Could consciousness all come down to the way things vibrate?

Nature, with all its magic and mystery, has spent billions of years evolving the processes whereby biological systems can successfully and efficiently interact with their environments. Our realities entirely constructed by the processes (the relationship between wavelengths of light and "the illusion of colour" was the initial example in this thread). "The illusion of self" would seem to bestow some evolutionary survival imperative on an individual and load the odds in favour of such a species.

Well whether realities are entirely constructed by processes is up for debate, though I'd agree for the most part that the world we see is in consciousness and the alternative third person description suggests a good deal of editing/construction.

OTOH, this "Illusion of Self" doens't seem to necessarily increase any survival imperative. But beyond that what is being processed, and how would it result in a Self capable of that which is (at least seemingly) beyond quantitative/reductionist explanation - Reason, Subjectivity, Aboutness of Thoughts?

The fact that we even consider using the word "illusion" to describe the notion of an entity or "soul" riding these biological processes, may be a reflection on how utterly immersive the construct is.

I figured the word "illusion" was used as a desperate gambit for materialists. It has obvious political value, but I don't think it lends any explanatory value at all?

I'm not trying to present any sort of proof. However, the idea of such a construct is appealing because it removes two problems that the immaterialist faces:

1. The unique association with conscious awareness and biological systems, and

2. Those biological systems are made of the same atoms, molecules and elements that are found in abundance in our universe.

I would agree with 1. in the sense that from the average layperson level observation consciousness is associated with biology, though we'd need to get into the markers of consciousness here. Isn't this precisely why humans conceived of souls though?

2. seems like a big problem for materialists, rather than immaterialists. After all those atoms/molecules/elements are mental concepts based on mathematics + observation. Why those designated concepts perform the Something from Nothing miracle materialism needs seems to be a deep question that has - as Sam Harris puts it - no sensical answer.

Of course such a model has another implication. Any sort of "self-reflection" may have its benefits, but it is the least likely way of discovering genuine insights into the underlying nature of our conscious experience; the constructs are built specifically to lead us down the wrong path in that regard. Consequently, any pseudoprofound pronouncements based on those reflections can be enjoyed for their elegance and erudition, but do not really add anything substantive.

(In fairness every model for consciousness relies on some sort of "illusion". I'm tempted to say that introspection is limited in advancing our understanding, no matter the model (notwithstanding the apparent benefits of meditation))

Eh, this seems to read like a series of pseudoprofound pronouncements. First you need to answer the question of who is being fooled by the illusion.

From there, we can note that any explanation for consciousness is the result of observations done in consciousness. If we're deceived b/c of our interfaces it means we are arguably incapable of finding the result through mere reductionist investigation through the interfaces. As the Idealist Donald Hoffman might put it - nobody in a virtual reality game is going to figure out the [complete] intricacies of computer architecture by studying the game world. (Though he does seem surprisingly optimistic about what we might find re: Truth of Reality.)

But of course one would have to ask why we should accept the constructs are built specifically to lead us down the wrong path? The critical trinity of Mind -> Subjectivity (Observation) + Reason (Mathematics) + Aboutness of Thought (Scientific Concepts) -> has produced a great deal of advancement - in fact the very scientific advancements you seem to believe we should follow. To say we are specifically being deceived seems to suggest, if not Gnosticism, then some conception of reality wherein our Interface has evolved to be deception - which is what the Idealist Hoffman suggests.

But as he notes this deception still allows us to study the qualitative aspects of our virtual "prison". We can still reason about the chasm between qualitative experience and quantitative reductionism. (Not to mention the latter is only possible b/c of the Mind's Trinity I mention above.)

If we do accept the value of the Mind's critical Trinity then we might ask why Reason and Thought, if capable of so much success, might not be used for self-reflection. This would tie into the question of the efficacy/reality of Mathematics, that sub-branch of Reason+Thought that underlies Science itself.

I'm sticking to biological systems

Interesting Massimo piece, thanks.

Welcome.

Do you understand "falling in love"?  

"Have you forgotten what it's like? Love is being the tiniest little bird...then swallowing the Moon."
 -JN Rieber, Books of Magic

Well whether realities are entirely constructed by processes is up for debate

Meh. Once one really understand the second half of your opening paragraph, one may realise that the debate is hamstrung by the constructions themselves. Thus

... for the most part that the world we see is in consciousness and the alternative third person description suggests a good deal of editing/construction.

is absolutely a key thing to grasp in terms of letting go of some cherished assumptions. Excellent.

OTOH, this "Illusion of Self" doens't seem to necessarily increase any survival imperative.

It certainly confers a sense of self-importance and self-value. Look at human vanity in all its forms.

But beyond that what is being processed, and how would it result in a Self capable of that which is (at least seemingly) beyond quantitative/reductionist explanation - Reason, Subjectivity, Aboutness of Thoughts?

Do they really need an explanation? What are they other than words attempting convey facets of the very construction we've already agreed on. The ephemeral nature of the concepts that those words represent may be a clue.

I figured the word "illusion" was used as a desperate gambit for materialists. It has obvious political value, but I don't think it lends any explanatory value at all?

Well, we seem to be settling on "construct". "Illusion" kind of works. No word is perfect I guess... Both should get the ball over the net, unless one wants to be faux obtuse for political reasons and ask, "Who is getting fooled?"*.

I would agree with 1. in the sense that from the average layperson level observation consciousness is associated with biology, though we'd need to get into the markers of consciousness here. Isn't this precisely why humans conceived of souls though?

What are the "markers for consciousness"?

2. seems like a big problem for materialists, rather than immaterialists. After all those atoms/molecules/elements are mental concepts based on mathematics + observation.

Hmmm. Your understanding of them are mental concepts. That doesn't necessarily mean that's all they are. It may not be all about you... What was I saying earlier about vanity?

Why those designated concepts perform the Something from Nothing miracle materialism needs seems to be a deep question that has - as Sam Harris puts it - no sensical answer.

If only I'd started that post with, "Nature, with all its magic and mystery..." Oh, hang on, I did! Retreat into "something from nothing" if you want, I always consider that a compliment in our exchanges.

First you need to answer the question of who is being fooled by the illusion.

*Oops.

From there, we can note that any explanation for consciousness is the result of observations done in consciousness.

Yes. We are largely hamstrung by this.

Meh. Once one really understand the second half of your opening paragraph, one may realise that the debate is hamstrung by the constructions themselves.

Sorry, could you quote the "second half" of my opening paragraph that you're referring to here? I am a bit lost on what part of my post is being referenced.

Sorry, could you quote the "second half" of my opening paragraph that you're referring to here? I am a bit lost on what part of my post is being referenced.

"... for the most part that the world we see is in consciousness and the alternative third person description suggests a good deal of editing/construction."

Meh. Once one really understand the second half of your opening paragraph, one may realise that the debate is hamstrung by the constructions themselves.

Thus "for the most part that the world we see is in consciousness and the alternative third person description suggests a good deal of editing/construction" is absolutely a key thing to grasp in terms of letting go of some cherished assumptions. Excellent.

Wouldn't we first have to agree on the nature of the construction before we can say exactly where we are being hamstrung? For example what is the construction made of? Does it come before or after the qualtiative experience itself.

And, of course, if we go down this rabbit hole it seems to present quite the challenge if our third person investigation is investigation of what the idealist Hoffman calls "icons". As he notes:

"This entails that neurons cause none of our behaviors, none of our mental states, none of our conscious experiences: Something that does not exist when it is not observed cannot be a fundamental cause of anything."

It certainly confers a sense of self-importance and self-value. Look at human vanity in all its forms.

But isn't the part of the very issue in question? Self-importance and self-value imply an "I" who is the subjective experiencer. Why wouldn't evolution trend away from such entities, and instead toward entities that work like our presumably non-conscious Roombas and thermostats do?

Do they really need an explanation? What are they other than words attempting convey facets of the very construction we've already agreed on. The ephemeral nature of the concepts that those words represent may be a clue.

In what way are Reason, Subjectivity, and Aboutness of Thought ephemeral? They seem rather to be the things one is most certain of. Cognito Ergo Sum after all. Beyond that I'd note that without Reason giving us Math, Subjectivity giving us Observation and Thoughts About Reality giving us Scientific Concepts any third-person investigation seems quite doomed?

Regarding of what we've agreed on, see below:

Well, we seem to be settling on "construct". "Illusion" kind of works. No word is perfect I guess... Both should get the ball over the net, unless one wants to be faux obtuse for political reasons and ask, "Who is getting fooled?"*.

Have we settled on what "construct" means though? If I'm talking about the obscured nature of qualitative experience the "constructs" are part of the mask doing the obscuring...this seems quite different than the idea that the qualitiative experience itself is due to constructs?

And I don't think "Who is getting fooled" is an attempt at being faux obtuse, rather it's among the fundamental questions. Illusions imply a mistake of seeming, whereas subjectivity is the seeming. If, rather, the argument is that the construct fools us into thinking the qualitative is fundamental when it is not...this leads back to the question of how you get the qualitative first person from the quantitative third-person description.

That just seems like restating the dispute rather than a real argument?

What are the "markers for consciousness"?

Seems to depend on the subject of discussion. At the very least Subjectivity, but where humans are involved I'd include Reason and the Aboutness of Thoughts.

Hmmm. Your understanding of them are mental concepts. That doesn't necessarily mean that's all they are. It may not be all about you... What was I saying earlier about vanity?

What I mean is the atoms are concepts we've come to from use our consciousness. To then extrapolate them as making up all of reality - both the conscious and presumably non-conscious parts - would be a big problem for the materialist. After all if the same non-conscious atoms that make up the non-conscious stone also make up the conscious brain that - as per Dennet - does mind, what exactly is it about structural arrangement of atoms that should yield consciousness?

So [materialists] started with consciousness, observed the world and posited atoms that lack consciousness, then declared arrangements of atoms yield consciousness. But once a person has said everything there is to say about the structure of atoms - or subatomic particles, or whatever non-conscious thing is at the bottom - how does one make the argument that structure can produce the isolated first person?

If only I'd started that post with, "Nature, with all its magic and mystery..." Oh, hang on, I did! Retreat into "something from nothing" if you want, I always consider that a compliment in our exchanges.

Isn't this appeal to Nature's magic/mystery Materialism of the Gaps?

Also, doesn't "retreat" imply some prior defeated position? But this question of how to get consciousness from matter has always been the central object of dispute?

*Oops.

Yes. We are largely hamstrung by this.

Well, we're hamstrung if we're searching for a way to express consciousness in terms of that which lacks consciousness. One could also just accept consciousness is, in some, way, a fundamental aspect of reality.