What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 53 - 72 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
FredC

Boulder climber
Santa Cruz, CA
Aug 29, 2011 - 03:22pm PT
I have been thinking about this lately, very interesting thread. I am not a trained philosopher so my stuff will be pretty personal, or at least from "my" perspective.

For me this boils down to the simple question about does consciousness or awareness arise from a certain number of neurons or connections or is it something separate. Are we just meat computers or is there more?

In a related thought lately it occurs to me that this world we pop into when we are born seems like a big ongoing river of progress and development and so on, a linear timeline. The problem is that the “I” that has popped into this apparently pre-existing stream is absolutely required to experience anything at all, including this stream itself.

When I die this stream will be lost to “me” forever as if both I and it never were. If I am the only one’s perception I care about do I and reality just vanish all at once? Did this very solid stream of time actually exist, did “I“exist?

Hmmm
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 29, 2011 - 03:34pm PT
searle et al. want "consciousness" the be something that's more than special-- they want a qualitative rather than a merely quantitative line between other animals and humans called "consciousness."

"language" isn't good enough for john and the others.


at that point, you might start to suspect, as folks from foucault to dennett have argued, that "consciousness" is just a 21st century word for "soul."
-


I don’t think Searle and others were hoping for anything “special,” rather they were looking at their own minds and asking: What is going on? Is mathematics and data processing answering the questions I have about consciousness? Can I probe these waters with more than a ruler and avoid the terrible cries of those saying I am perforce engaging in wu wu bullsh#t?

I think Craig (Dr. F) was wondering where human consciousness fit into the evolutionary ladder. Maybe he can ask a giraffe or stink bug what it thinks about this thread, phyicalism, reeductionism, and so forth. This thread doesn't make us "better," in my view. And that's not the question, anyhow.

Ascribing consciousness to the effect of language is simplistic, as is expecting measuring to answer the “hard” questions. Dismissing the questions themselves is rapping off because of a little loose rock. Measure one of Ed's Yosemite photos if you please and tell me about language. BTW, the reason I "bullied" Ed was because he was basically saying all along that philosophy, from the Greeks on down, had given us "nil," when in fact western civilization is the fruit of these "mere talkers." But that's another drift . . .

The interesting and tricky things here include:

A third-person description of consciousness is totally different than consciousness itself. While consciousness can to varying degrees be found in other species (who can say to what degree), the important thing here is that WE are conscious, and we know this as a simple and empirical fact.

Consciousness is subjective, known through first-person experience – it IS first-person experience - so it is difficult to objectify in the normal (measuring) ways. This, I believe, is the principal beef that science has with consciousness itself, and why it struggles to reframe consciousness into something by which it can wrangle it down by known methods. But it has to be something like classical physics not explaining the quantum world, and people at first simply dismissing the quantum world as (fill in the blank).

For instance, Ed wrote: “First and foremost, an education in science teaches us how to ask a scientific question. The point being that if you cannot frame a curiosity in a way which is accessible to the scientific method the chances you will obtain a scientific answer vanishes.”

So far, so good. If you can’t measure it, it ain’t “science.

“My realization with discussing this subject with Largo is that he is not asking a scientific question. And so another thread would be more appropriate with the title "The Science of Mind" which would be quite different than Largo's "What Is Mind?" Though I hesitate to suggest such a thing... (although I guess I just did).”

I’m fine with measurements describing what consciousness IS, but so long as people are chasing after data processing and not human experience, we’re talking about different things.

Going on with Ed: “I have hypothesized on other threads that we actually know what each other is thinking only through our ability to communicate. I can expand on this, but one objection to the scientific study of "mind" is that it does not consider the "subjective experience.”

This would be a valuable point if the object of inquiry was a nutrino or a hub cap but in fact consciousness, as we live and breath it, IS a subjective experience. It can be nothing less since we, as subjects, are its keepers (perhaps not exclusively) through direct experience. IOWs, consciousness is not a third-person thing, so treating it as such will give us mixed results.

Perhaps what Ed and others want is for consciousness to be something other than what it really is in our actual lives. He wants consciousness to exist “as it is in itself” (as a mechanism, not an experience), “independent of perspective” (when consciousness is and always be beholden to the perspective of the person having the experience), “ with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience,” which is like saying: “While consciousness is known only through our direct experience, our investigation of consciousness should first and foremost eliminate experience.”

But there is still room for natural science to probe the relationship between matter and mind, but that too has formidable challenges, like how does matter become experience, and where, exactly, in the causal chain, does this happen, and how. Of course the claim that experience is “what the meat brain does,” will never do owing to the vast qualitative differences between subjective experience (beyond neural “output”) and atomic activity.

Hell if I know how to wrestle this down . . .

JL
jstan

climber
Aug 29, 2011 - 03:44pm PT
FC:
I think you need to decide what you mean by "exist". Here is a candidate:

Something, anything "exists" if that object can be shown, on interaction with another object, to have been affected in any way.

You will know you exist if you do the following. Take a hammer in your right hand and smash your left thumb. A confirming experiment should also be done to show that a different action produces a different effect. Put the hammer in your left hand and smash your right thumb.

All very easily done. You will have an answer to this thousand year old question, in no time at all.

The point?

We get unanswerable philosophical questions simply through poor use of language.

If we assume philosophers are bright, they have to realize what it is they are doing. It is a very simple realization. So which of the two possibilities do you think is operable?

1. Philosophers are not suited for discussion of questions?

2. Philosophers are insincere.

Proposals for the meaning of "existence" that are apriori not testable do not merit discussion.
squishy

Mountain climber
sacramento
Aug 29, 2011 - 03:50pm PT
You guys gotta read this, it's super awesome, weld it approves it!

http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192805851

healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:08pm PT
Largo: ...like how does matter become experience, and where, exactly, in the causal chain, does this happen, and how. Of course the claim that experience is “what the meat brain does,” will never do owing to the vast qualitative differences between subjective experience (beyond neural “output”) and atomic activity.

You (and I suspect this is endemic to many philosophers) keep looking for some secret alchemy that will transmute one noun (meat) into another noun (experience) when in all likelihood both are simply attributes of the same verb.

The neural substrates of conscious color perception demonstrated using fMRI

It is well established that seeing color activates the ventral occipital cortex, including the fusiform and lingual gyri, but less is known about whether the region directly relates to conscious color perception. We investigated the neural correlates of conscious color perception in the ventral occipital cortex. To vary conscious color perception with the stimuli-remaining constant, we took advantage of the McCollough effect, an illusory color effect that is contingent on the orientation of grating stimuli. Subjects were exposed to a specific combination of chromatic grating patterns for 10 min to induce the McCollough effect. We compared brain activities measured while the subjects viewed achromatic grating stimuli before (PRE) and after the induction of the McCollough effect (POST) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). There were two groups: one group was informed that they would perceive illusory color during the session (INFORMED group), whereas the other group was not informed (UNINFORMED group). The successful induction of the McCollough effect was confirmed in all subjects after the fMRI experiment; nevertheless, only approximately half of the UNINFORMED subjects had been aware of the color during the POST session, while the other half had not. The left anterior portion of the color-selective area in the ventral occipital cortex, presumably V4α, was significantly active in subjects who had consciously perceived the color during MR scan. This study demonstrates the activity in a subregion of the color-selective area in the ventral occipital cortex directly related to conscious color perception.
jstan

climber
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:10pm PT
Dingus:
You give voice to a conclusion I reached freshman year. Courage greater than my own is possessed by both yourself and Ed Hartouni.

The horrible truth is now out.

Joe:
Very good! I will have to research the McCullough Effect. Your paper indicates work in the field regarding the conscious/subconscious dichotomy is ongoing. Something I thought to be quite probable. I would also guess NIMH is funding it to deal with increasingly important afflictions such as the one I mentioned.

Edit: Joe
I did not go through the training period required to demonstrate the McCollough Effect. Entirely reasonable that this happens. Our visual systems are quite adaptable; they even fill in the scene we can't see because of the blind spot associated with the central nerve. The effect here is probably simply related to the training effect associated with synapses being strengthened due to repeated excitation. The effect lasting months, however, is a little scary. Enough reason right there not to do a full test of the effect.

T Chief:
"The main function of virtuous concentration is to make the mind peaceful."

When my car is sliding toward the guardrail on slick ice I am definitely concentrating but my mind is not "peaceful".

If I am trying to avoid an accident, why is my concentration not considered "virtuous"?

Or is it that "virtuous concentration" only works part of the time?

Any guidance as to when I can expect it to work and when not?
jstan

climber
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:31pm PT
FT:
Altogether possible. Got an example?
malabarista

Trad climber
Portland, OR
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:51pm PT
Since a strict computational model can be summarily ruled out, and a “brain is consciousness” model is insisting that an apple is an orange, and religious explanations are equally unsatisfactory, one wonders what direction is needed to wrestle this one down.

I disagree that a computational model can be ruled out. And I don't buy Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment which hinges on "understanding". I can solve math problems but do I "understand" them? Do I understand what math is? I don't know that I do so I don't see how I'm different than a machine in this regard. I can recognize patterns.

I recommend "Words Made Flesh" by Ramsey Dukes for your continued explorations...

http://www.amazon.com/Words-Made-Flesh-Ramsey-Dukes/dp/0904311112/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314651064&sr=1-2

blurb from Amazon "this remains the most thorough and complete discussion of the virtual model of the universe"

The thing I love about this book is that the author also originally hated the idea that a machine could have consciousness. But he found that by accepting it fully and extending it to everything... that if everything is in fact just information, then it does not preclude the existence of all our beloved subjective phenomena. If the universe if virtual, then there can an infinite number of such universes and anything we can dream of could exist therein.

Re - the direct, first person experience of hanging 2,500 up the Shield on El Capitan, in boardshorts, in a lightning storm, is a different “thing” than a milk shake or a cockroach.

Maybe it's only different because it's not as commonplace. If you did this everyday it could be a milk shake?
cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:57pm PT
malabarista

Trad climber
Portland, OR
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:04pm PT
Going along with the computational model (the universe and consciousness as information) idea...

The Meta Matrix:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18toLb9zros
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
Do you or your gut bacteria control how you [(sub)consciously] feel today...?

Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve

There is increasing, but largely indirect, evidence pointing to an effect of commensal gut microbiota on the central nervous system (CNS). However, it is unknown whether lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus could have a direct effect on neurotransmitter receptors in the CNS in normal, healthy animals. GABA is the main CNS inhibitory neurotransmitter and is significantly involved in regulating many physiological and psychological processes. Alterations in central GABA receptor expression are implicated in the pathogenesis of anxiety and depression, which are highly comorbid with functional bowel disorders. In this work, we show that chronic treatment with L. rhamnosus (JB-1) induced region-dependent alterations in GABAB1b mRNA in the brain with increases in cortical regions (cingulate and prelimbic) and concomitant reductions in expression in the hippocampus, amygdala, and locus coeruleus, in comparison with control-fed mice. In addition, L. rhamnosus (JB-1) reduced GABAAα2 mRNA expression in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, but increased GABAAα2 in the hippocampus. Importantly, L. rhamnosus (JB-1) reduced stress-induced corticosterone and anxiety- and depression-related behavior. Moreover, the neurochemical and behavioral effects were not found in vagotomized mice, identifying the vagus as a major modulatory constitutive communication pathway between the bacteria exposed to the gut and the brain. Together, these findings highlight the important role of bacteria in the bidirectional communication of the gut–brain axis and suggest that certain organisms may prove to be useful therapeutic adjuncts in stress-related disorders such as anxiety and depression.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
Largo writes: Perhaps what Ed and others want is for consciousness to be something other than what it really is in our actual lives. He wants consciousness to exist “as it is in itself” (as a mechanism, not an experience), “independent of perspective” (when consciousness is and always be beholden to the perspective of the person having the experience), “ with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience,” which is like saying: “While consciousness is known only through our direct experience, our investigation of consciousness should first and foremost eliminate experience.”

which is wrong by miles at least as far as I'm concerned... I don't "want" consciousness to be anything, I'd like to understand it... I hypothesize with the complete willingness to get it wrong, and then modify my assumptions leading to that hypothesis, to refine it... how do I know I'm wrong? by quantifying... and that can be rather soft quantification... like looking at all the replies on a SuperTopoForum thread where the OP might pose a question; do I agree or disagree? do the respondents have view point I haven't considered and is valid and "defeats" my hypothesis.

To do this I have to have a "hypothesis" and a method for arriving at it, and the hypothesis must be testable.

That is what I "want"...
...what do you "want", Largo?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 29, 2011 - 05:39pm PT
You (and I suspect this is endemic to many philosophers) keep looking for some secret alchemy that will transmute one noun (meat) into another noun (experience) when in all likelihood both are simply attributes of the same verb.

Tis is the stonewalling on principle that I mentioned before - it does not answer the vastly different qualitative differences between consciousness the merely physical qualities found in material things. As mentioned, a new coin "shines." Luminosity and a new coin are "simply attributes of the same" person, placed or thing. A meat brain and subjective experience cannot be clumped together in the same way. The amazing thing to me is the persistent idea that if consciousness is NOT a simplistic attribute of meat, it must be "secret alchemy." Where in the world does that belief come from, or that philosophers are proponents of same. Curious . . .

If a mechanistic/materialistic/reductionistic model can entirely explain subjective experience (consciousness), then what, at this time, keeps us from building machines that could carry on this very thread by themselves, and could relate to us the subjective experience of doing same? This might shed light on the hard questions according to those proposing a strictly mechanistic model.

And Ed, when I said you "wanted" experience to be different than it is, I simply meant that you seemed to want it to be something and only something you can quantify. I know we can quantify the biology thought by some to "create' consciousness, but how do we quantify experience itself. And if we can't, how might we proceed with the on-sight if we ruled out bullsh#t, priestcraft and alchemy? I'm totally open to suggestions. Since I have no answers, I have no preferences on the route taken.

JL
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:43pm PT
Largo asks: If a mechanistic/materialistic/reductionistic model can entirely explain subjective experience (consciousness), then what, at this time, keeps us from building machines that could carry on this very thread by themselves, and could relate to us the subjective experience of doing same?

they already do... in the sense that we cannot distinguish machine generated reality from the actual thing itself...

...how do I know you have experiences, anyway? how could I tell you weren't a machine?
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:45pm PT
Consciousness likely evolved out of an initial ability to self-locate in an organism's environment - a capability necessary to both predator and prey.

Largo: ...but how do we quantify experience itself?

Why is the idea of experience being a [distributed and recursive] cascade of chemical and electrial processing seeking equilibrium so difficult to accept? If 'experience' were something other, more ethereal, then how would alcohol and various substances be able to alter our "subjective experience" in a matter of minutes?
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 29, 2011 - 06:50pm PT
So although many of us agree on a scientific or evolutionary basis for consciousness we still can not answer to the larger questions and writings in Largo's initial post.

I would disagree to some extent. Even though we are just learning the basics, one can reasonably posit 'subjective experience' is an evolved form of the recursive processing necessary for primitive, predatory self-location / awareness. The details may elude us; the idea itself is pretty simple.
malabarista

Trad climber
Portland, OR
Aug 29, 2011 - 07:51pm PT
Most people resist the idea that universe "reduces" to information. They think it somehow cheapens their existence. I don't agree with this at all. if the universe is "just information" then anything is still possible. Virtual universes within virtual universes. Anything goes, as long as it's in the code...
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:21pm PT
I don't rule out a 'computational' model entirely, but would point out we don't have the slightest clue what [meaningful] 'computation' or a 'cognitive architecture' (i.e. a vast and very dynamic distributed network) in the brain looks like beyond some understanding of the hierarchical signals generated by various aspects of the brain.
WBraun

climber
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:27pm PT
Largo's original post is super easy to understand.

Consciousness is super easy to understand.

All it takes is a good brain .......
jstan

climber
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:30pm PT
FM:
"Every philosophical question that has a culturally dependent and translated answer."

Definitely. Language is a subtle tool. That's why I keep asking what people mean by the words.
Seems to me a room full of people each using their own personal meanings are wasting time trying to discuss.

I gave a proposed definition for existence, to wit:

"Something, anything "exists" if that object can be shown, on interaction with another object, to have been affected in any way."

At first blush this sounds restricted in a Newtonian sense to physical objects. On further thought, I think it extends even to ideas or models.

If a consideration of the concept for "experience" can by a logical process lead to an effect on another concept, say "qualia", then we might say the two exist. They can support an interaction.

But before we can construct this logical process describing the interaction, we need a commonly shared meaning for the two words.

IMO we don't have these commonly agreed upon meanings, so I feel justified in challenging whether these undefined entities exist.

They don't exist in the sense needed for a useful discussion.

All of my objections are overcome if one does not insist upon discussion being useful,i.e. showing promise of leading to a result.




In that case, philosophical discussion becomes functionally equivalent to a dance.

Two people engaging in an activity that does not actually go any place. Done only in the hopes of affecting the other person.

DMT:
When someone says something exists that they can't begin to describe , but I am some how defective because I won't carry on a discussion about this mystery - I see no reason to let the issue be framed in this way. It won't lead anywhere.

A question. The only thing that seems to be known about this, whatever, is that it is beyond science. Interesting. How is it we know it is beyond science?

Is this knowledge magically obtained?

The consciousness I described is not beyond science. Maybe our problem is that this strange thing is co-opting an english word that is used in our normal world.

Why not avoid confusion and invent a new word for the strange thing?


How about..............?

Yes, there is this thing I call my infused spirit. I can't describe what it is that infuses it but I feel raised to really high energy combined with ultimate peace when I contemplate it.

There you go.
Messages 53 - 72 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta