Mind is immortal II

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:52 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:12 pm
Sculptor 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?
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.
Exactly. If it's physical, let's see it.
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 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.
Yes you can. Just like gravity and x rays. COnsciousness is just more complex, as you would expect.

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.
What flavoour do you like your fudge?
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.

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.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:01 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:19 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:15 am
Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
You are making no sense.
Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
Could we please agree that the mind is needed for any change for the sake of argument?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:02 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:13 am
I gave you my assessment of how physicalism has the answer:
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?


Now where is YOURS.????
Stop avoiding the question and contrinute something. All you have done is criticise others but offered nothing in return.
The physical properties of the whole are functions of properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence/magic.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
I have an argument against emergence. You can find it here.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:41 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:35 am My definition is not mystic nonsense. Consciousness simply is the state of being aware and it is a property of the mind. That is materialism which is mystic nonsense when it comes to consciousness.
To claim anything is, "immortal," is mystic nonsense.
Then please tell me what is wrong with my argument, OP?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:52 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:12 pm

Exactly. If it's physical, let's see it.
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 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.
Yes you can. Just like gravity and x rays. COnsciousness is just more complex, as you would expect.

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.
What flavoour do you like your fudge?
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.

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.
That is a complete travesty of what is actually going on. I can see how the "its all magic" criticism might be aimed at dualism, or spiritualism, psychism, but not emergance, since there is a long history where these emergent qualities have been fully described by science. Aristotle thought that consciousness somehow emerged by the spirit animating the body. He thought that the brain was nothing more than a heat radiator to cool the heart. Neuroscience has demonstrated clearly that consciousness is an emergant quality of the brain. The emergent quality of stainless steel was not understood for over two thousand years. And there may well have been those that thought that steel had magical properties from the Gods of the Forge. Now we know in terms of material science how carbon and iron bonds to make steel. THere are thousands of such examples throughout science from the simple to the complex encompassing such things as evolution being a emergent quality of generational reproduction.
Seriously-- Why do you think your answer does not look like 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.
If you think you have a better answer, and will share it, then I may well be able to understand why you think you have something better.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:46 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:01 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:19 am
You are making no sense.
Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
Could we please agree that the mind is needed for any change for the sake of argument?
No the universe is in constant change regardless of our minds which are only observers.
I see no reason to think that the ever changing red spot of Jupiter which may well have existed for millions of years requires any mind of any kind. Why would I think that?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:02 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:32 am
The physical properties of the whole are functions of properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence/magic.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
I have an argument against emergence. You can find it here.
This is funny. Energence is a fact of life. I do not think you really understand what the word means.
I think it is a fact that emergence has been a concept from the earliest times, and that no one is going to argue that emergent properties do not come about from the combination of simpler elements.
I think it is also possible to construct a massive list of emergent properties where a more detailed knowledge and scientific description of elements are laws of nature has thrown light on just HOW these emergent properties come to be from the physical nature of the parts, IN fact the recognition of those emergent properties have, in many cases, been of great help to science in demonstrating just how those physicals laws and primary properties can join together to create them so that laws have been demonstrated by their observation.
All this point to an unfolding of understanding whereby epistemological emergence or should we say empirical emergence has been proven and demonstrated, to obey and reveal the complexity of the structures of the world.
We no longer believe, as Aristotle did that the brain served as a cooling agent for the heart. Through diligent study we have a clear idea that consciousness is an epistemologically emergent quality of the structuration of neural tissue.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:25 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:46 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:01 pm

Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
Could we please agree that the mind is needed for any change for the sake of argument?
No the universe is in constant change regardless of our minds which are only observers.
I see no reason to think that the ever changing red spot of Jupiter which may well have existed for millions of years requires any mind of any kind. Why would I think that?
I have an argument in favor of that. If you accept this for sake of argument then I can show you that the mind is immortal. I can prove later that mind is needed for any change.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:28 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:02 pm

You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
I have an argument against emergence. You can find it here.
This is funny. Energence is a fact of life. I do not think you really understand what the word means.
I think it is a fact that emergence has been a concept from the earliest times, and that no one is going to argue that emergent properties do not come about from the combination of simpler elements.
I think it is also possible to construct a massive list of emergent properties where a more detailed knowledge and scientific description of elements are laws of nature has thrown light on just HOW these emergent properties come to be from the physical nature of the parts, IN fact the recognition of those emergent properties have, in many cases, been of great help to science in demonstrating just how those physicals laws and primary properties can join together to create them so that laws have been demonstrated by their observation.
All this point to an unfolding of understanding whereby epistemological emergence or should we say empirical emergence has been proven and demonstrated, to obey and reveal the complexity of the structures of the world.
We no longer believe, as Aristotle did that the brain served as a cooling agent for the heart. Through diligent study we have a clear idea that consciousness is an epistemologically emergent quality of the structuration of neural tissue.
What is wrong with my argument?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:48 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:25 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:46 pm
Could we please agree that the mind is needed for any change for the sake of argument?
No the universe is in constant change regardless of our minds which are only observers.
I see no reason to think that the ever changing red spot of Jupiter which may well have existed for millions of years requires any mind of any kind. Why would I think that?
I have an argument in favor of that. If you accept this for sake of argument then I can show you that the mind is immortal. I can prove later that mind is needed for any change.
You ask me to beleive the absurd so you can prove the ridiculous
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:51 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:28 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:49 pm
I have an argument against emergence. You can find it here.
This is funny. Energence is a fact of life. I do not think you really understand what the word means.
I think it is a fact that emergence has been a concept from the earliest times, and that no one is going to argue that emergent properties do not come about from the combination of simpler elements.
I think it is also possible to construct a massive list of emergent properties where a more detailed knowledge and scientific description of elements are laws of nature has thrown light on just HOW these emergent properties come to be from the physical nature of the parts, IN fact the recognition of those emergent properties have, in many cases, been of great help to science in demonstrating just how those physicals laws and primary properties can join together to create them so that laws have been demonstrated by their observation.
All this point to an unfolding of understanding whereby epistemological emergence or should we say empirical emergence has been proven and demonstrated, to obey and reveal the complexity of the structures of the world.
We no longer believe, as Aristotle did that the brain served as a cooling agent for the heart. Through diligent study we have a clear idea that consciousness is an epistemologically emergent quality of the structuration of neural tissue.
What is wrong with my argument?
You've not presented one
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:52 pm
Can you see gravity ,the strong nuclear force, x-rays, atoms, radio waves ad infinitem. No one has a problem with them being physical.

Yes you can. Just like gravity and x rays. COnsciousness is just more complex, as you would expect.



What flavoour do you like your fudge?
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.

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.
That is a complete travesty of what is actually going on. I can see how the "its all magic" criticism might be aimed at dualism, or spiritualism, psychism, but not emergance, since there is a long history where these emergent qualities have been fully described by science. Aristotle thought that consciousness somehow emerged by the spirit animating the body. He thought that the brain was nothing more than a heat radiator to cool the heart. Neuroscience has demonstrated clearly that consciousness is an emergant quality of the brain. The emergent quality of stainless steel was not understood for over two thousand years. And there may well have been those that thought that steel had magical properties from the Gods of the Forge. Now we know in terms of material science how carbon and iron bonds to make steel. THere are thousands of such examples throughout science from the simple to the complex encompassing such things as evolution being a emergent quality of generational reproduction.
Seriously-- Why do you think your answer does not look like 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.
If you think you have a better answer, and will share it, then I may well be able to understand why you think you have something better.
Better answer to what question? I don't think anything else is responsible for producing consciousness, because I regard it as a fundamental attribute of existence, like position, motion, and acceleration. Like gravity, it does not emerge from something else, its just an attribute of existence. As far as I'm concerned, how it comes to be does not need to be explained, it only has to be recognized and it's nature described, like momentum or force. They don't emerge from something else.

I don't need an answer. If you do, your explanation is probably as good as it gets.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:37 pm
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.

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.
That is a complete travesty of what is actually going on. I can see how the "its all magic" criticism might be aimed at dualism, or spiritualism, psychism, but not emergance, since there is a long history where these emergent qualities have been fully described by science. Aristotle thought that consciousness somehow emerged by the spirit animating the body. He thought that the brain was nothing more than a heat radiator to cool the heart. Neuroscience has demonstrated clearly that consciousness is an emergant quality of the brain. The emergent quality of stainless steel was not understood for over two thousand years. And there may well have been those that thought that steel had magical properties from the Gods of the Forge. Now we know in terms of material science how carbon and iron bonds to make steel. THere are thousands of such examples throughout science from the simple to the complex encompassing such things as evolution being a emergent quality of generational reproduction.
Seriously-- Why do you think your answer does not look like 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.
If you think you have a better answer, and will share it, then I may well be able to understand why you think you have something better.
Better answer to what question? I don't think anything else is responsible for producing consciousness, because I regard it as a fundamental attribute of existence, like position, motion, and acceleration. Like gravity, it does not emerge from something else, its just an attribute of existence. As far as I'm concerned, how it comes to be does not need to be explained, it only has to be recognized and it's nature described, like momentum or force. They don't emerge from something else.

I don't need an answer. If you do, your explanation is probably as good as it gets.
There ia big problem with that.
Iron rusts. And emergent property of steel and carbon is that it does not rust.
A rotting brain in a bucket does not see to be conscious, but you are saying it is.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:21 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:23 pm
That is a complete travesty of what is actually going on. I can see how the "its all magic" criticism might be aimed at dualism, or spiritualism, psychism, but not emergance, since there is a long history where these emergent qualities have been fully described by science. Aristotle thought that consciousness somehow emerged by the spirit animating the body. He thought that the brain was nothing more than a heat radiator to cool the heart. Neuroscience has demonstrated clearly that consciousness is an emergant quality of the brain. The emergent quality of stainless steel was not understood for over two thousand years. And there may well have been those that thought that steel had magical properties from the Gods of the Forge. Now we know in terms of material science how carbon and iron bonds to make steel. THere are thousands of such examples throughout science from the simple to the complex encompassing such things as evolution being a emergent quality of generational reproduction.
Seriously-- Why do you think your answer does not look like magic?


If you think you have a better answer, and will share it, then I may well be able to understand why you think you have something better.
Better answer to what question? I don't think anything else is responsible for producing consciousness, because I regard it as a fundamental attribute of existence, like position, motion, and acceleration. Like gravity, it does not emerge from something else, its just an attribute of existence. As far as I'm concerned, how it comes to be does not need to be explained, it only has to be recognized and it's nature described, like momentum or force. They don't emerge from something else.

I don't need an answer. If you do, your explanation is probably as good as it gets.
There ia big problem with that.
Iron rusts. And emergent property of steel and carbon is that it does not rust.
A rotting brain in a bucket does not see to be conscious, but you are saying it is.
I am? Well, I don't know how you got that from what I said, but just to make it clear, the brain is not conscious of anything. There is no more consciousness in a brain than there is in a liver or kidney, its just more closely related to consciousness.

I know that's not your view. I'm just pointing out what you said about mine is not true.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:58 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:21 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:16 pm
Better answer to what question? I don't think anything else is responsible for producing consciousness, because I regard it as a fundamental attribute of existence, like position, motion, and acceleration. Like gravity, it does not emerge from something else, its just an attribute of existence. As far as I'm concerned, how it comes to be does not need to be explained, it only has to be recognized and it's nature described, like momentum or force. They don't emerge from something else.

I don't need an answer. If you do, your explanation is probably as good as it gets.
There ia big problem with that.
Iron rusts. And emergent property of steel and carbon is that it does not rust.
A rotting brain in a bucket does not see to be conscious, but you are saying it is.
I am? Well, I don't know how you got that from what I said, but just to make it clear, the brain is not conscious of anything. There is no more consciousness in a brain than there is in a liver or kidney, its just more closely related to consciousness.

I know that's not your view. I'm just pointing out what you said about mine is not true.
So you are sying tow things.
1) Consciousness is a property of the entire universe
2) Brains are not conscious
Am i right so far?
Post Reply