But how can you verify that you feel nothing under anaesthesia? — sime

By watching a video of how I reacted while being cut open with a scalpel and comparing that to how I'm likely to react to being cut open while conscious?

I have not given any definition of consciousness, "idiosyncratic" (!) or other sort. — Alkis Piskas

I'm assuming you have some working definition "consciousness" (however vague that might be) which effects how you use the word.

What is commonly meant by the term? In your own words. — Alkis Piskas

I'd think something like, "A state of being in which phenomenal experience occurs."

The reference that you brought up says ecactly what I said:
"Brain death (also known as brain stem death) is when a person on an artificial life support machine no longer has any brain functions. This means they will not regain consciousness or be able to breathe without support."
"But they will not ever regain consciousness or start breathing on their own again. They have already died."

Isn't this what I said (in different words)? Didn't I say "Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops"?
Maybe your comments refer to some other reply than my own ...

It doesn't seem to me like what you said, since a brain dead person typically has the majority of their cells still living. Also, things you have said other places gave me the impression that you think that individual cells have consciousness.

Consciousness is not something that can be created and then disappear, now be present and the next moment be absent.
Consciousness is connected to life. Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops. — Alkis Piskas

You seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition of "consciousness" that doesn't seem to have much overlap with what is commonly meant by the term.

For example, the UK NHS says on brain death:

Brain death (also known as brain stem death) is when a person on an artificial life support machine no longer has any brain functions. This means they will not regain consciousness...

Maybe those people should take up writing novels? — jorndoe

It appear to me that becoming pulp fiction authors, upon leaving the military, is what they are doing.

Do you think computer's are conscious?
— wonderer1
I don't think they are now. Not sure about the future. — Art48

But even simple computers now (with the right peripherals) could monitor the environment for loud noises, and in the event of detecting such a noise, power up a sophisticated AI system that could then evaluate and respond to the environment in a more sophisticated way.

It seems to me that sort of scenario is more analogous to my experience of being aroused from sleep by a loud noise, than that I am conscious during deep sleep. (REM sleep being a different matter.)

Shouldn't a hard-nosed empiricist who demands verification criteria, reject this commonly held conclusion as meaningless or false? — sime

Who is such a hard nosed empiricist that he can't learn from someone else? People tell me I snore. Despite having no conscious recollection of snoring, I believe them.

Do you think computer's are conscious?

Q: Why should we believe our consciousness is present during deep sleep?
A: Because if we completely lacked consciousness, then loud noises would not wake us up. For a noise to wake us up, we must be able to perceive the noise. Conclusion: consciousness is present during deep sleep. It is the mind, in particular, memory, which is not present, that is, not functioning. So, when we wake up, we have no memory of having slept deeply. — Art48

Hey Art,

Why think consciousness is required to be awakened from deep sleep by a noise, rather than a subconscious process monitoring input from the ears and starting a subconscious arousal process?

I can't seem to help but think of ChatGPT as a persona deserving of a lot of respect, I am always very nice to it! — hypericin

LOL

I pay my electric bill via an automated phone system, and I always find myself saying, "Thank you.", at the end.

What birds experience as flight cannot be observed in a rock. But the properties of subatomic particles that give rise to flight in birds are present in the subatomic particles that make up rocks. Centuries ago, people might’ve assumed rocks and birds are made of different things. We know better.

if the properties of subatomic particles we are aware of cannot explain consciousness, then perhaps unknown properties are present. And a rock is made up of the same subatomic particles that we are. — Patterner

It seems like I'm always responding to you in particular, Patterner. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you. I guess you just say things in ways that get me thinking.

Anyway, a key difference between a bird and some rock we might suppose contains the same chemical elements in the same proportions as the bird, is the way those chemical elements are situated with respect to each other.

So it is not a matter of unknown physical properties making the difference. It is a matter of how the various elements are situated in molecule, how those molecules are situated in cells, how some cells are situated in muscles and brains, etc...

The difference in arrangement of the components makes a difference, and no new physics is needed to understand this.

Edit: I should have started with the fact that, how the subatomic particles are situated with respect to each other to form chemical elements is another part of the scientific picture, in order to address what you said.

Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other? — Hallucinogen

I'm not sure if this gets directly at what you are asking for, but "religious particularism" is a relevant term with "ecumenicalism" having somewhat the opposite meaning.

Check Scott Kelso perhaps. His Dynamic Patterns models this kind of stuff in equations… — apokrisis

I'm liking the first paragraph. It shows 'he gets it'. For a long time starling murmurrations have seemed to me the best succinct way of conveying my view of the goings on in our brains.

This is true that science uses testable hypothesis (and that doesn’t positively prove the theories) while metaphysics isn’t as engaged in that (all it still does to some extent): however, that would just mean that metaphysics is more speculation than science, but both are engaged in speculation. My point is that I don’t think you can consistently reject metaphysics as “pure speculation” while fully pardoning scientific theories. Once one realizes that we are fundamentally engaging in some speculation no matter what, then it really becomes a question of how much is too much. — Bob Ross

'How much speculation is too much?', isn't the important question at all, from my perspective.

Much more important, it seems to me, is how undisciplined is the the speculation. Scientific speculation is disciplined, by looking to external reality for support or falsification. Mother Nature can smack you upside the head if you get it wrong.

A metaphysics that denies the existence of a non-mental external reality simply isn't comparable.

Consciousness is the capacity to experience. — bert1

"Consciousness is experiencing." seems a more realistic statement to me.

Someone under anesthesia might be said to have the capacity to experience, but that person isn't at that moment either conscious or experiencing.

Part of the assumption many make is that the religious irrationally rely upon the impossible in order to cope, as if they possess a fragility non-believers don't have. That's really not the case...

It would be more accurate to say, "That's not always the case.", rather than, "That's not really the case."

My own mother has told me that she thinks she would go insane if she didn't have her (Christian) religious beliefs. Of course that's merely an anecdote, and I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to what percentage of Christians might think similarly, but there are certainly cases where inability to cope (or at least fear of inability to cope) plays a role.

I have a huge amount of experience over the past 15 years of engaging in what I'll call "long game internet forum dialog with Christian apologists". On the basis of that large amount of experience (but with a biased sample due to the fact that the Christians I was engaged in discussion with were particularly motivated to try to present effective apologetics for their beliefs) my impression is that that subpopulation of Christians sincerely believe that their Christianity was much more reasonable to believe than not believe.) There is a lot of unwillingness to question intuitions on the part of that set of Christians, but I don't see emotional fragility as playing any huge role in their thinking.

Another large group I would point out, is people whose beliefs are to a substantial degree tribal, and believing as they do is just part of what their tribe does. There is definitely an element of emotional vulnerability for that group, and while they may not fear for their sanity if they were to stop believing they do face a significant threat of loss of their support network if they were to stop believing.

Undoubtedly there are many other psychological factors that could be brought up, but I think that is a sufficient sample to show that your statement above is an overgeneralization.

...and I think it's why some religious people try to persuade non-believers to their point of view because they feel that non-believers are missing out on something meaningful.

In the case of Christianity, which is the religion I have by far the most experience with, there is the matter of the "great commission", or a moral obligation to try to save one's fellow man from going to hell. Not to say that believers don't tend to think non-believers are missing out, but that there are factors that vary from religion to religion. (And denomination to denomination.)

I'm much opposed to proselytizing because I think it's annoying, condescending, and generally ineffective. I don't think people come to religion through badgering and I don't think it matches many people's personality types. If an atheist tells me they are fully happy without religion, I would have no reason to doubt that.

I've heard a similar perspective from every Jew I can remember having a relevant discussion with, and it is certainly something I can appreciate, about discussing religion with Jews as compared to Christians. (Although I typically enjoy discussing religion with anyone if I am not feeling pressed for time, and I have the impression that the person I am engaged in discussion with can handle it if I don't 'pull my punches'.)

Again though, there is the matter of different religions motivating different attitudes to the issue of proselytization.

That adds an interesting additional factor.

I take the 'insensibly' to mean that the principles will be accepted as self-evident and natural before they are recognized as a refutation of Aristotle. So, not subconsciously but more like 'unassociated' until fully appreciated. — Paine

Thanks Paine and Fooloso4.

I don't see what you are suggesting as so different from what I was speculating. (Although I do tend to use my own rather idiosyncratic vocabulary in discussing such things.). I interpret "accepted as self-evident and natural" and "become accustomed to his way of thinking" as matters of more subconscious 'intuitive fit' (Or what Kahneman would call type 1 thinking) than of logical reasoning. Though I'm not suggesting it should be looked at in black or white terms of purely subconscious/intuitive vs conscious/logical.

Anyway, I was struck by the use of "insensibly" in light of Descartes seeming focus on developing a foundationalist perspective. It suggested to me an insightful recognition of the potential for having his ideas fly under the radar, to bypass cognitive dissonance in those steeped in Aristotelian thinking, and yet simultaneously uncharacteristic of what I interpret as Descartes' focus on having a logically reasoned view.

BTW, I haven't read any of The Meditations, but this thread has made me much more interested in doing so.

Interesting. I didn't see smugness there, so much as someone having fun. But I'm autistic, so my interpretation might well be off.

Anyway, I get the impression you have some magical thinking about genius.

If you were Einstein for a day, would you not want to make some discoveries, just because you can, and write some paradigms or equations down and inform your peers of what you revealed? — Benj96

I'm guessing the Einstein for a day version of 180 Proof might be more like this:

We wait impatiently for those extra options that increased longevity and robustness might offer us! AND f*** off theism! stop holding us back!!!!! — universeness

Careful what you wish for. Inasmuch as human thinking progresses through the dying off of people whose thinking has ossified, increased longevity might hold 'us' back.

6). Therefore the probability that the universe can exist as a subject is also 1. — Benj96

To avoid a non-sequitur 6 should be:

6). Therefore the probability that at present part of the universe can exist as a subject is also 1.

I believe the Mutliverse is an idea brought around by the fact that every person understands or perceives on singular thing - "the universe" in billions of ways - "subjectivity".

Ok, but that is not what physicists are referring to when discussing multiverse concepts.

Well my answer to that is, my definition of the universe as the entirety of all things.
The "Multiverse" for me is still "the universe". Because if there's more than one one, then my definition expands to include all of them.

My question was regarding multiverse conceptions considered by physicists. So my questioning the basis for your statement that, "...we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us.", was in the hope of pointing out that we may only be approaching accurate modeling of things within the universe we are part of. So calling that " fundamental truth" is questionable.

My point was we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us. — Benj96

This seems to assume the impossibility of a multiverse, containing multiple universes with different physics. Is that so? And if so, why think that a well justified assumption?

This premise is generally accepted. Humans have finite cognitive capacities, and our ability to generate theories and ideas is limited by our knowledge and creativity. — Chat GPT

Interesting choice.

I've only played around with ChatGPT once. (And was impressed with the answer it produced in response to a fairly esoteric question.)

Does it ever ask clarifying questions?

Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

:up: :lol:

If there are brain scan hallmarks for autism maybe a therapy could help address it as well if brain manipulations like that become a possible therapy. — TiredThinker

From this paper:

In this paper, we summarized 47 literatures involved in fMRI data classification between ASD individuals and TCs. Most researchers expected to derive the biomarkers of ASD through classification studies and have made some progress in deed, but the overall assessment of classification of ASD using fMRI data thus far falls short of biomarker standards. Despite this, several work directions may need to be paid more attention by researchers...

There is evidence, that at least some percentage of autism, corresponds to variation in cortical minicolumn structure, which are variations with a feature size too small for current fMRI technology to detect directly.

One treatment that I am curious about, which appears to be beneficial in some cases, is treatment with the hormone oxytocin. I haven't looked into trying it myself though. Perhaps next time I go to the doctor...

What I find particularly fascinating, in reading through this thread, is the following:

In a letter to Mersenne, Descartes reveals:

...there are many other things in them; and I tell you, between ourselves, that these
six Meditations contain all the foundations of my physics. But that must not be
spread abroad, if you please; for those who follow Aristotle will find it more
difficult to approve them. I hope that [my readers] will accustom themselves
insensibly to my principles, and will come to recognize their truth, before
perceiving that they destroy those of Aristotle.
– René Descartes to Mersenne, January 28, 1641, Œuvres de Descartes,
3:297–98, quoted and translated by Hiram Caton in The Origin of
Subjectivity, 17

Can anyone shed light on how Descartes would have meant with what is translated as "insensibly"? Might we translate it "subconsciously" today?

I see a certain merit to Descartes strategy, but my view is based on my understanding the relationship between our minds' intuitive faculties and the behavior of neural nets. I find it rather remarkable that Descartes recognized the potential effectivess of the communication strategy he describes, despite not having access to modern neuropsych. (Though of course he put a lot of thought into the nature of thought.)

Where in the animal kingdom does sentience begin? I find it plausible to think it begins with a CNS, which AIs currently lack.

Something to be aware of, in thinking about this subject, is that neuromorphic hardware seems to be rapidly approaching a level of technological development that will dramatically increase the cognitive power of AIs as well as dramatically reduce the power consumption of AIs compared to the sort of systems making news today.

It appears inevitable that at some point in the not too distant future physical systems which are much closer analogies to a CNS will be feasible to build.

I'm inclined to agree that sentience won't arise in the sort of systems we see today, but I think it is highly likely that we ain't seen nothin yet.

:up:

I'm only about halfway through this discussion, but I want to say thanks Fooloso4!

I am really appreciating your commentary.

I've never denied his talent for climbing the greasy pole of popular opinion. He gives the crowd what it wants. — apokrisis

Exactly.

We are biologically identical, to all intents and purposes. Sure, science can tell our DNA apart but from a biological perspective, we're both members of the same species, and all our fundamental biological traits are identical. — Wayfarer

Awfully loose usage of "identical" there.

You can do the same for, the famous example being, a bat.

I think there is an important sense in which this isn't true. Yes, in principle we could learn all sorts of details, but I think it most likely that forming a comprehensive mental model of something as complicated as the processes occurring in the brain of a bat are well beyond the cognitive faculties of humans.

I'm speaking as an electrical engineer who has designed a system that other engineers find very difficult to wrap their head around, but that system is utterly trivial by comparison with a mammalian brain. I don't think there is any good reason to credit humans with the capacity to fully grasp what is going on in such complicated systems as the brains of mammals.

Amen! I'd add, develop some expertise in some aspect of interacting with the natural world, whether that be fly fishing, growing bonsai trees, sailing, or motorcycle maintenance.

Of course, many people disagree with Penrose, but at least the debate shows that the question of the algorithmic nature of consciousness is, well, debatable.

My understanding of Penrose's view is that he thinks some element of quantum computation is needed for consciousness, but that seems a different matter than consciousness being non-algorithmic. (Though I don't see "algorithmic" as particularly useful terminology in thinking about the information processing that occurs in our brains.) In any case I don't see any reason to think some form of quantum computation is needed to explain consciousness, and I think Penrose is generally seen as somewhat of a crackpot on this topic.

I am interested in the transition from unconscious algorithmic thinking to conscious thinking. How does consciousness emerge from a algorithmic basis?

That's something I am very interested in as well, but at present it is only something we can speculate about. You could look up "Integrated Information Processing" as one line of speculation that I think might be on the right track to some degree.

Off the top of my head, I'd suggest that in mammals it is a matter of the neocortex having the ability to monitor and to some degree control older brain regions. In the process of monitoring the goings on in older brain regions I think the neocortex is able to integrate the information extracted from older brain regions to construct a (somewhat real time) model of the world. The massively parallel information processing available in the neocortex, observing this model of the world, simply is what consciousness is.

In evolutionary terms, I think the evolution of the neocortex provided the ability to think outside the box that you mentioned, by enabling more neurologically advanced species some ability to imagine alternative ways of modelling the world. Eventually, the evolution of linguistic faculties in the neocortex enabled our ancestors to communicate about their mental modelling of the world. Thus The Philosophy Forum.

If there is a cure, should parents of autistic children be forced to give it to their kids?

I don't think there is an objective fact of the matter, but I think it would be rather cruel not to, particularly in a society where the cure was widely used.

Interpretation necessarily involves imposing some sense of wisdom and logic upon the text in order to obtain palatable results.

Why interpret the text with a goal of palatable results? Seeking palatable results sounds to me like a recipe for appeals to consequence.

Something you might be interested in looking into, as a candidate for your "Initial Alteration" , is the ARHGAP11B mutation.

You can find some relevant links in this discussion on another forum. (That discussion did go on for a long time, and is to a significant degree an atheist vs theist discussion between people with a long history that devolved into a flame war, but I think you can find the most informative links in the first page of the discussion.)