Solving consciousness

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

You show no willingness to actually deal with the reality of other people.

Whose reality?

[greymare]

Big Hugs To You All

[DrFree]

Hi, juantoo3,

Sorry to have taken so long. Other things going on. Besides that our conversation has reached a point where I need to think a lot harder to make meaningful responses. The philosopher in me likes that situation; the lazybones does not.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Yeah, even amoebas have to do some learning. Their primitive programming enable them to taste, i.e., chemically evaluate, things in their environment, but I doubt that that programming is exhaustive. New things will appear and they may adapt their responses to discriminate between good-to-eat new things and bad-to-eat new things. Certainly this learning comes from experience. But the expression "experiential learning" bothers me. How is that different from mere "learning"? In humans it connotes things we learn from experiences of which we are consciously aware, as opposed to things we learn from subconscious experience.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

I think you are right here. The point I'd like to emphasize though is the difference between centralized computing based on integrated information, and multiple computing nodes based on local data. Either of these can become more powerful and complex. But nodes in a parallel computing system don't know anything about what the others are doing, and therefore don't take the objectives of the other nodes into account in what they do. They operate on deterministic rules. As these nodes develop information channels between each other, they can develop cooperative feedback loops that evolve into system-oriented decision systems.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Then we step up a notch to our sub-conscious and we have our voluntary systems such as arm and leg movements.

I wonder. I'm inclined to differentiate between reflexive behavior, i.e., deterministic responses of local subsystems, and subconscious behavior. The latter I take to be subroutines that the brain has figured out how encapsulate and run in the background without conscious involvement, e.g., solving a math or logic or chess or social problem. Ultimately, the subroutine proposes a solution, and it's up to the conscious mind to accept and apply the solution or to realize that it's inadequate and restart the subroutine with modified parameters.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Absolutely. This is the power and benefit of storing information in a shared knowledge-base.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

And now we come to the crux of the matter. Note that your formulation falls back to what I have suggested is a false dichotomy: deterministically following a prescribed set of rules or randomly doing one of a set of non-determined options. The thesis I am proposing involves the following propositions:

1. When a person chooses to do A rather than B,
   1. A's occurrence is not determined by prior conditions. Although those conditions can be necessary for A to happen, they are not sufficient.
   2. A's occurrence is not random; it is chosen, i.e., made to happen, by the person.

That people do make such choices is really not in dispute, except in the ethereal confines of a philosopher's thought experiment. It is also rare that a choice takes place in isolation from other choices. Life is a dance, the saying goes. We are constantly making series of choices, adjusting our tactics to suit the results of prior choices. When the free safety follows closely on the heels of the wide receiver, reaches up his hands at just the right moment, grabs the ball, and heads off in the opposite direction, there is no doubt that his interception of the pass is a conscious, choice-driven action. Even though individual elements of the action are performed automatically as the result of much practice, the selection and sequencing of those elements is very much deliberate. It is definitely not random.

Nor is there any available theory that can explain free safety's actions purely in terms of biology. Certainly there are necessary physical and biological conditions, as well as necessary skills acquired through learning. But the activation of those conditions and skills in just the right way on this particular occasion to successfully intercept the pass, that is a person's free and deliberate choice.

Far more complex and wonderful than traveling left or right.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Is "know" the right word? One of the strangest and most interesting phenomena discovered in the last few decades is the ability of molecules to "recognize" and respond to very precise conditions. Certain molecules reconfigure themselves when it encounters another molecule of just the right shape. Amoebas recognize what to eat because their skins are made of molecules that respond to certain molecules in the environment by opening holes big enough to ingest those molecules. This dynamic capability of molecules is the foundation of the emerging discipline of nanotechnology. Surely there is no choice involved in this molecular behavior, but it is certainly a foundation from which true choice is built.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

I never intended to suggest that conscious processes control everything else, though there are stories of Buddhist and yogi masters that imply that we are able to control more of our bodily processes than we normally expect. As a matter of fact, consciousness often gets in the way of doing what we want. Several years ago there were a number of books on Zen Tennis or Zen Golf or Zen Tiddlywinks. The common theme of these books was to help people overcome over-thinking a problem and just do it.

I am not claiming that everything we do is a conscious choice. I am only saying that much is.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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. .... 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.

OK, try this: Consciousness is the integrated awareness of the world in which one must act.

It is integrated in the sense that information from multiple sources is interpreted as being about the same thing. That is, our model of the world includes a number of things, about which we obtain information from many different sensory inputs. It is also integrated in the sense that information from many different sources can be applied to many different actions for many different purposes.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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?

Self-awareness emerges when an animal notices that some of the things it senses in its world are constantly present and behave under that animals control. A much more sophisticated version of self-awareness emerges when the animal begins to be aware of its own thinking process.

Note I do not define self-awareness as awareness of a self, other than the body which appears in the sensed world or the processes of consciousness. The self ain't a thing that wears the body; the self is the conscious, choosing person, with both physical and mental properties and processes.

I doubt that these will stand up to close scrutiny, but they will do for a starting point.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I think the sages of the ages have grappled with the seat of the soul and of the emotions for millenia.

The problem goes away if you acknowledge the person as the whole system rather than something inside the system.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I don’t really know, but I am convinced reasonably well that mind and soul-spirit are two completely differing entities.

Certainly they are different aspects of the system that is a person. I'll need a lot more evidence to treat them as different entities.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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

Actually I should have said that chaos theory rejects determinism. And most of their arguments are epistemological rather than metaphysical. What they point out is that physical systems are so complex that we can never know enough about initial conditions to predict what is going to happen with any precision. And imprecision about what's going to happen next implies complete lack of control over what will happen tomorrow.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Agreed! Chisholm used to define the term basic action as something we can do without doing something else to make it happen. Thus since I pull the trigger on the gun by moving my finger, pulling the trigger is not basic. But since there is nothing I do in order to move my finger, moving my finger is a basic action.

There is an interesting paradox here. There is a chain of physical events in my nerves and muscles that underlie my moving my finger. But I don't know how to make those events happen in just that way without performing the basic action of moving my finger. In other words I make those muscles move in that way by moving my finger. In Aristotelian terms, the moving of the muscles is both the efficient and the final cause of my finger's moving. Note that normally efficient and final cause are opposite: moving my finger is the efficient cause of pulling the trigger (which is the efficient cause of the gun's firing, which is the efficient cause of my enemies dying), while my enemies dying is the final cause of my pulling the trigger.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

But the analogy breaks down here, doesn't it. There is a reductionistic explanation of the driver/car system. We can explain what that system does in terms of the conscious choices of the driver operating a purely mechanical system. I don't have to treat the driver/car system as a conscious whole. In the case of the person, we don't have a consensus on an analysis of the whole system into a mechanical (or bio-mechanical) part and a conscious, choosing part.

Namiste.

[bob x]

"Whose reality? "
Mine, in particular, but I suspect you would have the same difficulty with anyone who is wired very differently from yourself. I take it for granted that most people do not have the same kind of conscious experiences as myself since I am obviously in a rare minority. It is evident that you do not experience passion in any way similar to mine: maybe you are just too young yet and will develop it, or maybe it is just not in you, though doubtless you have your own manner of deep feelings which are alien to me equally. That is fine in any case: I would not wish my hormonal conditions on anyone. But your attempt to treat "soul/spirit" as some kind of entity that is separable from the physical processes badly breaks down here. I cannot say that every type of variant sexuality is biochemically rooted; I certainly know that most homosexuals do not have a biochemistry like mine; but I have strong reason to believe that my own sexuality has a lot to do with the chemistry, little or nothing to do with Freud's models, and nothing whatsoever to do with choices I made.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DrFree!
Thank you for your thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by DrFree

Sorry to have taken so long. Other things going on. Besides that our conversation has reached a point where I need to think a lot harder to make meaningful responses. The philosopher in me likes that situation; the lazybones does not.

Apology accepted, I understand quite well how life can get in the way of timely responses. I’m glad I could be of service to stimulate a deeper meditation on the subject.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Certainly this learning comes from experience. But the expression "experiential learning" bothers me. How is that different from mere "learning"? In humans it connotes things we learn from experiences of which we are consciously aware, as opposed to things we learn from subconscious experience.

Yours is a valid concern. I believe I meant to use the term “experiential” to distinguish something like trial by doing, or “learning things the hard way.” Conscious awareness allows humans to learn in an entirely different manner, even if a few hard heads among us still prefer to learn primarily by personal experience. Consciousness allows the flexibility of language (although I can see a legitimate argument could be made that other animals “speak” too), and through “education” via graphic symbolism (writing) be able to absorb the experiences of other humans. In time this even allowed for learning to transcend distance and time as we look from the development of graphic symbolism from cave paintings through ideogram alphabets into modern alphabets. Even tribal communication in similar ways can be demonstrated through things like sand paintings, although in most traditions these are intended to be temporary and local.

In short, what I see is that animals are pretty well confined to experiential learning, trial by doing, “learning the hard way.” Whereas humans are not so restricted, humans are also capable of another form of learning I really haven’t a clue what name to use that is based wholly or in part on graphic symbolism and the attached sounds and presumed agreed meanings of human language. I suppose “education” would be my favorite choice of term to describe this method.

Originally Posted by DrFree

As these nodes develop information channels between each other, they can develop cooperative feedback loops that evolve into system-oriented decision systems.

Agreed. There is some question of how much a person can will these loops into existence, but the preceding example of a stroke victim retraining the brain to operate an arm or hand is a good example to demonstrate that at least in some manner this can be done. How much, how far, and how strong are case-by-case I should think. The typical person has no need or desire to create new significant loops, certainly past a certain age when a person loses the desire to continue building the referential library. (I am using an absolute here, a person never really does stop building that library until death, but the willful desire to continue learning seems to cease in most adults of my acquaintance once they pass a certain critical mass or age, unique in each. Some never reach that critical point, and continue building that referential library throughout their life, while others it seems are content with a very small library and cease quite early to continue educating themselves with the effect of sealing their worldview into a very limited scope of understanding.)

Originally Posted by DrFree

I'm inclined to differentiate between reflexive behavior, i.e., deterministic responses of local subsystems, and subconscious behavior. The latter I take to be subroutines that the brain has figured out how encapsulate and run in the background without conscious involvement, e.g., solving a math or logic or chess or social problem. Ultimately, the subroutine proposes a solution, and it's up to the conscious mind to accept and apply the solution or to realize that it's inadequate and restart the subroutine with modified parameters.

There is always the possibility I am mistaken. I have been scolded before, by my psych professor no less, for trying to equate Freud’s “Id” with the subconscious. Then too we still have to account for instinctive and intuitive behaviors. Considering other animals as best I can without empirical research at my disposal, how else can we define the lack of a consciousness while remaining fully functional? Further, is it a justifiable thing to consider, do animals (or at least some animals) have any demonstrable form of rudimentary consciousness? There are experiments with apes, porpoises, parrots and crows that do pique questions regarding attributing consciousness fully to humans alone.
Now, regarding reflexive behavior I hesitate to separate from the subconscious and instinct, in part because I feel this is the elemental portion of the referential library. But I realize this is my personal preference in how I look at this, and I am open to other considerations as to how these processes develop and / or are distinguished by others.

Originally Posted by DrFree

And now we come to the crux of the matter. Note that your formulation falls back to what I have suggested is a false dichotomy: deterministically following a prescribed set of rules or randomly doing one of a set of non-determined options. The thesis I am proposing involves the following propositions:
1. When a person chooses to do A rather than B,
1. A's occurrence is not determined by prior conditions. Although those conditions can be necessary for A to happen, they are not sufficient.
2. A's occurrence is not random; it is chosen, i.e., made to happen, by the person.
That people do make such choices is really not in dispute, except in the ethereal confines of a philosopher's thought experiment.

emphasis about choices is mine, “randomly” emphasized in the original -jt3
Well, I am not certain where I have argued exclusively for one or the other position, but that a person’s choices can override or heavily influence one’s “natural” tendencies if one so wills. The underlying presumption is that “yes, natural tendencies and inclinations exist, but that we are not automatically and irrevocably confined to those tendencies alone by virtue of will.” I think the previous ongoing discussion with Bob pretty well highlights not only what I have said and intimated, but that also there are people who do philosophically dispute the impact of choice on behavior. So, while my emphasis has been on willful direction, the will is informed, influenced and developed by both prior conditions of experience and natural tendencies and random “circumstantial” conditions, probably including a dose of fate and a dash of dumb luck (try quantifying those!). So yes, if the middle ground includes all of the above, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Originally Posted by DrFree

It is also rare that a choice takes place in isolation from other choices. Life is a dance, the saying goes. We are constantly making series of choices, adjusting our tactics to suit the results of prior choices… Nor is there any available theory that can explain … actions purely in terms of biology. Certainly there are necessary physical and biological conditions, as well as necessary skills acquired through learning. But the activation of those conditions and skills in just the right way on this particular occasion to successfully intercept the pass, that is a person's free and deliberate choice. Far more complex and wonderful than traveling left or right.

Agreed, but at some elementary level there should be some indication of how things “evolve,” and one would think that a single-celled creature or some critter with a minimal brain residing on a two-dimensional surface would have as a rudimentary example of a basic “choice” to simply deal with the decision to move to the right or to the left of an obstacle. Such a simple choice as this can be influenced by a multitude of factors as the creature considered grows more complex, but at a very basic level I would think this choice to be influenced primarily by survival; meaning fight or flight, eat or be eaten, and the sex drive. As the complexity of the creature, particularly of the senses, grows, the more sensory input is available to influence each decision and the greater complexity involved in the decision making process.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Is "know" the right word?

Good question. What would you offer in exchange?

Originally Posted by DrFree

One of the strangest and most interesting phenomena discovered in the last few decades is the ability of molecules to "recognize" and respond to very precise conditions.

This is even at the cellular level, it is how cells use osmosis to gain nutrient and expel waste at the most basic level. I was recently watching a rather interesting program wherein researchers were “building” various organ tissues on scaffolds of a membrane taken from pig bladder. The arterial “splice” they had constructed using a living patient’s own tissues (to minimize rejection) pulsed in a rhythm of its own. It was pretty cool to look at a three inch section of tubing made from human and pig tissues in a “test tube” environment beating to its very own pulse with no outside stimulation. It was pointed out that the splice began pulsating of its own once it reached a certain critical mass.
*couldn’t find a direct link, but these two are to related portions of the same segment of the same program:
Online NewsHour: Conversation | Doctor on Tissue Engineered Faces | October 11, 2006 | PBS

Wired Science . Body Builders | PBS

[juantoo3]

Continued,

Originally Posted by DrFree

I never intended to suggest that conscious processes control everything else, though there are stories of Buddhist and yogi masters that imply that we are able to control more of our bodily processes than we normally expect. … overcome over-thinking a problem and just do it.

I am not claiming that everything we do is a conscious choice. I am only saying that much is.

Absolutely agreed. It amazes me sometimes the emphasis placed on thought and the reasoning ability by humans in order to emphasize human dominance over the rest of creation. But the ability to think in no way suggests superiority in and of itself. We collectively (especially in the West) have a self-congratulatory tendency to emphasize our consciousness at the expense of our other faculties. There seems to me among the population at large a disconnect (dismissal?) with recognition of the subconscious / intuitive / instinctive regions of the brain, but this is not an all-inclusive statement as there do seem to be those rare individuals that exercise a well-developed connection with what I see as the subconscious. There is a great deal of difference though in recognizing the influence of subconscious faculties on choices and the suggestion by some that we have no choice but to effectively surrender to the baser instinctive reflexes of the Id.
There remains the question of whether or not and how much some version of consciousness may exist in other animals, but it remains that other animals seem to operate chiefly within the influence of the Id. What I see as something, perhaps the defining thing, that distinguishes the human brain from those of other animals is the well developed consciousness.
Probably the next best place to continue would be the definitions:

Originally Posted by DrFree

OK, try this: Consciousness is the integrated awareness of the world in which one must act.

It is integrated in the sense that information from multiple sources is interpreted as being about the same thing. That is, our model of the world includes a number of things, about which we obtain information from many different sensory inputs. It is also integrated in the sense that information from many different sources can be applied to many different actions for many different purposes.

This is good, the only thing I see lacking is the requirement of consciousness in order for rational thought to exist, in other words rational thought stems from consciousness.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Self-awareness emerges when an animal notices that some of the things it senses in its world are constantly present and behave under that animal’s control. A much more sophisticated version of self-awareness emerges when the animal begins to be aware of its own thinking process.

This is good too, only I would question whether or not thinking as such might be attributed to animals. It seems to me consciousness is the most basic requirement to attribute any form of thinking, and most of our juries are still out as to how much “consciousness” can rightly be attributed to other animals, certainly not of a capacity to begin to match human consciousness (therefore “thinking” in anything resembling human thought). I have raised the issue in the past about the seeming evolutionary anomaly of human consciousness, certainly to the extent it has developed, and how it is relatively absent in other animals including those that endured the same environmental and evolutionary influences.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Note I do not define self-awareness as awareness of a self, other than the body which appears in the sensed world or the processes of consciousness. The self ain't a thing that wears the body; the self is the conscious, choosing person, with both physical and mental properties and processes.

I doubt that these will stand up to close scrutiny, but they will do for a starting point.

This is a valid talking point. A source of unending profound mystery to me since I could remember is the perception of my “self” trapped behind my own eyes. While I can agree that self awareness includes a sense of body integrated with surroundings, I cannot help but intuit a great deal more that transcends that alone. Perhaps I am alone in this, I can accept that. Please note that this sense of wonder in my particular example predates anything more than spurious religious indoctrination (having only been within the walls of a church a handful of times by then, with not particularly observant parents). This sense of wonder was most pronounced about the time of entering public school, at about the age of 5. So while I can understand a view to alienate the spirit / soul from the whole-self, in my personal experience there is an interconnection between the physical and non-physical (transcendent physical?) I cannot in good conscience casually dismiss.

Originally Posted by DrFree

(I think the sages of the ages have grappled with the seat of the soul and of the emotions for millennia. –jt3) The problem goes away if you acknowledge the person as the whole system rather than something inside the system.

Perhaps, and I realize this is the preferred view of atheism in the broader sense; however this explanation contradicts my personal experience and therefore to me seems empty and hollow in that it does not account for every aspect of my observations. My observations are hardly empirical or objective, certainly not quantifiable or qualifiable, but for me they serve as sufficient circumstantial evidence.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Actually I should have said that chaos theory rejects determinism. And most of their arguments are epistemological rather than metaphysical. What they point out is that physical systems are so complex that we can never know enough about initial conditions to predict what is going to happen with any precision. And imprecision about what's going to happen next implies complete lack of control over what will happen tomorrow.

Ah, much like the variability of human willful responses.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Agreed! Chisholm used to define the term basic action as something we can do without doing something else to make it happen. Thus since I pull the trigger on the gun by moving my finger, pulling the trigger is not basic. But since there is nothing I do in order to move my finger, moving my finger is a basic action.

There is an interesting paradox here. There is a chain of physical events in my nerves and muscles that underlie my moving my finger. But I don't know how to make those events happen in just that way without performing the basic action of moving my finger. In other words I make those muscles move in that way by moving my finger. In Aristotelian terms, the moving of the muscles is both the efficient and the final cause of my finger's moving. Note that normally efficient and final cause are opposite: moving my finger is the efficient cause of pulling the trigger (which is the efficient cause of the gun's firing, which is the efficient cause of my enemies dying), while my enemies dying is the final cause of my pulling the trigger.

Paradox is not a bad thing in and of itself, what this suggests to me is the relevance of perspective. Such as how a killer of other humans can be from one vantage a murderer and from another vantage a hero, depending on perspective. How a finger twitch can manifest itself to explain the behavior quandary is dependent on perspective, which is relative and dependent…OK, I can see that.

Originally Posted by DrFree

But the analogy breaks down here, doesn't it. There is a reductionistic explanation of the driver/car system. We can explain what that system does in terms of the conscious choices of the driver operating a purely mechanical system. I don't have to treat the driver/car system as a conscious whole. In the case of the person, we don't have a consensus on an analysis of the whole system into a mechanical (or bio-mechanical) part and a conscious, choosing part.

Well, and perhaps this created a bit of a stretch, I was using (poor choice of subject) myself to serve as the decision making process. I suppose as far as the autonomous systems of the car, the newer models with onboard computers could be said to have some elemental form of monitor-decision making system to balance the whole, but you are correct. There is no direct correlation between an automobile and a conscious decision making biological construct (brain). Perhaps we could stretch the analogy of an artificial intelligence computer, but I haven’t seen anything in the past few years to come close to the complexity of the human decision making consciousness.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Namiste.

Shalom

[bob x]

I think the previous ongoing discussion with Bob pretty well highlights not only what I have said and intimated, but that also there are people who do philosophically dispute the impact of choice on behavior.

HUH??? What have I ever said that would make you think that I "philosophically dispute the impact of choice on behavior"? What I have told you is that the basic preferences which motivate choices (that I enjoy eating cheese, and do not enjoy eating mud, etc.) are not, themselves, chosen. Have you actually heard a single thing that I have said to you? I hope that you are not thinking of going into psychology as a profession: the primary skill that is needed for that is the ability to listen to people who are very different from yourself.

[DrFree]

Back at you, juantoo3,

Our conversations are becoming so complex, we may soon have to branch out into subthreads. I think that this time however I'll be able to respond in a single post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

There remains the question of whether or not and how much some version of consciousness may exist in other animals, but it remains that other animals seem to operate chiefly within the influence of the Id. What I see as something, perhaps the defining thing, that distinguishes the human brain from those of other animals is the well developed consciousness.

Almost anyone who lives with a dog or cat recognizes that they have emotions and plans. They act out of fear and love and desire. We can see what they are doing; we can see how they react when the world they are conscious of changes. Their form of consciousness, at least in part, seems commensurate with our own.

The farther away from us on the evolutionary tree it is, the more an organism resists being understood in this empathetic way. For a wonderful, detailed discussion, see Thomas Nagle's "What is it like to be a bat?"

Perhaps the only way around this empathetic barrier is language, as long as it can be translated into our language and vice-versa, and the translations can be confirmed by behavioral predictions in both directions. Unfortunately, translation of languages from radically different cultures is an extremely difficult problem, as a few but by no means most science fiction stories have recognized. It may be that in order to translate a new language, we must first be able to see the world as the speaker sees it.

By the way, this broaches an issue that we have pretty much ignored so far: the relation between consciousness and language. A number of philosophers, Noam Chomsky especially, have argued that the two are isomorphic: The conceptual structure of our consciousness is exactly analogous to the language we use to describe our world.

Does this mean that animals have a proto-language? That they have no consciousness? Guess there's more work to do.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps, and I realize this is the preferred view of atheism in the broader sense; however this explanation contradicts my personal experience and therefore to me seems empty and hollow in that it does not account for every aspect of my observations. My observations are hardly empirical or objective, certainly not quantifiable or qualifiable, but for me they serve as sufficient circumstantial evidence.

Do you infer from what I have said that I am an atheist? Interesting! I used to be, but find that position unsatisfactory, for several reasons.

• It says what the proponent does not believe, not what he or she believes. Thus it provides no foundation for building one's framework of beliefs.
• Atheists tend to defend their position as a conclusion from some form of scientific reductionism, which I reject as I have said.
• Just as I believe that people, as whole systems, make free choices, so I believe it possible that the world, as a whole living system, might influence the course of events, perhaps even by something that corresponds to choice. I don't yet have good evidence for this proposition, but I choose to act as though it were true, since the world would be much better off if everyone believed it.

So perhaps this is the point where the course of our conversation must split, since these are radically different topics.

Namiste.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DrFree!

How timely! Just last night I caught my first glimpse of what is going on in the AI world in the last couple of years. Coincidentally that research stems from parallel research on the human brain. Enjoy!

Hierarchical Temporal Memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeff Hawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Intelligence - Welcome

Decorum dictates that I should not link to another forum, so I will only suggest that a forum offered through this last site is extremely interesting and quite thourough regarding the ongoing research in both brain anatomy and computer simulations of brain anatomy (Artificial Intelligence).

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Do you infer from what I have said that I am an atheist?

I'm afraid I haven't time to properly address this most recent post just now, however, to this point I feel a comment is necessary to clarify. In discussions I have had with a devout Buddhist here it was made clear in no uncertain terms that he viewed himself simultaneously as an atheist, and went so far as to side stringently with atheists in discussions that contrasted with other views particularly in regard to concepts of G-d. Hence why I have come to try to distinguish among the various atheist camps, and using the term "broader sense" I was trying to be inclusive of all those camps I have had the pleasure of being introduced to. So if I have somehow made an errant presumption, I do apologize.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Almost anyone who lives with a dog or cat recognizes that they have emotions and plans…The farther away from us on the evolutionary tree it is, the more an organism resists being understood in this empathetic way…Perhaps the only way around this empathetic barrier is language, …By the way, this broaches an issue that we have pretty much ignored so far: the relation between consciousness and language...The conceptual structure of our consciousness is exactly analogous to the language we use to describe our world.

Hmmm, interesting consideration, but it does come back around to what it is we are attempting to convey with the term “consciousness.” I was reading just a couple of days ago (fortuitous coincidence? Or perhaps synchronicity?) in the Joseph Campbell / Bill Moyers Myth companion book for the PBS series, and one of the things that jumped out at me in relation to this discussion is that Mr. Campbell made the claim that even plant life has a consciousness. I have heard reference to plants communicating, even of experiments with carrots that demonstrated an awareness of being processed for supper, but I wasn’t quite prepared to extend my concept of consciousness as far as plant life yet. Which then raises the issue of anthropomorphism or anthropocentrism. I want to find a way to distinguish the human reasoning function / process from other creatures, but I am also open to consideration that in the strictest sense this may not be possible, that there may well be some elementary reasoning process available even among creatures that seemingly have no brain. Language seems to me a clumsy and cumbersome measurement criterion, in largest part because language is again something that tends to be viewed from an anthropocentric viewpoint. I mentioned the experiments with the carrots, and while it seemed fairly certain there was some communication going on, that communication was pretty obviously not something a typical human would relate to. I have seen a bit more concerning forest tree communication such as during disease, a fire or insect infestation, but the concept is pretty well the same as that with the carrot. So, have you ever talked to a tree? That is, without somebody ready to rush you off to the funny farm? Regarding Chomsky I have to ask if there is a distinction between language and communication, and if such a distinction can (should) rightly be made? It also opens greater consideration of aboriginal traditions of talking with all of the creatures; flora, fauna and mineral.

I am not certain, not having read Chomsky’s work (although I see frequent reference to it), but my suspicion is that he was likely trying to distinguish between Eastern and Western mental methodologies, a concept I have seen brought forward in a number of different settings. This is based in the distinction between Western “logical” thought processes that tend to be linear, and as I understand Eastern thought processes in part based on the concept of paradox and cyclical thought processes. The Western way of describing their world is based on their linear thought process, whereas the Eastern way of describing their world is based on a cyclical thought process. Hence linear names versus cyclical names, or maybe better stated direct names versus more poetic names.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Does this mean that animals have a proto-language? That they have no consciousness? Guess there's more work to do.

Indeed, and I do think this is a valid point. Frankly, I do think animals and even plants, and most likely even stones, have a language. Even the universe pulses with a rhythm and cadence that could poetically be described as a song. But is this sufficient in and of itself to denote consciousness? Or are the two, language and consciousness, distinct and separate concepts altogether? Or is the universe at large conscious? (Tao Equus would love this!)

Originally Posted by DrFree

Just as I believe that people, as whole systems, make free choices, so I believe it possible that the world, as a whole living system, might influence the course of events, perhaps even by something that corresponds to choice.

Namiste.

Actually, I think you may find some compatriots here. Tao frequently posits what he refers to as GAIA theory, which seems to me to correspond well with what you say here about the earth and even the universe as a singular living entity. Philosophically I do not see any harm in holding such a belief, at least without deeper consideration. It is an interesting speculation, but my own interests veer off in a somewhat different direction, so you are correct. This would be better taken up under its own topic / subheading.

Shalom.

[bob x]

I do not believe that there is any such thing as "dumb" matter. All material objects are continually making "choices" at the quantum level; they just do not have the mechanisms we do for making micro-events cumulate to macro-events (rather than all cancelling out).