How is consciousness even possible? : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » How is consciousness even possible? » How is consciousness even possible?

How is consciousness even possible?
materialism implies it cannot exist

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Last

How is consciousness even possible?

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:21 AM:	#81
Mike H wrote: I have to admit, I don't really understand quantum mechanics...but on a level right above the quantum level, everything is just particles and natural forces, right? Quantum weirdness cancels out at a certain point. So I wouldn't expect it to be relevant for the formation of consciousness, but I'm no physicist. Some physicalists believe that it does not matter, that the notion of a physical particular might be defined as an object, a concrete event, or whatever. Howbeit, the key commitment of physicalism is to some kind of basic particulars, which are the fundamental constituents out of which everything in the world is composed. Even those who argue for a wide sense of the ‘physical’ erect their definitions of that term upon basic physical constituents. That is, however generous the definition, physicalists take as fundamental elementary particles, in the loose sense of the word “particle” commonly encountered in descriptions of quantum mechanical phenomena. But physics tell against that presupposition. physics reveals that there are no elementary ‘particles’,fundamental events, or some such particulars. There are only processes of various scales and complexity. That this is so has not been easy to see, since the behaviour of phenomena at the sub-atomic level has seemed to defy description in coherent and intelligible terms. a strict particle view is not only factually false, but conceptually incoherent as well. so you are wrong when you say that Quantum weirdness cancels out at a certain point, but you are right when you say "I wouldn't expect it to be relevant for the formation of consciousness", with regard to the irreducible character of mental events, which I also support.

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 797

Posted 04/24/08 - 09:55 AM:	#82
rakis wrote: What your choice would be ? (unless you have an alternative, which I didn't think of) You seem to want to distinguish between mental events on the one hand and physical events on the other. In my philosophy, there are only events, and all events have a physical basis. Now it so happens that some of these physical events have properties which we label “mental” properties – this does not make these mental properties a different type or class of event, they are simply special properties of particular physical events. Why should a particular property necessarily be causally efficacious? Some machines have the property of “being a pump”, but we can argue that this property of “being a pump” is not what actually “causes” water to be transferred from one point to another – this is caused rather by the physical action of the piston or blades or impeller or whatever is the mechanical component within the pump which acts on the water to transfer it from one point to another. Similarly, some biological machines apparently have the property of “being conscious”, but it does not follow from this that such a property must necessarily have any causal effect on the physical. This does not make consciousness “non-physical”, any more than the property of “being a pump” is “non-physical”. If you wish to argue that this view makes the property of "consciousness" epiphenomenal, then my reply is that consciousness is no more nor less epiphenomenal than the property of "being a pump".
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 518

Posted 04/24/08 - 12:40 PM:	#83
The Escapist wrote: Simple Occam wrote: Science will never "discover" consciousness through more advancements in understanding efficient causation. Hi Occam, Might it not be that if we understood the physical state of the whole brain (and body) well enough, we might identify the factor that makes it be like something to be us? Knowing about the separate components isn't good enough, but perhaps knowing what the "state" of a whole nervous system is like might provide us with an unexpected insight into the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. I speculate that it might be something to do with the way the nervous system delivers the experience we call time. In some special way a connection is made between the succeeding states of the nervous system. I think that might be the crucial difference between ourselves and machines and the simpler animals. I speculate that information from the environment is recorded by the nervous system in such a way as to generate that experience. So I would challenge the idea that science can't possibly discover such a mechanism. Maybe it could happen through looking at the successive states of a minimally conscious animal, or noticing a crucial distinction between the physiologies of conscious and non-conscious animals. You seem to be missing my point, which is that understanding what consciousness is requires an ontological explanation, not an efficient-cause explanation. No doubt there are many things left to be discovered by science about how the brain and other things work. But none of the discoveries of science are a substitute for an ontology that can explain not just "how things work" but "what exists". Ontology can contribute a much broader and more profound insight into the nature of things that provides an understanding of the foundations of culture, morality and religion. The contrast is not between consciousness and unconsciousness (eg "awake" vs "dreaming or "in a coma") but between consciousness and a non-perceiving state of existence. Consciousness is not "self-awareness" or reflecting on one's perceptions or memories. It is simply the having of phenomenal qualities (ie qualia). It refers to a kind of existence, such that it is like something to be that thing. We are not going to discover the special "consciousness gene" or "consciousness synapse" that somehow "causes" consciousness. We can already distinguish between varieties of neurophysiological evolution that do and do not process sensory information. We already know what kind of brain you need to have for that. What I'm trying to get past is the notion that consciousness is some additional physical property, beyond the processing of sensory information, or some additional representation of the brain state that "knows" it somehowe and this awareness is what we mean by consciousness. Again, it's not some additional kind of knowledge or awareness. Perception itself is knowledge and awareness; consciousness is simply what it is like to be a perceiver.

rakis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 66

Posted 04/24/08 - 01:17 PM:	#84
Reincarnated I’ll take the candle flame as an example to prove that a “candle flame”, just like a “pump” or a “daffodil” or “consciousness” are irreducible autonomous entities : The flame makes contributions to its own maintenance through time. It maintains above combustion threshold temperatures; in a standard gravitational field and atmosphere, it induces convection, which both brings in oxygen and eliminates combustion products; and it vaporizes wax into fuel. A candle flame is dependent for its continued existence on the maintenance of particular properties and processes that support its conditions. The flame is self-maintenant . Flames, pumps, daffodils none are supervenient on underlying constituents. They are more like knots or twists in an underlying flow — nothing remains persistent other than the organization of the knot itself. They are topological entities, not substantive entities The candle flame, however, can do nothing if it is running out of candle. A living being however can. A paramecium, is capable of swimming, and continuing to swim, so long as it is swimming up a sugar gradient, but will tumble for a moment if it “finds itself” swimming down the sugar gradient. Such systems can alter their methods of selfmaintenance in ways appropriate to their current environments. They tend to maintain their own property of being self-maintenant: they are recursively self-maintenant. “Living”, then, is not a supervenient property: it is externally relational, and it requires a continuous flow of constituents. Self-maintenant and recursively self-maintenant systems are the key emergent forms in which normative function and representation emerge. Simply put, the candle flame’s heat serves a function for the flame insofar as it contributes to the flame’s maintenance. Function, in this view, is contribution, or tendency to contribute, to the maintenance of a system, and is thereby always relative to some such system. The heart of a parasite, for example, would likely serve a function for the parasite, but would be dysfunctional for the parasitized host. The normativity of function will be similarly contextualized. Note that serving a function contributes to the stability of a process, which has distinct causal consequences in the world: But this is not a model of an epiphenomenal function.

Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 518

Posted 04/24/08 - 01:45 PM:	#85
Does water "emerge" from hydrogen and oxygen molecules? Or does it "reduce" to them?

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 535

Posted 04/24/08 - 02:01 PM:	#86
Simple Occam wrote: understanding what consciousness is requires an ontological explanation, not an efficient-cause explanation. No doubt there are many things left to be discovered by science about how the brain and other things work. But none of the discoveries of science are a substitute for an ontology that can explain not just "how things work" but "what exists". Ontology can contribute a much broader and more profound insight into the nature of things that provides an understanding of the foundations of culture, morality and religion. Simple Occam: This describes the 'mystery' of consciousness better than anything else I have read. There are naturalistic events we describe through causation, these describe physics. But physics says nothing about the intrinsic character of things that are naturalistic also. By this I mean not just consciousness, but things we normally associate to be physical such as matter, space and time. In this view physical v mental is possibly the wrong distinction, it is causal v ontological. So when we refer to the physical working of the brain we refer to causal effects whilst when we refer to qualia these are ontological in nature. Hence the distinction is epistemological. However, how can we learn anything about the true intrinsic nature of something other than what we sense? It is difficult to learn anything other than the obvious, how can we build up something analogous to what science has done for the physical. We seem to rapidly reach an impasse. If all there is, is the computer, we can never 'see' the silicon chips from which it is made.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 797

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:02 PM:	#87
rakis wrote: I’ll take the candle flame as an example to prove that a “candle flame”, just like a “pump” or a “daffodil” or “consciousness” are irreducible autonomous entities : The flame makes contributions to its own maintenance through time. It maintains above combustion threshold temperatures; in a standard gravitational field and atmosphere, it induces convection, which both brings in oxygen and eliminates combustion products; and it vaporizes wax into fuel. A candle flame is dependent for its continued existence on the maintenance of particular properties and processes that support its conditions. The flame is self-maintenant . Flames, pumps, daffodils none are supervenient on underlying constituents. They are more like knots or twists in an underlying flow �" nothing remains persistent other than the organization of the knot itself. They are topological entities, not substantive entities What you call an entity, I call a property. And at the macroscopic level of our world, I believe ther are very few, if any, such things as "irreducible autonomous entities" - at the macro level most things are interconnected or interdependent to a greater or lesser extent. I do not see "candle flame" as an entity in itself - "candle flame" is simply a label that is attached to a physical system which has particular properties. Take away the candle, and there is no candle flame. Take away the oxygen, and there is no candle flame. Take away the high temperatures, and there is no candle flame. The property of "being a candle flame" is simply a property which is supervenient on the physical system which gives rise to that property. Consciousness also requires a particular physical system in order to emerge as a property of that system. Take away the necessary physical components of that system, and the property of consciousness disappears, just as the property of "being a candle flame" disappears when all the wax is burned up. Consciousness is supervenient on the physical substrate of which it is a property, just as a candle flame is supervenient on the physical substrate of which it is a property. Edited by reincarnated on 04/24/08 - 06:10 PM
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

CypressMoon
growth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me
Total Topics: 69
Total Posts: 760

Posted 04/25/08 - 01:15 AM:	#88
Consciousness is consciousness-of-something. I think, because of the inseperability of consciousness-of-something, we cannot examine consciousness-in-itself. We are consistently conscious of something, so all we can talk about are things that we are conscious of. We cannot talk about consciousness-in-itself unless we throw induction into the dustbin and entertain our ontological musings. We can only talk about things. How is talking about things going to help us understand consciousness-of-something? Consciousness-in-itself doesn't exist. This conversation will just turn into an epistemological discussion wherein, upon close examination, we will find that consiousness-of-consciousness is an infinite regress of a map of a map of a map etc. There is no ultimate map of consiousness-of-consciousness, whereby one could conclude what the territory (ontology) "looks like" or is. In order to find out what the territory is, we must violate the law of induction and engage in ontological speculation. There is no possible way to logically verify what consciousness-in-itself is. We can only speculate... At least, these are my thoughts at four in the morning.
"We stand before the world, not in it." - Rilke "MAD, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence; not conforming to standards of thought, speech and action derived by the conformants from study of themselves; at odds with the majority; in short, unusual." - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary) If you have a small child, gently pull the mask over them first, and pull at the ends to tighten the straps.

jnuzzo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 24, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/25/08 - 02:36 AM:	#89
One missing factor to this thread, which admittedly I haven't fully read yet, feels to be the aspect of what everyone's definition of consciousness is. If you define consciousness as any environmental awareness, then a grapefruit is conscious as it is reactively aware of it's surroundings. If you define consciousness as a full understanding of a being's surroundings, than consciousness does not exist as we can yet comprehend, and noone here is truly conscious nor can they even comprehend what it means to be so. I think anywhere in the middle needs to be specifically defined and set to boundary before dealt with or any topic concerning it will fall to continually arguing to define what each person feels to be the said definition of it.

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 797

Posted 04/25/08 - 02:51 AM:	#90
jnuzzo wrote: If you define consciousness as any environmental awareness, then a grapefruit is conscious as it is reactively aware of it's surroundings. A grapefruit is aware of it's surroundings? How do you know this? Did the grapefruit tell you? Yes we need to agree what we mean by consciousness - but it seems we also need to agree what we mean by awareness.
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.