the easy problem of consciousness

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by SteveKlinko »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:37 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:52 pm It is a fact of Brain Science that specific Neurons Firing result in specific Conscious experiences. Science does not know How this happens. Science can measure the Correlation (the Neural Correlates of Consciousness) between Neurons Firing and Conscious Experience.
There is a science of neurology, (now renamed "neuroscience,") which is the study of the physiological system of the brain and nervous systems. There is no such science as psychology, or the bastard pseudoscience neuropsychology, because consciousnes cannot be studied scientifically.

One cannot take a fresh consciousness and lay it on a dissecting table to examine it. In fact, there is no way to examine consciousness at all. Whenever someone tells the lie, "there are correlations between neurons firing and conscious experience," no such correlation has ever been observed.

All one ever has is the testimony of someone who claims to have a certain conscious experience while some obscure brain activity is observed occurring. The problem is, there is no way to determine if the testimony is true or not, and so long as what is claimed to be, "science," just depends on what someone claims, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
Scientists have been poking around in live Brains for a Hundred years now and there is in fact Correlation between certain Neurons being stimulated and the Conscious Experiences that subjects report. Science can work in a statistical way. If enough people say they Experience Red when particular Neurons are stimulated then it would be quite Scientific to conclude that there is a Correlation between those Firing Neurons and those Conscious Experiences.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:16 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:55 pm

At least I for sure don't know what is going on with Consciousness.
And thank the lord for that, the burden has been taken off you in that regard. It's not for you to know, you are already known. You are known by being aka via the direct experience of being consciousness. In essence, you are the knowing that cannot be known.

The mind does not like this redundancy for what can the mind do with nothing.
I think therefore I am Nothing?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by Immanuel Can »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:00 pm Scientists have been poking around in live Brains for a Hundred years now and there is in fact Correlation between certain Neurons being stimulated and the Conscious Experiences that subjects report. Science can work in a statistical way. If enough people say they Experience Red when particular Neurons are stimulated then it would be quite Scientific to conclude that there is a Correlation between those Firing Neurons and those Conscious Experiences.
True. But the rational axiom that applies is, "Correlation is not (necessarily or automatically) causality."

It might be that neurons fire every time a certain kind of consciousness appears. That doesn't suggest the neuorns "cause" the consciousness. It could be, as per Idealism, or if human beings have volition and a soul, that the consciousness causes the neurons to fire. Or it could be that the two fire together, triggered by a third thing we haven't mentioned yet.

There's an old joke about this.

A woman goes to her doctor, and says, "Doctor, every time I drink tea, my right eye hurts."

The doctor says, "Take the spoon out of the cup."

You see? It's not the tea or the eye that is the ultimate cause of the hurting, even though both happen together. It's the spoon.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:31 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:00 pm Scientists have been poking around in live Brains for a Hundred years now and there is in fact Correlation between certain Neurons being stimulated and the Conscious Experiences that subjects report. Science can work in a statistical way. If enough people say they Experience Red when particular Neurons are stimulated then it would be quite Scientific to conclude that there is a Correlation between those Firing Neurons and those Conscious Experiences.
True. But the rational axiom that applies is, "Correlation is not (necessarily or automatically) causality."

It might be that neurons fire every time a certain kind of consciousness appears. That doesn't suggest the neuorns "cause" the consciousness. It could be, as per Idealism, or if human beings have volition and a soul, that the consciousness causes the neurons to fire. Or it could be that the two fire together, triggered by a third thing we haven't mentioned yet.

There's an old joke about this.

A woman goes to her doctor, and says, "Doctor, every time I drink tea, my right eye hurts."

The doctor says, "Take the spoon out of the cup."

You see? It's not the tea or the eye that is the ultimate cause of the hurting, even though both happen together. It's the spoon.
despite others turnin' their nose up at it, the followin' seems germane...
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:11 pm despite others turnin' their nose up at it, the followin' seems germane...
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/why-pion ... the-brain/
It is, indeed.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by SteveKlinko »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:31 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:00 pm Scientists have been poking around in live Brains for a Hundred years now and there is in fact Correlation between certain Neurons being stimulated and the Conscious Experiences that subjects report. Science can work in a statistical way. If enough people say they Experience Red when particular Neurons are stimulated then it would be quite Scientific to conclude that there is a Correlation between those Firing Neurons and those Conscious Experiences.
True. But the rational axiom that applies is, "Correlation is not (necessarily or automatically) causality."

It might be that neurons fire every time a certain kind of consciousness appears. That doesn't suggest the neuorns "cause" the consciousness. It could be, as per Idealism, or if human beings have volition and a soul, that the consciousness causes the neurons to fire. Or it could be that the two fire together, triggered by a third thing we haven't mentioned yet.

There's an old joke about this.

A woman goes to her doctor, and says, "Doctor, every time I drink tea, my right eye hurts."

The doctor says, "Take the spoon out of the cup."

You see? It's not the tea or the eye that is the ultimate cause of the hurting, even though both happen together. It's the spoon.
despite others turnin' their nose up at it, the followin' seems germane...
Things like having Mathematical insights may not be properly activated by crude electrical stimulations and epileptic disturbances, the same as say the Experience of Redness. Doesn't mean that even Mathematical insights are not produced by Neural Activity of some sort. But it is clear that there are many many Correlations between Neural Activity and Conscious Experiences. This cannot be ignored and must be part of any ultimate theory of Consciousness.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:02 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:16 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:55 pm

At least I for sure don't know what is going on with Consciousness.
And thank the lord for that, the burden has been taken off you in that regard. It's not for you to know, you are already known. You are known by being aka via the direct experience of being consciousness. In essence, you are the knowing that cannot be known.

The mind does not like this redundancy for what can the mind do with nothing.
I think therefore I am Nothing?
I think therefore I am a thought.

A thought is known, but never seen.

No thing knows this.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by henry quirk »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:29 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:31 pm
True. But the rational axiom that applies is, "Correlation is not (necessarily or automatically) causality."

It might be that neurons fire every time a certain kind of consciousness appears. That doesn't suggest the neuorns "cause" the consciousness. It could be, as per Idealism, or if human beings have volition and a soul, that the consciousness causes the neurons to fire. Or it could be that the two fire together, triggered by a third thing we haven't mentioned yet.

There's an old joke about this.

A woman goes to her doctor, and says, "Doctor, every time I drink tea, my right eye hurts."

The doctor says, "Take the spoon out of the cup."

You see? It's not the tea or the eye that is the ultimate cause of the hurting, even though both happen together. It's the spoon.
despite others turnin' their nose up at it, the followin' seems germane...
Things like having Mathematical insights may not be properly activated by crude electrical stimulations and epileptic disturbances, the same as say the Experience of Redness. Doesn't mean that even Mathematical insights are not produced by Neural Activity of some sort. But it is clear that there are many many Correlations between Neural Activity and Conscious Experiences. This cannot be ignored and must be part of any ultimate theory of Consciousness.
the fellow in the article doesn't ignore the correlations, he just thinks there's more to mind than the correlations
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by SteveKlinko »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:42 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:29 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:11 pm

despite others turnin' their nose up at it, the followin' seems germane...

Things like having Mathematical insights may not be properly activated by crude electrical stimulations and epileptic disturbances, the same as say the Experience of Redness. Doesn't mean that even Mathematical insights are not produced by Neural Activity of some sort. But it is clear that there are many many Correlations between Neural Activity and Conscious Experiences. This cannot be ignored and must be part of any ultimate theory of Consciousness.
the fellow in the article doesn't ignore the correlations, he just thinks there's more to mind than the correlations
I have been looking for years for something definite that is not Correlated to any Neural Activity. The Mind processes in the article that have not been traced back to Neural Activity are interesting. I do not however see the clear and definite proof that there is no Neural Activity during these processes, but only that it has not been discovered yet.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by Immanuel Can »

It also doesn't imply that they ARE.

It could just as well be that the mathematical insights are producing the neural activity, or that the consciousness is generating the insights AND the neural activity.

That's the point of the analogy: we can't straightforwardly deduce cause from correspondence.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=477223 time=1603741239 user_id=9431]
It also doesn't imply that they ARE.

It could just as well be that the mathematical insights are producing the neural activity, or that the consciousness is generating the insights AND the neural activity.

That's the point of the analogy: we can't straightforwardly deduce cause from correspondence.
[/quote]

All of that is empirical, for neuroscience, not philosophy.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:40 pm It also doesn't imply that they ARE.

It could just as well be that the mathematical insights are producing the neural activity, or that the consciousness is generating the insights AND the neural activity.

That's the point of the analogy: we can't straightforwardly deduce cause from correspondence.
All of that is empirical, for neuroscience, not philosophy.
That comment doesn't even make sense. All of what?

Causality is essential to science. False-cause fallacy is part of logic, and logic is philosophy.

What's missing?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:43 pm That comment doesn't even make sense. All of what?

Causality is essential to science. False-cause fallacy is part of logic, and logic is philosophy.

What's missing?
Logic has been culturally appropriated from Philosophy by computer science.

Much like natural sciences parted ways with Philosophy a few centuries ago.

Nobody knows what Philosophers specialise in nowadays.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by henry quirk »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:42 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:29 pm
Things like having Mathematical insights may not be properly activated by crude electrical stimulations and epileptic disturbances, the same as say the Experience of Redness. Doesn't mean that even Mathematical insights are not produced by Neural Activity of some sort. But it is clear that there are many many Correlations between Neural Activity and Conscious Experiences. This cannot be ignored and must be part of any ultimate theory of Consciousness.
the fellow in the article doesn't ignore the correlations, he just thinks there's more to mind than the correlations
I have been looking for years for something definite that is not Correlated to any Neural Activity. The Mind processes in the article that have not been traced back to Neural Activity are interesting. I do not however see the clear and definite proof that there is no Neural Activity during these processes, but only that it has not been discovered yet.
yeah, the piece only points in a direction...it ain't the destination
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: the easy problem of consciousness

Post by RCSaunders »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:00 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:37 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:52 pm It is a fact of Brain Science that specific Neurons Firing result in specific Conscious experiences. Science does not know How this happens. Science can measure the Correlation (the Neural Correlates of Consciousness) between Neurons Firing and Conscious Experience.
There is a science of neurology, (now renamed "neuroscience,") which is the study of the physiological system of the brain and nervous systems. There is no such science as psychology, or the bastard pseudoscience neuropsychology, because consciousnes cannot be studied scientifically.

One cannot take a fresh consciousness and lay it on a dissecting table to examine it. In fact, there is no way to examine consciousness at all. Whenever someone tells the lie, "there are correlations between neurons firing and conscious experience," no such correlation has ever been observed.

All one ever has is the testimony of someone who claims to have a certain conscious experience while some obscure brain activity is observed occurring. The problem is, there is no way to determine if the testimony is true or not, and so long as what is claimed to be, "science," just depends on what someone claims, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
Scientists have been poking around in live Brains for a Hundred years now and there is in fact Correlation between certain Neurons being stimulated and the Conscious Experiences that subjects report. Science can work in a statistical way.
That belief has just about destroyed the field of science. No scientific principle can be established on statistics.
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:00 pm If enough people say they Experience Red when particular Neurons are stimulated then it would be quite Scientific to conclude that there is a Correlation between those Firing Neurons and those Conscious Experiences.
There is no observable correlation between neurological activity and consciousness, because consciousness cannot be observed. There is only a correlation between neurological activity and what people say they consciously experience. It does not matter how many people say the same thing, science is not determined by consensus. It was once the scientific consensus that heavier-than-air flight was not possible and that the earth was the center of the universe.
Post Reply