A Concession & A Question

[variant]

I would really like to see evidence of that. Only, it's impossible.

How do you know that it is impossible? Have you spent much time investigateing the inner workings of consciousness enough to know that no explaination exists or are you just fond of asserting a proven negative?

What separates living systems from non-living systems. Are you a vitalist?

The ability to reproduce themselves and evolve.

Gibberish. What is "single entity complexity" and how would it be any different from "multiple entity complexity" so as to produce consciousness?

It would have an identity. "the internet" might be more complex than the connections in my brain taken as a whole, but it dosen't act like or isn't desighned to be a single entity.

What would be the reason then? Furthermore, what would explain why this reason instantiates consciousness? Magic.

I already told you I think that life created human consciousness for the survival of individuals of a certian species.

More gibberish! And vitalist gibberish at that. WHY is it "endemic" to a living organism? Why not to a robot who has sense-inputs?

Sensation dosen't require identity (a sense of self), but reproduction does.

In order to reproduce yourself physically via life you need the code to do so, life is in and of itself a maintenence of physical strucutre in an unideal enviroment, living systems actually interact with the outside world through trial and error with respect to the enviroment via evolution.

Robots just break, if consciousness isn't desighned into them they have no internal reason for one.

Since we don't have the capability to desighn consciousness except by accident, there is no reason to think a robot or a computer would likely be desighned for consciousness.

But nowhere near to establishing the why and how of consciousness. This is a doomed project and it is crystal clear as to why. This is because even if one finds the necessary and sufficient conditions for why sentience is instantiated, it since to give an account of this explanation isn't on a par with, "why does water put out fire?" since in the latter case a chemical account may be the explanation, or causality in the case of billiard balls. NOTHING like that exists in the consciousness case. There are only "reasons" magically instantiating said property. No such thing as "contact" in the case of the above examples, which exists as a sort of communion, at least. So, I have just proved that the neuroscientific project fails in crucially explaining consciousness beyond hedging it within "reasons." It doesn't matter today and it won't matter 100 million years in the future with super-intelligent and self-conscious AIs. Consciousness will ALWAYS remain a mystery, like it or not.

Blatent assertions, and wortless diatribe.

What makes you the arbiter of what can and can not be done?

Well, neuroscience I think is pointless in trying to explain consciousness as well, then. At least by positing a discrete and separate self I am TRYING to give an explanation on a par with any other explanation of phenomena (specifically, "contact" in the differential exchange of matter). But since that's impossible with consciousness, if you leave out the soul hypothesis, you are left with even more magic.

So, it's not an unjustified leap. It's actually the ONLY possible explanation!

You've given not even a hint of an explaination just mysticism and negative assertions.

I don't have to. I REALLY don't. Anymore than why water interacts with fire extinguishes it. Oh sure I can go very minutely explain all the atomic characteristics and how they match up, but that bottoms out after a certain point unless you are willing to accept infinite regress. I'm not, are you?

Well there is a proper explaination for why water put's out fire.

If you really think that nothing can be explained if it is not explained in it's infinite entirety then you have an epistemological problem because that is not how human knoledge works.

You don't have to explain your theory, but you do if you want to be taken seriously.

So is yours. Now, the question is, which p.o.v is a more viable one; that is, has more explanatory depth? That consciousness magically instantiates in a "living system" because thats just how living systems are, or because there is a property-bearing entity with consciousness as its attribute: i.e, a soul substance?

We don't know which one is more viable because we don't know which is right.

Your opinion is "just" an assertion because it literally tells us nothing.

If you don't understand the why's and how's of consciousness there is no point in saying that "investigating" the workings of the brain will magically offer a solution....

If you don't understand the why's and hows of something it is a good place to start rather than just asserting the impossibility of it.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

So I have to know everything about the brain in order to disagree with a specific claim about it?

No, but when it comes to justifying an explanation for consciousness your pushing back any idea as to what "causes" might exist or of their nature shows your reticence in engaging with the possibility of the hows and whys of their relevance to the consciousness project; that is, ascertaining in any scientific way their relation with beings having a sentient experience.

I can tell you that the actual causes are likely synapses firing in certain parts of the brain. If I could be bothered to look it up, or if you really want me to, I could probably tell you which parts of the brain are used for thoughts relating to sentience. I might even be able to give you a half decent answer on what those parts of the brain do, but that's not going to give you a concrete answer on the causes of sentience. We know a lot about where things happen in the brain, we just don't always know why yet.

We will never know why because consciousness is in a domain all its own. Even if we did know how it was instantiated, this would not be a sufficient explanation for it, is what I'm saying.

Yes, I think so.

Perhaps we are working with two different concepts of 'explanation.' I will try to elaborate on this in future posts shortly.

That's because, in your mind, consciousness is some magical process that can't be as mundane as biological processes, purely because it doesn't seem like a proper answer to you.

Correct, it does not. Also, I take offense to the term 'magical.' There are many philosophers and scientists who are not physicalists and to label all such believers in "magic" is crude and benighted.

It's not an electrical system plus. There is no plus. I don't know why you keep ignoring this. There is no reason to assume that sentience is a separate entity, because there's nothing to lead us to such a conclusion other than the belief that sentience must somehow be more "special" than every other biological process. I assume that you have no issue with digestion being a specific set of biological processes, or respiration being the term for a specific set of chemical reactions in the cell, so why expect sentience to be any different?

Because it is clearly different. Digestion you can track in terms of it having a physical form. Same with respiration. The mind you cannot track in this same way, only in the form of neural correlates which are not it. They are the brain, not the mind.

But then, you may ask "how do you know the brain is any different than the mind?" And I will answer, because there is no adequate explanation for the mind's existence, whereas the brain may very well exist as an adaptive tool for evolution. The explanatory gap, no gulf, is as wide as ever.

Question: why couldn't all this have happened in the dark? Per any other electrical system?

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

How do you know that it is impossible? Have you spent much time investigateing the inner workings of consciousness enough to know that no explaination exists or are you just fond of asserting a proven negative?

I don't need to because I know when an explanation in its very principle is impossible. Why is water wet?

The ability to reproduce themselves and evolve.

Which means absolutely nothing in regards to consciousness...

It would have an identity. "the internet" might be more complex than the connections in my brain taken as a whole, but it dosen't act like or isn't desighned to be a single entity.

Fair enough. You are right that the sense of personal identity is a relevant one for consciousness. After all, who is the one observing? But I think even that can be put aside as a separate question when dealing with the sheer "isness" of mental fact. It isn't about the observer but the act of observation which undergirds it. And that seems inexplicable to a large extent. I could have personal identity, but when I'm asleep my mental life flees from me.

I already told you I think that life created human consciousness for the survival of individuals of a certian species.

And I already stated for the trillionth time that there is no reason for why all this couldn't have happened in the DARK, me and you being zombies.... The appeal to evolution and reproduction here is just weak and pathetic. It seems to show me that you yourself doubt your own project.

Sensation dosen't require identity (a sense of self), but reproduction does.

Exactly what I said to the latter part of your statement right above. But, uhm, no there's no reason reproduction couldn't occur without sensation.

In order to reproduce yourself physically via life you need the code to do so, life is in and of itself a maintenence of physical strucutre in an unideal enviroment, living systems actually interact with the outside world through trial and error with respect to the enviroment via evolution.

Exactly, and this could all happen in the dark, just as the sprites in my computer game might interact totally in the dark.....

Robots just break, if consciousness isn't desighned into them they have no internal reason for one.

???

Since we don't have the capability to desighn consciousness except by accident, there is no reason to think a robot or a computer would likely be desighned for consciousness.

By accident??? I thought we were well on the road!

Blatent assertions, and wortless diatribe.

I can say the same for much of what you've written so far as well, sport.

What makes you the arbiter of what can and can not be done?

What makes you the arbiter that and 2 and 2 can't produce 6?

You've given not even a hint of an explaination just mysticism and negative assertions.

I'm trying to unravel the fact that no explanation (as you would like it, going beyond mere "instantiation") is in principle possible for consciousness.


I'll get to the rest of your post soon.

 

[variant]

I don't need to because I know when an explanation in its very principle is impossible. Why is water wet?

You do not know that or you could demonstrate it.

We do know why water is wet.

Which means absolutely nothing in regards to consciousness...

It is the basis of identity. The reason for it.

Fair enough. You are right that the sense of personal identity is a relevant one for consciousness. After all, who is the one observing? But I think even that can be put aside as a separate question when dealing with the sheer "isness" of mental fact. It isn't about the observer but the act of observation which undergirds it. And that seems inexplicable to a large extent. I could have personal identity, but when I'm asleep my mental life flees from me.

You're examineing the system both from inside it and from the top down, it's no wonder you aren't going to find any answers that way.

To the bold: When you're unconscious you're unconcious. I think Identity is more basic than consciousness as I have stated. You retain your identity as an individual even when your consciousness isn't functioning.

And I already stated for the trillionth time that there is no reason for why all this couldn't have happened in the DARK, me and you being zombies.... The appeal to evolution and reproduction here is just weak and pathetic. It seems to show me that you yourself doubt your own project.

It didn't, as I have stated life has the basic ingredients for consciousness.

I think life is the basis for consciousness, identity, abstraction language and sentience. Each is found in it's basic part in the very nature of the evolving living system, and it is no suprise to me that eventually a higher order biological consciousness would evolve out of such a process.

Exactly what I said to the latter part of your statement right above. But, uhm, no there's no reason reproduction couldn't occur without sensation.

No, it is not possible for (spontanious) reproduction to occurr successfully without sensation.

Populations of ecoli sense changes in the enviroment and change with respect to them. This is the most basic form of sensation, and I am not suprised it has escaped you.

Exactly, and this could all happen in the dark, just as the sprites in my computer game might interact totally in the dark.....

It could but without a reason for it, it probably won't.

???

Living things reproduce and die while robots and computers just break.

Without a reason (reproduction) the sentience is unlikely.

You were searching for a "factor" that seperates complex machines from conscious ones? What if the reality is not to your likeing as to what that "factor" is?

By accident??? I thought we were well on the road!

The evolutionary desighn process is not "by accident" more like trial and error.

We HUMANS do not have the ability to desighn consciousness except by accident at this point.

You are the one who wants an explaination for why my computer isn't conscious.

I can say the same for much of what you've written so far as well, sport.

Just keep rambleing on about how consiousness is inexplicable by defintion then.

I'm sure someone will think you sound believeable regardless of the lack of any substantative thought.

What makes you the arbiter that and 2 and 2 can't produce 6?

Prove that your blatent assertions are like the basic logical arguments that
2 + 2 =/ 6 and we'll talk.

I'm trying to unravel the fact that no explanation (as you would like it, going beyond mere "instantiation") is in principle possible for consciousness.

It's not a fact, just a conclsuion you've jumped to.

I'll get to the rest of your post soon.

With bated breath.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Well there is a proper explaination for why water put's out fire.

If you really think that nothing can be explained if it is not explained in it's infinite entirety then you have an epistemological problem because that is not how human knoledge works.

Look at the phenomenology of 'why' water puts out fire though. There is simply a causal relation that exists. That's all. Yes, you can look at things on a chemical basis, but once you get down to it what rears its head is not some ultimate explanatory mechanism which lets you discover this amazing reason for why water puts out fire. Rather, it comes as a sheer brute fact. That is perhaps more aptly construed as the 'thatness' or facticity of water putting out fire, or metal oxidizing. And yes you can go to the subatomic level and explain how there are things like electron exchanges and so forth but the why to that is what is at hand. And at root it is inexplicable: to use Phil Collins' phrase "that's just the way it is."

You don't have to explain your theory, but you do if you want to be taken seriously.

As far as I see I already have. My theory is the one which best explains the fact of sentience in as much as there can be any sort of explanation at all. Yours is the actual mystical and empty sort of "explanation" that tries to tackle all bases but misses the mark of sliding into home.

We don't know which one is more viable because we don't know which is right.

Yes, but since we at least aim for an explanation that discloses to us the truth about something, why not go with the alternative that does just that, instead of devolving into mysticism?

Your opinion is "just" an assertion because it literally tells us nothing.

It tells us something: that there is an actual entity which, once we plug in, we find that it allows consciousness to be since it is one of that entity's attributes. On the contrary, it's the neuroscientists who tell us nothing.

If you don't understand the why's and hows of something it is a good place to start rather than just asserting the impossibility of it.

What's impossible is ferreting out an explanation for why something magical like this happens. Unless one looks to an alternative which doesn't merely hedge something otherwise inexplicable within cleverly constructed "reasons" like your reproduction farce.

 

[variant]

Look at the phenomenology of 'why' water puts out fire though. There is simply a causal relation that exists. That's all. Yes, you can look at things on a chemical basis, but once you get down to it what rears its head is not some ultimate explanatory mechanism which lets you discover this amazing reason for why water puts out fire. Rather, it comes as a sheer brute fact. That is perhaps more aptly construed as the 'thatness' or facticity of water putting out fire, or metal oxidizing. And yes you can go to the subatomic level and explain how there are things like electron exchanges and so forth but the why to that is what is at hand. And at root it is inexplicable: to use Phil Collins' phrase "that's just the way it is."

You just have a warped epistemology. When water puts out fire the why and how are the same, it dosen't get any deeper than that.

You insisting that there needs to be a deeper truth and being unsatisfied when you can't find it is the problem here.

As far as I see I already have. My theory is the one which best explains the fact of sentience in as much as there can be any sort of explanation at all. Yours is the actual mystical and empty sort of "explanation" that tries to tackle all bases but misses the mark of sliding into home.

You don't have a "theory" unless you have explained some facts.

You don't have an explaination at all. You've just dubbed explaination impossible without a complete understanding.

Yes, but since we at least aim for an explanation that discloses to us the truth about something, why not go with the alternative that does just that, instead of devolving into mysticism?

Your claim of my mysticism is as hollow as your claim to explaination.

It tells us something: that there is an actual entity which, once we plug in, we find that it allows consciousness to be since it is one of that entity's attributes. On the contrary, it's the neuroscientists who tell us nothing.

And you have merely asserted it to exist and that others are wrong without any sort of objective OR subjective investigation.

What's impossible is ferreting out an explanation for why something magical like this happens. Unless one looks to an alternative which doesn't merely hedge something otherwise inexplicable within cleverly constructed "reasons" like your reproduction farce.

Magical is your word. What is a farce here is that you expect me to take you seriously when you can't even explain what your talking about properly or rule out alternative explainations via even a solid argument (all I see here is name calling and projection).

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

You just have a warped epistemology. When water puts out fire the why and how are the same, it dosen't get any deeper than that.

Exactly. It is. Magically as it were.

You insisting that there needs to be a deeper truth and being unsatisfied when you can't find it is the problem here.

I'm not looking for a deeper truth, only an explanation of the fact of sentience.

You don't have a "theory" unless you have explained some facts.

But... I do. Consciousness is an attribute of the soul. Hence, the presence of a soul in a body capable of sentience, instantiates sentience.

You don't have an explaination at all. You've just dubbed explaination impossible without a complete understanding.

You have to somehow differentiate systems of electrical activity which are null or void of consciousness from those that are full. You mentioned things like single-level complexity. I agree that that's one criteria applicable. But it isn't sufficient in my view because then consciousness would be instantiated by magic as it were. Consciousness being an attribute of another, discrete entity, would solve this lack.

Your claim of my mysticism is as hollow as your claim to explaination.

But you are a mystic insofar as you eschew any deeper explanation, which as far as I see you have in the fire and water case.

And you have merely asserted it to exist and that others are wrong without any sort of objective OR subjective investigation.

I have argued my case, but perhaps not in the most organized fashion. Objective and subjective are more or less throw-around words.

Magical is your word. What is a farce here is that you expect me to take you seriously when you can't even explain what your talking about properly or rule out alternative explainations via even a solid argument (all I see here is name calling and projection).

I have just explained what I am talking about properly in this post, to my best knowledge. Take it or leave it, but I'm not the one whose willing to settle for a magical explanation. Not in the least. Odd that by one turn you said I'm opting for an "ultimate" explanation, the next moment a frivolous one!

 

[variant]

Exactly. It is. Magically as it were.

Now your just blathering. At some point we will run out of explainations or explanitory power because we are limited, there is nothing magical about something we have yet to explain.

I'm not looking for a deeper truth, only an explanation of the fact of sentience.

It dosen't seem that you are looking for anything.

It seems like you are looking for a justification of what you arleady believe.

But... I do. Consciousness is an attribute of the soul. Hence, the presence of a soul in a body capable of sentience, instantiates sentience.

Another assertion. One with no explanatory power. I am senseing a trend.

You have to somehow differentiate systems of electrical activity which are null or void of consciousness from those that are full. You mentioned things like single-level complexity. I agree that that's one criteria applicable. But it isn't sufficient in my view because then consciousness would be instantiated by magic as it were. Consciousness being an attribute of another, discrete entity, would solve this lack.

You have no explaination for why this would work either.

But you are a mystic insofar as you eschew any deeper explanation, which as far as I see you have in the fire and water case.

You have a strange definition of mysticism.

I don't believe things have to be understood in their entirety to be understood.

It is a recognition of human limitation.

I have argued my case, but perhaps not in the most organized fashion. Objective and subjective are more or less throw-around words.

No, you've simply asserted your case, mainly argueing it by handwaveing any alternative explainations and fallatious appeals to ignorance.

I have just explained what I am talking about properly in this post, to my best knowledge.

You or someone else can PM me when you make a substantative point that isn't just a blatent assertion.

Take it or leave it, but I'm not the one whose willing to settle for a magical explanation.

Yet you invoke souls as an explaination. This literally got me laughing, thanks.

Not in the least. Odd that by one turn you said I'm opting for an "ultimate" explanation, the next moment a frivolous one!

That is because from me and others you expect an ultimate explaination but for yourself you are willing to settle for whatever pointless assertion suits your tastes.

It's not my fault you have differn't standards for the ideas of others and can't look at your own arguments with the same consistant standards.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Now your just blathering. At some point we will run out of explainations or explanitory power because we are limited, there is nothing magical about something we have yet to explain.

Do you accept an infinite regress of explanations then?

It dosen't seem that you are looking for anything.
It seems like you are looking for a justification of what you already believe.
Another assertion. One with no explanatory power. I am senseing a trend.
You have no explaination for why this would work either.
You have a strange definition of mysticism.
I don't believe things have to be understood in their entirety to be understood.
It is a recognition of human limitation.
No, you've simply asserted your case, mainly argueing it by handwaveing any alternative explainations.
You or someone else can PM me when you make a substantative point that isn't just a blatent assertion.
Yet you invoke souls as an explaination. This literally got me laughing, thanks.
That is because from me and others you expect an ultimate explaination but for yourself you are willing to settle for whatever pointless assertion suits your tastes.
It's not my fault you have differn't standards for the ideas of others and can't look at your own arguments with the same consistant standards.

I'll simply file these away as merely your opinions and ad hominem assaults.

::ignore::

 

[variant]

Do you accept an infinite regress of explanations then?

No the universe is probably finite, just that knowing everything is not nessisary to know anything.

I'll simply file these away as merely your opinions and ad hominem assaults.

::ignore::

Attacking your argument is not ad homineim. Learn the terms.

Or you could always put forward better arguments that aren't fallatious appeals to ignorance and blatent assertions.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

No the universe is probably finite, just that knowing everything is not nessisary to know anything.

So, there is a point at which explanations "bottom out" - correct? In other words, the "turtles upon turtles" cease at some point?

Attacking your argument is not ad homineim. Learn the terms.

Or you could always put forward better arguments that aren't fallatious appeals to ignorance and blatent assertions.

You mentioned that I was a 'handwaiver' and earlier that I was 'projecting.' Furthermore, much here reflects a callous lack of charity inveighed towards me. As such, I find you are engaging in an ad hominem attack against me.

 

[SithDoughnut]

We will never know why because consciousness is in a domain all its own.

What reason do you have to assume that it is?

Correct, it does not. Also, I take offense to the term 'magical.' There are many philosophers and scientists who are not physicalists and to label all such believers in "magic" is crude and benighted.

For all intents and purposes, it is magic. For some reason, you treat consciousness differently to every other biological process, when you have no good reason to do so. You're evidently going for something supernatural here, but apparently we are expected to go with this assertion without any explanation of why it is true. That's how magic works, too.

Because it is clearly different. Digestion you can track in terms of it having a physical form. Same with respiration. The mind you cannot track in this same way, only in the form of neural correlates which are not it. They are the brain, not the mind.

We can track pretty much everything you would consider "the mind". Memories, personalities, emotions, all of these can be seen happening in various parts of the brain. Again, you're asserting dualism and expecting us to defend it for you.

And I will answer, because there is no adequate explanation for the mind's existence, whereas the brain may very well exist as an adaptive tool for evolution. The explanatory gap, no gulf, is as wide as ever.

Seeing as you're apparently going to insist that we believe this arbitrary assertion, let's go with it for a moment. What does "the mind" consist of? I'll be interested to see if you can come up with anything that we don't already find in the physical brain.

Question: why couldn't all this have happened in the dark? Per any other electrical system?

What do you mean by "the dark"?

 

[variant]

No the universe is probably finite, just that knowing everything is not necessary to know anything.

So, there is a point at which explanations "bottom out" - correct?

Yes, but it is impossible to get there. A complete explanation would involve the entire universe and the observer, and observer observing itself. I don’t believe this possible.

Human minds are limited by definition, and thus will never reach an absolute explanation of anything and do not think in absolute terms. Knowledge therefore is always limited in the human experience.

You mentioned that I was a 'handwaiver' and earlier that I was 'projecting.' Furthermore, much here reflects a callous lack of charity inveighed towards me. As such, I find you are engaging in an ad hominem attack against me.

My attacks are towards your argument.

Projection is a psychological term for what I think you are engaging in with your arguments. Attributing things to others that you are an example of yourself.

Handwaveing is the dismissal of alternatives without argument, and you have done so in plain black font.

If you want to do better than the appeals to ignorance and blatant assertions so far you are free to do so. The rest is just window dressing anyway.

 

[KCfromNC]

On the other hand, I do have a viable explanation; the soul.

I'm curious how this alleged soul is an explanation for anything. What explanations does it give for any of the questions raised in this thread?

 

[Davian]

Having seen your post emphasizing the "disingenuous" component of your user name, I will answer anyway...

Put simply, no explanation yet has been offered, and none may be forthcoming given what we know about the brain.

Goal posts moving...

On the other hand, I do have a viable explanation; the soul.

What is a "soul", outside of works of fiction?

I don't buy that. To say that there is an "illusion" of consciousness is nothing more than a cop-out. Even an illusion has the existence of an illusion. This isn't like a kaneda triangle, as some would like to hokily pass off.

I did not use the word illusion.