IQ

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

How is it so that all this neurological processing doesn't just 'happen in the dark'? How is it so that subjective experience goes with it?

The nature of consciousness is definitely some kind of feedback loop in a theory of mind. It can't happen in the dark because that darkness IS unconscious experience. When you notice that you're noticing, consciousness becomes a possibility. Consciousness IS subjective experience, although contingent would be a better expression. Your perspective as an embodied being is also a necessary component of having a theory of mind. There are many theories about the space inbetween, all of which are anthropological speculation. I trust i have answered the questions in a way that at least make them more manageable, even if it raises more.. they can also be answered.

Are you familiar with The Evolution of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind? It can be considered an answer but it's in empirical territory, despite that it cannot be verified, only useful. Perhaps in time the insights of neuroscience will constrain the question to a more manageable form.

Consciousness, awareness, perspective, self, and ego are all the same thing underneath, merely different expressions to deal with different perspectives on it for different reasons/questions.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:00 pm How is it so that all this neurological processing doesn't just 'happen in the dark'? How is it so that subjective experience goes with it?

The nature of consciousness is definitely some kind of feedback loop in a theory of mind. It can't happen in the dark because that darkness IS unconscious experience. When you notice that you're noticing, consciousness becomes a possibility. Consciousness IS subjective experience, although contingent would be a better expression. Your perspective as an embodied being is also a necessary component of having a theory of mind. There are many theories about the space inbetween, all of which are anthropological speculation. I trust i have answered the questions in a way that at least make them more manageable, even if it raises more.. they can also be answered.

Are you familiar with The Evolution of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind? It can be considered an answer but it's in empirical territory, despite that it cannot be verified, only useful. Perhaps in time the insights of neuroscience will constrain the question to a more manageable form.

Consciousness, awareness, perspective, self, and ego are all the same thing underneath, merely different expressions to deal with different perspectives on it for different reasons/questions.
That's not it. In other words, the Hard problem is this: Why is there qualia, where there is neurological processing?
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

>That's not it. In other words, the Hard problem is this: Why is there qualia, where there is neurological processing?

"Why?" still requires definition there. They're are still no reasons outside of a mind unless you mean causality.

Qualia means an instance of experience. Why it exists is because we find it useful to distinguish between parts of certain experiences. Neurological processing of a certain kind is what we call experience, is not a mystical Other thing. Those patterns are called experience. Or experience is only a mystery in the sense of how it works and how it arises, there is no additional quandary and both of those questions are empirical. I've given the semantic and the practical answers. Want more?.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:11 pm >That's not it. In other words, the Hard problem is this: Why is there qualia, where there is neurological processing?

"Why?" still requires definition there. They're are still no reasons outside of a mind unless you mean causality.

Qualia means an instance of experience. Why it exists is because we find it useful to distinguish between parts of certain experiences. Neurological processing of a certain kind is what we call experience, is not a mystical Other thing. Those patterns are called experience. Or experience is only a mystery in the sense of how it works and how it arises, there is no additional quandary and both of those questions are empirical. I've given the semantic and the practical answers. Want more?.
In other words, the Hard problem is this: how or why or whether does any experience (qualia) arise out of physical stuff at all?
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473145 time=1601054617 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473142 time=1601053918 user_id=15238]
>That's not it. In other words, the Hard problem is this: Why is there qualia, where there is neurological processing?

"Why?" still requires definition there. They're are still no reasons outside of a mind unless you mean causality.

Qualia means an instance of experience. Why it exists is because we find it useful to distinguish between parts of certain experiences. Neurological processing of a certain kind is what we call experience, is not a mystical Other thing. Those patterns are called experience. Or experience is only a mystery in the sense of how it works and how it arises, there is no additional quandary and both of those questions are empirical. I've given the semantic and the practical answers. Want more?.
[/quote]
In other words, the Hard problem is this: how or why or whether does any experience (qualia) arise out of physical stuff at all?
[/quote]

Anthropology. :p The answer to that question is clearly embedded in the past, yes?

In the more immediate sense - how/when does it arise in an individual brain (neuroscience, psychology), i've heard of a theory that children aren't conscious until they get away with lying to their parents for the first time, a sort of moment of enlightenment, but i haven't been able to find it.

But i'd like to return to the OP, which hasn't been discussed at all, the point of which is that there are three distinctive layers of contingency between cognitive functioning and practical application.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:26 pm Anthropology. :p The answer to that question is clearly embedded in the past, yes?

In the more immediate sense - how/when does it arise in an individual brain (neuroscience, psychology), i've heard of a theory that children aren't conscious until they get away with lying to their parents for the first time, a sort of moment of enlightenment, but i haven't been able to find it.

But i'd like to return to the OP, which hasn't been discussed at all, the point of which is that there are three distinctive layers of contingency between cognitive functioning and practical application.
Well either you didn't even understand the question, or did, but gave a wrong answer. Getting this one right is pretty crucial in philosophy.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473148 time=1601055271 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473146 time=1601054788 user_id=15238]
Anthropology. :p The answer to that question is clearly embedded in the past, yes?

In the more immediate sense - how/when does it arise in an individual brain (neuroscience, psychology), i've heard of a theory that children aren't conscious until they get away with lying to their parents for the first time, a sort of moment of enlightenment, but i haven't been able to find it.

But i'd like to return to the OP, which hasn't been discussed at all, the point of which is that there are three distinctive layers of contingency between cognitive functioning and practical application.
[/quote]
Well either you didn't even understand the question, or did, but gave a wrong answer. Getting this one right is pretty crucial in philosophy.
[/quote]

You say "Why is there qualia?" as though someone intended for it to happen rather than it happening as a natural process. The natural process "why" is causality, and empirical. Any other "why" is meaningless in that context. Sometimes the true/correct/full answer to a question is that it's not a meaningful question.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:47 pm You say "Why is there qualia?" as though someone intended for it to happen rather than it happening as a natural process. The natural process "why" is causality, and empirical. Any other "why" is meaningless in that context. Sometimes the true/correct/full answer to a question is that it's not a meaningful question.
You keep bringing up this intention business, the Hard problem has typically nothing to do with that. As for causality, well then explain what causes qualia.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473151 time=1601056339 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473150 time=1601056065 user_id=15238]
You say "Why is there qualia?" as though someone intended for it to happen rather than it happening as a natural process. The natural process "why" is causality, and empirical. Any other "why" is meaningless in that context. Sometimes the true/correct/full answer to a question is that it's not a meaningful question.
[/quote]
You keep bringing up this intention business, the Hard problem has typically nothing to do with that. As for causality, well then explain what causes qualia.
[/quote]

That question is a neuroscience question, not a philosophy one. Some as-of-yet uncertain neuronal pattern related to certain areas of the brain has some kind of reaction that expresses as what we call experience. It's mostly semantic problems - what do we mean by the word? I can define qualia as an instance of experience but experience itself can only be defined as "this". Whatever this is, which is empirical, it's what we use the word to mean.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:59 pm That question is a neuroscience question, not a philosophy one. Some as-of-yet uncertain neuronal pattern related to certain areas of the brain has some kind of reaction that expresses as what we call experience. It's mostly semantic problems - what do we mean by the word? I can define qualia as an instance of experience but experience itself can only be defined as "this". Whatever this is, which is empirical, it's what we use the word to mean.
Then the question is: why/how would some neuronal patterns have some kind of reaction that expresses as experience? Physics says nothing about this.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473158 time=1601057255 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473154 time=1601056765 user_id=15238]
That question is a neuroscience question, not a philosophy one. Some as-of-yet uncertain neuronal pattern related to certain areas of the brain has some kind of reaction that expresses as what we call experience. It's mostly semantic problems - what do we mean by the word? I can define qualia as an instance of experience but experience itself can only be defined as "this". Whatever this is, which is empirical, it's what we use the word to mean.
[/quote]
Then the question is: why/how would some neuronal patterns have some kind of reaction that expresses as experience? Physics says nothing about this.
[/quote]

Experience isn't something special that requires a non-material explanation. Mind is the patterns in the brain. Consciousness is a subset of mind.

There are probably infinite ways to understand the substrate of consciousness, each of which would lead to a different answer to what it is and how it works. If you want to track it back cognitively (which also tracks with biological evolution), first we have sensation, then differentiation, then recognition (low res, basic categories), then avoidance/danger filter, then definition (like recognition but without the time constraint of potential danner - a higher order of taxonomy), then an approach/interest filter.

Another perspective on the problem would begin with basic animal instinct, then add interpersonal relationship, then group dynamics, then cultural differentiation, then theory of merit, then class theory, then recognition of the "other" as sharing personal attributes... or whatever, eventually leading to an advanced theory of mind called consciousness; that's the anthropological version.

Point being that in each case there's a ratcheting up from level to level of complexity, each relying on the foundation before and none of which will be sufficient without having a starting definition precise enough to manage in language.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:23 pm Experience isn't something special that requires a non-material explanation. Mind is the patterns in the brain. Consciousness is a subset of mind.

There are probably infinite ways to understand the substrate of consciousness, each of which would lead to a different answer to what it is and how it works. If you want to track it back cognitively (which also tracks with biological evolution), first we have sensation, then differentiation, then recognition (low res, basic categories), then avoidance/danger filter, then definition (like recognition but without the time constraint of potential danner - a higher order of taxonomy), then an approach/interest filter.

Another perspective on the problem would begin with basic animal instinct, then add interpersonal relationship, then group dynamics, then cultural differentiation, then theory of merit, then class theory, then recognition of the "other" as sharing personal attributes... or whatever, eventually leading to an advanced theory of mind called consciousness; that's the anthropological version.

Point being that in each case there's a ratcheting up from level to level of complexity, each relying on the foundation before and none of which will be sufficient without having a starting definition precise enough to manage in language.
You're still not addressing the question. You're talking about how our minds are shaped, structured, how mind evolved etc. yes those are the 'Easy problems of consciousness'.

The 'Hard problem of consciousness' is why/how there is any experience at all, where there is physical matter.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=473162 time=1601058810 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473161 time=1601058183 user_id=15238]
Experience isn't something special that requires a non-material explanation. Mind is the patterns in the brain. Consciousness is a subset of mind.

There are probably infinite ways to understand the substrate of consciousness, each of which would lead to a different answer to what it is and how it works. If you want to track it back cognitively (which also tracks with biological evolution), first we have sensation, then differentiation, then recognition (low res, basic categories), then avoidance/danger filter, then definition (like recognition but without the time constraint of potential danner - a higher order of taxonomy), then an approach/interest filter.

Another perspective on the problem would begin with basic animal instinct, then add interpersonal relationship, then group dynamics, then cultural differentiation, then theory of merit, then class theory, then recognition of the "other" as sharing personal attributes... or whatever, eventually leading to an advanced theory of mind called consciousness; that's the anthropological version.

Point being that in each case there's a ratcheting up from level to level of complexity, each relying on the foundation before and none of which will be sufficient without having a starting definition precise enough to manage in language.
[/quote]
You're still not addressing the question. You're talking about how our minds are shaped, structured, how mind evolved etc. yes those are the 'Easy problems of consciousness'.

The 'Hard problem of consciousness' is why/how there is any experience at all, where there is physical matter.
[/quote]

How could there not be? is equally as meaningful. You're still presuming there is a preferred outcome. It's the anthropic principle in different language. There is no Reason why, it just happened that way. What's left is How? in various guises I'm gradually coming to the belief that consciousness questions are Only semantic or empirical, but withholding judgement so far.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:02 pm How could there not be? is equally as meaningful. You're still presuming there is a preferred outcome. It's the anthropic principle in different language. There is no Reason why, it just happened that way. What's left is How? in various guises I'm gradually coming to the belief that consciousness questions are Only semantic or empirical, but withholding judgement so far.
Looks like you didn't come up with a 'how'. What makes you think that it's just the consciousness questions that are semantic here?
Dimebag
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: IQ

Post by Dimebag »

I’m getting some real Socratic vibes here from Alta, it’s great. :lol:

The basic gist is, question your assumptions.
Post Reply