Solving consciousness

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pathless!

Originally Posted by Pathless

I don't understand why people stand around debating stupid shi- like this...

Well, it's not in my power to solve world hunger, but it is in my power to consider the value of various philosophies.

Besides, if one doesn't understand why others take part in a particular discussion, there is no requirement to comment, simply look elsewhere.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Neemai

I respect the person who helps others, and I also respect the person who asks why (in the greater sense, of why are we here)? Maybe one of those might figure a way to help thousands of homeless people in a better way?

... Ok, off to the streets I go

Neemai

Too often they end up sidetracked somewhere in an ivory tower, Neemai, eating Brie and wearing starched linen, tweed jackets with little patches over the elbows. The men grow beards and look sophisticated, but their spectacles cannot hide their arrogance from me! HAHA!! HAW! HAW!!

And let someone try to call me arrogant! I'm not listening!!

Excuse me, I'm in a mood this morning.

Off I go to brew coffee and read Race Traitor.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Pathless!


Well, it's not in my power to solve world hunger, but it is in my power to consider the value of various philosophies.

Sure, can't argue with that.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Besides, if one doesn't understand why others take part in a particular discussion, there is no requirement to comment, simply look elsewhere.

Gosh Juan I know, yet sometimes I have this little prankster boy in me that can't resist darting into a thread and pantsing everyone while they stand around the water cooler.



Kindest Regards,
Pathless

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pathless!

Originally Posted by Pathless

Gosh Juan I know, yet sometimes I have this little prankster boy in me that can't resist darting into a thread and pantsing everyone while they stand around the water cooler.Pathless

Then I will consider myself duly pantsed.

BTW, love the new avatar, I always did like the Cheshire Cat.

[bob x]

If the laws of nature and prior conditions completely determine our behavior, then what we do is not in our control and we are not responsible for what happens. If they do not completely determine our behavior, then to the extent that more than one thing could happen, it is a matter of chance what happens, and again we are not in control and are not responsible.

Neither of these alternatives is true. The laws of physics do not DETERMINE what happens next, they only delimit a set of alternatives. Which alternative ensues is "random" in the technical mathematical sense: that is, completely uncorrelated with the spatiotemporal distribution of the material particles. That does not mean that there is no cause for what happens, or that the causal mechanism is some kind of "Casino Royale" where angels throw dice or spin roulette wheels to generate random numbers. It just means that the cause is something separate from the material laws, and not subject to investigation by such means. I believe that every electron which could or could not jump from one orbital to the next, within the bounds of the options left open by the physical laws, "chooses" or "decides" which thing to do. Our consciousness is a larger-scale manifestation of this non-material side to the laws governing the universe.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Pathless

I don't understand why people stand around debating stupid shi- like this when half the world is starving and has no running water. We should turn everyone in University philosophy departments out on the street and have them beg for bread and live out of shopping carts for a decade at least, that's what I think.

Pure entertainment old friend, but this gives me an idea for a new thread

[DrFree]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am not familiar with this article or with what is intended by "between the horns."

Sorry juantoo3. That's a bit of logic tech-speak from long ago. The idea is that you can respond to a dilemma, i.e., an argument of the form

A or B
A implies C
B implies D
Therefore C or D

in one of two ways. You can take it "by the horns" by showing that one of the alternatives doesn't have the proposed implication. Or you can go "between the horns" by showing that there are other alternatives than the ones proposed.

In the context of the argument we've been discussing, the dilemma is that either things are determined by prior conditions or they are a matter of chance. Chisholm went between the horns by proposing that a person's making something happen is neither determinism nor chance.

Actually we seem to be pretty close on the significant issues. I'd like you to develop your position in more detail so we can dialog further.

Namiste.

[bob x]

"Our body and mind are both two and one.”
- Shunryu Suzuki

Aha! So the body and mind are three!
Glad that's all sorted out.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DrFree!
Thank you for your response.

Originally Posted by DrFree

You raise some interesting issues.

I do what I can.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Consciousness is not the same as experiential learning, although it requires it. I think that even animals without consciousness have some level of experiential learning.

I would hazard a guess that all creatures have some level of experiential learning, certainly any who have through whatever means figured out what is food and what is not, and when it is appropriate to flee. This would include at the very least those critters with minimal brains.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Let me try an analogy. You have on your computer several programs, a browser, a word processor, maybe a spreadsheet, an address book, a calendar. Each of these programs functions independently. You can give each of these programs data, and teach it, i.e., program it, to respond in certain ways to conditions within that data. I see no reason to characterize that programmed behavior as conscious. But it is behavior; the program actively responds to the conditions it knows about. But your word processor won't change your documents based on conditions recognized by your browser. If you want your documents to reflect those conditions, you must program your word processor to respond to them.

The distinction I would see in using this analogy is that first, the typical home computer does not interface readily between programs without assistance, whereas the human brain (and presumably animal brains in general) tend to cross reference to a great degree. Second, staying with the computer analogy, is that of computing power. I suspect that consciousness requires a great deal of computing power, while “lesser” systems do not require nearly as much. Which is why our “reptilian” brain is sufficient for our autonomic nervous system and the “unconscious” duties performed. Then we step up a notch to our sub-conscious and we have our voluntary systems such as arm and leg movements. Our consciousness actually requires a great referential library of past experiences and memories to draw from and cross reference. Sensory inputs augment the memory library, which is how a particular smell can activate a distant memory. I am thinking that “choice” is a rather vague variable, in that the difference between following a smell to food and deciding randomly whether to travel to the right or the left are really two distinct mental processes.

Originally Posted by DrFree

The same is true of reflex behavior. The various behaviors of lower animals are independent of one another. When food is available it eats, when a threat is imminent it flees, when a mate is available it breeds. There is likely a prioritization of reflexes that makes flight take precedence over eating, but even that is not necessary. But there is no process that the animal goes through for assessing the relative importance of the food, threat and mate in the current environment.

Perhaps, but what is comprehension? How does a critter “know” what is food and what is not when it is hungry, or what is a mate and what is not when it is “in the mood?” How does a critter distinguish between what is a mate in this moment and a competitor for food in the next, or in the case of mantids and spiders what may be a predator in the next? It seems to me there should be some elemental comprehension before one can begin to define “choice,” otherwise I would think such to be random and / or reflexive reaction.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Unlike your personal computer (I should say, unlike most personal computers), complex computing systems share their data in a common database. What is learned by any subsystem is available to all of them. To achieve that requires the data to be organized into an integrated model that makes sense not only to each of the individual subsystems, but to the system as a whole. With such complexity, not only can the individual subsystems continue to provide the same functionality, but it is easy to develop relationships among them that prioritize certain behaviors based on an assessment of complex combinations of information. Consciousness is very much like a complex computing system like this. When any of its subsystems learn something about the environment, that information not only affects the behavior of that subsystem, it is available to all of the other subsystems, sometimes fast enough to inhibit the "natural" behavior of the original subsystem.

We have to be careful with encompassing terms like “all” and “any.” I am not so sure that the human memory banks are able to actively assert direct control over the autonomic system, for example. One doesn’t “think” an extra heartbeat, one doesn’t “think” one less colonic spasm. This is not to say that the autonomic system cannot be manipulated, as certain adepts of various eastern traditions have demonstrated, but that typically to the average person the autonomic system is pretty well a sealed unit, or at least a one way unit.

Originally Posted by DrFree

What this means is that consciousness is the integrated comprehension of the animal's environment, or the knowledge system, for short, which becomes a subsystem of its own to broker the flow of information about conditions among the behavioral subsystems.

In higher order mammals I would agree; they have the capacity, the various programs necessary, and enough “hereditary experience” to facilitate, *if* we are defining consciousness as some form of self-awareness. In that from the conversations I have read with Koko the gorilla, there is a distinct barrier beyond which other animals (including higher apes) do not pass, and across which humans have been quite comfortable for tens of thousands of years at least. That barrier has to do with perception of time, in particular the forward projection of time. Koko, for instance, has a very limited comprehension of “tomorrow,” let alone a year from now or a decade from now or a lifetime from now. So we really need to define what it is you are trying to define with the term consciousness, it is crucial to the discussion. Simply equating that term with choice I suppose can be done, but then it would confuse the discussion as we proceeded. I perceive consciousness really not unlike that definition China Cat provided earlier, something along the lines of self-awareness in combination with an experiential referential library that allows the human mind to “think” on a level that far surpasses any other animal.

Originally Posted by DrFree

I never mentioned "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness". I thought that the notion of self, like the notion of soul, carries too much philosophical baggage to be introduced into the conversation before laying down some foundations for a discussion of consciousness.

Surely self-consciousness emerges much higher on the evolutionary tree of complexity than "simple" consciousness. We can speculate on how that happened, but I'm not sure it would be to the point.

Very well, my bad, and I am certain I bring dismay to my Buddhist friends when I reference self, but I have to work with what I have at my disposal and how I relate and understand things and try to “PC” it later. If I spend too much focus on PC upfront I tend to lose sight of what I am trying to convey, so I would rather at least make some feeble effort and then refine my presentation as I go.
Self-awareness is probably in some form in fairly simple animals, like the mosquito you mentioned. At least by the time the evolutionary chain created brains in fishes, there appears to be some sense of “self” within the greater environmental context. No doubt a simple understanding, but I would think an established referential as to what is food, what is a mate, etc. But how much of this is sub-conscious? How much is intuition / instinct?

Originally Posted by DrFree

(No)…adequate theories of human behavior that don't involve recognition of the person as a thinking, choosing individual. That rules out pure physics or pure chemistry or pure biology as adequate theories.

I suppose it depends who one asks; I have certainly encountered more than one individual who fearlessly and vainly tried. Typically in my experience they tend to be overzealous atheists.
One previous discussion: Dialougue with Juan...
This relates more with some of my earlier comments.
This one: The relation of atheism to fatalism
I believe it is the source for the preceding link-discussion,
And: Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution or .... what?
Wherein there was a bit of point / counter-point discussion regarding what here is called reductionism and biochemical influence on the brain.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Everything we do does involve physical/chemical/biological processes, but human behavior is much more than that. But it is not more by the addition of souls or minds or selves as objects in the middle of the process that constitutes the behavior.
A much more useful approach is to think of the self as the whole person, or the person as a whole. This is to reject any total reduction of the behavior of systems to a mere sum of the behaviors of the components of the system.

I think the sages of the ages have grappled with the seat of the soul and of the emotions for millenia. I always get a little tickle thinking about how some of those emotions we now associate with the heart were in the Old Testament associated with the bowels (and then I hear my mom in my head saying “don’t get your bowels in an uproar!). The location of the soul is just as difficult, I doubt it is the brain or the heart alone but I have no way of demonstrating just what it might be. I distinguish between mind and soul, in that a person may lose their mind (go crazy or vegetative) and still maintain a soul until such time as the breath of life escapes them. I am inclined to think the “attachment” is in the belly (I visualize around the navel area), but that is based primarily on an obscure passage in the writings of Solomon along with some questionable material I read dealing with soul transference by Tibetan monks between two people. I don’t really know, but I am convinced reasonably well that mind and soul-spirit are two completely differing entities.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Note that reductionism is rejected by chaos/complexity theory, both of which recognize that lower level details are too complex to ever enable prediction of the system. Hofstadter points out that with regard to conscious behavior, in many cases the details of the lower level are virtually irrelevant to understanding the system.

So whatever sins I have committed, reductionism is not one of them.

I would be interested in seeing this rejection of reductionism by chaos theory.

Originally Posted by DrFree

…that does not mean that you are competing with your body. You have one set of behaviors that predispose you toward alcohol; you have another that objects to alcoholism. There are many examples of competing desires. But both sets of behaviors are part of you. They both involve your body, your feelings and your consciousness. The body is not a monolith that you have to struggle with. A person is a complex, conscious and physical system of systems that simultaneously compete and cooperate.

I don’t envision competing with my body. I see behavior as action / activity. In the sense that electrons run around inside the brain I suppose there is activity, but that is the activity of the electrons. Until the activity of the electrons is directed willfully to make my arm pick up a beer, it is not what I consider behavior. I may have random thoughts of jumping off the Empire State building, but it is not behavior until I actually jump.
If I had to create an analogy, I suppose it would be that of a running automobile; in effect I serve the function of the brain, the engine serves the function of the vital organs, and the wheels serve the function of limbs. I can sit in the car all day, but until I turn the steering wheel or step on the gas nothing really happens except the autonomic systems. Now, once I engage a gear and give a little throttle, the car begins to behave in the manner I as the brain direct, but until then the car simply is existing. So unless one considers inactivity as a form of activity, I am a little puzzled.
I don’t see a struggle with the body (unless one is physically challenged) because we use it so much that we are intimately familiar with each other as it were. If you had to reprogram your brain to work your hand after a stroke, then I could understand the idea of struggle with the brain, but otherwise the programming that begins at birth (in the womb?) with the mind-body connection just becomes so casual and second nature to most of us.
Now, where I can see challenge and struggle is with something like trying to kick an addiction. Once the body is comfortable with a drug or activity or some other familiar ritual, it can be a great struggle to let that ritual go, even if the mind knows better and can devise very rational reasons why to quit. This is why I suggest that addiction and addictive behavior is an aggravating factor in what it is you are attempting to look at.

[juantoo3]

Continued, sorry.

Originally Posted by DrFree

You still haven't presented your evidence for that claim. I'm waiting.

Ah, sages have been arguing this for centuries and you wish me to solve it for you in an afternoon? And we hardly know each other!

As was brought to my attention recently, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, I did point to something that suggests a possibility already earlier in this discussion. I noticed it was overlooked in the response. Perhaps you might go back and reread…

Originally Posted by DrFree

...you can respond to a dilemma, i.e., an argument of the form

A or B
A implies C
B implies D
Therefore C or D

in one of two ways. You can take it "by the horns" by showing that one of the alternatives doesn't have the proposed implication. Or you can go "between the horns" by showing that there are other alternatives than the ones proposed.

Ah, the horns of a dilemma. Now I believe I understand. I tend to think in terms of false dichotomy, but the end result is much the same. I try always to leave the door open to third (or more) possibilities. I did think earlier of something that I want to interject and don’t see a good place to do so, and that regards the novelty factor. I am of the impression that a lot of people are of the opinion that because something is new or different that it is inherently superior. I am not one of those people. Superiority must be demonstrated. Perhaps a new way of looking at something is superior to the old way, perhaps it is not, both ways should be considered on their merits and demerits and then weighed against each other. Case in point again being the idea that we are subservient to our natural biology; even if this proves somehow to be true in the strictest sense, what moral and morale benefit does such an attitude provide that is in any way better than the conventional moral systems we already employ? Novelty alone is insufficient, particularly if the end result unravels all the good that the previous system built.

Originally Posted by DrFree

In the context of the argument we've been discussing, the dilemma is that either things are determined by prior conditions or they are a matter of chance. Chisholm went between the horns by proposing that a person's making something happen is neither determinism nor chance.

Actually we seem to be pretty close on the significant issues. I'd like you to develop your position in more detail so we can dialog further.

I have been thinking in terms of biochemicals (prior conditions) and genetics (chance) because these seem to be the primary arguments of those opposed to concepts of G-d in general and religion in specifics. Apparently this is not always so, but I have yet to hear how this seeming discrepency is resolved by those who acknowledge G-d while clinging to biological subservience.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Namiste.

Shalom

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Originally Posted by BobX

The laws of physics do not DETERMINE what happens next, they only delimit a set of alternatives.

I believe I tried to say much the same thing in our earlier discussion, and that we then choose between those alternatives.

[bob x]

I cannot CHOOSE not to be an alcoholic: that is not within the range of possibilities; the way I react to alcohol is part of how I am built. I can choose whether or not to drink. Likewise, I cannot CHOOSE to be heterosexual: the way I respond to males, and fail to respond to females, is part of how I am built. I can choose either to live a life with love in it, or not.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Originally Posted by bob x

I cannot CHOOSE not to be an alcoholic: that is not within the range of possibilities; the way I react to alcohol is part of how I am built. I can choose whether or not to drink.

I agree.

Originally Posted by bob x

Likewise, I cannot CHOOSE to be heterosexual: the way I respond to males, and fail to respond to females, is part of how I am built.

I understand.

Originally Posted by bob x

I can choose either to live a life with love in it, or not.

I am not certain this argument follows. Again, I am not disagreeing out of any ulterior political motivation. What concerns me is the *nature of emotion.* Emotion is not simply a random thought (closer to an obsession, even perhaps addiction), and it does contain a visceral physical component. The nature of the one emotion of love is complex, and of at least three possible levels according to the Greeks (by extension the New Testament): eros (sex), phileo ("brotherly" love), and agape (respect and awe of the Divine, "love of G-d").

I am not satisfied that emotions are simply the byproduct of hormones and neurochemicals. What relationship is there between emotions and the mind, and conversely what relationship between emotions and the spirit? Are these all tied inextricably? Unfortunately, I don't see any ready answers to this dilemma.

[juantoo3]

Development of sexuality is only a tiny fraction of this fantastically complex issue we are considering, yet it seems we tend to place an inordinate amount of focus on it. So, more as a reminder than any form of authority:

Freud's Stages of Psychosexual Development
From Kendra Van Wagner,

What is Psychosexual Development?
According to Freud, personality is mostly established by the age of five. Early experiences play a large role in personality development and continue to influence behavior later in life.

Freud's theory of personality development is one of the best known, but also one of the most controversial. Freud believed that personality develops through a series of childhood stages during which the pleasure-seeking energies of the id become focused on certain erogenous areas. This psychosexual energy, or libido, was described as the driving force behind behavior.

If the stages are completed successfully, the result is a healthy personality. If certain issues are not resolved at the appropriate stage, fixation can occur. A fixation is a persistant focus on an earlier psychosexual stage. Until this conflict is resolved, the individual will remain "stuck" in this stage. For example, a person who is fixated at the oral stage may be over-dependent on others and may seek oral stimulation through smoking, drinking, or eating.

What is Psychosexual Development?
1. The Oral Stage
2. The Anal Stage
3. The Phallic Stage
4. The Latent Period
5. The Genital Stage

Freud's Stages of Psychosexual Development - What is Psychosexual Development?

I am certain there are other explanations of sexual development, some pick up where Freud leaves off, some challenge Freud's assertions completely, but I figured this would be a decent place to begin.

More info on the various stages can be accessed through the link.

[bob x]

I am not certain this argument follows. Again, I am not disagreeing out of any ulterior political motivation.

I think your ulterior religious motivation is more important to your stubbornness on this issue than you are willing to admit, even to yourself.

I am not satisfied that emotions are simply the byproduct of hormones and neurochemicals.

No, but that visceral element is an essential prerequisite to some of the deeper feelings, and can't be summoned up by an element of will if it is lacking (you can't "make" yourself get really terrified at a horror movie that has already struck you as silly and just not particularly scary).

some challenge Freud's assertions completely

He was totally ignorant of hormones and neurotransmitters, for no fault of his other than being born too soon.
What he had to say on the particular topic at hand was, "Trying to convince a homosexual to change into a heterosexual has as much prospect of success as the reverse."

[Tao_Equus]

I think your ulterior religious motivation is more important to your stubbornness on this issue than you are willing to admit, even to yourself.

Pots n kettles pots n pots. Pots n kettles pots n pots. Pots n kettles n kettles pots n kettles pots n pots. Pots n kettles pots n pots!!

I hope i grow up to be as clever as you!!