I'm glad you picked up on what I was trying to tell you about your comment. It's just nonsense. — L'éléphant

I feel that you didn't need to be so vulgar and abrupt in your comment on what is after all a philosophical topic discussion. Let's be honest. The OP is very vague, and nobody seems understand what it is trying to say. And you can tell many including yourself have no single clue where the discussion is going to, or what it is about.

I gave the most accurate and realistic account of consciousness. But you somehow sound not only negative but also rude. I can only assume either you are hurt in your feelings for some reason or you are just obtuse and pretentious in your comment. Maybe both.

The OP is very vague, and nobody seems understand what it is trying to say. — Corvus

I have been following the discussion for some time now and I have no problem whatsoever understanding the OP.

Why don't we just use the terms 'easy consciousness' and 'hard consciousness'? Easy consciousness could be explained by physicalism in the distant future without having to explain hard consciousness.

I have been following the discussion for some time now and I have no problem whatsoever understanding the OP. — SolarWind

Fair enough solar. I haven't read any of your posts before, but maybe you have written something on the topic? Not sure. But if you do follow the OP, good on you. When you read the others posts, they sound all cloud catching.

Why don't we just use the terms 'easy consciousness' and 'hard consciousness'? Easy consciousness could be explained by physicalism in the distant future without having to explain hard consciousness. — SolarWind

They talk about "hard problem" must exist. But it only exists, because they think consciousness as some sort of physical entity, or something that emerged from brain, which is not very meaningful.

Conscious is just the way biological beings with brain functions - being aware of the environment and self. There is no entity in the concept. Nothing emerges from anything. It is just a state of being alert. The only way I can tell you are conscious is, because you talk and behave like a conscious being. So in the regard, they have been barking at the wrong tree.

Easy consciousness could be explained by physicalism in the distant future without having to explain hard consciousness. — SolarWind

I am not sure, if it is meaningful for the division. Because as I said, consciousness is a word describing a biological being behaving in certain way. It is not some entity emerged from physical matter, atoms and particles in the brain making the lights flickering flashing in the head what is called consciousness.

If consciousness is physical matter with properties, then it would make sense to say, hey can I have your consciousness for few days? or I will replace your consciousness with hers .. etc. It doesn't make sense.

It makes sense to say, you are conscious because you can see the world revealing to you, and you expressed an "awe" on its beauty. Or she was conscious when she opened her eyes this morning talking about her weekend.

is that you can't get out what you don't put in. — Clarendon

by combining — Clarendon

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

With respect to consciousness, to say “you can’t get out what you don’t put in” neglects the highly complex electrochemical functioning of the human brain. To reduce this function to “atoms combining” is to not take into account that the human brain is comprised of around 86 billion highly specialized neurons, one with up to thousands of connections to others, performing highly synchronized and regulated electrochemical processes, involving highly complex molecules. Brain waves arise from the overall co-ordination of this vast functioning in neuronal networks between specialized brain regions.

To say that atoms must be conscious in accounting for human consciousness is like saying atoms must be able to move because muscles can.

To say that atoms must be conscious in accounting for human consciousness is like saying atoms must be able to move because muscles can. — Questioner

Atoms have electric fields and can therefore move in a group. Not a good example.

I'll give a better one: One line cannot form a triangle, but three lines can. However, 86 billion circles cannot form a triangle. That is what the OP is saying.

To say that atoms must be conscious in accounting for human consciousness is like saying atoms must be able to move because muscles can. — Questioner

The difference is that movement is a physically observable, measurable, and explainable thing. We can watch someone's muscle move. We can measure how far and fast it moved, and in which direction. We can discuss the events within the nerves, such as ions crossing membranes, that cause the muscles to contact.

We cannot discuss anything physical in regards to consciousness.

I notice you both take issue with my other example, but offer nothing against my main point.

We cannot discuss anything physical in regards to consciousness. — Patterner

The two main scientific theories that are used to help explain consciousness would disagree with this.

Integrated Information in Discrete Dynamical Systems: Motivation and Theoretical Framework

We have suggested that consciousness has to do with a system's capacity to generate integrated information. This suggestion stems from considering two basic properties of consciousness: (i) each conscious experience generates a large amount of information, by ruling out alternative experiences; and (ii) the information is integrated, meaning that it cannot be decomposed into independent parts. We introduce a measure that quantifies how much integrated information is generated by a discrete dynamical system in the process of transitioning from one state to the next. The measure captures the information generated by the causal interactions among the elements of the system, above and beyond the information generated independently by its parts. We present numerical analyses of basic examples, which match well against neurobiological evidence concerning the neural substrates of consciousness. The framework establishes an observer-independent view of information by taking an intrinsic perspective on interactions.

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000091


Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis

We review the central tenets and neuroanatomical basis of the global neuronal workspace (GNW) hypothesis, which attempts to account for the main scientific observations regarding the elementary mechanisms of conscious processing in the human brain. The GNW hypothesis proposes that, in the conscious state, a non-linear network ignition associated with recurrent processing amplifies and sustains a neural representation, allowing the corresponding information to be globally accessed by local processors. We examine this hypothesis in light of recent data that contrast brain activity evoked by either conscious or non-conscious contents, as well as during conscious or non-conscious states, particularly general anesthesia. We also discuss the relationship between the intertwined concepts of conscious processing, attention, and working memory.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627320300520

I notice you both take issue with my other example, but offer nothing against my main point. — Questioner

Apologies. I'm beyond swamped at work and with my 89 year old father's many needs. I participate as time allows. I'll read your post again.

Science tries to explain how information is processed in what path of the neurons conjunction to which part of brain, when they claim to be explaining consciousness. It is much similar explanation analogous to computer processing information in conjunction to the central processor. It does not touch anything about what consciousness is.

Science tries to explain how information is processed in what path of the neurons conjunction to which part of brain, when they claim to be explaining consciousness. — Corvus

I don't think it is so much "explaining" as finding the structural source for it.

It does not touch anything about what consciousness is. — Corvus

Since we all have it, we know what consciousness is. The role of science is to try to link consciousness - the function - with the structure - the brain.

I don't think it is so much "explaining" as finding the structural source for it. — Questioner

More or less the same thing, but more accurate word is "explaining".

Since we all have it, we know what consciousness is. The role of science is to try to link consciousness - the function - with the structure - the brain. — Questioner

It really doesn't say much. No one is denying brain is connected to consciousness. But consciousness is not brain or neurons. It is not atoms or particles.

Consciousness cannot be meaningful without time (knowledge of past present future) and space (knowledge of where one is existing in), as well as self identity. Alertness just awakened from matter is CCTV camera.

Consciousness presupposes far more than that. It needs personal history, emotions, thoughts and reasoning and imagination as well as linguistic abilities which are backed by past memories of living individual.

But consciousness is not brain or neurons. It is not atoms or particles. — Corvus

No, atoms, molecules, neurons, brain - that is structure. But when engaged in its highly complex function - that produces consciousness. A brain has to be working to produce awareness.

It needs personal history, emotions, thoughts and reasoning and imagination as well as linguistic abilities which are backed by past memories of living individual. — Corvus

And doesn't that just make the brain all the more the marvel of human evolution?

No, atoms, molecules, neurons, brain - that is structure. But when engaged in its highly complex function - that produces consciousness. A brain has to be working to produce awareness. — Questioner

Yes, I said no one is denying that. But they are not consciousness.

And doesn't that just make the brain all the more the marvel of human evolution? — Questioner

It does. But it needs good education and philosophical training for maximum performance. :grin:

But it needs good education and philosophical training — Corvus

Thanks for the encouragement! I will follow up!!

With respect to consciousness, to say “you can’t get out what you don’t put in” neglects the highly complex electrochemical functioning of the human brain. To reduce this function to “atoms combining” is to not take into account that the human brain is comprised of around 86 billion highly specialized neurons, one with up to thousands of connections to others, performing highly synchronized and regulated electrochemical processes, involving highly complex molecules. Brain waves arise from the overall co-ordination of this vast functioning in neuronal networks between specialized brain regions. — Questioner

All true. But, if I read you right, you are saying that, if you add enough physical things and processes, you will get something non-physical. The point some of us are making is that that is not an obvious chain of logic, and there's no evidence to support it. How that happens needs to be explained.

How that happens needs to be explained. — Patterner

Science is working on it! But to come up with the answer that, "atoms must be conscious" is an absurd conclusion to make.

Is it only atoms in the human brain that have this magical ability? How about the atoms in a rock? Why don't they get this magical ability?

Science is working on it! But to come up with the answer that, "atoms must be conscious" is an absurd conclusion to make. — Questioner

No, it really isn't. Forget hte brain for a second and focus on the structural claim being made:

400,000 non-mammals combining together wont make a mammal.
65 non-sugar crystals wont make a dissacharide carbohydrate
100 white people wont make a black person
3,545,654,646 thoughts don't make an object.

Those seem clear enough. We are simply applying the same logic to consciousness: it is a non-physical attribute that might be caused by what you're describing, but we don't know that and hte logic says even 100 trillion non-conscious objects cannot create a conscious object.

There is nothing absurd in this. You're right about most else, but the refusal to entertain this logical point. As best I can tell, the repsondants squarely addressed your main point. The above is what's in question.

Brain waves arise from the overall co-ordination of this vast functioning in neuronal networks between specialized brain regions. — Questioner

This doesn't tell us anything about that question. It just tells us that in your opinion, this combination of non-conscious objects can create a conscious one. That's fine. But I would suggest they, and I, object on grounds of it being unsupported and illogical given current available information. That doesn't make it impossible and i don't thikn anyone is saying that.

For my part, my response to that above explication is that you're describing brain activity, not phenomenal consciousness. I think we'd all agree with it in those terms.

400,000 non-mammals combining together wont make a mammal.
65 non-sugar crystals wont make a dissacharide carbohydrate
100 white people wont make a black person
3,545,654,646 thoughts don't make an object. — AmadeusD

irrelevant.

there is nothing like a human mind.

This is what's called 'special pleading'. It might be helpful if you could tell us why, or what about, the human mind makes it so special that standard logic doesn't apply?

what about, the human mind makes it so special that standard logic doesn't apply? — AmadeusD

I think I have already answered this. Its highly complex electrochemistry

But this assumes the conclusion - that the human mind is mere electrocchemistry.
What I'm asking is how do you get there? You seem to be saying that the human mind is so special that we can't apply general logical principles.

I wondering what it is about the human mind/consciouness (hint: not the brain) that leads you jettison that avenue when assessing the question?

mere electrocchemistry. — AmadeusD

Here lies your error. It is not "mere" - for it produces every thought you have. F*cking amazing

Can you please answer the question, Questioner?

I wondering what it is about the human mind/consciouness (hint: not the brain) that leads you jettison that avenue(general logical principles) when assessing the question? — AmadeusD

Being amazed isn't an argument, just to get ahead of that.

You seem to be saying that the human mind is so special that we can't apply general logical principles.

I wondering what it is about the human mind/consciouness (hint: not the brain) that leads you jettison that avenue when assessing the question? — AmadeusD

I would not use the word "special" - just different. Maybe it's the same thing.

The examples you mentioned are about combining. The human brain does not combine. It is involved in a highly complex chemistry - I would say the most complex chemistry that exists on this planet.

So, you see, your examples are not logical, but misinformed.

It is involved in a highly complex chemistry - I would say the most complex chemistry that exists on this planet. — Questioner

Hmm. I think perhaps you're misusing many of these words in service of an emotional position. A complex is a combination. The human brain literally combines different atoms into microstructures, microstructures into brain areas and brain areas into hemispheres. This, combined with neurochemicals rushing between them, is what hte brain does. It's all combination. THe logic stands. It's not uninformed at all, it's just perhaps counter to your preferred way of thinking about the mind.

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. It's really unclear. You're claiming something about the brain which is just not supported by what you're saying. The complex neurochemistry of the brain is not different from complex neurochemistry everywhere else. Is the suggestion that a certain level of complexity in a system magically generates a novel attribute? I understand that IIT runs this line, in a way. But your position seems to me magical thinking rather than some kind of mechanical explanation.

an emotional position. — AmadeusD

Are you for real?

A complex is a combination. — AmadeusD

Review your grade 9 notes about the types of chemical equations. Now multiply that by a thousand and you'll have maybe a smidgeon of the chemistry that goes on in a human brain.

The human brain literally combines different atoms into microstructures, microstructures into brain areas and brain areas into hemispheres. — AmadeusD

You are talking structure, not function

It's all combination — AmadeusD

God, no. It's chemistry to electrical circuitry. it's on and off switches, and a whole lot of other things.

it's just perhaps counter to your preferred way of thinking about the mind. — AmadeusD

My preferred way relies on evidence.

The complex neurochemistry of the brain is not different from complex neurochemistry everywhere else — AmadeusD

Like where?

Is the suggestion that a certain level of complexity in a system magically generates a novel attribute? — AmadeusD

it's not magic. It's function from structure.

But your position seems to me magical thinking rather than some kind of mechanical explanation. — AmadeusD

No, the brain is not mechanical.

Emergence is a slippery term, but no one would call this any kind of emergence:

Combining objects of different weights will result in a whole that weighs more than any of its parts. The weight is said to be weakly emergent.
— Clarendon — SophistiCat

That is a paradigm example of weak emergence.

Complexity does not create new kinds of property. It only reorganises existing ones. Until you explain how phenomenality appears from a base that lacks it entirely, the argument stands.

Note, it is those who think you can get out what was not in any way put in who are being unscientific and illogical.

Complexity does not create new kinds of property. It only reorganises existing ones — Clarendon

i suspect you have very little understanding about the function of the brain.