Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

Dubious wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:05 am You seem to be a little pissed-off based on the strident emphasis of your questions and arguments...but maybe I'm wrong and it was never so intended.
Nah. I didn't mean to give that impression.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:35 pm And from what do "quantum fields" emerge?
Dubious wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:05 am Why is that important?
Because you simply cannot arbitrarily declare (as if it were written in stone) that consciousness emerges from a "layer" of reality (quantum fields) without providing, not only a reasonable explanation for the existence of that particular layer, but also how and why something that bears absolutely no resemblance to mind and consciousness (i.e., "inanimate quantum particles" in the shape of a brain) is somehow able to produce mind and consciousness.
Dubious wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:05 am It adds nothing to the conversation!
On the contrary, it is the crux of the conversation.
Dubious wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:05 am It's an almost infallible certainty that we and EVERYTHING in the universe, meaning the universe itself is a complex of quantum fields.
You can only say that about the "material" (objective) features of the universe (as in the body and brain). You cannot say that (with absolute certainty) about the universe's subjectively-based features (as in the mind and consciousness).

And that's because the last time I checked, the so-called "hard [problem] of consciousness," along with the "mind/body [problem]" have yet to be resolved.

The implication of your assertion is that the Schrödinger equation...

(or any other mathematical formula used to describe photons, electrons, and all of the other subatomic particles)

...can also be applied to, again, the self-aware "agent" who sits at the throne of consciousness.

However (and unless you can provide evidence to the contrary), that simply is not the case.

Granted, there's an argument to be made that the holographic-like fabric that makes up the phenomenal features of our dreams is a "complex of quantum fields," but the "dreamer" of the dreams, not so much.

And even then, we are talking about quantum fields that are not a part of this universe, but more of the inner-workings of a "parallel universe" (in the form of the closed and autonomous "arena" of a human mind).

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:35 pm And lastly, Dubious, if you think that consciousness...

(or, more specifically, the self-aware "agent" that sits at the throne of consciousness)

...can be explained by emergence, then go for it. Let's hear your explanation.
Dubious wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:05 am Consciousness is derived from macroscopic entities called brains which in turn is composed of fundamental particles, i.e., atoms and molecules.
Right.

However, the problem is that whatever the fundamental (unquantifiable) substance is that makes-up the thought-controlling, dream-creating, qualia-sensing "possessor" of consciousness...

(as in the aforementioned "dreamer" of dreams)

...it is such a wholly different beast compared to the fundamental (quantifiable) substance that makes-up matter, that it (the "dreamer/agent") is simply not reducible to the constituent components of the system from which it emerges.

According to the Wiki definition of "Irreducibility":
Wiki wrote: In philosophy, a phenomenona [sic] is governed by the principle of irreducibility when a complete account of an entity is not possible at lower levels of explanation because the phenomenona exhibits novel properties beyond prediction and explanation in terms of lower levels.
Your entire argument is coming from the perspective of "weak" emergence (as opposed to "strong" emergence).

And again, according to Wiki (bolding/underlining mine):
Wiki wrote: Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. ... Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a high-level system upon its components; qualities produced this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts.
The bottom line is that, yes, the way the constituent properties of the brain are arranged does seem to be responsible for the "initial" emergence (or awakening) of the conscious "agent/dreamer" into existence,...

...but, again, the awakened, self-aware "agent" appears to be composed of such a wholly different (unquantifiable/unmeasurable) substance than that of the measurable substance from which it emerged, that there is no way of reconciling the two.

(And no, the fMRI and associated technology that the neurophysicists use to see and measure the "quantifiable processes" taking place within the brain...

[e.g., "hot spots" or increased blood flow or electrical activity in certain areas of the grey matter]

...cannot literally see or measure the phenomenal features of a dream as seen from the perspective of the dreamer.

What the dreamer experiences within the closed and subjective "arena" of her own mind is basically the inner-workings of, again, a "parallel universe" that is literally inaccessible to our measuring devices.)

_______
Dubious
Posts: 3984
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Dubious »

Forgive the delay and the somewhat truncated reply. There were other priorities heaped on me during the last few days. I wanted to comment especially on the wiki strong and weak emergence quote which I still plan to do...if you want, but at the moment the following will have to do...which I know you will not agree with; an interesting subject nevertheless!

Dubious wrote....> Why is that important?
seeds wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:49 pmBecause you simply cannot arbitrarily declare (as if it were written in stone) that consciousness emerges from a "layer" of reality (quantum fields) without providing, not only a reasonable explanation for the existence of that particular layer, but also how and why something that bears absolutely no resemblance to mind and consciousness (i.e., "inanimate quantum particles" in the shape of a brain) is somehow able to produce mind and consciousness.
That’s the difference between thinking philosophically or in terms of physics. I don’t need to provide a sub-layer upholding quantum fields. We don’t even know if there is anything more fundamental explaining it; perhaps, perhaps not! It’s enough to know this level – which is the lowest we know of - explains everything which exists...inclusive of all its higher manifestations.

In physics It's denoted as the domain of applicability or that which provides its own vocabulary and functioning rules. For instance, when discussing the complexities of relativistic gravity it’s not liable to be mentioned in a quantum context. That’s also the reason why it’s very unlikely for a single Theory of Everything to come into being as if merging into some kind of totality. There will only be theories in each of its identifiable domains coming together, expressing itself in parts as that which WE KNOW and experience.

Dubious wrote....> It's an almost infallible certainty that we and EVERYTHING in the universe, meaning the universe itself is a complex of quantum fields.
seeds wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:49 pmYou can only say that about the "material" (objective) features of the universe (as in the body and brain). You cannot say that (with absolute certainty) about the universe's subjectively-based features (as in the mind and consciousness).
This kind of Descartian dualism is such an old trope explaining nothing. Categorically stated, without a material brain (of some kind) it’s not possible to have a thought. If this sounds trite it’s only because it’s so obvious. Brain as object creates ALL of one’s subjective experiences.

What has to be resolved is how the material brain manages to experience or create consciousness to whatever extent it is capable of, consciousness being its physiological consequence. In the case of the Hard Problem it’s how these are experienced personally, that is, subjectively as qualia. Just as muscles are needed to move objects, so too are brains required to create thoughts and feelings. Both necessitate the background physiology to cause physical or mental movement; soul, psychokinesis or telepathy won’t be of any help. Such levels of Emergence are fantasy!
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

Dubious wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am Forgive the delay and the somewhat truncated reply. There were other priorities heaped on me during the last few days. I wanted to comment especially on the wiki strong and weak emergence quote which I still plan to do...if you want, but at the moment the following will have to do...which I know you will not agree with; an interesting subject nevertheless!
Yes, it is indeed an interesting subject (to us philosophy nerds, that is).

And even though we do often disagree with each other on some of the big questions, I still enjoy reading your well-written comments.

So, by all means, Dubious, let's hear what you have to say about strong and weak emergence.

I will hold back my further responses to your current reply until you've done so.
_______
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:17 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm Seed's, believe whatever you want. If you can make yourself believe there could be nothing, how can there need to be a, "creator." Is the, "creator," nothing? If you believe in a, "creator," than you do not believe there was ever nothing. It's impossible.
It is obvious that you made no real effort to carefully read what I wrote, for if you had, you would have seen that I declared that it "makes no sense" to think that reality arose (or emerged) from nothing.

Furthermore, the fact that you took the following line...
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm "...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute 'nothingness'?" for example, is pure meaningless fiction.
...and quoted it out of context in a way that made it seem like I was promoting it as being true, when, in fact, it was precisely what I was referring to that made no sense,...

...demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to be honest in a debate situation.
I've been following your discussion with Dubious, and find your understanding of the nature of consciousness very good and your explanations excellent. The reason I'm making a comment here is because you obviously felt I was being disingenuous in our earlier discussion and I wanted to go back to see where I might have been mistaken or misjudged what you said.

You are quite right that you said:
Yet, the problem is, if it truly was "pure and absolute nothingness" then it contained absolutely no precursory conditions or properties that could have given rise to the "somethingness" of the "reality" that we are presently experiencing.

So that makes no sense.
I you had left it there we would have been in total agreement. But what you went on to write confused me:
  • 1. How and from what source did the "eternal somethingness" acquire its being and properties?
  • 2. Why are the properties of the "eternal somethingness" so amenable to being shaped into pretty much anything imaginable - as is witnessed in the near infinite phenomenal features of the universe?
  • 3. How did the "eternal somethingness" manage to "wake up"? In other words, how did it manage to organize its constituent properties in such a way that would allow consciousness to "emerge" from the fabric of the "eternal somethingness" - especially if that consciousness might have been an initial Creator Being who then brought order to the "eternal somethingness"?
The reason the questions confused me is because they assume a premises that contradicts your earlier conclusion that, "pure and absolute nothingness," "makes no sense." Your very first question contradicts that conclusion: "how and from what source did the "eternal somethingness" acquire its being," assumes there could be a state or condition of no "something," i.e. "nothingness."

I agree that you definitely said non-existence is not possible, but then your first question assumes (or at least implies) it is, and that quite frankly confused me, and still does.

I also admit I ignored your other two questions because they are premised on the first and assume what is not really true.

Your second question of existence, "being amenable to being shaped into pretty much anything imaginable," is a bit vague: it it means literally anything imaginable of course it is not true because all sorts of existents which are physically impossible or impossible because they are logically contradictory can be imagined, but if it only means that ways physical existence can be arranged has no possible limit, that is obviously true, just as there is no limit to the ways a series of 1s and 0s can be organized, but there is nothing mysterious about that.

The third question assumes that consciousness is a, "something," which must be produced by something else. That is a baseless premise like the one for existence itself. Existense is not contingent on anything else. Consciousness is not a thing but a property or attribute and, like the physical property mass, simply is what it is. Nothing else makes or causes it.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted what you intended, but I've honetly tried to understand what you mean. If I have, my explanation should make it clear why I find your questions meaningless. That does not mean you have to and I'm not trying to convince you.
Dubious
Posts: 3984
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Dubious »

seeds wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:29 pm
Dubious wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am Forgive the delay and the somewhat truncated reply. There were other priorities heaped on me during the last few days. I wanted to comment especially on the wiki strong and weak emergence quote which I still plan to do...if you want, but at the moment the following will have to do...which I know you will not agree with; an interesting subject nevertheless!
Yes, it is indeed an interesting subject (to us philosophy nerds, that is).

And even though we do often disagree with each other on some of the big questions, I still enjoy reading your well-written comments.

So, by all means, Dubious, let's hear what you have to say about strong and weak emergence.

I will hold back my further responses to your current reply until you've done so.
_______
Hi Sands!

Again I apologize for the delay but you'll have to write me off for the time being...or longer. I have too many serious issues to contend with at this time and a waning interest in philosophical discussion. When the Existential becomes actual pursuit of the theoretical correspondingly diminishes.

Even though there never was much communication between us I can state sincerely it was always thought provoking.

Regards!
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Advocate »

Yes. Emergence is choosing a new metaphor for a higher complexity understanding. The process works in any direction, such as getting wetness from water molecules, mind from brain, or figuring out how to divide quarks. It's part of expanding our known "reality" into the unknown Actuality. That's the process of turning knowledge into understanding.

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. The conscious mind which we can access is a sub-set of mind. You are the continuity of your experience within that space. Consciousness is the momentary instance of that overall self-ness.

The neutral correlate of consciousness is the mind-pattern to the extent it replicates when you're paying attention to the same thing.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:16 pm Yes. Emergence is choosing a new metaphor for a higher complexity understanding. The process works in any direction, such as getting wetness from water molecules, mind from brain, or figuring out how to divide quarks. It's part of expanding our known "reality" into the unknown Actuality. That's the process of turning knowledge into understanding.

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. The conscious mind which we can access is a sub-set of mind. You are the continuity of your experience within that space. Consciousness is the momentary instance of that overall self-ness.

The neutral correlate of consciousness is the mind-pattern to the extent it replicates when you're paying attention to the same thing.
You are wrong in comparing the wetness of water, which is weak emergence since liquidity can be explained in terms of parts, and strong emergence consciousness, which is hard emergence and cannot be explained in terms of properties of parts. Strong emergence, such as conscious experience from insentient matter, is impossible. By the way, wetness is what you experience so-called Qualia. You don't experience the material. If you think about it.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=528212 time=1632593127 user_id=12593]
...strong emergence consciousness, which is hard emergence and cannot be explained in terms of properties of parts.
[/quote]

You've omitted the critical word "yet". We've only had science for a couple hundred years, neuroscience for about fifty, we haven't even formulated an answerable question about consciousness yet, and it would be extreme hubris to believe we should understand it now.

When it comes to this topic, today, we're in the same boat Plato was in with regard to material reality. The vocabulary to talk meaningfully about it does not yet exist. We have to find more data, more correlations, more meaningful distinctions, and eventually some causality.

In the meantime, what it definitely is, is mind-bound. What it definitely is, is a semantic construct to explain our embodied experience.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by popeye1945 »

Consciousness is the relationship of subject and object, the energies which constitute ultimate reality having their affects upon one's a body/biology. So yes, consciousness is an emergent quality, only half of your brain/mind is encased within your skull the other half is the energies processed by the body as a readout, as the world as object or objects. To alter one's consciousness all one needs to do is alter one's biology, certainly the apparent reality of other species is not identical to our own, different biology different apparent reality. I do not know what the distinction is between strong emergence and weak emergence but it most definitely is emergence. The question is, are not all relational properties emergence by their very nature?
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Dimebag »

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 7:05 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:16 pm Yes. Emergence is choosing a new metaphor for a higher complexity understanding. The process works in any direction, such as getting wetness from water molecules, mind from brain, or figuring out how to divide quarks. It's part of expanding our known "reality" into the unknown Actuality. That's the process of turning knowledge into understanding.

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. The conscious mind which we can access is a sub-set of mind. You are the continuity of your experience within that space. Consciousness is the momentary instance of that overall self-ness.

The neutral correlate of consciousness is the mind-pattern to the extent it replicates when you're paying attention to the same thing.
You are wrong in comparing the wetness of water, which is weak emergence since liquidity can be explained in terms of parts, and strong emergence consciousness, which is hard emergence and cannot be explained in terms of properties of parts. Strong emergence, such as conscious experience from insentient matter, is impossible. By the way, wetness is what you experience so-called Qualia. You don't experience the material. If you think about it.
D you think the sensation of wetness could be further broken down? I think what we call wetness, would be a combination of different sense perceptions, such as temperature and touch.

We don’t have wetness receptors in our skin, so likely, wetness is a property of combined sense perceptions.

The question then remains, what do we call a property which is a combination of two or more sub perceptions? Could we say that new property “emerged”? What do you want to call that? Do you have a good word to explain that? A combinatorial novelty perhaps? I prefer the term emergence.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:53 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 7:05 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:16 pm Yes. Emergence is choosing a new metaphor for a higher complexity understanding. The process works in any direction, such as getting wetness from water molecules, mind from brain, or figuring out how to divide quarks. It's part of expanding our known "reality" into the unknown Actuality. That's the process of turning knowledge into understanding.

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. The conscious mind which we can access is a sub-set of mind. You are the continuity of your experience within that space. Consciousness is the momentary instance of that overall self-ness.

The neutral correlate of consciousness is the mind-pattern to the extent it replicates when you're paying attention to the same thing.
You are wrong in comparing the wetness of water, which is weak emergence since liquidity can be explained in terms of parts, and strong emergence consciousness, which is hard emergence and cannot be explained in terms of properties of parts. Strong emergence, such as conscious experience from insentient matter, is impossible. By the way, wetness is what you experience so-called Qualia. You don't experience the material. If you think about it.
Do you think the sensation of wetness could be further broken down?
Our fingers can perceive the surface tension. Surface tension can be shown that it is the result of how atoms/molecules move and interact. In fact, this surface tension can be calculated today. What we experience/wetness is the result of surface tension. It is created by the subconscious mind for the conscious mind who is you. Of course, the subconscious mind receives sensory input from your finger.
Dimebag wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:53 am I think what we call wetness, would be a combination of different sense perceptions, such as temperature and touch.
It is simply touch. Touch is nothing but a sense of pressure. It is true that we feel cold when we get wet because the water evaporates and that decreases the temperature of the skin.
Dimebag wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:53 am We don’t have wetness receptors in our skin, so likely, wetness is a property of combined sense perceptions.
We have receptors for the pressure though.
Dimebag wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:53 am The question then remains, what do we call a property which is a combination of two or more sub perceptions? Could we say that new property “emerged”? What do you want to call that? Do you have a good word to explain that? A combinatorial novelty perhaps? I prefer the term emergence.
Weak emergence yes whereby weak emergence I mean the property of the whole, surface tension of water in this example is a function of the properties of molecules of water. Strong emergence no.
Post Reply