The point you must remember is that awareness is NOT the same thing as matter or brain itself.

Awareness and consciousness is the word describing aspects, operations, states and functions of mind, not the physical matter. — Corvus

I never claimed otherwise. When one level of organization emerges from another, they aren’t the same thing. Living organisms are not the same thing as the chemicals that make them up.

physical matter input cannot come out in any other form than physical matter. — Corvus

Yes, that’s what @Clarendon has been saying. I’ve already told him I disagree with him. Now it appears I disagree with you too.

Because there is no explanation, from any side of the hundred-sided fence, that is more than speculation. — Patterner

Seems to me, from a scientific point of view you’re dismissing even the possibility of speculation.

You can study consciousness by science. But the problem is, you will not see or observe actual consciousness itself, no matter what you dissect and look into. It is not in the form of matter. — Corvus

I don't think being able to scientifically study various aspects of consciousness means we "understand how consciousness can be realized in physical neuronal activity." — Patterner

I have not heard how a part of the brain, or the physical activity taking place in it, has a felt experience if itself. Which I guess explains why I've never heard them called the "neural causes of consciousness." — Patterner

We are fully in the realm of "the hard problem of consciousness." We've discussed it here on the forum many times. Some people think it's a big deal. Others, including me, just don't get why it's considered a problem at all. Never the twain shall meet. I'm not particularly interested in taking it up now.

Just as studying the motion of galaxies might suggest the existence of what we call dark matter, it is not a study of dark matter. — Patterner

Of course it is. It may not tell us all we need to know, but there is not just one way of studying.

Matter cannot give birth to consciousness. — Corvus

Sez you.

Could you give some examples of consciousness emerged from matter? — Corvus

The only one I know of is the one we are discussing.

My point was consciousness is function and ability of the living biological agents, not something emerges from matter. Do you still disagree on the point? — Corvus

There’s no reason it can’t be a function of living biological agents and also emerge from matter.

Which questions have been answered? Do you have any reading suggestions on this? — Patterner

Here’s a link to a David Chalmers paper. He’s the guy who came up with the idea of the hard problem of consciousness, which I reject. Still, at the beginning of this paper, he lays out a pretty good summary of the problems he thinks can be effectively addressed by scientific inquiry. In the course of doing that, he also gives a pretty good summary of the different ways of thinking about consciousness.

https://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf

For a cognitive science approach to consciousness, I like Antonio Damasio “Feeling and Knowing.”

"We do not understand how consciousness can be realized in physical neuronal activity" is an important thing. — Patterner

This isn’t entirely true. Certainly there’s a lot that needs to be explained, but that’s true of many scientific inquiries. I don’t think it’s true that any aspect of consciousness or the mind in general cannot be studied effectively by science.

Are you saying intelligence and consciousness are the same thing? — Patterner

No. You’re right. I used the wrong word, although what I said applies to consciousness as well.

If energy truly had no mass-relevant properties, then E = mc2 would be false.
So your example presupposes the very principle you think it refutes. — Clarendon

You're doing it again--Misrepresenting what you originally said and acting as if that addresses my comment.

I'm all done with this conversation.

In my original response I wrote:

the term was well defined — T Clark

This was a mistake. I should have written "was not well defined."

I don't believe that consciousness is something which can be defined clearly. — Corvus

I strongly disagree. The problem isn't that it can't be defined, it's that it hasn't been in this discussion.

Clarendon wrote:

'problems' of consciousness only arise if you assume that physical things are what ultimately exist, such that consciousness has to be found a home in that picture — Clarendon

When they say "problems of consciousness," I assume that includes the so-called hard problem, an idea originated by David Chalmers. He wrote "The 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' is the problem of how physical processes in the brain give rise to the subjective experience of the mind and of the world." That's a pretty clear definition and it is not the same as:

Consciousness means that you are awake, and able to see things around you, and respond to others in rational linguistic manner in interpersonal communication. You are also able to do things for you in order to keep your well being eating drinking good food, and sleeping at right times caring for your own health, your family folks and friends. — Corvus

It's not that your definition is wrong, it just seems to be something different than what Clarendon is talking about. It's certainly different from what Chalmers was saying.

You wrote:

But you can't get weight from that which has none. — Clarendon

I responded:

Matter, which has mass, is created out of energy, which has no mass, — T Clark

Now you respond:

E = mc2 is not a case of something coming from nothing. Energy has mass equivalence. Mass is not conjured out of an absence of all relevant properties. — Clarendon

You didn't say "something coming from nothing." You said "You can't get weight from that which has none." Energy has no mass and thus no weight. You can get mass, and thus weight, from energy. Instead of responding to my criticism, you're misrepresenting the issue you originally raised. You're not playing fair.

Criminy — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed.

Sure. But if you think where the meaning of consciousness comes from, it is just a word describing awareness of biological being. It has little to do with subatomic particles. Stretching the meaning of the word that far sounds like seeing a rainbow and saying - there must be a divine being up there somewhere doing some painting. — Corvus

I wasn’t finding fault with anything you said. I was pointing out that the term was [not] well defined in the OP. That is a common problem with discussions about consciousness.

Bracketed text was added to correct the original statement.

Consciousness means that you are awake, and able to see things around you, and respond to others in rational linguistic manner in interpersonal communication. You are also able to do things for you in order to keep your well being eating drinking good food, and sleeping at right times caring for your own health, your family folks and friends. — Corvus

This is not typically what people who believe in the hard problem of consciousness mean when they say “consciousness.” For them, it means an awareness of subjective experience. That type of consciousness is not limited to humans or other animals with near-human intelligence. This discussion has a problem which is common to this type of discussion— they fail to define what they mean by “consciousness.”

you cannot generate a property of a given kind from ingredients that wholly lack that kind. — Clarendon

Benzene, which has a sweet gasoline-like smell, is made up of hydrogen and carbon, neither of which have odors.

The person who thinks consciousness can strongly emerge from physical entities that do not already possess it is insisting that consciousness just pops into being out of nothing - that really does seem like magic and we would not accept such a proposal in other contexts. — Clarendon

Again, this is clearly not true. You should read some cognitive science and cognitive psychology.

But you can't get weight from that which has none. — Clarendon

Not to be pedantic, but E = mc^2. Matter, which has mass, is created out of energy, which has no mass, everywhere and always.

In other words, one cannot get a 'kind' from that which does not possess it - for that would be to get out what was in no sense there in the originals — Clarendon

This is clearly wrong. Living organisms developed out of nonliving matter. If you don’t think that’s true, let’s not get sidetracked by discussing it here.

Similarly then, you aren't going to be able to make a conscious object out of objects that are not already conscious (or at least disposed to be). For that would be alchemy. Call it 'strong emergence' if one wants - but that's just a label for what is in fact something coming from nothing. Thus, as our brains are made out of atoms, then either atoms have consciousness (or are disposed to) or brains simply can't have consciousness. — Clarendon

Have you read any cognitive science or evolutionary psychology related to the origin of intelligence? This is a well studied subject, although there are lots of questions that remain unanswered. Your explanation comes across as more “seems to me” science without any particular evidence backing it up. Seems to me it’s wrong.

There are (I guess) a nearly infinite number of configurations a universe could take on. Each one would be (I guess) just as likely as any other. We just happen to live in a Royal straight flush of a universe, i.e. one where human life could evolve. If it hadn’t worked out that way, there’d be nobody around to wonder, or at least nobody like us.

As for the article you linked, my understanding of what it said is that, although the universe is fine tuned, it was not tuned by something from the outside. It was tuned by itself.

Yet if one constant in the universe was off by the tiniest margin then the universe would be unstable. — kindred

By unstable I mean the universe would simply collapse after only existing for a brief amount of time. — kindred

Can you explain how you know this is true. It certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.

Yet if one constant in the universe was off by the tiniest margin then the universe would be unstable. — kindred

What does that mean—unstable? A universe with different properties would be a different universe, not an unstable one. I don’t know how the underlying principles of our universe get established, but they had to be something, right? If I deal from a deck of cards, some hand has to come up. A royal straight flush in spades is exactly as likely as a two of clubs, seven of diamonds, queen of diamonds, five of hearts, and nine of spades. Neither is anything special unless we decide that they are for our own reasons. Those reasons are not the universe’s reasons.

The way I see it there are two explanations, the naturalistic one and the divine one. And the fact that life emerged into this lifeless universe enforces my view of the latter. — kindred

As I see it, this is a complete non-sequitur.

It does not represent order but a rule. And it there’s rules there gotta be a rule maker right ? — kindred

A rule says how things have to behave. A pattern says how things do behave. The world doesn’t have to behave in any particular way, but it does behave in a particular way. I don’t see why you need a god for that.

f it’s not random then there’s an intelligent order in the universe. The ability for the universe to organise itself would imply as much. — kindred

If I climb a ladder with a ball, and I drop the ball from the top of the ladder, and it falls to the ground, I would call that non-random behavior. Does that represent intelligent order? Are you saying that any order is intelligent order? Any pattern at all requires intentional action?

So, 8 billion people x 24 hours x 500 angles. How does the video get processed? Where does it get stored? Who decides what is criminal and what isn’t? Who judges whether a particular behavior constitutes a crime?

The universe organizes itself— emergence, self catalysis, evolution, self organization. It’s not random. Some pathways have a much higher probability than others. Read up more on abiogenesis. Here’s one book that might be of interest—“What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology,” by Pross. Kind of pop sci. but made me think differently.

Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it’s not there to be got.

Nothing here solves the problem. "Do unto others" is unworkable. Not everyone agrees with other's take on that. T Clark is being far, far too simplistic. — AmadeusD

Oh, afraid to tag me. Afraid I will bring my massive intellect to bear. Slowly I turn, step-by-step, inch by inch. Niagara Falls!!

For me, morality doesn’t require codifications or prescriptive rules like this. — Tom Storm

I agree, but then “listen to your heart” isn’t really what I would call a codification.

For example, if I, personally, were a rapist or sadistic murderer--remember, I am approaching this from the deep perspective of my present self, not that hypothetical, I, who is the rapist--I would want someone to kill me. — ENOAH

Sorry, this is silly. Treating someone in the manner you’d like to be treated yourself means to treat them with respect and compassion in the same way any normal person would like to be treated.

Rigid over-literalness is one of the things that gives philosophy it’s deserved bad reputation.

Definitely recommended. — Jamal

A beautiful legal argument was the exam — AmadeusD

I love reading good legal arguments. They’re like the best scientific articles. Every step has to have a reason and has to connect to the steps before it. You can’t leave any steps out. I had the same feeling when I read “Origin of Species.”

Some great thoughts here. — AmadeusD

My favorite discussion on the forum by far. It used to bring tears to my eyes when I wrote and read things here.

A beautiful legal argument was the example, but one could say a beautiful proof... But once i'm in it, understanding the nuances and seeing where it lands up, I get feelings very similar to the internal non-descripts of seeing a sunset which is striking. — AmadeusD

As an engineer, I have made the argument that technical specifications and drawings are beautiful---forms of art.

Sounds fun. — Jamal

I’ll put it on my list. Give us your thoughts when you’re done.

Girl with Peaches by Valentin Serov. — javi2541997

I’m going to visit my family in Washington DC in February. When I go, I always bring gifts for my nieces, Cameron and Piper. I just went back and looked at the painting again and it really reminds me of Cameron. I think I’m going to bring a print of that for her for a present this year.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Very nice. I want to buy prints of all the paintings you show us. I remember the little girl sitting at the table with peaches.

Also, do you think that moral philosophers are motivated by control?
Without proper moral “control” in place, do you think immoral behaviours would just run rampant?
Lastly, are you including self control when you are talking about social control?“ — DingoJones

No, I don’t think moral philosophers are motivated by control.

As for the need for proper moral control— I don’t really care about immoral behaviors. What matters are behaviors that harm people and cause social disruption.

What I call morality relates to my own behavior. What do I think is the right thing to do? I guess that’s what you call self-control or conscience or what Taoists call “Te.”

Im curious how you would differentiate between social control and social responsibility. The responsibility IS the control? — DingoJones

Yes, I think this is right. Where does social responsibility come from? I can think of three sources socialization, desire to be thought well of, and an innate sense of personal responsibility. As I see it, only the last of these can be accurately called "morality."

Laws can go beyond ethics and address procedural issues. Ethics are taught in family and society. — Copernicus

The fact that not all social control is related to ethics or morality does not mean that ethics and morality are not types of social control.

I think you're confusing ethics with laws. — Copernicus

Ethics and morality are just fancy words for social control.

Laws are one kind of social control, but not the only or most common one.

If we agree that just because the majority says something doesn't make it right (in most cases, which can be mobocracy), why have we codified societal rulings on ethics and morals in our lives? — Copernicus

I’ll turn your comment around. It’s not majoritarian tyranny. It’s necessary social control to maintain societal equilibrium. That’s not to say it doesn’t squash people sometimes, but as a general matter, it’s inevitable and indispensable.

If you keep “adequate justification,” you haven’t really escaped JTB, you’ve just renamed it, and you’ve made key distinctions harder to state. — Sam26

No. It’s adequately justified belief. Truth isn’t in the equation.

Adequate justification” still presupposes a target. Adequate for action isn’t the same as adequate for knowledge. — Sam26

As I define it, adequate justification means sufficient to allow responsible decision making. So, yes. Adequate for action is the same as adequate for knowledge.

The real question isn’t JTB versus adequacy. It’s whether “adequate” stays vague, or whether you spell out the failure modes that make a belief look supported when it isn’t. — Sam26

You can make the standards for adequacy anything you want. It’s a question of risk management and liability.

Discarding JTB doesn’t remove Gettier, it relocates it. — Sam26

As I quipped previously, let’s not get into Gettier. I have strong negative feelings about the whole subject.

The “magically turns into not knowledge” worry comes from treating knowledge as if it had to be indefeasible. — Sam26

Which is exactly what JTB does. I understand you’re trying to modify it to address that issue, but I’d rather just toss the whole thing in the hopper.

We say, “I knew, given what I had,” and we also say, “I was wrong.” Those aren’t contradictions. They mark two different evaluations: what was justified at the time, and what we now know after a defeater has arrived. — Sam26

Those are fine things to say. So why do we need all the JTB trappings—with or without U. What I want to do is focus on the important part of the JTB formula—J. Adequate justification is what’s needed. It’s the best we can do. What does adequate mean? It depends mostly on the consequences of being wrong.

That's also why my guardrails matter. They're not demanding absolute certainty. They're making explicit the constraints we already use to separate knowledge from lucky success and from fragile support. Defeater screening, in particular, is not a demand to foresee every possible
counterexample. It's the ordinary discipline of not ignoring live alternatives and known failure modes. — Sam26

You talk about this with really different language than I do. That’s why I stopped participating in this discussion. As I said, I don’t want to try to make JTB work, I want to discard it entirely.