AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Looking at membrane electrical potentials and other membrane characteristics:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/exclusive-oliver-sacks-antonio-damasio-and-others-debate-christof-koch-on-the-nature-of-consciousness/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150617-"The qualitative argument for considering cation influx to be the spark of sentience, as outlined above, is perhaps already plausible, but the quantitative details require further study. As summarized by the foremost contributor to the science of excitable membranes, Bertil Hille, the perceptual significance of cation influx is unlikely to be strong in, for example, the giant motor axon of the squid. Although the large diameter of the squid axon makes it ideal for experimental study, the huge volume of this motor neuron also means that its action potential results in an atypically small change in the voltage gradient (only 1 part in 105). In contrast, sensory potentials and action potentials in the small dendrites and axons of most animal nervous systems (where cation influx results in a 10 percent change in ionic content) are much more likely to be perceptually relevant and therefore motivating stimuli. Could these be the cellular-level phenomena that ignite awareness and ultimately drive animal behavior? Is this the relevant membrane biology that underlies mind and most clearly distinguishes between the placid existence of flora and the feisty, fidgety behavior of fauna?-****-"What this calls for is a principled, analytical, prescriptive, empirically testable, and clinically useful account of how highly organized and excitable matter supports the central fact of our existencesubjective experience.-DHW PLEASE NOTE:-"Finally, it is quite a different question whether single cell-organisms, worms or other simple metazoansvastly simpler than mammals with their large brainshave sentience. I do share with the letter writers a hunch that it may well be that it feels like something to be a worm. However, that is a question that right now can't be answered in any meaningful empirically accessible manner."-Sentience is a word that has been over-used and over-hyped, as this quote indicates. There are many levels of meaning of the word 'sentience', which simply means the ability to recognize stimuli.

9588 views

DAVID: DHW PLEASE NOTE:-QUOTE: "Finally, it is quite a different question whether single cell-organisms, worms or other simple metazoansvastly simpler than mammals with their large brainshave sentience. I do share with the letter writers a hunch that it may well be that it feels like something to be a worm. However, that is a question that right now can't be answered in any meaningful empirically accessible manner."-Sentience is a word that has been over-used and over-hyped, as this quote indicates. There are many levels of meaning of the word 'sentience', which simply means the ability to recognize stimuli.
-If there are many levels of meaning, sentience doesn't simply mean the ability to recognize stimuli; it can also mean awareness, and the quotation goes even further, in the direction of self-awareness (it feels like something to be a worm). Not even experts like McClintock, Margulis, Albrecht-Bühler, Shapiro etc. claim human-type self-awareness for bacteria or worms. Without the ability to recognize stimuli (a definition I am quite happy to accept), no organism can survive, but these experts do not confine themselves to that ability: they also talk of cognition, intelligence, decision-making, cooperation, communication. Sentience can therefore be regarded as the attribute that provides the material on which intelligence works, whether in single-celled or multicellular organisms. You are clutching at lexical straws.

9522 views

DAVID: DHW PLEASE NOTE:
> 
> QUOTE: "Finally, it is quite a different question whether single cell-organisms, worms or other simple metazoansvastly simpler than mammals with their large brainshave sentience. I do share with the letter writers a hunch that it may well be that it feels like something to be a worm. However, that is a question that right now can't be answered in any meaningful empirically accessible manner."
> 
> Sentience is a word that has been over-used and over-hyped, as this quote indicates. There are many levels of meaning of the word 'sentience', which simply means the ability to recognize stimuli.
> 
> 
> dhw: If there are many levels of meaning, sentience doesn't simply mean the ability to recognize stimuli; it can also mean awareness, and the quotation goes even further, in the direction of self-awareness (it feels like something to be a worm). Not even experts like McClintock, Margulis, Albrecht-Bühler, Shapiro etc. claim human-type self-awareness for bacteria or worms. Without the ability to recognize stimuli (a definition I am quite happy to accept), no organism can survive, but these experts do not confine themselves to that ability: they also talk of cognition, intelligence, decision-making, cooperation, communication. Sentience can therefore be regarded as the attribute that provides the material on which intelligence works, whether in single-celled or multicellular organisms. You are clutching at lexical straws.-You have neatly bypassed the major observation in the quote: " However, that is a question that right now can't be answered in any meaningful empirically accessible manner."-Why do McM, Mar, A-B, and Shap all then add words like: "cognition, intelligence, decision-making, cooperation, communication" in view of the observation above. Clutch at the straws you want, but they are blowing up a concept of 'sentience' beyond all recognition. I repeat once again, most all the chemical reactions to provide reaction to stimuli are described. It is equivalent to my kidney constructing my urine with no thought from me. Sentience, by your own admission is a recognition of stimuli, but that meaning 'awareness' does not imply cognition, since automatic reactions can supply the same result, seen externally to the organism.

9594 views

Dhw: Without the ability to recognize stimuli (a definition I am quite happy to accept), no organism can survive, but these experts do not confine themselves to that ability: they also talk of cognition, intelligence, decision-making, cooperation, communication. Sentience can therefore be regarded as the attribute that provides the material on which intelligence works, whether in single-celled or multicellular organisms. You are clutching at lexical straws.-DAVID: You have neatly bypassed the major observation in the quote: "However, that is a question that right now can't be answered in any meaningful empirically accessible manner."-I did not bypass it at all. I wrote: ...sentience doesn't simply mean the ability to recognize stimuli; it can also mean awareness, and the quotation goes even further, in the direction of self-awareness (it feels like something to be a worm). Not even experts like McClintock, Margulis, Albrecht-Bühler, Shapiro etc. claim human-type self-awareness for bacteria or worms. In other words, the question that can't be answered relates to self-awareness, not awareness. -DAVID: Why do McM, Mar, A-B, and Shap all then add words like: "cognition, intelligence, decision-making, cooperation, communication" in view of the observation above. -Because they have studied the behaviour of these organisms, conducted experiments with them, and drawn the conclusion that these attributes are present. The above observation, however, posits a degree of self-awareness that McClintock et al do not claim for bacteria.-DAVID: Clutch at the straws you want, but they are blowing up a concept of 'sentience' beyond all recognition. I repeat once again, most all the chemical reactions to provide reaction to stimuli are described. [...] Sentience, by your own admission is a recognition of stimuli, but that meaning 'awareness' does not imply cognition, since automatic reactions can supply the same result, seen externally to the organism.
 
Of course you are free to reject the findings of these scientists who have spent a lifetime in this particular field. The argument that automatic reactions seen externally can supply the same result may be applied to your belief in human free will, but you will do an intellectual somersault if a determinist puts that argument to you. Back to Shapiro's explanation of your anthropocentrism: Large organs chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.

9567 views

DAVID: Sentience, by your own admission is a recognition of stimuli, but that meaning 'awareness' does not imply cognition, since automatic reactions can supply the same result, seen externally to the organism[/i].
> 
> dhw: Of course you are free to reject the findings of these scientists who have spent a lifetime in this particular field. The argument that automatic reactions seen externally can supply the same result may be applied to your belief in human free will, but you will do an intellectual somersault if a determinist puts that argument to you. Back to Shapiro's explanation of your anthropocentrism: Large organs chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.-The argument that free will looks just like the automatic responses of a single cell is way off the mark. Your freedom of choice in the wording of the above paragraph presenting your individual views belies your presentation about free will as an answer to my point. The brain is not a single cell, as a straw man and as a biologic computer amazingly different. And I do think that many animals have cognition to a small degree similar to ours. They just can't ruminate about being self-aware as we do.

9472 views

DAVID: The argument that free will looks just like the automatic responses of a single cell is way off the mark. -That is not the argument at all. Experts tell us that bacteria are individual, decision-making, cognitive beings. You say they may look that way, but in fact they are automata directed by factors over which they have no control. A determinist (I am not defending determinism, by the way) will argue that although your actions may look like those of a free agent, you are also directed by factors over which you have no control. That does not mean your responses look like those of a bacterium! It simply means you are applying arbitrary double standards: you insist that what looks like free will must be free will, but what looks like cognition can't be cognition. Shapiro: Large organs chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way. Why are you so reluctant to believe that bacteria might be cognitive? What are you afraid of?

9587 views

dhw: Shapiro: Large organs chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way. Why are you so reluctant to believe that bacteria might be cognitive? What are you afraid of?-I'm not afraid of anything. To me I equate independent bacteria to the cells in my body that act amazingly automatically. No different.

9618 views

The implication is consciousness is something we use and direct. It does not control. To me this is obvious. I use my consciousness, it does not use me. -http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html-"We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static," Morsella said. "This theory is very counterintuitive. It goes against our everyday way of thinking."-"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mindthe idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of actiondoes not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system.-"Compare consciousness to the Internet, Morsella suggested. The Internet can be used to buy books, reserve a hotel room and complete thousands of other tasks. Taken at face value, it would seem incredibly powerful. But, in actuality, a person in front of a laptop or clicking away on a smartphone is running the showthe Internet is just being made to perform the same basic process, without any free will of its own.-"The Passive Frame Theory also defies the intuitive belief that one conscious thought leads to another. "One thought doesn't know about the other, they just often have access to and are acting upon the same, unconscious information," Morsella said. "You have one thought and then another, and you think that one thought leads to the next, but this doesn't seem to be the way the process actually works."-"The theory, which took Morsella and his team more than 10 years to develop, can be difficult to accept at first, he said.-"'The number one reason it's taken so long to reach this conclusion is because people confuse what consciousness is for with what they think they use it for," Morsella said. "Also, most approaches to consciousness focus on perception rather than action.'"

9605 views

DAVID: The implication is consciousness is something we use and direct. It does not control. To me this is obvious. I use my consciousness, it does not use me. -http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html-But what is not obvious is the composition of I/me. Where are you when your consciousness has gone? If you are not conscious of your memories, your emotions, your perceptions, your reasoning, your ideas etc., what is left of you? All of these elements combine to make you, and consciousness of them is also you. And what do you think uses your consciousness? Even if you believe in dualism, your consciousness must still be a part of the immaterial you if you are to be you: not something you use, and not something that uses you, but actually you. Perhaps that is why people whose consciousness is affected by illness, drugs or alcohol sometimes do things which are not only said to be out of character, but which they cannot even recall to consciousness, because they weren't conscious of them at the time. They have lost their identity by losing their awareness. The rest of the article seems to me to skate over the all-important problem of what constitutes you.-My apologies to you and Romansh for jumping in!

9460 views

DAVID: The implication is consciousness is something we use and direct. It does not control. To me this is obvious. I use my consciousness, it does not use me. 
> 
> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html&#... 
> dhw: But what is not obvious is the composition of I/me. Where are you when your consciousness has gone?-This is where the research of NDE's comes into play. Consciousness is not gone with temporary death of the brain. So it must exist somehow apart from the brain.-
> dhw: Even if you believe in dualism, your consciousness must still be a part of the immaterial you if you are to be you: not something you use, and not something that uses you, but actually you.-I think I have to be a dualist based on NDE research.-> dhw: Perhaps that is why people whose consciousness is affected by illness, drugs or alcohol sometimes do things which are not only said to be out of character, but which they cannot even recall to consciousness, because they weren't conscious of them at the time. They have lost their identity by losing their awareness.-Amnesia is an interesting point. I think it is a loss of contact with consciousness for a period of time.

9500 views

The implication is consciousness is something we use and direct. It does not control. To me this is obvious. I use my consciousness, it does not use me. 
> 
> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html&#... -Radically new? I somewhat doubt this. Eastern traditions, Susan Blackmore "Am I conscious now?" point to this. If we think about it and if we believe in cause and effect then consciousness is simply a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings.

9510 views

DAVID: The implication is consciousness is something we use and direct. It does not control. To me this is obvious. I use my consciousness, it does not use me. -http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html-dhw: But what is not obvious is the composition of I/me. Where are you when your consciousness has gone?
DAVID: This is where the research of NDE's comes into play. Consciousness is not gone with temporary death of the brain. So it must exist somehow apart from the brain.-But your dualism still doesn't answer the question of what constitutes I/me in your sentence: I use my consciousness, it does not use me.
 
dhw: Perhaps that is why people whose consciousness is affected by illness, drugs or alcohol sometimes do things which are not only said to be out of character, but which they cannot even recall to consciousness, because they weren't conscious of them at the time. They have lost their identity by losing their awareness.-DAVID: Amnesia is an interesting point. I think it is a loss of contact with consciousness for a period of time.-Yes, consciousness encompasses most facets of our identity, with the obvious exception of the unconscious (though even that can sometimes be brought within the range of our awareness). That is my point. We do not use it and are not used by it. We ARE our memories, our emotions, our reason, our ideas and our consciousness of them.-ROMANSH: If we think about it and if we believe in cause and effect then consciousness is simply a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings.-There are two approaches to this, as I see it: 1) the materialist view of consciousness, according to which your statement means the brain supplies a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings; 2) the dualist view, according to which an immaterial self supplies a (limited) window on its own inner workings, with the brain as the physical intermediary between thought and action. I wouldn't regard either of these as simple! And I would still argue that in terms of an individual's identity, consciousness - whatever its source and nature - cannot be separated from the attributes, perceptions and actions it is conscious of. -As for control, if 1) the brain, and/or 2) the immaterial self are us, we can hardly argue that we (all our attributes including our consciousness) do not direct our thoughts and actions. The question then is why we direct them in the way we do. Hence the controversy over free will.

9517 views


> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html&#... 
> dhw: But what is not obvious is the composition of I/me. Where are you when your consciousness has gone?-> DAVID: This is where the research of NDE's comes into play. Consciousness is not gone with temporary death of the brain. So it must exist somehow apart from the brain.
> 
> But your dualism still doesn't answer the question of what constitutes I/me in your sentence: I use my consciousness, it does not use me.-Do you have the answer? I don't think it is an illusion, and I think the brain acts as a receiver for consciousness, beyond which I cannot go.-
> dhw: That is my point. We do not use it and are not used by it. We ARE our memories, our emotions, our reason, our ideas and our consciousness of them.-But that is only a portion of our consciousness. Those make us an individual person, but don't account for the constant flow of thoughts and ideas that continuous appear under our control.
> 
> ROMANSH: If we think about it and if we believe in cause and effect then consciousness is simply a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings.
> 
> dhw:There are two approaches to this, as I see it: 1) the materialist view of consciousness, according to which your statement means the brain supplies a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings; 2) the dualist view, according to which an immaterial self supplies a (limited) window on its own inner workings, with the brain as the physical intermediary between thought and action. I wouldn't regard either of these as simple! And I would still argue that in terms of an individual's identity, consciousness - whatever its source and nature - cannot be separated from the attributes, perceptions and actions it is conscious of. -Agreed
> 
> dhw: As for control, if 1) the brain, and/or 2) the immaterial self are us, we can hardly argue that we (all our attributes including our consciousness) do not direct our thoughts and actions. The question then is why we direct them in the way we do. Hence the controversy over free will.-I see the controversy over free will is not the 'why' based on our experiences, and I do not believe there is a 'why' in how we control our free will, Libet and others now shown to be wrong.

9556 views

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html-Dhw: But your dualism still doesn't answer the question of what constitutes I/me in your sentence: I use my consciousness, it does not use me.
DAVID: Do you have the answer? I don't think it is an illusion, and I think the brain acts as a receiver for consciousness, beyond which I cannot go.-I don't regard consciousness or the self as an illusion, and I don't know if the brain is a producer or a receiver of consciousness. I am wrestling with the concept of identity - which is ignored by the article and by your statement I use my consciousness.-dhw: We do not use it and are not used by it. We ARE our memories, our emotions, our reason, our ideas and our consciousness of them.
DAVID: But that is only a portion of our consciousness. Those make us an individual person, but don't account for the constant flow of thoughts and ideas that continuous appear under our control.-Agreed. Nobody can explain consciousness, thought etc. My question is: WHAT controls or appears to control these processes? If we subscribe to materialism, we shall have to say the brain controls or appears to control the brain. A dualist will have to say that his immaterial self controls or appears to control his immaterial self. In both cases, consciousness is an unsolved mystery, but without it we can't be us, so we can't say we use it or it uses us. Our consciousness, along with our subconscious and other attributes, IS us.-dhw: As for control, if 1) the brain, and/or 2) the immaterial self are us, we can hardly argue that we (all our attributes including our consciousness) do not direct our thoughts and actions. The question then is why we direct them in the way we do. Hence the controversy over free will.
DAVID: I see the controversy over free will is not the 'why' based on our experiences, and I do not believe there is a 'why' in how we control our free will, Libet and others now shown to be wrong.-The controversy over free will is not confined to Libet's experiments! Determinists will argue that all our decisions are predetermined by a sequence of causes and effects beyond our control. You don't even have to be a materialist to subscribe to this view. The counter-argument that I am offering is that even if the causes and effects are beyond our control, the product of those sequences is our individual identity, and so the decisions are still taken by us. You can therefore argue either way: the decisions are ours (free will) because all our attributes, including our consciousness, are our own, or the decisions are not ours (determinism) because our attributes etc. are not of our own making.

9477 views

dhw: Agreed. Nobody can explain consciousness, thought etc. My question is: WHAT controls or appears to control these processes? If we subscribe to materialism, we shall have to say the brain controls or appears to control the brain. A dualist will have to say that his immaterial self controls or appears to control his immaterial self. In both cases, consciousness is an unsolved mystery, but without it we can't be us, so we can't say we use it or it uses us. Our consciousness, along with our subconscious and other attributes, IS us.-I am still a dualist. I control my brain and I control my consciousness. My consciousness is me.-> 
> dhw: The controversy over free will is not confined to Libet's experiments! Determinists will argue that all our decisions are predetermined by a sequence of causes and effects beyond our control. You don't even have to be a materialist to subscribe to this view. The counter-argument that I am offering is that even if the causes and effects are beyond our control, the product of those sequences is our individual identity, and so the decisions are still taken by us. You can therefore argue either way: the decisions are ours (free will) because all our attributes, including our consciousness, are our own, or the decisions are not ours (determinism) because our attributes etc. are not of our own making.-I won't argue either way. My attributes of my personality and consciousness are made up from my decisions in my history of my life. I am me, without question.

9511 views

dhw: Agreed. Nobody can explain consciousness, thought etc. My question is: WHAT controls or appears to control these processes? If we subscribe to materialism, we shall have to say the brain controls or appears to control the brain. A dualist will have to say that his immaterial self controls or appears to control his immaterial self. In both cases, consciousness is an unsolved mystery, but without it we can't be us, so we can't say we use it or it uses us. Our consciousness, along with our subconscious and other attributes, IS us.
> 
> I am still a dualist. I control my brain and I control my consciousness. My consciousness is me.-I don't know how to reconcile this statement with panentheism.

9538 views


> > David: I am still a dualist. I control my brain and I control my consciousness. My consciousness is me.
> 
> Romansh: I don't know how to reconcile this statement with panentheism.-My definition of panentheism is that the universal consciousness is both within and without the universe, and my consciousness is a tiny part of that UC.

9464 views

My definition of panentheism is that the universal consciousness is both within and without the universe, and my consciousness is a tiny part of that UC.-So I would take it that you think rocks, moons, chemicals etc are conscious.
Carbon dioxide molecules in the air and water molecules in the oceans are conscious.
The neurons in the brain are conscious, as are people, families, communities, cities countries and the Earth in general. -Fair enough

9518 views

David My definition of panentheism is that the universal consciousness is both within and without the universe, and my consciousness is a tiny part of that UC.
> 
> Romansh: So I would take it that you think rocks, moons, chemicals etc are conscious.
> Carbon dioxide molecules in the air and water molecules in the oceans are conscious.
> The neurons in the brain are conscious, as are people, families, communities, cities countries and the Earth in general. 
> 
> Fair enough-No, I think the universal consciousness has created inanimate objects such as you have listed, but the attribute of consciousness itself is limited to those animals with brain function.This is where I differ with dhw and his panpsychism theory.

9578 views

David My definition of panentheism is that the universal consciousness is both within and without the universe, and my consciousness is a tiny part of that UC.-Romansh: So I would take it that you think rocks, moons, chemicals etc are conscious.
Carbon dioxide molecules in the air and water molecules in the oceans are conscious.
The neurons in the brain are conscious, as are people, families, communities, cities countries and the Earth in general. -DAVID: No, I think the universal consciousness has created inanimate objects such as you have listed, but the attribute of consciousness itself is limited to those animals with brain function.This is where I differ with dhw and his panpsychism theory.-The attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects is misleading, since it can imply human-type awareness. The description of panpsychism that I like asserts that each spatio-temporal thing has a mental or inner' aspect. [...] there may be varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness. (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) Most panpsychists trace these forms of quasi-consciousness back to your God, who inexplicably possesses the almightiest form of consciousness. My atheistic variation would be that during an eternal process of energy/material transformation (matter is never constant, as far as we know), a few forms of matter - I am sceptical about the pan' prefix - inexplicably developed a kind of quasi-consciousness. It would be totally different from ours, just as bacterial intelligence is totally different from ours, and it would have created combinations which eventually led to the first forms of life. Basically, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this would describe evolution from the bottom upwards (the rudimentary quasi-consciousness of those individual materials ultimately developing into our own self-awareness), as opposed to the top downwards (supreme consciousness coming from nowhere). I do not subscribe to this hypothesis, but simply offer it as an equally reasonable/unreasonable alternative to the inexplicable creative talents of God and chance.

9523 views


> DAVID: No, I think the universal consciousness has created inanimate objects such as you have listed, but the attribute of consciousness itself is limited to those animals with brain function.This is where I differ with dhw and his panpsychism theory.
> 
> dhw: The attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects is misleading, since it can imply human-type awareness. The description of panpsychism that I like asserts that each spatio-temporal thing has a mental or inner' aspect. [...] there may be varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness. (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) .... Basically, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this would describe evolution from the bottom upwards (the rudimentary quasi-consciousness of those individual materials ultimately developing into our own self-awareness), as opposed to the top downwards (supreme consciousness coming from nowhere). I do not subscribe to this hypothesis, but simply offer it as an equally reasonable/unreasonable alternative to the inexplicable creative talents of God and chance.-I find the term 'quasi-consciousness' as a neat cop-out to escape the trap of chance or design as the only alternatives. As I view universal consciousness, from which your thought begins I believe, it has created animate and inanimate forms, but nothing 'quasi'. Quasi-consciousness presumes since God is in everything He imparts some of His mentation to everything. I find no evidence for that in anything I have studied. A rock is still a rock. A single cell still responds automatically to stimuli and appears to have some degree of mental choosing, but that is just 'appearance' without any proof.-And a pantheist (very closely related to panpsychism) has the pope's ear with terrible results. I think the Earth is a special planet with interlocking and self-correcting properties to allow for life.:-https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/-"Strange, then, that a self-professed atheist and scientific advisor to the Vatican named Hans Schellnhuber appears to believe in a Mother Earth.-****-"This goes far beyond the fact that the Earth's climate system has feedbacks, which are at the very center of the debate over climate change. In the Gaia Principle, Mother Earth is alive, and even, some think, aware in some ill-defined, mystical way. The Earth knows man and his activities and, frankly, isn't too happy with him.-"This is what we might call scientific pantheism, a kind that appeals to atheistic scientists. It is an updated version of the pagan belief that the universe itself is God, that the Earth is at least semi-divine  a real Brother Sun and Sister Water! Mother Earth is immanent in creation and not transcendent, like the Christian God.-"What's this have to do with Schellnhuber? In the 1999 Nature paper Earth system' analysis and the second Copernican revolution, he said:-"Ecosphere science is therefore coming of age, lending respectability to its romantic companion, Gaia theory, as pioneered by Lovelock and Margulis. This hotly debated geophysiological' approach to Earth-system analysis argues that the biosphere contributes in an almost cognizant way to self-regulating feedback mechanisms that have kept the Earth's surface environment stable and habitable for life.-"Geo-physiological, in case you missed it. Cognizant, in black and white. So dedicated is Schellnhuber to this belief that he says the Gaia approach may even include the influence of biospheric activities on the Earth's plate-tectonic processes. Not the other way around, mind you, where continental drift and earthquakes effects life, but where life effects earthquakes."

9471 views

dhw: [...]The description of panpsychism that I like asserts that each spatio-temporal thing has a mental or inner' aspect. [...] there may be varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness. (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) .... I do not subscribe to this hypothesis, but simply offer it as an equally reasonable/unreasonable alternative to the inexplicable creative talents of God and chance.-DAVID: I find the term 'quasi-consciousness' as a neat cop-out to escape the trap of chance or design as the only alternatives. As I view universal consciousness, from which your thought begins I believe, it has created animate and inanimate forms, but nothing 'quasi'. Quasi-consciousness presumes since God is in everything He imparts some of His mentation to everything. I find no evidence for that in anything I have studied. A rock is still a rock. A single cell still responds automatically to stimuli and appears to have some degree of mental choosing, but that is just 'appearance' without any proof.-This particular thought of mine emphatically does NOT begin with a universal consciousness. It is the very opposite. It begins with the idea that some things have evolved a mental or inner' aspect - a kind of intelligence very different from our own, as in single-cell life forms, according to the many experts with whom you disagree. However, I share your scepticism concerning rocks, and I have absolutely no idea to what extent mentation may extend beyond bacteria, but I am not prepared to reject the possibility that some form of intelligence may have evolved in certain materials, which enabled them to combine and create the first forms of life. This hypothesis suggests that mentation/quasi-consciousness/non-human intelligence or whatever you like to call it BEGAN with things - a hypothesis I find no more and no less convincing than those of a causeless universal consciousness that simply IS, or chance randomly putting the elements of life together, neither of which is substantiated by any evidence other than the speculative interpretations of their supporters.
 
DAVID: And a pantheist (very closely related to panpsychism) has the pope's ear with terrible results. I think the Earth is a special planet with interlocking and self-correcting properties to allow for life:-https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/-Many fixed beliefs have terrible results. I don't think anyone would disagree that Earth has interlocking and self-correcting properties that allow for life, since life exists on Earth. In a few billion years, those properties will presumably disappear, along with life, since all matter changes. Other than your disapproval of Schellnhuber's apparently atheistic espousal of the Gaia theory, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

9465 views


> dhw:... but I am not prepared to reject the possibility that some form of intelligence may have evolved in certain materials, which enabled them to combine and create the first forms of life. This hypothesis suggests that mentation/quasi-consciousness/non-human intelligence or whatever you like to call it BEGAN with things - a hypothesis I find no more and no less convincing than those of a causeless universal consciousness that simply IS, or chance randomly putting the elements of life together, neither of which is substantiated by any evidence other than the speculative interpretations of their supporters.-The mental state evolved in living matter. Prior to life there was no 'mentation' Since it involves having life, 'things' other than life do not have mentation. And life was around a long tome before nerve cells appeared. I know you want sentience without nerve cells, but here you and I strongly differ. I think your theroy lacks a beginning phase and therefore rings hollow to me. 
> 
> DAVID: And a pantheist (very closely related to panpsychism) has the pope's ear with terrible results. I think the Earth is a special planet with interlocking and self-correcting properties to allow for life:
> 
> https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/
> 
> dhw: Many fixed beliefs have terrible results. I don't think anyone would disagree that Earth has interlocking and self-correcting properties that allow for life, since life exists on Earth. In a few billion years, those properties will presumably disappear, along with life, since all matter changes. Other than your disapproval of Schellnhuber's apparently atheistic espousal of the Gaia theory, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.-Just to show there are many natty ideas out there.

9462 views

I am combining the posts on consciousness and ID, since they now overlap.-dhw:... but I am not prepared to reject the possibility that some form of intelligence may have evolved in certain materials, which enabled them to combine and create the first forms of life. This hypothesis suggests that mentation/quasi-consciousness/non-human intelligence or whatever you like to call it BEGAN with things - a hypothesis I find no more and no less convincing than those of a causeless universal consciousness that simply IS, or chance randomly putting the elements of life together, neither of which is substantiated by any evidence other than the speculative interpretations of their supporters.-DAVID: The mental state evolved in living matter. Prior to life there was no 'mentation' Since it involves having life, 'things' other than life do not have mentation. And life was around a long tome before nerve cells appeared. I know you want sentience without nerve cells, but here you and I strongly differ.-It is not just you and I who differ. When one expert after expert another claims that bacteria are sentient, cognitive beings, as a layman I am in no position to reject their findings out of hand as you do. I would expect at least a degree of open-mindedness. As far as living matter is concerned, most of us would agree that a rook is alive and a rock is not, but there does not seem to be any consensus on the precise borderline between life and non-life. I suggest that similarly no-one can be sure where the borderline lies between mentation and non-mentation. 
 
DAVID: I think your theory lacks a beginning phase and therefore rings hollow to me.-All theories ring hollow (see below). Your own has no beginning either: supreme consciousness has apparently always been there.
 
dhw: Secondly, the three hypotheses (your God, chance, and the evolution of mentation) are ALTERNATIVES, which I neither accept nor reject. That is to say, I cannot decide which (if any) of them is true, and so I withhold judgement on all of them. After so many years, dear David, you still haven't understood what I mean by agnosticism!
DAVID: I fully understand your brand of agnosticism. It admits to all sorts of possible theories with a shut mind against all.-I have come up with just three possible theories, as above, which I neither accept nor reject. That means I am aware of their flaws, but have an open mind towards them. This is in stark contrast to your blanket dismissal of any theory other than that of a designer God, and your absolute rejection of bacterial intelligence and of the possibility of an autonomous inventive mechanism, even if designed by your God. And yet you admit that your theory is so flawed that it requires a leap of faith for you to believe it.

9403 views


> dhw: It is not just you and I who differ. When one expert after expert another claims that bacteria are sentient, cognitive beings, as a layman I am in no position to reject their findings out of hand as you do. I would expect at least a degree of open-mindedness.-When I have an obvious alternative, which I fully understand, that the automaticity makes it look sentient, is just as open-minded and as plain as day. -> dhw: As far as living matter is concerned, most of us would agree that a rook is alive and a rock is not, but there does not seem to be any consensus on the precise borderline between life and non-life.-You are correct. It is a fuzzy line, especially with viruses and parasitism and symbiosis.-> dhw: I suggest that similarly no-one can be sure where the borderline lies between mentation and non-mentation. True mentation begins somewhere after neurons appear. I think that is a requirement.-> 
> DAVID: I think your theory lacks a beginning phase and therefore rings hollow to me.
> 
> dhw: All theories ring hollow (see below). Your own has no beginning either: supreme consciousness has apparently always been there.-That is a beginning.
> 
> dhw: Secondly, the three hypotheses (your God, chance, and the evolution of mentation) are ALTERNATIVES, which I neither accept nor reject. That is to say, I cannot decide which (if any) of them is true, and so I withhold judgement on all of them. After so many years, dear David, you still haven't understood what I mean by agnosticism!
> DAVID: I fully understand your brand of agnosticism. It admits to all sorts of possible theories with a shut mind against all.
> 
> dhw: I have come up with just three possible theories, as above, which I neither accept nor reject. That means I am aware of their flaws, but have an open mind towards them.....And yet you admit that your theory is so flawed that it requires a leap of faith for you to believe it.-It is your view that there are flaws. Because I don't see flaws, I take my leap of faith that I am correct.

9460 views

dhw: When one expert after expert another claims that bacteria are sentient, cognitive beings, as a layman I am in no position to reject their findings out of hand as you do. I would expect at least a degree of open-mindedness.
DAVID: When I have an obvious alternative, which I fully understand, that the automaticity makes it look sentient, is just as open-minded and as plain as day.-If a number of experts say bacteria are sentient and cognitive, and you reject their findings, you have closed your mind. You are in fact using the same approach as the atheist who says that the complexity of natural structures makes them look designed but they are not. How does he know? And how do you know?-DAVID: True mentation begins somewhere after neurons appear. I think that is a requirement.-That depends on what you mean by true mentation. I have no idea where the borderlines lie between true thought and non-thought. Your insistence that mentation depends on the presence of neurons puts carts before horses (Shapiro's large organisms chauvinism), besides flying in the face of your dualism.
 
DAVID: I think your theory lacks a beginning phase and therefore rings hollow to me.
dhw: All theories ring hollow (see below). Your own has no beginning either: supreme consciousness has apparently always been there.
DAVID: That is a beginning.-Eternity does not have a beginning. And if your universal consciousness is not eternal, how did it begin?-DAVID: I fully understand your brand of agnosticism. It admits to all sorts of possible theories with a shut mind against all.
dhw: I have come up with just three possible theories, as above, which I neither accept nor reject. That means I am aware of their flaws, but have an open mind towards them.....And yet you admit that your theory is so flawed that it requires a leap of faith for you to believe it.
DAVID: It is your view that there are flaws. Because I don't see flaws, I take my leap of faith that I am correct.-If there were no flaws in the argument, God's existence would be a fact and you would not need to have faith. You are as aware as I am that there is no direct evidence whatsoever that a universal consciousness exists, is unobservable because it is hiding itself, or offers a more reliable explanation for the universe and life than any other of the many theories on offer (including those of other religions). I am truly surprised that you do not see lack of direct evidence as a flaw in your theory. Such an approach opens the door to every theory that you reject.

9448 views


> dhw: If a number of experts say bacteria are sentient and cognitive, and you reject their findings, you have closed your mind. You are in fact using the same approach as the atheist who says that the complexity of natural structures makes them look designed but they are not. How does he know? And how do you know?-Because my proposal, since we cannot get into the bacteria, but observe from the outside, looks the same as sentience and is just as probable.-> 
> dhw: That depends on what you mean by true mentation. I have no idea where the borderlines lie between true thought and non-thought. Your insistence that mentation depends on the presence of neurons puts carts before horses (Shapiro's large organisms chauvinism), besides flying in the face of your dualism.-Not at all. My dualism assumes, stated many times before, one needs a brain as a receiver of consciousness.
> 
> dhw: Eternity does not have a beginning. And if your universal consciousness is not eternal, how did it begin?-Good correction. Agreed
> 
> dhw: If there were no flaws in the argument, God's existence would be a fact and you would not need to have faith. You are as aware as I am that there is no direct evidence whatsoever that a universal consciousness exists, is unobservable because it is hiding itself, or offers a more reliable explanation for the universe and life than any other of the many theories on offer (including those of other religions). I am truly surprised that you do not see lack of direct evidence as a flaw in your theory. Such an approach opens the door to every theory that you reject.-Please remember I follow Adler, 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.

9435 views

dhw: If a number of experts say bacteria are sentient and cognitive, and you reject their findings, you have closed your mind. You are in fact using the same approach as the atheist who says that the complexity of natural structures makes them look designed but they are not. How does he know? And how do you know?-DAVID: Because my proposal, since we cannot get into the bacteria, but observe from the outside, looks the same as sentience and is just as probable.-If two theories are just as probable, it requires a closed mind to dismiss either of them.-dhw: That depends on what you mean by true mentation. I have no idea where the borderlines lie between true thought and non-thought. Your insistence that mentation depends on the presence of neurons puts carts before horses (Shapiro's large organisms chauvinism), besides flying in the face of your dualism.
-DAVID: Not at all. My dualism assumes, stated many times before, one needs a brain as a receiver of consciousness.-Some experts believe that bacteria have the equivalent of a brain, and if humans use the brain only as a receiver, maybe bacteria do too. And I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and true mentation.
 
dhw: I am truly surprised that you do not see lack of direct evidence as a flaw in your theory. Such an approach opens the door to every theory that you reject.-DAVID: Please remember I follow Adler, 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.-The expression is used mainly in courts of law, where a jury can listen to the accounts of living witnesses and of the accused and of the defendant (if still alive), and judge their reliability, and can also hear forensic evidence from scientists (fingerprints, blood samples, DNA) and judge their relevance. I acknowledge with much admiration the strength of the case you put for design, and I cannot possibly close my mind to it, but in the complete absence of any such direct evidence (reliable witnesses; visible, testable manifestations of existence), can you really regard doubt as being unreasonable? And do you really not see this absence as a flaw in your theory, thereby necessitating your leap of faith?

9450 views


> dhw: If two theories are just as probable, it requires a closed mind to dismiss either of them.-The experts I presented to you think single cells can be sentient without being automatic, but their conclusion from 'just as probable' is no better than mine. I can still choose to pick my conclusion on an equal stance with them. I think they are absolutely wrong.-> 
> dhw: Some experts believe that bacteria have the equivalent of a brain, and if humans use the brain only as a receiver, maybe bacteria do too. And I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and true mentation.-Mentation to me means creating ideas and observations. My dog does, E. coli don't.
> 
> DAVID: Please remember I follow Adler, 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.
> 
> The expression is used mainly in courts of law, where a jury can listen to the accounts of living witnesses and of the accused and of the defendant (if still alive), and judge their reliability, and can also hear forensic evidence from scientists (fingerprints, blood samples, DNA) and judge their relevance.....can you really regard doubt as being unreasonable? And do you really not see this absence as a flaw in your theory, thereby necessitating your leap of faith?-Not at all. the evidence I see piled up for design is 'without a reasonable doubt' in my mind.

9454 views

DAVID: [...] my proposal, since we cannot get into the bacteria, but observe from the outside, looks the same as sentience and is just as probable.
Dhw: If two theories are just as probable, it requires a closed mind to dismiss either of them.
DAVID: I can still choose to pick my conclusion on an equal stance with them. I think they are absolutely wrong.-If you think one theory is absolutely wrong, why do you say it is just as probable? 
 
Dhw: I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and true mentation. 
DAVID: Mentation to me means creating ideas and observations. My dog does, E. Coli don't.-All organisms need some kind of observation to cope with their environment. Most forms of observation are indeed automatic (through the senses or their equivalent), but with what mental processes organisms react to those observations is the point at issue. Creating ideas requires further explanation. A dog might create the idea that it can get at a juicy steak by opening the fridge door, but then Pfeffer's bacteria got to the chicken soup by racing through the disinfectant. What creative ideas does your dog have?-DAVID: [...] the evidence I see piled up for design is without a reasonable doubt' in my mind.-You go far beyond belief in design: you insist that the design has been carried out by a single mind, which never had a beginning but has existed for ever, which planned the universe and the cell and evolution in advance so that it could produce human beings, which deliberately hides itself from us...What direct evidence (first-hand witnesses, scientific proof, tests) do you have for this hypothesis? I must reiterate that I have the greatest respect for your arguments and your belief in the existence of an eternal, sourceless, universal but unobservable intelligence. I am merely surprised that you do not regard the absence of direct evidence as a flaw in the theory. By such standards, the absence of direct evidence that chance can create life, or that materials might evolve their own intelligence, should not be regarded as a flaw in those hypotheses either, so what we are left with is irrational (unreasonable) faith, and that surely leaves room for rational (reasonable) doubt in all cases.

9419 views

DAVID: I can still choose to pick my conclusion on an equal stance with them. I think they are absolutely wrong.
> 
> dhw:If you think one theory is absolutely wrong, why do you say it is just as probable? -You don't see my reasoning: On the surface, both interpretations are equally probable, but when single cells are continued to be investigated for mechanisms, those mechanisms continue to be found and they are always automatic biochemical reactions. It is my anticipation this trend will continue, and is also based on my knowledge of how my bodies' cells respond independently and with automaticity that tells me automaticity is reasonable. My cells came originally through evolution from single cells and their functionality. It is all of the same pattern. Evolution follows patterns.
> 
> Dhw: I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and true mentation. 
> DAVID: Mentation to me means creating ideas and observations. My dog does, E. Coli don't.
> 
> dhw: All organisms need some kind of observation to cope with their environment. Most forms of observation are indeed automatic ... Creating ideas requires further explanation. A dog might create the idea that it can get at a juicy steak by opening the fridge door, but then Pfeffer's bacteria got to the chicken soup by racing through the disinfectant. What creative ideas does your dog have?-He doesn't, but humans do which makes us "different in kind". In my view truly creative thought exists only in humans. How many apes draw up house plans?
> 
> DAVID: [...] the evidence I see piled up for design is without a reasonable doubt' in my mind.
> 
> dhw: You go far beyond belief in design: you insist that the design has been carried out by a single mind, ......What direct evidence (first-hand witnesses, scientific proof, tests) do you have for this hypothesis? .... I am merely surprised that you do not regard the absence of direct evidence as a flaw in the theory.-Your insistence upon direct evidence of a greater power is a symptom of your agnosticism. Direct evidence is essentially impossible as you know, so the next step for me is 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt' Which I fully accept, indirect as it is.-> dhw: By such standards, the absence of direct evidence that chance can create life, or that materials might evolve their own intelligence, should not be regarded as a flaw in those hypotheses either, so what we are left with is irrational (unreasonable) faith, and that surely leaves room for rational (reasonable) doubt in all cases.-I do not view my faith as unreasonable, but you have every right to do so, even though you have admitted you cannot accept chance and create other inventive processes to try to solve your problem.

9424 views

dhw:If you think one theory is absolutely wrong, why do you say it is just as probable? 
DAVID: On the surface, both interpretations are equally probable, but when single cells are continued to be investigated for mechanisms, those mechanisms continue to be found and they are always automatic biochemical reactions.-When the human brain is examined for mechanisms, those mechanisms continue to be found and they are always automatic biochemical reactions. Nobody knows how consciousness/mentation works in ANY organism. In those other than ourselves, we judge by behaviour, and researchers have observed the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they can think. You are applying double standards, since you attribute mentation to your dog solely by observing its behaviour. Large organisms chauvinism. -Dhw: I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and true mentation. 
DAVID: Mentation to me means creating ideas and observations. My dog does, E. Coli don't.
dhw: What creative ideas does your dog have?
DAVID: He doesn't, but humans do which makes us "different in kind". In my view truly creative thought exists only in humans. How many apes draw up house plans?-You claimed (see above) that your dog was capable of mentation. What sort of ideas does your dog create, thereby proving mentation, that bacteria don't create?-DAVID: [...] the evidence I see piled up for design is without a reasonable doubt' in my mind.
dhw: You go far beyond belief in design: you insist that the design has been carried out by a single mind, ......What direct evidence (first-hand witnesses, scientific proof, tests) do you have for this hypothesis? .... 
DAVID: Your insistence upon direct evidence of a greater power is a symptom of your agnosticism. Direct evidence is essentially impossible as you know, so the next step for me is 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt' Which I fully accept, indirect as it is.-I do not insist, because I know it's impossible. I am merely saying that absence of direct evidence seems to me to be a flaw in your theory, as you yourself are always quick to point out when you disapprove of an argument: e.g. chance origins, string theory, the multiverse etc. Double standards again?-DAVID: I do not view my faith as unreasonable.... -Nor do I, if we use unreasonable in the sense of unacceptable or out of order. But faith, you must admit, is irrational, and that is the sense in which I challenge your claim that you have proved your God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. To put it another way, I would argue that without direct evidence it is perfectly reasonable to have doubts (as with chance, string theory, the multiverse etc.).

9403 views

dhw: When the human brain is examined for mechanisms, those mechanisms continue to be found and they are always automatic biochemical reactions. Nobody knows how consciousness/mentation works in ANY organism.-We know we can think. Do we really know if bacteria think in any provable sort of way? No, we make competing theories from observations.-> dhw: In those other than ourselves, we judge by behaviour, and researchers have observed the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they can think.-A conclusion is not a proof, only a supposition.-> dhw: You are applying double standards, since you attribute mentation to your dog solely by observing its behaviour. -Yesterday our show horse came in from grazing in a pasture. His hooves were sore from being trimmed the day before. He headed for a door over a large patch of gravel drive, spotted a side door off the grass and immediately changed course for the easier path. Thinking horse?
> 
> dhw: You claimed (see above) that your dog was capable of mentation. What sort of ideas does your dog create, thereby proving mentation, that bacteria don't create?-He communicates with us by bringing toys to play, starring at me when he needs to go out, changing direction when we are playing keep away, all requiring some thought and planning.-> dhw: I am merely saying that absence of direct evidence seems to me to be a flaw in your theory, as you yourself are always quick to point out when you disapprove of an argument: e.g. chance origins, string theory, the multiverse etc.-When I measure the odds I think they are much stronger for God than chance or the theories you mention.-> 
> DAVID: I do not view my faith as unreasonable.... 
> 
> dhw: Nor do I, if we use unreasonable in the sense of unacceptable or out of order. But faith, you must admit, is irrational, and that is the sense in which I challenge your claim that you have proved your God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. To put it another way, I would argue that without direct evidence it is perfectly reasonable to have doubts (as with chance, string theory, the multiverse etc.).-Once again, you want absolute proof before you can believe in anything. You see the sky as blue, but it is a physical trick playing with our eyes. Space is black.

9415 views

The attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects is misleading, ...-I think the attribution of consciousness to a sloppy mass of carbohydrates, proteins and electrolytes is also misleading. This I think is the whole point of Susan Blackmore questioning her own consciousness. -Everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin.-If we don't believe in a dualistic mind, then we have to accept that what we perceive as conscious is actually a historical account, whether the history be measured in seconds or picoseconds.-if we are willing to argue for a dualistic mind, then I eagerly await the evidence for such a concept.

9486 views


> Romansh: If we don't believe in a dualistic mind, then we have to accept that what we perceive as conscious is actually a historical account, whether the history be measured in seconds or picoseconds.
> 
> if we are willing to argue for a dualistic mind, then I eagerly await the evidence for such a concept.-Read the research on NDE's. Consciousness survives clinical death when the brain cannot function for a short period of time, with veridical episodes indicating consciousness at work during such periods. How is that possible without dualism?

9429 views

Practically every night I go to bed and on a good night (a healthy one at least) my consciousness is pretty much oblivious, my unconscious might churn in the background and awake me if there is the unexpected. So why would a few minutes of an NDE be somehow relevant?-Do you have any accounts of actual ADEs that I could read. If a brain cannot be resuscitated then clearly we are playing on a clinician's definition of death.-Maybe we should referring to the UU The Universal Unconscious?

9414 views

Romansh: Practically every night I go to bed and on a good night (a healthy one at least) my consciousness is pretty much oblivious, my unconscious might churn in the background and awake me if there is the unexpected. So why would a few minutes of an NDE be somehow relevant?-Sometimes not just a few minutes as you will see if you will do some research.->
> Romansh: Do you have any accounts of actual ADEs that I could read. If a brain cannot be resuscitated then clearly we are playing on a clinician's definition of death.- During resuscitation there are varying periods of heart stoppage and loss of brain function. When resuscitated, about 20% of patients will have an experience to relate. As a cardiologist I've heard several. In my experience and many others, if contact is made with a person, they are always dead! van Lommel (below, agrees in Carter's book, pg. 266)- There is a vast literature, but good books for guidance exist: Chapter 7 in mine covers eleven cases carefully verified for observed events occurring while unconscious. Chris Carter's Science and the Afterlife Experience
>, 2012, in the view of psychic experiences. Sam Parnia, M.D., a resuscitation specialist's book: Erasing Death, 2013, clearly describes his research into what happens and tries to verify what has been described in other reports. Pim van Lommel, M.D., cardiologist, Consciousness Beyond Life, 2011 with his famous study in Lancet medical journal, and his subsequent studies. And finally Eben Alexander, M.D. an academic neurosurgeon's Proof of Heaven,2012, describing his experience for one week with a severe brain infection and no brain function demonstrated.-If you will email me your address, I will send a copy of my book and Carter's ( for some reason I have two copies). I describe van Lommel's lancet article and Alexander's NDE in mine.

9438 views

dhw: The attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects is misleading, ...-ROMANSH: I think the attribution of consciousness to a sloppy mass of carbohydrates, proteins and electrolytes is also misleading. This I think is the whole point of Susan Blackmore questioning her own consciousness. 
Everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin.
If we don't believe in a dualistic mind, then we have to accept that what we perceive as conscious is actually a historical account, whether the history be measured in seconds or picoseconds.-You will have to forgive my denseness, but I find all this confusing. Firstly, I don't know whether consciousness is independent of the body (dualism) or is engendered by the sloppy mass (materialism), but whichever it may be, I don't understand what you mean by materialistic consciousness being a historical account. Our awareness of external phenomena and of ourselves may be linked to transient experiences, but that does not make it unreal. Secondly, this post harks back to panpsychism, but I don't know of any panpsychists who would attribute the same degree of awareness to a rock as to humans, so I'm afraid I have no idea either what you mean by everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps I can pin you down to more accessible terminology. Do you believe that you are aware of phenomena both outside and inside yourself? Do you believe that there may be different degrees of such awareness in other organisms?

9439 views

Romansh If we don't believe in a dualistic mind, then we have to accept that what we perceive as conscious is actually a historical account, whether the history be measured in seconds or picoseconds.[/i]
> 
> dhw: You will have to forgive my denseness, but I find all this confusing. Firstly, I don't know whether consciousness is independent of the body (dualism) or is engendered by the sloppy mass (materialism), but whichever it may be, I don't understand what you mean by materialistic consciousness being a historical account.-He is referring to the brief time delays in brain responses, required by the fact that the neurons care not as quick as transistors and have take the time to make ions for electrical impulses to act.

9435 views

He is referring to the brief time delays in brain responses, required by the fact that the neurons care not as quick as transistors and have take the time to make ions for electrical impulses to act.-Exactly ... and whether the timing is in pico seconds or less our consciousness is still historical. Now if our view is dualistic ... we can envisage some nebulous soul or some such that reads our brain activity. It is still at the end of the causal chain.

9423 views

Secondly, this post harks back to panpsychism, but I don't know of any panpsychists who would attribute the same degree of awareness to a rock as to humans, so I'm afraid I have no idea either what you mean by everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps I can pin you down to more accessible terminology. Do you believe that you are aware of phenomena both outside and inside yourself? Do you believe that there may be different degrees of such awareness in other organisms?-I am not claiming everything has the same consciousness/awareness whatever. I presume mine is more textured and rich than that of a brick. But then a brick's experience can last centuries. I don't think my consciousness will.-Are my neurons anymore aware than say a fibre optical cable? Is a city of a million people anymore aware than I am? How can I measure a city's awareness? Is it richer than and more textured than mine. We presume our consciousness(es) are similar. -I am tempted by the idea that consciousness is an illusion ... a very real illusion.

9420 views

Dhw: I don't understand what you mean by the materialistic view being a historical account. 
DAVID: He is referring to the brief time delays in brain responses, required by the fact that the neurons care not as quick as transistors and have take the time to make ions for electrical impulses to act.
ROMANSH: Exactly ... and whether the timing is in pico seconds or less our consciousness is still historical. Now if our view is dualistic ... we can envisage some nebulous soul or some such that reads our brain activity. It is still at the end of the causal chain.-Thank you for the explanation. Alas, I still don't see the point. How does the fact that consciousness takes time to operate affect its reality or our control over its activities? On the other hand, I accept that our responses are on the end of a causal chain, whether consciousness is materialistic or dualistic. In relation to free will, I commented earlier that you can take this to mean we are not responsible, because we did not control the chain, or we are responsible, because we are still ourselves, no matter what caused us to be us. 
 
dhw: Do you believe that you are aware of phenomena both outside and inside yourself? Do you believe that there may be different degrees of such awareness in other organisms?
ROMANSH: I am not claiming everything has the same consciousness/awareness whatever. I presume mine is more textured and rich than that of a brick. But then a brick's experience can last centuries. I don't think my consciousness will.-At least now I know you believe you are conscious (thank you), though I still don't understand what you mean by everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin. I share your presumption about having a richer consciousness than a brick (I myself don't think a brick has any consciousness at all). My interest in degrees of consciousness lies mainly in my attempt to find a reasonable alternative to the hypotheses of a single eternal mind or chance as the creators of the universe and life. Certain versions of panpsychism seem to offer an avenue worth exploring.
 
ROMANSH: I am tempted by the idea that consciousness is an illusion ... a very real illusion.-I am tempted by the idea that life itself is an illusion...a very real illusion. The present is real, and the reality of the past has helped to shape the present, but it increasingly takes on the quality of a dream. However, my present awareness of present and past (what I remember of it, anyway) does not seem to me to be in any way illusory. Unless I fall victim to dementia, I suspect that my consciousness will always remain real to me. I'm not sure where this leads us, but it's an interesting subject!

9411 views

I still don't see the point. How does the fact that consciousness takes time to operate affect its reality or our control over its activities? -The point for me is the ephemeral entity of consciousness is not responsible for the choices we make. The electrobiochemistry has done that for us. Now if you are suggesting that the ephemeral entity is possibly somehow manipulating the biochemistry then I would like some evidence. Otherwise this is an unnecessary hypothesis.-> At least now I know you believe you are conscious (thank you), though I still don't understand what you mean by everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin. -
> I share your presumption about having a richer consciousness than a brick (I myself don't think a brick has any consciousness at all). My interest in degrees of consciousness lies mainly in my attempt to find a reasonable alternative to the hypotheses of a single eternal mind or chance as the creators of the universe and life. Certain versions of panpsychism seem to offer an avenue worth exploring.
 
Not quite sure how I can explain this further. If a panpsychist sees a brick as conscious ... then I could just as easily argue I am not conscious. Just because a video recorder can playback old sights and sounds does not make it conscious.
 
> I am tempted by the idea that life itself is an illusion...a very real illusion. The present is real, and the reality of the past has helped to shape the present, but it increasingly takes on the quality of a dream. -I would not argue too much about life being an illusion. For me, it is more of an interesting semantic definition game.-And as for the present, by the time we think we have experienced it ... it has gone. We can only experience the past ... I would argue. I recall reading recently in the New Scientist (I think) the present for us is pretty much an aggregate of the last two or three seconds. Though when catching a ball etc our fidelity improves to a few tens of milliseconds.

9450 views

Here is Steven Pinker talking consciousness in general:-Steven Pinker: The philosopher George Rey once told me that he had no sentient experiences. He lost them after a bicycle accident when he was fifteen. Since then he insists he has been a zombie. I assume he is speaking tongue in cheek, but of course I have no way of knowing. - How the Mind Works.

9447 views

Dhw: I still don't see the point. How does the fact that consciousness takes time to operate affect its reality or our control over its activities? 
ROMANSH: The point for me is the ephemeral entity of consciousness is not responsible for the choices we make. The electrobiochemistry has done that for us. Now if you are suggesting that the ephemeral entity is possibly somehow manipulating the biochemistry then I would like some evidence. Otherwise this is an unnecessary hypothesis.-The fact that consciousness takes time to operate therefore does not mean it is unreal or that it is beyond our control. Thank you. As for free will (our choices), I summed up my own ambivalent view of the causal chain in my last post to you. I am also open-minded towards your electrobiochemical theory, but since even neuroscientists cannot explain how chemicals might engender consciousness, the dualist can ask what evidence you have that they do. There is no default position here. Incidentally, I wonder if you have followed up David's post on NDEs, which in my view are not to be dismissed lightly.
 
Dhw: At least now I know you believe you are conscious (thank you), though I still don't understand what you mean by everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin.
ROMANSH: Not quite sure how I can explain this further. If a panpsychist sees a brick as conscious ... then I could just as easily argue I am not conscious. Just because a video recorder can playback old sights and sounds does not make it conscious.-You have agreed that you are conscious. Why would someone else's belief that a brick (or a videorecorder) is conscious enable you to argue that you are not conscious? -ROMANSH: I am tempted by the idea that consciousness is an illusion...a very real illusion.
Dhw: I am tempted by the idea that life itself is an illusion...a very real illusion. The present is real, and the reality of the past has helped to shape the present, but it increasingly takes on the quality of a dream. 
ROMANSH: I would not argue too much about life being an illusion. For me, it is more of an interesting semantic definition game.
And as for the present, by the time we think we have experienced it ... it has gone. We can only experience the past ... I would argue [...] -As with consciousness, the time element seems to be important for you, and I've also noticed your enjoyment of semantic games! Fair enough. For me semantic definitions are a frustrating but unavoidable exercise, and all too often we get diverted by the game from the realities/illusions that language is supposed to help us investigate.

9381 views

The fact that consciousness takes time to operate therefore does not mean it is unreal or that it is beyond our control. ->Thank you. As for free will (our choices), I summed up my own ambivalent view of the causal chain in my last post to you. I am also open-minded towards your electrobiochemical theory, but since even neuroscientists cannot explain how chemicals might engender consciousness, the dualist can ask what evidence you have that they do. There is no default position here. Incidentally, I wonder if you have followed up David's post on NDEs, which in my view are not to be dismissed lightly.
First we have to be sure that consciousness is what you seem to think it is. For here I am far from sure. When objective reality and subjective experience clash then one (or both) have to give way.-You can trade references etc with David with if you wish. I find David's position far being taken seriously. Here is some of the typical banter that goes on with NDEs
http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html- 
> You have agreed that you are conscious. Why would someone else's belief that a brick (or a videorecorder) is conscious enable you to argue that you are not conscious? 
I have agreed that we think we experience consciousness. Why do you think it is somebody else's belief that persuades me of this? IF I were to think a brick was conscious, then plainly consciousness is not what everyone thinks it is.- 
> As with consciousness, the time element seems to be important for you, and I've also noticed your enjoyment of semantic games! Fair enough. For me semantic definitions are a frustrating but unavoidable exercise, and all too often we get diverted by the game from the realities/illusions that language is supposed to help us investigate.
The time element is just one spoke in my wheel of evidence. I agree by itself it is not conclusive.-Life is a game ... I enjoy that too. But a healthy dose of Ignosticism applied to reality does not go amiss.

9446 views


> Romansh: You can trade references etc with David with if you wish. I find David's position far being taken seriously. Here is some of the typical banter that goes on with NDEs
> http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html-'Typical banter' degrades your offhand reference. This is a 10 year old piece by as skeptic quoting other skeptics. I've read most of the original material he quotes, including Blackmore, Moody, Sabom, Greyson, etc. and have picked her objections apart in my books. I've offered to send you fresh up-to-date material from the past 10 years and have given references for other books. What are you afraid of, opening your mind? Why not look into the references you asked me to give you? Remember I started as an agnostic.-> 
> Romansh: Life is a game ... I enjoy that too. But a healthy dose of Ignosticism applied to reality does not go amiss.-I fully agree, but it should be based on source material, not second-hand comments.

9377 views

I fully agree, but it should be based on source material, not second-hand comments.-The problem with NDEs is that they are not ADEs. So here is a question, at what point does the information of the NDEer's experience of the supposed after death experience of consciousness get loaded up into the brain, so that patient can recount the experience?

9466 views


> Romansh: The problem with NDEs is that they are not ADEs. So here is a question, at what point does the information of the NDEer's experience of the supposed after death experience of consciousness get loaded up into the brain, so that patient can recount the experience?-To use your phrase, we do not know how the experience is 'loaded' into a non-functioning brain, but it was.-Obviously , if here are third party conformations of the events the patient describes, the time is known, as in may of the case descriptions. The problem with your response is your lack of recognition that in these recorded events the brain is not functional by every test available to medical science. The patient is therefore not conscious, and this is a much deeper state of absent consciousness than surgical anesthesia when the brain is obviously functional. The patient observes events with third party confirmation (veridical). This is what is not explained by our current knowledge or lack of knowledge about consciousness. To the M.D.'s I've listed, myself included, this is startling finding.- I gather you are not startled, but again you seem to be in total denial that these observations might have significance. Perhaps you should read Thomas Negal's Mind and Cosmos. I have. You asked for references, but I see no response. I assume you are not interested in pursuing this further. Or perhaps you have an understanding of consciousness the rest of us lack.

9369 views

To use your phrase, we do not know how the experience is 'loaded' into a non-functioning brain, but it was.
 If you assert this, it must be true?
 
> Obviously , if here are third party conformations of the events the patient describes, the time is known, as in may of the case descriptions. The problem with your response is your lack of recognition that in these recorded events the brain is not functional by every test available to medical science. The patient is therefore not conscious, and this is a much deeper state of absent consciousness than surgical anesthesia when the brain is obviously functional. The patient observes events with third party confirmation (veridical). This is what is not explained by our current knowledge or lack of knowledge about consciousness. To the M.D.'s I've listed, myself included, this is startling finding.-The bit in red is a huge fallacy. -> I gather you are not startled, but again you seem to be in total denial that these observations might have significance. Perhaps you should read Thomas Negal's Mind and Cosmos. I have. You asked for references, but I see no response. I assume you are not interested in pursuing this further. Or perhaps you have an understanding of consciousness the rest of us lack.-I appreciate you concern for my conformation bias. My reading time is finite, so I must pick and choose carefully what I read. Your arguments I have found strongly unconvincing.-here is list of stuff I have read over the last four years.
http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=145

9381 views


> > David: Obviously , if here are third party conformations of the events the patient describes, the time is known, as in may of the case descriptions. The problem with your response is your lack of recognition that in these recorded events the brain is not functional by every test available to medical science. The patient is therefore not conscious, and this is a much deeper state of absent consciousness than surgical anesthesia when the brain is obviously functional. The patient observes events with third party confirmation (veridical). This is what is not explained by our current knowledge or lack of knowledge about consciousness. To the M.D.'s I've listed, myself included, this is startling finding.
> 
> Romansh: The bit in red is a huge fallacy. -And how do you know this? 
> 
> Romansh: I appreciate you concern for my conformation bias. My reading time is finite, so I must pick and choose carefully what I read. Your arguments I have found strongly unconvincing.-But you are guy who asked for references. Why?

9387 views

Romansh: The bit in red is a huge fallacy. 
> 
> And how do you know this? -Because you used therefore incorrectly.-I can't find me keys, I have looked for them everywhere using the latest methods. Therefore they don't exist,
A logical fallacy.- 
> > Romansh: I appreciate you concern for my confirmation bias. My reading time is finite, so I must pick and choose carefully what I read. Your arguments I have found strongly unconvincing.
> 
> But you are guy who asked for references. Why?-Did I not ask about ADEs? They are called NDEs for a reason.

9425 views

Romansh: The bit in red is a huge fallacy. 
> > 
> > David: And how do you know this? 
> 
> Romansh: Because you used therefore incorrectly.
> 
> I can't find me keys, I have looked for them everywhere using the latest methods. Therefore they don't exist,
> A logical fallacy.-I consider your response a neat ploy. I said: 'every test available to medical science' meaning looking at brain function by tests which the medical profession is convinced can show if the brain is at all functional or not. We are discussing events in which there is no demonstrable function. You might claim that there is function we do not know about, but there is no evidence of such function, so it is best to work with known evidence, isn't it?-> > 
> > David: But you are guy who asked for references. Why?
> 
> Romansh Did I not ask about ADEs? They are called NDEs for a reason.-Another ploy. You know full well ADE's are impossible, which is why politely I didn't respond previously. The physical conditions for a person to have NDE's are a 'will die' state unless reversed. That is the closest we can get and report results. And I know you know that. Can we have a discussion without word games?

9358 views

Romansh: The bit in red is a huge fallacy. 
> > > 
> > > David: And how do you know this? 
> > 
> > Romansh: Because you used therefore incorrectly.
> > 
> > I can't find me keys, I have looked for them everywhere using the latest methods. Therefore they don't exist,
> > A logical fallacy.
> 
> David: I consider your response a neat ploy. I said: 'every test available to medical science' meaning looking at brain function by tests which the medical profession is convinced can show if the brain is at all functional or not. We are discussing events in which there is no demonstrable function. You might claim that there is function we do not know about, but there is no evidence of such function, so it is best to work with known evidence, isn't it?
> 
> > > 
> > > David: But you are guy who asked for references. Why?
> > 
> > Romansh Did I not ask about ADEs? They are called NDEs for a reason.
> 
> David: Another ploy. You know full well ADE's are impossible, which is why politely I didn't respond previously. The physical conditions for a person to have NDE's are a 'will die' state unless reversed. That is the closest we can get and report results. And I know you know that. Can we have a discussion without word games?-I note you are not pursuing the issue of NDE's further. Nowhere to go?

9342 views

Can consciousness be immaterial, an ephemeral entity? I would argue not.-Firstly, it seems to follow me around. If I go for a jog it follows me. Or go for a drive, even doing 120 km/h it follows me around. Flying at 10 000 m at 900 km/h it is there with me. It follows astronauts around the Earth or on the way to the moon. So I don't think it is ephemeral in this sense.-So people suggest a transmitter-receiver metaphor. Is the same consciousness being transmitted in space and time? Perhaps. But for the moment let us assume it is not. I can move from one location to another, my awareness/consciousness does not seem to change. Just sitting here the minutes it takes me to write this, I have moved tens of thousands of kilometres in space without changing my consciousness, at least not noticeably so. Does this mean consciousness is consistent through space? Not necessarily. Other people's consciousness seems to be different, at least to some. But the converse is not true either.-This then brings us to receiver. All our supposed receivers are built differently so we pick up different aspects of the transmissions. So we don't know if the transmissions vary but likely their reception does. So we start thinking about the construction of our receiver. Well it is continually be assembled in our toddlerhood, to the point it is considered fully conscious. Then after that the receiver is tinkered with by the experiences we have, the foods we eat and drinks we imbibe. Repeated experiences seems to strengthen certain aspects of receiver.
Now, a slightly more scientific inquiry, is the transmission and consequent reception described by cause and effect and thermodynamics in general? Well I certainly don't know, but my reception of the transmission is not aware of evidence of this kind.-I am sadly lacking any such evidence of this transmission. I will not use the word therefore, but for the moment I will move ahead on the assumption that this ephemeral consciousness is an unnecessary assumption.

9373 views

Romansh: Firstly, it seems to follow me around. If I go for a jog it follows me. Can consciousness be immaterial, an ephemeral entity? I would argue not.So people suggest a transmitter-receiver metaphor. Is the same consciousness being transmitted in space and time? Perhaps. But for the moment let us assume it is not. I can move from one location to another, my awareness/consciousness does not seem to change. Just sitting here the minutes it takes me to write this, I have moved tens of thousands of kilometres in space without changing my consciousness, at least not noticeably so. 
 
Your approach seems to avoid the fact that the presence of a consciousness is dependent upon a functional brain, which brain, per force, has to stick with you as you travel. And as I travel I don't seem ever to change nor do I expect my brain to do so. I expect I will be the same on the Moon or Mars, and no astronaut has complained.-> Romansh: Does this mean consciousness is consistent through space? Not necessarily. Other people's consciousness seems to be different, at least to some. But the converse is not true either.-I don't follow your reasoning. I do not see consciousness changing with travel. But I agreed with you, the content of everyone's consciousness is different, although I expect the 'entity' of consciousness comes from the same mechanism in everyone, whatever that mechanism is.-> Romansh: This then brings us to receiver. All our supposed receivers are built differently so we pick up different aspects of the transmissions. So we don't know if the transmissions vary but likely their reception does. So we start thinking about the construction of our receiver. Well it is continually be assembled in our toddlerhood, to the point it is considered fully conscious. Then after that the receiver is tinkered with by the experiences we have, the foods we eat and drinks we imbibe. Repeated experiences seems to strengthen certain aspects of receiver.-It is certainly true that the brain is plastic, self-modifying, but it appears to be in a helpful way improving our mental abilities. Consciousness is much more than mental abilities and your paragraph above is really a discussion of personality development, and each of us is very different in that development, and again this is just an aspect of our personal consciousness, but does not address the whole concept of how does consciousness arise from the brain.-> Romansh: Now, a slightly more scientific inquiry, is the transmission and consequent reception described by cause and effect and thermodynamics in general? Well I certainly don't know, but my reception of the transmission is not aware of evidence of this kind. -To me the appearance of my consciousness to me is seamless. I would not expect to note its reception. It simply IS.-> Romansh: I am sadly lacking any such evidence of this transmission. I will not use the word therefore, but for the moment I will move ahead on the assumption that this ephemeral consciousness is an unnecessary assumption.-And I think consciousness is totally immaterial, but somehow based on a functional material brain. The two are inseparable but somehow separate.

9339 views

Afterthought: Romansh, the word ephemeral really means transient in its strictest sense. Is that how you meant to use it, or just as an implication of sense of the word 'immaterial'?

9359 views

....So people suggest a transmitter-receiver metaphor. 
> Your approach seems to avoid the fact that the presence of a consciousness is dependent upon a functional brain, which brain, per force, has to stick with you as you travel. 
Reread the excerpt I explicitly assume a brain. -
> > Romansh: This then brings us to receiver. All our supposed receivers are built differently so we pick up different aspects of the transmissions. So we don't know if the transmissions vary but likely their reception does. So we start thinking about the construction of our receiver. Well it is continually be assembled in our toddlerhood, to the point it is considered fully conscious. Then after that the receiver is tinkered with by the experiences we have, the foods we eat and drinks we imbibe. Repeated experiences seems to strengthen certain aspects of receiver.
> 
> It is certainly true that the brain is plastic, self-modifying, but it appears to be in a helpful way improving our mental abilities. 
Not always!-> Consciousness is much more than mental abilities and your paragraph above is really a discussion of personality development, and each of us is very different in that development, and again this is just an aspect of our personal consciousness, but does not address the whole concept of how does consciousness arise from the brain.
But we both do agree it does, in the sense if we did not have them we would not be discussing this nonsense. I simply say the consciousness arises through the brain and leave it there, but you argue no, there is another layer beyond that. On top of that you argue this immaterial layer also in some way guides the construction of the receiver.-> > Romansh: Now, a slightly more scientific inquiry, is the transmission and consequent reception described by cause and effect and thermodynamics in general? Well I certainly don't know, but my reception of the transmission is not aware of evidence of this kind. 
> 
> To me the appearance of my consciousness to me is seamless. I would not expect to note its reception. It simply IS.-To me this answer has nothing to do with my question. -> > Romansh: I am sadly lacking any such evidence of this transmission. I will not use the word therefore, but for the moment I will move ahead on the assumption that this ephemeral consciousness is an unnecessary assumption.
> 
> And I think consciousness is totally immaterial, but somehow based on a functional material brain. The two are inseparable but somehow separate.-Then how does this totally immaterial interact with the material?

9335 views

Romansh: Reread the excerpt I explicitly assume a brain. -Then why all the discussion about travelling with it?
> 
> 
> > > Romansh: Repeated experiences seems to strengthen certain aspects of receiver.
> > 
> > David: It is certainly true that the brain is plastic, self-modifying, but it appears to be in a helpful way improving our mental abilities. -> Romansh: Not always!-But there are lots of studies showing growth in areas of the brain under intensive use, and ones that a marked increase in IQ in children who are read to and conversed with in early childhood as compared to non-interactive children. 
> 
> > David: Consciousness is much more than mental abilities and your paragraph above is really a discussion of personality development, and each of us is very different in that development, and again this is just an aspect of our personal consciousness, but does not address the whole concept of how does consciousness arise from the brain.-> Romansh: But we both do agree it does,....but you argue no, there is another layer beyond that. On top of that you argue this immaterial layer also in some way guides the construction of the receiver.-But I have a good argument for a feedback mechanism between demonstrated deliberate use of the brain and its plastic ability to change its network anatomy.-> 
> > > Romansh: Now, a slightly more scientific inquiry, is the transmission and consequent reception described by cause and effect and thermodynamics in general? Well I certainly don't know, but my reception of the transmission is not aware of evidence of this kind. 
> > 
> > David: To me the appearance of my consciousness to me is seamless. I would not expect to note its reception. It simply IS.
> 
> Romansh: To me this answer has nothing to do with my question. -Specifically, I am not aware of any studies that show a reception of consciousness by the brain. But I do not think such studies are possible. The thought of reception comes from the NDE studies that you do not wish to pursue.
> 
> > > Romansh: I am sadly lacking any such evidence of this transmission. I will not use the word therefore, but for the moment I will move ahead on the assumption that this ephemeral consciousness is an unnecessary assumption. -Where did consciousness go while the brain is demonstrated to be non-functional in NDE's, only to come back afterward? No one has solved this mystery, but they propose a receiver type of relationship..
> > 
> > David: And I think consciousness is totally immaterial, but somehow based on a functional material brain. The two are inseparable but somehow separate.
> 
> Romansh: Then how does this totally immaterial interact with the material?-That is part of the unsolved mystery. There is clear evidence of interaction in studies which show a clear demonstration of brain plasticity with use. For examples look at my entries on brain plasticity on this website. This discussion is why I put them here in the first place, to investigate the origin/creation of human consciousness.-Further we have barely touched understanding brain complexity as this website shows. Not only is each neuron different, the synapses have individual adjustments to fit the mental processes:-http://directorsblog.nih.gov/2015/07/07/creative-minds-meet-a-theoretical-neuroscientist/-"Using data that he and his colleagues have recorded from living brain cells, called neurons, Escola crunches numbers to develop rigorous statistical models that simulate the activity of neuronal circuits within the brain. He hopes his models will help to build a new neuroscience that brings into sharper focus how the brain's biocircuitry lights up to generate sensations and thoughtsand how it misfires in various neurological disorders, particularly in mental illnesses.-"Like many of his fellow neuroscientists, Escola views the brain as a complex computational machine, with the operative word being complex. The human brain consists of roughly 86 billion neurons and billions of other types of cells. Further complicating matters, no two neurons are exactly alike because each one reaches out and touches hundreds or thousands of other cells, forming trillions of information-processing connections, or circuits.

Throughout the day, individual circuits click on and off in our brains to process the external factors that greet and sometimes confront us. The same is true for a wide range of internal stimuli, such as a craving for food or a need for sleep. Escola wants to know how neural circuits process this interplay of internal and external signalsan area of investigation that is just becoming possible through technological innovations arising from NIH-funded research, including the pioneering Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative." (my bold)

9355 views

The article David has quoted actually seems to oppose dualism, as it expresses Escola's hope that his models will help to explain "how the brain's biocircuitry lights up to generate sensations and thoughts". (My bold) A hope can hardly constitute evidence, however, and the fact remains that science can only examine the materials; until it can prove that the materials generate consciousness, and explain how, the issue of its source remains open. -NDEs are not the only possible evidence for dualism, as many other psychic experiences have provided information inaccessible under normal circumstances and later confirmed by third parties. These experiences are convincing, even if inexplicable, to those who have them, and to those who know and trust the people concerned, or who trust the writers of the reports (for instance, I trust our own BBella). For people who have already prejudged the issue, of whom Romansh is clearly one, such matters do not constitute evidence and are therefore not worth looking into. It goes without saying that I prefer to reserve judgement.-For Romansh: Bearing in mind that all our bodily materials are ephemeral, for consciousness NOT to be ephemeral, it would actually have to be immaterial. -Also for Romansh: in my post of Wednesday 8 July at 20:47 I answered all your questions and challenged many of your assumptions. Perhaps you have decided to break off the exchanges rather than answer my own questions and defend your assumptions, but perhaps you didn't see the post.

9344 views

dhw: The article David has quoted actually seems to oppose dualism, as it expresses Escola's hope that his models will help to explain "how the brain's biocircuitry lights up to generate sensations and thoughts". (My bold) A hope can hardly constitute evidence, however, and the fact remains that science can only examine the materials; until it can prove that the materials generate consciousness, and explain how, the issue of its source remains open.-Your comment is greatly appreciated. I remain a dualist in the sense that Rupert Sheldrake presents in the video I have just placed here. That video leads to other videos of his theories about the true extent of the mind and consciousness beyond the brain, and there is a long interview in which he discusses NDE's with his own theories fitting right in, showing as long as one does not get stuck in strict materialism they must be reasonably investigated, not rejected as materialistically impossible.
> 
> dhw: NDEs are not the only possible evidence for dualism, as many other psychic experiences have provided information inaccessible under normal circumstances and later confirmed by third parties. These experiences are convincing, even if inexplicable, to those who have them, and to those who know and trust the people concerned, or who trust the writers of the reports (for instance, I trust our own BBella). For people who have already prejudged the issue, of whom Romansh is clearly one, such matters do not constitute evidence and are therefore not worth looking into. It goes without saying that I prefer to reserve judgement.-You mimic Sheldrake.

9334 views

dhw: The article David has quoted actually seems to oppose dualism, as it expresses Escola's hope that his models will help to explain "how the brain's biocircuitry lights up to generate sensations and thoughts". (My bold) A hope can hardly constitute evidence, however, and the fact remains that science can only examine the materials; until it can prove that the materials generate consciousness, and explain how, the issue of its source remains open.-DAVID: Your comment is greatly appreciated. I remain a dualist in the sense that Rupert Sheldrake presents in the video I have just placed here. That video leads to other videos of his theories about the true extent of the mind and consciousness beyond the brain, and there is a long interview in which he discusses NDE's with his own theories fitting right in, showing as long as one does not get stuck in strict materialism they must be reasonably investigated, not rejected as materialistically impossible.-Perhaps you could give us a reference. I found the staring video annoyingly superficial and repetitive, and gave up after two instalments.-dhw: NDEs are not the only possible evidence for dualism, as many other psychic experiences have provided information inaccessible under normal circumstances and later confirmed by third parties. These experiences are convincing, even if inexplicable, to those who have them, and to those who know and trust the people concerned, or who trust the writers of the reports (for instance, I trust our own BBella). For people who have already prejudged the issue, of whom Romansh is clearly one, such matters do not constitute evidence and are therefore not worth looking into. It goes without saying that I prefer to reserve judgement.-DAVID: You mimic Sheldrake.-I know far too little about his ideas to mimic him, but apart from the boring video, what I do know is certainly interesting.

9288 views

David.... and there is a long interview in which he discusses NDE's with his own theories fitting right in, showing as long as one does not get stuck in strict materialism they must be reasonably investigated, not rejected as materialistically impossible.[/i]
> 
> dhw: Perhaps you could give us a reference. I found the staring video annoyingly superficial and repetitive, and gave up after two instalments.-The video I presented led to others, one of which had a discussion of NDE's by Sheldrake near the end of an hour and a half. I was bored also and spun through until I found the segment on NDE. He didn't say anything I didn't expect.

9378 views

For Romansh: Bearing in mind that all our bodily materials are ephemeral, for consciousness NOT to be ephemeral, it would actually have to be immaterial. -David was right ... ephemeral was not really the right word (it did not have the meaning I thought it had). Perhaps diaphanous was the word I was reaching for. But there is an ephemeral quality to our consciousness. It goes to sleep every night and if we examine our consciousness in waking moments we find our conscious is not actually seamless as David claims.-David no doubt would then argue it is our material brain chemistry that is not seamless. Thus reducing David's position to an unfalsifiable speculation. Ultimately to try find evidence for David's position we would have to show that our brains don't comport with the first law of thermodynamics. -Incidentally ... here are the synonyms for immaterial.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/immaterial
What would be a good synonym?-> Also for Romansh: in my post of Wednesday 8 July at 20:47 I answered all your questions and challenged many of your assumptions. Perhaps you have decided to break off the exchanges rather than answer my own questions and defend your assumptions, but perhaps you didn't see the post.-I quickly reviewed your post. I felt I adequately answered most of those questions within the post itself and perhaps in subsequent posts.-I would prefer this discussion to not devolve into how strongly I put forward any position. Ultimately I am agnostic, but to tread actually on the dried out grass in my garden (back yard), I have to believe it is there.-The way I see it, this discussion is like ... I have a garden shed at the top of my garden, but I don't think I need faeries under it to make it complete.-> For people who have already prejudged the issue, of whom Romansh is clearly one-And dhw ... are you the sole arbiter on who prejudges? I presume you mean before we have sufficient evidence? Just because you don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion does not mean others don't. This comment I found very gnostic of you. An agnostic might ask for more evidence and perhaps point out logical inconsistencies in an argument.-Just ignoring the god aspect to my doodle here ... where do you fall in the bubbles?
http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/beliefbubbles_files/beliefbubbles.jpg

9340 views


> Romansh: But there is an ephemeral quality to our consciousness. It goes to sleep every night and if we examine our consciousness in waking moments we find our conscious is not actually seamless as David claims.-I would like you to explain that 'not seamless' comment. I meant it is the context that my consciousness is always present while I am awake and I don't notice any disconnect as if it turns on an off and surprises me. I view sleep as a reduced awareness, not that my consciousness has turned itself off.
> 
> Romansh: David no doubt would then argue it is our material brain chemistry that is not seamless. Thus reducing David's position to an unfalsifiable speculation. Ultimately to try find evidence for David's position we would have to show that our brains don't comport with the first law of thermodynamics.-The First Law states that energy cannot be destroyed. It just changes form. You are implying that consciousness contains energy, I think, and that is exactly the mystery presented by consciousness. Thoughts are not any form of energy that we can measure, but the brain uses close to 1/3 of our calories per day to produce them and control our muscular movements, etc.. So the brain uses energy to produce consciousness which does not contain energy. No philosophic approach has solved it yet. NDE's open a window into the problem. fMRI's do show deeper functions in flat-line coma patients. It is believed by neuroscientists that consciousness resides in the neo-cortex, the outer layer of the brain that is read as non-functional by the flat line EEG. One could conclude that consciousness to survive an NDE hides in those deeper layers, but one still has to come back to the recognition that conscious thought dos not carry energy, in and of itself. For me it is hard to avoid dualism.

9323 views

I would like you to explain that 'not seamless' comment. I meant it is the context that my consciousness is always present while I am awake and I don't notice any disconnect as if it turns on an off and surprises me. I view sleep as a reduced awareness, not that my consciousness has turned itself off.
Well if that you don't notice the disconnect ... is that a the receiver's problem or is it a problem for consciousness. -For example for approximately two hours our waking day we are effectively blind. our brains cobble together a "seamless" visual reality. I am not referring to us blinking.-> > 
> > Romansh: David no doubt would then argue it is our material brain chemistry that is not seamless. Thus reducing David's position to an unfalsifiable speculation. Ultimately to try find evidence for David's position we would have to show that our brains don't comport with the first law of thermodynamics.
> The First Law states that energy cannot be destroyed. It just changes form. You are implying that consciousness contains energy, I think, and that is exactly the mystery presented by consciousness.-Whether it contains energy or not is an interesting question. But if we could put ourselves in a appropriate calorimeter then when consciousness exerts its stuff on the material world, then there should be a change in energy in the material world. Unless we put a condition on the change in behaviour as a net sum zero. In that case it is step towards unfalsifiability. -Essentially I am arguing we if the universal consciousness is actually doing anything we should be able in principle to measure it.

9290 views

Romansh: Well if that you don't notice the disconnect ... is that a the receiver's problem or is it a problem for consciousness. 
> 
> For example for approximately two hours our waking day we are effectively blind. our brains cobble together a "seamless" visual reality.-I understand your point. But we are not 'effectively blind'. I know the brain cobbles things together for us, like pattern recognition. It also grows itself new connections when we study something new. That is why it relates to us in a seamless fashion. The brain amazingly does things for us on its own, making our perception of reality an easier job. How would you suggest that happened through a mindless, chance evolutionary process?-> > David: The First Law states that energy cannot be destroyed. It just changes form. You are implying that consciousness contains energy, I think, and that is exactly the mystery presented by consciousness.
> 
> Romansh: Whether it contains energy or not is an interesting question.-Well, do you think conscious thought contains energy?-> Romansh:But if we could put ourselves in a appropriate calorimeter then when consciousness exerts its stuff on the material world, then there should be a change in energy in the material world.-But does consciousness exert 'its stuff on the material world'? Can thought bend spoons? I think not. But while I don't think that consciousness can directly affect the material world, my thoughts make me do mechanical actions that directly affect the material world. I only see separation. However, I agree with Sheldrake that mental telepathy occurs from my own experiences and my wife's, to make it personal.
 
> 
> Romansh: Essentially I am arguing we if the universal consciousness is actually doing anything we should be able in principle to measure it.-If you are using the universal consciousness concept as a substitute for God, as I do, then you are talking about energy measurements at the basic level of reality, quantum physics, the uncertainty principals and all the other weirdness of quantum activity. I view god as permanently hidden behind that wall and not measurable.

9450 views

I understand your point. But we are not 'effectively blind'. 
Except for the moments when we can't see. Luckily for us things don't change that quickly and our brain can cobble together a reasonable replica of reality,-I don't think we can say it is seamless, just that from the inside we can't detect the seams.
> 
> > > David: The First Law states that energy cannot be destroyed. It just changes form. You are implying that consciousness contains energy, I think, and that is exactly the mystery presented by consciousness.
> > 
> > Romansh: Whether it contains energy or not is an interesting question.
> Well, do you think conscious thought contains energy?-First and foremost I think consciousness is an illusion ... thought awareness whatever. The dimensions mass . length / time^2 ... make up energy. I personally don't have a reasonable analogy to express it, at least not in those terms. -
> > Romansh:But if we could put ourselves in a appropriate calorimeter then when consciousness exerts its stuff on the material world, then there should be a change in energy in the material world.
> ... my thoughts make me do mechanical actions that directly affect the material world.
really?-my personal experience tells me otherwise. 
 
> If you are using the universal consciousness concept as a substitute for God, as I do, then you are talking about energy measurements at the basic level of reality, quantum physics, the uncertainty principals and all the other weirdness of quantum activity. I view god as permanently hidden behind that wall and not measurable.-If it is not measurable (observable/detectable) then it may as well not exist.

9337 views

Here is a general question.-This Universal Consciousness, is it a uniform property in the universe or is it heterogeneous?

9387 views

Romansh: Here is a general question.
> 
> This Universal Consciousness, is it a uniform property in the universe or is it heterogeneous?-I think it requires a mind to provide the planning information to create the universe and life. Complex information is the substrate of life. I place the universal consciousness within and without the universe, and in all living matter.

9365 views

David: I understand your point. But we are not 'effectively blind'. 
> Romansh: Except for the moments when we can't see. Luckily for us things don't change that quickly and our brain can cobble together a reasonable replica of reality,
> 
> I don't think we can say it is seamless, just that from the inside we can't detect the seams.-My point is that, just as you state, we cannot detect the seams, so why make a point of it. Biologic machines must work through biochemical reactions which will result in micro-second delays. So what! If it comes across as seamless to us, that is an OK result. You are making unreasonable comparisons to precise non-biological processes. Of course there will be differences in function. -Note the following story of top down and bottom up brain function to help us seamlessly handle our perceptions of reality. I have no problem with this but consider it helpful biologic shorthand :-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-07-impacts-brain.html-"In a University of California, San Diego School of Medicine study published July 13 in the online journal Nature Neuroscience, a research team led by Takaki Komiyama, PhD, assistant professor of neurosciences and neurobiology, reports that in mouse models, the brain significantly changed its visual cortex operation modes by implementing top-down processes during learning.-"'We found that when the mouse assigns a new meaning to a previously neutral visual stimulus, top-down control becomes much more influential in activating the visual cortex," said first author Hiroshi Makino, PhD, postdoctoral researcher in Komiyama's lab. "Top-down inputs interact with specific neuron types in the visual cortex to modulate its operation modes."-"This cognitive process uses our thoughts and influences our senses. For example, when we see a word with missing letters, our brain is able to fill in the blank based on past experiences.-"Researchers looked at activity in excitatory neurons and somatostatin-expressing inhibitory neurons in the visual cortex and top-down inputs from the retrosplenial cortex (RSC) during associative learning to see how these affected the top-down and bottom-up processingwhen perception begins with the senses.-"The findings indicate that intricate interactions of various circuit components effectively change the balance of top-down and bottom-up processing, with learning enhancing the contribution of top-down control. These results support the long-standing theory that the brain does not faithfully represent the environment but rather attempts to predict it based upon prior information."-> > > 
> > > Romansh: Whether it contains energy or not is an interesting question.-> > David: Well, do you think conscious thought contains energy?
> 
> Romansh: First and foremost I think consciousness is an illusion ... thought awareness whatever. The dimensions mass . length / time^2 ... make up energy. I personally don't have a reasonable analogy to express it, at least not in those terms. -Illusion or whatever, you have given me a definition of energy, but sidestepped the question. Does consciousness contain energy, or as I view it thoughts are immaterial and have no energy?-> > David ... my thoughts make me do mechanical actions that directly affect the material world.
> Romansh: really?
> 
> my personal experience tells me otherwise.-Please explain. You seem to say that you cannot cause effects in the material world.
 
> David: I view god as permanently hidden behind that wall and not measurable.
> 
> Romansh: If it is not measurable (observable/detectable) then it may as well not exist.-Fair enough, but for many of us the need for a planning mind to supply to necessary information for the universe and for the origin of life is evidence enough.

9357 views


> My point is that, just as you state, we cannot detect the seams, so why make a point of it. Biologic machines must work through biochemical reactions which will result in micro-second delays. So what! If it comes across as seamless to us, that is an OK result. You are making unreasonable comparisons to precise non-biological processes. Of course there will be differences in function. 
> 
Our experience is simply wallpaper over the cracks.
 
> Illusion or whatever, you have given me a definition of energy, but sidestepped the question. Does consciousness contain energy, or as I view it thoughts are immaterial and have no energy?-For me "thought" is compatible with the brain actions ... so in this sense it contains energy. thought for me is not separate from reality. -
> Please explain. You seem to say that you cannot cause effects in the material world.-I did not say it cannot, I said it did not ... at least within my experience.
 
Here's another problem with NDEs ... 
If we experience consciousness after death and David has provided many anecdotal examples with his citations, then why don't we experience the supposed after death experiences whilst we are very much alive? it would seem from David's hypothesis our brains are not receivers of this consciousness, but actually dampeners that are preventing us from experiencing this universal consciousness.-Thought for me is awareness with a little forward and backward confabulation.

9285 views

David: You are making unreasonable comparisons to precise non-biological processes. Of course there will be differences in function.
 
> 
> Romansh: Our experience is simply wallpaper over the cracks.-And my answer is, so what. Look at what humans have accomplished over the past few thousand years with that wallpaper.
> 
> > David: as I view it thoughts are immaterial and have no energy?
> 
> Romansh: For me "thought" is compatible with the brain actions ... so in this sense it contains energy. thought for me is not separate from reality.-Of course thought is within our reality, but you have again side stepped my point that thought is not material. Perhaps your thoughts are. All thoughts become material only when recorded. 
> 
> 
> > David: Please explain. You seem to say that you cannot cause effects in the material world.
> 
> Romansh: I did not say it cannot, I said it did not ... at least within my experience.-You seem to be referring to your thoughts not having a direct effect. I agree.-> 
> Romansh: Here's another problem with NDEs ... 
> If we experience consciousness after death and David has provided many anecdotal examples with his citations, then why don't we experience the supposed after death experiences whilst we are very much alive?-First of all, you are ignoring the point that these are NDE's, 'NEAR to death', with a distinct time reference to the end of life. And in fact there have been scattered reports of NDE's when 'scared to death' while in perfect health.-> Romansh: it would seem from David's hypothesis our brains are not receivers of this consciousness, but actually dampeners that are preventing us from experiencing this universal consciousness.-The receiver hypothesis comes from medical research into the phenomenon, and the reported experience rate is about 20%, so the majority of folks never experience it.
> 
> Romansh: Thought for me is awareness with a little forward and backward confabulation.-From Wikipedia: Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.-It also means just to chat. From your view of how the brain works I understand your statement, but 'without the conscious intention to deceive' it doesn't matter. What are you trying to prove?

9315 views

And my answer is, so what. Look at what humans have accomplished over the past few thousand years with that wallpaper.-I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of this statement to the discussion at hand.
 
> Of course thought is within our reality, but you have again side stepped my point that thought is not material. Perhaps your thoughts are. All thoughts become material only when recorded. -Recorded in our brain structures/chemistry?- 
> You seem to be referring to your thoughts not having a direct effect. I agree.-Not only direct but indirect too.-> First of all, you are ignoring the point that these are NDE's, 'NEAR to death', with a distinct time reference to the end of life. .... And in fact there have been scattered reports of NDE's when 'scared to death' while in perfect health.-No I am not. 
.... And having personally experienced such a thing I am far from convinced.
 
> The receiver hypothesis comes from medical research into the phenomenon, and the reported experience rate is about 20%, so the majority of folks never experience it.-And which medical journals ... with respect to the receiver hypothesis?-> ... but 'without the conscious intention to deceive' it doesn't matter. 
This assumes intent is somehow conscious and directing. And we end up in a circular argument.
> What are you trying to prove? 
I can't prove anything.

9252 views

David: And my answer is, so what. Look at what humans have accomplished over the past few thousand years with that wallpaper.
> 
> Romansh: I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of this statement to the discussion at hand.-I think it is quite clear. You are making a fuss over the fact that the brain bridges gaps and adds info, yet the results of human endeavor are there to see. the brain does not get in our way. It is built to help. 
> 
> > David:Of course thought is within our reality, but you have again side stepped my point that thought is not material. Perhaps your thoughts are. All thoughts become material only when recorded. 
> 
> Romansh: Recorded in our brain structures/chemistry?-Even if memorized, when thoughts appear they are immaterial. Another sidestep.-> 
> > David: First of all, you are ignoring the point that these are NDE's, 'NEAR to death', with a distinct time reference to the end of life.
> 
> Romansh: No I am not. 
> .... And having personally experienced such a thing I am far from convinced.-Would you be willing to describe it?
> 
> > David: The receiver hypothesis comes from medical research into the phenomenon,
 
> Romansh: And which medical journals ... with respect to the receiver hypothesis?-You have forgotten the references I have given you. Google Pim van Lommel. M.D., Bruce Greyson, M.D. for starters.

9297 views

I think it is quite clear. You are making a fuss over the fact that the brain bridges gaps and adds info, yet the results of human endeavor are there to see. the brain does not get in our way. It is built to help. 
The fuss I am making is the claim that you made that our consciousness is seamless. It is not. It just seems that way. The seamlessness is an illusion.-> Even if memorized, when thoughts appear they are immaterial. Another sidestep.
What they appear like is not what is under question.- 
> Would you be willing to describe it?
I have a memory ... as a three year old or thereabouts I fell down the stairs ... I can still recall as I tumbled head over heels watching myself fall from the top of the stairs and at the same time I could see myself watching me watch me fall. -Of course this memory is no longer trustworthy ... in that it has been taken out of the bag and put back in many times. 
 
> You have forgotten the references I have given you. Google Pim van Lommel. M.D., Bruce Greyson, M.D. for starters.
And in which medical journals were their studies on a universal consciousness published?-
Ultimately what we are claiming here is the material influences immaterial world and in turn the immaterial influences the material world.

9263 views

David: I think it is quite clear. You are making a fuss over the fact that the brain bridges gaps and adds info, yet the results of human endeavor are there to see. the brain does not get in our way. It is built to help. -> Romansh: The fuss I am making is the claim that you made that our consciousness is seamless. It is not. It just seems that way. The seamlessness is an illusion.-Perhaps I'm not clear. I agree with you that the brain covers gaps. My point is that it doesn't matter in regard to human functions, and is of no philosophic value to me other than how amazing it is, and I don't think chance mutation created it.
> 
> > David: Even if memorized, when thoughts appear they are immaterial. Another sidestep.-> Romansh: What they appear like is not what is under question.-What is the question from your viewpoint? 
 -> Romansh: I have a memory ... as a three year old or thereabouts I fell down the stairs ... I can still recall as I tumbled head over heels watching myself fall from the top of the stairs and at the same time I could see myself watching me watch me fall. -Thank you. Many people have had this happen. Hemmingway describes an episode exactly the same in the Spanish civil war when he floated up out of his body and saw himself.-> 
> Romansh: Of course this memory is no longer trustworthy ... in that it has been taken out of the bag and put back in many times. -Trustworthy? Do a little research and you'll find your memory is like lots of other folks incidents.
> 
> > David: You have forgotten the references I have given you. Google Pim van Lommel. M.D., Bruce Greyson, M.D. for starters.-> Romansh: And in which medical journals were their studies on a universal consciousness published?-Referenced in the books . I won't do the research for you.
> 
> 
> Romansh: Ultimately what we are claiming here is the material influences immaterial world and in turn the immaterial influences the material world.-Yes. It is a matter of mind and consciousness, the difficult philosophic problem, and I don't have explanations, lots of questions and tentative conclusions.

9253 views

Increasing artificial intelligence is a given:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-artificial-intelligence-surpass-our-own/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20150909-"Obscured by this razzle-dazzle progress is how far away we remain from strong or general AI, comparable to the intelligence of the proverbial man or woman in the street who can navigate a car, hurtle on skis down a mountain slope, carry on a conversation about pretty much any topicoften in two or more languages. That same ordinary individual might also play a variety of games, serve on a jury and plan for retirement decades in the future. Hampering our ability to design general AI is the embarrassing fact that we don't understand what we mean by intelligence. This lack of knowledge makes any predictions of when we will achieve strong AI fraught with uncertainty. Still, it may not be so far away. For the record, most experts believe that strong machine intelligence will arrive before the century is over, assuming current trends continue."

9067 views

David Eagleman in an interview:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exploring-the-mysteries-of-the-brain/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20151006-"Eagleman: Consider that whole beautiful world around you, with all its colors and sounds and smells and textures. Your brain is not directly experiencing any of that. Instead, your brain is locked in a vault of silence and darkness inside your skull. All it ever experiences are electrochemical signals coursing around through its massive jungle of neurons. Those signals are all it has to work with and nothing more. From these signals it extracts patterns, assigns meaning to them, and creates your subjective experience of the outside world. Your reality is running entirely in a dark theater. Our conscious experience of the outside world is one of the great mysteries of neuroscience: not only do we not have a theory to explain how private subjective experience emerges from a network of cells, we currently aren't even certain what such a theory would look like. In the series I confront that mystery, and others, to give an indication of where the field is going, and how this might get solved.-***-"Eagleman: Mike May was blinded in a chemical explosion at the age of three, and grew up entirely blind. In his 40s he underwent a surgery to repair his scarred corneas, thereby allowing light to pass through once again. The surgery itself was a success, but the amazing thing is that Mike still wasn't able to see, at least not the way we think of vision. Although his eyes were now functioning perfectly well, his brain couldn't interpret the signals. He stared at objects and people around them, but he couldn't make sense of the jangling, buzzing data. Mike's case reminds us that vision is not about the eyes but about the brain. Vision arises not simply from photons hitting the retina, but instead from the brain's proper interpretation of the signals that result."-Comment: As I've said before, our brain works for us and there is a back and forth with brain plasticity that shapes what we experience.

9008 views

A long essay on the subject:-http://inference-review.com/article/consciousness-"Explaining consciousness either means characterizing consciousness, which is a descriptive task, or it means assigning it a cause, which is a theoretical task. Both answer very differently the question, What is consciousness? But theoretical explanations of consciousness do not approach its mystery. If I ask what consciousness is, I am not asking by what it is brought about.-***-"My sense of myself is of authority, not only to select among the possible but to propose what is suitable and to act on it, but also to interrupt myself after beginning to act on it. If I become angry and say something rude or do something violent, or say or do something that I later regret, I am at all times authoritative. The sense of authority extends throughout my consciousness, and my consciousness is much more extensive than that which I can say or report that I feel.-"It is me. That is the way I am.-***-"It would be good if we could describe the mind in flight, but we cannot. But characterizing what goes on in a person's mind is the beginning point, the minimal beginning point, for any progress in brain science, or the philosophy of mind. If we cannot succeed in providing a goodnot necessarily a perfectcharacterization of consciousness, then we cannot succeed in what philosophers and scientists wish to account for, either in saying what consciousness is or in determining what biological machinery produces it. In order to progress to a science of mind, we must have descriptive, preferably quantitative, access to the mentalities. We do not have that access. The mentalities of thinking and feeling are themselves never before the mind.-"Are we then left with an imponderable mystery forever? The answer is yes. But the answer is yes only until we have another plane that science and philosophy might reach. On the assumption that intelligence is not limited by our present imagination, an explanation is not and can never be banished in prospect.-"But if not forever, right now the mystery is imponderable."-Comment: How can we study consciousness if it ends up that we are thinking about ourselves, and we don't know the source of consciousness?

8980 views

Work on the insect midbrain develops the finding that insects have feelings of consciousness:-http://pestweb.com/pests-in-the-news/a816e74c/insects-have-consciousness-self-awareness-and-egos-"Insects are conscious, egocentric beings, according to a new paper that also helps to explain why and likely when consciousness first evolved. -"Recent neuroimaging suggests insects are fully hardwired for both consciousness and egocentric behavior, providing strong evidence that organisms from flies to fleas exhibit both.-"Consciousness comes in many levels, and researchers say that insects have the capacity for at least one basic form: subjective experience. -'When you and I are hungry, we don't just move towards food; our hunger also has a particular feeling associated with it, Colin Klein, who co-authored the new paper, told Discovery News. "An organism has subjective experience if its mental states feel like something when they happen. -"Klein, a researcher at Macquarie University, and colleague Andrew Barron studied detailed neuroimaging reports concerning insect brains. They then compared the structure of such brains with those of humans and other animals. The resulting information is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. -Their work focused on the midbrain, a set of evolutionarily ancient structures that are surrounded by the gray folds of the cortex. The arrangement, they say, looks a bit like the flesh of a peach surrounding the pit. -'In humans and other vertebrates (animals with a backbone and/or spinal column) there is good evidence that the midbrain is responsible for the basic capacity for subjective experience, Klein said. The cortex determines much about what we are aware of, but the midbrain is what makes us capable of being aware in the first place. It does so, very crudely, by forming a single integrated picture of the world from a single point of view. -"Portions of insect brains work in a similar way to the midbrain in humans, performing the same sort of modeling of the world, the authors believe. -As for being egocentric, Barron explained that there is now compelling evidence that insects display selective attention to their processing of the world. -'They don't pay attention to all sensory input equally," Barron explained. "The insect selectively pays attention to what is most relevant to it at the moment, hence (it is) egocentric. -"Not all living things are thought to have consciousness, though. Plants, for example, do not have the necessary structures for it. Jellyfish and nematodes (certain unsegmented worms, such as roundworms) do not have such hardwiring either.-"Barron and Klein believe the origins of consciousness date to the Cambrian or even to the Precambrian Periods (more than 600 years ago). -'When organisms began to move freely in their environment, they faced many new challenges, Klein explained. They had to decide where to go next. They had to prioritize their needs. They had to interpret sensory information that changed as a consequence of their motion. That required a new kind of integrated modeling, and that's where we think consciousness arose. -"Van Swinderen told Discovery News that one of the most important points of the new paper is the realization that understanding the evolution of consciousness will not come from looking for intelligent behavior in other animals, but rather from understanding the fundamental mechanisms that support subjective awareness and selective attention, which he said we now know insects have. -'Insects have traditionally been viewed as mini robots, responding to environmental stimuli in a rather inflexible way, he continued. In contrast, Barron and Klein suggest that it is likely that some of the fundamental underpinnings of consciousness have already been solved in even the smallest brains. -"Completely understanding what's on the mind of an insect is still impossible, however. -"As Klein said, In some sense it's very hard to understand what other people experience, much less animals! But we think that research can reveal much about the contents of insects' experience, as well as the similarities and differences in the way that these experiences are structured.'-Comment: Not surprising. Anything with a brain is conscious to a degree. Note the comment, it goes all the way back to the Cambrian, 600 million years ago. The biggest single step before that was making a cell called a neuron, very different from any other cell. I'd call that a saltation also.-Smithsonian comment: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-insects-have-consciousness-180959484/?n...

8482 views

DAVID: Work on the insect midbrain develops the finding that insects have feelings of consciousness:
http://pestweb.com/pests-in-the-news/a816e74c/insects-have-consciousness-self-awareness...-QUOTE: "Insects are conscious, egocentric beings, according to a new paper that also helps to explain why and likely when consciousness first evolved. 
"Van Swinderen told Discovery News that one of the most important points of the new paper is the realization that understanding the evolution of consciousness will not come from looking for intelligent behavior in other animals, but rather from understanding the fundamental mechanisms that support subjective awareness and selective attention, which he said we now know insects have. -A very interesting comment. If these mechanisms support subjective awareness, the implication is that they do not cause it. Some of us would argue that we know insects have subjective awareness and selective attention and consciousness by observing their behaviour - as confirmed by their ability to solve problems, take decisions, create complex structures. All organisms with brains will have brain activity, but the question remains whether the brain produces awareness or is activated by awareness. We have no answer to the mystery of consciousness, but if the brain is not the producer and only the support, we are back to some form of dualism. Like you, David, the researchers dismiss the idea that brainless plants, jellyfish and certain nematodes could be conscious - and they would no doubt include bacteria in that category - but I wonder if they would also agree with you that these organisms must have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to behave intelligently, or that God has personally intervened to guide or help them to behave as if they are intelligent. If they don't agree with you, they have a problem explaining what appears to be intelligent behaviour. The problem is illustrated under "Bacteria farm algae":
 
QUOTE: "Both the bacteria and the algae appear to benefit from the arrangement, reminiscent of ants farming aphids. I suspect it's mutualism, says Rita Colwell of the University of Maryland at College Park. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't beneficial to both parties.
David's comment: Very similar to ants herding aphids.-Yes indeed, very similar. But ants have brains and do it consciously, whereas bacteria do not have brains and therefore presumably do it unconsciously. It would seem that the insect researchers consider insects to be intelligent enough to devise their own strategies, whereas you do not: ants and bacteria all have to be "helped" or "guided" to do their farming. I would suggest that the anomaly created by the ant/bacteria analogy is resolved by taking the opposite view to both yours and that of the insect researchers: that if brains are "supports" and not the source of consciousness, organisms without brains simply have different means of translating their consciousness into action.

8501 views

This is a case history of a man who had hydrocephalous as a child, had the shunt removed at 14 and who then ended up as a functional adult with consciousness who jus a rim of a brain:-http://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servant-missing-most-of-his-brain-challenges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/-"Not much is definitively proven about consciousness, the awareness of one's existence and surroundings, other than that its somehow linked to the brain. But theories as to how, exactly, grey matter generates consciousness are challenged when a fully-conscious man is found to be missing most of his brain.-"Several years ago, a 44-year-old Frenchman went to the hospital complaining of mild weakness in his left leg. It was discovered then that his skull was filled largely by fluid, leaving just a thin parameter of actual brain tissue.-"And yet the man was a married father of two and a civil servant with an IQ of 75, below-average in his intelligence but not mentally disabled.-***-"His hydrocephalus was treated with a shunt, which drains the fluid into the bloodstream, when he was an infant. But it was removed when he was 14 years old. Over the following decades, the fluid accumulated, leaving less and less space for his brain.-***-"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90% of his neurons, still exhibits normal behavior, says Cleeremans. A theory of consciousness that depends on specific neuroanatomical features (the physical make-up of the brain) would have trouble explaining such cases.-***-"Cleermeans, who gave a lecture on the subject at this year's Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness conference in Buenos Aires, believes that the seeming plasticity of the brain is key to understanding how consciousness operates.-"He believes that the brain learns to be conscious. As such, few specific neural features are necessary for consciousness, since areas of the brain are able to adapt and develop consciousness.-'Consciousness is the brain's non-conceptual theory about itself, gained through experiencethat is learning, interacting with itself, the world, and with other people, he says.-"In the paper where he puts forward his thesis, Cleeremans argues that in order to be aware, it's necessary not simply to know information, but to know that one knows information. In other words, unlike a thermostat that simply records temperature, conscious humans both know and care that they know. Cleeremans claims that the brain is continually and unconsciously learning to re-describe its own activity to itself, and these descriptions form the basis of conscious experience.-"Ultimately, Cleereman believes that consciousness is the brain's theory about itself. And so, while the Frenchman may have had a tiny brain, it was still apparently able to generate a theory about itself and is a striking case of how the brain learns to adapt.'-Comment: I constantly refer to brain plasticity as the brain working for us. Cleereman's concept would suggest that a newborn is a blank slate without any trace of consciousness and it would have to be learned. As the child grows so does its brain and its self-awareness. How the patient maintained his consciousness raises the issue of how much brain is needed to have consciousness? That suggests strongly a materialism theory disconnect and brings back dualism. The NDE's research folk think the brain may be a receiver of consciousness, and as such size wouldn't matter if receiver ability isn't lost by neuron reduction.

8499 views


> dhw: A very interesting comment. If these mechanisms support subjective awareness, the implication is that they do not cause it. Some of us would argue that we know insects have subjective awareness and selective attention and consciousness by observing their behaviour - as confirmed by their ability to solve problems, take decisions, create complex structures.-It is unfortunate that the researchers used the word consciousness. Those insects are aware, are obviously conscious, but do not have self-aware consciousness.-
> dhw: If they don't agree with you, they have a problem explaining what appears to be intelligent behaviour.-Absolutely! -> 
> QUOTE: "Both the bacteria and the algae appear to benefit from the arrangement, reminiscent of ants farming aphids. I suspect it's mutualism, says Rita Colwell of the University of Maryland at College Park. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't beneficial to both parties.
> David's comment: Very similar to ants herding aphids.
> 
> dhw: I would suggest that the anomaly created by the ant/bacteria analogy is resolved by taking the opposite view to both yours and that of the insect researchers: that if brains are "supports" and not the source of consciousness, organisms without brains simply have different means of translating their consciousness into action.-You want bacteria to have consciousness? Really? Loose use of word. Evidence? I accept that bacteria act as if they are conscious, and can explain it totally biochemically.

8501 views

QUOTE: "Both the bacteria and the algae appear to benefit from the arrangement, reminiscent of ants farming aphids. I suspect it's mutualism, says Rita Colwell of the University of Maryland at College Park. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't beneficial to both parties.
David's comment: Very similar to ants herding aphids.
dhw: I would suggest that the anomaly created by the ant/bacteria analogy is resolved by taking the opposite view to both yours and that of the insect researchers: that if brains are "supports" and not the source of consciousness, organisms without brains simply have different means of translating their consciousness into action. - DAVID: You want bacteria to have consciousness? Really? Loose use of word. Evidence? I accept that bacteria act as if they are conscious, and can explain it totally biochemically. - There is nothing loose about the word: consciousness is not the same as self-awareness, and you have agreed that insects are conscious (aware). For several years now we have been debating the question of cellular intelligence, and you know as well as I do that there are some highly reputable scientists who believe bacteria to be conscious. Why are you suddenly expressing surprise? Here I am pointing out the anomalous analogy, which you accepted, between farming ants and bacteria. You have completely ignored this anomaly, which my proposal resolves: the researchers clearly think the ants do it consciously, but since they think consciousness is impossible without brains, they must assume bacteria do it unconsciously. You accept ants' consciousness, but it makes no difference, because you think both ants and bacteria have to be preprogrammed or personally instructed by God anyway. My proposal above (in bold) resolves the anomaly whereby the researchers think unconscious organisms can produce the same results as conscious organisms, while you think none of them produce the results consciously (though ants are conscious). The remarkable case of the Frenchman (thank you for that), which you consider to be evidence that consciousness is NOT the product of the brain but supports dualism, also supports the idea that organisms without a brain may have consciousness. NB: Dualism does not depend on how much brain you have. Either the brain is the source or it is not. If it is not, either consciousness is immaterial or it may have other possible material sources (this might tie in with some forms of panpsychism).

8503 views


> dhw: There is nothing loose about the word: consciousness is not the same as self-awareness, and you have agreed that insects are conscious (aware). - Accepted as a broad use of consciousness - > dhw: You have completely ignored this anomaly, which my proposal resolves: the researchers clearly think the ants do it consciously, but since they think consciousness is impossible without brains, they must assume bacteria do it unconsciously. You accept ants' consciousness, but it makes no difference, because you think both ants and bacteria have to be preprogrammed or personally instructed by God anyway. - Not entirely. A foraging ant can choose to go in any direction he wishes. That is free conscious activity. He will then come back and touching antennae tell the others where to find the food. God is not guiding. - > dhw: My proposal above (in bold) resolves the anomaly whereby the researchers think unconscious organisms can produce the same results as conscious organisms, while you think none of them produce the results consciously (though ants are conscious) - Answered above. - > dhw: NB: Dualism does not depend on how much brain you have. Either the brain is the source or it is not. If it is not, either consciousness is immaterial or it may have other possible material sources (this might tie in with some forms of panpsychism). - Agreed. Except consciousness does not have a material source unless totally neuron dependent for which there is no evidence.

8548 views

dhw: You have completely ignored this anomaly, which my proposal resolves: the researchers clearly think the ants do it consciously, but since they think consciousness is impossible without brains, they must assume bacteria do it unconsciously. You accept ants' consciousness, but it makes no difference, because you think both ants and bacteria have to be preprogrammed or personally instructed by God anyway. - DAVID: Not entirely. A foraging ant can choose to go in any direction he wishes. That is free conscious activity. He will then come back and touching antennae tell the others where to find the food. God is not guiding. - The context was farming, not whether to turn left or right! Do you believe your God preprogrammed ants to farm aphids, personally instructed them, or gave them the intelligence to work it all out for themselves? - dhw: My proposal above (in bold) resolves the anomaly whereby the researchers think unconscious organisms can produce the same results as conscious organisms, while you think none of them produce the results consciously (though ants are conscious)
DAVID: Answered above. - Not answered. See above. - dhw: NB: Dualism does not depend on how much brain you have. Either the brain is the source or it is not. If it is not, either consciousness is immaterial or it may have other possible material sources (this might tie in with some forms of panpsychism).
DAVID: Agreed. Except consciousness does not have a material source unless totally neuron dependent for which there is no evidence. - In that case, it must be possible for brainless organisms to have consciousness.

8499 views

An essay in the NY Times looks at the latest thinking, with no results:-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/what-is-consciousness.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20160705&_r=0-"Depression can be treated in two radically different ways: by altering the brain with chemicals, or by altering the mind by talking to a therapist. But we still can't explain how mind arises from matter or how, in turn, mind acts on the brain.-"This longstanding conundrum  the mind-body problem  was succinctly described by the philosopher David Chalmers at a recent symposium at The New York Academy of Sciences. The scientific and philosophical consensus is that there is no nonphysical soul or ego, or at least no evidence for that, he said.-***-"Michael Graziano, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, suggested to the audience that consciousness is a kind of con game the brain plays with itself. The brain is a computer that evolved to simulate the outside world. Among its internal models is a simulation of itself  a crude approximation of its own neurological processes.-"The result is an illusion. Instead of neurons and synapses, we sense a ghostly presence  a self  inside the head. But it's all just data processing.-'The machine mistakenly thinks it has magic inside it, Dr. Graziano said. And it calls the magic consciousness.-"It's not the existence of this inner voice he finds mysterious. The phenomenon to explain, he said, is why the brain, as a machine, insists it has this property that is nonphysical.-***-"Proponents of emergence, who have become predominant among scientists studying the mind, try to make their case with metaphors. The qualities of water  wetness, clarity, its shimmering reflectivity  emerge from the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Life, in a similar way, arises from molecules.-"We no longer believe in a numinous life force, an élan vital. So what's the big deal about consciousness?-***-"For lack of a precise mechanism describing how minds are generated by brains, some philosophers and scientists have been driven back to the centuries-old doctrine of panpsychism  the idea that consciousness is universal, existing as some kind of mind stuff inside molecules and atoms.-"Consciousness doesn't have to emerge. It's built into matter, perhaps as some kind of quantum mechanical effect.-***-"Max Tegmark, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Physics (he also spoke at the New York event), has proposed that there is a state of matter  like solid, liquid and gas  that he calls perceptronium: atoms arranged so they can process information and give rise to subjectivity.-"Perceptronium does not have to be biological. Dr. Tegmark's hypothesis was inspired in part by the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, whose integrated information theory has become a major force in the science of consciousness.-***-"The theory has its critics. Using the phi yardstick, Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist known for razorlike skepticism, has calculated that a relatively simple grid of electronic logic gates  something like the error-correcting circuitry in a DVD player  can be many times more conscious than a human brain.-"Dr. Tononi doesn't dismiss that possibility. What would it be like to be this device? We just don't know. Understanding consciousness may require an upheaval in how science parses reality.-***-"Or maybe not. As computers become ever more complex, one might surprise us someday with intelligent, spontaneous conversation,-***-"We might not understand how this is happening any more than we understand our inner voices. Philosophers will argue over whether the computer is really conscious or just simulating consciousness  and whether there is any difference.-"If the computer gets depressed, what is the computational equivalent of Prozac? Or how would a therapist, human or artificial, initiate a talking cure?-***-"Maybe it would find itself flummoxed by its own mind-body problem. We humans may not be of much help."-Comment: Amen. I still look to quantum mechanics, dualism as shown by NDE's, as containing the most possible answers. We still have none.

8510 views

DAVID: An essay in the NY Times looks at the latest thinking, with no results:
QUOTE: "But we still can't explain how mind arises from matter or how, in turn, mind acts on the brain.
"This longstanding conundrum  the mind-body problem  was succinctly described by the philosopher David Chalmers at a recent symposium at The New York Academy of Sciences. The scientific and philosophical consensus is that there is no nonphysical soul or ego, or at least no evidence for that, he said.-David's comment: I still look to quantum mechanics, dualism as shown by NDE's, as containing the most possible answers. We still have none.-Scientists who argue for materialism focus on the chemical and electrical workings of the brain in their search for an explanation. You look to a different approach in your desire to find evidence of dualism. However, you emulate the materialists whenever you discuss the actions of cells :-D avid's comment (under Automatic breathing controls): Note the brain produces chemical (hormonal) regulators as well as the resultant electrical signals, so we continue breathing without thinking about it.[] This is all accomplished by automatic feedback loops. Again I suggest saltation.-Forget about Darwin's gradualism for a change, which we both reject, and ask how the saltations might have ORIGINATED, bearing in mind that the brain is a community of cells that communicates with other communities of cells. (Once a system is established, the cells should work automatically until new problems arise.) You presumably think it was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or God has dabbled. Same materialistic approach under cell communication controls :-D AVID: Cells communicate with each other by chemicals on their surfaces that combine with each other, attract or repel:-That may be the means whereby they communicate (their equivalent of language), but the great question is how they formulate the messages which are to be communicated. Take it a few steps further up the evolutionary ladder to "slugs":
David's comment: It doesn't take any thought or evolution to be opportunistic, as another characteristic of living organisms.-Opportunism requires the ability to perceive the opportunity, to process the information arising out of the perception, to find ways of exploiting it, and to make the decision to exploit it. For me these are all elements of thought.
There is also an interesting quote in the wonderful Butterflies article (and thank you again for all these gems):-"To Conway Morris, to me, and to many others, it is striking how often evolution has produced the same solutions to the same problems in the same habitats with presumably the same selective pressures, starting with very different raw material. -It is not evolution that produces solutions. It is individual living organisms. And for you, all these different living organisms must have been preprogrammed in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago or personally helped by God to find the same solution, although his purpose was to produce homo sapiens. How much simpler it is to hypothesize that individual intelligences (perhaps designed by God) might spontaneously work out the same solutions to the same problems as and when they arise.

8469 views


> dhw: "To Conway Morris, to me, and to many others, it is striking how often evolution has produced the same solutions to the same problems in the same habitats with presumably the same selective pressures, starting with very different raw material. 
> 
> It is not evolution that produces solutions. It is individual living organisms. And for you, all these different living organisms must have been preprogrammed in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago or personally helped by God to find the same solution, although his purpose was to produce homo sapiens. How much simpler it is to hypothesize that individual intelligences (perhaps designed by God) might spontaneously work out the same solutions to the same problems as and when they arise. - Same answer. You are hoping that individual committees of cells can produce the biologic complexities I have exhibited to you, and I am firm in my commitment that only a planning mind can create the saltations you admit occur. You hope is certainly simple, but not supported by the biochemistry which is found in the reductive materialism of the research, the only way to find how cells work.

8495 views

QUOTE (NOT dhw): "To Conway Morris, to me, and to many others, it is striking how often evolution has produced the same solutions to the same problems in the same habitats with presumably the same selective pressures, starting with very different raw material. 
Dhw:It is not evolution that produces solutions. It is individual living organisms. And for you, all these different living organisms must have been preprogrammed in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago or personally helped by God to find the same solution, although his purpose was to produce homo sapiens. How much simpler it is to hypothesize that individual intelligences (perhaps designed by God) might spontaneously work out the same solutions to the same problems as and when they arise.
DAVID: Same answer. You are hoping that individual committees of cells can produce the biologic complexities I have exhibited to you, and I am firm in my commitment that only a planning mind can create the saltations you admit occur. You hope is certainly simple, but not supported by the biochemistry which is found in the reductive materialism of the research, the only way to find how cells work. - I am not hoping, I am speculating. I offer a hypothesis, not a firm belief, but I share your view that some sort of mind is required to produce the biological complexities you have exhibited to me (not to mention the biological complexities that Darwin exhibited to me, which helped to turn me from atheism to agnosticism). The fact that some scientists believe in cellular intelligence lends scientific support to my hypothesis that all living organisms have minds (not to be equated with the human mind). The reductive materialism of the research is precisely what you object to when neurologists attempt to reduce human consciousness to the workings of neurons, but that is actually beside the point. For all we know, the brain may not be the only possible material source of intelligence/consciousness. We simply do not know the source, and we should therefore keep an open mind. But of course I acknowledge your right to abide by your firm commitment, not simply to design (which I can readily accept) but also to your 3.8-bilion-year-old computer programme/ad-hoc-dabbling hypothesis and to your scepticism concerning bacterial intelligence.

8553 views

DAVID: Same answer. You are hoping that individual committees of cells can produce the biologic complexities I have exhibited to you, and I am firm in my commitment that only a planning mind can create the saltations you admit occur. You hope is certainly simple, but not supported by the biochemistry which is found in the reductive materialism of the research, the only way to find how cells work.
> 
> dhw: I am not hoping, I am speculating. I offer a hypothesis, not a firm belief, but I share your view that some sort of mind is required to produce the biological complexities you have exhibited to me (not to mention the biological complexities that Darwin exhibited to me, which helped to turn me from atheism to agnosticism). The fact that some scientists believe in cellular intelligence lends scientific support to my hypothesis that all living organisms have minds (not to be equated with the human mind). The reductive materialism of the research is precisely what you object to when neurologists attempt to reduce human consciousness to the workings of neurons, but that is actually beside the point. For all we know, the brain may not be the only possible material source of intelligence/consciousness. We simply do not know the source, and we should therefore keep an open mind. But of course I acknowledge your right to abide by your firm commitment, not simply to design (which I can readily accept) but also to your 3.8-bilion-year-old computer programme/ad-hoc-dabbling hypothesis and to your scepticism concerning bacterial intelligence.-That is a step forward for you to admit 'some sort of mind' is required. Reductive materialism is necessary in research to uncover the mechanisms of how cells work. That is all it is. I never try to reduce consciousness to neurons because you know full well, no one knows how that works and I object to your trying to compare the discussion of cell material activity to whatever it is that creates consciousness. How the brain runs muscles, for example, is what is equivalent to cell biological responses. Consciousness is a different breed of cats.

8474 views

DAVID: Same answer. You are hoping that individual committees of cells can produce the biologic complexities I have exhibited to you, and I am firm in my commitment that only a planning mind can create the saltations you admit occur. You hope is certainly simple, but not supported by the biochemistry which is found in the reductive materialism of the research, the only way to find how cells work.

dhw: I am not hoping, I am speculating. I offer a hypothesis, not a firm belief, but I share your view that some sort of mind is required to produce the biological complexities you have exhibited to me (not to mention the biological complexities that Darwin exhibited to me, which helped to turn me from atheism to agnosticism). The fact that some scientists believe in cellular intelligence lends scientific support to my hypothesis that all living organisms have minds (not to be equated with the human mind). The reductive materialism of the research is precisely what you object to when neurologists attempt to reduce human consciousness to the workings of neurons, but that is actually beside the point. For all we know, the brain may not be the only possible material source of intelligence/consciousness. We simply do not know the source, and we should therefore keep an open mind. But of course I acknowledge your right to abide by your firm commitment, not simply to design (which I can readily accept) but also to your 3.8-bilion-year-old computer programme/ad-hoc-dabbling hypothesis and to your scepticism concerning bacterial intelligence.-DAVID: That is a step forward for you to admit 'some sort of mind' is required. -The sort of mind I am referring to in the context of the biological complexities of evolutionary innovation is that of the organisms themselves. I have offered three hypotheses concerning the origin of such a mind, and find all of them equally unconvincing. -DAVID: Reductive materialism is necessary in research to uncover the mechanisms of how cells work. That is all it is. I never try to reduce consciousness to neurons because you know full well, no one knows how that works and I object to your trying to compare the discussion of cell material activity to whatever it is that creates consciousness. How the brain runs muscles, for example, is what is equivalent to cell biological responses. Consciousness is a different breed of cats.-Of course it is. But you have missed the point of what I wrote, which is why I have quoted it again. You object when neuroscientists try to reduce consciousness to chemical and electrical activity. But when scientists suggest that brainless organisms may also be conscious, you point to chemical and electrical activity as if that explained all their seemingly conscious behaviour. Double standards.

8462 views


> dhw: The sort of mind I am referring to in the context of the biological complexities of evolutionary innovation is that of the organisms themselves. I have offered three hypotheses concerning the origin of such a mind, and find all of them equally unconvincing. -And that is because you refuse to accept the observation that cells have planned purposeful behaviour that looks as if they can think, but simply represents thoughtful planning of their purposeful reactions.
> 
> DAVID: Reductive materialism is necessary in research to uncover the mechanisms of how cells work. That is all it is. I never try to reduce consciousness to neurons because you know full well, no one knows how that works and I object to your trying to compare the discussion of cell material activity to whatever it is that creates consciousness. How the brain runs muscles, for example, is what is equivalent to cell biological responses. Consciousness is a different breed of cats.
> 
> dhw: Of course it is. But you have missed the point of what I wrote, which is why I have quoted it again. You object when neuroscientists try to reduce consciousness to chemical and electrical activity. But when scientists suggest that brainless organisms may also be conscious, you point to chemical and electrical activity as if that explained all their seemingly conscious behaviour. Double standards.-You totally misunderstand or misconstrue my thoughts. In studying cellular responses to stimuli one must use reductive materialism to elicit the molecular reactions that motor the results. No neuroscientist has ever come close to proving that neurons produce consciousness, only that consciousness appears to be neuron dependent, accept during NDE's. That is why Nagel's book is so significant. We do know what neurons can do and that is the result of necessary reductive materialism in brain research.

8464 views

dhw: The sort of mind I am referring to in the context of the biological complexities of evolutionary innovation is that of the organisms themselves. I have offered three hypotheses concerning the origin of such a mind, and find all of them equally unconvincing. -DAVID: And that is because you refuse to accept the observation that cells have planned purposeful behaviour that looks as if they can think, but simply represents thoughtful planning of their purposeful reactions.-I refuse to accept your refusal to accept the possibility that the above is NOT an observation but is a hypothesis. There are experts in the field who do not share your opinion that cells cannot think.-DAVID: Reductive materialism is necessary in research to uncover the mechanisms of how cells work. That is all it is. I never try to reduce consciousness to neurons because you know full well, no one knows how that works and I object to your trying to compare the discussion of cell material activity to whatever it is that creates consciousness. How the brain runs muscles, for example, is what is equivalent to cell biological responses. Consciousness is a different breed of cats.
dhw: Of course it is. But you have missed the point of what I wrote, which is why I have quoted it again. You object when neuroscientists try to reduce consciousness to chemical and electrical activity. But when scientists suggest that brainless organisms may also be conscious, you point to chemical and electrical activity as if that explained all their seemingly conscious behaviour. Double standards.-DAVID: You totally misunderstand or misconstrue my thoughts. In studying cellular responses to stimuli one must use reductive materialism to elicit the molecular reactions that motor the results. No neuroscientist has ever come close to proving that neurons produce consciousness, only that consciousness appears to be neuron dependent, accept during NDE's. That is why Nagel's book is so significant. We do know what neurons can do and that is the result of necessary reductive materialism in brain research.-There is no misunderstanding here. Reductive materialism does not elicit anything - it is the view that all phenomena can be reduced to material causes. You accept that view with regard to cellular responses to stimuli and you do not accept it with regard to human consciousness. No one will dispute that reductive materialism has taught us what neurons can do. You rightly (in my view) tell us it has not taught us that neurons produce human consciousness; you wrongly and confusingly (in my view) suggest that reductive materialism has taught us that cells do not have consciousness.

8469 views


> dhw:No one will dispute that reductive materialism has taught us what neurons can do. You rightly (in my view) tell us it has not taught us that neurons produce human consciousness; you wrongly and confusingly (in my view) suggest that reductive materialism has taught us that cells do not have consciousness. - All the experts claim is that cells have the ability to respond intelligently. Which does not mean they have an innate form of intelligence.

8485 views

dhw: No one will dispute that reductive materialism has taught us what neurons can do. You rightly (in my view) tell us it has not taught us that neurons produce human consciousness; you wrongly and confusingly (in my view) suggest that reductive materialism has taught us that cells do not have consciousness. - DAVID: All the experts claim is that cells have the ability to respond intelligently. Which does not mean they have an innate form of intelligence.
 - And it does not mean that they do NOT have an innate form of intelligence. So please don't argue that reductive materialism is wrong in relation to human consciousness and right in relation to brainless organisms. - ****** - Thank you for the Kabbalah view. I made a start, but found it very hard going. I'll try again when I have a bit more time.

8451 views


> dhw: And it does not mean that they do NOT have an innate form of intelligence. So please don't argue that reductive materialism is wrong in relation to human consciousness and right in relation to brainless organisms. - And I will keep repeating that single cell reactions can be broken down to simple or complex molecular processes, and the molecules appear to follow information they contain. Nothing more.
> 
> ******
> 
> dhw: Thank you for the Kabbalah view. I made a start, but found it very hard going. I'll try again when I have a bit more time. - I did the best I could. I found it very fascinating since it paralleled much of my own original thinking.

8471 views

DAVID: All the experts claim is that cells have the ability to respond intelligently. Which does not mean they have an innate form of intelligence. - dhw: And it does not mean that they do NOT have an innate form of intelligence. So please don't argue that reductive materialism is wrong in relation to human consciousness and right in relation to brainless organisms. - DAVID: And I will keep repeating that single cell reactions can be broken down to simple or complex molecular processes, and the molecules appear to follow information they contain. Nothing more. - Yes of course you will stick to your rigid belief. And I will simply point out that some experts disagree with you, and that when you reject reductive materialism as an explanation for the intelligent behaviour of humans (and, to a lesser degree, of our fellow animals), and you accept reductive materialism as an explanation for the intelligent behaviour of bacteria, your argument smacks of double standards. - ****** - dhw: Thank you for the Kabbalah view. I made a start, but found it very hard going. I'll try again when I have a bit more time. - DAVID: I did the best I could. I found it very fascinating since it paralleled much of my own original thinking. - Thank you for doing so. I will try again in due course.

8477 views


> dhw: Yes of course you will stick to your rigid belief. And I will simply point out that some experts disagree with you, and that when you reject reductive materialism as an explanation for the intelligent behaviour of humans (and, to a lesser degree, of our fellow animals), and you accept reductive materialism as an explanation for the intelligent behaviour of bacteria, your argument smacks of double standards. - I have to look at science studies using a reductive materialism method, and then I make my own interpretation of the findings. Yes, several standards of critical view.

8506 views

dhw: Yes of course you will stick to your rigid belief. And I will simply point out that some experts disagree with you, and that when you reject reductive materialism as an explanation for the intelligent behaviour of humans (and, to a lesser degree, of our fellow animals), and you accept reductive materialism as an explanation for the intelligent behaviour of bacteria, your argument smacks of double standards. - DAVID: I have to look at science studies using a reductive materialism method, and then I make my own interpretation of the findings. Yes, several standards of critical view. - You accept the method for bacteria and you reject it for humans. Is it not possible, then, that instead of your conclusions emerging from the findings, you are imposing your pre-existing conclusions on the findings?

8449 views

]
> 
> DAVID: I have to look at science studies using a reductive materialism method, and then I make my own interpretation of the findings. Yes, several standards of critical view.
> 
> dhw: You accept the method for bacteria and you reject it for humans. Is it not possible, then, that instead of your conclusions emerging from the findings, you are imposing your pre-existing conclusions on the findings? - Simply, I fully understand how cells are constructed and how they function in humans, and see no difference in what is reported about amoeba and paramecia, or bacteria for that matter.

8488 views


> dhw: The context was farming, not whether to turn left or right! Do you believe your God preprogrammed ants to farm aphids, personally instructed them, or gave them the intelligence to work it all out for themselves? - It is possible it happened step by step. Some ants found aphids cooperative or easy to tame and bit by bit it developed into an instinct.
> 
> dhw: NB: Dualism does not depend on how much brain you have. Either the brain is the source or it is not. If it is not, either consciousness is immaterial or it may have other possible material sources (this might tie in with some forms of panpsychism). - > DAVID: Agreed. Except consciousness does not have a material source unless totally neuron dependent for which there is no evidence.
> 
> dhw:In that case, it must be possible for brainless organisms to have consciousness. - I was referring to NDE research in which neurons seem not to be needed for consciousness to be active. I still consider brainless organisms to have automatic reactions.

8478 views

dhw: The context was farming, not whether to turn left or right! Do you believe your God preprogrammed ants to farm aphids, personally instructed them, or gave them the intelligence to work it all out for themselves? - DAVID: It is possible it happened step by step. Some ants found aphids cooperative or easy to tame and bit by bit it developed into an instinct. - So do you believe the ants used their own intelligence and bit by bit learned from experience and experiment how to farm aphids, or do you believe God preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago or personally gave them instructions? - dhw: NB: Dualism does not depend on how much brain you have. Either the brain is the source or it is not. If it is not, either consciousness is immaterial or it may have other possible material sources (this might tie in with some forms of panpsychism).
DAVID: Agreed. Except consciousness does not have a material source unless totally neuron dependent for which there is no evidence. - dhw:In that case, it must be possible for brainless organisms to have consciousness.
DAVID: I was referring to NDE research in which neurons seem not to be needed for consciousness to be active. I still consider brainless organisms to have automatic reactions. - I know you do. It is your fixed belief that I am questioning. If the enormous complexities of human consciousness can exist without neurons, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that much simpler forms of consciousness can exist without neurons. Do you or do you not accept the logic of this argument?

8498 views


> DAVID: It is possible it happened step by step. Some ants found aphids cooperative or easy to tame and bit by bit it developed into an instinct.
> 
> dhw: So do you believe the ants used their own intelligence and bit by bit learned from experience and experiment how to farm aphids, or do you believe God preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago or personally gave them instructions? - My statement above is quite clear. - > DAVID: I was referring to NDE research in which neurons seem not to be needed for consciousness to be active. I still consider brainless organisms to have automatic reactions.
> 
> dhw: I know you do. It is your fixed belief that I am questioning. If the enormous complexities of human consciousness can exist without neurons, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that much simpler forms of consciousness can exist without neurons. Do you or do you not accept the logic of this argument? - Possibly logical. This is where my thought that universal consciousness exists as God comes to play.

8502 views

DAVID: It is possible it happened step by step. Some ants found aphids cooperative or easy to tame and bit by bit it developed into an instinct. - dhw: So do you believe the ants used their own intelligence and bit by bit learned from experience and experiment how to farm aphids, or do you believe God preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago or personally gave them instructions?DAVID: My statement above is quite clear. - The implication seems to be that they used their own intelligence to design this system, but I would be inclined to put aphid farming in the same category as ant raft-building, ant city-building, weaverbird nest-building, cuttlefish camouflage, spider silk-weaving and so on: all special skills that require complex thought (which would also entail using what has been learned from experience). And yet you always insist that such phenomena are too complex for the organisms themselves to design. Please help me. Ant farming = ant intelligence or God's instructions? - DAVID: I was referring to NDE research in which neurons seem not to be needed for consciousness to be active. I still consider brainless organisms to have automatic reactions.
dhw: I know you do. It is your fixed belief that I am questioning. If the enormous complexities of human consciousness can exist without neurons, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that much simpler forms of consciousness can exist without neurons. Do you or do you not accept the logic of this argument? - DAVID: Possibly logical. This is where my thought that universal consciousness exists as God comes to play. - Universal consciousness is a form of panpsychism, with different degrees of consciousness. I find that very feasible when applied to individual living organisms - i.e. all living organisms have a degree of consciousness (not to be confused with human self-awareness). It only gets messy when we try to equate all these different degrees of consciousness with a single being in full control.

8496 views

dhw:And yet you always insist that such phenomena are too complex for the organisms themselves to design. Please help me. Ant farming = ant intelligence or God's instructions?-I am willing to accept that some activities, if simple enough, which I think aphid herding might be, can develop into instincts.
> 
> DAVID: Possibly logical. This is where my thought that universal consciousness exists as God comes to play.
> 
> dhw: Universal consciousness is a form of panpsychism, with different degrees of consciousness. I find that very feasible when applied to individual living organisms - i.e. all living organisms have a degree of consciousness (not to be confused with human self-awareness). It only gets messy when we try to equate all these different degrees of consciousness with a single being in full control.-It isn't messy to me if God is everywhere and into everything.

8487 views

dhw:And yet you always insist that such phenomena are too complex for the organisms themselves to design. Please help me. Ant farming = ant intelligence or God's instructions?-DAVID: I am willing to accept that some activities, if simple enough, which I think aphid herding might be, can develop into instincts.-Activities developing into instincts is not the point. The question is whether the activities (farming, raft-building, nest-building etc.) are the result of intelligent design by the organisms themselves. Why are you being so coy? Are ants capable of intelligent design, as in aphid farming, without your God's instructions?-dhw: If the enormous complexities of human consciousness can exist without neurons, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that much simpler forms of consciousness can exist without neurons. Do you or do you not accept the logic of this argument?
DAVID: Possibly logical. This is where my thought that universal consciousness exists as God comes to play.
dhw: Universal consciousness is a form of panpsychism, with different degrees of consciousness. I find that very feasible when applied to individual living organisms - i.e. all living organisms have a degree of consciousness (not to be confused with human self-awareness). It only gets messy when we try to equate all these different degrees of consciousness with a single being in full control.
DAVID: It isn't messy to me if God is everywhere and into everything.-If God's consciousness can split itself up into different levels and degrees, and is everywhere and into everything, then it is into us, your beloved doggy, my beloved ants and all other organisms, including those without brains. NB Instructions are not consciousness.

8482 views


> DAVID: I am willing to accept that some activities, if simple enough, which I think aphid herding might be, can develop into instincts.
> 
> The question is whether the activities (farming, raft-building, nest-building etc.) are the result of intelligent design by the organisms themselves. Why are you being so coy? Are ants capable of intelligent design, as in aphid farming, without your God's instructions?-Not coy. I'll accept farming and rafting as simple enough to be insect 'learned' processes that become instincts. Complex nests, too complex for that process. -> DAVID: It isn't messy to me if God is everywhere and into everything.
> 
> dhw: If God's consciousness can split itself up into different levels and degrees, and is everywhere and into everything, then it is into us, your beloved doggy, my beloved ants and all other organisms, including those without brains. NB Instructions are not consciousness.-Why the concept of different levels and degrees? Why can't the effect of God's consciousness be everywhere through the quantum level of reality, where He probably is hiding.?

8480 views

DAVID: I am willing to accept that some activities, if simple enough, which I think aphid herding might be, can develop into instincts.
The question is whether the activities (farming, raft-building, nest-building etc.) are the result of intelligent design by the organisms themselves. Why are you being so coy? Are ants capable of intelligent design, as in aphid farming, without your God's instructions?
DAVID: Not coy. I'll accept farming and rafting as simple enough to be insect 'learned' processes that become instincts. Complex nests, too complex for that process. -But still you refuse to commit yourself to the possibility that insects are capable of intelligent design. Yes, you are being coy. And presumably you still stand by your claim that God personally designed or preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest in order to ensure that life went on so that humans could eventually walk the Earth.-DAVID: It isn't messy to me if God is everywhere and into everything.
dhw: If God's consciousness can split itself up into different levels and degrees, and is everywhere and into everything, then it is into us, your beloved doggy, my beloved ants and all other organisms, including those without brains. NB Instructions are not consciousness.-DAVID: Why the concept of different levels and degrees? Why can't the effect of God's consciousness be everywhere through the quantum level of reality, where He probably is hiding?-You did not say the effect of God's consciousness, which could very easily separate God from what he might have created. You said God was everywhere and into everything. I don't see how he could get there without his consciousness. I thought you might possibly agree that humans, dogs and ants have different levels and degrees of consciousness, so I am confused by your question. But this is precisely why I said that the concept of a universal consciousness only gets messy when you try to equate all the different levels and degrees with a single being in full control (though I'm glad to see elsewhere you are now conceding that his control may not be full after all). Already you can't make up your mind whether it's God's consciousness or the effects of his consciousness that are present everywhere and in everything.

8479 views


> dhw: But still you refuse to commit yourself to the possibility that insects are capable of intelligent design. Yes, you are being coy. And presumably you still stand by your claim that God personally designed or preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest in order to ensure that life went on so that humans could eventually walk the Earth.-The weaver bird nest and humans are not closely connected in the scheme of things though you constantly try to equate them. The variety in the microcosms of life provides energy for living things to continue to evolve, no more than that. The weaverbird nest is part of God's liking of complexity and creating patterns of complexity. 
>> 
> DAVID: Why the concept of different levels and degrees? Why can't the effect of God's consciousness be everywhere through the quantum level of reality, where He probably is hiding?
> 
> dhw: Already you can't make up your mind whether it's God's consciousness or the effects of his consciousness that are present everywhere and in everything.-You are just slicing and dicing the meaning of God's consciousness. If He works through quantum levels of reality, He is into and affecting everything.

8486 views

dhw: But still you refuse to commit yourself to the possibility that insects are capable of intelligent design. Yes, you are being coy. And presumably you still stand by your claim that God personally designed or preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest in order to ensure that life went on so that humans could eventually walk the Earth.
DAVID: The weaver bird nest and humans are not closely connected in the scheme of things though you constantly try to equate them. -And still you refuse to agree that insects may be capable of intelligent design. As for the weaverbird's nest, I have spent several years pointing out that that there is absolutely no conceivable connection between it and humans! That is why I have constantly questioned your insistence that God's purpose was to produce humans, but that he also personally designed the nest (plus billions of other natural wonders). Initially you tried to find connections with your balance of nature theory, until it became apparent that the balance of nature simply meant life went on, as you now acknowledge :-D AVID: The variety in the microcosms of life provides energy for living things to continue to evolve, no more than that. The weaverbird nest is part of God's liking of complexity and creating patterns of complexity.-Ah, so now your God has two purposes: to produce humans, and to have fun creating pretty patterns. In my hypothesis, he has fun watching the organisms create their own pretty patterns - but you dismiss that as anthropomorphizing God.-dhw: If God's consciousness can split itself up into different levels and degrees, and is everywhere and into everything, then it is into us, your beloved doggy, my beloved ants and all other organisms, including those without brains. NB Instructions are not consciousness.
DAVID: Why the concept of different levels and degrees? Why can't the effect of God's consciousness be everywhere through the quantum level of reality, where He probably is hiding?
dhw: [...] Already you can't make up your mind whether God's consciousness is or is not present everywhere and in everything. 
 
DAVID: You are just slicing and dicing the meaning of God's consciousness. If He works through quantum levels of reality, He is into and affecting everything.-If he exists and created everything, then of course he affects everything. Our context was panpsychism, and I was pointing out the illogicality of your claim that God's consciousness is everywhere and into everything, but it is not in organisms that have no brains.

8465 views

DAVID: The weaver bird nest and humans are not closely connected in the scheme of things though you constantly try to equate them. 
> 
> dhw: And still you refuse to agree that insects may be capable of intelligent design. As for the weaverbird's nest, I have spent several years pointing out that that there is absolutely no conceivable connection between it and humans! That is why I have constantly questioned your insistence that God's purpose was to produce humans, but that he also personally designed the nest (plus billions of other natural wonders). Initially you tried to find connections with your balance of nature theory, until it became apparent that the balance of nature simply meant life went on, as you now acknowledge:
> 
> DAVID: The variety in the microcosms of life provides energy for living things to continue to evolve, no more than that. The weaverbird nest is part of God's liking of complexity and creating patterns of complexity-I keep insisting the only connection between weaver birds and evolution is the balance of nature. I've never gotten rid of it.-> 
> DAVID: You are just slicing and dicing the meaning of God's consciousness. If He works through quantum levels of reality, He is into and affecting everything.
> 
> dhw: If he exists and created everything, then of course he affects everything. Our context was panpsychism, and I was pointing out the illogicality of your claim that God's consciousness is everywhere and into everything, but it is not in organisms that have no brains.-Of course He can be in animals without brains. His consciousness is not manifest in them in the same way. An amoeba is not conscious but automatically responds, following God's programming.

8471 views

DAVID: The weaver bird nest and humans are not closely connected in the scheme of things though you constantly try to equate them. -dhw: And still you refuse to agree that insects may be capable of intelligent design. As for the weaverbird's nest, I have spent several years pointing out that that there is absolutely no conceivable connection between it and humans! []
DAVID: I keep insisting the only connection between weaver birds and evolution is the balance of nature. I've never gotten rid of it.-(Meanwhile, you still refuse to acknowledge the possibility that insects are capable of intelligent design.) Your weaverbird problem initially was trying to find a connection between it and your insistence that your God's purpose was to produce humans. The balance of nature, as we eventually agreed, means nothing but there being enough food for life to continue. Why your God should specially design the nest of one bird in order to keep life going so that humans could be produced remains a mystery, though last time you suggested that God likes creating pretty patterns. As I pointed out, this is every bit as anthropomorphic as my theory that he likes watching his inventive mechanism produce pretty patterns (not to mention the less pretty patterns).
 
DAVID: You are just slicing and dicing the meaning of God's consciousness. If He works through quantum levels of reality, He is into and affecting everything.-dhw: If he exists and created everything, then of course he affects everything. Our context was panpsychism, and I was pointing out the illogicality of your claim that God's consciousness is everywhere and into everything, but it is not in organisms that have no brains.-DAVID: Of course He can be in animals without brains. His consciousness is not manifest in them in the same way. An amoeba is not conscious but automatically responds, following God's programming.-That is why I specifically pointed out that instructions are not consciousness. We talk of man-made machines in terms of artificial intelligence. An amoeba is not a man-made machine, and it acts as if it is intelligent. I would call that "natural intelligence". However, if you truly believe that your God inserted programmes into the first amoeba and the first bacteria to provide solutions to every problem that life would throw at them over the next umpteen billion years - or alternatively he pops in to give them further instructions as and when new problems arise - so be it.

8486 views

DAVID: Of course He can be in animals without brains. His consciousness is not manifest in them in the same way. An amoeba is not conscious but automatically responds, following God's programming.
> 
> dhw: That is why I specifically pointed out that instructions are not consciousness. We talk of man-made machines in terms of artificial intelligence. An amoeba is not a man-made machine, and it acts as if it is intelligent. I would call that "natural intelligence".-Which may well be programmed intelligent action.-> dhw: However, if you truly believe that your God inserted programmes into the first amoeba and the first bacteria to provide solutions to every problem that life would throw at them over the next umpteen billion years - or alternatively he pops in to give them further instructions as and when new problems arise - so be it.-Even Darwin scientists point out that advancing mutations actually involve loss of initial information in DNA. Working that backward as in the Big Bang theory approach, how much more information was in the initial DNA of life? Perhaps all programmed from the beginning!

8459 views

Dhw: For Romansh: Bearing in mind that all our bodily materials are ephemeral, for consciousness NOT to be ephemeral, it would actually have to be immaterial.
ROMANSH: David was right ... ephemeral was not really the right word (it did not have the meaning I thought it had). Perhaps diaphanous was the word I was reaching for. 
Incidentally ... here are the synonyms for immaterial.http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/immaterial
What would be a good synonym?-Good joke if you wish to trivialize the subject. Of course immaterial in this context does not mean irrelevant but incorporeal, spiritual, non-physical... Diaphanous refers to very thin, translucent materials. Just as unsuitable as ephemeral. Why do you need a synonym?-Dhw: Also for Romansh: in my post of Wednesday 8 July at 20:47 I answered all your questions and challenged many of your assumptions. Perhaps you have decided to break off the exchanges rather than answer my own questions and defend your assumptions, but perhaps you didn't see the post.
ROMANSH: I quickly reviewed your post. I felt I adequately answered most of those questions within the post itself and perhaps in subsequent posts.-1) I wish you would acknowledge that nobody knows if - let alone how - chemicals engender consciousness, instead of constantly evading the question of how (see below). 
2) You wrote that a whack load of evidence points me to think of consciousness as an illusion. AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT REAL. Illusions are real. I challenged this oxymoronic statement and suggested you were conflating the reality of consciousness with the possible illusion of WHAT we are conscious of. Do you agree? In your latest post to David, you repeat: First and foremost I think consciousness is an illusion - though without the rider that illusions are real. Do you agree that if you were not conscious of this discussion, you would not be able to continue it? If so, in what sense is consciousness an illusion?
3) You got in a muddle over the redness of the bus, but when you stated it was unlikely to be red, I pointed out that red was a word invented to describe an intersubjective experience, and asked you what access you had to the objective reality of redness.
4) I challenged your statement that there is next to no evidence for a dualistic consciousness. There is a lot evidence for a chemical origin for our consciousness. Do you agree or disagree that at least the second part of this statement is subjective and without foundation? If not, once more please give us your evidence that chemicals can engender consciousness.-Dhw: For people who have already prejudged the issue [dualism], of whom Romansh is clearly one...
ROMANSH: And dhw ... are you the sole arbiter on who prejudges? -You have left out the rest of my sentence: ..."such matters [NDEs and other psychic experiences] do not constitute evidence and are therefore not worth looking into."-ROMANSH: I presume you mean before we have sufficient evidence? Just because you don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion does not mean others don't. This comment I found very gnostic of you. An agnostic might ask for more evidence and perhaps point out logical inconsistencies in an argument.-You stated categorically that it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness, which is a clear rejection of dualism. On 1 July during a discussion of NDEs - which dualists regard as important evidence - you asked David for references (which he provided and even offered to send you), but you subtly changed the subject to the impossible ADEs and googled a sceptical article rather than consider the material David recommended. If you are not prepared to consider possible evidence, I would suggest that constitutes prejudgement, but no, I am not the sole arbiter and will gladly withdraw the comment if it causes you offence. You are, however, quite right that an agnostic might ask for more evidence, which is why I keep asking you for evidence that chemicals generate consciousness, but you keep evading the question.
 
ROMANSH: The way I see it, this discussion is like ... I have a garden shed at the top of my garden, but I don't think I need faeries under it to make it complete.
-Nor do any of us, but such images don't help. Why not use the terms we are discussing? I believe I am conscious. I am not sure whether what I am conscious of corresponds to any objective reality. I am not sure whether my consciousness is engendered by and dependent on chemicals or has a source that is independent of known physical factors.
 
ROMANSH: Just ignoring the god aspect to my doodle here ... where do you fall in the bubbles?http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/beliefbubbles_files/beliefbubbles.jpg-Since the bubbles relate specifically to God, it's difficult to ignore God! But if you want me to relate it to consciousness, the same categories apply: doesn't believe in materialism, doesn't believe in dualism, sees insufficient evidence for belief or disbelief.

9292 views

Dhw: I am also open-minded towards your electrobiochemical theory, but since even neuroscientists cannot explain how chemicals might engender consciousness, the dualist can ask what evidence you have that they do. There is no default position here. 
ROM: First we have to be sure that consciousness is what you seem to think it is. For here I am far from sure. When objective reality and subjective experience clash then one (or both) have to give way.-I think consciousness is awareness, which can range in varying degrees from awareness of the outside world to awareness of the self. What do you think it is? As we discussed at great length on the epistemology thread, the nearest we can get to objective reality is a consensus of subjective experiences. That does not in any way mean we are not aware of the outside world or of ourselves. It simply means that what we are aware of is not necessarily objective reality.-Dhw: You have agreed that you are conscious. Why would someone else's belief that a brick (or a videorecorder) is conscious enable you to argue that you are not conscious? 
ROMANSH: I have agreed that we think we experience consciousness. Why do you think it is somebody else's belief that persuades me of this? IF I were to think a brick was conscious, then plainly consciousness is not what everyone thinks it is.
-I don't think it is somebody else's experience that persuades you. It's your own. If you thought a brick was conscious, that would not change what I understand by consciousness! It would simply mean you think the brick is aware of the outside world, whereas I do not. What would be plain would be that different people think differently about which organisms and objects have consciousness.-ROMANSH: Life is a game ... I enjoy that too. But a healthy dose of Ignosticism applied to reality does not go amiss.-As an agnostic I freely admit to my ignorance of what constitutes objective reality. You say in your post to David that it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness. You are thereby claiming to have solved a mystery that absolutely no-one on this planet has yet solved: the source of consciousness. You may, of course, be right - just as theists/atheists may be right: there either is or is not a god(s) - but on matters where there is no consensus of subjective views, a healthy acknowledgement of ignorance applied to reality does not go amiss.

9402 views

I think consciousness is awareness, which can range in varying degrees from awareness of the outside world to awareness of the self. What do you think it is? As we discussed at great length on the epistemology thread, the nearest we can get to objective reality is a consensus of subjective experiences. That does not in any way mean we are not aware of the outside world or of ourselves. It simply means that what we are aware of is not necessarily objective reality.-I see little difference between awareness and consciousness as well. I see both as a result of cause and effect. Well there is an objective reality ... and again if our subjective interpretations of that subjective reality point in opposite directions then I suspect one or both of them are inaccurate is some useful sense.
 
 
> I don't think it is somebody else's experience that persuades you. It's your own. If you thought a brick was conscious, that would not change what I understand by consciousness! It would simply mean you think the brick is aware of the outside world, whereas I do not. What would be plain would be that different people think differently about which organisms and objects have consciousness.
Yeah fair enough but you did ask ...
>> Why do you think it is somebody else's belief that persuades me of this?-I don't think of brick as conscious either, but I am pretty sure it responds to cause and effect much as do the atoms in my body.-> As an agnostic I freely admit to my ignorance of what constitutes objective reality. You say in your post to David that it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness. You are thereby claiming to have solved a mystery that absolutely no-one on this planet has yet solved: the source of consciousness. You may, of course, be right - just as theists/atheists may be right: there either is or is not a god(s) - but on matters where there is no consensus of subjective views, a healthy acknowledgement of ignorance applied to reality does not go amiss.-Firstly I was specifically referring to ignosticism and not agnosticism.-I am not claiming that any mystery has been solved. Only that it has been pushed back to another place. With all the appropriate qualifiers. We advance by making accurate descriptions of the objective reality. I am not so agnostic as to claim this has not been done. 
> If we have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences, then you and David will agree that the bus is red. Your experience of redness may be different, but the use of language is intersubjectively valid
Pragmatically, on a day to basis yeah fine. On a scientific and philosophical basis ... no way. My education was too thorough for that.

9369 views

Dhw: ...since even neuroscientists cannot explain how chemicals might engender consciousness, the dualist can ask what evidence you have that they do. There is no default position here.
ROMANSH: First we have to be sure that consciousness is what you seem to think it is.
Dhw: I think consciousness is awareness, which can range in varying degrees from awareness of the outside world to awareness of the self. What do you think it is? 
ROMANSH: I see little difference between awareness and consciousness as well.-So you agree with me. -ROMANSH: When objective reality and subjective experience clash then one (or both) have to give way.
Dhw: [...] the nearest we can get to objective reality is a consensus of subjective experiences. That does not in any way mean we are not aware of the outside world or of ourselves. It simply means that what we are aware of is not necessarily objective reality.
ROMANSH: Well there is an objective reality ... and again if our subjective interpretations of that subjective reality point in opposite directions then I suspect one or both of them are inaccurate...-So you agree with me again. Then let's get back to my question: how does this justify your claim that chemicals engender consciousness?
 
Dhw: If you thought a brick was conscious, that would not change what I understand by consciousness! It would simply mean you think the brick is aware of the outside world, whereas I do not. What would be plain would be that different people think differently about which organisms and objects have consciousness.-ROMANSH: Yeah fair enough but you did ask ...-You had claimed that if you were to think a brick was conscious, then plainly consciousness is not what everyone thinks it is. Clearly you now agree that even in those circumstances, consciousness IS what you and I think it is.
 
ROMANSH: I don't think of brick as conscious either, but I am pretty sure it responds to cause and effect much as do the atoms in my body.-And indeed every other material you can think of. No disagreement there either.-Dhw: As an agnostic I freely admit to my ignorance of what constitutes objective reality. 
ROMANSH: Firstly I was specifically referring to ignosticism and not agnosticism.-You wrote a healthy dose of ignosticism applied to reality does not go amiss. As I understand it, ignosticism refers to ignorance of the nature of God, but applied to reality suggests you were using it in a wider sense.
 
Dhw: You say in your post to David that it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness. You are thereby claiming to have solved a mystery that absolutely no-one on this planet has yet solved: the source of consciousness. 
ROMANSH: I am not claiming that any mystery has been solved. Only that it has been pushed back to another place. With all the appropriate qualifiers. We advance by making accurate descriptions of the objective reality. I am not so agnostic as to claim this has not been done.-In the statement, it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness, to what other place and appropriate qualifiers are you pushing the unsolved mystery of the source of consciousness? How do you know your statement is an accurate description of objective reality?
 
Dhw: If we have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences, then you and David will agree that the bus is red. Your experience of redness may be different, but the use of language is intersubjectively valid...
ROMANSH: Pragmatically, on a day to basis yeah fine. On a scientific and philosophical basis ... no way. My education was too thorough for that.-David wrote that you and he would agree that the bus was red. You replied, No, I don't think so. If you both accept that the nomenclature corresponds to the object, your use of language is intersubjectively valid on any basis. I hope your education was thorough enough to distinguish between intersubjective validity and objective reality.

9390 views

So you agree with me again. Then let's get back to my question: how does this justify your claim that chemicals engender consciousness?
But do you agree with me ... when two concepts point in opposite directions then one or both are wron?-> And indeed every other material you can think of. No disagreement there either.
including consciousness?-> 
> You wrote a healthy dose of ignosticism applied to reality does not go amiss. As I understand it, ignosticism refers to ignorance of the nature of God, 
No not really ... it is more like it has to defined (reasonably well) before a meaningful discussion might be held.-> but applied to reality suggests you were using it in a wider sense.
Exactly- 
> In the statement, it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness, to what other place and appropriate qualifiers are you pushing the unsolved mystery of the source of consciousness? How do you know your statement is an accurate description of objective reality?-I don't know anything. But a whack load of evidence points me to think of consciousness as an illusion. AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT REAL.-Illusions are real.-> David wrote that you and he would agree that the bus was red. You replied, No, I don't think so. If you both accept that the nomenclature corresponds to the object, your use of language is intersubjectively valid on any basis. I hope your education was thorough enough to distinguish between intersubjective validity and objective reality.-The bus is red. I perceive it as red. I don't care too much what David perceives it as. There is a difference between perception and reality. The difference between phenomenon and noumenon. -The bus is unlikely to be red, in fact we should be skeptical about colours as noumena.
 
Yes, I can't be sure of anything, but nevertheless I think I get out bed most mornings and go to work. Is that an objective reality or a intersubjective validity?-I am pretty sure as an objective reality the sun does not revolve around the Earth. We are allowed to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. And there is next to no evidence for a dualistic consciousness. There is a lot evidence for a chemical origin for our consciousness.

9364 views


> Romansh: I am pretty sure as an objective reality the sun does not revolve around the Earth. We are allowed to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. And there is next to no evidence for a dualistic consciousness. There is a lot evidence for a chemical origin for our consciousness.-The evidence we have is that a biochemical brain is the support structure for consciousness, but we have no evidence as to how it is produced.

9404 views

Dhw: So you agree with me again. Then let's get back to my question: how does this justify your claim that chemicals engender consciousness?
ROMANSH: But do you agree with me ... when two concepts point in opposite directions then one or both are wron?-You have now evaded my question twice. Yes of course, if I say x and you say y, one or both of us may be wrong. Once more, how does this glaringly obvious observation justify your claim that chemicals engender consciousness?-ROMANSH: I am pretty sure it [the brick] responds to cause and effect much as do the atoms in my body.
Dhw: And indeed every other material you can think of. No disagreement there either.
ROMANSH: including consciousness?-Whether consciousness is material is the issue under discussion, but yes of course. Even an immaterial consciousness would be subject to cause and effect, so how does that prove that chemicals engender consciousness?
 
Dhw: In the statement, it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness, to what other place and appropriate qualifiers are you pushing the unsolved mystery of the source of consciousness? How do you know your statement is an accurate description of objective reality?
ROMANSH: I don't know anything. -Then why make such an authoritative statement? Once again, what other place and appropriate qualifiers are you referring to?-ROMANSH: But a whack load of evidence points me to think of consciousness as an illusion. AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT REAL. Illusions are real.-Illusions by definition do not correspond to reality. By playing these linguistic games, I think you are tricking yourself into conflating one valid point with one invalid point. You agreed that consciousness means awareness; WHAT we are aware of may not correspond to objective reality, and so WHAT we are aware of may be an illusion. The awareness itself, however, is not an illusion, unless you wish to inform me that you are not aware of our current conversation, in which case how are you able to continue it?
 
Dhw: David wrote that you and he would agree that the bus was red. You replied, No, I don't think so. If you both accept that the nomenclature corresponds to the object, your use of language is intersubjectively valid on any basis. I hope your education was thorough enough to distinguish between intersubjective validity and objective reality.-ROMANSH: The bus is red. I perceive it as red. I don't care too much what David perceives it as. There is a difference between perception and reality. The difference between phenomenon and noumenon. 
The bus is unlikely to be red, in fact we should be skeptical about colours as noumena.-The bus is red...The bus is unlikely to be red....What are you trying to say? Or if you meant to say the bus is NOT red, how do you know? What access do you have to the objective reality of redness? Yes, all of us on this forum have long ago agreed that there is or at least may be (we can't know for sure) a difference between perception and reality. We do not know what objective redness is - we only know that the word red was invented by humans to describe a visual experience which we share with others. If others agree that the bus is red, we have intersubjective validity.-ROMANSH: Yes, I can't be sure of anything, but nevertheless I think I get out bed most mornings and go to work. Is that an objective reality or a intersubjective validity?-It only becomes intersubjectively valid if someone else agrees with you. A general consensus is the closest we can get to objective reality.-ROMANSH: I am pretty sure as an objective reality the sun does not revolve around the Earth. We are allowed to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. And there is next to no evidence for a dualistic consciousness. There is a lot evidence for a chemical origin for our consciousness.-There is almost total consensus that the sun does not revolve around the earth. There is absolutely no consensus on the source of consciousness, but of course we are allowed to come to our own conclusion. What constitutes evidence is wide open to subjective opinion, and your statement that there is next to no evidence for one view and a lot of evidence for the other is also as subjective as your statement that biology runs your consciousness.

9367 views

Romansh:There is a lot evidence for a chemical origin for our consciousness[/i].-The word "origin" is a fast and loose way of putting it. We know that biochemical reactions in neurons produce ions which can carry electrical signals. We know different regions of the brain have different functions. The brain provides for the appearance of consciousness, and no one of us knows whether the brain acts as a producer of consciousness or a receiver. I only see these two possibilities. Do you have a third?

9373 views

I only see these two possibilities. Do you have a third?-It aligns more closely with the latter, but I would suggest it is an illusion causer.

9362 views

David: The brain provides for the appearance of consciousness, and no one of us knows whether the brain acts as a producer of consciousness or a receiver. I only see these two possibilities. Do you have a third?-> 
> Romansh: It aligns more closely with the latter, but I would suggest it is an illusion causer.-If consciousness as an 'illusion' aligns more closely with the 'receiver' concept, what is the 'sender'?

9367 views

If consciousness as an 'illusion' aligns more closely with the 'receiver' concept, what is the 'sender'?
There isn't one.

9346 views

No, I think the universal consciousness has created inanimate objects such as you have listed, but the attribute of consciousness itself is limited to those animals with brain function.This is where I differ with dhw and his panpsychism theory.-Then "Universal consciousness" is a misnomer in my book. Panentheism is where god is in everything, at least to my understanding of the concept. As opposed to pantheism where god is everything. Panpsychism is closer to panentheism, not pantheism.-Just clearing up the nomenclature.

9431 views


> Romansh Then "Universal consciousness" is a misnomer in my book. Panentheism is where god is in everything, at least to my understanding of the concept. As opposed to pantheism where god is everything. Panpsychism is closer to panentheism, not pantheism.
 
I accept the definition of panentheism that God is part of everything both within and without the universe, but also that God is a universal consciousness. I do not believe that consciousness could have developed from a chance evolution of life originating from inorganic matter and some organic molecules floating around.

9448 views


> > http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html&#... > 
> 
> Romansh: Radically new? I somewhat doubt this. Eastern traditions, Susan Blackmore "Am I conscious now?" point to this. If we think about it and if we believe in cause and effect then consciousness is simply a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings.-I accept cause and effect, and you are correct, we have a very limited view of how the brain supplies us with a consciousness, but you avoid the question, are you in control of your consciousness and its ideas and thoughts? I'm sure I am.

9502 views


> > > http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html&#... > > 
> > 
> > Romansh: Radically new? I somewhat doubt this. Eastern traditions, Susan Blackmore "Am I conscious now?" point to this. If we think about it and if we believe in cause and effect then consciousness is simply a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings.
> 
> I accept cause and effect, and you are correct, we have a very limited view of how the brain supplies us with a consciousness, but you avoid the question, are you in control of your consciousness and its ideas and thoughts? I'm sure I am.-No I am not in control of my consciousness! -I don't control any chemical reaction in my brain, at least not in any meaningful sense. I might think I slow down my breathing rate to reduce my heart rate, but I did not control my chemistry to produce the thought about slowing my breathing rate.-Thought is a historical event, whether we measure the historicity of the thought in milliseconds or nanoseconds is a moot point.

9359 views


> Romansh: No I am not in control of my consciousness! 
> 
> I don't control any chemical reaction in my brain, at least not in any meaningful sense. I might think I slow down my breathing rate to reduce my heart rate, but I did not control my chemistry to produce the thought about slowing my breathing rate.
> 
> Thought is a historical event, whether we measure the historicity of the thought in milliseconds or nanoseconds is a moot point.-I agree we are not in direct control of our individual or grouped neurons in the brain, any more than we are in control of our kidney cells. I know it helps us recognize patterns to improve our awareness. But the mystery of consciousness is that I am fully convinced I control my own thoughts completely, and I recognize the historicity of the phenomenon. But I can predict which thought is coming next as I compose this entry. The brain is a biologic computer and can modify itself thru 'brain plasticity' to accommodate the way we wish to use the brain on a regular basis. And being biologic, compared to a computer, it must have a lag period to produce the necessary ions and connections to produce the thoughts and actions we desire.

9448 views

... can modify itself thru 'brain plasticity' to accommodate the way we wish to use the brain on a regular basis. And being biologic, compared to a computer, it must have a lag period to produce the necessary ions and connections to produce the thoughts and actions we desire.-And we don't control our wishes, desires or wills either. They all compete and some win out. But underneath they are simply chemical reactions and one particular pattern dominates, at least for a while.

9526 views


> Romansh: And we don't control our wishes, desires or wills either. They all compete and some win out. But underneath they are simply chemical reactions and one particular pattern dominates, at least for a while.-I understand that I make judgments based on my past experiences and my current desires, and I understand that chemical reactions are used by the brain, but I feel in full control. You may think it is an illusion, but I don't.

9486 views

I understand that I make judgments based on my past experiences and my current desires, and I understand that chemical reactions are used by the brain,-Good-> but I feel in full control. 
I do to, but I don't actually think this is the case. For starters, are you aware of the various competing processes that have surfaced to your consciousness that let you think you have full control? -> You may think it is an illusion, but I don't.
I may think the iconic London double decker bus is red, but physics and physiology tell me otherwise, or that it is very unlikely. -I would argue that we have no way knowing whether we have full control. In fact claiming full control denies a whole range of subliminal influences that we succumb to and this "full control" we feel is plainly a falsehood.-Happy 4th July
And a belated happy 23rd April

9465 views


> > David but I feel in full control. -> Romansh: I do to, but I don't actually think this is the case. For starters, are you aware of the various competing processes that have surfaced to your consciousness that let you think you have full control? -Yes, but my awareness does not stop me from running my consciousness. What you just wrote above is exactly the meaning you wanted to convey.
> 
> > Romansh: You may think it is an illusion, but I don't.
> I may think the iconic London double decker bus is red, but physics and physiology tell me otherwise, or that it is very unlikely.-But you and I will agree the buses are 'red', even though the retina and the occipital cortex go through biochemical contortions to convince us. 
> 
> Romansh: I would argue that we have no way knowing whether we have full control. In fact claiming full control denies a whole range of subliminal influences that we succumb to and this "full control" we feel is plainly a falsehood.-We cannot have first degree awareness using a biologic system.
> 
> Romansh:Happy 4th July
> And a belated happy 23rd April-Thank you

9456 views

Yes, but my awareness does not stop me from running my consciousness. What you just wrote above is exactly the meaning you wanted to convey.
I don't separate awareness and consciousness as such. It is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness. Not some intrinsic self.-Humpty Dumpty would approve ... but I am not so sure regarding meaning. I am trying to express a monistic concept in dualistic words.
> But you and I will agree the buses are 'red', even though the retina and the occipital cortex go through biochemical contortions to convince us. 
No, I don't think so.-We have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences. And bear in mind that not everyone has the same experience of colour.
If the bus were actually 'red' that would be an amazing coincidence.-> We cannot have first degree awareness using a biologic system.
I am not claiming we have first degree awareness using a biologic systems (whatever that means).

9401 views

Romansh:I don't separate awareness and consciousness as such. It is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness. Not some intrinsic self.-We differ. My biochemistry provides the substrate for my consciousness, but I control my consciousness.-
> > David: But you and I will agree the buses are 'red', even though the retina and the occipital cortex go through biochemical contortions to convince us. -> Romansh: No, I don't think so.
> 
> We have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences. And bear in mind that not everyone has the same experience of colour.
> If the bus were actually 'red' that would be an amazing coincidence.-I agree that no one knows what the color red really is, but somehow we all agree that the bus is red.
> 
> > David We cannot have first degree awareness using a biologic system.-> Romansh: I am not claiming we have first degree awareness using a biologic systems (whatever that means).-I'm simply pointing out that seeing involves a series of biochemical reactions which makes our perception of what we visualize a second hand event. That doesn't mean I can't trust what I think I see, because I know I can use the information and trust it. Otherwise I'd never accomplish much.

9323 views

... but I control my consciousness.
You believe you do ... and there I think is the difference.- 
> I agree that no one knows what the color red really is, but somehow we all agree that the bus is red.
In an everyday sense yes ... but in reality what we are agreeing to is our individual experience of that bus we will call red.
 
> I'm simply pointing out that seeing involves a series of biochemical reactions which makes our perception of what we visualize a second hand event. That doesn't mean I can't trust what I think I see, because I know I can use the information and trust it. Otherwise I'd never accomplish much.-We can trust it some degree, but it is really unlikely that bus is red or that it has colour at all.

9437 views


> Romansh: We can trust it some degree, but it is really unlikely that bus is red or that it has colour at all.-I guess you are living a life of total illusion.

9397 views

DAVID: But you and I will agree the buses are red.-ROM: No, I don't think so. We have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences. An bear in mind that not everyone has the same experience of colour. If the bus were actually red' that would be an amazing coincidence.-If we have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences, then you and David will agree that the bus is red. Your experience of redness may be different, but the use of language is intersubjectively valid (i.e. valid for your experience and for his), and will be so for other people. It would only be an amazing coincidence if an almighty God accepted our terminology and laid down a law as to what did and did not constitute redness, and our experiences all matched his criteria.

9446 views

Do animals recognize, as we do that we don't know what we would like to know. The answer is yes:-http://phys.org/news/2016-07-monkeys-google.html-"But that is different from what we see in humans," said Alexandra Rosati, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard and lead author of the study. "We wanted to know if monkeys could engage in metacognition on the spot when confronted with a brand-new problem."-"Rosati and Santos came up with an ingenious way to test whether free-ranging rhesus monkeys spontaneously know when they need more information. They gave monkeys a chance to search for food placed into one of two cylinders, arranged in a V-shape. When monkeys saw which cylinder the food went into, they quickly ran to that spot to retrieve the food. But when monkeys weren't sure which container had the food, they instead ran to the junction of the two cylinders where they could check the contents of both before they committed to searching one container. They rarely approached the center if it was not possible to check the other locations in this way.-"These results show that monkeys spontaneously used information about their own knowledge states when figuring out how to search for the food.-"'Our human understanding of when we need more information is such a ubiquitous behavior that we never give it a thought," Santos said. "When navigating a new city, we know the difference between knowing where we're going and realizing we need a map. When considering grabbing an umbrella, we already know it's raining or that we need to look outside. Our results hint that monkeys have that same feeling of certainty and uncertainty themselves, and it guides their behavior."-"But that is different from what we see in humans," said Alexandra Rosati, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard and lead author of the study. "We wanted to know if monkeys could engage in metacognition on the spot when confronted with a brand-new problem."-"Rosati and Santos came up with an ingenious way to test whether free-ranging rhesus monkeys spontaneously know when they need more information. They gave monkeys a chance to search for food placed into one of two cylinders, arranged in a V-shape. When monkeys saw which cylinder the food went into, they quickly ran to that spot to retrieve the food. But when monkeys weren't sure which container had the food, they instead ran to the junction of the two cylinders where they could check the contents of both before they committed to searching one container. They rarely approached the center if it was not possible to check the other locations in this way.-These results show that monkeys spontaneously used information about their own knowledge states when figuring out how to search for the food.-"'Our human understanding of when we need more information is such a ubiquitous behavior that we never give it a thought," Santos said. "When navigating a new city, we know the difference between knowing where we're going and realizing we need a map. When considering grabbing an umbrella, we already know it's raining or that we need to look outside. Our results hint that monkeys have that same feeling of certainty and uncertainty themselves, and it guides their behavior.'"-Comment: Not at all surprising. My dog when puzzled, will check all doors to ferret out a sound we make to play with him. This is part of straight forward consciousness recognizing a problem.

8463 views

A neurosurgeon takes on the materialists:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/your_deluded_br102987.html-"Is the mind computation? No, it's not. If fact, the mind is the opposite of computation. The hallmark of the mind is that thoughts are intentional, meaning (by the technical definition of intentional) that every thought is about something other than itself. The mind points to things other than itself. We think about things: about people, about places, about concepts. -***-"Computation is computation because it's never about anything. It's is non-intentional. The mind is the mind because it's always about something. It's intentional. Computation is the opposite of the mind. If it is computation, it is not mental. If it is mental, it is not computation. The Venn diagrams never cross. -"Note what this means for "artificial intelligence." A computer can't be conscious, because computation is the antithesis of consciousness. Computation is a mechanical process of mapping without reference to the content of the map. Mentation is a mental process of reference to an object -- to content -- other than itself.-***-"The idiotic claim that "brains play con games" is the mereological fallacy -- the error of attributing to parts that which can only be attributed to the whole. Brains no more play con games than feet run marathons or hands play piano. People play con games and run marathons and play piano, using their brains and feet and hands. The mereological fallacy is perhaps the most common fallacy in neuroscience (a discipline beset with fallacies). Only a human being thinks or has emotions or has perceptions. Brains don't think or emote or perceive. Brains do organ things. People do people things. -***-"Machines can't think, and the brain is not a machine anyway (it's a natural thing, not an artifact). The brain doesn't "insist" anything. People insist. -"And some aspects of thought are indeed non-physical. Thinking about universals, such as concepts, is inherently non-physical, because universals by their nature cannot be instantiated in matter, and therefore must be non-material. -"Neuroscience is infested with materialist fallacies."-Comment: Exactly as I think

8495 views

Like you, I agree with most of this, except for the following gross example of human self-centredness:-Only a human being thinks or has emotions or has perceptions. Brains don't think or emote or perceive. Brains do organ things. People do people things.-Other animals think, have emotions and have perceptions, and other animals do other animal things.

8486 views

dhw: Like you, I agree with most of this, except for the following gross example of human self-centredness:
> 
> Only a human being thinks or has emotions or has perceptions. Brains don't think or emote or perceive. Brains do organ things. People do people things.
> 
> Other animals think, have emotions and have perceptions, and other animals do other animal things.-Not to the degree humans can, by a vast gulf.

8482 views

dhw: Like you, I agree with most of this, except for the following gross example of human self-centredness:-Only a human being thinks or has emotions or has perceptions. Brains don't think or emote or perceive. Brains do organ things. People do people things.-dhw: Other animals think, have emotions and have perceptions, and other animals do other animal things.-DAVID: Not to the degree humans can, by a vast gulf.-Animal perceptions are often vastly more acute than human perceptions, we cannot measure emotion, but I agree with you that human thought exceeds that of our fellow animals by a vast degree. That is not the same as saying that only a human thinks or has emotions or has perceptions.

8460 views


> DAVID: Not to the degree humans can, by a vast gulf.
> 
> dhw: Animal perceptions are often vastly more acute than human perceptions, we cannot measure emotion, but I agree with you that human thought exceeds that of our fellow animals by a vast degree. That is not the same as saying that only a human thinks or has emotions or has perceptions. - Animals sensory perceptions can be much more acute, nothing more. Explain your statement if it means more.

8441 views

dhw: Like you, I agree with most of this, except for the following gross example of human self-centredness:-QUOTE: Only a human being thinks or has emotions or has perceptions. Brains don't think or emote or perceive. Brains do organ things. People do people things.
-Dhw: Other animals think, have emotions and have perceptions, and other animals do other animal things.-DAVID: Not to the degree humans can, by a vast gulf.-dhw: Animal perceptions are often vastly more acute than human perceptions, we cannot measure emotion, but I agree with you that human thought exceeds that of our fellow animals by a vast degree. That is not the same as saying that only a human thinks or has emotions or has perceptions.-DAVID: Animals sensory perceptions can be much more acute, nothing more. Explain your statement if it means more.-It does not mean anything more. It is part of my response to the author's statement. Allowing for all the different degrees, do you accept that animals think, have emotions and have perceptions, and that therefore his statement is completely, utterly, totally and absurdly wrong?

8436 views


> DAVID: Animals sensory perceptions can be much more acute, nothing more. Explain your statement if it means more.
> 
> dhw: It does not mean anything more. It is part of my response to the author's statement. Allowing for all the different degrees, do you accept that animals think, have emotions and have perceptions, and that therefore his statement is completely, utterly, totally and absurdly wrong?-Based on the quote, you are correct. I haven't reviewed the article again, but I think in his context he was simply defining human use of the brain.

8475 views

This article describes work that the brain does theoretically for us in the subconscious:-http://nautil.us/blog/the-noise-none-of-us-can-live-without-"At the very bottom of this reality are physical forces and symmetriesand noise. They're equally fundamental. The very universe began as a random quantum fluctuation. Quantum mechanics tells us, for instance, that we cannot predict the time at which a high-energy state (say of a radioactive atom) transitions into a low energy state. This unpredictability creates a background of noise amplified by the unimaginably large number of random collisions and interactions of all particles making up our reality. -"This omnipresence of noise raises one vexing question in particular: If we are immersed in randomness, how come so much of the world seems so orderly? There are three answerstwo familiar and one perhaps less so. The first familiar answer is that noise, averaged over many, many particles, becomes order. This is what happens in a gas, for example, where doing proper statistics on the random motions of gas molecules explains why a bicycle pump gets hot when we use it to compress air. The other familiar answer is that noise is constrained by physical laws and symmetries. This explains how atoms, stars, planets, and galaxies emerged from primordial chaos after the big bang.-"The third answer is the one we are looking for. This answer comes into play where information interacts with matter. Take evolution, for example: Here is a mechanism that feeds on randomness and noise to extract order and information. How does it do that? It uses a ratcheting mechanisma mechanism that takes randomness and filters it to create progress. For evolution, the randomness comes from mutations and sexual recombination, and the filtering comes from natural selection. Both are needed: Randomness creates novelty, and natural selection sifts for advantageous changes. -***-"What does this have to do with creativity, agency, and free will? The puzzling thing about creativity is that it is hard to imagine how any deterministic process could lead to new ideas and insights. There must be a generator of new ideas somewhere. Let me therefore propose that the generator of new ideas is noiserandom thermal, electrical noise in the subconscious processes of our brains.-***-"New ideas, then, may be the result of a noisy novelty generator in our subconscious generating random associations that are subsequently filtered by our brain. Subconsciously, our brain rejects the many nonsensical associations, only to allow us to become conscious of it when a newly generated idea makes sense. In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman argued that we do many things without being conscious of them. There are systems in the brain, he says, that decide if something should become a conscious thought. Together, the noisy novelty generator and the filtering by our brain seem to ratchet up new ideas seemingly from nowhere.-***-"There is no proof for this idea, but it fits everyday experience. Often, when we think hard about a problem, we do not immediately come to a solution. But the hard thinking is neededit primes our subconscious to generate random ideas, conducting a true brainstorm. The subconscious brain continues to juggle the possibilities and, only when the pieces fell into place, makes us aware of it. We all have experienced this.-***-"Random noise creates the possibilities, and our thoughts and experiences filters them. Our brains ratchet order from chaos. -"How about agency, or free will? Having it seems difficult for a deterministic machine as well as for a purely random one. Combining the two, though, allows us to have the cake and eat it, too, argues Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and cognitive scientist: In his 1978 book Brainstorms, he writes, When we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Our brain, although constrained by what we have known and experienced, is capable of making novel choices from the background noise it generates. -"We are, it seems, neither complete slaves to our environment or experience, nor are we tossed about by pure randomness. What makes us human is that our brains can ratchet up choice and creativity from a sea of randomness."-Comment: As I've observed, our brain works for us. Are we in full conscious control? Perhaps not, but our brain is not in the business of fooling us. In the end we have a practical form of free will.

8466 views

A new study:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-neuroscience-doesnt-undermine-free.html

"Experiments spanning the 1960s and 1980s measured brain signals noninvasively and led many neuroscientists to believe that our brains make decisions before we do—that human actions were initiated by electrical waves that did not reflect free, conscious thought.

"However, a new article in Trends in Cognitive Science argues that recent research undermines this case against free will.

"'This new perspective on the data turns on its head the way well-known findings have been interpreted," said Adina Roskies, the Helman Family Distinguished Professor and professor of philosophy at Dartmouth College, who co-wrote the article. "The new interpretation accounts for the data while undermining all the reasons to think it challenges free will."

***

"According to the research team, this part of Libet's logic was based on a premise that is likely false.

"'Because the averaged readiness potential reliably precedes voluntary movement, people assumed that it reflected a process specifically directed at producing that movement. As it turns out, and as our model has shown, that is not necessarily the case," said Aaron Schurger, an assistant professor of psychology at Chapman University who co-wrote of the article.

"The article highlights new research using computational modeling that indicates that the standard interpretation of the readiness potential should be reassessed, particularly for its relevance to the question of free will.

"The study points to findings that suggest that the readiness potential—the pre-movement buildup of activity—reflects the neural activity that underlies the formation of a decision to move, rather than the outcome of a decision to move.

"'These new computational models account for the consistent finding of the readiness potential without positing anything like an RP in individual trials. The readiness potential itself is a kind of artifact or illusion, one which would be expected to appear just as it does given the experimental design, but doesn't reflect a real brain signal that begins with the RP onset or is read out by other areas," said Roskies.

"The article also highlights several challenges to the idea that the readiness potential causes humans to act: difficulty distinguishing the readiness potential from other electrical signals in the brain; the presence of a readiness potential when tasks do not involve motor activity; and 'noise' in analyses which makes it difficult to confirm whether the readiness potential always predicts movement.

"False positives, in which readiness potential is observed but fails to initiate movement, and inconsistencies in the amount of time between the buildup of the brain waves and movement also complicate the understanding of the connection between the electrical activity in the brain and free will.

"Finally, the article emphasizes the philosophical aspects of attempting to address the problem of free will with brain data."

Comment: I can't reject these findings.

2843 views

A new confirmatory study:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too...

"In 2008 a group of researchers found that some information about an upcoming decision is present in the brain up to 10 seconds in advance, long before people reported making the decision of when or how to act.

***

"Most empirical studies of free will—including Libet’s—have focused on these kinds of arbitrary actions. In such actions, researchers can indeed “read out” our brain activity and trace information about our movements and choices before we even realize we are about to make them. But if these actions don’t matter to us, is it all that notable that they are initiated unconsciously? More significant decisions—such as whether to take a job, get married or move to a different country—are infinitely more interesting and complex and are quite consciously made.

"If we start working with a more philosophically grounded understanding of free will, we realize that only a small subset of our everyday actions is important enough to worry about. We want to feel in control of those decisions, the ones whose outcomes make a difference in our life and whose responsibility we feel on our shoulders. It is in this context—decisions that matter—that the question of free will most naturally applies.

***

"In 2019 neuroscientists Uri Maoz, Liad Mudrik and their colleagues investigated that idea. They presented participants with a choice of two nonprofit organizations to which they could donate $1,000. People could indicate their preferred organization by pressing the left or right button. In some cases, participants knew that their choice mattered because the button would determine which organization would receive the full $1,000. In other cases, people knowingly made meaningless choices because they were told that both organizations would receive $500 regardless of their selection. The results were somewhat surprising. Meaningless choices were preceded by a readiness potential, just as in previous experiments. Meaningful choices were not, however. When we care about a decision and its outcome, our brain appears to behave differently than when a decision is arbitrary.

"Even more interesting is the fact that ordinary people’s intuitions about free will and decision-making do not seem consistent with these findings. Some of our colleagues, including Maoz and neuroscientist Jake Gavenas, recently published the results of a large survey, with more than 600 respondents, in which they asked people to rate how “free” various choices made by others seemed. Their ratings suggested that people do not recognize that the brain may handle meaningful choices in a different way from more arbitrary or meaningless ones. People tend, in other words, to imagine all their choices—from which sock to put on first to where to spend a vacation—as equally “free,” even though neuroscience suggests otherwise."

What this tells us is that free will may exist, but it may not operate in the way we intuitively imagine. In the same vein, there is a second intuition that must be addressed to understand studies of volition. When experiments have found that brain activity, such as the readiness potential, precedes the conscious intention to act, some people have jumped to the conclusion that they are “not in charge.” They do not have free will, they reason, because they are somehow subject to their brain activity.

Comment: this definitive approach clearly supports free will and doesn't jump to Libetian conclusions

642 views

No mention of God but supports a theory of universal consciousness as an explanation of the presence of consciousness and the 'combination problem':

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-e...

"In 2015, doctors in Germany reported the extraordinary case of a woman who suffered from what has traditionally been called “multiple personality disorder” and today is known as “dissociative identity disorder” (DID). The woman exhibited a variety of dissociated personalities (“alters”), some of which claimed to be blind. Using EEGs, the doctors were able to ascertain that the brain activity normally associated with sight wasn’t present while a blind alter was in control of the woman’s body, even though her eyes were open. Remarkably, when a sighted alter assumed control, the usual brain activity returned.

"This was a compelling demonstration of the literally blinding power of extreme forms of dissociation, a condition in which the psyche gives rise to multiple, operationally separate centers of consciousness, each with its own private inner life.

"Modern neuroimaging techniques have demonstrated that DID is real.

***

"According to the mainstream metaphysical view of physicalism, reality is fundamentally constituted by physical stuff outside and independent of mind. Mental states, in turn, should be explainable in terms of the parameters of physical processes in the brain.

"A key problem of physicalism, however, is its inability to make sense of how our subjective experience of qualities—what it is like to feel the warmth of fire, the redness of an apple, the bitterness of disappointment and so on—could arise from mere arrangements of physical stuff.

"Physical entities such as subatomic particles possess abstract relational properties, such as mass, spin, momentum and charge. But there is nothing about these properties, or in the way particles are arranged in a brain, in terms of which one could deduce what the warmth of fire, the redness of an apple or the bitterness of disappointment feel like. This is known as the hard problem of consciousness.

***

"constitutive panpsychism has a critical problem of its own: there is arguably no coherent, non-magical way in which lower-level subjective points of view—such as those of subatomic particles or neurons in the brain, if they have these points of view—could combine to form higher-level subjective points of view, such as yours and ours. This is called the combination problem and it appears just as insoluble as the hard problem of consciousness.

"The obvious way around the combination problem is to posit that, although consciousness is indeed fundamental in nature, it isn’t fragmented like matter. The idea is to extend consciousness to the entire fabric of spacetime, as opposed to limiting it to the boundaries of individual subatomic particles. This view—called “cosmopsychism” in modern philosophy, although our preferred formulation of it boils down to what has classically been called “idealism”—is that there is only one, universal, consciousness. The physical universe as a whole is the extrinsic appearance of universal inner life, just as a living brain and body are the extrinsic appearance of a person’s inner life.

"So, for idealism to be tenable, one must explain—at least in principle—how one universal consciousness gives rise to multiple, private but concurrently conscious centers of cognition, each with a distinct personality and sense of identity.
And here is where dissociation comes in. We know empirically from DID that consciousness can give rise to many operationally distinct centers of concurrent experience, each with its own personality and sense of identity. Therefore, if something analogous to DID happens at a universal level, the one universal consciousness could, as a result, give rise to many alters with private inner lives like yours and ours. As such, we may all be alters—dissociated personalities—of universal consciousness.

"So, for idealism to be tenable, one must explain—at least in principle—how one universal consciousness gives rise to multiple, private but concurrently conscious centers of cognition, each with a distinct personality and sense of identity.

"And here is where dissociation comes in. We know empirically from DID that consciousness can give rise to many operationally distinct centers of concurrent experience, each with its own personality and sense of identity. Therefore, if something analogous to DID happens at a universal level, the one universal consciousness could, as a result, give rise to many alters with private inner lives like yours and ours. As such, we may all be alters—dissociated personalities—of universal consciousness.

Comment: This wild theory thinks we are all associated to a universal consciousness and dissociated at the same time! But it mirrors some of my thinking.

7262 views

DAVID: No mention of God but supports a theory of universal consciousness as an explanation of the presence of consciousness and the 'combination problem':
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-e...

QUOTE: "constitutive panpsychism has a critical problem of its own: there is arguably no coherent, non-magical way in which lower-level subjective points of view—such as those of subatomic particles or neurons in the brain, if they have these points of view—could combine to form higher-level subjective points of view, such as yours and ours. This is called the combination problem and it appears just as insoluble as the hard problem of consciousness.
"The obvious way around the combination problem is to posit that, although consciousness is indeed fundamental in nature, it isn’t fragmented like matter.”

DAVID’s comment: This wild theory thinks we are all associated to a universal consciousness and dissociated at the same time! But it mirrors some of my thinking.

I think all of us would agree that there is no satisfactory explanation of consciousness, and every attempt comes up with its own problems. However, even if we can’t explain it, we have lots of examples in the world of insects and microorganisms that show how fragmented (i.e. individual) consciousnesses DO combine to create higher levels of intelligence. My favourite example, of course, is ants, which create cities and lifestyles of enormous complexity entailing the combination of multiple skills. If we accept that even single-celled organisms are intelligent, there is no way we can know for sure that they are NOT capable of combining and producing levels of intelligence/consciousness that extend to that of high-level subjectivity. I find this theory considerably less “wild” than the one presented here.

7289 views

DAVID: No mention of God but supports a theory of universal consciousness as an explanation of the presence of consciousness and the 'combination problem':
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-e...

QUOTE: "constitutive panpsychism has a critical problem of its own: there is arguably no coherent, non-magical way in which lower-level subjective points of view—such as those of subatomic particles or neurons in the brain, if they have these points of view—could combine to form higher-level subjective points of view, such as yours and ours. This is called the combination problem and it appears just as insoluble as the hard problem of consciousness.
"The obvious way around the combination problem is to posit that, although consciousness is indeed fundamental in nature, it isn’t fragmented like matter.”

DAVID’s comment: This wild theory thinks we are all associated to a universal consciousness and dissociated at the same time! But it mirrors some of my thinking.

dhw: I think all of us would agree that there is no satisfactory explanation of consciousness, and every attempt comes up with its own problems. However, even if we can’t explain it, we have lots of examples in the world of insects and microorganisms that show how fragmented (i.e. individual) consciousnesses DO combine to create higher levels of intelligence. My favourite example, of course, is ants, which create cities and lifestyles of enormous complexity entailing the combination of multiple skills. If we accept that even single-celled organisms are intelligent, there is no way we can know for sure that they are NOT capable of combining and producing levels of intelligence/consciousness that extend to that of high-level subjectivity. I find this theory considerably less “wild” than the one presented here.

You continue to expand the meaning of a very precise term 'consciousness'. It always means self-awareness. You do that to support your idea that true intelligence is everywhere from single cells to non-human animals. A neat ploy.

7308 views

DAVID’s comment: This wild theory thinks we are all associated to a universal consciousness and dissociated at the same time! But it mirrors some of my thinking.

dhw: I think all of us would agree that there is no satisfactory explanation of consciousness, and every attempt comes up with its own problems. However, even if we can’t explain it, we have lots of examples in the world of insects and microorganisms that show how fragmented (i.e. individual) consciousnesses DO combine to create higher levels of intelligence. My favourite example, of course, is ants, which create cities and lifestyles of enormous complexity entailing the combination of multiple skills. If we accept that even single-celled organisms are intelligent, there is no way we can know for sure that they are NOT capable of combining and producing levels of intelligence/consciousness that extend to that of high-level subjectivity. I find this theory considerably less “wild” than the one presented here.

DAVID: You continue to expand the meaning of a very precise term 'consciousness'. It always means self-awareness. You do that to support your idea that true intelligence is everywhere from single cells to non-human animals. A neat ploy.

Consciousness is the state of being conscious, and for some reason you refuse to accept that there are degrees of it. In humans it includes self-awareness, but even in your own post under "THEORY" you talk of animals being “consciously purposeful”. Do you believe your dog is conscious of your presence, of walkies time, of the doggy food on the plate, of ways to make you aware he wants to walk or eat? I suggest the answer is yes. Do you believe your dog wonders why it exists? I suggest the answer is no. But I am more than happy to distinguish between awareness and self-awareness if you prefer. There is no neat ploy, and it is irrelevant to my proposal. According to some scientists (it is not just my idea – see under “Horizontal gene transfer”), there are degrees of awareness, ranging from that of bacteria to that of humans, and they couple this with degrees of intelligence. Time and again we read about the cooperation between cells and cell communities at all levels. This is not an “idea”; it is a fact, both inside and outside our bodies. I have expanded this fact into the idea that cooperation between the intelligent cell communities of the brain may be the source of our own higher intelligence or self-awareness. But of course I do not pretend that the idea explains how cells became aware/intelligent in the first place, and your God is one of the three options I have suggested.

7270 views

DAVID’s comment: This wild theory thinks we are all associated to a universal consciousness and dissociated at the same time! But it mirrors some of my thinking.

dhw: I think all of us would agree that there is no satisfactory explanation of consciousness, and every attempt comes up with its own problems. However, even if we can’t explain it, we have lots of examples in the world of insects and microorganisms that show how fragmented (i.e. individual) consciousnesses DO combine to create higher levels of intelligence. My favourite example, of course, is ants, which create cities and lifestyles of enormous complexity entailing the combination of multiple skills. If we accept that even single-celled organisms are intelligent, there is no way we can know for sure that they are NOT capable of combining and producing levels of intelligence/consciousness that extend to that of high-level subjectivity. I find this theory considerably less “wild” than the one presented here.

DAVID: You continue to expand the meaning of a very precise term 'consciousness'. It always means self-awareness. You do that to support your idea that true intelligence is everywhere from single cells to non-human animals. A neat ploy.

dhw: Consciousness is the state of being conscious, and for some reason you refuse to accept that there are degrees of it. In humans it includes self-awareness, but even in your own post under "THEORY" you talk of animals being “consciously purposeful”. Do you believe your dog is conscious of your presence, of walkies time, of the doggy food on the plate, of ways to make you aware he wants to walk or eat? I suggest the answer is yes. Do you believe your dog wonders why it exists? I suggest the answer is no. But I am more than happy to distinguish between awareness and self-awareness if you prefer.

I prefer. We discuss here why humans are so different. Human consciousness is a major aspect of that difference.

dhw: There is no neat ploy, and it is irrelevant to my proposal. According to some scientists (it is not just my idea – see under “Horizontal gene transfer”), there are degrees of awareness, ranging from that of bacteria to that of humans, and they couple this with degrees of intelligence. Time and again we read about the cooperation between cells and cell communities at all levels. This is not an “idea”; it is a fact, both inside and outside our bodies. I have expanded this fact into the idea that cooperation between the intelligent cell communities of the brain may be the source of our own higher intelligence or self-awareness. But of course I do not pretend that the idea explains how cells became aware/intelligent in the first place, and your God is one of the three options I have suggested.

Of course cells cooperate. Multicellular life could not exist without cooperation. I think life is a miracle, which requires a supernatural source.

7267 views

dhw: According to some scientists (it is not just my idea – see under “Horizontal gene transfer”), there are degrees of awareness, ranging from that of bacteria to that of humans, and they couple this with degrees of intelligence. Time and again we read about the cooperation between cells and cell communities at all levels. This is not an “idea”; it is a fact, both inside and outside our bodies. I have expanded this fact into the idea that cooperation between the intelligent cell communities of the brain may be the source of our own higher intelligence or self-awareness. But of course I do not pretend that the idea explains how cells became aware/intelligent in the first place, and your God is one of the three options I have suggested.

DAVID: Of course cells cooperate. Multicellular life could not exist without cooperation.

You accused me of expanding the meaning of the word consciousness as a ploy to support my idea that all organisms have a degree of intelligence. I was simply pointing out that my idea concerning the emergence of our own self-awareness through the cooperation of intelligent cell communities is an expansion of the observations of some scientists, and has nothing to do with definitions of consciousness.

DAVID: I think life is a miracle, which requires a supernatural source.

Another definition of miracle” is “any amazing or wonderful event” (Encarta)

7266 views

dhw: According to some scientists (it is not just my idea – see under “Horizontal gene transfer”), there are degrees of awareness, ranging from that of bacteria to that of humans, and they couple this with degrees of intelligence. Time and again we read about the cooperation between cells and cell communities at all levels. This is not an “idea”; it is a fact, both inside and outside our bodies. I have expanded this fact into the idea that cooperation between the intelligent cell communities of the brain may be the source of our own higher intelligence or self-awareness. But of course I do not pretend that the idea explains how cells became aware/intelligent in the first place, and your God is one of the three options I have suggested.

DAVID: Of course cells cooperate. Multicellular life could not exist without cooperation.

You accused me of expanding the meaning of the word consciousness as a ploy to support my idea that all organisms have a degree of intelligence. I was simply pointing out that my idea concerning the emergence of our own self-awareness through the cooperation of intelligent cell communities is an expansion of the observations of some scientists, and has nothing to do with definitions of consciousness.

DAVID: I think life is a miracle, which requires a supernatural source.

dhw: Another definition of miracle” is “any amazing or wonderful event” (Encarta)

I thought we weren't going to argue about definitions.

7256 views

DAVID: Of course cells cooperate. Multicellular life could not exist without cooperation.

dhw: You accused me of expanding the meaning of the word consciousness as a ploy to support my idea that all organisms have a degree of intelligence. I was simply pointing out that my idea concerning the emergence of our own self-awareness through the cooperation of intelligent cell communities is an expansion of the observations of some scientists, and has nothing to do with definitions of consciousness.

DAVID: I think life is a miracle, which requires a supernatural source.

dhw: Another definition of miracle” is “any amazing or wonderful event” (Encarta)

DAVID: I thought we weren't going to argue about definitions.

The idea I have outlined above has nothing to do with definitions of consciousness. In the context of miracles, I am simply making it clear that the word itself does not necessarily imply a supernatural cause. :-)

7294 views

DAVID: Of course cells cooperate. Multicellular life could not exist without cooperation.

dhw: You accused me of expanding the meaning of the word consciousness as a ploy to support my idea that all organisms have a degree of intelligence. I was simply pointing out that my idea concerning the emergence of our own self-awareness through the cooperation of intelligent cell communities is an expansion of the observations of some scientists, and has nothing to do with definitions of consciousness.

DAVID: I think life is a miracle, which requires a supernatural source.

dhw: Another definition of miracle” is “any amazing or wonderful event” (Encarta)

DAVID: I thought we weren't going to argue about definitions.

dhw: The idea I have outlined above has nothing to do with definitions of consciousness. In the context of miracles, I am simply making it clear that the word itself does not necessarily imply a supernatural cause.

True enough.

7273 views

Another approach:

https://aeon.co/ideas/modern-technology-is-akin-to-the-metaphysics-of-vedanta?utm_sourc...

"Vedanta offers a model to integrate subjective consciousness and the information-processing systems of our body and brains. Its theory separates the brain and the senses from the mind. But it also distinguishes the mind from the function of consciousness, which it defines as the ability to experience mental output. We’re familiar with this notion from our digital devices. A camera, microphone or other sensors linked to a computer gather information about the world, and convert the various forms of physical energy – light waves, air pressure-waves and so forth – into digital data, just as our bodily senses do. The central processing unit processes this data and produces relevant outputs. The same is true of our brain. In both contexts, there seems to be little scope for subjective experience to play a role within these mechanisms.

"While computers can handle all sorts of processing without our help, we furnish them with a screen as an interface between the machine and ourselves. Similarly, Vedanta postulates that the conscious entity – something it terms the atma – is the observer of the output of the mind. The atma possesses, and is said to be composed of, the fundamental property of consciousness. The concept is explored in many of the meditative practices of Eastern traditions.

"You might think of the atma like this. Imagine you’re watching a film in the cinema. It’s a thriller, and you’re anxious about the lead character, trapped in a room. Suddenly, the door in the movie crashes open and there stands… You jump, as if startled. But what is the real threat to you, other than maybe spilling your popcorn? By suspending an awareness of your body in the cinema, and identifying with the character on the screen, we are allowing our emotional state to be manipulated. Vedanta suggests that the atma, the conscious self, identifies with the physical world in a similar fashion.

***

"In Vedanta psychology, this is akin to the atma adopting the psychological persona-self it calls the ahankara, or the ‘pseudo-ego’. Instead of a detached conscious observer, we choose to define ourselves in terms of our social connections and the physical characteristics of the body. Thus, I come to believe in myself with reference to my gender, race, size, age and so forth, along with the roles and responsibilities of family, work and community. Conditioned by such identification, I indulge in the relevant emotions – some happy, some challenging or distressing – produced by the circumstances I witness myself undergoing.

***

"These observations mirror the Vedantic claim that our ability to form meaningful relationships is diminished by absorption in the ahankara, the pseudo-ego. The more I regard myself as a physical entity requiring various forms of sensual gratification, the more likely I am to objectify those who can satisfy my desires, and to forge relationships based on mutual selfishness. But Vedanta suggests that love should emanate from the deepest part of the self, not its assumed persona. Love, it claims, is soul-to-soul experience. Interactions with others on the basis of the ahankara offer only a parody of affection.

"As the atma, we remain the same subjective self throughout the whole of our life. Our body, mentality and personality change dramatically – but throughout it all, we know ourselves to be the constant observer. However, seeing everything shift and give way around us, we suspect that we’re also subject to change, ageing and heading for annihilation.

***

"Some commentators interpret Vedanta as suggesting that there is no real world, and that all that exists is conscious awareness. However, a broader take on Vedantic texts is more akin to VR. The VR world is wholly data, but it becomes ‘real’ when that information manifests itself to our senses as imagery and sounds on the screen or through a headset. Similarly, for Vedanta, it is the external world’s transitory manifestation as observable objects that makes it less ‘real’ than the perpetual, unchanging nature of the consciousness that observes it.

"To the sages of old, immersing ourselves in the ephemeral world means allowing the atma to succumb to an illusion: the illusion that our consciousness is somehow part of an external scene, and must suffer or enjoy along with it. It’s amusing to think what Patanjali and the Vedantic fathers would make of VR: an illusion within an illusion, perhaps, but one that might help us to grasp the potency of their message."

Comment: Interesting definition of consciousness, but doesn't advance our 'hard problem' with it.

5766 views

Another article:

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/01/prof-fine-tuning-in-nature-is-due-to-the-mind-of-the-uni...

"In Goff’s view, the best account of the matter is that consciousness is fundamental to the nature of the universe. This is rather a different approach to consciousness from the usual “Eureka! We have figured out how human consciousness got started! It helped early hominids hunt better!” that one regularly reads in popular science tabloids. He goes on:

"However, a number of scientists and philosophers of science have recently argued that this kind of ‘bottom-up’ picture of the Universe is outdated, and that contemporary physics suggests that in fact we live in a ‘top-down’ – or ‘holist’ – Universe, in which complex wholes are more fundamental than their parts. According to holism, the table in front of you does not derive its existence from the sub-atomic particles that compose it; rather, those sub-atomic particles derive their existence from the table. Ultimately, everything that exists derives its existence from the ultimate complex system: the Universe as a whole.

"Holism has a somewhat mystical association, in its commitment to a single unified whole being the ultimate reality. But there are strong scientific arguments in its favour. The American philosopher Jonathan Schaffer argues that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement is good evidence for holism. Entangled particles behave as a whole, even if they are separated by such large distances that it is impossible for any kind of signal to travel between them. According to Schaffer, we can make sense of this only if, in general, we are in a Universe in which complex systems are more fundamental than their parts.

"Goff argues for cosmopsychism, a form of panpsychism in which “the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.” He wrote a book on the topic, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality (2017).

***

"Goff closes with

"The idea that the Universe is a conscious mind that responds to value strikes us a ludicrously extravagant cartoon. But we must judge the view not on its cultural associations but on its explanatory power. Agentive cosmopsychism explains the fine-tuning without making false predictions; and it does so with a simplicity and elegance unmatched by its rivals. It is a view we should take seriously."

Comment: I t hink we live in the mind of God.

1817 views

On the side of free will existing:

https://www.sciencealert.com/does-science-really-show-free-will-doesnt-exist-heres-what...

"It seems like we have free will. Most of the time, we are the ones who choose what we eat, how we tie our shoelaces and what articles we read on The Conversation.

"However, the latest book by Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, has been receiving a lot of media attention for arguing science shows this is an illusion.

"Sapolsky summarizes the latest scientific research relevant to determinism: the idea that we're causally "determined" to act as we do because of our histories – and couldn't possibly act any other way.

"According to determinism, just as a rock that is dropped is determined to fall due to gravity, your neurons are determined to fire a certain way as a direct result of your environment, upbringing, hormones, genes, culture and myriad other factors outside your control. And this is true regardless of how "free" your choices seem to you.

"Sapolsky also says that because our behaviour is determined in this way, nobody is morally responsible for what they do. He believes while we can lock up murderers to keep others safe, they technically don't deserve to be punished.

"This is quite a radical position. It's worth asking why only 11% of philosophers agree with Sapolsky, compared with the 60% who think being causally determined is compatible with having free will and being morally responsible. (my bold)

"Have these "compatibilists" failed to understand the science? Or has Sapolsky failed to understand free will?

***

"The trouble with Sapolsky's arguments, as free will expert John Martin Fischer explains, is he doesn't actually present any argument for why his conception of free will is correct.

"He simply defines free will as being incompatible with determinism, assumes this absolves people of moral responsibility, and spends much of the book describing the many ways our behaviours are determined. His arguments can all be traced back to his definition of "free will".

"Compatibilists believe humans are agents. We live lives with "meaning", have an understanding of right and wrong, and act for moral reasons. This is enough to suggest most of us, most of the time, have a certain type of freedom and are responsible for our actions (and deserving of blame) – even if our behaviours are "determined".

"Compatibilists would point out that being constrained by determinism isn't the same as being constrained to a chair by a rope. Failing to save a drowning child because you were tied up is not the same as failing to save a drowning child because you were "determined" not to care about them. The former is an excuse. The latter is cause for condemnation.

***

"Compatibilists and incompatibilists both agree that, given determinism is true, there is a sense in which you lack alternatives and could not do otherwise.

"However, incompatibilists will say you therefore lack free will, whereas compatibilists will say you still possess free will because that sense of "lacking alternatives" isn't what undermines free will – and free will is something else entirely.

"They say as long as your actions came from you in a relevant way (even if "you" were "determined" by other things), you count as having free will. When you're tied up by a rope, the decision to not save the drowning child doesn't come from you. But when you just don't care about the child, it does. (my bolds)

***

"Sapolsky needs to show why his assumptions about what counts as free will are the ones relevant to moral responsibility. As philosopher Daniel Dennett once put it, we need to ask which "varieties of free will [are] worth wanting".

"The point of this back and forth isn't to show compatibilists are right. It is to highlight there's a nuanced debate to engage with. Free will is a thorny issue. Showing nobody is responsible for what they do requires understanding and engaging with all the positions on offer. Sapolsky doesn't do this.

"Sapolsky's broader mistake seems to be assuming his questions are purely scientific: answered by looking just at what the science says. While science is relevant, we first need some idea of what free will is (which is a metaphysical question) and how it relates to moral responsibility (a normative question). This is something philosophers have been interrogating for a very long time.

"Interdisciplinary work is valuable and scientists are welcome to contribute to age-old philosophical questions. But unless they engage with existing arguments first, rather than picking a definition they like and attacking others for not meeting it, their claims will simply be confused.

Comment: I view this article as offering the best current philosophic answer to the question of free will by tying it to a moral sense.

110 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum