I have been assuming throughout that consciousness is a state, not an object — Clarendon

I might not be able to make this clear (thus pointing to the Wittgenstein) but I’ll try again; it’s not that a state is an object, but a “state” is thought of on the same terms (just not physical): direct, measurable, unique, corresponding, equatable, etc. One example would be picturing a state as a “property” (rather than a logical conclusion). The point is that our desire—to have the relationship and criteria we have to and for states be similar to that which we have for objects—is what creates the sense of a “problem”; the failure when we try to find or measure, etc. a state, as if it were fixed, rather than it being an ongoing logical determination.

there is no reason that a universe with initial conditions and properties that could be described exactly the same ways could borrow produce another universe much like this one. — Patterner

That’s an entirely different question than the one on the table here.

So if your point all along has been the precise path, I definitely agree. If your point is that it's impossible for me to take the same path twice, I disagree, even though it is astronomically unlikely to happen. — Patterner

The question is, could I have predicted it in advance? Can I predict what comes next? To be fair, emergence doesn’t generally apply to individual phenomena or events. It applies to systems—levels of organization, e.g. chemistry as compared to biology.

Surely if brain structure were all identical, then our consciousness must be all identical too. — Corvus

But no two humans brains on the entire planet are identical. No two brains have the identical shape in the pattern of gyri and sulci (ridges and furrows). Not two brains have the same circuitry, the vast patterning of connections between neurons. that develops in response to how brains are stimulated. Since we all have our individual experiences, our brains develop differently from all others.

Sorry, I appreciate you taking the time to try and explain it to me, but I do not see how it is relevant to the case I am making.

As I see it, to suppose that we are thinking about something incorrectly requires justification. We must not start out with that assumption, for then we are a conspiracy theorist. We need to be provided with some reason to think we are in error.

I do not see how the argument I have made implies a wrongheaded way of thinking about things. The case I am making is quite simple and appeals to a self-evident truth of reason that underpins reasoning itself. Namely, you cannot get out what was in no way put in.

This principle explains why an argument whose conclusion is in no way contained in the premises is invalid. But it also means that if the ingredients of a brain are in no way conscious - either actually or as a disposition - then the brain cannot be either.

There seems nothing in that case that indicates a confused way of conceiving of things. Indeed, it seems those who think consciousness can be had by the whole even though it was not in the parts are the ones who are confused and are allowing magic in this one corner of reality - something they would not permit elsewhere.

But no two humans brains on the entire planet are identical. No two brains have the identical shape in the pattern of gyri and sulci (ridges and furrows). Not two brains have the same circuitry, the vast patterning of connections between neurons. that develops in response to how brains are stimulated. — Questioner

I am not sure on that claim. It is something we don't have definite answer. Without actual detailed examination, investigation and comparison, we can never tell if they are exactly the same or not. If they are all different, then how different, and how the difference of the structure of the content of brains affect consciousness. We need detailed conclusive answer to be able to claim that they are different.

It is something we don't have definite answer. Without actual detailed examination, investigation and comparison, we can never tell if they are exactly the same or not. If they are all different, then how are they different, and how the difference of the structure of the content of brains affect consciousness. We need detailed conclusive answer to claim that they are different. — Corvus

Well, we do, and the most basic knowledge of brain development will provide you with an answer.

Well, we do, and the most basic knowledge of brain development will provide you with an answer. — Questioner

OK, let us suppose that they are different. How does the content of brain difference affect on what aspect of human consciousness?

The question is, could I have predicted it in advance? — T Clark

Certainly not. Getting back to the universe, only Laplace's demon could do that, and only if all aspects of reality are strictly deterministic.

Intelligences vastly greater than ours might be able to predict various emergent things, like liquidity.

Even humans have figured out a few things so far, although, of course, not from scratch.

OK, let us suppose that they are different. How does the content of brain difference affect on what aspect of human consciousness? — Corvus

How we analyze incoming information, a thought, a memory, an instinct, represents a fixed neural pathway. We all have different neural pathways. They can be changed even into adulthood because of neuroplasticity. A brain develops (connections made between neurons) according to the stimuli it receives. Since one person's experiences are unique to the person, so too is the way the brain develops.

Intelligences vastly greater than ours might be able to predict various emergent things, like liquidity. — Patterner

There are different kinds of emergence—weak and strong. We’ve mostly been talking about strong emergence like when biology emerges from chemistry. As we’ve said, in those situations, knowing the principles of the lower level of organization will not allow you to construct, predict, the principles of the higher level.

Weak emergence is a bit more straightforward. There are times when you can predict more complex macroscopic behavior from its simpler microscopic roots. A well-known example—the behavior of an ideal gas can be predicted based on the behavior of the individual atoms in the gas. In that example, properties like temperature, pressure, and volume are derivable based on knowledge of the average velocity, quantity, and mass of the atoms and molecules in the gas. I think the behavior of liquids you mentioned is probably an example of weak emergence.

Well, I have to say I've had the wrong understanding of emergence all along. I thought weak was something that could be explained by the properties of lower levels, and strong was something that could not. Consciousness being the only example of strong that anyone talked about.

I thought weak was something that could be explained by the properties of lower levels, and strong was something that could not. — Patterner

This is correct. I thought that’s what I said. I guess I’ve just confused things more.

How we analyze incoming information, a thought, a memory, an instinct, represents a fixed neural pathway. We all have different neural pathways. They can be changed even into adulthood because of neuroplasticity. A brain develops (connections made between neurons) according to the stimuli it receives. Since one person's experiences are unique to the person, so too is the way the brain develops. — Questioner

You seem to be talking about the content of consciousness, not consciousness itself. Even my own consciousness content would be different from this morning to tonight after having read some books, watched youtube videos and listened to some jazz music.

Here we are talking about consciousness not the contents in consciousness, aren't we?

Here we are talking about consciousness not the contents in consciousness — Corvus

How do you separate the two?

How do you separate the two? — Questioner

The content of consciousness is not consciousness itself, is it? The content is the input data of your experience via perception, sensation and imagination etc. Consciousness itself is your mind which is the theater of all the images, sounds and thought are appearing in.

Well, maybe we're still not on the same page. And I'm entirely willing to take the blame for that.

There's certainly no way a human intelligence could have predicted biological entities from physics or chemistry. And, for the sake of argument, let's say no intelligence could have. Still, biology does emerge from physics and chemistry. Even if we couldn't start from the beginning and predict it, working backwards, we can see that every biological process can be explained by the principles of chemistry and physics.

Consciousness can't be. Those who say it emerges from sufficient complexity of whatever types of physical processes cannot explain it in the ways we can explain biological processes, and don't have a guess as to how it might work. "Enough complexity" and "It just does" are the answers. But those are not answers.

The content of consciousness is not consciousness itself, is it? The content is the input data of your experience via perception, sensation and imagination etc. Consciousness itself is your mind which is the theater of all the images, sounds and thought are appearing in. — Corvus

I understand it differently. Consciousness is the function of the structures of the brain. Consciousness consists of the "content" produced.

Otherwise, it would be like saying something else than the wind flaps the flag in the breeze.

Consciousness can't be. Those who say it emerges from sufficient complexity of whatever types of physical processes cannot explain it in the ways we can explain biological processes, and don't have a guess as to how it might work. — Patterner

Sure we can explain it. We call it biology, neurology, and psychology.

Still, biology does emerge from physics and chemistry. Even if we couldn't start from the beginning and predict it, working backwards, we can see that every biological process can be explained by the principles of chemistry and physics. — Patterner

According to Robert Rosen, you'll end up without a definition for life if you try to reduce it to chemistry. He says you need final cause to understand what we mean by life. He proposes getting Kantian about it.

Would it therefore qualify as strong emergence? Debatable?

I understand it differently. Consciousness is the function of the structures of the brain. Consciousness consists of the "content" produced.

Otherwise, it would be like saying something else than the wind flaps the flag in the breeze. — Questioner

I was thinking in that way in the beginning, but it seems not much meaningful to say function of the brain when you cannot explain in detail on how the functions actually work. What is happening in your brain when you imagining an apple and when you are seeing one? What are the differences in those two different mental activities and the function of the brain? Is the apple you are seeing your consciousness?

I understand it differently. — Questioner

That's fair, but I think its on you to reach across a divide in this case - the definitions proffered above are those used by the vast majority of people. "consciousness" is the abstract concept of first-person phenomenal awareness and then you can then fill it with fun stuff like bikes and empathy, the sky and Love and what have you.. Lots to be discussed there, closer to your conception, but on these initial steps I think you're certainly talking at cross-purposes with most people here. Just a heads up :)

What is happening in your brain when you imagining an apple and when you are seeing one? — Corvus

neurons are firing

your consciousness? — Corvus

neurons are firing

neurons are firing — Questioner

Which neurons? What is actually happening when firing? How do they differ when seeing an apple and when seeing a cup? When imagining them and remembering them?

Sure we can explain it. We call it biology, neurology, and psychology. — T Clark

There are many biological processes. Respiration, metabolism, reproduction, circulation, protein synthesis, the immune system, glycolysis, the Krebs Cycle, etc. They are physical processes that are understood down to the atomic level. Things like ions passing through membranes. We know why elements like carbon and oxygen are so incredibly important, and what they do.

We cannot look at any aspect of consciousness and see how it emerges from any lower level process or properties.

We cannot look at any aspect of consciousness and see how it emerges from any lower level process or properties. — Patterner

I know enough to say this isn’t true, but not enough to get a better explanation. You wrote that you’ve read “Feeling and Knowing” by Antonio Damasio. He also wrote “ The Feeling of What Happens.” Those tell the story better than I could. If you read those and aren’t convinced, there’s not much more I could say.

According to Robert Rosen, you'll end up without a definition for life if you try to reduce it to chemistry. He says you need final cause to understand what we mean by life. He proposes getting Kantian about it.

Would it therefore qualify as strong emergence? Debatable? — frank

In Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence, Sara Imari Walker says much the same.

At the 2012 meeting of the American Chemical Society, in a session on the origin of life, Andrew Ellington proposed a radical theory: “Life does not exist.” Andy is a chemistry professor from the University of Texas at Austin, and this was the first slide of his presentation on RNA chemistry and the origin of life. His idea left me incredibly perplexed.

I was perplexed because I probably should have agreed with Andy. But I don’t. When I attended Andy’s lecture I was pretty sure I was alive, as I am now. You’re probably confident you are alive too. Haven’t you spent your whole life, well, living? Being alive matters. It’s very different from not being alive.

Yet despite our natural confidence in our own existence, some scientists challenge it and argue that life may be just an illusion or epiphenomenon, explainable by known physics and chemistry. Physicist and public intellectual Sean Carroll is one such individual. In a crowded evening lecture on the Arizona State University campus where I work, I was aghast in my seat as Sean stated how the equations of particle physics are sufficient to explain the existence of all matter—including you and me. Jack Szostak, a Nobel Prize winner, holds a similar view, arguing that the focus on defining life is holding us back from understanding life’s origin. According to Jack, the closer you look at any of the “defining” properties of life, the more the boundary between life and nonlife blurs.

I agree with them. Life is a bunch of chemical processes, all working together to keep the unit working. The fact that the result is a unified structure seems to be emergent, though I am clearly not going to be able to figure out if it's strong or weak emergence. But is there an extra something that is Life?

I know enough to say this isn’t true, but not enough to get a better explanation. You wrote that you’ve read “Feeling and Knowing” by Antonio Damasio. He also wrote “ The Feeling of What Happens.” Those tell the story better than I could. If you read those and aren’t convinced, there’s not much more I could say. — T Clark

Damasio doesn't not even suggest an explanation. I really like his writing. I like the detail, the poetic feel, and the way he builds all along.

But he doesn't address how ions going through ligand gated ion channels, creating depolarization in the cell body; mRNA being made in the nucleus, shipped out to the rough endoplasmic reticulum, which makes proteins that are then packaged and budded off; kinesin transporting things down to the axon terminal; and any or all of the million other things, produce consciousness.

The reason he, and everybody else in the world, does not is that consciousness isn't something physical that can be explained physically. As Chalmers said:

There is no analogous further question in the explanation of genes, or of life, or of learning. If someone says “I can see that you have explained how DNA stores and transmits hereditary information from one generation to the next, but you have not explained how it is a gene”, then they are making a conceptual mistake. All it means to be a gene is to be an entity that performs the relevant storage and transmission function. But if someone says “I can see that you have explained how information is discriminated, integrated, and reported, but you have not explained how it is experienced”, they are not making a conceptual mistake. This is a nontrivial further question. — Chalmers

Damasio just lists ones physical thing or event after another, and eventually says now there is consciousness.

What is actually happening when firing? — Corvus

here's a pretty straightforward description of what happens -

How Do Neurons Fire?

How do they differ when seeing an apple and when seeing a cup? — Corvus

By however the circuitry is arranged to store the memory -

Where are memories stored in the brain?

When imagining them and remembering them? — Corvus

The hippocampus plays a major role in imagination, as well as memory

Where Imagination Lives in Your Brain

The ability to conjure up possible futures or alternative realities is the flip side of memory. Both faculties cohabit in the brain region called the hippocampus

But is there an extra something that is Life? — Patterner

I think Aristotle was the first to notice that life is associated with purpose. I don't know what an anatomy and physiology course would be like if we tried to delete that concept. It's pervasive.

If we want to make biology a branch of physics, we might try to avoid saying things like:

1, The tree grows toward the light to gain energy.
2. It needs energy so it can reproduce.
3. It needs to reproduce so the species will survive.

If you explain all of that by efficient causes, you'll find that you're still using the idea of purpose to organize your thoughts. What does that mean? I know Rosen's book left me believing it's a more profound issue. Anyway, it's too early to wave it off as folk psychology.