Point is, the data you refer to can't indicate what I conjecture to exist. You can call that a dark tower lord fantasy, but the conjectured internal is very real, though non-explicable. Well... a scream explains what I mean. — EugeneW

That's a problem with your argument, not mine. Again, I accept your position, I just need to figure out how it can be empirically validated for my to adopt it. That's it.

That's a problem with your argument, not mine. — Garrett Travers

I don't see that as a problem. It's a merit, actually.

Again, I accept your position, I just need to figure out how it can be empirically validated for my to adopt it. That's it. — Garrett Travers

Considering the attempt to empirically validate it, it will be advantageous to neuroscience. For example, in the field of trying to understand the conscious aspect of vision or hearing, and the associated neurological processes, it can offer valuable knowledge which might even be a priori to experimental verification (or falsification, naturally). But such is the case in most empirical or theoretical sciences.

Acknowledge, not granting. — Garrett Travers

Well, I made it a little more dramatic ... It was a joke, anyway!

for years people have been trying to pin down what structure(s) actually produces consciousness — Garrett Travers

This is exactly what I was talking about: How can one be concerned about the structure, etc. of something if one cannot define this something or even know what this something is? One can talk about the structure of DNA because one knows what DNA is. If one had no idea what DNA is, could one talk about how it functions? It's totally absurd.

They do define it. Just not in terms that align with traditional views on the subject. — Garrett Travers

OK, but where? One shouldn't have to read and read and read down the article to find out how these guys define "consciousness", what does it mean to them, etc. Because maybe they talk about a (totally) different thing than what "consciousness" traditionally and generally means. In fact, in such a case they should better used another term. Same or different term, a disciplined mind --esp. a scientific one-- defines that term before starting to talk about it so that the reader know what he is talking about!

What? Network? Do they talk about Neural Networks in the field of Artificial Intelligence? And this, again, about something that they cannot even define?
— Alkis Piskas
Qualify these questions, they don't make sense to me. — Garrett Travers

The title of the paper is "Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Networks". If you look the term "Neural Network" in tthe Web, you will see that it is a very known AI (Artifical Intelligence) term: "Artificial neural networks (ANNs)". And they apply that to "the network of consciousness". And again, I ask, how can they talk about a network of consciousness if they cannot --or do not-- define what conciousness is. My reasoning is clear, simple and straight down the line.

***

Well, I will not annoy you anymore with my remarks on your topic. Maybe some day you realize what's going on with Science and Consciousness. I might as well do the same, and get a new perspective on the subject., Let's see! :smile:

This is exactly what I was talking about: How can one be concerned about the structure, etc. of something if one cannot define this something or even know what this something is? One can talk about the structure of DNA because one knows what DNA is. If one had no idea what DNA is, could one talk about how it functions? It's totally absurd. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. That's how we discovered it. Trying to figure what the difference was between our matter, and inert matter. No difference here, it's the eaxt same thing. And again, it's not disputed in neuroscience that the brain is responsible, just not clear what portion of the brain. But, even that is covered in Global Workspace Theory, so...

OK, but where? One shouldn't have to read and read and read down the article to find out how these guys define "consciousness", what does it mean to them, etc. Because maybe they talk about a (totally) different thing than what "consciousness" traditionally and generally means. In fact, in such a case they should better used another term. Same or different term, a disciplined mind --esp. a scientific one-- defines that term before starting to talk about it so that the reader know what he is talking about! — Alkis Piskas

So, it's actually in the main article in the first paragraph. Consciousness is distinguished by wakefulness and attention. That's specifically how they define it in neuroscience.

The title of the paper is "Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Networks". If you look the term "Neural Network" in tthe Web, you will see that it is a very known AI (Artifical Intelligence) term: "Artificial neural networks (ANNs)". And they apply that to "the network of consciousness". And again, I ask, how can they talk about a network of consciousness if they cannot --or do not-- define what conciousness is. My reasoning is clear, simple and straight down the line. — Alkis Piskas

You think it is, but you're overlooking things, and you aren't reading any of the other articles I have posted. And yes, neural networks is an AI term that has been applied to consciousness as a result of research in computational neuroscience. Wakefulness and attention is how they define it, and neural networks are used to compare processing between AI and humans, simply put.
Here's the latest that covers it, but you really do have to read it. Or, everything I say to you is going to have no context: https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1769

Well, I will not annoy you anymore with my remarks on your topic. Maybe some day you realize what's going on with science and consciousmness. I might as well do the same, and get a new perspective on the subject., Let's see! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Thank you! That's what I'm after. Please, go check this out, man. Everything we thought we knew about consciousness is changing as a result of neuroscience. I'd love for you to continue commenting, I find your stuff of high quality. But, I can't have a real exchange with you if I'm the only one checking out the data. That's all I'm saying with this whole thread really.

you will see that it is a very known AI (Artifical Intelligence) term: "Artificial neural networks (ANNs) — Alkis Piskas

AFAIK, neural networks in AI are just the digital representations of real neurons in a very simplified version. So there are no real lighning-shaped neurons involved and there is, contrary to real neuron networks involved in conscious experiences. Therefore, the AI might be able to correctly predict protein structures on the basis of gene sequences, with the aid of previous encounters (learning by connection strengths that adapt during learning, comparable to memory formations in the brain), but the programmed flows of 1s and 0s will not be conscious.

The brain is no digital computer. It reflects or recreates analogous. Like a planetarium representing the solar system.

Considering the attempt to empirically validate it, it will be advantageous to neuroscience. For example, in the field of trying to understand the conscious aspect of vision or hearing, and the associated neurological processes, it can offer valuable knowledge which might even be a priori to experimental verification (or falsification, naturally). But such is the case in most empirical or theoretical sciences. — EugeneW

Yeah, I think so too. It's just, it's still a new science with new tech. The data so far is high quality, very high, really. Especially in research like this I'll post here. But, yes, I mean, you're not wrong here, I don't think.

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1769

Again, I accept your position, I just need to figure out how it can be empirically validated for my to adopt it. — Garrett Travers

Thank you for accepting my position. That's all you needed to do. You don't have to adopt it! :smile:

Thank you for accepting my position. That's all you needed to do. You don't have to adopt it! — Alkis Piskas

lol, you too Alkis. I accept your position too. I just need some more support from you guys, that's all.

Now that looks an interesting article. Thanks for the link. How did you find that? Just Googling? (Goggling?)

Now that looks an interesting article. Thanks for the link. How did you find that? Just Googling? (Goggling?) — EugeneW

I use a number of tools. Google, ResearchBase, and my school library which is linked JSTOR, NCBI, and many other publishers. But, that's the most recent stuff out and it's amazing, like it needs to be reviewed by philosophers.

Maybe it's good to consider (insofar possible), an actual isolated "casus of consciousness". Let's try to find one and examine. Many involve vision (color, shapes, motion, etc.). What can we add? Say I walk in the woods, pondering without really looking. Then I hear a sound, "wake up" from my pondering, don't see where I am for a short while, and then "boom!", it's obvious where I find myself. A weird experience, involving many processes. What happens, and does that explain the experience?

A weird experience, involving many processes. What happens, and does that explain the experience? — EugeneW

No, the brain has to keep computing whatever it computes as data to build coherent networks of correspondence. This is what people are highlighting when they talk about how the world is arranged in linguistic structure, it isn't. They've got it wrong. It's arranged in its own structure, and how our brains naturally establish coherence, and we map language over top of that, which is then used to orient ourselves even further. That postulate has always been an illusion. In other words, it isn't that you have an experience, it's that you are a creature of perpetual experience when conscious. It's utterly beautiful when you see what I'm conveying to you, if you don't already.

I'd meant to add that, according to what is known, yes, the process is a symphony of numerous networks of systems and billions of neurons. How it does this remains a mystery.

No, the brain has to keep computing whatever it computes as data to build coherent networks of correspondence. — Garrett Travers

I don't think the brain computes like a computer. It "resonates" with the physical world and can do so in virtual all circumstances (and independently in dreams, thinking, or fantasies). The circumstances leave traces and memories. Learning. Strengthened connections are made. Or present at birth already (a blank mind is an illusion). From birth to death new structures arise, backfiring and shaping reality. While being conscious.

I don't think the brain computes like a computer. It "resonates" with the physical world and can do so in virtual all circumstances (and independently in dreams, thinking, or fantasies). The circumstances leave traces and memories. Learning. Strengthened connections are made. Or present at birth already (a blank mind is an illusion). From birth to death new structures arise, backfiring and shaping reality. While being conscious. — EugeneW

Yes, the is a workable mode of viewing it. I think the neuroscience field uses terms like "data," and "computes," to describe the process in ways that we can linguistically understand. Not everyone is going to be able get what you mean when you resonates. I do, because I see your angle, but I don't think it's the kind of language strict empiricists are going to adopt. Needless to say, when one does see what you're saying, one can see how it lines up with the data.

Even if consciousness reduces to neuroscience, what has that proved? All you have done is reduce one complex phenomenon to another one. That doesn't prove one is more fundamental than the other. If anything, the opposite.

Even if consciousness reduces to neuroscience, what has that proved? All you have done is reduce one complex phenomenon to another one. That doesn't prove one is more fundamental than the other. If anything, the opposite. — Pantagruel

What it proves is that humans are the source of morality. I'll let you handle that one on your own.

nota bene: reduction cannot apply as a descriptor to the most complex and sophisticated computational system of structures in the known universe as an explanation. That term has always been inappropriately ascribed to people of this kind of predisposition.

You are implying that neuroscience is productive of consciousness. The reverse may very well be true. It's a question of what perspective you choose. I think that form has the more compelling argument.

You are implying that neuroscience is productive of consciousness. The reverse may very well be true. It's a question of what perspective you choose. I think that form has the more compelling argument. — Pantagruel

A good point, brother. The perspective is this: modern cognitive neuroscience has reveal that the brain itself, and all of its mysterious functions are, in fact, responsible for emitting consciousness, just as it is responsible for sight. Many varied, and sundry experiments have been unable to isolate which system specifically is responsible, but all of the current data point to the source being the symphonic operation of all systems working in conjunction with, specifically, the cerebral cortex, and to be more exact, the pre-frontal cortex. However, latest research indicates the thalamus, cingulate cortex, and angular gyri, subcortical structures, as being responsible for remaining awake. Wakefulness and alertness are what fundamentally characterize basic conscious operation, accordin to modern science.

More over, if these well supported hypotheses are correct, this fundamentally changes the nature of both, ontological and metaphysical views on the nature of consciousness, but more importantly, the nature of ethics as a practice as well. To explain by way of a syllogism:

If the individual human brain is the source of consciousness, then the individual human brain is the source of ethics.
If the individual human brain is the source of ethics, then the individual human brain is the basic ethical unit.
The individual brain is the source of consciousness,
therefore the individual human brain is the basic ethical unit.

Hypothetical Syllogism

p>q
q>r
p
-----
r

If this is the case, everything about ethics changes forever, and Epicurus and Ayn Rand are owed a serious apology for the hatred they have been shown.

That's the position. Would you like to continue?

Of course. What about the social dimension? You are assuming the neurological level to be fundamental. Why should it be more fundamental than the biochemical level that facilitated it? Or the baryonic matter that facilitates that? It's an arbitrary dividing line in the direction between reduction and complexification. There are social phenomena which are as real as consciousness, but those cannot be derived from neuroscience.

Why should it be more fundamental than the biochemical level that facilitated it? — Pantagruel

Because chemicals don't formulate conceptual framework of behavior on their own, meaning they aren't irrelevant to ethics. Chemicals operate in a non-conscious, and no hope of consciousness realm. In other words, to do so would be a reduction fallacy of the highest order.

It's an arbitrary dividing line in the direction between reduction and complexification. — Pantagruel

No, it's the only one that has every been non-arbitrary. It's the source of that word "arbitrary." To attempt to reduce it to arbitration is self-detonating as an argument. There's no such thing as the concept of arbitrary without it.

There are social phenomena which are as real as consciousness, but those cannot be derived from neuroscience. — Pantagruel

The individual human brain, and the consciousness intrinsic to it, is the source of that social phenomena between humans. Consciousness comes before any conceptualization one can make about social dynamics, or phenomena. Both dynamics and phenomena are themselves concepts generated by individual conscious minds.

Wakefulness and alertness are what fundamentally characterize basic conscious operation, according to modern science. — Garrett Travers

According to certain scientists working in certain fields, perhaps. Others would regard experience as the starting point of consciousness. Feeling something like heat or a pinprick, or seeing or hearing something.

Can you tell us what the Global Workspace Model has to say about that?

Or are social phenomena responsible for the evolution of the physical structures? There is no way you can decisively prove the direction of influence, because the actions of organisms decidedly do influence their subsequent evolution. Are subatomic particles (whose behaviour is much more stochastic) more real than atoms? Most people would think not. Baryonic matter is the prototype of substantial reality.

According to certain scientists working in certain fields, perhaps. Others would regard experience as the starting point of consciousness. Feeling something like heat or a pinprick, or seeing or hearing something. — Daemon

So, no that's just not what's going on. I mean, you might have some scientists that say such things, but that's not what most scientists say at all about the subject.

Can you tell us what the Global Workspace Model has to say about that? — Daemon

Sure:

"GW dynamics suggests that conscious experiences reflect a flexible “binding and broadcasting” function in the brain, which is able to mobilize a large, distributed collection of specialized cortical networks and processes that are not conscious by themselves. Note that the “broadcast” phase proposed by the theory should evoke widespread adaptation, for the same reason that a fire alarm should evoke widespread responding, because the specific needs for task-relevant responders cannot be completely known ahead of time. General alarms are interpreted according to local conditions.

A brain-based GW interacts with an “audience” of highly distributed, specialized knowledge sources, which interpret the global signal in terms of local knowledge (Baars, 1988). The global signal triggers reentrant signaling; resonance is the typical activity of the cortex."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749868/full

Meaning, experiences such as what you inquired about are generated by a network of systems that allow for their emergence, when all of the structures that are specifically responsible for consciousness, operate in tandem.

Or are social phenomena responsible for the evolution of the physical structures? There is no way you can decisively prove the direction of influence, because the actions of organisms decidedly do influence their subsequent evolution. — Pantagruel

The evolution part isn't what is important at this level of analysis. What is important, is that system that has evolved to produce concepts that allow for interpersonal harmoy. Beavers and platypus don't apply.

Are subatomic particles (whose behaviour is much more stochastic) more real than atoms? Most people would think not. Baryonic matter is the prototype of substantial reality. — Pantagruel

This isn't relevant to complex systems characterized by numerous permutations of matter all operating to generate consciousness and conceptuaization. Unless we're willing to discuss it from its appropriate level, I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss your line of inquiry. I'd rather not do that, so if we can keep it with the appropriate domain of analysis, that'd be cool.

This isn't relevant to complex systems characterized by numerous permutations of matter all operating to generate consciousness and conceptuaization. Unless we're willing to discuss it from its appropriate level, I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss your line of inquiry — Garrett Travers

I agree. Your level of analysis is arbitrary, relative to the scope of your claims

I agree. Your level of analysis is arbitrary, relative to the scope of your claims — Pantagruel

No, arbitrary would be appropriate to use as a descriptor for an argument the reduces consciousness to the level of byronic matter, in an attempt to pull a gotcha. Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of shit that doesn't work on trained philosophers, such as myself. But, I'll be here when you're ready to actually have the discussion.

I think the neuroscience field uses terms like "data," and "computes," to describe the process in ways that we can linguistically understand. — Garrett Travers

I think some in the neuroscience field use terms like data and computation because they mistakenly believe that's how the brain works. It's the same conceptual error as with the term "information".

Others are aware that the terms are being used metaphorically, heuristically.

So, no that's just not what's going on. I mean, you might have some scientists that say such things, but that's not what most scientists say at all about the subject. — Garrett Travers

Gosh! I recently read a fascinating book, The Idea of the Brain, The Past and Future of Neuroscience, by Matthew Cobb. The modern scientists Cobb discusses seemed to be talking about many different aspects of consciousness, not just the wakefulness and attention you are focused on.

I'm afraid Cobb isn't too impressed by Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory though. He says neither is widely accepted!

He quotes French neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, who has followed on from the ideas of Bernard Baars in developing global neuronal workspace theory: "consciousness is nothing but the flexible circulation of information within a dense switchboard of cortical neurons."

As Cobb comments, '"nothing but" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, and the theory does not explain why flexible and dense circulation of information causes consciousness to pop up.'

On ITT Cobb says "Again, the link between consciousness and the chosen focus of the theory - in this case integration of information - is unclear.

I have never encountered so many narcissists. — Garrett Travers

There you go again, slandering your fellow "denizens". Is that your idea of a philosophical argument? :joke:

Yes, of course, it is a Category Error because this is a philosophy forum. As if philosophical training isn't science intensive and focused. Unreal. — Garrett Travers

So, you place Scientists & Philosophers into the same professional category? Do you make no distinction? Do you hold philosophers to the same standards of evidence as scientists? Is Psychology a scientific endeavor, even though it produces no empirical results of its own? Do you think we are supposed to be doing Science on this forum? Do you have formal training as a Scientist or Philosopher? :nerd:

Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

Complete nonsense. Albert Einstein was an open point of skepticism within the scientific strata until.... guess when.... Empirical assessment validated his claims. — Garrett Travers

As usual, you missed the point. Did Einstein "validate" his own "claims". How do you define the job of a philosopher? Are we doing science on this forum? Like Einstein, I am skeptical of those who make knowledge claims of Incontrovertible Truth. Unlike wise old Albert, I am not skeptical of Quantum Entanglement . . . are you? :wink:

Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist :
https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Philosopher-Scientist-Philosophers-Paperback/dp/0875482864

In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who contributes to one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, metaphysics, social theory, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/

skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

Disregarding Known Science — Garrett Travers

Quoting GT : "Evidence please". You make such broad general allegations as-if Science is a canonical Bible, but you don't cite book, chapter & verse. Can you be more specific about a particular "unequivocal" Fact of Science that I've "disregarded". What evidence has been "Suppressed". Do you think the general consensus of science is Final canonical Truth. Where is it written . . . . . . ? :cool:

Trump's Uncorroborated Allegations :
President Trump's baseless and desperate claims . . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55016029

Does science tell the truth? :
The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, only functional truths that are agreed upon by consensus.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-what-is-truth/

Maybe. I was going for pure rational thought, as that which everybody does, or the manifest appearance of a purely rational thinking subject, as that which everybody seems to be, and that having ethical decision-making subsumed under it, so..... — Mww

I see :eyes:

Now that neurologists know what consciousness is, where it is, and how it is, I guess it won’t be long before they go into into a lab and create one.

Let’s see: One part living tissue, two parts electricity, and a dash of physical elements. Heat it up for a couple billion years and let it cool to 98 degrees. Yup that should do it.