The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 307480 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #675 on: 23/10/2013 20:50:08 »
Editing :

A relatively short farewell note :


Dear fellow human beings  :

(I do not see you , dear folks, as being some sort of machines ,computers , as evolved animals , or as just physics and chemistry , materialism has been trying so desperately to reduce you to ,for obvious materialist ideological purposes ,  no way : human beings are way too unique to be reduced to just physics and chemistry , no way , obviously and undeniably .).

I think i will just follow that wise intelligent decision made by David Cooper , indeed , i will no longer write any long posts for this thread : it is useless to try to change people's irrational stubborn beliefs.....
Editing :
I will have to leave this forum altogether  in fact ,and definitively at that  , i think : that would be the wisest and most intelligent thing to do , i guess , since people here cannot but confuse materialism with science ,obviously, and since i do have much better things to do as well , than continue hanging out here for nothing : it would be like a cry in the desert ,for nobody to hear ,a total waste ,  since you turned out to be ,folks , totally deaf regarding obvious and indeniable facts in relation to that obviously and undeniably false and unscientific materialism in all sciences ,and elsewhere as well  .
I will no longer  waste my time here any longer ,for nothing , as it has been  , obviously , the case   all along , from day 1 onward ,unfortunately enough .
I came here to try to make you realise , folks, that materialism is not science , obviously , and then after establishing that obvious undeniable fact , we could talk ...pure science afterwards : but , i see , that it is mission impossible to try to talk you out of that false and unscientific materialism, that has been dominating in and hijacking science since the 19 th century at least , obviously :
It is indeed useless to try to change people's irrational stubborn beliefs , the more when those beliefs, the materialist ones at that ,  are sold to the people in a scientific package , as science, ironically and paradoxically enough  .

It's been really very interesting ,educational, entertaining, frustrating irritating disappointing ...also haha  ....you have no idea ...to talk to you, guys :

("The loss is worth the gain " , you have no idea , as the writer of " I am a strange loop"  said ,in his final chapter of that disappointing book of his , but in a totally different context than this one of mine though .)

My sincere and genuine apologies for having to be rude to some people here .
I am just human, too human ...a person ,so.

Nice to have been knowing you somehow ,folks,  and to have been  talking  to you as well , anyway thus .

Thanks a lot for everything , appreciate indeed .

Best wishes .

Enjoy life ,dear folks,  have fun : life is too short to be wasted ....

Bye

Abdel
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #676 on: 23/10/2013 20:54:36 »
Everyone seems to have a world-shattering book to sell, and Don Abdel does their online marketing... I hope he's getting his cut.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #677 on: 23/10/2013 21:00:40 »
One of the rules of a discussion is that you don't send people off to read books or watch videos. If you've got a case, you express it directly yourself and in as compact a way as you can so as to avoid making other people waste time on piles of junk. The tonnage of stuff being flung into the ring by Abdel was the main problem with the discussion here. 99.9% of it wasn't helpful and it made it impossible to keep on top of what was going on in the tiny part of the discussion that might still have been on track.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #678 on: 23/10/2013 21:04:12 »
Everyone seems to have a world-shattering book to sell, and Don Abdel does their online marketing... I hope he's getting his cut.

Very last post :
I am not getting anything but the priceless reward of ...new insights , such as the one below, relatively speaking then  :

The Biggest Error Ever Made in the Name of Science


Note that i do not necessarily share all the views of that idealist ....

See ya later (in another life ,maybe ) , alligator .

Take care

All the best .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #679 on: 23/10/2013 21:12:08 »
One of the rules of a discussion is that you don't send people off to read books or watch videos. If you've got a case, you express it directly yourself and in as compact a way as you can so as to avoid making other people waste time on piles of junk. The tonnage of stuff being flung into the ring by Abdel was the main problem with the discussion here. 99.9% of it wasn't helpful and it made it impossible to keep on top of what was going on in the tiny part of the discussion that might still have been on track.


The really very last post :  no kidding :

Well, just start by reading Nagel's and Sheldrake's books then , as well as this thread ,while you are at it .

Everyone considers as junk ,relatively speaking , all insights , ideas , currents of thought ...coming from other conceptions of nature than his /hers , per definition , mostly then ...

It is useless to try to bring people to their senses , by trying to make them change their irrational beliefs ....or to make them realise the very obvious and undeniable falsehood of their own beliefs ...

As Nagel said :  " The human will to believe is inexhaustible."

Take care , alligator .

Best wishes to you all , on your own search path journey ...


I am on my way  out  .....going ....gone .
« Last Edit: 23/10/2013 21:14:06 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #680 on: 23/10/2013 21:36:30 »
I can't resist the temptation regarding  posting this last link :

"If materialism is wrong , what can replace it ? "  :



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/11/if-materialism-is-wrong-what-can-replace-it/

A viewpoint coming from your own christian evengelists , talking about Nagel's " Why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is ...false " book :

Note that i can chase and hunt down the truth, whatever the latter might be , the truth as an ever -changing , elusive ,deceptive,  ever -evolving process at that , even in the darkest terrifying ugly heart and spirit of the devil itself haha :

I am not saying that our dear christian evengelists are "devils " , no way :

"...But i say that even as the holy and the rightoeus cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you ,
So, the wicked and the weak cannot fall below the lowest which is in you also ..." Gibran Khalil Gibran .


I think that all cultures, beliefs , currents of thought ...do have some elements of truth , relatively speaking , but  they are not  all   necessarily ...true , logically .


Bye bye blue sky .....






 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #681 on: 23/10/2013 23:26:06 »
Well, just start by reading Nagel's and Sheldrake's books then , as well as this thread ,while you are at it .

I don't have time to read a deluge of diversions. In an argument, you're supposed to extract one piece at a time that might add something useful and put that across clearly without all the unnecessary bloat.

Quote
Everyone considers as junk ,relatively speaking , all insights , ideas , currents of thought ...coming from other conceptions of nature than his /hers , per definition , mostly then ...

It's junk when it's either telling people what they already know or repeating things over and over again that have already shown to be wrong.

Quote
It is useless to try to bring people to their senses , by trying to make them change their irrational beliefs ....or to make them realise the very obvious and undeniable falsehood of their own beliefs ...

Cut out all the unnecessary bloat and you might get somewhere. I get this from both sides in this kind of discussion. One side wants me to read a ton of quackery while the other wants me to read a ton of stuff about neuroscience which is based squarely on the assumption that consciousness is real and which never stops to question that. The neuroscience is at least science for the most part, but they are determined to shoehorn consciousness into it at every turn with no justification for doing so beyond their own belief that it must be in there. Both sides (not necessarily the people in this thread - I'm refering to many conversations on this subject in many places with people who think they have scientific minds) simply refuse to recognise the point where there is a clear barrier to getting information systems to interact with qualia. They cannot demonstrate any way past this barrier, but assert over and over again that it can be done and that the answer as to how it is done is set out in some book or other on neuroscience, that answer invariably being that these feelings must be there because they are there, emerging out of feedback loops and complexity. I don't care what kind of voodoo they want to use to generate feelings or what they want them to be generated in, because that is unimportant. What really matters is that they cannot even begin to set out a diagram showing in cause and effect terms how these experiences of qualia make themselves known in the form of data in information systems, and yet they repeatedly assert that they have done so. They often assert that qualia can exist as data and that ordinary computers could be conscious if they ran the right software, even once it's been proved to them repeatedly and by multiple methods that this is completely impossible. You cannot get anywhere with such people because they refuse to present their ideas as a mechanistic system and deny that there is any need to do so, but this applies to both sides - those who bring in exotic solutions to consciousness involving gods, fairies or universes in which ideas are primary also need to provide mechanisms by which demonstrably mechanistic information systems can generate information about qualia/consciousness where that data is actually driven by qualia/consciousness rather than just being generated fictions about them which have been constructed mechanistically by a system which merely builds baseless assertions. Anyone who thinks they have an answer to how consciousness works needs to show in precise steps how it can get past the barrier between experience of qualia and the generation of data about qualia in such a way that the generation of that data is steered by the experience of qualia to the point that the data documenting that experience of qualia can be guaranteed to be true.

Here's the real challenge. Imagine that everything is conscious. Material is conscious, energy is conscious, data is conscious, the act of processing is conscious, etc. - anything you want to think of as conscious can be conscious. Now build a machine or program a machine to try to hook into that consciousness and describe it without having to resort to making it all up. Show me an information system that can do qualia. Here's a register that can feel. Here's a piece of data in it that can feel. Here's a process that can feel. Here is a piece of neural net which can feel. But how can this system ever generate any data that actually informs us about these experiences other than by resorting to making it all up? The only approach that could work is to remove the limitations of information systems by declearing that they do not function in the way we think they do - they create an illusion of functioning by applying rules which are supposed to constrain their behaviour, but they actually break the rules whenever we aren't looking, and even if we do look, they simply change our recollection of history to make us think the rules were followed. This kind of interference could be going on within every scientific experiment we ever do, making us think that things always work in a certain way when they don't work that way at all. If this is in some way the case, consciousness could be 100% real and 100% impossible for us and intelligent machines ever to get a handle on it. [Note: this paragraph may contradict the previous one, but it's because it contains an idea which occurred to me as I was writing it and I can't be bothered going back to rewrite the earlier part to match.]
« Last Edit: 23/10/2013 23:31:17 by David Cooper »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #682 on: 24/10/2013 16:29:52 »
The other day I was thinking about that experiment at University of Washington where one researcher was able to move another researcher's hand across campus by thinking about it. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130827122713.htm)

What if you had a person (Bob) who had never seen color, either because of an eye dysfunction, color blindness, may be he had been some how living  in a place where one only saw black and white objects, and then you hooked Bob's brain up to another person's brain (Bill) who can see color, and  Bill stared at a red apple. Would Bob say "oh, that is what red is like." ?If that happens, what's being transferred through the connection? Or is nothing being transferred? Is it already there in Bob's brain, waiting to be stimulated in some precise way?

Now let's say you unwire them, and  fixed Bob's eye problem, or he was allowed to leave the black and white place, and see the apple for himself.


What would would it mean if Bob's experience of color was exactly the same both times?
What would it mean if they were different? What does it mean if you get no results at all because Bob's brain never developed, or lost, the machinery needed to experience color? Or does it even matter as far the qualia question is concerned? Is qualia still unlinkable to the physical process, regardless of what results you get?

(I realize that this imaginary experiment isn't really the same thing as  the motor movement one, and perhaps not even possible)
« Last Edit: 24/10/2013 17:27:59 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #683 on: 24/10/2013 17:35:12 »
What if you had a person (Bob) who had never seen color, either because of an eye dysfunction, color blindness, may be he had been some how living  in a place where one only saw black and white objects, and then you hooked Bob's brain up to another person's brain (Bill) who can see color, and  Bill stared at a red apple. Would Bob say "oh, that is what red is like." ?If that happens, what's being transferred through the connection? Or is nothing being transferred? Is it already there in Bob's brain, waiting to be stimulated in some precise way?

Now let's say you unwire them, and  fixed Bob's eye problem, or he was allowed to leave the black and white place, and see the apple for himself.

What would would it mean if Bob's experience of color was exactly the same both times?
What would it mean if they were different? Or does it even matter?

(I realize that this imaginary experiment isn't really the same thing as to the motor movement one, and perhaps not even possible)
If Bob's problem was with the eyes themselves, then he might really get to see colors for the first time - unless there is some critical developmental period for color processing to develop (e.g. if appropriate input is not received, some color processing pathways might not develop properly), or if the neurons in the color processing pathways had degenerated through lack of stimulation.

What would be transferred would depend on precisely which part of the Bill's optical pathways were the source of the data, but color processing has its own dedicated areas, and it would make sense to transfer the color information immediately after encoding, but before higher level processing (integration & mapping onto the visual field representation), so it's conceivable a feed could established between the appropriate color-opponent cells in the visual pathways of the two brains (e.g. the parvocelluar ganglion output of the retina, or the lateral geniculate nucleus, or visual cortex area V4; where there are color-opponent cells, and where damage causes impairs color discrimination). But whatever the location, it would probably be the neural pulses representing the triplex color coding vectors (blue/yellow, red/green, black/white). One would expect (hope!) that in color encoding, the output color coding vectors would be common to both individuals.

Assuming Bob's brain had developed normally despite the absence of color input, all the pathways would be present for integrating and mapping the color vector information onto the content of the visual field representation in the cortex.

If Bob saw precisely the same colors using his own repaired eyes, it would confirm that the color-coding vectors are the same and have the same values across the range of each axis (blue/yellow, red/green, black/white). It wouldn't say anything about whether Bob perceives the same colour qualia as Bill. I don't think that's even a meaningful question.

For a good article on how we perceive colors, with examples of how you can see entirely novel colors ('impossible' and 'chimerical') that are outside our normal color experience (you'll need a decent photo printer for that), have a look at Churchland's 'Chimerical Colors' paper. You may need to skip some of the more technical bits, but it's a rewarding read.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2013 17:56:44 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #684 on: 24/10/2013 18:47:45 »
In some ways, I find the question of qualia less troublesome than the unified sense of self in consciousness.

But I also wonder how long you could maintain a sense of self with no sensory input or interaction with the outside world. Could you really maintain a sense of self or consciousness in an otherwise healthy disembodied brain? I know people have sensory hallucinations from sensory deprivation, but how long would the brain keep that up?  Would even memories or imaginary concepts and images start to deteriorate as well, or would the brain keep it going, locked in a sleep-like, dreaming state. Actually, I have had peculiar dreams in which "I" am not in them, sort of like watching a movie. But in the dream there is no sense of being an observer on the sidelines, until I wake up.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2013 18:49:59 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #685 on: 24/10/2013 19:49:48 »
... I also wonder how long you could maintain a sense of self with no sensory input or interaction with the outside world. Could you really maintain a sense of self or consciousness in an otherwise healthy disembodied brain? I know people have sensory hallucinations from sensory deprivation, but how long would the brain keep that up?  Would even memories or imaginary concepts and images start to deteriorate as well, or would the brain keep it going, locked in a sleep-like, dreaming state.
I don't know... and I don't really want to find out!

Quote
Actually, I have had peculiar dreams in which "I" am not in them, sort of like watching a movie. But in the dream there is no sense of being an observer on the sidelines, until I wake up.
Yes, me too. I also get dreams where I switch from one dream character to another; not just seeing through their eyes, or playing their role, but thinking, acting, and feeling quite differently; maybe empathy practice. Conversely, I sometimes find myself occupying someone else's body, with no idea what to do; an anxiety dream.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #686 on: 25/10/2013 15:47:56 »
The reconstruction of images from neuroimagining is pretty interesting stuff. It is striking how well some of the images match up between what the subject was looking at and the comp0uter's data base, as well as the video clips showing movement of objects as well as form. If anyone is interested, this is a fun website. http://gallantlab.org

I supposed that does not address "the feeliness" of qualia, but it certainly encroaches on the private, subjectivity of brain experience, and if everyone was truly unique, and our internal experiences ineffable, it shouldn't work at all.

The other thing I thought about last night when I was interrupted doing something, was the interruptability of the brain. Ramachandran says qualia makes information "stand out." Red berries stand out from green leaves, loud sounds stand out from quiet ones, the pain of appendicitis compared to other sensations, but it always depends on context, and the same stimulus doesn't always have the same outcome. We also adapt to ignore repeated ones over time. And things stand out not just according to contrast, but in a qualitative way.

We can't control certain autonomic nerve processes, and it's hard to stop yourself midsneeze, although you can sometimes override reflex arcs. With more conscious activity, one switches gears constantly, depending on the type of stimulus, its strength or whether it violates our expectations.

But I don't know enough about computers /artificial intelligence to make any comparisons. I don't know how things are prioritized, or what can be interrupted when, or the extent to which the same input can have different results depending on other inputs.
« Last Edit: 25/10/2013 16:14:23 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #687 on: 25/10/2013 18:36:43 »
Well, just start by reading Nagel's and Sheldrake's books then , as well as this thread ,while you are at it .

I don't have time to read a deluge of diversions. In an argument, you're supposed to extract one piece at a time that might add something useful and put that across clearly without all the unnecessary bloat.

Quote
Everyone considers as junk ,relatively speaking , all insights , ideas , currents of thought ...coming from other conceptions of nature than his /hers , per definition , mostly then ...

It's junk when it's either telling people what they already know or repeating things over and over again that have already shown to be wrong.

Quote
It is useless to try to bring people to their senses , by trying to make them change their irrational beliefs ....or to make them realise the very obvious and undeniable falsehood of their own beliefs ...

Cut out all the unnecessary bloat and you might get somewhere. I get this from both sides in this kind of discussion. One side wants me to read a ton of quackery while the other wants me to read a ton of stuff about neuroscience which is based squarely on the assumption that consciousness is real and which never stops to question that. The neuroscience is at least science for the most part, but they are determined to shoehorn consciousness into it at every turn with no justification for doing so beyond their own belief that it must be in there. Both sides (not necessarily the people in this thread - I'm refering to many conversations on this subject in many places with people who think they have scientific minds) simply refuse to recognise the point where there is a clear barrier to getting information systems to interact with qualia. They cannot demonstrate any way past this barrier, but assert over and over again that it can be done and that the answer as to how it is done is set out in some book or other on neuroscience, that answer invariably being that these feelings must be there because they are there, emerging out of feedback loops and complexity. I don't care what kind of voodoo they want to use to generate feelings or what they want them to be generated in, because that is unimportant. What really matters is that they cannot even begin to set out a diagram showing in cause and effect terms how these experiences of qualia make themselves known in the form of data in information systems, and yet they repeatedly assert that they have done so. They often assert that qualia can exist as data and that ordinary computers could be conscious if they ran the right software, even once it's been proved to them repeatedly and by multiple methods that this is completely impossible. You cannot get anywhere with such people because they refuse to present their ideas as a mechanistic system and deny that there is any need to do so, but this applies to both sides - those who bring in exotic solutions to consciousness involving gods, fairies or universes in which ideas are primary also need to provide mechanisms by which demonstrably mechanistic information systems can generate information about qualia/consciousness where that data is actually driven by qualia/consciousness rather than just being generated fictions about them which have been constructed mechanistically by a system which merely builds baseless assertions. Anyone who thinks they have an answer to how consciousness works needs to show in precise steps how it can get past the barrier between experience of qualia and the generation of data about qualia in such a way that the generation of that data is steered by the experience of qualia to the point that the data documenting that experience of qualia can be guaranteed to be true.

Here's the real challenge. Imagine that everything is conscious. Material is conscious, energy is conscious, data is conscious, the act of processing is conscious, etc. - anything you want to think of as conscious can be conscious. Now build a machine or program a machine to try to hook into that consciousness and describe it without having to resort to making it all up. Show me an information system that can do qualia. Here's a register that can feel. Here's a piece of data in it that can feel. Here's a process that can feel. Here is a piece of neural net which can feel. But how can this system ever generate any data that actually informs us about these experiences other than by resorting to making it all up? The only approach that could work is to remove the limitations of information systems by declearing that they do not function in the way we think they do - they create an illusion of functioning by applying rules which are supposed to constrain their behaviour, but they actually break the rules whenever we aren't looking, and even if we do look, they simply change our recollection of history to make us think the rules were followed. This kind of interference could be going on within every scientific experiment we ever do, making us think that things always work in a certain way when they don't work that way at all. If this is in some way the case, consciousness could be 100% real and 100% impossible for us and intelligent machines ever to get a handle on it. [Note: this paragraph may contradict the previous one, but it's because it contains an idea which occurred to me as I was writing it and I can't be bothered going back to rewrite the earlier part to match.]
[/quote]

I cannot but respond to this highly interesting post of yours , that's relatively consistent with your earlier  core true correct logical analysis on the subject  that did grab my attention  from the very start  ,i cannot but respond to this post of yours thus ,  despite my earlier decision to leave this forum : a decision that gets confirmed by this interesting post of yours in fact , in the sense that we are just wasting our time here to try to figure out what consciousness, feelings , emotions ,life  as a whole , memory , human reason, human conscience , human love     ....as such really are , what their true core natures are actually  , let alone how they function , how they emerged , how they came to exist , or how they might have evolved = cannot be done via science  "fully "  , obviously .
Darwin's theory of evolution, for example , is exclusively biological physical material ,despite the materialist intrinsic attempts, via its  materialist   false and unscientific  exclusively material conception of nature or meta-paradigm in science  ,  to extend it to the non-physical non-biological non-material sides of reality as a whole , to the non-material sides of life as a whole, to the non-material side of feelings , emotions , to the non-material nature of consciousness, to the non-material nature of human reason, to the non-material side of evolution itself  ... , materialist attempts or rather  the materialist core intrinsic and absurd belief assumptions that  cannot thus account for how those above listed processes came to exist, like how life as a whole came to exist , how it emerged ,for example , what the natures of all the above listed processes might be ,let alone how they eventually evolved as such  = cannot be done just via physics and chemistry , obviously .
You and i , do agree on the core issues here indeed , despite some of the intrinsic contradictions contained in this brilliant post of yours:

That silly outdated and false machine metaphor that has been dominating in science for so long now , thanks to that false and unscientific materialism in science as a whole , cannot account for how life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human reason (This issue is more impossible than consciousness is ) , memory , human conscience , human ethics , human love , ....you name it ....how they all could be connected to  the system data , as you put it at least .

Neither the materialist exclusively physical biological material approach of all those processes , their eventual evolution emergence and origins , nor the idealist or the dualist approaches of those same above listed processes  , can explain scientifically just how  consciousness, feelings , emotions , human reason, life as a whole , human language for that matter ...could exist in any biological physical material 'systems " for that matter , let alone that they can account for their eventual evolution, origins and emergence fully , via science .

In short :

Consciousness , feelings , emotions, human conscience , human reason, human language , memory , human love, life as a whole , or reality as a whole  .....are impossible, impossible in the sense that they cannot be fully approached or accounted for by the physical sciences , in the sense that they cannot be approached scientifically :

Only world views beliefs ,conceptions of nature can try to approach them , but since all beliefs , either the secular or the religious ones, cannot be all true , logically , so, each and every one of us should try to figure out for himself/herself what kind of belief might be true regarding the natures of all those above listed processes, regarding the true nature of reality as a whole indeed  , the approach of which  is more a matter of belief , than a matter of science , the latter that can inform us only about the material physical and biological side of reality thus .
Science can tell us only thus about the physical biological material processes, that's all , science cannot thus tell us anything concerning how the system data , as you put it at least , can account for qualia , for feelings , emotions , as such ...let alone what human reason is , or how the latter can be accounted for via  any system data for that matter  ....

P.S.: Sheldrake's and Nagel's books concerning the obviously and undeniably false and unscientific materialism in all sciences and elsewhere , do reflect only the respective views of those authors , via their own belief assumptions, regarding the nature of reality as a whole  .
But , that does not make the fact go away , that does not make the fact less of a fact that materialism is obviously and undeniably false , unscientific and absurd , materialism that has been dominating in all sciences for that matter and elsewhere as well , since the 19th century at least :
materialism whose false ,absurd and unscientific conception of nature gets sold to the people as science , by the majority of scientists today .

Materialism in science that will just be replaced by yet another false conception of nature in science = human beliefs are unavoidable in science , obviously = the human will to believe is inexhaustible indeed .... = truth is the main victim = objectivity is a myth , even and especially in science thus .

Finally :

See how these friends of ours here above still do not even understand , let alone that they would realise the  obvious simple and undeniable  fact that the system data , as you put it at least , cannot , obviously , account for such processes such as consciousness, feelings , emotions , life as a whole , reality as a whole, let alone human reason as such as a whole , ....as such, let alone just via physics and chemistry as the alleged ultimate core of "everything" within and without  , let alone via those materialist magical "emergence or computational " tricks performances , the latters that are absurd at the level of life as a whole, reality as a whole ...............life or living organisms that cannot be analogous to machines, computers , obviously thus ....

Amazing and extremely puzzling  how people not only do stick to their own obviously and undeniably irrational inconsistent incoherent absurd false and unscientific materialist and other beliefs , the more when those same people  try to sell their own materialist beliefs on the subject to the people, as science , as the majority of scientists today do , unfortunately enough ..............= Tragic-hilarious , silly and pathetic attitude , in the name of ...science , the latter that has nothing to do with , obviously .


The more reasons to leave this forum thus indeed .


« Last Edit: 25/10/2013 18:51:56 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #688 on: 25/10/2013 20:49:55 »
Quote
human reason (This issue is more impossible than consciousness is )

Not so - human reason is not a problem and can be explained through materialism. The same applies to language - both of these things can be done on conventional computers (and it is this that my work centres upon - there are no barriers to matching human intelligence on today's hardware beyond getting all the hard work done in designing and building AGI systems). The only difficulty is with consciousness, because if it is a real phenomenon, it absolutely cannot be done on any machine which is merely Turing complete. If consciousness is real, there must be another kind of processing waiting to be discovered which can take computers beyond merely being Turing complete.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #689 on: 25/10/2013 21:13:29 »
Quote
human reason (This issue is more impossible than consciousness is )

Not so - human reason is not a problem and can be explained through materialism. The same applies to language - both of these things can be done on conventional computers (and it is this that my work centres upon - there are no barriers to matching human intelligence on today's hardware beyond getting all the hard work done in designing and building AGI systems). The only difficulty is with consciousness, because if it is a real phenomenon, it absolutely cannot be done on any machine which is merely Turing complete. If consciousness is real, there must be another kind of processing waiting to be discovered which can take computers beyond merely being Turing complete.
[/quote]

Living organisms are no machines, obviously , human intellect neither : human intellect that tries to apprehend reality , that tries to "capture " the intelligible universe from within and without beyond its external appearances : seen any machine computer doing just that via computational mechanisms , come on .
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #690 on: 25/10/2013 23:03:02 »
Living organisms are no machines, obviously ,

A non-conscious plant is just a chemical machine. There's no magic about life itself, any more than there is about chemistry. It's when you add consciousness to the system that the problem begins, but if you strip that away it can all be understood through materialism.

Quote
human intellect neither : human intellect that tries to apprehend reality , that tries to "capture " the intelligible universe from within and without beyond its external appearances : seen any machine computer doing just that via computational mechanisms , come on .

Not yet, but it will happen soon.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #691 on: 26/10/2013 00:48:23 »
The reconstruction of images from neuroimagining is pretty interesting stuff. It is striking how well some of the images match up between what the subject was looking at and the comp0uter's data base, as well as the video clips showing movement of objects as well as form. If anyone is interested, this is a fun website. http://gallantlab.org
Yes, fascinating stuff...

Quote
I supposed that does not address "the feeliness" of qualia, but it certainly encroaches on the private, subjectivity of brain experience, and if everyone was truly unique, and our internal experiences ineffable, it shouldn't work at all.
I don't think that's necessarily true - they build a database of each individual's brain responses to images before they can 'read' them back, so the system effectively learns and averages each individual's responses. I doubt there's much commonality between individuals except at the crudest 'light or dark' level - but of course I could be wrong...


Quote
The other thing I thought about last night when I was interrupted doing something, was the interruptability of the brain. Ramachandran says qualia makes information "stand out." Red berries stand out from green leaves, loud sounds stand out from quiet ones, the pain of appendicitis compared to other sensations, but it always depends on context, and the same stimulus doesn't always have the same outcome. We also adapt to ignore repeated ones over time. And things stand out not just according to contrast, but in a qualitative way.

We can't control certain autonomic nerve processes, and it's hard to stop yourself midsneeze, although you can sometimes override reflex arcs. With more conscious activity, one switches gears constantly, depending on the type of stimulus, its strength or whether it violates our expectations.

But I don't know enough about computers /artificial intelligence to make any comparisons. I don't know how things are prioritized, or what can be interrupted when, or the extent to which the same input can have different results depending on other inputs.
Computer systems have been interruptible almost from the start, and task-switching or multi-tasking for nearly as long. Tasks can be managed, given priorities, which can be context dependent, and which are allocated corresponding amounts of processing time. They can share and exchange data and make requests of each other; they can do different things given the same inputs depending on other inputs, etc.

All things that superficially seem to find an echo in the way the brain functions, but the brain's neural networks function very differently, and it's too easy to impose a familiar systems interpretation on them. Also, the brain is very flexible & adaptable in its operation, while computer systems are designed for specific purposes, so there are major qualitative differences (mechanism, goals) as well as quantitative (processors) .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #692 on: 26/10/2013 00:49:30 »
Before this discussion fizzsles out, one idea I would like to put forth is that emotions are not side effect of qualia. It is often suggested that there is no way to account for human “feelings” like love, or anger, appreciation of art, or a sunset, and therefore, consciousness is unknowable. It may be true that consciousness is as yet inexplicable, but emotions are not necessarily part of that “unknowable” consciousness even though they are “feely” like qualia.
A computer can replicate human reasoning, but as of yet, it does not care if you bash its hard drive in with a hammer. Living things that didn’t care, or couldn’t know, whether you bashed it to pieces, didn’t survive. So how ever you account for this ability, it was selected for. Emotion is motivational, it tags stimuli with internally generated “good” or “bad” sensations not necessarily physically received with the stimuli itself.  It causes living things to act in one way or another, to be aggressive or play dead, to run - to choose.
Experiments show that when brain damaged patients lose the ability to experience or display emotion, they do not become “super rational.” They actually become unable to make decisions, especially when alternatives seem arbitrary, or the benefits of either action are not yet obvious. These people become slow to act and are stuck in loops of conscious reasoning. They stand in aisle of the grocery store unable to pick Honey Nut Cheerios or Raisin Bran, and can’t decide whether to use a blue pen or a black pen to sign a form.
Would it be impossible to program a computer to be self protective? Would it be impossible to program a computer with the desire to survive regardless of its other instructions? If speed was an advantage, would it be possible to make a computer choose randomly between one option or another, before the advantages of doing one or the other were calculated? If you could do that, you could replicate emotion as much as reasoning.
« Last Edit: 26/10/2013 01:10:31 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #693 on: 26/10/2013 00:51:28 »
The more reasons to leave this forum thus indeed .
That'll be the day... ;)

Can't bear to leave, or returning to haunt? 
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #694 on: 26/10/2013 00:58:14 »
Would it be impossible to program a computer to be self protective? Would it be impossible to program a computer with the desire to survive regardless of its other instructions? If speed was an advantage, would it be possible to make a computer choose randomly between one option or another, before the advantages of doing one or the other were calculated? If you could do that, you could replicate emotion as much as reasoning.
You could certainly replicate emotional behaviours. But you might want to give some appearance of emotion without the full unpredictability and uncertainty of human responses, e.g. for companion systems.

I believe there are experimental systems that are exploring learning by example and by association, that could be organised so that contexts with various goal-related values could be associated with appropriate emotional responses and behaviours.
« Last Edit: 26/10/2013 01:05:40 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #695 on: 26/10/2013 19:10:19 »
The more reasons to leave this forum thus indeed .
That'll be the day... ;)

Can't bear to leave, or returning to haunt?

I am not a ghost to come back and haunt you :
I might haunt you though , in the sense that even physics and chemistry are not just physics and chemistry = see what modern physics have been saying about what matter might be .
 Let alone that one can reduce consciousness to just matter .
I just can't but try to make you , folks , realise the absurdity and paradox of your materialist belief assumptions in science , and those of your materialist misinterpretations of science ,that's all
« Last Edit: 26/10/2013 19:29:51 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #696 on: 26/10/2013 19:26:50 »
Living organisms are no machines, obviously ,

A non-conscious plant is just a chemical machine. There's no magic about life itself, any more than there is about chemistry. It's when you add consciousness to the system that the problem begins, but if you strip that away it can all be understood through materialism
.

What makes you so sure that any plant for that matter is unsconscious then ?
Life is , per definition, conscious : life is a whole package = mind and body = mind + physics and chemistry .

Some scientists even say that even the inanimate matter is conscious = even physics and chemistry are not just physics and chemistry thus .

I see consciousness as the conscious Mind with a big T = contains the mind with a small t + emotions feelings intuition ...

You cannot just isolate life's physical chemical biological material processes from their conscious states = the whole is not the sum of its parts .

Quote
Quote
human intellect neither : human intellect that tries to apprehend reality , that tries to "capture " the intelligible universe from within and without beyond its external appearances : seen any machine computer doing just that via computational mechanisms , come on .

Not yet, but it will happen soon.

What you fail to see so far is that physics and chemistry cannot account for the natures and emergence of consciousness, feelings , emotions .....let alone for the nature and emergence of human reason, memory ....just via physics and chemistry = one cannot reduce the conscious intelligent life to just physics and chemistry or to machinery ...no way ,dude :
Otherwise , try to create life , or just some 'sentient alive " machines ...then.

Consciousness is inherent intrinsic fundamental to life and to the inanimate matter = you cannot just isolate consciousness from its physical chemical organism  = the whole is not the sum of its parts + even the inanimate matter is not just physics and chemistry = even physics and chemistry are not just physics and chemistry ...

Otherwise , just tell me what the inanimate matter or the organic one are exactly , just from the points of view of modern physics then .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #697 on: 26/10/2013 19:34:12 »
Cheryl + dlorde :

There is a big difference between the materialist misinterpretations of science ,of science results , science experiments , science approaches , and pure science .

Major example ? = materialist reductionism in science+ its materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere  .

Example :

There are some scientific experiments concerning the fact that handicaped people might be able , in the near or far future , to  move their paralyzed , dysfunctional , amputated or other ...limbs, bodies ....via some implanted chips in the brain , or via some robots those handicaped people might get connected to via their brains' activity  .

There are also scientific facts that prove the fact to be true that people might be able , in the near or far future , to drive their own cars , move robots or machines ,just via their brain's activity or via their thoughts ...

Does that mean that human thought or consciousness are just the products of the brain's neuronal activity ?

No way .

« Last Edit: 26/10/2013 19:41:17 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #698 on: 26/10/2013 21:43:58 »
Cheryl + dlorde :

There is a big difference between the materialist misinterpretations of science ,of science results , science experiments , science approaches , and pure science .

Major example ? = materialist reductionism in science+ its materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere  .

Example :

There are some scientific experiments concerning the fact that handicaped people might be able , in the near or far future , to  move their paralyzed , dysfunctional , amputated or other ...limbs, bodies ....via some implanted chips in the brain , or via some robots those handicaped people might get connected to via their brains' activity  .

There are also scientific facts that prove the fact to be true that people might be able , in the near or far future , to drive their own cars , move robots or machines ,just via their brain's activity or via their thoughts ...

Does that mean that human thought or consciousness are just the products of the brain's neuronal activity ?

No way .


Yup - surprisingly, I agree with all of that (except that scientific 'facts' are provisional and don't strictly 'prove' anything).
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #699 on: 26/10/2013 21:45:20 »
I am not a ghost to come back and haunt you :
How can I miss you if you won't go away?
« Last Edit: 26/10/2013 22:13:23 by dlorde »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #699 on: 26/10/2013 21:45:20 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums