Thread: What is consciousness?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It is not that humans defy the laws of physics, it that human action is not understood or view through the laws of physics. So far no one has pointed to a single law of physics and how it explains human action.

And I don't view or understand my PC in terms of electrical currents. But that doesn't change the fact that nearly everything it does is due to electrical currents. In just the same way, the fact that human action is not viewed or understood in terms of physical laws does not change the fact that human action is ultimately due to physical laws.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It is not that humans defy the laws of physics, it that human action is not understood or view through the laws of physics. So far no one has pointed to a single law of physics and how it explains human action.

Human thought (and by extension, decision making) is the process of cellular processes within the brain. We know that the brain uses electrochemical signals to communicate. These signals, being comprised of matter and energy, are subject to the laws of physics.

inb4 soul/divine creator/nobody has proven that yet/blah blah blah. If I die and it turns out that there is such a thing as a soul, I will kill my afterlife-self and banish my soul from this universe.

Here is food for thought: the brain actually makes a decision several seconds before you do. By the time you make a decision, your mind made it for you a couple seconds prior. Sauce

Originally Posted by Valmancer

I'd like to start this discussion with saying that I don't believe in free will, but I don't think everything is predestined either. I just believe that there is a kind of randomness in the whole universe (like some of quantum mechanics says) so you can never calculate what will happen.

We have consistently working axioms (physics) to calculate what will happen if under the appropriate conditions.

Here comes the problem with not having free will, if we don't then surely we have no consciousness either?

We're not sure if consciousness is exclusive to freewill.

I'm not even sure what consciousness really means. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience or awareness, or wakefulness, or the executive control system of the mind. It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena. Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined"

They talk about awareness or wakefulness, which doesn't make any sense if we don't have free will and are just manifestations of randomness and chance. What would be the thing that is aware or awake?

That thing would be "consciousness", like the wiki description explains. So, are you asking what are the abstract entities of "consciousness?" We're still pin-pointing that.

The whole thing about "experience" doesn't make sense either. What is experiencing, is it the molecules in you body, you'r nervous system reacting to chemical reactions (which are still just molecules in your body) or what?

Could you stipulate the definition of "experience?"

The executive control system of the mind makes the most sense to me as it accepts that there is nothing more than a center (molecules) which "control" things around the body to make it survive in a world of randomness. This system has then become better by evolution so it chooses the most rational option, the option that left most of it's ancestors alive.

lol.

So, I've come to the conclusion that there is no consciousness and we are just machines, formed by random chance and evolution, which react to the random surroundings in the way that left most of our ancestor's alive

Prove me wrong!

I don't see how you concluded that there is no consciousness. Besides, weren't you not so sure as to what "consciousness" even meant? I also don't see how you concluded that we were formed by random chance. You've done nothing but asked vague questions, and made unscientifically backed claims. Also, how could you possibly conclude that there is no "consciousness", when your description of "consciousness" is the molecular based controller of the very machine you say we are!

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

There isn't just the laws of science in the world. There are laws of logic and axioms. You will also have to explain how chemistry is a law of physics, especially brain chemistry. If you believe this then you think we are slaves to our emotions which is absurd. If ever we have a rise in sexual attraction towards another, why don't we simply act instantly upon that emotion? Why do we hold back when we are angry?

The laws of science are built upon logic which is built upon the same principles as math. Don't pretend like these are separate. To deny one is to deny the other. And chemistry is directly related to physics. If you think otherwise and believe that you know about both then there is little point discussing it with you since you would proove that understand neither.

You are also suggesting that our emotions don't come from brain chemistry?!? Are dinosaurs 6000 years old, as well? In spite of mountains of evidence, it seems you say this because if so, in your opinion, we would be slaves to our emotions. I think you don't want it to be true therefore it isn't. Research can be thrown out in the face of human will, I suppose. At least it frequently is. Your arguments against why we are obviously not wired to be slaves to our brains, even though the very concept is silly since we essentially ARE our brains, are simple and show lack of understanding. We control sexual urges and feelings of anger largely because it is more beneficial to have self-control then to have no impulse management. Our brains aren't wired this way. Even a dog can show restraint. Is he a transcendant being too, because of this?

I have already conceded that I admit the possibility of dualism, (and actually think that parts of it are more likely than not,) but it would still react based upon established scientific principle. Even belief in God should be made with the acceptance of such a being as one that does not deny science and logic. You say things outside of scientific things affect the univere?There is only one alternative and it has been brought up by myself and Mario and DuB. Magic. There is your alternative.

Everything happens for a reason. This is not the begining of this situation at all but it is where I will start for my idea. A surge of electrons goes through a wire heating it up. The heating of the wire causes the gases inside a container to give off light. Light is made of particles that are rapidly moving through space the particles bounce around filling the room. Some photons bounce off a tube of blue paint in just the right way to send blue light directly into my eyes. A lens in my eye focuses the light into light sensors which then send an electrical signal to a location in my brain. From that point in my brain many different electrical pulses are sent out to different parts of my brain. One path of electrical impulses causes my subconscious to remember something pleasurable somehow associated with the color blue. Now we know that something (or several somethings) that happened in the past causes me to like the color blue.

Now because I saw and realized that I liked the color blue I asked myself how I could apply it to this conversation. Because I thought of that my brain reacted and sent electrical impulses into my muscles causing them to contract. I want to hit a certain button but the signals sent to my arms and fingers arent exact and I hit the wrong button and must go back and re-type it. AS Im typing I realize that it has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed in this thread. Except for the fact that it was all caused by multiple variables all coming together to this one post.

So basically everything in the last 10 minutes has caused what I am doing at this exact moment.

So can anybody guess which side of this debate im on yet?

Oh and one more question. If everything is happening seperate in our brains why do we interpret it as all one thought?

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Everything happens for a reason. This is not the begining of this situation at all but it is where I will start for my idea. A surge of electrons goes through a wire heating it up. The heating of the wire causes the gases inside a container to give off light. Light is made of particles that are rapidly moving through space the particles bounce around filling the room. Some photons bounce off a tube of blue paint in just the right way to send blue light directly into my eyes. A lens in my eye focuses the light into light sensors which then send an electrical signal to a location in my brain. From that point in my brain many different electrical pulses are sent out to different parts of my brain. One path of electrical impulses causes my subconscious to remember something pleasurable somehow associated with the color blue. Now we know that something (or several somethings) that happened in the past causes me to like the color blue.

Now because I saw and realized that I liked the color blue I asked myself how I could apply it to this conversation. Because I thought of that my brain reacted and sent electrical impulses into my muscles causing them to contract. I want to hit a certain button but the signals sent to my arms and fingers arent exact and I hit the wrong button and must go back and re-type it. AS Im typing I realize that it has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed in this thread. Except for the fact that it was all caused by multiple variables all coming together to this one post.

So basically everything in the last 10 minutes has caused what I am doing at this exact moment.

So can anybody guess which side of this debate im on yet?

Oh and one more question. If everything is happening seperate in our brains why do we interpret it as all one thought?

If you're implying that because we have a metaphorical description of the different on-going processes that occur in our brain, and because of so, there is no X, then you're just committing a genetic fallacy. As for your highly vague and possibly erroneous description on how the brain works, I suggest you improve your understanding of it before making it the highlight of your post.

Well yeah I really dont know much at all about how the brain works but that is my understanding of it.

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

Because of the obvious ambiguities in this statement, I'll oblige to the principle of charity and do my best to interpret this:

Every effect has a cause, but isn't determined before it is caused.

1.Every effect has a cause
2.Every effect isn't determined before it is caused.

No conclusion can follow from these two premises alone, so I'll just comment on them.

1.) We believe so.
2.) Explain. This claim is moot, and as you can see, there are multiple people in this thread arguing otherwise.
(Now we know what side of the debate you're likely on; indeterminism.)

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Well yeah I really dont know much at all about how the brain works but that is my understanding of it.

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

But even by that logic, it follows that everything is at least set into motion before it happens, which is just as well. There really isn't much of a difference.

Yes things are set into motion before they happen but it seems hard to believe that because A relative of my friend invented the olive pitting machine a long time ago that on a specific day at a specific hour my throat will contract in the wrong way around an olive pit causing me to choke. (this is ignoring the fact that I dont like olives)

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Yes things are set into motion before they happen but it seems hard to believe that because A relative of my friend invented the olive pitting machine a long time ago that on a specific day at a specific hour my throat will contract in the wrong way around an olive pit causing me to choke. (this is ignoring the fact that I dont like olives)

I don't understand. If you acknowledge that events are determined, then why are you asking why some things would lead to other things? Why would it be hard to believe, relative to what alternate scenario... that everything happens completely at random? Although a possible explanation, but completely useless for a logical discussion.

Well what im trying to say is that I am in some kind of middle ground. It just seems extreme to say that everything happens because of something before it including the most random thoughts that randomly pop into your head.

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Well what im trying to say is that I am in some kind of middle ground. It just seems extreme to say that everything happens because of something before it including the most random thoughts that randomly pop into your head.

You get a high-paying job because you got a degree. You develop the Bean Catapult 9000 because a "random" thought told you it was a good idea. In some instances, we may not be able to always predict the future (i.e. quantum mechanics (I think) states there are infinitely many outcomes during an interaction between particles with varying probabilities of each outcome (I think, don't blast me, I'm just stating an interesting hypothesis)), but regardless, the events ultimately achieved are still the result of past interactions.

Originally Posted by spockman

Xei, you say my statements are just thrown out there, but there is a logic behind it. It is the principle that once a chain of events is set into motion, (and everything that occurs in the universe is an eventof some sort,) each event no matter how large or small is affected by a previous event. It is this assertion that all of my claims are based on. Things don't just happen because they want to and nothing exists that is independant from the universe, nothing happens that is independant of every other force. (The word universe here means the totality of all things.) You either believe in determinism or you think that things can just sort of happen without being the result of something previous, (which is total nonsense to me,) or else you are deluding yourself. No one in this entire argument has brought up an alternative to those first two choices. Should someone provide a fourth option and it is valid and not just a sub-set of one of those two, I am more than willing to retract that statement. If you can provide a real alternative, I am ready to listen. Until then, I will go with choice A.

You're going round in circles I think, I have covered all of this.

Firstly, you're still using terms like "principle" and even used the word "assertion". I suppose I'm going to have to ask questions, as just explaining isn't doing enough at the moment; on what basis are these assertions made? That is to say, why do you think this principle is true?

Secondly, as I also explained before, you are mischaracterising quantum physics. It is not true that the only two options are 'determinism' and 'zero causation'; quantum physics says no such thing. What it does say is that previous events cause future events to change their probabilities of occurring (hence there is still causation), and this happens in a mathematically precise manner. Quantum physics agrees perfectly well with reality (in the sense that if you predict the future of reality based on quantum mechanics you will get the correct answer), so what is the problem?

Thirdly, your own view is logically inconsistent. You say all events have to be caused by previous events, and things cannot happen "because they want to". How, then, did the first event ever occur?

Originally Posted by Xei

You're going round in circles I think, I have covered all of this.

Firstly, you're still using terms like "principle" and even used the word "assertion". I suppose I'm going to have to ask questions, as just explaining isn't doing enough at the moment; on what basis are these assertions made? That is to say, why do you think this principle is true?

Secondly, as I also explained before, you are mischaracterising quantum physics. It is not true that the only two options are 'determinism' and 'zero causation'; quantum physics says no such thing. What it does say is that previous events cause future events to change their probabilities of occurring (hence there is still causation), and this happens in a mathematically precise manner. Quantum physics agrees perfectly well with reality (in the sense that if you predict the future of reality based on quantum mechanics you will get the correct answer), so what is the problem?

Thirdly, your own view is logically inconsistent. You say all events have to be caused by previous events, and things cannot happen "because they want to". How, then, did the first event ever occur?

I like this. You dont go to either extreme

Understand, by the way, that I think determinism could be true; it's just that I accept that there's no solid logical grounds for it.

It is of course possible to ascertain as to whether the macroscopic world is deterministic for all useful intents and purposes, the answer being yes. It also seems that the scale of the brain is still too large for it to be reasonably classed as non-deterministic.

Consciousness is the soul that our Lord and savior has blessed us with. In this world, many people are confused about the simplest of stuff. Search for yourself in the bible and let the Lord grace you with His presence. And then we all died from aids. what?

Originally Posted by malac

Consciousness is the soul that our Lord and savior has blessed us with. In this world, many people are confused about the simplest of stuff. Search for yourself in the bible and let the Lord grace you with His presence. And then we all died from aids. what?

:bravo:

I dont get it but in a discussion like this you are supposed to stay away from religious explanations

Originally Posted by DuB

Obviously I don't, as you know I don't, and if you're really interested in having a proper argument then you'll refrain from responding with smart-assed questions and instead point out what exactly you think are the logical flaws in my argument and lay out counter-arguments.

Well you don't have an argument. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who is unsure as to where they lie on an issue.

Originally Posted by DuB

A "want" doesn't have any greater ontological status than does "democracy" or "good manners." Wanting is an instrumental and purely abstract notion that we use to describe and predict action--including our own action. That's all. Action, in turn, is produced by the firings of nerve cells (working through muscles and the like), which operate according to a certain biological and chemical principles, and so on. In this way, physical laws ultimately drive the action tendencies that we would look upon and refer to as "wanting;" however, a neuron does not properly have "wants" any more than an H2O molecule has "wetness" or a wrench has "usefulness."

Ok so your cells can't want chocolate..but a mass of cells can want it? I fail to see how it follows that one cell doesn't make up wants but a mass of cells does.

Originally Posted by DuB

Natural laws describe the workings of the natural universe. That is the definition of a natural law. So that means...
(Pay attention: this is what a proper argument looks like.)

If something is part of the natural universe, it is described by natural laws. (From the definition above.)
If something is not described by natural laws, it is not part of the natural universe. (Modus tollens)
If something is not part of the natural universe, it is--by definition--supernatural.
"Supernatural" is a synonym for "magical" (From the dictionary definition of "magic.")
Therefore, if human action "opposes natural law," human action is magic.

Is logic and rationality a 'natural law?' Is it apart of the 'natural sciences' like physics?

Originally Posted by DuB

That's not even close to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that explaining why someone chooses chocolate ice cream by saying that "they have a preference for chocolate ice cream" is not an explanation at all. The allusion that I made was to illustrate that this is just as ridiculous an attempt to explain something as saying that opium makes one sleepy because it has sleepiness-inducing properties. Just like the doctor's explanation, your "explanation" merely restates the explanandum in different words.

So saying that someone has a preference for chocolate ice cream after they bought chocolate ice cream isn't an explanation as to why they bought chocolate ice cream? Granted, they can have numerous reasons for buying chocolate ice cream by more often then not it is because they like it. Preference is shown through action.

Originally Posted by DuB

And I don't view or understand my PC in terms of electrical currents. But that doesn't change the fact that nearly everything it does is due to electrical currents. In just the same way, the fact that human action is not viewed or understood in terms of physical laws does not change the fact that human action is ultimately due to physical laws.

Then please by all means show/explain how you can derive that human action is a result of physical laws but cannot be understood or view through the lens of physical laws.

Originally Posted by spockman

The laws of science are built upon logic which is built upon the same principles as math. Don't pretend like these are separate. To deny one is to deny the other. And chemistry is directly related to physics. If you think otherwise and believe that you know about both then there is little point discussing it with you since you would proove that understand neither.

Everything is built upon logic. Nothing conceivable is illogical for one cannot define/abstract illogical things. It is an impossibility. And the natural sciences are not based upon the same principles of math. Math is apriori. The natural sciences are a posteriori. That itself is a huge gulf of how principles are arrived that through human thought. You must study the basics of philosophy if you are going to discuss how human thought is carried out. Also realize that physics is the science of energy plus mass and its interactions. Chemistry is the science of base elements and properties of a composition. The only direct link these two have are that they are apart of the natural sciences.

Originally Posted by spockman

You are also suggesting that our emotions don't come from brain chemistry?!? Are dinosaurs 6000 years old, as well? In spite of mountains of evidence, it seems you say this because if so, in your opinion, we would be slaves to our emotions. I think you don't want it to be true therefore it isn't. Research can be thrown out in the face of human will, I suppose. At least it frequently is. Your arguments against why we are obviously not wired to be slaves to our brains, even though the very concept is silly since we essentially ARE our brains, are simple and show lack of understanding. We control sexual urges and feelings of anger largely because it is more beneficial to have self-control then to have no impulse management. Our brains aren't wired this way. Even a dog can show restraint. Is he a transcendant being too, because of this?

I figured you would be smart enough to follow the inference. If we control our emotions then that posits that there is something above our emotions which orchestrates our actions. It is therefore not just basic chemistry that motivates our action for if it were you would have to show what chemical 'reason' is or say that we are slaves to our emotions. Obviously you have denied the latter by saying we can control them. Now comes the part of specifying which brain chemical 'reason' is with some definity.

Originally Posted by spockman

I have already conceded that I admit the possibility of dualism, (and actually think that parts of it are more likely than not,) but it would still react based upon established scientific principle. Even belief in God should be made with the acceptance of such a being as one that does not deny science and logic. You say things outside of scientific things affect the univere?There is only one alternative and it has been brought up by myself and Mario and DuB. Magic. There is your alternative.

And again I notice that all of you have continued to shrink away from showing how even one scientific truth motivates human action or how human action can be view/explained through such a truth. Now you are saying science AND logic also in your argument. Before you were just saying 'natural laws' which was established as laws of physics. If you think I am infering the wrong thing then go back to our start and see that 'laws of physics' was always the point of contention in explaining human action. Now you have taken up the discipline of logic, which is the base of everything in this world, in order to shrink from your argument even further. Why continue to press this discussion? You haven't explained even the base viewpoint of how your theories operates, you don't have a grasp on the acquistion of knowledge concerning the difference between apriori and a posteriori, and your argument is becoming more and more muddled. It is now just a screaming match and I tire of such things.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Then please by all means show/explain how you can derive that human action is a result of physical laws but cannot be understood or view through the lens of physical laws.

I believe he was saying that we DON'T understand human action, not that we CAN'T understand human action. This is true. We know very little of the human body, the human mind, and how they work. What we don't know is infinitely more vast to what we do know.

Ok so your cells can't want chocolate..but a mass of cells can want it? I fail to see how it follows that one cell doesn't make up wants but a mass of cells does.

So, a small sample of brain tissue can't form coherent thoughts...but a mass of organized brain tissue can? I fail to see how it follows that one sample doesn't make up cognition but a complete brain does.

Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I believe he was saying that we DON'T understand human action, not that we CAN'T understand human action. This is true. We know very little of the human body, the human mind, and how they work. What we don't know is infinitely more vast to what we do know.

Well if he doesn't understand human action then he shouldn't be propounding that the laws of physics govern it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

So, a small sample of brain tissue can't form coherent thoughts...but a mass of organized brain tissue can? I fail to see how it follows that one sample doesn't make up cognition but a complete brain does.

Jesus Christ.

That is the same argument I am actually making. He seems to be saying that a mass of cells can make us want chocolate but a single one can't.