(2023-06-03, 08:46 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]In the post to which you responded, I was not discussing consciousness, but memory. I was discussing how it is that molecules can remember that something which the brain perceives as being red should be described with the word, "red". That doesn't seem like a difficult problem. Brains can remember that this vocal cord sequence to make the mouth say "red" is associated with the neuron patterns in the brain when one is looking at something red. So if you ask me what color that apple is, my brain figures out I should say "red".
The problem is, we tend to use the word 'memory' in two different ways, the colloquial sense and the sense of computer memory.
You could indeed imagine devising a molecular computer memory, but the problem is that computers work from the address of every bit of data in their memories (they usually have two types of memory, RAM and 'disc', though the latter doesn't rotate any more in modern computers) and the difference doesn't really matter in this context).
Understanding how human memory works is much more difficult. Say you want to remember something you read a while back. Where do you go in your memory to find it, bearing in mind that by definition you don't remember what it is.
David
David
(2023-06-03, 08:46 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I am aware of the hard problem of consciousness.
In the post to which you responded, I was not discussing consciousness, but memory. I was discussing how it is that molecules can remember that something which the brain perceives as being red should be described with the word, "red". That doesn't seem like a difficult problem. Brains can remember that this vocal cord sequence to make the mouth say "red" is associated with the neuron patterns in the brain when one is looking at something red. So if you ask me what color that apple is, my brain figures out I should say "red".
Regarding consciousness, I argue that the brain itself is making the decisions, and creates both the muscle movements and awareness of the story of what is going on at the same time. This awareness of what is going on is called consciousness. I write about this at Consciousness .
Awareness (dictionary):
Knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.
You don't seem aware of the fact that the word "awareness" inherently assumes the existence of an immaterial conscious perceiving self or "I", since knowledge and perception are immaterial properties of a conscious knower, that is, the conscious self. The existence of the conscious "knower" is part of the inherent meaning of the word "awareness".
The same applies to the words "memory" and "remembering". The primary, human definition of memory and remembering (and that is what you are referring to - the human being remembering and having a memory), automatically assumes the existence of an immaterial conscious rememberer. The same goes for "knowing" and "knowledge". Only an immaterial conscious self "knows" something, not any machine. We know beyond any doubt that we exist as immaterial conscious aware entities experiencing knowing and memories. The hard problem again.
You say, "....I argue that the brain itself is making the decisions, and creates both the muscle movements
and awareness of the story of what is going on at the same time."
Please explain how physical neurons create an immaterial nonphysical conscious awareness. I say nonphysical because none of the experienced properties of subjective "awareness" have any physical attributes or parameters like weight, energy, position, dimensions and so on. Please weigh a thought and give its physical dimensions and other measurable parameters. The most you can do is measure certain physical correlates to the immaterial thought.
(2023-06-03, 07:19 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Read the link, not a very impressive argument by Carrier.
I'm not even sure what Carrier is saying, just seems like a confused rant with the conclusion that his logical argument is not a hard proof...
(2023-06-03, 09:27 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Understanding how human memory works is much more difficult. Say you want to remember something you read a while back. Where do you go in your memory to find it, bearing in mind that by definition you don't remember what it is.
I think memory is just the saving of various neural patterns in our brains. Inputs to our brains cause various neural patterns, and these get etched in our brains.
How do we recall memories? It has nothing to do with looking up data that is stored at a particular location as computers do it. Rather, neurons are constantly firing according to the saved patterns and new inputs. These combine into various competing structured neural patterns. Each moment one set of neural patterns gains predominance and controls the attention, directing our movements at that moment. Immediately other sets of neural patterns pop into focus in sequence, directing our movements throughout the day, and writing the story of a conscious self doing all of this.
I write more about how molecules think at
https://mindsetfree.blog/how-can-molecules-think/.
(2023-06-03, 09:46 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]You don't seem aware of the fact that the word "awareness" inherently assumes the existence of an immaterial conscious perceiving self or "I", since knowledge and perception are immaterial properties of a conscious knower, that is, the conscious self. The existence of the conscious "knower" is part of the inherent meaning of the word "awareness".
I don't think awareness requires an immaterial self doing the perceiving. Rather, as I have explained here, I think the molecules in my brain perceive things, and write the story of a conscious person doing it.
Quote:The same applies to the words "memory" and "remembering". The primary, human definition of memory and remembering (and that is what you are referring to - the human being remembering and having a memory), automatically assumes the existence of an immaterial conscious rememberer.
I disagree. I don't need a soul to do my remembering for me. I can do it on my own.
When I use the word "I," I am referring to that whole set of things that makes up my material body, plus any forces or other entities that may be involved in that which makes me be me.
Quote:Please weigh a thought and give its physical dimensions and other measurable parameters. The most you can do is measure certain physical correlates to the immaterial thought.
Thoughts are actions that we do. Actions don't have weight.
Asking me to weigh my thoughts is like asking me to weigh a conversation or an exercise routine. You can't weigh a set of actions.
(2023-06-03, 10:45 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think awareness requires an immaterial self doing the perceiving. Rather, as I have explained here, I think the molecules in my brain perceive things, and write the story of a conscious person doing it.
I disagree. I don't need a soul to do my remembering for me. I can do it on my own.
When I use the word "I," I am referring to that whole set of things that makes up my material body, plus any forces or other entities that may be involved in that which makes me be me.
Thoughts are actions that we do. Actions don't have weight.
Asking me to weigh my thoughts is like asking me to weigh a conversation or an exercise routine. You can't weigh a set of actions.
You still have not engaged with my challenge from post #100, "....you can't get away with this, with stealthily slipping in the consciousness of the perceiver as an unspoken assumption, without explaining how mind and subjective awareness arise from neurons when the parameters of these two entities are fundamentally different."
No explanation has been forthcoming. And it looks like you subscribe to some version of panpsychism, if you believe that the individual molecules of your brain's neurons have some form of conscious awareness. As has been noted before, panpsychism doesn't really explain consciousness, it just imbues it to every molecule of matter in some mysterious way.
Sure, human actions don't have weight. But thoughts invariably have "agentness" associated with them - a conscious agent had to generate those thoughts. It is the immaterial conscious agent behind these thoughts that you need to explain materialistically. In fact, you seem to be denying that you exist as a conscious agent; this is denying Descartes' famous "I think therefore I am".
(2023-06-03, 10:06 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]How do we recall memories? It has nothing to do with looking up data that is stored at a particular location as computers do it. Rather, neurons are constantly firing according to the saved patterns and new inputs. These combine into various competing structured neural patterns. Each moment one set of neural patterns gains predominance and controls the attention, directing our movements at that moment. Immediately other sets of neural patterns pop into focus in sequence, directing our movements throughout the day, and writing the story of a conscious self doing all of this.
That sounds more like an epileptic fit than a sane computation. Has anyone tried to simulate that theory of memory?
David
(2023-06-04, 09:42 AM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]That sounds more like an epileptic fit than a sane computation. Has anyone tried to simulate that theory of memory?
David
Its hard to really determine what is going on in the billions of neurons in the brain. I got the concept form Dennett's
Consciousness Explained.
Would you please postulate a more sane theory of memory that we can consider?
(2023-06-04, 01:17 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]You still have not engaged with my challenge from post #100, "....you can't get away with this, with stealthily slipping in the consciousness of the perceiver as an unspoken assumption, without explaining how mind and subjective awareness arise from neurons when the parameters of these two entities are fundamentally different."
No explanation has been forthcoming.
I disagree. I have given you links where I describe how I think mind and subjective awareness arise from neurons.
Quote:And it looks like you subscribe to some version of panpsychism, if you believe that the individual molecules of your brain's neurons have some form of conscious awareness. As has been noted before, panpsychism doesn't really explain consciousness, it just imbues it to every molecule of matter in some mysterious way.
Now you get to the hard problem of consciousness. Why does it all feel so real? Why am I not just a complex sunflower with complicated mechanical movements without it all feeling so real? I do not know the answer to that.
Do you have an answer to the hard problem of consciousness? What is your answer? Once I hear your answer, I suspect I will have some follow-up questions.
Quote:Sure, human actions don't have weight. But thoughts invariably have "agentness" associated with them - a conscious agent had to generate those thoughts.
How do you know the agent that generates thoughts needs to be conscious?
Are ants conscious? Are jelly fish conscious? Are sunflowers conscious? Where do you draw the line?
Quote:It is the immaterial conscious agent behind these thoughts that you need to explain materialistically.
You are assuming the point in question. I don't know that the thinker is immaterial.
There are some things I cannot explain. Why is it not acceptable to say, "I don't know"?
Quote:In fact, you seem to be denying that you exist as a conscious agent; this is denying Descartes' famous "I think therefore I am".
I exist. I think. I am conscious. I am at home. I am typing on my computer. I sometimes trip and fall. I have a wart.
In each of those sentences the word "I" has the same meaning to me. It means the sum total of the material and possible non-material components that make up me.
Does the word "I" mean the same thing to you in each of those sentences? Or does it sometimes mean
my soul, sometimes mean
my body, and sometimes mean a combination of both?
(2023-06-04, 09:42 AM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]That sounds more like an epileptic fit than a sane computation. Has anyone tried to simulate that theory of memory?
David
Also why is the soul dependent on this theory of memory...this is what just confuses me. The argument seems to be if a soul exists it would be akin to someone having a lobotomy because it too must be dependent on the brain...I really don't see why someone who believe[s] in survival after death would think this especially looking at the varied NDEs and Reincarnation cases where it seems pretty clear the people retain memories.
I can see, however, why someone would look at brain illness causing cognitive changes and feel that there is no survival after death. I disagree, but I do understand the reasoning which I feel to be sound.