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.

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.

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

I disagree with that. Matter cannot give birth to consciousness. Could you give some examples of consciousness emerged from matter?

I don’t think it’s true that any aspect of consciousness or the mind in general cannot be studied effectively by science. — T Clark

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.

You will only observe the telltale signs, functions and behavior of consciousness from the conscious living people and animals.

"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. — T Clark

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." Tse obviously doesn't, either.

Can you tell me which aspects of consciousness have been studied by science? I know there has been a lot of work done on the neural correlates of consciousness. But that's about which parts of the brain are active when specific thoughts and/or feelings are being reported. 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."

I have Antonio Damasio's “Feeling and Knowing.” I really like it. But I don't see him addressing this. He says x, y, and z are happening, but not how those events have a felt experience of themselves. As Chalmers says in in The Conscious Mind:

That is, consciousness is surprising. If all we knew about were the facts of physics, and even the facts about dynamics and information processing in complex systems, there would be no compelling reason to postulate the existence of conscious experience. If it were not for our direct evidence in the first-person case, the hypothesis would seem unwarranted; almost mystical, perhaps. — Chalmers

You will only observe the telltale signs, functions and behavior of consciousness from the conscious living people and animals. — Corvus

Yes. 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.

Yes. 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

:up: :fire:

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.

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.

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. — T Clark

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

Never the twain shall meet. I'm not particularly interested in taking it up now. — T Clark

Fair enough.

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. — T Clark

We are inferring the existence of dark matter by studying the movement of galaxies. We are not learning anything else about it in this manner, and can't study it in any other manner.

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.

No, speculation is fine. My speculated answer is quite different from that most people here, but we're all just speculating. Speculation is the first step. So far, we haven't been able to figure out how to test any.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think you've understood the view.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether scientists can study consciousness. Nothing. The point is a very simple one. You can't get out what you don't put in. You can't get a sized thing from combining sizeless things.

This argument is valid: 1. If umbrellas are up, it is raining. 2. Umbrellas are up. 3. Therefore it is raining. The conclusion contains nothing not already there in the premises. It extracts their implications, but it does not add anything. Whereas this is invalid: 1. if umbrellas are up, it is raining. 2. Umbrellas are up. 3. Therefore I am rich. That conclusion doesn't follow from those premises. Why? Because nothing it claims is in the premises.

Now unless you think that you can make a sized thing from sizeless things, and that you can validly extract a conclusion about wealth from premises that don't mention it in any form, then you accept that you can't get out what has in no way been put in.

Thus, applying that same principle to consciousness, you cannot get consciousness out unless it has been put in. Thus, if you think that a complex physical thing has consciousness, then you must - on pain of believing in magic - believe that some of its components had consciousness. Otherwise, whence came it?

Note: I am not challenging 'science'. Nothing in science challenges what I've just said. Nothing in science challenges the idea that you can't get out what you didn't put in. It is those who believe that you can get a wholly new kind of property from ingredients none of which possess it who are being unscientific.

Sez you. — T Clark

If you care to read about consciousness, you will notice that it is a vast subject. There are range of different views on the topic from the hard materialism to psychologism, idealism, functionalism and even spans to religious spritualism.

One thing that is common with the topic is that they all view consciousness as "awareness" based on the biological living body and brain. 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.

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

If you keep reading the OP's post, he has not been talking about science or matter. Rather he means consciousness must have come from something that you put into the mind, not from nothing.

I think what he means is, that when you see physical objects (input into your mind), your consciousness must be also physical in nature (output), because the physical matter input cannot come out in any other form than physical matter.

So it appears that you are not reading the OP accurately.

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. — T Clark

There is no problem in revisiting already discussed topic in the past, if new truths could be come out from it. After all, many folks are still discussing the topics in discussion over 2000 years ago in philosophy.

The real problem - one that I, at least, can see 'is' a problem - is that you can't get out what you don't put in. For example, you can't make something that has size by combining lots of sizeless things. That's just not going to work. The only way to make a sized thing, is to combine things of size - no size in, no size out.

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

Coordinate geometry does in fact represent a line as a combination of points. Of course, it is not just a combination of points, it is points plus structure. But then nothing is just some other thing, otherwise it would be that other thing. Water is not just hydrogen and oxygen, but you do get water with all its uniquely watery properties from those two very un-water-like substances - no alchemy involved.

Chalmers’s “hard problem” concerns explanation: we can explain what a system does without mentioning consciousness.

That is not the problem I am raising. Explaining an object’s behaviour without mentioning one of its properties is not in itself a problem. We can explain how a key opens a lock without mentioning its colour. Does that mean there's a problem with locks and keys having colour?

My problem is not about explanatory superfluity. It is about generation: how a property of a wholly new kind could come into existence from ingredients that entirely lack it. (Indeed, it can't - and so the problem confronting the physicalist is that they must either abandon their physicalism or attribute consciousness to base materials).

I think people are making the mistake of thinking that because Chalmers coined the (somewhat unoriginal) phrase 'the hard problem of consciousness' then any hard problem must be the one he was talking about. My project was to find a genuine hard problem and distinguish it from pseudo problems.

Note: Chalmers believes in the strong emergence of consciousness. So he doesn't seem to recognize the problem I am raising.