There is no hard problem of consciousness

[Dontaskme]

Consciousness Isn’t Self-Centered
Think of consciousness like spacetime—a fundamental field that’s everywhere.

Consciousness is only a problem when consciousness is MY consciousness.

http://nautil.us/issue/82/panpsychism/c ... f_centered

[SteveKlinko]

Consciousness is the ability of the mind, meaning to be aware. Material has properties that can be perceived by the mind. These properties are subject to change depending on the configuration and motion of matter what we call neural activities. Therefore, there is no hard problem of consciousness since consciousness is a property of the mind. We however need matter to have awareness.

You think that because you say that "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind" that you have Explained anything about Consciousness?

Yes, but my argument was more than that. I explained what material activity does.

The very utterance of the words "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind" will launch any inquiring Mind to the next level to then ask: "How is Consciousness a Property of the Mind"? There is a Huge Explanatory Gap in "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind". The statement actually defines the Hard Problem.

There is no explanatory gap as I explained.

You have now doubled down on your statement: "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind". To you that Explains it. To me that raises the obvious question: How is Consciousness a Property of the Mind? I will just have to remain mystified by your Logic.

[SteveKlinko]

A different way of thinking from TheInterMind.com:

Emphasizing The Connection Perspective

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The Inter Mind Model is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons and is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp. Maybe an IM, along with a CM, inhabits and uses a PM from conception. The IM and CM grow as a particular PM grows. First there is only one cell, then there are two, then three, and four, and so on until a fully formed PM, IM, and CM are produced. Could an IM attach to a fully formed PM and just start using it? Or does an IM need to grow as a PM grows in order to properly use it? There is probably a developmental aspect involved in PM, IM, and CM connections. The act of growing from a single cell might be absolutely necessary for an IM and CM to exist. The IM might eventually be in contact with every cell in the PM. Maybe the only way an IM can be in control of trillions of Neurons is if, as the PM slowly develops, the IM learns how to use each cell. It is thought that it is possible that recognition of objects and faces comes down to one cell firing. An IM must know what that particular cell means when it fires in order to send a feeling of Recognition to a CM.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new perspective Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption, but since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations the CM will not have any access to Memories of the Interruption after the Connection is reestablished.

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

[Immanuel Can]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons.

This is indeed the Physicalist or Materialist view.

Nothing about it makes it particular "scientific," though. It's merely presumptive, and depends entirely on ignoring the possibility of the causal fallacy.

And that is why...

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

The article, then, is an admission of the complete failure of the Physicalist / Materialist paradigm to achieve the work that genuine science requires in regard to consciousness...i.e., those paradigms are completely incapable of doing the job.

Nagel says the same thing, essentially, in Mind and Cosmos and various of his articles.

[bahman]

You think that because you say that "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind" that you have Explained anything about Consciousness?

Yes, but my argument was more than that. I explained what material activity does.

The very utterance of the words "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind" will launch any inquiring Mind to the next level to then ask: "How is Consciousness a Property of the Mind"? There is a Huge Explanatory Gap in "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind". The statement actually defines the Hard Problem.

There is no explanatory gap as I explained.

You have now doubled down on your statement: "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind". To you that Explains it. To me that raises the obvious question: How is Consciousness a Property of the Mind? I will just have to remain mystified by your Logic.

Here is the argument:
1) Change exists
2) The mind is needed for any change
3) Therefore there is a mind
(1) is obvious. (2) needs clarification (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). (3) follows.

[SteveKlinko]

Yes, but my argument was more than that. I explained what material activity does.


There is no explanatory gap as I explained.

You have now doubled down on your statement: "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind". To you that Explains it. To me that raises the obvious question: How is Consciousness a Property of the Mind? I will just have to remain mystified by your Logic.

Here is the argument:
1) Change exists
2) The mind is needed for any change
3) Therefore there is a mind
(1) is obvious. (2) needs clarification (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). (3) follows.

Change surely exists in the Physical World but I don't follow the Logic that a Mind is needed for this change to happen. A Mind is needed to Observe change but a Mind is not needed for the change to happen.

[Dontaskme]

Change surely exists in the Physical World but I don't follow the Logic that a Mind is needed for this change to happen. A Mind is needed to Observe change but a Mind is not needed for the change to happen.

This is about knowledge/knowing. How can change be known to have happened without a knower. Therefore, both the knower and the known have to exist in the exact same instantaneous moment. So reality in essence is always a changeless changing.

There is knowledge of change only in relation to that which doesn't change.

That which never changes observes change.

Reality in essence is a changeless changing.


The words MIND/OBSERVER/CONSCIOUSESS/AWARENESS / KNOWER....are all different words for the same function, the intent to know. These words are used in an interchangable way ..they are all pointers pointing to the changeless changer.


.

[SteveKlinko]

Change surely exists in the Physical World but I don't follow the Logic that a Mind is needed for this change to happen. A Mind is needed to Observe change but a Mind is not needed for the change to happen.

This is about knowledge/knowing. How can change be known to have happened without a knower. Therefore, both the knower and the known have to exist in the exact same instantaneous moment. So reality in essence is always a changeless changing.

There is knowledge of change only in relation to that which doesn't change.

That which never changes observes change.

Reality in essence is a changeless changing.


The words MIND/OBSERVER/CONSCIOUSESS/AWARENESS / KNOWER....are all different words for the same function, the intent to know. These words are used in an interchangable way ..they are all pointers pointing to the changeless changer.


.

I think you don't believe there is an Objective reality beyond your Conscious Self. This is the only way you can believe what you say. I believe there is an Objective reality out there so change can happen even if there is absolutely nobody to perceive the change.

[Dontaskme]

I think you don't believe there is an Objective reality beyond your Conscious Self. This is the only way you can believe what you say. I believe there is an Objective reality out there so change can happen even if there is absolutely nobody to perceive the change.

No Steve, than's not what I believe.

I believe the objective reality is the conscious self.

I don't believe there is an out there or an in here or a beyond as those are locations.

I believe Self is everywhere at once...whereas locations, aka points of reference are just conceptually known ideas known to self.Self being just another word for consciousness.

That's what I believe, but I could be wrong, I don't know, it's just how this one here sees it.

How do I prove anything I say...by self evident direct experience that's how...and the same will be for you, you will see it your way, because your way will be the only way for you.

[Dontaskme]

I think you don't believe there is an Objective reality beyond your Conscious Self. This is the only way you can believe what you say. I believe there is an Objective reality out there so change can happen even if there is absolutely nobody to perceive the change.

Out there implies an In here...but It takes a conscious observer to make that knowledge known.You are that knowing.

Yes, the world existed before humans showed up.. dino fossils proves the world existed before humans showed up.

So you are right about the world existed before it was conceptually known to exist by humans. Human language is a conceptual overlay upon a not-knowing world. Therefore, knowledge only ever points to the illusory nature of reality...of no thing - not-a-thing knowing.

Illusory because humans and their conceptual language is just a part of the inseparable EVERYTHING that is, was, and always will be.

[bahman]

You have now doubled down on your statement: "Consciousness is a Property of the Mind". To you that Explains it. To me that raises the obvious question: How is Consciousness a Property of the Mind? I will just have to remain mystified by your Logic.

Here is the argument:
1) Change exists
2) The mind is needed for any change
3) Therefore there is a mind
(1) is obvious. (2) needs clarification (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). (3) follows.

Change surely exists in the Physical World but I don't follow the Logic that a Mind is needed for this change to happen. A Mind is needed to Observe change but a Mind is not needed for the change to happen.

That I explain it in the link. If X and Y are two consecutive states of a system. X has to vanishes in order to leave room for Y. There is nothing however when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there should be a mind that experiences X and causes Y. Mind should exist to cause Y since you cannot get Y out of nothing. Mind however should experience X too in order to cause Y.

[Dimebag]

Here is the argument:
1) Change exists
2) The mind is needed for any change
3) Therefore there is a mind
(1) is obvious. (2) needs clarification (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). (3) follows.

Change surely exists in the Physical World but I don't follow the Logic that a Mind is needed for this change to happen. A Mind is needed to Observe change but a Mind is not needed for the change to happen.

That I explain it in the link. If X and Y are two consecutive states of a system. X has to vanishes in order to leave room for Y. There is nothing however when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there should be a mind that experiences X and causes Y. Mind should exist to cause Y since you cannot get Y out of nothing. Mind however should experience X too in order to cause Y.

This part of your argument never really made much sense to me.

Can you elaborate with an example? For instance...

I’m struggling to think of something in the natural world which contains two states which switches between them in a binary fashion.

The only examples I can think of are human made systems, such as an electronic system containing some kind of timer and light setup.

Imagine there is an electronic circuit with a timer which switches a light on and off every second.

State X is the initial state of the light being off, state Y when it switches on.

Can you, using your logic, explain how mind is necessary for this light to switch from off in state x, to on in state Y?

[SteveKlinko]

I think you don't believe there is an Objective reality beyond your Conscious Self. This is the only way you can believe what you say. I believe there is an Objective reality out there so change can happen even if there is absolutely nobody to perceive the change.

Out there implies an In here...but It takes a conscious observer to make that knowledge known.You are that knowing.

Yes, the world existed before humans showed up.. dino fossils proves the world existed before humans showed up.

So you are right about the world existed before it was conceptually known to exist by humans. Human language is a conceptual overlay upon a not-knowing world. Therefore, knowledge only ever points to the illusory nature of reality...of no thing - not-a-thing knowing.

Illusory because humans and their conceptual language is just a part of the inseparable EVERYTHING that is, was, and always will be.

Ahhh yes, the Oneness that I have not realized yet. I'm still working on that.

[SteveKlinko]

Here is the argument:
1) Change exists
2) The mind is needed for any change
3) Therefore there is a mind
(1) is obvious. (2) needs clarification (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481). (3) follows.

Change surely exists in the Physical World but I don't follow the Logic that a Mind is needed for this change to happen. A Mind is needed to Observe change but a Mind is not needed for the change to happen.

That I explain it in the link. If X and Y are two consecutive states of a system. X has to vanishes in order to leave room for Y. There is nothing however when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there should be a mind that experiences X and causes Y. Mind should exist to cause Y since you cannot get Y out of nothing. Mind however should experience X too in order to cause Y.

Your premise of mutually exclusive states is where your Logic is going wrong. Why does X have to vanish in it's entirety before Y comes into play. I think the proper way to think about this is that X morphs into Y. Properties of X cause Y as X is diminishing. If you are familiar with Electromagnetics then it is similar to how EM waves propagate. The Electric Component is created by the Magnetic Component and the Magnetic Component is created by the Electric Component. So as the Electric Component goes to zero, the fact of the Electric Component is changing is what is creating the Magnetic Component. It is a self propagating phenomenon of two sub phenomena that are coming and going.

[Dontaskme]

Ahhh yes, the Oneness that I have not realized yet. I'm still working on that.

The Oneness I speak of will not appear to you until you stop working on it. While you are working on it you are creating a duality, you are identified with the thought process.

The only way Nondual Oneness can appear to you, is if you allow the identity of you to disappear.

Of course no thing is really appearing or disappearing here, except identification with thought.

Nondual Oneness is already here completely absent of thought or a brain.

You cannot realise this while you are thinking there is a someone here/there to realise it.

Realisation is the dissolving of the personal identity. Like an ice-cube dissolving into the water to see it was always just water.