What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?

  • 1733 Replies
  • 315588 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #650 on: 21/10/2013 16:41:53 »
Quote from: cheryl j
Ironically, the God particle still can't explain why the Catholic Church has mass.
Cute. From Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics by Max Jammer, page 7
Quote
Our modern word "mass" ..., as used in physics, thus undoubtedly derived from the Latin massa, meaning originally a lump of dough or paste. As in the modern languages of today, so already in Middle English the term signified a lump in a more general sense, a conglomeration or aggregation of bodies. Such was also the meaning that the word had in the Latin for the Church.

Ha! excellent! what goes around comes around...

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #651 on: 21/10/2013 18:31:23 »
There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.
That's quite reasonable if thoughts are the patterns of activation of neurons across the brain. Each pattern of activation will trigger the next (although the patterns are dynamic, so the transitions are continuous). The difficulty many people have is in grasping that thoughts are these patterns of neural activation flowing across/through the brain, they're not something separate that causes neural activity, and they're only 'caused by' neural activity in the loose sense that a wave is 'caused by' water; waves are a patterns of water movement, and thoughts are patterns of neural activity. 

Douglas Hofstadter discusses recursion and consciousness at length in his book 'I am a Strange Loop', where one of his themes is the use of feedback to generate complexity (e.g. video feedback, where the camera points at the screen showing its own output).

I see the emergence and interaction of patterns of neural activation in the brain as analogous to the emergence of interacting patterns in Conway's Game of Life, where the individual units are static, with binary states, but the emergent patterns of their composite activities have emergent structure and interaction (oscillators, spaceships, etc). As if to emphasize the potential of such emergent complexity, these GOL patterns can themselves be used to emulate the GOL itself and as a logic language to create construct universal Turing machines (programmable computers) and computer/constructors that can be programmed to replicate themselves.

If a system with such simple rules and limited degrees of freedom as GOL can generate multiple levels of emergent complexity, to the extent that it can generate replicators and emulate anything computable, it seems less surprising that a system with many more degrees of freedom and more complex rules can, given a suitable environment and couple of billion years of selection pressures,  evolve structures like mammalian brains.

You know :
I did download the kindle version of "I am a strange loop " , yesterday : I have been enjoying a short work-holiday ,so to speak, so, i have read some parts of that disappointing book  that seemed , at first sight , so promissing , and so worthy of all the praise it did get  :

That book sounds like an authentic human and humanistic true confession, humanism extended to other species , confession  whose authenticity was its major 'argument " (You gotta be authentic to sell your products , yourself and your views and ideas : authenticity in art is a major must  also  , if you wanna be a successful artist ....The author of that book in question was clever enough to use all those powerful symbols of authenticity , true confession ...humanistic side .....)
The author's sophisticated mathematical maze and high abstractions regarding the patterns of thought that are allegedly created by the neuronal computation and emergence qualities properties ,are nothing new in fact :

I have read so many similar materialist magical non-sense on the subject of thought , consciousness ,....that i cannot but see how materialists try to sell their similar materialist belief asumptions in science  to the people  , in a mathematical high abstractions elaborate and sophisticated make-believe scientific theories package ,  that compare  or rather make those materialist machine and computers analogies regarding  the human mind and brain , life in general .....
So, it all comes down to those materialist magical computational and "emergent " tricks performances regarding human thought , consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , life in general ...as if humans and life in general are just some sort of machines ,despite the fact that that machine metaphor regarding life is so outdated and false , obviously = it all comes down to  physics , chemistry and neurochemistry , despite your outraged denials:  emergent thought patterns are just macroscopic  emergent computational higher levels of causation , while their core atomic molecular physical chemical roots can be discarded at that macroscopic level ,simply because humans are mostly concerned only by their macroscopic side of everyda's life  .
Living organisms do possess self -organizing , self -replicating or self-reproducing , self -maintaining , creativity , flexibility , adaptation, unique metabolism  ...qualities.
Have you ever seen any human -made machine for that matter that's capable of all that , capable of growing from its smallest fundamental parts or cells genes , capable of creativity flexibility , self-organization , capable of reproduction replication, capable of adaptation evolution ....?

In short or in other words :

As the author of "I am a strange loop " stated in his final chapter :
regarding the hard problem of mind vs body , or consciousness or soul:  we either believe that consciousness or the soul are just products of the laws of physics at their ultimate core , or we believe that the soul is outside of the laws of physics = dualism .

As a materialist , he cannot believe in that magical , as he put it at least , dualism that does raise many unanswerable questions than give answers (Who said anyway that dualism can give all answers : we don't know what the soul is , let alone how the mind -body interaction takes place ....among many other things we do not know on the subject ) ,so, he cannot but keep on going on the materialist path , regardless of where it might lead him to , despite all the inherent intrinsic incoherence inconsistency of materialism ,i say : like how the unconscious matter (IF it happens to be unconscious at least ) can give rise to the ,obviously , immaterial non-physical consciousness , human cognition ,to the immaterial side of  life , to the immaterial side of human language ...
The author just avoids that inherent intrinsic materialist paradox ,regarding the obvious undeniable impossibility that physics and chemistry cannot , per definition and nature ,  give rise to non-physical and non-material processes , he just avoids that , by taking refuge in a higher level of alleged causation : emeregent computational thought patterns that are allegedly caused by the brain via its complex neurons' interactions   , an alleged causation that neither he nor any other materialist cares to prove to be true : they just take us with them into that highly complicated mathematical and other abstract forest maze  to the point where we would confuse the tree with the forest  , the latter metaphor he used himself , ironically enough , when he said , and rightly so, that reducing man ,life or the brain to just atomic molecular reductionist processes , instead of studying the whole thing , not just via its parts , would make us miss the whole picture .
Well, he , obviously , misses and cannot see the whole picture either , either via or thanks to his highly mathematical patterns abstractions : a mirage he takes for the whole real picture , or for water , a mirage that cannot satisfy his own thirst ,obviously ,  let alone others'  .

To say that the alleged emergence of consciousness  or thought , is analogous to that of the  water's waves is not only a false analogy , a materialist existential symbolic sub-conscious one at that , simply because water and its waves are both material , simply because the emergent phenomena just occurs at the physical and biological material levels ,  but , also because the mirage created by those alleged emergent thought patterns that were allegedly caused by neurons , the former that does activate allegedly also the latter , those alleged emergent thought patterns are just like a mirage created in the materialists' brains or rather in their materialist believing minds , sub-consciously existentially  symbolically  ,  they take for real water , or  rather  for real water 's waves , leaving themselves and ourselves in the process , ...thirsty ,as a result , by confusing their materialist believing mind's mirage represented by their materialist belief assumption that thought patterns are emeregent properties of neurons , with water waves or with water , leaving us all at the mercy of the pursuit of their created mirage that would , per definition, never be able to satisfy ...our thirst or theirs ...



So, tell me now how you and the rest of those materialists do "deduce " from all the above you have been talking about , that thought patterns are created somehow by neuronal computation or "emergent " property then ?
Thought patterns as allegedly  high level causations ...caused by the brain ,via its neurons ...causation that does , per definition, explains nothing by itself .
Why not say correlation or interaction, instead of causation , why causation specifically then ? = right , just to be able to prove the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that "brain creates or causes consciousness " of course : how convenient .
How can those thought patterns be created by just neurons via their neuro-chemistry = via just physics and chemistry ? = the machine or computer analogy is , obviously , incorrect regarding life in general, let alone regarding the human brain and the soul ..................

Final note :

The hard  problem of consciousness , soul ....is just a matter of belief , either way , whether it is  a materialist or a non-materialist belief issue :  science has nothing to do with it :

Materialists though , since they pretend that their materialism is scientific (a joke ) , cannot but act and think behave like our old fellow Thomas Aquinas at the level of his scholastics at least when he tried to prove his belief in the existence of God to be true , by "proving it to be true " haha , simply put : (In fact , God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ) :
Materialists thus just try to prove their materialist belief to be "true " through science = a paradox = science is not about either proving or disproving any beliefs for that matter , materialists try to prove their materialist belief assumptions regarding human consciousness, human cognition , memory , life , nature ...or rather their whole materialist conception of nature to be "true " via science haha, via those computational emergence magical  performances  = a paradox = materialist magic in science = science can neither prove nor disprove any beliefs for that matter , once again .

Dualists can and should also not try to prove their dualistic belief to be "true " through science either = that would be unscientific , as that materialist attempt to try to prove its conception of nature to be "true " through science ...is = unscientific , despite its highly complicated fancy sophisticated elaborate computer -like , machine -like mathematical abstractions , the latter that can fool only ....idiots , materialists ,fools or ignorant people ...

Comprende , amigo .

 

 


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #652 on: 21/10/2013 18:42:36 »
Quote from: cheryl j
Here's one last joke though:
Ironically, the God particle still can't explain why the Catholic Church has mass.
Cute. From Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics by Max Jammer, page 7
Quote
Our modern word "mass" ..., as used in physics, thus undoubtedly derived from the Latin massa, meaning originally a lump of dough or paste. As in the modern languages of today, so already in Middle English the term signified a lump in a more general sense, a conglomeration or aggregation of bodies. Such was also the meaning that the word had in the Latin for the Church.



You're using just semantics or latin ones to prove your point ? wao .
What is matter then really ? Have quantum physics themselves not revolutionized our very conventional old outdated understanding of what mass or matter might be ?

Mass that's just a matter of gravity ...Have you ever been to the moon or to space ,to see how much "mass " you have left ? in comparison with yours on earth ?

Matter can just be some sort of energy , deep down in its ultimate core : "Matter is not made of matter " , as some scientist said .

Not to mention the ludicrous materialist statement of our dear chick here : the so-called "God particle " = how can physics and chemistry account for such processes such as consciousness, human cognition , the immaterial side of life , the immaterial side of reality in general, .....let alone ...God .
God ...

Materialism has been turning you , guys, into complete fools dummies soulless zombies, no wonder  .

« Last Edit: 21/10/2013 18:45:32 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #653 on: 21/10/2013 19:11:37 »


The whole is not the sum of its parts , silly :

This is yet another silly unscientific kind of mechanistic reductionism in science in relation to life or brain processes at least , in the sense that one can try to reverse -engineer the brain or life , in order to understand and explain how they might work : that mechanistic reductionist approach might and does work , sometimes , regarding machines , but not regarding living organisms that are , obviously, no machines ,as Sheldrake said in his "Science Set Free ..." book :

Living organisms that do inherently intrinsically possess self-organizing , self-replicating , self-sustaining ,self-maintaining ....flexible and adaptative creative qualities , no human- made machine ever can be able to match, not even remotely close thus , no matter how sophisticated or advanced it might ever be .




Strange as it might seem, materialists are not in disagreement with you on this point. A reductionist hypothesis does not imply a constructionist one. The ability to reduce everything to fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from fundamental laws and reconstruct the universe, or even a squirrel.  Why does it not work the same backwards or forwards? Your answer is actually not that nature is self organizing, your answer is "God does it."   A materialist would explain it differently, that the nonlinear mathematics of complex systems does not allow exact predictions of future states. A materialist does not see anything magical about the emergence of properties when you go from one level of organization to another, although you obviously do. I could give you dozens of examples of emergent properties, and dlorde could probably even give you better ones, but I doubt it would convince you that it is not a magic process. That doesn't prove consciousness is an emergent property, but it seems more likely to me, than "God does it", an explanation that also effectively ends any attempt at a deeper or more detailed understanding, at least scientifically.

You repeatedly mention things like "emotions" or "memories" as being unexplainable with materialism. I sometimes wonder if you have ever bothered to think about what an emotion or memory or thought is. Even within your own conceptual framework of the brain as receiver of immaterial consciousness, I suspect you would have difficulty sorting various mental processes into either the "biological/brain/receiver box" or into the "immaterial consciousness from God box". But with your tendency to oversimplify and define things rather vaguely, it probably does not seem necessary.

(Prior note :
Don't you see that physicists materialists scientists are the ones who pretend to be able to explain everything = nothing , just in terms of physics and chemistry , just in terms of atoms , molecules ....and their interactions , properties ....via a so-called "theory of everything = theory of nothing ? : Did you read Stephen Hawking 's " A brief history of time " in that regard , to mention just that one on the subject ? )

Why do you distort my words or keep on misunderstanding them, just to fit your purpose ?

Are you stupid , or do you just deliberately play silly games with me ?

All i am saying is that reality is both material and immaterial = that's my own belief assumption = unscientific , per definition, but not necessarily false , as materialism is ,  but materialism just assumes or rather believes  that reality is exclusively material = a materialist "fact " or rather materialist belief assumption that was / is and will never be proved to be "true " by science , never , ever, per definition   : science , per definition, can only appoach the material side of reality , the immaterial one is just a matter of beliefs that should be kept outside of science and outside of its jurisdiction  as well  .
But , materialism , per definition, reduces the universe to just a material one .
Worse : materialism in science is , obvioulsy and per definition, just a belief = unscientific , per definition, , materialism is just a secular  belief  in science , a materialist secular belief religion that should be kept outside of science and outside of its jurisdiction as well :

Can't you understand just that ?

Why do you think science itself originated from the very heart and spirit of Islam itself then ?

P.S.: materialists explain everyhting= nothing  in terms of physics and chemistry alone , including via all those  extensions of materialism in science and elsewhere at the macroscopic levels , such as the so-called emergence of those thought patterns and consciousness that are allegedly created by the evolved complexity of the brain via its neurons .....

I just wanna make you, folks , realise that materialism and science are not the same thing , obviously ...but , you refuse to see that obvious undeniable fact .
Your problem, not mine .

Religious believers  can and should try to explain and understand the universe via science , reason , logic ...while assuming that God is behind all that = science is no exclusive materialist "property " or monopoly = one can be a believer and a scientist at the same time ,many scientific great achievements were / are and will be as well put under the signature of many religious believers scientists  ,as a materialist is a believer and a scientist at the same time , but the difference between the 2 different believers  scientists  , the religious and the secular materialist ones, is that religious believers scientists do keep their religious beliefs as they should do outside of science and outside of science's jurisdiction as well , but materialists believers scientists  do not only do the exact opposite by involving their own materialist beliefs in science , but they also sell them to the people as science .

Who's to blame here for turning science into a belief = into magic = into the materialist false belief ? obviously ...

Unbelievable ...




« Last Edit: 21/10/2013 19:15:39 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #654 on: 21/10/2013 20:13:27 »
The hard problem of consciousness remains as unsolved as it was the case thousands of years ago, and will most probably remain unsolved for yet trillions of years to come as well , maybe , who knows  :
The hard problem of consciousness that can only be , obviously , approached via world views , conceptions of nature , or beliefs only ,  by  both  the secular and  the religious ones .

Beliefs or world views , conceptions of nature , that are and should be kept outside of science , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well .

But , materialists cannot let go of their desperate attempts to try to prove their materialist belief assumptions to be "true " , regarding the origins , emergence ,evolution and nature of consciousness ,regarding their materialist conception of nature as a whole ,   through no-less than science , paradoxically , materialist belief assumptions they do deliberately sell to people as ...science , ironically paradoxically enough .

In fact , human beliefs cannot be kept outside of all sciences , obviously : Proof ? : materialism in all sciences and elsewhere : and the false materialism will just be replaced by yet another false conception of nature in all sciences  and elsewhere as well = "The human will to believe is ...inexhaustible ...indeed .


What a predicament ...

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #655 on: 21/10/2013 22:34:58 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte
... tl;dr ...
Yes, but how do you feel about materialism in science?   ;)
« Last Edit: 21/10/2013 22:42:42 by dlorde »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #656 on: 22/10/2013 02:11:53 »


But , materialists cannot let go of their desperate attempts to try to prove their materialist belief assumptions to be "true " , regarding the origins , emergence ,evolution and nature of consciousness ,regarding their materialist conception of nature as a whole ,   through no-less than science , paradoxically , materialist belief assumptions they do deliberately sell to people as ...science , ironically paradoxically enough .


Well, one could apply your anti-materialist reasoning to almost every kind of change or transformation in science:
 Do not try to convince me that water, which is a liquid, can be transformed into ice, which is solid, through your magical materialist temperature change! No way, no how! You are obviously confusing materialism with science proper to think that sunlight is magically transformed via the strip tease of photosynthesis into the energy locked in bonds of glucose molecules, or that you can some how magically change this with mere chemical reactions inside cells in a way that allows you peddle a bicycle! The sun cannot peddle your bicycle! Can't you understand just that? Are you really that stupid? Unbelievable! You cannot possibly through your materialist reductionist magic explain how a tornado "emerges" from atoms of oxygen and nitrogen and carbon and hydrogen! And Mass that's just a matter of gravity. Have you ever been to the moon or to space ,to see how much "mass " you have left ? in comparison with yours on earth?

(I didn't even have to make up the last example)

« Last Edit: 22/10/2013 02:44:09 by cheryl j »

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 588
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #657 on: 22/10/2013 03:51:36 »
To be a good scientist, you have to split your personality in two halves, one defending anti-materialism and one defending materialism. How much are they incompatible?

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #658 on: 22/10/2013 14:07:22 »
Well, one could apply your anti-materialist reasoning to almost every kind of change or transformation in science:
 Do not try to convince me that water, which is a liquid, can be transformed into ice, which is solid, through your magical materialist temperature change! No way, no how! You are obviously confusing materialism with science proper to think that sunlight is magically transformed via the strip tease of photosynthesis into the energy locked in bonds of glucose molecules, or that you can some how magically change this with mere chemical reactions inside cells in a way that allows you peddle a bicycle! The sun cannot peddle your bicycle! Can't you understand just that? Are you really that stupid? Unbelievable! You cannot possibly through your materialist reductionist magic explain how a tornado "emerges" from atoms of oxygen and nitrogen and carbon and hydrogen! And Mass that's just a matter of gravity. Have you ever been to the moon or to space ,to see how much "mass " you have left ? in comparison with yours on earth?
Bravo Cheryl! eerily familiar, and every bit as informative as the real thing :)

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #659 on: 22/10/2013 17:13:31 »
I honestly cannot understand how one can attack materialism and reductionism, blithely dismiss things like emergent properties and offer absolutely nothing better in terms of explanation of phenomena.
You don't need such explanations if you have faith. Apparently it's beyond logic, reason, and science...

Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter , regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary ,  i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .
Did i not say that to the both of you cristal-clearly earlier , when the both of you asked me about just that ?
I did clearly state that to you , dlorde , cristal -clearly  when you did distort my words beyond any recognition on the very same subject = you do the same distortion of my words again ...Why then ?
Do you happen to suffer from some sort of selective amnesia or what ?

Unbelievable ...

A mod warned me about "insulting " the members of this forum : I say to that mod :

Try to read how these people distort my words beyond any recognition repeatedly , despite my extensive and repeated explanations of what i was saying = I gotta be a superhuman not to insult you , guys , as a result ?
I am not a superman though = i am just a human , all too human being , with limited patience ...

« Last Edit: 22/10/2013 17:18:34 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #660 on: 22/10/2013 17:31:51 »


But , materialists cannot let go of their desperate attempts to try to prove their materialist belief assumptions to be "true " , regarding the origins , emergence ,evolution and nature of consciousness ,regarding their materialist conception of nature as a whole ,   through no-less than science , paradoxically , materialist belief assumptions they do deliberately sell to people as ...science , ironically paradoxically enough .


Well, one could apply your anti-materialist reasoning to almost every kind of change or transformation in science:
 Do not try to convince me that water, which is a liquid, can be transformed into ice, which is solid, through your magical materialist temperature change! No way, no how! You are obviously confusing materialism with science proper to think that sunlight is magically transformed via the strip tease of photosynthesis into the energy locked in bonds of glucose molecules, or that you can some how magically change this with mere chemical reactions inside cells in a way that allows you peddle a bicycle! The sun cannot peddle your bicycle! Can't you understand just that? Are you really that stupid? Unbelievable! You cannot possibly through your materialist reductionist magic explain how a tornado "emerges" from atoms of oxygen and nitrogen and carbon and hydrogen! And Mass that's just a matter of gravity. Have you ever been to the moon or to space ,to see how much "mass " you have left ? in comparison with yours on earth?

(I didn't even have to make up the last example)

God...

The purely exclusively biological physical material emergent properties are scientific facts , not materialist belief assumptions = can you see the difference ?

See my reply to dlorde here above , on the same subject :
I absolutely do not reject the emergent phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels= only fools idiots or ignorant folks might do just that  , i do just reject that materialist magical =  unscientific  "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness, that's all :
You asked me about just that , earlier , and i did give you this same answer .
I also do ,obviously , reject that materialist = unscientific computational mechanism regarding the origin or nature of human thought or cognition also , simply because that machine or computer analogy does not apply to living organisms , the latter that are unlike any man-made machne computer for that matter , living organisms that are capable of self-organisation, reproduction replication, self-maintenance , unique metabolism ...capable of creativity flexibility evolution ...

Once again, have you ever seen any man-made machine for that matter , that's capable of all the above listed properties and qualities of living organisms , have you ever seen any man-made machine that's capable of growing from   some of its smallest components cells genes , that's capapable of reproduction replication, self-replication, self-reproduction, creativity, flexibility , self-organisation, that's capable of adaptation evolution ...?

Amazing folks you are ,really ...
« Last Edit: 22/10/2013 17:37:10 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #661 on: 22/10/2013 18:46:26 »
You don't need such explanations if you have faith. Apparently it's beyond logic, reason, and science...

Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter...
Wow, been trawling? those posts are 7 weeks old... but it still seems fair comment - you did actually say that:
human consciousness, our subjective inner lives ...do escape any reason, logic, science..

Quote
.. regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary ,  i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .
I think we both acknowledge your position. What we're after is the argument supporting it, the plausible explanation you might use to persuade us that consciousness cannot be emergent from the functioning of the material brain.

"It is obvious" isn't an argument; at present, it just looks like a mixture of incredulity and special pleading.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #662 on: 22/10/2013 18:56:15 »
You don't need such explanations if you have faith. Apparently it's beyond logic, reason, and science...

Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter...
Wow, been trawling? those posts are 7 weeks old... but it still seems fair comment - you did actually say that:
human consciousness, our subjective inner lives ...do escape any reason, logic, science..

Quote
.. regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary ,  i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .
I think we both acknowledge your position. What we're after is the argument supporting it, the plausible explanation you might use to persuade us that consciousness cannot be emergent from the functioning of the material brain.

"It is obvious" isn't an argument; at present, it just looks like a mixture of incredulity and special pleading.



The hard problem of consciousness remains as unsolved as it was the case thousands of years ago, and will most probably remain unsolved for yet trillions of years to come as well , maybe , who knows  :
The hard problem of consciousness that can only be , obviously , approached via world views , conceptions of nature , or beliefs only ,  by  both  the secular and  the religious ones .

Beliefs or world views , conceptions of nature , that are and should be kept outside of science , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well .

But , materialists cannot let go of their desperate attempts to try to prove their materialist belief assumptions to be "true " , regarding the origins , emergence ,evolution and nature of consciousness ,regarding their materialist conception of nature as a whole ,   through no-less than science , paradoxically , materialist belief assumptions they do deliberately sell to people as ...science , ironically paradoxically enough .

In fact , human beliefs cannot be kept outside of all sciences , obviously : Proof ? : materialism in all sciences and elsewhere : and the false materialism will just be replaced by yet another false conception of nature in all sciences  and elsewhere as well = "The human will to believe is ...inexhaustible ...indeed .


What a predicament ...
« Last Edit: 22/10/2013 18:58:14 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #663 on: 22/10/2013 19:00:01 »
There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.
That's quite reasonable if thoughts are the patterns of activation of neurons across the brain. Each pattern of activation will trigger the next (although the patterns are dynamic, so the transitions are continuous). The difficulty many people have is in grasping that thoughts are these patterns of neural activation flowing across/through the brain, they're not something separate that causes neural activity, and they're only 'caused by' neural activity in the loose sense that a wave is 'caused by' water; waves are a patterns of water movement, and thoughts are patterns of neural activity. 

Douglas Hofstadter discusses recursion and consciousness at length in his book 'I am a Strange Loop', where one of his themes is the use of feedback to generate complexity (e.g. video feedback, where the camera points at the screen showing its own output).

I see the emergence and interaction of patterns of neural activation in the brain as analogous to the emergence of interacting patterns in Conway's Game of Life, where the individual units are static, with binary states, but the emergent patterns of their composite activities have emergent structure and interaction (oscillators, spaceships, etc). As if to emphasize the potential of such emergent complexity, these GOL patterns can themselves be used to emulate the GOL itself and as a logic language to create construct universal Turing machines (programmable computers) and computer/constructors that can be programmed to replicate themselves.

If a system with such simple rules and limited degrees of freedom as GOL can generate multiple levels of emergent complexity, to the extent that it can generate replicators and emulate anything computable, it seems less surprising that a system with many more degrees of freedom and more complex rules can, given a suitable environment and couple of billion years of selection pressures,  evolve structures like mammalian brains.

You know :
I did download the kindle version of "I am a strange loop " , yesterday : I have been enjoying a short work-holiday ,so to speak, so, i have read some parts of that disappointing book  that seemed , at first sight , so promissing , and so worthy of all the praise it did get  :

That book sounds like an authentic human and humanistic true confession, humanism extended to other species , confession  whose authenticity was its major 'argument " (You gotta be authentic to sell your products , yourself and your views and ideas : authenticity in art is a major must  also  , if you wanna be a successful artist ....The author of that book in question was clever enough to use all those powerful symbols of authenticity , true confession ...humanistic side .....)
The author's sophisticated mathematical maze and high abstractions regarding the patterns of thought that are allegedly created by the neuronal computation and emergence qualities properties ,are nothing new in fact :

I have read so many similar materialist magical non-sense on the subject of thought , consciousness ,....that i cannot but see how materialists try to sell their similar materialist belief asumptions in science  to the people  , in a mathematical high abstractions elaborate and sophisticated make-believe scientific theories package ,  that compare  or rather make those materialist machine and computers analogies regarding  the human mind and brain , life in general .....
So, it all comes down to those materialist magical computational and "emergent " tricks performances regarding human thought , consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , life in general ...as if humans and life in general are just some sort of machines ,despite the fact that that machine metaphor regarding life is so outdated and false , obviously = it all comes down to  physics , chemistry and neurochemistry , despite your outraged denials:  emergent thought patterns are just macroscopic  emergent computational higher levels of causation , while their core atomic molecular physical chemical roots can be discarded at that macroscopic level ,simply because humans are mostly concerned only by their macroscopic side of everyda's life  .
Living organisms do possess self -organizing , self -replicating or self-reproducing , self -maintaining , creativity , flexibility , adaptation, unique metabolism  ...qualities.
Have you ever seen any human -made machine for that matter that's capable of all that , capable of growing from its smallest fundamental parts or cells genes , capable of creativity flexibility , self-organization , capable of reproduction replication, capable of adaptation evolution ....?

In short or in other words :

As the author of "I am a strange loop " stated in his final chapter :
regarding the hard problem of mind vs body , or consciousness or soul:  we either believe that consciousness or the soul are just products of the laws of physics at their ultimate core , or we believe that the soul is outside of the laws of physics = dualism .

As a materialist , he cannot believe in that magical , as he put it at least , dualism that does raise many unanswerable questions than give answers (Who said anyway that dualism can give all answers : we don't know what the soul is , let alone how the mind -body interaction takes place ....among many other things we do not know on the subject ) ,so, he cannot but keep on going on the materialist path , regardless of where it might lead him to , despite all the inherent intrinsic incoherence inconsistency of materialism ,i say : like how the unconscious matter (IF it happens to be unconscious at least ) can give rise to the ,obviously , immaterial non-physical consciousness , human cognition ,to the immaterial side of  life , to the immaterial side of human language ...
The author just avoids that inherent intrinsic materialist paradox ,regarding the obvious undeniable impossibility that physics and chemistry cannot , per definition and nature ,  give rise to non-physical and non-material processes , he just avoids that , by taking refuge in a higher level of alleged causation : emeregent computational thought patterns that are allegedly caused by the brain via its complex neurons' interactions   , an alleged causation that neither he nor any other materialist cares to prove to be true : they just take us with them into that highly complicated mathematical and other abstract forest maze  to the point where we would confuse the tree with the forest  , the latter metaphor he used himself , ironically enough , when he said , and rightly so, that reducing man ,life or the brain to just atomic molecular reductionist processes , instead of studying the whole thing , not just via its parts , would make us miss the whole picture .
Well, he , obviously , misses and cannot see the whole picture either , either via or thanks to his highly mathematical patterns abstractions : a mirage he takes for the whole real picture , or for water , a mirage that cannot satisfy his own thirst ,obviously ,  let alone others'  .

To say that the alleged emergence of consciousness  or thought , is analogous to that of the  water's waves is not only a false analogy , a materialist existential symbolic sub-conscious one at that , simply because water and its waves are both material , simply because the emergent phenomena just occurs at the physical and biological material levels ,  but , also because the mirage created by those alleged emergent thought patterns that were allegedly caused by neurons , the former that does activate allegedly also the latter , those alleged emergent thought patterns are just like a mirage created in the materialists' brains or rather in their materialist believing minds , sub-consciously existentially  symbolically  ,  they take for real water , or  rather  for real water 's waves , leaving themselves and ourselves in the process , ...thirsty ,as a result , by confusing their materialist believing mind's mirage represented by their materialist belief assumption that thought patterns are emeregent properties of neurons , with water waves or with water , leaving us all at the mercy of the pursuit of their created mirage that would , per definition, never be able to satisfy ...our thirst or theirs ...



So, tell me now how you and the rest of those materialists do "deduce " from all the above you have been talking about , that thought patterns are created somehow by neuronal computation or "emergent " property then ?
Thought patterns as allegedly  high level causations ...caused by the brain ,via its neurons ...causation that does , per definition, explains nothing by itself .
Why not say correlation or interaction, instead of causation , why causation specifically then ? = right , just to be able to prove the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that "brain creates or causes consciousness " of course : how convenient .
How can those thought patterns be created by just neurons via their neuro-chemistry = via just physics and chemistry ? = the machine or computer analogy is , obviously , incorrect regarding life in general, let alone regarding the human brain and the soul ..................

Final note :

The hard  problem of consciousness , soul ....is just a matter of belief , either way , whether it is  a materialist or a non-materialist belief issue :  science has nothing to do with it :

Materialists though , since they pretend that their materialism is scientific (a joke ) , cannot but act and think behave like our old fellow Thomas Aquinas at the level of his scholastics at least when he tried to prove his belief in the existence of God to be true , by "proving it to be true " haha , simply put : (In fact , God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ) :
Materialists thus just try to prove their materialist belief to be "true " through science = a paradox = science is not about either proving or disproving any beliefs for that matter , materialists try to prove their materialist belief assumptions regarding human consciousness, human cognition , memory , life , nature ...or rather their whole materialist conception of nature to be "true " via science haha, via those computational emergence magical  performances  = a paradox = materialist magic in science = science can neither prove nor disprove any beliefs for that matter , once again .

Dualists can and should also not try to prove their dualistic belief to be "true " through science either = that would be unscientific , as that materialist attempt to try to prove its conception of nature to be "true " through science ...is = unscientific , despite its highly complicated fancy sophisticated elaborate computer -like , machine -like mathematical abstractions , the latter that can fool only ....idiots , materialists ,fools or ignorant people ...

Comprende , amigo .

 

 


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #664 on: 22/10/2013 19:06:08 »

Quote
The hard problem of consciousness remains...
...that it is undefined. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #665 on: 22/10/2013 19:17:18 »

Quote
The hard problem of consciousness remains...
...that it is undefined.

What is  then ?
Stop palying silly games , please , be serious .
Every sane intelligent person knows that consciousness is a hard problem in science and elsewhere .Don't be silly .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #666 on: 22/10/2013 19:47:19 »
Dear folks :
Just watch and listen to the following on the subject   of science and materialism in science and elsewhere , materialism in  science  the majority of scientists today do confuse with science :


SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A



Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #667 on: 23/10/2013 01:13:32 »


Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter , regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary ,  i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .



And it doesn't seem at all odd to you that human consciousness is this one, special exception? You accept very complex changes and transformations in any area of biology or science, without the hand of God helping it along, except human consciousness? And at what point did God intervene in our evolutionary history?

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #668 on: 23/10/2013 03:18:04 »
Dear folks :
Just watch and listen to the following on the subject   of science and materialism in science and elsewhere , materialism in  science  the majority of scientists today do confuse with science :


SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A



Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ

I have listened to Sheldrake. Have you bothered to investigate what neuroscience says about emotion or intuition? That they are not just the ephemeral subjective feelings you assume? That they actually are an important brain processes in reasoning, interpreting sensory perceptions, and motivation to act or not? Or do you just assume "I don't need to learn anything more about emotion or intuition because I've already 'felt' it for myself. Science can't tell me anything more. My subjective impression of them is enough" ?
« Last Edit: 23/10/2013 03:27:28 by cheryl j »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #669 on: 23/10/2013 09:04:25 »

Quote
The hard problem of consciousness remains...
...that it is undefined.

What is  then ?
Stop palying silly games , please , be serious .
Every sane intelligent person knows that consciousness is a hard problem in science and elsewhere .Don't be silly .


On the contrary, I am sane - I have doctors' certificates to prove it. But I have never encountered anyone who would complete the sentence "consciousness is....." or "consciousness is that which....." in a meaningful way. You are just another of many, so far.

Why not redeem yourself (and rise in my estimation) with a few words instead of evading the issue?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #670 on: 23/10/2013 17:21:49 »
Dear folks :
Just watch and listen to the following on the subject   of science and materialism in science and elsewhere , materialism in  science  the majority of scientists today do confuse with science :


SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A



Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ

I have listened to Sheldrake. Have you bothered to investigate what neuroscience says about emotion or intuition? That they are not just the ephemeral subjective feelings you assume? That they actually are an important brain processes in reasoning, interpreting sensory perceptions, and motivation to act or not? Or do you just assume "I don't need to learn anything more about emotion or intuition because I've already 'felt' it for myself. Science can't tell me anything more. My subjective impression of them is enough" ?

I might happen to know more than you could ever do , regarding neuro-science ...
So, just stop these sort of silly assumptions of yours then .

I did post Sheldrake's videos again, just in relation to that false materialism in science , that's all .
Nobody is denying the scientific approach of emotions and intuition  at their physical biological material levels  , it's just that science cannot , per definition , tell us what the natures of feelings emotions intuitions are :  what feeling emotion exactly are  , what pain is .....
Feelings emotions intuitions , love ...that cannot be accounted  for fully via just physics and chemistry ....
« Last Edit: 23/10/2013 17:24:17 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #671 on: 23/10/2013 17:29:41 »


Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter , regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary ,  i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .



And it doesn't seem at all odd to you that human consciousness is this one, special exception? You accept very complex changes and transformations in any area of biology or science, without the hand of God helping it along, except human consciousness? And at what point did God intervene in our evolutionary history?

Nature or the universe are not just a matter of material processes= nature or the universe are not just exclusively material  ,as materialism wanna make you believe  they are = an unscientific, per definition,  materialist belief assumption or conception of nature  ,a fasle one at that  sis , once again :

And science is only concerned with  material physical biological processes  ...no less , no more .

If you wanna keep on seeing everything in the universe and nature as just material biological physical processes ,including consciousness, feelings , emotions, memory ...That's your problem, not mine .

Science cannot , per definition, tell us what feelings emotions pain exactly are , or how they can be connected to their biological side , science cannot account for such processes via just physics and chemistry , let alone regarding consciousness :
The metarialist machine metaphor regarding life that 's dominating in science is false , obviously .

Living organisms are no machines or computers ,otherwise we can make 'sentient alive " machines easily = cannot be done , obviously .


A very typical case of the mainstream materialist belief   at work  in science : The "Brain Creates Consciousness " haha :  on Scientific American :  Aunt Millie's  Mind by Michael Schermer :

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2012/07/aunt-millies-mind/

It's like saying that Obama, for example , or CNN... appearing on tv were / are created by the tv set where they happen to  appear ,or that they do live inside the tv ,so, when the tv is damaged , or just some specific parts of it at least , which results in making the tv stop 'displaying " Obama,CNN, .... for example, or any other specific images for that matter , then , that means that the tv used to create those tv images haha , when it used to function ....= the magical materialist  belief assumption "emergent property " trick regarding the origins or nature of consciousness haha = the brain creates consciousness = consciousness is just an emergent property from the evolved complexity of the brain = consciousness is just physics and chemistry or neuro-chemistry = unbelievable  unscientific bullshit , in science  haha .





« Last Edit: 23/10/2013 17:42:52 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #672 on: 23/10/2013 17:34:07 »
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
« Last Edit: 23/10/2013 18:24:41 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #673 on: 23/10/2013 18:19:21 »
Quote
I came here to try to make you realise , folks, that materialism is not science

I rather think that most of us knew that already.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #674 on: 23/10/2013 20:43:55 »
Quote
I came here to try to make you realise , folks, that materialism is not science

I rather think that most of us knew that already.

No, you did not ...abvioulsy , and you still do not ...either ...

Ciao, amigo.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cBiNsdvJF4

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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1460
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1460
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1460
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1460
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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 »