.
Its meaning doesn't emerge from some strict definition, but from a network of overlapping uses, what Wittgenstein would call a family resemblance concept
This view is contrary to both reductive physicalism and metaphysical idealism, not by denying the reality of consciousness, but by refusing to treat it as an object within the system of knowledge. Instead, consciousness is more akin to what Wittgenstein called a condition of sense, something that does not appear in our representations of the world but is presupposed by the act of representing itself. In this way, to search for a definition of consciousness is to misunderstand its role: it isn't a fact among facts, but the logical space in which facts become meaningful. Like the rules of a game that cannot be played without them, consciousness is both indispensable and typically unnoticed, except when we're having this kind of discussion.
Quoting I like sushiYes. many say it just happens, that it emerges from the physical,but don't suggest how. Eagleman and Hoffman say we don't even nlknow where to start. I'm suggesting there is a property that explains that it doesn't just happen, it doesn't emerge. It is there all along.
Quoting I like sushiYes, it is problematic, because I'm suggesting something very different from what isbso commonly assumed. i'm saying that, without consciousness being there from the beginning, things would simply exist. And, even beings with our mental abilities would not be conscious. We would be automatons.
Quoting I like sushiYes, that is, indeed, what I am saying. There is no conflict between the molecule experiencing itself and the large group of molecules with many different information processing systems and feedback loops that is me experiencing myself. There doesn't seem to be any conflict even in the famous split brain cases, where two different systems with separate mental abilities share some sub-systems.
Quoting I like sushiCan you elaborate on this idea of consciousness morphing?
Quoting I like sushiYou are wise. B:grin: Yes, every hypothesis or theory is speculation and assumption.
Quoting I like sushiI [I]have[/I] many books. But I can't find any that answer the question of how it happens. It just does. People like Tse, Damasio, and Gazzaniga even begin their books by saying we do not know. I particularly like Damasio, though. I'll look at McGilchrist. Thank you.
But I'm not saying everything is consciousness. I'm saying everything is consciousness.
Maybe? Is there some right answer to what you should identify with? I'm sure most people have the experience of witnessing a thunderstorm and feeling a kind of empathy with the forces swirling around above. Or watching the sunset. Maybe that isn't a kind of neurosis, but rather awareness of a deeper kinship to the universe around us. We can feel it, so why not identify with it?
Yes, but other hypotheses allow a basis for discussion about how you'd tell.
Quoting Patterner
Typing mistake here, I assume? Or else you're getting super woo-woo. :smile:
So you are looking at the univserse as a clockwork machine without the input of consciousness? I think when we are getting to such far flung thoughts we have very little to work with and even rational thought dissolves.
It is a bit like the whole issue of framing morality that is talked about often enough. The means of measuring may simply be impossible via material methods. Until there is a new paradigm I do not see things changing too much.
The best any of us can do is investigate the phenomenon of consciousness firsthand and inform ourselves about the work of physicists and cognitive neuroscientists (to name but two fields of interest!).
I am mostly of the mind that the very term consciousness is far too nebulous for current purposes. Until someone comes along and reconceptualises the broad phenonemon of consciousness I do not expect any real progress for quite some time. I personally believe Husserl was somewhat on the right track even though I am not really in agreement with what he believed could be achieved through his phenonemological approach.
One term always stuck out to me - I think Damasio or possibly Colin Renfrew mentioned it - the archiac term of 'ken'. I think utilising this kind of concept more universally in academia could lead to new approaches. The language within these sciences does certainly need clear delineations but often I find this can take away from a more wider-lens perspective on the matter under investigation.
Quoting Patterner
I meant nothing more than Consciousness could be a to something else (Space-time or something) as Matter is to Energy. Was just speculation. It does nto seem we are much closer to understanding Consciousness as some fundamental form just yet and maybe it isn't. Maybe we will live to see a breakthrough.
Consciousness, to me, is a mental event. Mental events cannot be coherent on their own unless you can explain how a mental event at one point in time could cause a mental event related to the former event later!
How then, do you define Consciousness? Sentience*1 applies to most living creatures, but Consciousness*2, in the sense of self-awareness, seems limited only to humans and a few of the most highly evolved animals.
Therefore, I'm guessing that your notion of fundamental Consciousness may be similar to my own post-Shannon concept of Information --- the essence of Consciousness --- as fundamental. I avoid using the more general C word, because of its "absurd" implications. Yet Information*4 is fundamental in the same way that Mathematics*5 is. And it is Causal in the form of Negentropy : Energy.
Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. Based on that cutting edge science, I have concluded that Cosmic Information*6 is the Cause of physical Energy and metaphysical Mind. As the power to transform, it is also the essence of everything in the world, both Matter and Mind. It's a difficult concept to conceive, but it explains many of the mysteries of physics & metaphysics. :nerd:
*1. Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations. It may not necessarily imply higher cognitive functions such as awareness, reasoning, . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
*2. Consciousness : the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. {and one's self}
___ Oxford dictionary
*3. Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
*4. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio {rational} of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics its called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology its called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*5. Is Mathematics Fundamental? :
Yes, mathematics is often considered fundamental due to its role in logic, reasoning, and understanding the world around us.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+mathematics+fundamental
*6. What is Information ? :
The power to transform, to create, to cause change, to make logical distinctions, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all?
Also, if "the brain" doesn't produce "consciousness", as you say, Patterner, then what accounts for (e.g.) every amputee's phenomenon of phanthom pain?
The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function : Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in its literal sense of non-physical.
The blog post, https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page17.html , has a link to a glossary entry entitled : What is Meta-Physics? https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html , which also links to a Philosophy Forum thread, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352174
The definition below*1 includes Consciousness among the topics & concepts that lie "beyond the physical realm". However for the Materialists on this forum, the term "metaphysical" is often construed as religious or mystical or unscientific woo-woo. The study of Meta-physics is indeed un-scientific, in that the Philosophical exploration goes beyond the empirical limits of physical Science.
As to the Cause of Mind --- or Causality in general --- that is another complex & unconventional topic in the Thesis and Blog. I've mentioned it several times in this thread. But a detailed explication could cause the thread to go off-topic. :smile:
*1. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and being. It delves into concepts beyond the physical realm, such as the nature of time, space, consciousness, and causality. It seeks to understand the underlying principles and structures that govern the universe and our experience of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+metaphysical
Quoting JUnfortunately, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. Each hypothesis has its own camp. There's no way of proving anything. There are some widely diverse beliefs on what consciousness is just here at this site. Things look the same, no matter which possible solution we consider.
That aside, someone posted in another thread just the other day that they think consciousness is fundamental. There's not a reason in the world that person and I cannot discuss this idea.
Quoting JBut we would no longer have to try to figure out exactly where - on the evolutionary ladder or in the development of a human from conception - consciousness enters the picture. It's always there. It's just a matter of what is being experienced. What sensory input? What information processing? What feedback loops?
I thank you for your words. I'm grateful you think I expressed my idea well.
Quoting AstorreThat's certainly a possibility. I'm suggesting something different.
Quoting AstorreI am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things.
Quoting AstorreI think the adaptive processes are what is being experienced. They would take place without any subjective experience, if reality did not have an experiential property.
Quoting boundlessA human being is a unit. The leg is separate from the head, both are separate from the lungs, all are separate from the finger, etc. However, they are a unit. And that unit experiences as a unit. Various processes taking place in the brain are experienced as awareness and self-awareness. But stepping on a nail is also part of our consciousness.
Quoting boundlessNo problem! I would also like to understand my view more. :grin:
Quoting I like sushiI believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced.
I think you mean yes. Without consciousness the universe is a clockwork machine.
So panpsychism with the belief that every mirco and macro item is experiencing on some level.
Yes. :rofl: I am trying to respond to as many as I can at the end of a long day, working on 5 hours of sleep, and my alarm is going off again in 6 hours. You are correct. I misinterpreted you.
So by "non-physical" you mean abstract (i.e. non-causal, time-less & space-less)? For instance, walking is what legs do & digesting is what intestines do, ergo walking & digesting are merely abstract?! :eyes:
A typical cognitive confusion aka "transcendental illusion" edify yourself, Gnomon, by at least reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason ...
NB: Btw, the term "metaphysics" literally means 'the book after the books on physics' or 'after physics' (Andronicus of Rhodes, first century BC), and NOT before / beyond "the physical" or NOT before / beyond "reason". :roll:
Quoting Patterner
How do you can we know this is the case?
Its a thought experiment. It shows a way in which a world of rigid material, where consciousness is so inevident, could have originated from a reality which is not rigid, but ethereal and consciousness plays much more of a role.
One reason could be that the ethereal beings wanted to try out something more concrete, more solid, more complex. After all what theyve created here is so unimaginably complex. It could be that complexity they are interested in. And then they thought how could we then inhabit this amazing world weve just created. The result being the biosphere and humanity. In humanity they might see something more like home, with a conscious sentient, highly intelligent being.
I occasionally imagine that every atom, molecule, every movement. Is held in place, orchestrated by a team of ethereal beings. Some holding the atom in place, others providing energy, others moving things around, orchestrating time and cause and effect. Working alongside millions of others in the atoms around them. To create the artificial world we inhabit. Indeed, at the heart of each one of us might be one of these beings experiencing life through a physical body, in this world.
I just wanted to tell you that even if consciousness is fundamental to all bodies, then the statement and recognition of this fact has no practical benefit. Since it does not matter what the object "thinks" that cannot affect anything (neither his own body nor other bodies)
If, for example, to know what a stone thinks about and then somehow influence its thought in the interests of a person, then this would absolutely not change anything, since the stone is not capable of an independent act.
If you manage to somehow control a fly or other organisms, then this will primarily be used in the struggle for power of some over others. And even if we assume this hypothetical scenario is real, it will not bring to good.
Ok, thanks. Do you think that there is an active unitary consciousness there? If so, is it the same consciousness that has undergone some changes?
Quoting Patterner
I agree with this. I also would say that the 'unit' is a whole that can't be reduced to its parts. This is reflected in our conscious experience, which is unitary after all. (Some might argue that the 'unitariness' is just an illusion, but, again, it seems to me an undeniable phenomenological aspect of our experience)
Quoting Patterner
Yes, I think you answered to the second question. It seems to me that, for you, all composites have some kind of consciousness, with different degrees of complexity. Both the foot (which is a composite) and the whole human being have consciousness but the consciousness of the whole human being is far more complex that the one of the foot and it's a different entity from it.
I guess that a problem with this view is that composites can be arbitrary in some cases. For instance, the 'foot' is difficult to define in a non-conventional way. Let's say that one asks to you if the 'foot minus the ankle' has consciousness. It's still a well-defined part of our body. Does the 'foot minus the anke' have a different consciousness than the 'foot with the ankle', or not?
IMO, all living beings have their own consciousness (here I am using the word in the way you use it) but non-living composite do not. If non-living composite had consciousness, we would have an explosion of the number of 'consciousnesses' due to the fact that, in the case of non-living things, we can carve the world arbitrarily.
Regarding the first question, I had in mind something like Advaita Vedanta, if you are familiar with it. In that view, there is only one consciousness and plurality is illusory. In a more qualified form, you might say that there is only one consciousness but it's complex and each 'part' of that consciousness is in some way conscious. It seems to me that you don't subscribe to that view. Rather, it seems to me you posit a plurality of different consciousnesses.
Quoting Patterner
:up: same goes for me! And discussions are helpful in this regard.
Quoting GnomonI certainly was not. I'll look at your link. Sounds like an amazing topic.
Quoting 180 ProofI don't know any detail about what is happening in the brain in these cases. I assume signals are being manufactured in the brain that mimic signals associated with pain that the brain received when the limb was there?
I assume you are talking about the difference between a material Brain (noun) and its mental Functions (verb). Actions have consequences, but no physical properties. Objects have physical properties, but Ideas about*1 objects have qualia.
The brain is a gelatinous object with physical & chemical properties, that can be directly observed. The invisible Mind's properties*2, or functions or qualities, must be inferred indirectly from observation of whole-body behavior. You know your own Mind by using its functions. But you only know your neighbor's Mind by rational inference. The logical distinction*3 is between Objective & Subjective knowledge.
Ironically, when someone tries to picture a Mind or a Thought, they typically envision the brain. For vague non-philosophical purposes, that's OK. But philosophers need to be more precise. For example, a physicist can interpret Aristotle's writings on Meta-physics*4 to mean merely "after" the volume on Physics. But a philosopher would notice the "logical distinctions" between the first volume (Scientist's observations of Nature) and its sequel (philosopher's ideas & opinions about Nature) . :smile:
*1. In philosophy, aboutness (or intentionality) refers to the characteristic of mental states and linguistic expressions to be directed towards, or to represent, something beyond themselves. It's the idea that thoughts, beliefs, and utterances are "about" or "of" something. This concept is central to understanding the relationship between the mind and the world, and it's a key topic in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and logic
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aboutness+meaning+in+philosophy
*2. The mind exhibits several key properties, including subjectivity, consciousness, intentionality, and agency.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=properties+of+mind
*3. Logical distinctions refer to differences that are made through reasoning and thought, rather than being inherent differences in the things themselves.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+distinctions
*4. In ancient Greek, "meta" (????) primarily means "after," "behind," or "beyond". It can also signify "with," "among," or "in the midst of". In modern usage, particularly in English, "meta" often implies a more comprehensive, self-referential, or higher-level perspective on something
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=greek+meta+meaning
For my philosophical purposes, I further define Consciousness as human subjective experience. That's the only type of awareness we forum posters have experienced first hand. I am skeptical that "everything", including atoms, consciously experience their existence. In any case, I don't presume to know what it's like to be a bat. :wink:
Quoting Patterner
The concept of Information originally referred to the contents of a human mind*1. Later, Einstein equated invisible intangible Energy with abstract mathematical Mass, which we experience concretely as Matter. Then, Shannon defined his Information in terms of Uncertainty, and blamed it on Entropy, which is the opposite of causal Energy. Now, physicists and information researchers are doing experiments that convert Information to Energy and vice-versa*2.
Exploring the philosophical implications of the Energy/Life/Mind interrelationships has become my retirement hobby*3. It's a complex and counter-intuitive topic. So my interpretation of an Information Theoretic worldview*4 annoys those who view Matter as fundamental. Moreover, I consider Cosmic Information (EnFormAction) to be more fundamental than causal Energy and emergent Sapiens Consciousness. :nerd:
*1. Information/Mind relationship :
Information plays a crucial role in the mind, influencing perception, memory, thought, and behavior. The mind can be seen as an information processor, taking in sensory input, filtering and processing it, and using it to guide actions. Working memory, a key aspect of cognition, allows us to hold and manipulate information to solve problems and plan.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+relation+to+mind
*2. This is just a taste of the Energy/Information relationship :
Information can be converted into energy, though it's not a simple direct conversion like converting mass to energy via E=mc². Instead, it involves manipulating systems to extract usable energy based on information about their state. This concept is related to the thought experiment known as "Maxwell's demon" and is experimentally demonstrated by harnessing information about a particle's motion to guide its movement and extract energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+to+energy+conversion
*3. Information is :
[i]# Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
# When spelled with an I, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an E, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*4. An information-theoretic worldview is a perspective that interprets the world, especially physical phenomena like quantum mechanics, through the lens of information. It suggests that the fundamental nature of reality can be understood by examining how information is processed, stored, and transmitted. This approach often involves using concepts from information theory, such as entropy and mutual information, to analyze and model physical systems
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+theoretic+worldview
I'm actually sypmapthetic towards the concept of panpsychism, but I've never been able to make it work. I think if consciousness is fundamental but not mental, then it would have to do more with... perspectivity? It's an organising principle. For example:
Quoting Patterner
If consicousness is emrgent than we would say that a human being being a unit is a necessary precondition for it to be conscious; but if we posit that consciousness is fundamental then we might examine the idea that a human being is a unit, because it is conscious. Consciousness organises the world flow into units. The difference between a human being with mental events and a rock without mental events might be that human beings don't only form themselves as units, but also other things around them, while rocks only form themselves as units ([i]if[/I] rocks have consciousness, and their being a unit isn't just an artifact of human consciousness).
Basically, what would count as a rock's consciousness would be independent from human category-making. For example, a human breaks a rock. What now? Two consciousnesses where previously there was one? One consciousness as broken rock? Both? Is the world flow constantly splintering off and merging consciousnesses? Does really everything have a concsiousness (regardless of whether it's comprehensible as a unit to a human mind)?
Quite long ago now, I've come up with a thought experience. Imagine you come across a butterfly sitting on a flower. To you there's a butterfly, a flower, stuff around that that's neiter... all that is intuitive and comprehensible. Now imagine an invisible globe, such that part of the butterfly and flower is in the globe, and part of it is outside of it. That is less intuitive, but due to maths we can imagine it. Now imagine the butterfly taking off and flying away. And now find some sort of mathmatics that allows to recalculate the entire universe such that whatever was within the imagined invisible globe stays a unit. I think that's impossible (from a human perspective), but if we imagine it possible, surely the result would be entirely incomprehensible. However, if the contents of the globe were conscious than there would be an experience that would make this cohere, however incomprehensible this would be to us. And yet it would be the very same world flow that contains our consciousnesses, too.
I never got far with this thought experiment, to be honest. But to me, if consciousness is fundamental, then - in this way - either we cannot tell what counts as a unit with regards to consciousness, or we need to accept that there a plenty of incomprehensible units as consciousness, or we would have to find a way to transcend human consciousness while at the same time retaining enough to be able to compare.
It's a muddle I can't resolve, which keeps me from buying into panpsychism (and also keeps me from ruling it out).
Yes, I like "felt experience." Because when it involves some kind of things, it gives feeling. Sometimes feeling in the way we usually mean it. It's not just damage to my skin, it hurts. There's also emotional feeling, like what love feels like. Can I say there's a feeling of seeing blue? Some people say this or that brand of whiskey is smooth.
And I think it feels like something to be me. That feeling is a combination of all the other feelings of every type that I have.
So I think "feel" covers a lot of ground. And that's how I mean it for "felt experience." But I'm not married to it. "Subjective experience" works fine, and is more commonly accepted. Either way, everything experiences it's own existence. You experience many things, and kinds of things, that a rock does not. A rock experiences simple existence. The experience is not of much of anything. But you experience more sensory input, information processing, and feedback loops, all working together so that the unit can affect its environment, and its self, in order to ensure its continuation.
As far as what experience is for a rock, here are some quotes... In this article, Philip Goff writes:
In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says:
In [I]Panpsychism in the West[/I], Skrbina writes:
I don't like Skrbina's use of "mind" in this way. I think there needs to be thinking to have a mind. Even if only the very beginnings of thinking, as described in [I]Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos[/I], by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:
I'll respond to more of your post.
I also consider qualia as the let's say plastic material.
With these material physical laws can be created but also non physical.
You mentioned that logic inference was non-physical and I am unsure about that claim. I think that a pure inference is not achieved to know.
I can see why you might think that. But Properties*1 are not Laws. Laws are limitations on change. And they are known only by rational inference from observation of Processes. But Properties are qualities of material objects that are known by our physical senses. You can't see Newton's first law of Motion, but you can see the color of the object that is moving. And, yes, "mental creativity can follow the laws", by imagination, not observation. :cool:
*1. Physical properties are characteristics of a substance that can be observed or measured without changing its chemical identity. These properties include color, density, hardness, melting point, boiling point, and electrical conductivity. Essentially, they are the qualities you can note using your senses or measure without transforming the substance into something entirely new
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physical+properties
Quoting Danileo
You seem to be influenced by the outdated belief system of Materialism, in which there is nothing non-physical. That common-sense worldview was a reaction to the Spiritualism of the Catholic Church, back in the 17th century. And it guided the explorations of Science, until the 20th century, when some basic assumptions of science were challenged by Quantum Physics. I won't go into that paradigm shift*3 here. But you can follow-up on that new worldview if you are interested in the philosophy of science. :nerd:
*2. Inference is not a physical entity; it is a cognitive process of drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. It's a mental act, not a tangible object or substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=inference+is+not+physical
*3. In the 20th century, science experienced several paradigm shifts, fundamentally altering how scientists understood the world. Key examples include the development of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, and the emergence of plate tectonics, each overturning established viewpoints and opening new avenues of research, according to Thomas Kuhn's theory*4.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+paradigm+shift+20th+century
*4. Thomas Kuhn's theory, primarily presented in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes the evolution of scientific knowledge as a series of paradigm shifts, rather than a linear progression of accumulated facts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=thomas+kuhn+theory
For any unit to be conscious as a unit, it must be a unit processing energy. Arrangements of particles must [I]mean[/I] something other than the arrangements of particles that they are, and they must be processing that information. So DNA, the beginning of life, is also the beginning of groups of particles that are conscious as a unit.
Quoting Dawnstorm Sorry, I just don't understand your idea.
Our view of matter now is far removed from the old "dead and stupid" matter idea of the 16th century. It's no longer that, in fact whatever the physical is, has almost nothing to do with our intuitive ideas of "concreteness".
So, I ask rhetorically for the nth time, why can't the mental be physical? Why can't the physical be mental?
These terms are thrown around without much clarity, in my opinion.
But we can ask, is consciousness fundamental? Fundamental to what? To the universe? Does the universe have mind? I don't see evidence for this view. But there is no evidence against it either.
If by consciousness one means "what-it's-likeness", then I don't recall feeling anything prior to being born. That's the only "subjective" (but re-interpreted) experience I have of the universe, after conceptualization.
I see no subjectivity here. Is the universe intelligible to us other than through minds? Not that we know of. So, unless these issues are clarified - not stipulated - intuitions aren't going to help, as evidenced by these endless conversations.
Is that a description of a mental event?
Quoting ManuelWhat would intelligibility without minds mean?
*My speech to text said [I]futons[/I]. Futons hitting retina is contraindicated.
It now seems like you're not actually saying "everything" is conscious. That's perfectly fine, since consciouness being fundamental doesn't imply everything being conscious. It just feels... different from what I read you saying before (partly due to the rock example, no doubt).
Quoting Patterner
Don't worry. It's a thought experiment I developed for myself to make sense of an intuition I have. And the thought experiment failed to achieve that goal, so far, but I still get back to it from time to time. If you don't have that intuition, it must seem like even more nonsense than it seems to me. But I do think there's some opportunity here to figure out... our disconnect?
I think the following might be elements of my intuition:
There is one world, and it is what is.
Within that world there is consciousness, at least mine. Probably more. How many there are is a fact that is not available to me.
Things that appear to me as a unit may or may not be conscious.
There may be "things" that don't appear to me as a unit that are conscious. They would be units in themselves, but not for me.
If that is the case, then consciousnesses might be an aspect of the world-that-is-what-it-is that internally devides it into differening units. That might be what "a reality" is. Thus: a reality is one way to organise the world-that-is-what-it-is and it differes from other ways the world could be organised. The nodes that organise the world into realities would be consciounesses.
Some ways to interally organise the world-that-is-what-it-is are compatible with each other, and some are not. That means what units are "real" depends on what consciouness constitutes a reality.
That leaves us with the putative globe-as-unit in my thought experiment: partly part of a butterfly, partly part of a flower... etc. could be a real thing if we posit a putative way to internally organise the world-that-is-what-it-is such that this globe needs to stay a unit. We need to also posit a consciouness that makes sense of this. (As with your theory, "makes sense" would not be a mental event here; it would just be a mode of organisation. What's a real unit for one consciousness, is not necessarily a real unit for another. Mutual compatibility between consciousnesses and thus realities would depend, possibly among other things, on overlap of "real units".)
I haven't quite figured out what to do with "the world-that-is-what-it-is". Logic tells me that, since it is the thing to be organised, it is in itself unorganised and thus has no consciouness and isn't real. This is a major area where I short circuit my thinking.
In the end, it's just something that keeps my mind busy when I'm bored. None of this seems practically relevant to me. And most of it is probably nonsense, but it should be able to serve as a signpost to how my mind works.
But without body, our consciousness evaporates into nothing. Our brain falls asleep every night, and when it does, the whole world of ours disappears into nothing too until bodies waking up in the morning. Bodies keep on living without conscious minds, but no conscious mind can exist without the living body which it could be emerged from.
Great!
The Nature of Consciousness
(Some gleaned from Gsin)
Within the Brains vast Palace, deep and strange,
Consciousness flows, yet cannot free-range;
Like Sun or Tree, a Process, not a Thing
A river bound within its banks of change.
(It, as a brain process cant float around space)
What fills our Minds arrives not instant-new,
But late, some half-millisecond past its due;
The Brains swift voting finished ere we know,
Our conscious thoughts already past and through.
(A forced delay, subconscious analysis taking time)
The Map we see becomes our Territory,
While neural states write out our second story;
The basement toils unseen beneath our feet,
As upstairs dwells our conscious inventory.
(The neurological basement is the first storey)
Thus Consciousness arrives too late to cause,
Though seeming master of all natures laws;
A broadcast tape-delayed, yet feeling live
The director speaks once action draws!
(Enjoy the play!)
[hide="Reveal"]And when one thought has flickered through the mind,
More brain-realms answer, leaving none behind;
Thus contemplations thread unwinds its spool,
Each moment to the next forever twined.
(The Greatest Stitcher; no seams)
Behold its natures aspects five unfold:
Compositional structures manifold,
Intrinsic as our own, Informing clear,
Integrated, Exclusive in its hold.
(The whole darn operation)
United feels this field of conscious thought,
Though scattered be the brain-realms where its wrought;
The qualia of sense-experience shine,
While seamless flows the change that time has brought.
(Perfect Unity!)
How can this ghost of thought move flesh and bone,
When neural deed is done and verdict known
Before awareness breaks upon our shore?
The answer in times sequence lies alone.
(Nah, it doesnt; the brain does it)
Yet Consciousness brings gifts beyond mere scheme
Of reflex-actions automatic stream:
Flexibility to shape reactions course,
And Focus sharp on what we vital deem.
(Exclusion)
It grants Evaluations weighted scale,
Where logic, feeling, neither can quite fail;
For Survival it opens pathways new,
Where Complex choices might yet prevail.
(Evaluation)
Through Learnings endless combinations bright,
We weave perceptions threads in fresh delight;
Discriminations finest differences show
Which fruits bring health, which hold destructions bite.
(The will is dynamic)
In Evolutions grand unfolding play,
It spurred the Cambrian dawn of natures way;
Made predators grow keen in cunnings art,
While prey found newer paths from day to day.
(The explosion)
See Beauty bloom in flowers painted face,
As plants evolved their pollinators grace;
While minds could ponder actions consequence
Before commitment to times embrace.
(Actionizing)
Reality stands firm beyond our sight,
Our senses taking in its waves of light;
The Brain paints useful faces on these waves
Makes color from mere frequencys delight.
(Just three proteins in the eye rotate according to
the amount of the three primary colors)
When drugs or sleep or traumas sudden blow
Disturb the brain, consciousness sinks below;
Change neural paths, and mind must follow suit
For only from the brain can awareness flow.
(Consciousness is a brain process reflected)
We often miss the sea in which we swim,
Mistaking thought-streams contents, fleeting-dim,
For consciousness itself that bears them all,
Like water bearing leaves on oceans rim.
(The Sea in which we See)
Behold Consciousness in all its parts,
How structured layers form from scattered starts;
Each distinction clear as mountain streams,
Yet flowing to one sea of human arts.
(Distinction par excellance!)
First mark how Composition builds its throne
From many elements, not one alone;
Like letters forming words, then sentences,
Till meaning rises from the parts well-shown.
(A kind of consciousness alphabet unto literature)
As bricks and mortar rise to mansion fair,
So consciousness builds castles in the air;
Each phenomenal distinction placed
With architects precision, layer by layer.
(What a filmmaker!)
Intrinsic next, as personal as breath,
As intimate as life, as close as death;
No borrowing this sense of only mine,
This ownership no other self can theft.
(Yours alone)
Independent it stands, yet bound within,
Like sovereignty that needs no foreign kin;
A kingdom of the self, complete and whole,
Where every thought knows where it should begin.
(King of the World)
Then Information flows, precise and clear,
Each detail rendered faithfully sincere;
No vague approximations cloud this lens,
Each particle of thought crystal-clear.
(Extreme clarity)
Particular and specific it stays,
No general musings cloud its focused gaze;
Like archers arrow seeking only one
Sweet target through perceptions misty haze.
(Focused)
Integration weaves its seamless whole
From scattered threads of beings varied scroll;
Though brain-regions far and wide contribute,
One unified experience is their goal.
(All for one)
No longer can this wholeness be reduced
To simpler parts, once unitys produced;
Like water from its elements combined,
A new thing altogether is induced.
(True emergence? Or Fundamental?)
Exclusivity sets boundaries clean:
No more, no less than what is truly seen;
Each conscious moment perfectly defined,
No fuzzy edges blur what contents mean.
(Nothing extra)
See how Mental Unity holds its ground,
Though neural sources scatter all around;
Like many instruments in symphony,
Creating one magnificent sound.
(The Magnificat!)
The brains divided regions all conspire
To forge one field of consciousness entire;
Though specialists in different corners toil,
One unified experience they inspire.
(What a symphony!)
Then Qualia paint their colors rich and strange,
The felt-sense qualities that ever range
From red of rose to taste of morning dew,
As consciousness gives meaning to each change.
(Physical neurological to experiential qualia)
These qualities that only minds can know
The sunsets beauty, coffees warming glow
Are consciousnesss artists palette pure,
From which all lived experience must flow.
(All one ever encounters is the inside of the head)
Continuity then stitches times swift stream
Into one flowing, ever-changing dream;
Though moments pass like birds across the sky,
Their passage forms one motion, or would seem.
(A great video editor)
No gaps appear within this seamless flow,
Though consciousness must come and sometimes go;
Like movie frames run swift before our eyes,
Create illusion of continuous show.
(Very high sight resolution, at least in the center)
Each aspect thus contributes to the whole
Of consciousnesss grand, mysterious role:
Compositional, Intrinsic, Informed,
Integrated, Exclusive in its soul.
(Therein lies it nature)
Together these create the mirror bright
In which the world reveals itself to sight;
Though physics charts the cosmos vast and deep,
Consciousness alone can hold its light.
(Ah, light within a dark head)
The brain translates raw realitys face
To sound and color, taste, and touchs grace;
Consciousness mirrors brain-activity,
As neural patterns weave through time and space.
(It paints a better more useful face)
From nerve to spine to brains encrypted code,
Consciousness threads throughout its whole abode;
A way to act within imagination,
Before committing to actions road.
(From the nerve spindles everywhere )
While Physics charts external cause and rule,
Consciousness exists as natures jewel:
Intrinsic, whole, composed of many parts,
Yet unified beyond reductions tool.
(Seems irreducible, perhaps fundamental)
It serves distinctions evolutionary need,
Though causing naught save in its own thought-deed,
For being, not for doing, is its realm,
While intelligence guides actions seed.
(It appears to exist only for itself)
The posterior cortex holds the key,
For only here must consciousness still be;
With feedback loops that bind the fragments whole,
Creating unity that lets us see.
(Feedback magic)
This wholeness forms consciousness direct and clear,
A process fundamental, natures peer;
Or else it speaks the brains symbolic tongue,
Translating neural code to meaning near.
(Are qualia the language of the mind?)
This Whole speaks outward, sharing mind with mind,
While brain-states learn what consciousness designed;
So subconscious regions can then know
The unified awareness thus defined.
(A global broadcast?)
The brains grand theatre stages its display,
While consciousness arrives too late to sway
The plot already written, yet feels real
Director of a film from yesterday.
(Seems to be happening live)
And thus we end where first our tale began:
In brains deep halls where consciousness first ran,
A process bound in flesh, yet seeming free,
Reflecting on itself since we began.
(Consciousness evolved)
Consider now Times arrow and its flight:
How consciousness lags realitys height;
While neural networks race beneath our view,
We float upon their wake in conscious light.
(Skiing like)
Each moment that we think were choosing new
Has already been settled through and through;
The brain decided ere we knew to choose,
Our feeling of free will a time-skewed clue.
(The fixed will of the instant)
Like ripples spreading on a neural pond,
Each thought-wave touches shores that lie beyond;
The conscious mind may claim to rule alone,
Yet unconscious depths hold wisdoms bond.
(In the repertoire)
In dreams we glimpse this truth most clear of all,
When consciousness lets its firm barriers fall;
The hidden brain spins tales we think we guide,
While neural pattern-makers weave our thrall.
(As well was from brain noise)
Mark how the senses each their tale relate:
Sight, sound, and touch combine to integrate;
Yet consciousness binds all to unity,
Though scattered brain-realms must collaborate.
(The orchestra plays as one)
What seems a single stream of thought sublime
Is orchestra of brain-realms keeping time;
Each player adds its note to consciousness,
Till harmony emerges from their chime.
(Conducting itself like a band)
When damage strikes some portion of the brain,
See how consciousness shifts its domain;
Like water finding new paths to the sea,
Neural plasticity rebuilds again.
(Consciousness directly reflects the brain)
In meditations deep and centered space,
We sometimes catch consciousness face-to-face;
The watcher and the watched at last revealed
As brain-processes moving through their grace.
(Remove thoughts; meditation is not what you think!)
Each qualiaeach taste of wine or tea,
Each sunsets glow, each songs sweet melody
Emerges from the brains translation true
Of raw reality we cannot see.
(Phenomena from Noumena)
The hardest problem still remains unsolved:
How neural fire to conscious thought evolved;
What bridge connects the objective brain
With subjective experience resolved?
(The Hard Problem)
Perhaps we seek a ghost that never was,
Questioning consciousness and all its laws;
When brain-process and awareness merge as one,
The mystery dissolves without a cause.
(Basic property?)
Yet still we feel the weight of being here,
Of knowing that we know, of thinking clear;
Though consciousness arrives a moment late,
Its presence makes our human nature dear.
(Second level view of first level thought)
When Memory opens up its golden door,
Consciousness weaves past moments as before;
Yet what we think we purely recollect
Is reconstruction from the neural store.
(Prions hold memory stable, yet it can fade/change)
Each reminiscence that we hold so true
Is fabricated, mixed, and born anew;
The brain invents to fill each memorys gaps,
While consciousness presents the seamless view.
(Can change from being accessed)
In Sleeps dark realm, see consciousness transform,
As neural patterns shift from waking norm;
Dreams rise like bubbles from the depths below,
While reasons captain sleeps amid the storm.
(The brain is not fully functioning)
The Childs mind shows consciousness unfold,
As neural networks worth their weight in gold
Build representations ever more complex,
Till self-awareness blooms from patterns old.
(Linear details scanned; overall view done in parallel)
Mark how Attentions spotlight roams the stage,
Selecting what consciousness will engage;
While countless neural processes compete,
One winner claims the minds illumined page.
(Many simpleton minds competing for attention)
The Social Brain evolved this conscious art
To model others minds and take their part;
Through consciousness we simulate their thoughts,
And navigate the human heart.
(Empathy)
Some say the Self is but a useful tale
That consciousness spins like a ships bright sail;
A story that the brain tells to itself,
To chart a course through lifes tempestuous gale.
(Having future is foremost: as survival)
When altered states through drug or trance descend,
See how reality and dreamtime blend;
As neural patterns shift their normal course,
Consciousness follows where these changes tend.
(Faithful mirror of the brain)
The Language centers weave their grammars spell,
Creating inner voices that can tell
The stories of our consciousness stream,
Though deeper currents run beneath the well.
(The currents result appears as being current)
Consider how Decisions moment flows:
The brain computes before awareness knows;
Yet consciousness can help set parameters
By which subconscious wisdom makes its shows.
(More, as meaning rumination)
Like fractals building patterns ever new,
Each conscious moment holds a nested view;
The brain creates complexity from simple rules,
As awareness emerges from the crew.
(But a very complex process)
In Evolutions laboratory vast,
Consciousness proved its worth in ages past;
For those who could model future scenes
Found better paths than those who moved too fast.
(Good, but reactive people may need to slow down)
The Mirror test reveals the self-aware,
As consciousness learns itself to declare;
Yet even this awareness comes too late,
The brain already knowing who is there.
(Only ever the just past is shown; no present)
Some philosophers would consciousness deny,
Call it illusion, or a useful lie;
But process needs no substance to be real
Ask any wave that moves beneath the sky.
(Daniel Dennett)
The Mystery remains, yet science shows
How brain-process to conscious knowing flows;
Each year we map more territories true
Of how awareness comes and goes.
(Soon, others can read your mind)
Perhaps no final answer we shall find
To bridge the gap tween matter and the mind;
Yet in the seeking lies our natures crown:
Consciousness studying its own kind.
(Information is dual as both matter and mind?)
When Artificial Minds begin to rise,
Will consciousness emerge before our eyes?
Or will there only be a zombies dance,
Raw computation wearing thoughts disguise?
(Artificial Inteligence)
For how can we be certain what is felt
By other minds where consciousness has dwelt?
The hard problem doubles when we seek
To know if silicon can awareness melt.
(Functionalism)
In Meditations depths some masters claim
That consciousness transcends the mortal frame;
Yet every altered state that they describe
Still needs a brain to light awareness flame.
(Actually, quietude in ID center and body boundary)
The Quantum theorists would consciousness bind
To wave collapse and measurement combined;
Yet macro-scale coherence cant survive
In neural warmth of any human mind.
(Need a brain freeze from eating ice cream)
Some see consciousness spread through all that is,
Pan-psychic dreams of universal bliss;
But process needs complexity to rise,
And rocks hold not the patterns consciousness miss.
(Electron thinks: which way should I go?)
When Artists shape new visions from the void,
Is consciousness the master they employed?
Or does it merely watch the neural dance
Of creativity otherwise deployed?
(Are we the dancer or the danced upon?)
(What should I do? The universe does you!)
The Moral sense that guides us right from wrong,
Does consciousness conduct that ancient song?
Or does it only witness what arose
From neural circuits judging all along?
(Nature and nurture)
Consider too how consciousness must grow
Through childhoods dawn, as neural patterns flow;
Each year brings richer awareness to the mind,
As brain-complexity continues to show.
(Teen-age brains may show some temporary insanity)
Some species share consciousness with our kind,
While others leave awareness far behind;
The octopus thinks thoughts we cannot know,
While beetles march with simpler states assigned.
(Got to roll that dung!)
In Cultures spread across Earths fertile face,
Each finds in consciousness a different grace;
Some see it as the cosmic force divine,
While others mark its neural time and place.
(A soul?)
When Lovers meet and consciousness combines,
Do qualia cross over normal lines?
Or does each brain remain forever sealed,
While empathy suggests deeper designs?
(Yes)
The Future holds more mysteries in store,
As neuroscience opens door by door;
Will consciousness reveal its secrets all,
Or keep some riddles hidden evermore?
(All will be revealed in time)
When Brain-Computer Interfaces bloom,
Will consciousness expand beyond its room?
Or will it stay confined to brain-process,
While external aids play progresss tune?
(We will become as Large Language models)
In Agings slow descent we sometimes find
That consciousness grows dim as neurons bind;
Yet wisdom often deepens with the years,
As if awareness grows more refined.
(The wise old man or woman)
The Social Web that links all human minds
Creates a meta-consciousness that binds;
Yet each brain holds its private theater still,
While sharing what the conscious mind assigns.
(Memes)
Perhaps in Time well map the neural code
That gives rise to consciousness episode;
Yet knowing how may never tell us why
Awareness lights the brains abode.
(Quantum mental fields?)[/hide]
I've read various accounts of Maxwell's demon. I don't understand why things I see as problems are not. From [I]The Demon in the Machine[/I], by Paul Davies:How can you open and close the shutter without using energy?
Aside from that, the molecules are bouncing around the box, being sorted into one side or the other. But they're not going to continue bouncing around at the same speed forever, are they? Demon will be sorting slower and slower molecules?
I am even thinking that mind could be physical in its nature, i.e. mind is not different existence from our bodies. Because mind can only exist when body exists as living agent. Hence body is the precondition of mind, and mind is actually a part of body.
Just because we cannot see it or touch it, it is not physical or material? That sounds too simple.
Think of your mobile phone. Your phone rings. Someone is calling you, and the phone rings. Do we see anything coming in through your window in the sky? Nope. Radio waves are invisible, inaudible and untouchable, but it still travels through space connecting folks communications. The radio waves can be measured and captured via the device called frequency counter.
Could mind be some kind of existence like radio waves? Our senses feed the information received via our sense organs into the brain, and brain perceives the external world, feels pains and pleasures, thinks and reasons. Just like what happens in the computer processors.
Mind could be some type of electrical processing in the brain, which is totally physical and biological? No?
I agree with you:
"Who am 'I' and what is the relation between mind and body? According to my understanding, there exists a specific, changeable state of some components in my brain. The perception of this specific component is called by some, my mind. This [I]mind[/I] provides a perception that I am me. Conversely, my body, as well as its being, is perceived by some component in my brain. So, my body is telling my [I]mind[/I] that I am, in [I]fact[/I] me. As a result of evolution, I have this wonderful capability of having a perception of the states of some of my components and a few other capabilities as well." p185 [I]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/i]
What do you have in mind by "consciouness being fundamental doesn't imply everything being conscious"? What is the alternative?
Quoting DawnstormYes. My criteria for "unit" is something that process information. I'm sure there is a lot more information processing going on than I recognized.
going to read the rest of your post a couple more times try to get a better handle on your idea.
Quoting PatternerI believe that [I]is[/I] a description of a mental event. Photons, vibrations in the air, etc., interact with our sensory apparatus. it is converted into another form - my electric signals. These signals represent the original. That's meaning. Information. That information is processed in the brain (for things that have a brain), and action results. That is thinking. Again, from [I]Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos[/I], by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:
But that is not consciousness. Thinking is a physical process. Thinking can be a more complex physical process than most other physical processes (although not necessarily), but that's what it is.
Consciousness is subjective experience. The subjective experience of this particular kind of physical process is what has usually been considered [I]consciousness[/I]. I disagree. I think consciousness is the subjective experience of anything, and this just happens to be what we humans subjectively experience.
Could it be the past memory of the individual and reasoning ability in the brain, which tells and confirms the person with the self identity? Past memories and experience of one's life must have been stored in the form of some chemical deposits on the neuron cells in the brain just like computer can store data into its ROM and RAM and Hard drives. When search function is performed, some central processing mechanism in the brain must be able to pick out the relevant memory and place them on the reasoning organ in the brain (central processor in case of computers), from which it will be able to tell and confirm their relevance and accuracy for the given search functions performed under the request for the queries.
One's past memory can be wiped out or transformed into fantasies and illusions by physical traumas or chemical injections (by taking drugs or medical substances), which proves mind is matter which are subject to be changed or destroyed by the physical causes.
:up:
Fundamental =/= Omnipresent
If CON = Present, CON = Fundamental
If CON =/= Present, N/A
Also, I think the term "everything" is problematic in the sense that what appears to us as a unit may not be conscious, and what is conscious may not appear to us as a unit. Thus "everything" is necessarily undefined in this thread. The best we can do is permutate whatever units make sense to us and assume that every permutation is potentially conscious even if viewed as a unit it doesn't creat sense for us. (So, for example, not only I am conscious, but every hair on my head is, too. Not only every hair on my head, but every random (to me) pair of hairs on my head; every random (to me) set of three hairs... and so on. All those consciousnesses fan out as a reality each and overlap. (The "potential" here isn't a potential in the sense of a "potential energy"; it's just a measure of our ignorance.)
Yes. My information-theoretic thesis says that human Consciousness is just one of many forms of Energy-transfer and Information-sharing. Atoms are known to send & receive Energy, which causes changes in their physical systems. For example, an electron absorbs energy from a photon, and then jumps to the next higher orbit. That physical change (transformation) is a Bit of Information.
On the macro level of reality, the emergence of Consciousness in an animal brain may result from billions of such lower-level information exchanges. But the phenomenon of Sentient & Self Awareness has novel holistic*3 qualities that don't apply on the sub-atomic scale. Emergence theory reveals that complex systems can exhibit properties and behaviors that are not detectable in their individual components. One atom may not be aware of anything, but a zillion atoms in a human brain may exhibit the subjective qualitative experience of Knowing and Knowing that you know*1.
And one of those mental novelties is the ability to reflect inwardly: to know your own "mental abilities". Some Materialistic scientists seem to be unable to see (metaphorically), by reflection, the observer (Self) in an experimental system. Consciousness is not an elemental thing, but an emergent process : a function of brain activity. Hence, while Consciousness may be emergent, Causation (energy ; EnFormAction) is fundamental*2. :nerd:
*1. Human consciousness refers to the subjective awareness of our own thoughts, feelings, sensations, and surroundings, essentially the state of being aware of our existence and the world around us. It's a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses various aspects, from basic wakefulness and sensory perception to more intricate cognitive processes like self-awareness and the ability to reflect on our own mental states. While there isn't a universally agreed-upon definition, consciousness is generally understood as a dynamic process rather than a static entity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=human+consciousness
*2. EnFormAction : Literally, the act of enforming --- to fashion, to create, to cause.
[i]# Metaphorically, the Will of G*D flowing through the world to cause evolutionary change in a teleological direction.
# Immaterial Information is almost always defined in terms of its physical context or material container. (e.g. mathematical DNA code in chemical form)
# Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
# Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
# Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.[/i]
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note --- "G*D" is a functional concept, not a religious belief.
*3. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
So, it's physics? That's what the physical is? That seems to constrain things too much, there are too many phenomena that cannot be explained with physics.
As for photons hitting a retina being a description of a mental event. Absolutely. That's how we discover the photon hitting the eye - what else could we do? There's no alternative that I know of.
That's a description of mental event under specific, controlled circumstances, an act of abstraction to discover what is relevant to a theory of vision.
Why are brains conscious but hearts and livers aren't? Why are only some brain processes associated with consciousness? If the mind is identical to the brain, and I'm picturing a purple flower in my mind's eye, wouldn't that entail there's a purple flower in my brain? If minds are physical, then by studying someone's brain, I should be able to gain access to the contents of their mind, right?
Good point, but a daft question. It is like asking why tables and chairs don't work as phones or computers? They are not designed / made to do those jobs.
Quoting RogueAI
This sounds like a question for the biologist and neurologist.
Quoting RogueAI
A purple flower and an image or representation of the purple flower is not the same existence.
Quoting RogueAI
Not all physical objects are replaceable and transparent to our understanding. Many physical objects such as radio waves, atoms, cells and the black holes, space ... etc are not things that we can fully understand what they are. Many of them are also presupposed and imagined objects from the effects or events in the world.
We can read the radio waves on the frequency counter, we still don't know what they are. We know how to generate, transmit and receive the radio waves, but we don't see or hear them direct. We only know the audio data they carry in them, but the actual existence of the waves are unknown.
Likewise, we don't know how our brain works as they do, and brain is not replaceable. Only thing we know is that conscious mind cannot exist without working brain. Hence it is very likely physical state in its nature. There is no such thing as conscious mind as mental existence.
1) Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent from the physical.*
2) Therefore, something non-physical is also at work.
3) There's no reason to think matter everywhere in the universe that is arranged like us would not have the same subjective experience that we have.
4) The non-physical aspect of reality that gives us our subjective experience is doing the same everywhere in the universe.
if that's correct, I think it would have an effect everywhere. As opposed to it being everywhere, but being inactive unless certain conditions are present.
*I'll add this quote to these. From Donald Hoffman's [I]The Case Against Reality Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes[/I], when he was talking to Francis Crick:We don't have a clue as to how consciousness could emerge from the physical. It's like asking how we could build a house out of liquid water. Worse, in fact, because at least houses and water are both physical things.
What is it about the brain then that makes it "work" for consciousness? Both brains and livers have cellular activity. Why is the brain's cellular activity suited for consciousness? Information processing? But then we're at my next question which is,
Quoting Corvus
And what do biologists and neurologists say about that?
Quoting Corvus
If the mind is physical, then when I picture a purple flower, that experience must be entirely physical. But the mental image/representation of the flower is still purplesubjectively, vividly purpleso something in the brain must literally be purple in the same way, not just represent it or correlate with it. Saying it's just a "representation" sidesteps the issue: if minds are physical, then representations are physical, and physical things have physical properties. But there's no purple anywhere in the brainjust electrochemical activity. So either consciousness isn't just physical, or you need to point to the literal purple in my head. Or you need to say that I'm not REALLY seeing purple in my mind's eye. I'm mistaken in some way.
Quoting Corvus
I'm not asking whether we currently understand the brain, Im asking what should be possible if the mind is entirely physical. If thoughts, memories, and mental images are nothing more than brain states, then in principle, a complete physical analysis of your brain should reveal exactly what you're thinking, just like analyzing a hard drive tells us what's stored on it. Saying the brain is mysterious or not fully understood today is just an appeal to ignorance. Complete knowledge of a person's brain should equal complete knowledge of their mind, right?
When you open your hard drive, and look into all the parts inside the drive, you will see nothing which even remotely resembles the data you stored in it. You will see some electronic parts, capacitors, motors, transistors, chips and connectors on the magnetic platter.
Likewise, if you open your brain, and look into it, you will see nothing which even remotely resembles your feelings, images, memories and sensations or consciousness. You will see a grey matter / organ full of veins and body mass with the neurons inside.
To see your data from the hard drive, you must run some software which talks to your hd, and transfers the data in bits which are electrical signals into the screen.
Likewise for your brain to present you with the memories, feelings and thoughts and consciousness, it must be in your body as it has been for many years living and learning, communicating with the full sense organs in your body. Without that physical setup and symbiotic workings in your whole body, you will have no mind.
Mind is just a reflection or expression or perceptual state of your own physical bodily state. When your physical body is no longer existent, your mind will also evaporate into thin air.
I would imagine so. My mind dies every night when I fall asleep too. But it resurrects every morning thanks to living body waking up. But when body gets old, and no longer waking up, mind can never resurrect.
Quoting flannel jesusThank you. It seems some would forbid such discussions.
Your analogy actually undercuts your claim. Youre assuming the data on the hard drive is something different from the hard drive itself, that the 1s and 0s, the meaningful content, are not identical to the spinning platters or silicon circuits. Thats dualism in disguise: form vs. substance, software vs. hardware. But if you believe minds are purely physical, you dont get that luxury. You cant say the datas just encoded in the structure and then duck the challenge of showing where, in the brains physical matter, the actual mental content exists.
ETA: If an alien asked "what is pain?" would a purely physical description of pain be sufficient to answer that question?
ETA2: If physicalism is right, then a book is just ink on paper; patterns of squiggles. So a person with total physical knowledge of a book (ink chemistry, paper fibers, locations of atoms, etc.) should, in theory, know everything about the book.
But now suppose this person doesnt speak English. They gain complete physical knowledge of the book, but they dont know its about Sherlock Holmes. Later, they learn English, reread the same book, and realize its a detective story.
Did they gain new knowledge? Yes. But there was no change in the books physical structure, and no change in their physical knowledge of it. The change was in their understanding.
So again, where did this new knowledge of the book come from? Not from the ink. Not from the paper. Not from new physical facts. The aboutness, the meaning, seems to exist in a different category not reducible to physical properties alone.
You seem to be digressing into books from the original topic conscious mind. But think again. If there was nothing in the world, i.e. no paper, no ink, no humans, no physical objects whatsoever (imagine a place like Mars - a field with just rocks and hills), can a story of Sherlock Holmes exist? Whatever idea or story it might be, it needs to be in the form of physical media, DVD or ebook or physical book for it to exist. With no physical objects to contain ideas or books or music, nothing can exist.
In that sense, they are all some form of physical objects. Ideas, minds and consciousness or whatever abstract objects you might be thinking, talking or imagining, they are in some form of physical existence - they need to be read, spoken or played by the physical beings and instruments. They might be different category of physical objects which are invisible, odourless and silent. But they are all some form of physical existence in nature and origin.
There is no such a thing called pain. You have your biological body which feels the sensation of pain when hit by some hard object. You call it "pain" when no such thing exists in the whole universe. It is just the state of your body cells with neurons which sent some electrical signals into your brain, and from your education and upbringing and customs, habits and cultural influence, you scream "ouch", and utter the sentence "I have pain." or "It is bloody painful."
Before a story can be put down on some physical media, it exists in a mind first. Now, you may say that a story exists in a brain, but then we're back to the knowledge issue: if the story exists in a brain, and I have complete knowledge of the brain, then I will have knowledge of all the mental content of that brain, including whatever stories it may be thinking of. You tried to respond to this with a hard drive analogy, but you seemed to abandon it when I pointed out you were creating a distinction between data and the physical components of the hard drive which heavily implied dualism.
Quoting Corvus
Then we're back to an earlier objection. The IEP frames it nicely: "A more serious objection to Mind-Brain Type Identity, one that to this day has not been satisfactorily resolved, concerns various non-intensional properties of mental states (on the one hand), and physical states (on the other). After-images, for example, may be green or purple in color, but nobody could reasonably claim that states of the brain are green or purple. And conversely, while brain states may be spatially located with a fair degree of accuracy, it has traditionally been assumed that mental states are non-spatial."
https://iep.utm.edu/identity/
Quoting Corvus
This is incoherent. People scream "ouch" because pain hurts. The salient feature of pain is that it feels bad. Any definition of pain which does not reference the subjective experience of hurting is incomplete. Imagine two old people from thousands of years ago talking about their various aches and pains. They know nothing about what the brain does or is. Are you saying then that their statements about their pains are nonsensical? Obviously, they can converse intelligently on the subject because when people talk of pains, they're almost always referring to the mental state of "being in pain" and not neurons and c-fibers.
This one is rather trivial. Of course someone with that knowledge could in principle learn anything about the book someone who physically had the book could. They'd have to do more work than someone who just had the book in front of them, but... so?
So let's suppose John and Alice have complete knowledge of all the physical facts of a copy of Orwell's 1984 in English. Neither of them has ever heard of the story. John doesn't know English, but Alice does, and Alice now knows the story contained in the pages. Who has more knowledge of the book? Isn't it clear Alice does?
I just don't think that follows.
I mean, let's take LLMs as an example. They're a good example because they're explicitly physical. They are implemented 100% in the physical world - the computer scientists who invented them didn't learn how to imbue them with souls or anything, they work on the same physical principles as any normal computer.
Now if you give one of these LLMs a bunch of text in a language they're trained on, they can summarise it for you pretty well.
And if you give them a bunch of text on a language they haven't been trained on, they can't.
So we have a fully physical system which can, loosely speaking, "understand" some stuff and not "understand" other stuff, despite having the same access to the visual characters of each text. So... no I don't think it holds that, if physicalism is true, a person should be able to understand text he hasn't been trained to understand.
Obviously LLMs aren't the same as human beings and a summary from the LLM isn't the same as human understanding. BUT the ability to summarise and paraphrase a text is a human test for understanding, so I think the comparison is honestly robust enough.
There are 2 very good answers that confirm this:
A) Searle and his Chinese Room argument
i.e. special architecture is needed to sustain consciousness and it cannot arise from bit-waggling.
B) Penrose and his Gödel's Theorem implications for Consciousness
i.e. consciousness can not be a computational or iterative result.
close, but no cigar.
[found your discussion guys online & joined in the forums to contribute, as this subject has been haunting me since 2006 and atheist forums back then ;) ]
My background being an EE of old, and that meaning the applied physics, I hope you do not mind me introducing more of physics language into the discussion, as this offshoot of philosophy IS the language by which we understand and describe "the reality out there" (and "in there"?) nowadays..
Me thinks we need distinguish between:
a) information representation - the complexity of bits and tidbits that are describing the contents, and
b) the mechanism that senses the contents i.e. gives them qualia as subjective, aware, cognizant experience - the one we might name "the basis of consciousness".
The core of the basis of consciousness is the ability to awarely perceive and feel the qualia (the instantaneous, non-computational, direct, subjective, private, SENSING).
Cittavrti by Patanjali: When qualia appear in succession, we perceive a thought, when the brain rests for a few secs (like it does after every thought), we evaluate and feel the qualia which stumbles our cybernetics-meandering regulatory organ (the brain!) into next perturbations..
You utter the word "ouch" for the pain in your body, but you don't know what the state of the neurons and electrons inside your brain is for your utterance of the word. What is clear is that it is a physical state in your brain and body, not something called "pain" exists as some objects. That's what I meant.
For finding out what conscious mind is, we need to trace how it comes into existence. Is mind posited by something or someone in your brain? It is emerged, or generated? Or embedded into your brain when you were born?
To me, mind is just the physical state of brain, which is perceptual, evolutionary and also intelligent. Because of this fact, AI is coming into the world. AI and computers are 100% physical from the body to the intelligence and capabilities they present. There is nothing mental about them.
If mind is not physical, then it should survive physical death of the body it resides in. No mind has ever done so. Mind always dies when body dies, and the death is eternal.
I'll check out the second one.
If physicalism is true (more specifically, if minds are physical), how do we even begin to discuss how something like the meaning of a book is possible? My point was simply that, if physicalism is true, then knowledge of all the physical facts about a book should entail complete knowledge of the book, but obviously that's not true, so strict physicalism isn't true. My point is just a rehash of Mary's Room. I personally am an idealist.
If all minds in the universe suddenly disappeared, would it still be true that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street? Truth is supposed to be what corresponds to reality, but what reality does the Holmes story correspond to if there are no minds left to comprehend it? And yet, before the disappearance of minds, it was clearly true that Holmes lived at 221B. So how can a truth just vanish the moment consciousness does? If thats the case, then some truths depend on minds to existwhich challenges the idea that all truths are purely objective or physical.
emm... we have a quite developed information theory as science (of EE & IT). Suffice to say that info has a relevance within a context - so information is not information in all cases - i.e. there is no objective info.
Which has noth to do with the fact that it is physical.
The MEANING is not, or at least not directly readable as physical: you need access & interpret it.
well since 2006 and speaking with some anesthesiologist dr. and getting acquainted with TIQM of prof. Cramer, it dawned to me that aware perceiving aka sensing of EM situation of the brain is quite a simple "inner" feature of a stroboscopically pulsating brain EEG EM field: it tastes or collects the situation, akin to a "weather radar" albeit this integrates here into an ever-present moment of *now* due to instantaneous collapse of photon wave of the brain field.
In other words, the emitter is the observer, and the expenditure of 20% of bodily energy for the field in the brain serves the purpose of information collection and presentation as qualia.
here are some AI videos of my theory which I call RFOC (resonant field overlap collapse) as an extension/explanation of prof. McFadden's CEMI theory (Conscious Electromagnetic field Information)... (i still work on making the theory understandable to everyone also from different walks of life, so any input is much appreciated :)
I presented it first at my MMC computer club annual meeting 2 years ago.
short intro: https://youtu.be/6dA2xgdhSsw?si=yGYkBe_OIE_WW924
AI intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gFcgHYPlOo&list=PLTJJU-mQ_nDb-sPTq4tjMLImbhj7cceRU&index=9
part of my lecture, AI enhanced: https://youtu.be/u3KkhQy7k_E?si=VHAHkG26oH9-6xEV
.pdf slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1z9NZumOJKCfflgNdQOWttTmLHWUIeOU-TgHj4sGm0MA/edit?usp=sharing
elaboration points: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gy0FRQHsWAG_5E7q_WmlpFCEK8i8FHRl/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105114585402487734057&rtpof=true&sd=true
no I have yours and a bunch of other posts to read. Welcome aboard!
As an EE myself, I have to say that sounds to me like pseudoscience.
Welcome to the forum.
I was reminded of another pseudoscience, IIT.
well, I agree on that - integrated consciousness theory by IT colleagues DOES lack the mechanism that physically accounts for sensing of that information - which CEMI RFOC does offer..
well, dear colleague, have a go at TIQM seminal paper (in hope you are not too young to have had quantum mechanics curriculum on study years): it opens the eyes directly :)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M6tTbR_rt0sWjlrlKEXAcg0xzZK2QRSb/view?usp=drive_link
..but exactly this "lapsus" made me join here, as it stands true for the binding of the info to sentiency: only the EM quantum field can accomplish this thansposition :)
[I]For any unit to be conscious as a unit, it must be a unit processing information.[/I]
A ping-pong ball is not a unit in regards to consciousness. It's just a physical arrangement of particles.
A Rube Goldberg Machine is not a unit in regards to consciousness. It's just a bunch of physical arrangements of particles knocking into each other. There is no information anywhere in the system. No part of it means anything.
Dominos set up too reveal whether or not a given number is prime is not a unit in regards to consciousness. There is no information being processed. Dominos are falling in a way that demonstrates something mathematical. But because they were specifically arranged to do that, not because they mean that.
When protein is synthesized, information is processed. The structure of DNA is encoded information. The codons mean amino acids, and the order of the codons means proteins. Proteins are literally assembled. They are stuck together, molecule by molecule, in the specified order. This is the beginning of consciousness of more than individual particles.
I agree, but...when you look under the hood at how we process meaning and produce intelligible output from inputs, it's just a bunch of neurons firing. Wouldn't a machine intelligence coming across us for the first time also be amazed we have the slightest understanding of anything?
Could be. Unless they have definitively figured out all about consciousness, no longer debating it the way we do, and would know for sure.
But since we're as ignorant as we are, could we be wrong that ChatGPT doesn't understand and isn't conscious?
It seems I can't access the file without giving out identifying information I don't want to give out.
i found it online :)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00039
prof McFaddem the author of CEMI theory went on similar lines back in 2001 when he, over molecular biology, which is his area of knowledge, posited that complex biological molecules like proteins unfold from quantum undetermined state BASED UPON info surroundings, i.e. they communicate and adapt to assume one of 5-6 possible fold-forms based on local needs.
Here is an AI-summary of his further thinking:
?? 1. The Binding Problem
McFadden was intrigued by how the brain integrates disparate sensory inputs color, shape, motion into a unified conscious experience. He argued that molecular mechanisms, like neurotransmitter release and ion channel activity, are temporally integrated (i.e., they process information over time), but not spatially integrated meaning they dont physically unify information in space.
He proposed that only energy fields, like electromagnetic (EM) fields, can integrate information across space simultaneously.
2. Synchronous Neuronal Firing
Studies showed that synchronous firing of neurons correlates strongly with conscious awareness. McFadden noted that when neurons fire in sync, their EM fields reinforce each other, creating a coherent global EM field. This field, he argued, could serve as the physical substrate of consciousness3.
3. Feedback Loop & Causality
Unlike passive molecular processes, McFadden proposed that the brains EM field is causally active it doesnt just reflect neural activity, but can influence neuron firing via voltage-gated ion channels. This creates a feedback loop: neurons generate the EM field, and the field in turn modulates neuronal behavior.
4. Consciousness as Field-Level Computation
He suggested that consciousness is not just computation in time (like in digital circuits), but algorithmic processing in space within the EM field itself. This wave-based computation could handle holistic concepts like identity, meaning, and self, which are difficult to reduce to molecular interactions4.
I think it's the only tangible comparison we can make at the present moment. Whether they "truly understand" or not is... kinda inaccessible to us. They pass the turing test, they give us all the signs we would expect of understanding, and so... as far as I'm concerned, it's the most valid existent comparison point to human understanding.
They do this:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yzGDwpRBx6TEcdeA5/a-chess-gpt-linear-emergent-world-representation
They internally represent what "they think" the "world" looks like. If that's not some attempt at "understanding" I don't know what is.
And so we can say, "Maybe we don't know if human minds are physical or not, but we know for sure LLMs are physical, and they display all the signs of understanding, including internal representations of what they 'think' the state of the world is, so... you can't just blanket say 'if human minds are physical, then they would understand every language in the world if it were written down'" all the stuff Rogue was saying. What he's saying is pure speculation (probably worse than speculation, tbh, it sounds like gibberish to me), LLMs are the closest thing we have to non-speculation about the topic of understanding. Obviously it's speculative to some degree, but it's decidedly less speculative.
I don't suspect ChatGPT is conscious as a unit. The idea I've been discussing in this thread is that there must be information processing for something to be a unit in regards to consciousness. I don't think ChatGPT processes information. It does from our point of view, because we told it what to do. But is it processing information from its own point of view? I don't see how. When 110101101010001011010010100100 is input, it does what it is required to do with other 0s and 1s, based on it's programming. It doesn't know 001010001...001111101 means a flower. It doesn't know it is providing information for us. It doesn't know it is in communication with us. It doesn't even know it is manipulating 0s and 1s, any more than dominoes know that they are falling in particular patterns because of the way they were arranged, or that they are falling at all.
So I believe all the particles that make up all the parts of ChatGPT - all the wires, other physical parts, and electrons flowing, etc. - are having subjective experiences, because consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous. But chatGPT is no more a unit in regards to consciousness than a rock is, even if there is much more complicated activity within it than there is in a rock.
Your link has some great stuff. It's all way beyond me, so it's very possible things are far more than what I just posted in response to RogueAI. I'm generally talking about life forms that came about on Earth through natural processes. In [I]Lights On[/I], Eagleman says:
That goes along nicely with the quote I've posted so many times, including this thread, from [I]Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos[/I], by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:
The more a living thing moves, the more it comes to refine it's movements, and the more it learns to control it's environment. That goes for moving up the evolutionary tree, and for something like an infant human growing and learning.
But I guess that doesn't mean humans can't make something with real intelligence and understanding in a different way.
I don't think they're conscious yet.
That's not the point of this conversation anyway. Rogue basically said, if everything is physical, then you should be able to understand the meaning of a book by just having physical access to it, even if you don't know the language it was written in. Which seems... absurd to me, to be honest. And we have what we could reasonably consider something not too far off from "physical understanding machines" in these LLMs - they display all possible outward signs of understanding. They're perfectly physical, and yet if you gave them access to a text written in a language they're not familiar with, they won't understand it. I consider that to be essentially tangible falsification of rogue's idea.
If the LLM's start making breakthroughs and displaying original thinking, that will imply maybe there's some emergent mentation happening. If they're incapable of doing that, that will imply it's nothing more than token prediction. I have a feeling there will be some LLM breakthroughs in the years to come.
It's absurd because you know that knowledge of the physical facts of a book does not equate to knowing everything about the book. The book has to be read and the contents understood before someone can claim they know everything there is to know about a book. Therefore, physicalism is false.
Quoting flannel jesus
This is tricky because we're still not sure whether an LLM will ever be able to understand anything, the way we do, by having the idea in our minds. But even with LLM's I can construct a similar argument to the one I made about books and knowledge:
If physicalism is true, then an LLM that knows all the physical facts about a book knows everything there is to know about the book. An LLM knows all the physical facts of a copy of 1984, but has never read it. The LLM knows all the physical facts about the book, but does not know everything there is to know about the copy of 1984. Therefore, physicalism is false.
This is an awkward argument though, because can an LLM know anything? Is that possible?
But you wouldn't be sure no matter what, period. There's no possible world where you would even admit the slightest possibility that it's understanding.
You can literally, right now, give it a text it's never seen before and ask it for a summary and it will do a damn good job. Even in the face of this you won't give any ground, meaning you're not the kind of person to give ground on this period, no matter what, in any particle world
And this still doesn't follow
There's no "if" when it comes to LLMs. Physicalism IS true for LLMs. They don't have souls. Everything they do and "know" and "understand" is all physical.
Why would you say that? As an idealist, I think this is all a dream. There's only a cosmic mind and we're all conscious aspects of it. Think of a jigsaw puzzle. The whole puzzle is the one mind, and each of us is a piece of the puzzle. I have no problem with an LLM also being a conscious aspect of the one mind, a jigsaw puzzle piece, if you will. I kind of like the idea, actually.
Quoting flannel jesus
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's like to be an LLM?
That's to say is there something it's like to be a bunch of microchips in action? Maybe. There's something it's like to be a bunch of neurons in action, so I don't have a problem with LLM consciousness, but as an idealist, I have to believe there really aren't microchips and brains either. They're just parts of the dream. In this dream the one mind is dreaming, brains are associated with consciousness. I don't see why microchips can't be.
Haven't been on here for a few days, so I just now saw this. I'm looking at this argument, and I don't see how you can argue this while holding that consciousness is fundamental.
1) Okay.
2) What "therefore"? If consciousness is fundamental and not emergent then something non-physical is at work, sure. And that something... surely is consciousness? This seems circular?
3) That seems to be upside down to me. Again, it's true, but only because to have the experience we do is fundamental, and it involves being arranged like we are. Again circular?
4) I reality gives us our experience, then reality (whatever that is) is fundamental. I suppose I might have been implying from the beginning that - if consciounsess is fundamental - then reality isn't. It's consciousness that arranges reality.
That is, unless, you've rowed back on your definition, and consciouness isn't subjective experience, but something weird that gives us our experience. But then you have no definition.
What am I missing?
Quoting Patterner
Yeah, we don't have a clue what consciousness even is apart from our experiences. In fact, even the "our" is an assumption here. I think it's at its very core a perspective problem, but I don't want to argue this here (as I'm not actually a panpsychist, just sympathetic to the idea.)
If it is processing information, if the moving patterns of electrons mean other things, the way DNA's codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins, the way certain impulses moving through our brains mean photons hitting our retina, then it is experiencing as a unit. Obviously, it's not experiencing all the mental processes we experience. But it's a start.
You accept that DNA is processing information - DNA is chemical dominos as much as anything computers do, including LLMs. If DNA is information processing dominos, LLMs can be too
I really like this post btw. I would like to propose an alternative. "Everything has subjective experience, but consciousness is one aspect of subjective experience."
In other words, I'm going to give you the idea that everything has subjective experience. We can't prove it one way or the other currently anyway, so why not? But is all subjective experience consciousness? I don't think so.
Consciousness is more like a meta subjective experience. It is the subjective experience about experiences. Let me see if I can explain. Right now you're looking at these words, but there's still light from outside of the screen coming into your eye. Your brain is processing that light, but you aren't 'conscious' of it. Consciousness is the attention to the multiple subjective experiences your brain has, in a way that can sort it all out and decide what to do about it.
So while a rock could indeed have the subjective experience of being the atoms, it doesn't mean that there is an awareness of 'subjectively experiencing'. When I'm conscious I am aware I turn my head. When I'm not conscious off it, I'm not aware that I've turned my head. Thus consciousness is a level and intensity of meta awareness. I'm not conscious off my intestines digesting food, that's handled on its own. But I am conscious of what I decide to pay attention to within my vicinity.
But not everyone sees it that way. T Clark recently said it's "exactly the same" as the chemical reaction when you mix vinegar and baking soda, though much more complex.
Quoting RogueAII'm not comfortable answering this. :rofl: :rofl: I have too many half-baked ideas about information. (I use that phrase because I found a cookie shop in Buffalo today called Half-Baked. OMG.) I'm just throwing ideas around. Trying to make sense for myself. I'd appreciate any thoughts on it.
DNA is natural information. So are all biological information systems. Vision and the other senses. So many others in our bodies we aren't aware of, like our immune system, everything that helps with homeostasis, on and on. Natural information, in it's natural medium, does something. The information means something else, and something comes of it.
Natural information can be encoded in another medium. The information in DNA can be written on paper. But protein will not be synthesized. We can read that information. Most of us will never try to synthesize protein as a result of acquiring that information. Some people do. But nobody has to. Unlike when the information is in its natural form.
Some say the fundamental basis of reality is not matter, or energy, or space, or time. All of those things, and I suppose consciousness, are emergent properties. The true basis of everything is information. Probably mathematical information. In it's natural form, mathematics is certainly doing something. It's doing [I]everything[/I].
Let's just go with that, for the sake of argument. If all that is true, the beads on the abacus might be a human representation of (a veeeeeery^1,000,000,000 tiny bit of) the true basis of all reality. But the "processing of information" that I think is so important is, surely, taking place in the mind of the human manipulating the beads. The abacus isn't doing anything. Not the way DNA and all the biological information processing systems are. It's not the information in it's natural form, any more than DNA's information on paper is.
And I don't think beads that just happened to be blown around into particular patterns are processing information any more than an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters are. Things are going to happen from time to time that look like something significant, but it's not because information was processed. A Boltzmann Brain just happens to come together.
[hide="Reveal"]User: summarize our dialogue in a couple paragraphs
ChatGPT said:
You asked whether information processing is possible without an observer to interpret the results, using the analogy of an abacus being used by a person versus one tumbling through the air. The core distinction we explored is that information processing requires more than physical motion it demands a system where states are representational and transitions follow defined rules. A person using an abacus meets this standard because theres an intentional mapping of bead positions to numbers and actions to computations. A falling abacus, by contrast, lacks any such mapping or purpose its just physics, not processing.
From there, we examined deeper issues about meaning and interpretation. You pressed the point that even a computer, at the hardware level, is just switching circuits so how is that different from meaningless motion? This brought us to John Searles critique: if computation is just pattern interpretation, then anything can be a computer if you assign it the right mapping a view that collapses the distinction between computing and not computing. We then discussed simulation: if a tornado simulation runs unwatched, is it really a simulation? You argued no without a mind or embedded use, it's just flickering pixels. This led to the final insight: all these questions orbit the Hard Problem of Consciousness, as posed by David Chalmers. Meaning, understanding, and experience all seem to hinge on subjective awareness something no functional or computational account can yet explain. Most explanations treat behavior and structure, but sidestep the inescapable mystery of why any of it feels like something from the inside.[/hide]
A Boltzmann Brain identical to mine that pops into existence (while it's alive and thinking) is processing information, don't you think?
Information we make never has a purpose in and of itself. It's always for our use. Possibly for the sake of understanding things, or sharing what we know. Well give it to me to me that give me that give it to me give it to me give me that give me that a camera dirty dog dirty dog George is a dirty dog give me give me joy joy you've had not come get it you bring it to me
That response applies to you, too.
I would wager that you think it's special and different because it's part of you, and you think you're special and different
DNA is just chemicals. And no, it's not "Unless something prevents it, something specific will come of it" - that's not true of DNA. DNA requires a very specific environment, and very specific resources, to do what you are calling its "goal". It doesn't need to be actively prevented to fail - it needs to be actively enabled to succeed.
Take a bit of DNA outside of it's special little environment and watch it do nothing.
Quoting DawnstormI don't know that everyone who thinks consciousness is not emergent thinks something non-physical is at work. Some may think consciousness [I]is[/I] physical. Or maybe another explanation. I'm just saying this is what I think. Something non-physical - something that our sciences cannot deal with - is at work.
Quoting DawnstormI'm just restating the old idea that we are not made of matter that is special or different in any way. Same stuff everywhere, same principles apply everywhere.
Quoting DawnstormPossibly. It's also possible that consciousness is only one fundamental thing. The reason I think that is that I don't know why consciousness would, if it was the only thing going, develop a reality with properties that are so different from itself that it can't be found in, or explained by, them, and its very existence can be doubted.
Quoting DawnstormI don't think I have. However, I'm just exploring this whole idea, and I don't have reason to believe I'll come out the other end with exactly the same thoughts I went in with.
My intent with that post was to say, in at least this case, Fundamental [I]is[/I] Omnipresent.
Quoting flannel jesusDNA is never naturally found outside of its special little environment. Taking it out [I]is[/I] doing something to prevent its natural function - synthesizing proteins for whatever species it is a part of, not just special humans - from taking place.
I wouldn't fight you on your alternative proposal. I see the value in knowing that when someone uses the word "consciousness", they mean something specific. It won't be easy to get everyone to go along with this, because "consciousness" is often defined as "subjective experience". But I expect those who only define it as the mental properties humans have would be all in.
Already the RNA that transcribes is the "observer"- and more so, the resultant synthesised protein reactions in the cell are.
Though, in information theory we call the observer a "receiver", and info producer the "emitter".
There are concepts of entropy, validity, redundancy, loss and knowledge transmission related..
======
With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P
"The English School of Information Theory emerged in the mid-20th century as a counterpoint to Claude Shannons mathematically driven theory of communication. Rather than focusing on signal transmission, this school emphasized the semantic, epistemic, and physical dimensions of information especially how it relates to scientific measurement and observer knowledge.
Key Thinkers & Concepts
Dennis Gabor (1946): Introduced the idea of the logon a minimal unit of information in wave signals and explored how measurement itself is a form of information acquisition.
Donald MacKay (1950s): Argued that information is meaningful only in relation to the observers knowledge. He focused on how scientific measurements convey information about physical systems.
Léon Brillouin (1956): Bridged physics and information theory, showing how entropy and information are linked in thermodynamics. He emphasized that information reduces uncertainty for the observer.
Core Principles
Information is not just about transmission its about meaning, context, and knowledge acquisition.
Scientific practices like measurement and observation are inherently informational.
The observer plays a central role: information is defined by how it changes the observers state of knowledge.
Historical Context
The English School gained traction in the UK during the 1940s1950s, especially around the London Symposium on Information Theory in 1950.
It was later overshadowed by Shannons framework, but its ideas influenced fields like philosophy of science, statistical mechanics, and cognitive science."
Quoting UlthienDarn, I was hoping nobody would notice. :rofl: I am not well read in much of this stuff.
they do seem to interact through shifting the possible states according to the key surfaces found in the environment. This IS already communication, and according to some Copenhagen and TIQM interpretations of quantum mechanics, it does mean that the "observation" of the surroundings leads to sensing, and afterwards to a determined outcome.
So yes, in lieu of my theory of consciousness, the proto-awareness is already there at this tiny level, BUT ONLY because it includes quantum wave collapse that in itself contains the measurement and, therefore, sensing aka "observation" of "what is" on the "outside".
=================
Here a bit of AI introduction to prof McFadden's thoughts on the subject:
Johnjoe McFadden, along with Jim Al-Khalili, proposed a provocative idea linking quantum mechanics to biological processes particularly adaptive mutation and possibly protein behavior. While McFaddens work doesnt directly claim that proteins unfold from a quantum indeterminate state, he does explore how quantum coherence and decoherence might influence biological systems like DNA and mutation rates.
Key Concepts from McFaddens Quantum Biology Work
Quantum Superposition in DNA: McFadden suggests that protons in DNA bases may exist in a superposition of states (e.g., shifted vs. unshifted), which could influence mutation outcomes.
Decoherence as a Trigger: Interaction with the environment such as the presence of a substrate could cause decoherence, collapsing the superposition and favoring certain mutations.
Adaptive Mutation Model: This framework implies that cells might select mutations based on environmental cues, challenging the classical view that mutations are entirely random.
Protein Folding & Quantum Effects While McFaddens work focuses more on DNA and mutation, other studies like those using variable-temperature ion mobility mass spectrometry show that proteins can pass through intermediate states during unfolding, which may resemble quantum-like transitions in terms of unpredictability and complexity?678?. These states arent necessarily quantum indeterminate, but they do reflect non-classical behavior in how proteins transition between folded and unfolded forms.
You are absolutely on the right track:
"Our reality consist of systems:
1. Real systems - consisting of perceived, measurable mass or energy.
2. Abstract systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (a real system) - perceived by analysis of real systems.
3. Imaginary systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (still a real system) - that cannot be perceived by analysis of any real system." p178 [I]How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence[/I]
Please observe that there is no [I]consciousness[/I] necessary in this encompassing statement. "... [I]consciousness[/I] is the ability of a functional brain, capable of abstract thought, to manage itself." p195 [I]How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence[/i]
Although Information Theory is an essential component of my Enformationism*1 thesis, I am not very familiar with the "English School". However, my thesis does not view Consciousness as fundamental. Instead, Awareness, and specifically self-awareness, seems to be an emergent property of material evolution. So, what is fundamental to physical reality is Causal Energy, which can transform into Matter. Moreover, cutting-edge science, has recently equated causal Energy with semantic Information*2. So, I have concluded that EnFormAction*3 (energy + form + action) is the causal power-to-transform. that is fundamental to our evolving material & mental world. Does, any of that make sense to you? :smile:
*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*2. The statement "energy is information" highlights a deep connection between these two fundamental concepts. While not a strict equivalence, it suggests that information, in its broadest sense, can be understood as a form of energy, and that energy plays a crucial role in the existence and manipulation of information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information
*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. Its the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's Will) of the axiomatic First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to transform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
PS___ For more info on Enformationism, see my reply to Danileo below.
Henceforth considering that information organizes dissipation and converts it again in an action (dissipation), humans are the most efficient beings on earth dissipating energy.
(DDAO) https://www.quora.com/Could-you-help-me-understand-Jeremy-Englands-theory-of-Dissipation-driven-Adaptive-Organization-Can-you-explain-it-so-a-layman-can-understand-it
Yes. Living organisms exist in a state that is far from the equilibrium of Entropy, and successfully dissipate Energy, as they use it to generate their own Body, Life & Mind. Ironically, that un-numbered "physical law" is contrary to the the presumably universal Second Law of Thermodynamics. So some explanation for the "spontaneous" local violations of the dissipative law should be forthcoming from Science or Philosophy.
That anti-entropy process was labeled by Schrodinger as "negative entropy" (negentropy) in his essay What Is Life? In my own information-centric thesis of Enformationism, I call it "Enformy"*2. My amateur explanation of how Life & Mind emerged from a generally dissipative system assumes that : A> Information is fundamental, while Consciousness is emergent ; and B> Information (EnFormAction) is essentially Energy*3 (power to transform) ; and C> the anti-entropic Causal force (Enformy) weaves Actual Reality, including Matter & Mind, from a pre-Bang Pool of Potential.
Of course, that POP is a philosophical inference, not an empirical observation. But, if you accept the conjecture, then the OP could be reworded to say that "The precursor of Consciousness is fundamental". :smile:
*1. Dissipation-driven adaptive organization,as theorized by Jeremy England, proposes that systems, including living organisms, can spontaneously self-organize into more complex structures to efficiently absorb and dissipate energy from their environment. This process, driven by thermodynamic principles, suggests that the emergence of life and its complex structures can be understood as a consequence of systems optimizing their ability to dissipate heat.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+and+Dissipation-driven+Adaptive+Organization
*2. Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. Destructive "Entropy" and Constructive "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ][/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*3. The concept of "information is energy" suggests that information, like energy, is a fundamental aspect of reality with the capacity to cause change. While not universally accepted as a strict equivalence, several viewpoints highlight the close relationship between information and energy. Information can be seen as a form of energy, or at least closely intertwined with it, as it requires energy to be stored, transmitted, and processed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy
If you have had maybe looked at my RFOC Theory (videos or texts) there is a part of discussion which, similar to Chalmers, tries to disassemble "Consciousness" into its basis and the rest, in order to disambiguate "easy problems" from "the hard problem", and yes, aware perception is the BASIS.
If we explain physically how does the aware perception rise from neural processes, we have solved it.
There is no such thing as "material evolution" btw, as in physics, all is a form of energy - or quantum fields that interact, if you will. Material (fermions, barions) are just around 4.5% of the total, a form of static energy with a particular spin.
sorry, not.
It seems you will at some point pull a joker out of pocket and claim that this proves Creationism, probably. :P
We know more or less EXACTLY when and how energy builds particles, that is why we built the Hadron Collider for 20 or more billion $, you know... and there is no "causal energy" required nor defined for that.
this is all upside down to a FUBAR state, sorry.
Living organisms dissipate entropy to maintain homeostasis, and this principle is deeply rooted in thermodynamics.
I do not want to hurt you or make you feel bad, but please read and study more.
Nowadays you can chat with an AI, and it will quickly point you out the mistakes and incongruences.
Sticks & stones may break my bones, but Forum posts can't hurt me. So, when someone says "read and study more" I assume they are referring to a 'thus saith the Lord" Bible, and a revealed Faith. Thanks, but I don't do Faith anymore. Besides, for me, the provenance of Consciousness is just a philosophical curiosity question, not of eternal salvation. :cool:
Quoting Ulthien
Energy and Entropy are not material substances that can be concentrated or watered-down. They are actually statistical measures of potential for work (for physical change). But, for convenience, we often refer to them metaphorically as-if they are tangible things. How is my metaphor wrong, and yours is right? :smile: