Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Impenitent »

however, if ert is full, consciousness has no home...

-Imp
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 3:59 pm I think that the Bohmian interpretation is the correct one. So there is no collapse of the wave function, no Shrodinger cat paradox, etc. In regards to measurement, a quantum system just gets disturbed when you make a measurement. Why? Because it is delicate.
Delicacy indicates degree of sensitivity...sensitivity to causes.

Further the existence of consciousness led to our talking about it. If it cannot be causal, then it would never be mentioned. I am not making the trite observation that without consciousness we would talk, perhaps robots or zombies without consciousness would still talk, jsut have no experiencing. I am saying that the fact of consciousness triggers us to talk about it. To think about it and not sex and TV programs. Suddenly it strikes us, on occasion, hey, I am experiencing, what is that about? how did that happen?

Those are effects of the phononmenon consciousness.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself. We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
One will not be going anywhere rationally with the very loose term 'consciousness' until we put it within the whole perspective of life from the day living things emerge till the present of human evolution.

Problem is you are merely defining consciousness from yours or some specific perspective while other have different perspective.

1. The first consideration is whether an organic thing is either alive or dead.

2. So, we are considering only organic things that are alive within a hierarchy from the simplest to the most complex.

3. Within the hierarchy, from the simplest upward, we have an emergence of organic things within the more complex beings that have abilities to be conscious, i.e. from beings with no brains to having brains.

4. For those beings with brains we then have two basic levels of consciousness, i.e. awake or asleep and perhaps in coma.

5. As we move up to more complex being to the uppermost we have different levels of consciousness, i.e. awake, sleep, dreaming, coma, subliminal consciousness, reflective consciousness and highest of all self-consciousness.

From the above we can infer consciousness is a psychological state.
This psychological state is represented by its neural correlates, i.e.

"We seek, in particular, the Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness (NCC), defined as the minimal neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any specific conscious experience."

Image

In this sense, we cannot claim that consciousness is inert as you did.
Such a minimal neuronal mechanisms is only inert when a being which has such a feature is dead.

As such, consciousness is merely a biological-psychological state represented by its relevant minimal neuronal mechanisms, i.e. the Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) that emerged from the 4 billion years of evolution from single cell to the humans.
There is nothing mystery to this process of evolution.

The task now is for humanity and scientists to nail down this Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness so that improvements can be made to enable the average human to increase his level of consciousness for the better.

If you are trying to nail consciousness as some sort of entity that is inert and was infused into the brain from somewhere out there, you are going nowhere.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:57 am
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 3:59 pm I think that the Bohmian interpretation is the correct one. So there is no collapse of the wave function, no Shrodinger cat paradox, etc. In regards to measurement, a quantum system just gets disturbed when you make a measurement. Why? Because it is delicate.
Delicacy indicates degree of sensitivity...sensitivity to causes.

Further the existence of consciousness led to our talking about it. If it cannot be causal, then it would never be mentioned. I am not making the trite observation that without consciousness we would talk, perhaps robots or zombies without consciousness would still talk, jsut have no experiencing. I am saying that the fact of consciousness triggers us to talk about it. To think about it and not sex and TV programs. Suddenly it strikes us, on occasion, hey, I am experiencing, what is that about? how did that happen?

Those are effects of the phononmenon consciousness.
Consciousness, as I mentioned is necessary for causation but not sufficient.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:00 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself. We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
One will not be going anywhere rationally with the very loose term 'consciousness' until we put it within the whole perspective of life from the day living things emerge till the present of human evolution.

Problem is you are merely defining consciousness from yours or some specific perspective while other have different perspective.

1. The first consideration is whether an organic thing is either alive or dead.

2. So, we are considering only organic things that are alive within a hierarchy from the simplest to the most complex.

3. Within the hierarchy, from the simplest upward, we have an emergence of organic things within the more complex beings that have abilities to be conscious, i.e. from beings with no brains to having brains.

4. For those beings with brains we then have two basic levels of consciousness, i.e. awake or asleep and perhaps in coma.

5. As we move up to more complex being to the uppermost we have different levels of consciousness, i.e. awake, sleep, dreaming, coma, subliminal consciousness, reflective consciousness and highest of all self-consciousness.

From the above we can infer consciousness is a psychological state.
This psychological state is represented by its neural correlates, i.e.

"We seek, in particular, the Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness (NCC), defined as the minimal neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any specific conscious experience."

Image

In this sense, we cannot claim that consciousness is inert as you did.
Such a minimal neuronal mechanisms is only inert when a being which has such a feature is dead.

As such, consciousness is merely a biological-psychological state represented by its relevant minimal neuronal mechanisms, i.e. the Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) that emerged from the 4 billion years of evolution from single cell to the humans.
There is nothing mystery to this process of evolution.

The task now is for humanity and scientists to nail down this Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness so that improvements can be made to enable the average human to increase his level of consciousness for the better.

If you are trying to nail consciousness as some sort of entity that is inert and was infused into the brain from somewhere out there, you are going nowhere.
We have been through this several times. There is no strong emergence. What you observe in more complex beings, such as thinking, is soft emergence. So you could not have consciousness as a result of neural activity.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 7:29 pm Consciousness, as I mentioned is necessary for causation but not sufficient.
Interesting. I do see that you said it wasn't causal on it's own. I probably didn't put enough stock in that. But you also said it is inert. If it can make any difference I'm not sure we can use that adjective. That said, I didn't see in the OP that you consider it necessary for causation. But I assume you mean in that situation where observation makes a difference. Or? You don't mean it is necessary in all causation, or?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:53 pm We have been through this several times. There is no strong emergence. What you observe in more complex beings, such as thinking, is soft emergence. So you could not have consciousness as a result of neural activity.
The problem with your view is you take 'consciousness' in the loosest sense with no specific meaning, i.e.
"Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind."
which is fallacious with equivocation, i.e.
What is inert cannot lead to a mind which is active.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inert

The "consciousness" that I have described is empirically real which can be justified and verified.
There are no other type of real consciousness other than the empirical consciousness I have demonstrated above.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 7:29 pm Consciousness, as I mentioned is necessary for causation but not sufficient.
Interesting. I do see that you said it wasn't causal on it's own. I probably didn't put enough stock in that. But you also said it is inert.
By inert, I mean that it cannot cause anything on its own. I am sure that there is a better word for this.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pm If it can make any difference I'm not sure we can use that adjective. That said, I didn't see in the OP that you consider it necessary for causation.
That was kinda obvious to me and that is why I didn't mention it OP. You cannot possibly cause anything if you are not conscious.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pm But I assume you mean in that situation where observation makes a difference.
There cannot be any causation if there is no observation.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pm Or? You don't mean it is necessary in all causation, or?
It is necessary for all causation.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:20 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:53 pm We have been through this several times. There is no strong emergence. What you observe in more complex beings, such as thinking, is soft emergence. So you could not have consciousness as a result of neural activity.
The problem with your view is you take 'consciousness' in the loosest sense with no specific meaning, i.e.
"Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind."
which is fallacious with equivocation, i.e.
What is inert cannot lead to a mind which is active.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inert

The "consciousness" that I have described is empirically real which can be justified and verified.
There are no other type of real consciousness other than the empirical consciousness I have demonstrated above.
By inert, I mean that it cannot cause things on its own. How possibly could you cause if you are not conscious? So consciousness is important on its own. But, consciousness does not have the capacity to cause since by definition is the ability to experience. You need to have the ability to cause too.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:52 pm It is necessary for all causation.
So, there was no causation before conscious minds?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:59 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:52 pm It is necessary for all causation.
So, there was no causation before conscious minds?
There cannot be any causation without conscious minds.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:01 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:59 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:52 pm It is necessary for all causation.
So, there was no causation before conscious minds?
There cannot be any causation without conscious minds.
So, presumably you do not believe, at least entirely, in the chronology of darwinian evolution OR you believe some things are conscious that are not (yet) considered conscious by scientific consensus. Or?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:24 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:01 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:59 pm
So, there was no causation before conscious minds?
There cannot be any causation without conscious minds.
So, presumably you do not believe, at least entirely, in the chronology of darwinian evolution OR you believe some things are conscious that are not (yet) considered conscious by scientific consensus. Or?
I don't think that the strong emergence is correct so you cannot have consciousness from something which is unconscious. You don't believe in magic. Do you? I have an argument against the strong emergence.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:43 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:24 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:01 pm
There cannot be any causation without conscious minds.
So, presumably you do not believe, at least entirely, in the chronology of darwinian evolution OR you believe some things are conscious that are not (yet) considered conscious by scientific consensus. Or?
I don't think that the strong emergence is correct so you cannot have consciousness from something which is unconscious. You don't believe in magic. Do you? I have an argument against the strong emergence.
That's going general, I'm trying to get a sense of specifics. Darwinian evolution and, well, most cosmology, generally sees organic life (pardon the redundancy) as coming after inorganic forms of matter. So, the options I could see were 1) you think some things not considered conscious by consensus science are in fact conscious (and were, for example, conscious before animal life evolved) OR 2) you think there has been some form of conscious life going all the way back to the beginning of the universe or at least to the Big Bang. I may very well be missing some other options, so let me know. I suppose their could be something different about time.

To put it simply: generally in the science community both life and consciousness are latecomers in the universe. That there was a lot of causation preceding organic life, with lots of cause and effects. So, your model must have significant differences from what most scientists believe now.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Dimebag »

Inert

Lacking the ability or strength to move.

I think it all hinges on what you mean by consciousness.

The contents of consciousness sure move. And certain stimuli lead to a reaction in our body which is movement.

Consciousness does not work alone.

It works in conjunction with the body.

Consciousness is also a control mechanism for the body, as well as a display of states of the world around us.

Consciousness tracks the bodily position and state, and if those states or conditions are in need of adjustment, it can and will send signals to do so.

But you also believe there is something called the mind, separate from consciousness, something which embodies consciousness and is responsible for all causation from a human.

Yet, without consciousness, this mind can do nothing. It needs to know the states of the body and the world to make any meaningful change.

Therefore, it must not be separate from consciousness, or at least cannot be to be effective. It could also be not separate. The separation might be a perceptual filter you are applying, separating something whole which is no fact inseparable.
Post Reply