Psience Quest

(2023-06-21, 07:00 AM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]Who said that I'm writing off the entire field of neuroscience...? Not me.

Full stop. Go back and read this post.

Are you now denying you wrote it? Or have you changed your mind?

(2023-06-21, 09:40 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Full stop. Go back and read this post.

Are you now denying you wrote it? Or have you changed your mind?

I have no idea how you even read any of that as me "denying" neuroscience...

Again, you conflate neuroscience with Materialism / Physicalism...

(2023-06-21, 01:04 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]The argument is not about how the description of getting consciousness from that which is non-conscious is currently unknown, the argument is that there will never be an explanation because it is logically not possible....

Tallis says...

Perhaps another Harris essay will provide some clarity:

Again, you simply assert that it is logically impossible for consciousness to come from material things. You never attempt to prove this assertion. All you can do is repeat this argument from authority that some famous person(s) wrote something that appears to agree with you. That is not how science is done. Science is done by looking at evidence and reason. Is there any reason to believe that it is logically impossible for matter to produce consciousness?

I certainly don't see that Harris asserts that it is logically impossible. In the work you cite, he says,

• we do not know why it is “like something” to be what we are. The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand—that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character—is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in this universe. How is it that unconscious events can give rise to consciousness? Not only do we have no idea, but it seems impossible to imagine what sort of idea could fit in the space provided. Therefore, although science may ultimately show us how to truly maximize human well-being, it may still fail to dispel the fundamental mystery of our mental life.
  

In what sense does, "may fail to dispel the fundamental mystery of our mental life" mean, "it is logically impossible for science to dispel the fundamental mystery of mental life [consciousness]"? I don't see anywhere that Harris says that it is impossible. Why do you use him as evidence it is impossible?

Harris is talking about experience, about the fact that it is like something to be human. He admits that he has no idea why this is so. Nobody understands why it is like something to be human. It is indeed a mystery.

How does any of this have anything to do with the original post I posted here:

There I said,

(2023-05-21, 06:24 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]As I see it, the mind is nothing more than a set of actions, such as remembering, being aware, thinking, and deciding. 

What is doing these actions? Surely the brain is a key player. Are other physical entities involved? Perhaps. Are other non-physical entities involved? I think we can rule that out be definition. After all, if any entity affects something physical, then it seems to me, by definition, that entity would be physical. (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical)

If there are other entities involved in the set of actions that we refer to as mind, I do not see that their contribution to any continuation of those activities after death would be significant. For, from all we can see, when the brain is damaged, it affects all those activities. One would think that death, which is the ultimate in brain damage, would be the ultimate in shutting down all mental activities.

That has nothing to do with what it means to have human conscious experience. So why are we having endless discussion of what it means to have conscious human experience? That has nothing to do with this thread as it is titled, or with my point I am making on this thread.

Even if it is logically impossible for physical brains to experience consciousness--an assertion you never proved--how does that in any way negate that, "If there are other entities involved in the set of actions that we refer to as mind, I do not see that their contribution to any continuation of those activities after death would be significant"?

All of your arguments seem to insist that there is something beside the brain that is involved in consciousness. But you are notoriously vague on what you think this something is. From the beginning, I have acknowledged that such a thing might exist. Whatever it is, you have not shown that this could continue the activities that my mind does after my brain is gone.

(2023-06-21, 12:10 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Again, you simply assert that it is logically impossible for consciousness to come from material things.

In what sense does, "may fail to dispel the fundamental mystery of our mental life" mean, "it is logically impossible for science to dispel the fundamental mystery of mental life [consciousness]"? I don't see anywhere that Harris says that it is impossible. Why do you use him as evidence it is impossible?

Harris is talking about experience, about the fact that it is like something to be human. He admits that he has no idea why this is so. Nobody understands why it is like something to be human. It is indeed a mystery.

How does any of this have anything to do with the original post I posted here:

All of your arguments seem to insist that there is something beside the brain that is involved in consciousness. But you are notoriously vague on what you think this something is. From the beginning, I have acknowledged that such a thing might exist. Whatever it is, you have not shown that this could continue the activities that my mind does after my brain is gone.

Harris doesn't address these head-on as you request.  I don't want to draw your attention from Sci's response, but I will try to frame the issue from my personal point of view.

The question of consciousness being fully casual from physical processes is dead in the water, as soon as science started to measure information.  The "something else" that is involved with awareness and functional biological information processing is the objective meanings in an informational environment.  It is not an object structured by materials and energy, it is an object structured from bits and bytes in the local environment and the ability for a logical response to personalize outcomes.  The activity is not measured by electro-chemical charges, but by the structuring of relations.

This is a methodological argument.  It reduces the fine argument of Chalmers, et all -- to a simple statement.  You will not get a restructuring of probabilistic outcomes, different that predicted by physics/materials science -- without a change in the informational states of the system.  Changes measured in information science units. 

Living things do exactly that when customizing to address their own needs.  They change probable outcomes to match an inner environment of states.  You cannot have a strictly limited field of physical measurements (SI units) and expect a direct change in intentional actions.  For that, you need a separate set of variables and equations.  The tools of information science parse behavior and intelligence.  Ecology of a real environment can be measured and their informational actions are mapped to causes.  The keystone of energy is the physical observation of applied force.

The keystone of information science is the observed outcomes from structuring a decision, based on learning.

There is no way to go from a data-set of positional locations, material properties and ambient forces and get a direct quantum answer of "move now is best for me".  Measure the information and meaningful relations in the environment, contrast with expected outcomes and - voila' - a science method that can predict outcomes where mind has changed events from natural and inanimate - to natural outcomes from the information processing native in living things.

You need units of measure from logical inference, of mutual knowledge and understanding, as well as from thermodynamics.  Thermodynamics is where the changes in local probability are quantified after learning has taken place.

(2023-06-21, 12:10 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Again, you simply assert that it is logically impossible for consciousness to come from material things. You never attempt to prove this assertion. All you can do is repeat this argument from authority that some famous person(s) wrote something that appears to agree with you.

I've posted links to essays that make arguments that it is logically impossible. That is quite different than simply saying "Oh this famous guy says it's impossible so it's impossible."

Also aren't your explanations summaries of what Dennet said in Consciousness Explained? Not that I mind, just amusing that you'd criticize others for quoting rather than summarizing.

It doesn't matter that Harris is famous (not even true outside certain internet circles), what matters is he's an atheist with a neuroscience Phd. Tallis is an atheist who had a long career as a neuroscientist. The reason I present their arguments is to show that one can have expertise in neuroscience, be an atheist, and still see that non-conscious constituents will not suffice to produce consciousness and its varied aspects - Reason, Subjective Feels, Aboutness of Thought, or Memory.

In any case I actually think save for an article of faith regarding certain kinds of brains you pretty much agree with me that arrangements of non-conscious matter don't produce consciousness.

You think nails are not conscious, and anyone who believes this is "as dumb as a nail". Why?

You don't think aggregates like stampedes, war, concerts, and so on have consciousness. Why?

You don't think today's computers have consciousness. Why?

The answer to those "Why" questions, IMO, is because either their constituents have no consciousness or aggregates don't magically confer consciousness. Seems to me we both agree on the above lacking consciousness because we share that reasoning.

This means we both recognize that consciousness will not be produced by the vast majority of arrangements of that which has no consciousness nor aggregates where their components may have consciousness...we only differ on a v[e]ry particular set of arrangements that are called "brains".

But on this question of brains...isn't the only real difference between us simply that, for the sake of logical consistency, I followed our shared reasoning all the way through?

Quote:That is not how science is done. Science is done by looking at evidence and reason. Is there any reason to believe that it is logically impossible for matter to produce consciousness?

Science is just one system of investigation, and subject to logic. Reason tells us you can't get Something from Nothing, any more than you can have "round squares" or that "2 + 2  = 7". If I said future Science will show us nails have consciousness even if their constituents lack consciousness of any kind...would you accept that?

Thus, for the same reason nails don't have and won't produce consciousness, I think it's obvious Harris doesn't think it's logically possible for any arrangement of non-conscious constituents ->

Quote:To say “Everything came out of nothing” is to assert a brute fact that defies our most basic intuitions of cause and effect—a miracle, in other words.

Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken. We can say the right words, of course—“consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so.

Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.

I'm not even sure how much clearer he could be? As I said he does accept he could be wrong but to me that's just a throwing a bone out of pity to people like Dennett who wasted their whole lives evangelizing for the Materialist faith only to see increasing numbers of atheists abandon that dogma. Harris just showed the folly of that faith in a few paragraphs, which has got to hurt people like Dennett.

As for the soul needing a brain, if you can't even show how the brain produces consciousness why would anyone think it needed a brain*? Memories, thoughts, feels, logic - all of these are intertwined with our conscious experience.

Finally, for the record, running to the accusation that those who don't share your faith that non-conscious atoms can produce consciousness believe in "magic" - a term I'm not sure you even have a concrete definition for - is definitely not a strong argument.

*Assuming souls do exist. Not getting caught in that silly Catch-22 again...

(2023-06-21, 07:04 AM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]Do you consider the "filter" model to be analogous to the "limiter" model? I am in agreeance that a secondary function of the brain is to act as a central control center ~ or an aircraft with a pilot controlling it via all of the complex mechanisms provided, as it were.

I didn't even know there was a difference?

(2023-06-21, 02:21 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Harris doesn't address these head-on as you request.  I don't want to draw your attention from Sci's response, but I will try to frame the issue from my personal point of view.

Hmm...I'd disagree on this as I don't know how much clearer Harris could be. When you compare the idea that non-conscious information processing produc[es] consciousness to the proposition that "2 + 2 = 7"...how could that be anything but a statement that both are logically impossible?

But maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Anyway it's not very important, as this...

Quote:The question of consciousness being fully casual from physical processes is dead in the water, as soon as science started to measure information.  The "something else" that is involved with awareness and functional biological information processing is the objective meanings in an informational environment.  It is not an object structured by materials and energy, it is an object structured from bits and bytes in the local environment and the ability for a logical response to personalize outcomes.  The activity is not measured by electro-chemical charges, but by the structuring of relations.

This is a methodological argument.  It reduces the fine argument of Chalmers, et all -- to a simple statement.  You will not get a restructuring of probabilistic outcomes, different that predicted by physics/materials science -- without a change in the informational states of the system.  Changes measured in information science units. 

Living things do exactly that when customizing to address their own needs.  They change probable outcomes to match an inner environment of states.  You cannot have a strictly limited field of physical measurements (SI units) and expect a direct change in intentional actions.  For that, you need a separate set of variables and equations.  The tools of information science parse behavior and intelligence.  Ecology of a real environment can be measured and their informational actions are mapped to causes.  The keystone of energy is the physical observation of applied force.

The keystone of information science is the observed outcomes from structuring a decision, based on learning.
There is no way to go from a data-set of positional locations, material properties and ambient forces and get a direct quantum answer of "move now is best for me".  Measure the information and meaningful relations in the environment, contrast with expected outcomes and - voila' - a science method that can predict outcomes where mind has changed events from natural and inanimate - to natural outcomes from the information processing native in living things.

You need units of measure from logical inference, of mutual knowledge and understanding, as well as from thermodynamics.  Thermodynamics is where the changes in local probability are quantified after learning has taken place.

...is pure gold!

I'm actually looking at a paper that seems to align with your ideas? ->

What Is Consciousness? Artificial Intelligence, Real Intelligence, Quantum Mind, And Qualia

Stuart A. Kauffman, Andrea Roli

Quote:We approach the question "What is Consciousness?" in a new way, not as Descartes' "systematic doubt", but as how organisms find their way in their world. Finding one's way involves finding possible uses of features of the world that might be beneficial or avoiding those that might be harmful. "Possible uses of X to accomplish Y" are "Affordances". The number of uses of X is indefinite (or unknown), the different uses are unordered, are not listable, and are not deducible from one another. All biological adaptations are either affordances seized by heritable variation and selection or, far faster, by the organism acting in its world finding uses of X to accomplish Y. Based on this, we reach rather astonishing conclusions:

(1) Artificial general intelligence based on universal Turing machines (UTMs) is not possible, since UTMs cannot "find" novel affordances.

(2) Brain-mind is not purely classical physics for no classical physics system can be an analogue computer whose dynamical behaviour can be isomorphic to "possible uses".

(3) Brain mind must be partly quantum-supported by increasing evidence at 6.0 sigma to 7.3 sigma.

(4) Based on Heisenberg's interpretation of the quantum state as "potentia" converted to "actuals" by measurement, where this interpretation is not a substance dualism, a natural hypothesis is that mind actualizes potentia. This is supported at 5.2 sigma. Then mind's actualizations of entangled brain-mind-world states are experienced as qualia and allow "seeing" or "perceiving" of uses of X to accomplish Y. We can and do jury-rig. Computers cannot.

(5) Beyond familiar quantum computers, we discuss the potentialities of trans-Turing-systems.

(2023-06-21, 04:16 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm...I'd disagree on this as I don't know how much clearer Harris could be. When you compare the idea that non-conscious information processing produc[es] consciousness to the proposition that "2 + 2 = 7"...how could that be anything but a statement that both are logically impossible?

But maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Anyway it's not very important, as this...


...is pure gold!

I'm actually looking at a paper that seems to align with your ideas? ->

What Is Consciousness? Artificial Intelligence, Real Intelligence, Quantum Mind, And Qualia

Stuart A. Kauffman, Andrea Roli

Let me try to go over these 3 sources to answer your questions.  It may take a little while, the new Tononi et all paper is extensive.

In just a glance at this, it looks very interesting.  I have followed Kaufmann, since he brought his stance on an "included middle".  The (2) thru (4) points could just be a better version of my rant.  My intuition says (1) is correct, but don't have the background to say - yes.  The term "affordance" is getting to be in wide use.  As a long suffering advocate of direct perception, its very encouraging.

Quote: iv. Qualia are experienced and arise with our collapse of the wave function.

Just opened the paper!  (iv.) is a professional opinion that is fully coincident with my claims of how and when mind happens.  I am digging in.

(2023-06-21, 05:17 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Let me try to go over these 3 sources to answer your questions.  It may take a little while, the new Tononi et all paper is extensive.

In just a glance at this, it looks very interesting.  I have followed Kaufmann, since he brought his stance on an "included middle".  The (2) thru (4) points could just be a better version of my rant.  My intuition says (1) is correct, but don't have the background to say - yes.  The term "affordance" is getting to be in wide use.  As a long suffering advocate of direct perception, its very encouraging.

Yikes, if [your] calm and measured posts are "rants" I must come off as an unhinged lunatic!