Why is consciousness special?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Guest Speakers » David Chalmers » Why is consciousness special? » Why is consciousness special?

Why is consciousness special?

Page: 1 2 3

Why is consciousness special?

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/13/09 - 02:21 PM: Subject: Why is consciousness special?	#1
I think that treating consciousness as special and deserving of a new category of mental properties is anthropocentrically biased. The picture science has given us so far is the Big Bang, followed by billions of years devoid of any life or minds. Then, on at least one planet, life occurs, evolves and eventually minds exist. At what point do we go from having only physical properties to also having minds and mental properties?

To
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Location: Liverpool

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 430

Posted 05/08/09 - 08:04 PM:	#2
I disagree about 'degrees of consciousness', and would describe it as a binary, all or nothing, state. I did a couple of experiments. The best was coming around from a general anaesthetic. It was a bit like a faulty light switch. I thought "Am I consciious?" and replied. "Yes but I can't think propely. "No; it went for a moment. "I'm back, but can't make sentences. Some of my brain isn't working. "gone again.. "Yes...lost it .... yes .... all working. Hey someon has put a red rose by my bed. Wow..." So during that time I absolutely was conscious or was not conscious. Athough my brain wasn't working properly, there were no inbetweens. The other experiment was staggering home very drunk. I asked myself "am I conscious", and replied "Yes, but I can't work my legs properly, and I can't easily make good sense of incoming data, such as 'how safe it is to cross this road'. Or think normally. But I'm definitely conscious" So consciousness is a binary state like 'alive' .......... Though in some ways you could argue that the term is not well enough defined and that my peprcieved disagreement is semantic. I think the easiest example of a p-zombie would be a pc that has been programmed to play back the word "ouch" every time the word "pain" is typed in, and "ha ha " when a joke is typed in. It is responding in a conscious way, but is clearly not actually experiencing pain or amusement.

davidchalmers
Aspirant

Usergroup: Guest Speakers
Joined: May 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 05/09/09 - 09:35 PM:	#3
The "at what point" question is a good one. There are basically two or three options. (i) Some element of consciouness existed all along, even at the big bang. (ii) Consciousness came into existence at some point in the evolutionary history, once cognitive systems evolved with an appropriate sort of coplexity. (iii) We should reject the question as there is no single "point" -- rather the term "consciousness" applies vaguely to a huge cluster of phenomena that may have evolved at different times. Speaking for myself, as someone who thinks that consciousness may be fundamental, I reject (iii), but that leaves (i) and (ii). I am quite sympathetic with (i), either in its version as panpsychism or its version as "panprotopsychism", with some precursors to consciousness (protoconsciousness) present at the fundamental level of matter (see the section on type-F monism in my paper "Consciosness and its Place in Nature" for more here). But I also don't rule out (ii). It may be that there are fundamental laws connecting consciousness to certain sorts of information processing, such that when processing of that sort evolves, then one gets consciousness automatically as a consequence. Perhaps that is a somewhat less elegant picture, but it's not easily ruled out.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 05/13/09 - 02:09 AM:	#4
davidchalmers wrote: But I also don't rule out (ii). It may be that there are fundamental laws connecting consciousness to certain sorts of information processing, such that when processing of that sort evolves, then one gets consciousness automatically as a consequence. Perhaps that is a somewhat less elegant picture, but it's not easily ruled out. Not easily perhaps, but the difficulty I have with this is that increasing complexity increases the problem of binding, which is a real problem. Any phenomenal experience involves a many-in-one complex. Both the many and the one have to be accounted for. Complexity by itself preserves plurality, but does not get us anywhere nearer unification. Whatever consciousness is, it must be one thing which nevertheless does not destroy the differences it unifies. A field is the only known phenomenon that can do this as far as I am aware. It is present at every point in space, and is therefore continuous and unified. It extends over, under and through the many objects within it without destroying them. (Perhaps it's better to say that consciousness is a property of space itself, rather than a field within space, I don't know. Same basic idea.) Against this view, one could argue that a continuous consciousness field could be the product solely of a complex biological process, the individual components of which have no consciousness whatever. I think that would be a tough line to defend. So, I agree with your rejection of (iii), I highly doubt (ii) for the reason above, and would therefore go for (i). The whole problem of consciousness becomes much less intractable if we allow it from the start. Edited by bert1 on 05/13/09 - 02:26 AM
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

davidchalmers
Aspirant

Usergroup: Guest Speakers
Joined: May 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 05/15/09 - 05:34 AM:	#5
Well, a "field" of consciousness is compatible with (ii). I need only suppose that the fundamental psychophysical laws are holistic, potentially mapping whole systems such as brains to entire states/fields of consciousness, as had by a person at a time. If so these states/fields would come with the binding structure. It might even be that informational binding in the brain would correlate directly with phenomenal binding in experience, given the right laws.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 05/20/09 - 02:04 AM:	#6
That's very interesting, thank you. I hadn't thought in quite those terms before. Just to check I understand you, I'll put your post in my own words: You're suggesting, as a possibility, that once a system (say, a nervous system) develops sufficient complexity of a particular kind, then psychophysical laws applicable to that kind of whole system come into play and the system generates a field of consciousness. This field of consciousness provides the ground for the phenomenal binding to take place. The field of consciousness need have no existence prior to the development of the complex physical system. Is that roughly right? Maybe that's possible, I don't know. I started doing a detailed reply but it was turning into an essay which is too long for a forum like this. Basically I still have problems with the idea that complexity is at all relevant to the ontology of fields. I'm reasonably happy with the idea that rearranging matter might change the strength/intensity of fields which are already there, as happens when a current passes through a coil around an iron core or with a massive body in space, but I'm still very sceptical about the idea that rearranging matter could create a new kind of field that wasn't there already as a property of that matter. I'm OK with the idea that a brain, for example, might be an intensifier of consciousness fields, but not a generator of them. Maybe it comes down to ontological priority. If we start with a continuum, I can imagine how it might create an (apparent) discontinuum within it, by creating stresses within itself and intensifying some areas and de-tensifying others, creating what appear as particles. But if we start with a discontinuum I don't see how we can generate a continuum by rearrangement of the discontinuous elements. And consciousness must be a real spatial continuum in order to solve the binding problem. Edited by bert1 on 05/20/09 - 10:39 PM
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

davidchalmers
Aspirant

Usergroup: Guest Speakers
Joined: May 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 05/21/09 - 09:04 PM:	#7
Yes, that's roughly right. Re your doubts, I take it that this comes down to some sort of "law of conservation of consciousness" -- no new consciousness can come into existence. It's true that conservation laws are ubiquitous in physics, so maybe that's a reason to take them seriously here too. But still, if one isn't a physicalist, then the laws governing consciousness may be quite different from the laws governing physics.

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5574

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/22/09 - 01:45 AM:	#8
Not easily perhaps, but the difficulty I have with this is that increasing complexity increases the problem of binding, which is a real problem. Any phenomenal experience involves a many-in-one complex. Both the many and the one have to be accounted for. Complexity by itself preserves plurality, but does not get us anywhere nearer unification. Whatever consciousness is, it must be one thing which nevertheless does not destroy the differences it unifies. A field is the only known phenomenon that can do this as far as I am aware. It is present at every point in space, and is therefore continuous and unified. It extends over, under and through the many objects within it without destroying them. (Perhaps it's better to say that consciousness is a property of space itself, rather than a field within space, I don't know. Same basic idea.) Forgive me, maybe I am bluntly threading where I should not be, since I am basically an old fashioned continental historian of philosophy, but I have a few questions. To me these questions seem very speculative and realist in the sense that the problems, like the one in many problem seems to be treated like a problem per se. Aren't oppositions and the reconcilliation of them not in fact central to consciousness? Not a problem, but a feature of it? Without these, we would not even be speaking of consciousness. These "problems" are in effect the only reason why we feel we are conscious at all. Terms like difference and identity are categories of consciousness and can as such not be further problematised. This goes for all terms and oppositions with which we try to grasp reality. So I don't think it makes sense to say that "consciousness is a property of space", since space is categorical, it is a term which only has meaning because of the way grasp what is real. We do not perceive space, in the sense that I can say, hey now I am seeing space. In my view asking what consciousness is in general is trying to perceive one's own eye (this metaphor is hardly adequate, but at this level every metaphor introduces divisions which I rather avoid and one has to chosse the least of evils). We can only see what consciousness is if we look at what consciousness does, so to see how these categories, which all consists of differences within a higher unity, hang together and how each philosophical position employs them, like the division between matter and form or the dualism of mind and matter. All these positions set up certain distinctions and use their terms in a way to make something clear. If we follow these, than we may learn something of how we can think abouy the world what avenues theya are to explore, but is not a question like "what is consciousness"way too ... metaphysical? Thank you, Tobias
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 05/22/09 - 06:11 AM:	#9
Tobias wrote Perhaps it's better to say that consciousness is a property of space itself, rather than a field within space Space itself? We are conscious of (at least) two types of space. One is conceptual, which we call physical space and which is thought to be independent of thought (!). The other is perceptual space which we typically confuse with conceptual space. If consciousness exists as a field then the entities in that field have properties very different from those in physical fields.
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5574

Posted 05/22/09 - 01:29 PM:	#10
Ragus, I didn't write that, I was quoting Bert. I take issue with the idea of "space itself" too
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.