I was going to answer this earlier, but saw the nonsense Iwannaplato and bahman were assaulting you with and chose not to be part of that.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:52 pmCan you see gravity ,the strong nuclear force, x-rays, atoms, radio waves ad infinitem. No one has a problem with them being physical.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:12 pmSculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:16 pm
Ultimately we have no real handle on how things come to be as they are. With science we can give finer and finer descriptions but when all is said and done we can only throw our hands up in wonder.
I regard consciousness as a secondary or emergant property of neural matter. We know from science that matter and energy in combination produce special qualities. Add carbon to iron under extreme heat and you make steel which does not rust. COmbine pig shit with charcoal in the right quantities and you can blow stuff up. For some reason that can never be stated all matter in the universe exerts a force on all other matter such that all things are attracted one to the other. We can call that gravity but there is no explanation for it.
What bahman has done on this thread is that he has effectively invoked magic. If he were talking about gravity it would be a magical fairy pushing the Moon round the earth.
You can trace dualism from way before Descartes to ancient times. This "theory" has progressed precisely zero steps in all that time. It has offered a poor and unfalsifyable description but has not begun to answer any questions. It's a dwead end street with nothing on it.
On the other hand neuroscience is making great progress, and continues to astound us.
Is there ever going to be an ultimate explanation? What would it even look like? As most answers we have tend to be metaphorical even for the most complex scientific theories - they tend to say what it is "like" - I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory descrption or explanation that satisfies those amongst us who want to beleive in magic.
But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.
If there is a ghost in the machine behind it all, it puzzles me what it is supposed to be doing.
As an emergent property of the complexity of neurones and electrical charges, hormones, enzymes, and neurotransmitters: consciousness is physical.
You have to ask if it is not physical then what the fuck do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?Exactly. If it's physical, let's see it.But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.Yes you can. Just like gravity and x rays. COnsciousness is just more complex, as you would expect.I do not doubt at all that the physiological neurological aspects related to consciousness are necessary to our consciousness. The problem with describing consciousness itself as physical, for me, is that you cannot demonstrate it.
What flavoour do you like your fudge?
What I mean by consciousness is my actual experience, my tasting of salt, seeing things and hearing sounds, smelling coffee and feeling soft sheets and rough stones. Those experiences, as I experience them (along with all I think), I cannot ever show anyone else, and if anything or anyone else is conscious, they cannot show it to anyone else. One can certainly study all the behavior of the neurological system associated with consciousness, but consciousness itself cannot be observed, much less studied. The best the psychologist has is the testimony of those who claim to be conscious about their consciousness.
If consciousness itself were physical, it would have to be demonstrable, like all other physical things, by exhibiting some physical property or properties that could be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted, but it doesn't have any physical properties at all. Except for the testimony of others who claim to be conscious and the assumption, based on animals' behavior, there is no way to even detect the existence of consciousness. [That was originally the argument of the behavioral psychologists.] The only consciousness one is really aware of is their own, but only because they are conscious. One cannot even see, hear, feel, taste or smell their own consciousness.
I do not believe in any duality, however. Consciousness, whatever it is, is a perfectly natural aspect of material existence, as much as any physical attribute, and can only exist as an attribute of a physical living organism.
To answer your question, "what do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?" We need them to interface between the physiological (biological) and psychological (conscious) aspects of an organism's nature.
As lightly as I can--If consciousness is an emergent attribute, it would certainly have to be along the lines of your explanation. I think it is the most popular one today. I have no personal objection to it, it just doesn't describe what I mean by consciousness.
To answer your question: "Can you see gravity ,the strong nuclear force, x-rays, atoms, radio waves ad infinitem. No one has a problem with them being physical?" I can see the movement of physical bodies and feel weight and gravity is just the name of the explanation of those phenomena. I can see the effect of x-rays (it's how Curies discovered them). Atoms, and radio waves are explanations of phenomena I or anyone else can perceive. There is no phenomena that requires consciousness to explain. All that can be observed is physical behavior, even in organisms. That behavior requires no other explanation than physics. Where is the consciousness observed? No other consciousness can be observed except one's own.
The problems with the physical explanation of consciousness for me is all that is ever presented as an explanation is the physical/chemical/electrical behavior of the neurological system which, as far as any observable aspect has been demonstrated, would be identical with or without consciousness. That's why the behaviorists denied consciousness. All that can be observed is the physical behavior.
More importantly, to me, is the fact I regard the physical as totally deterministic. If it weren't, there could be no science as we know it. But my consciousness is not determined by anything but itself. I must consciously choose everything I think and do that is withing the scope of my consciousness. (It excludes, of course, the purely biological functions, autonomic nervous system, and reflexes for example.)
Finally, the physical emergent explanation of consciousness smacks of alchemy, to me. There is a kind of desperate need to, "explain," what consciousness is, so it is settled on, "if the physical/chemical/electrical system is complex enough conscious just magically emerges, somehow," which to me is no explanation at all. Like the early alchemists, "if we just get the right formula gold will emerge." It is a belief in magic.
Now I understand your view of consciousness which you have explained very well, and I understand why you hold it. I wonder if you understand why I do not. We certainly don't have to agree.