Emphasizing the Connection Perspective

SteveKlinko

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The Inter Mind Model is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons and is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe. They are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

This separation provides a new perspective for thinking about the effect of Anesthesia. With the old perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new perspective Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption, but since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations the CM will not have any access to Memories of the Interruption after the Connection is reestablished.

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

removedmembershiprc

I think your perspective is interesting. Would you say the The Inter Mind Model is basically idealism? Do you feel that imagining something like a CM (Conscious Mind) existing in CSc (Conscious Space) a violation of Ochamm's Razor? In my opinion, it would appear that although you may have great explanatory power with this theory, it seems to be adding unwarranted elements in order to resolve some of the difficulty which is presented in considering consciousness and how it relates to "physical" reality.

SteveKlinko

I think your perspective is interesting. Would you say the The Inter Mind Model is basically idealism? Do you feel that imagining something like a CM (Conscious Mind) existing in CSc (Conscious Space) a violation of Ochamm's Razor? In my opinion, it would appear that although you may have great explanatory power with this theory, it seems to be adding unwarranted elements in order to resolve some of the difficulty which is presented in considering consciousness and how it relates to "physical" reality. — rlclauer

Some say Idealism means Monism and some say it means Dualism. Idealism is one of those terms that can be twisted around to mean various different things. I say that there is a separate Physical World and a separate Conscious World that seems to exist. I think I am a Dualist. Occam's Razor is not a real law of Logic or Science. If anything it is a Folk Law. Maybe Consciousness is more complicated than people want it to be.

T Clark

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons. — SteveKlinko

This is not true. There is a well-developed branch of cognitive science which studies the biological and neurological basis of consciousness. They have developed models that describe plausible mechanisms for the manifestation of consciousness.

Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem. — SteveKlinko

This is a false problem caused by an unwillingness or inability to imagine consciousness as just another process. I can certainly understand that. It takes a conceptual leap and a realization that our precious sense of self is nothing special. People, including scientists, used to believe that biological life could never arise out of physical mechanisms. They sometimes hypothesized undetectable vital forces that brought matter to life. Consciousness is not different. There is not hard problem of consciousness, just a lack of awareness.

The Inter Mind Model (http://TheInterMind.com) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The Inter Mind Model is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. — SteveKlinko

I did read the "Inter Mind Model" section of the article you linked. I didn't find it convincing and I didn't see any evidence for the IM concept.

PoeticUniverse

Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. — SteveKlinko

True, but probably because the private realm is near impossible to get at from the public realm.

I'm not sure it helps to move the mysterious explanatory gap to another processor with special power, as there is still the gap.

Some have it that the dispositions underlying reality are occasions of experience, yet, our instruments seem to detect waves, as ubiquitous in nature even.

removedmembershiprc

This is a false problem caused by an unwillingness or inability to imagine consciousness as just another process. I can certainly understand that. It takes a conceptual leap and a realization that our precious sense of self is nothing special.

↪T Clark

Would you say the self is an illusion, or a bi-product of brain activity?

T Clark

Would you say the self is an illusion, or a bi-product of brain activity? — rlclauer

Both, in different ways.

Our experience of the world is a manifestation of brain activity. That manifestation, whatever you call it, the mind I guess, is different from brain activity in the same sense that life is different from chemical and biological activity.

Our awareness of our self is an illusion as described in eastern religions. In a sense, we are one with existence, the Tao. In another sense, we have separated the world into pieces - things, concepts, words, our selves. All of those are illusions.

removedmembershiprc

↪T Clark

That manifestation, whatever you call it, the mind I guess, is different from brain activity in the same sense that life is different from chemical and biological activity.

I agree with everything you said but I am having a bit of trouble with this sentence. How is the mind different? Our perception of the self as a disembodied separate entity is an illusion, but how does it then become different than the processes? I guess just because it is the amalgam of those processes, and not the processes in and of themselves? Help me out?

T Clark

I agree with everything you said but I am having a bit of trouble with this sentence. How is the mind different? Our perception of the self as a disembodied separate entity is an illusion, but how does it then become different than the processes? I guess just because it is the amalgam of those processes, and not the processes in and of themselves? Help me out? — rlclauer

First, I don't know if this lead to any misunderstanding, but my quote isn't right. It should read "chemical activity," not chemical and biological. Biological activity is life.

Now, back to consciousness. Consciousness is a mental process. It is my understanding that mental processes develop out of biological processes in a manner analogous to how life develops out of chemical processes. I have been working to avoid the word "emergence" because that always leads off at odd tangents that are often not helpful to the discussion.

removedmembershiprc

↪T Clark

But do you believe what we perceive as consciousness is something different than the sum of its biological parts? Or is it just the sum of all the biological activity, thereby, not making it any different, just seeming to be different because of how it "appears to us"?

T Clark

But do you believe what we perceive as consciousness is something different than the sum of its biological parts? Or is it just the sum of all the biological activity, thereby, not making it any different, just seeming to be different because of how it "appears to us"? — rlclauer

Mental processes are different in kind from biological/neurological processes in the same way biological processes are different from chemical processes.

Wayfarer

the problem with the common interpretation of 'idealism' is that it tries to conceive of mind as something objectively existent. But the mind is not an object of perception, rather 'that which perceives'. You can't get behind 'it' or outside 'it' to see what 'it' is, but such is the habit of 'objectivism' that this is the only way we can consider the matter. This is what leads to the typical 'ghost in the machine' criticism of Cartesian dualism.

Looked at this way, the whole 'problem of consciousness' arises from a flawed perspective, specifically, that of treating the subjective reality of experience as something objective. Mind is not objectively existent, but (as Husserl points out in his critique of naturalism) it is what discloses or reveals anything objective whatever; it is the condition or foundation of objective knowledge, while itself not being an object of knowledge.

If you can see that, you save yourself a lot of needless bother.

PoeticUniverse

Our awareness of our self is an illusion as described in eastern religions. In a sense, we are one with existence, the Tao. In another sense, we have separated the world into pieces - things, concepts, words, our selves. All of those are illusions. — T Clark

So seemingly real as an illusion such that a difference that makes no difference is no difference?

(The message remains, regardless of the implementation/messenger.)

PoeticUniverse

But the mind is not an object of perception, rather 'that which perceives'. — Wayfarer

Consciousness is ever a subject and never an object, yet still a process?

Wayfarer

↪PoeticUniverse

Sure why not? I mean, you can deal with many aspects of consciousness objectively - which is the subject of psychology and cog. sci. But the fundamental point remains.

bongo fury

Mental processes are different in kind from biological/neurological processes in the same way biological processes are different from chemical processes. — T Clark

At the risk of splitting hairs, but in aid of countering all of the witting and unwitting dualistic woo flying about...

Mental processes are different in kind from information-technology processes (and will be re-conceived as, I dunno, social-semiotic processes) in the same way that vital life force processes are different in kind from chemical processes (and have been re-conceived as bio-chemical processes).

Late edit:

I mean that "mental" processes need re-conceiving in (something like) social-semiotic terms, so that we don't have to regard them as fundamentally different in kind from IT processes, even though we should beware of underestimating their complexity relative to ordinary (and of course non-mental) IT processes.

In the same way, vital life force processes were eventually re-conceived as bio-chemical processes, so that we don't have to regard them as fundamentally different in kind from chemical processes, even though we are well aware of their complexity relative to non-biological chemistry.

PoeticUniverse

But the fundamental point remains. — Wayfarer

The brain perceives its objects/results via the consciousness brain process as a kind of sixth sense?

T Clark

So seemingly real as an illusion such that a difference that makes no difference is no difference? — PoeticUniverse

I don't know what that means.

T Clark

Mental processes are different in kind from information-technology processes (and will be re-conceived as, I dunno, social-semiotic processes) in the same way that vital life force processes are different in kind from chemical processes (and have been re-conceived as bio-chemical processes). — bongo fury

I don't understand. My way of saying it sure seems simpler.

T Clark

But the mind is not an object of perception, rather 'that which perceives'. You can't get behind 'it' or outside 'it' to see what 'it' is, but such is the habit of 'objectivism' that this is the only way we can consider the matter. — Wayfarer

Yes, you can get behind it or outside it to see what it is. The confusing difference is that you can also see it, feel it from the inside. That confuses people into believing it doesn't fit in with the rest of the world, but it does.

bongo fury

↪T Clark

Yes, but you're encouraging a fair deal of witting and unwitting dualistic woo.

PoeticUniverse

I don't know what that means — T Clark

The message remains the same no matter the implementation/messenger, such as music is still music, whether live or via some other implementation, like an MP3 player.

Wayfarer

The brain perceives its objects/results via the consciousness brain process as a kind of sixth sense? — PoeticUniverse

No, via introspection.

Interesting fact: one of the founders of psychology was a German-American scientist called Wilhelm Wundt. He migrated to the states in the late 19th c and practically established psychology as an academic discipline. And his whole methodology was based around systematic introspection - subjects' self-reporting of their own mental states.

However over time his methodology fell out of favour, because it was impossible to apply any kind of real empirical rigour or discipline to the process of self-reporting. And you can kind of see why it wouldn't be regarded as scientific.

The confusing difference is that you can also see it, feel it from the inside. That confuses people into believing it doesn't fit in with the rest of the world, but it does. — T Clark

I think we're confused about it on many levels.

khaled

↪T Clark

Our experience of the world is a manifestation of brain activity — T Clark

The hard problem of consciousness is WHY is there such a manifestation? Why couldn’t all the brain processes be happening “in the dark” so to speak.

That manifestation, whatever you call it, the mind I guess, is different from brain activity in the same sense that life is different from chemical and biological activity. — T Clark

But “life” is an abstract concept. It doesn’t actually exist. Can you point at “life” directly? Not an instance of a living thing but “life” itself. Obviously not, the request doesn’t even make sense. On the other hand, consciousness is a very real experience, not just an abstract property.

Our awareness of our self is an illusion as described in eastern religions. In a sense, we are one with existence, the Tao. In another sense, we have separated the world into pieces - things, concepts, words, our selves. All of those are illusions. — T Clark

How can one’s consciousness be an illusion? How can you think you’re conscious but you’re actually not? If there is a “you” to think, then you’re obviously conscious.

3017amen

That's right Khaled, self-awareness is what separates us from lower forms of existence such as those in the animal kingdom.

Seems obvious to me too....

khaled

↪3017amen

you can reply to people directly if you press the arrow under what they wrote. Otherwise they don’t get notified of a reply and might miss what you said. I don’t think self awareness and consciousness are the same thing though. Consciousness is the answer to the question “Does it feel like anything to be this?” Whereas self awareness seems much more specific to me. The hard problem of consciousness is “Why does it feel like anything to be me?” Some possible answers include “calm down bucko you’re not so special. It feels like something to be everything” (panpsychism) or “because you’re processing so much information” (forgot what this one is called, probably because I don’t see it as a real answer) etc etc

T Clark

The hard problem of consciousness is WHY is there such a manifestation? Why couldn’t all the brain processes be happening “in the dark” so to speak. — khaled

As with all other things in the world, just because. That's how it works. No mystery. You put all that stuff in a jug, shake it up and down, pour it out, and that's what happens. It's the world. It's how things are. Why is that so hard to understand?

But “life” is an abstract concept. It doesn’t actually exist. Can you point at “life” directly? Not an instance of a living thing but “life” itself. Obviously not, the request doesn’t even make sense. On the other hand, consciousness is a very real experience, not just an abstract property. — khaled

I don't see why consciousness is any realer than life. Seems to me that the only reason you do is because you can't separate your experience of consciousness from the rest of what makes it up.

If there is a “you” to think, then you’re obviously conscious. — khaled

The "you" is also an illusion. This is not a novel idea. Are you familiar at all with eastern philosophies?

khaled

↪T Clark

As with all other things in the world, just because. That's how it works. No mystery. You put all that stuff in a jug, shake it up and down, pour it out, and that's what happens. It's the world. It's how things are. Why is that so hard to understand? — T Clark

So are you saying that conscious experience arises out of the mere fact that chemical actions are happening there? So is my Soda bottle conscious? The question is: what specific properties in my brain make it conscious? That we don’t know. Is any chemical interaction conscious? Does consciousness only arise after a certain amount of complexity? Etc. The thing that makes answering this hard is that you can’t actually tell if anything else is conscious other than yourself. So you can’t systematically test for consciousness.

The "you" is also an illusion. This is not a novel idea. Are you familiar at all with eastern philosophies? — T Clark

No not really although I heard the “you is an illusion” thing before. It doesn’t make sense to me. I thought what that meant was that there is no real “identity” to a person and that they’re just an amalgamation of their previous experiences, nothing more and nothing less. That I agree with, but it doesn’t explain why there’s an observer there in the first place. So what happens after I get rid of this “you” illusion? Do I just stop being conscious?

I don't see why consciousness is any realer than life — T Clark

Forget about this point then

T Clark

So are you saying that conscious experience arises out of the mere fact that chemical actions are happening there? So is my Soda bottle conscious? The question is: what specific properties in my brain make it conscious? That we don’t know. Is any chemical interaction conscious? — khaled

What I said previously is that it is my understanding that mental processes are a manifestation of biological processes and biological processes are a manifestation of chemical processes. It's not the mere fact that there are chemical processes, it is the specific chemical processes that are present. It's not the mere fact that there are biological processes, it is the specific biological processes that are present.

Does consciousness only arise after a certain amount of complexity? Etc. — khaled

I have been talking about mental processes in general, not consciousness specifically. Consciousness seems to me to be a run of the mill mental process. Just one among many. Not a big deal. Nothing to get excited about.

Given that, yes, it seems likely that a certain level of complexity is probably required for mental processes to arise out of biological processes.

khaled

↪T Clark

It's not the mere fact that there are chemical processes, it is the specific chemical processes that are present. It's not the mere fact that there are biological processes, it is the specific biological processes that are present. — T Clark

How do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. That’s not enough to make a general theory

Given that, yes, it seems likely that a certain level of complexity is probably required for mental processes to arise out of biological processes. — T Clark

Again, how do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. Another equally likely theory is that everything is conscious. Why would that not be the case? That’s why the problem is called hard. Because you can’t scientifically test for if something is conscious or not.

T Clark

How do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. That’s not enough to make a general theory — khaled

As I have said, there are theories of the biological nature of mental processes backed up by scientific studies. To a certain extent, that's beside the point. There is nothing I see that indicates there is any reason to look outside everyday reality - what we observe on a day to day basis with our senses and those senses extended by technology. I can't see any reason to start looking for magic.

Again, how do you know that? You have a sample size of 1. Another equally likely theory is that everything is conscious. Why would that not be the case? That’s why the problem is called hard. — khaled

I certainly don't know for sure, although the only way everything could be conscious is if we drastically change the meaning of the word "conscious." As I said, I don't think the hard problem of consciousness is hard. I don't even think it's a problem.

Emphasizing the Connection Perspective

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions