If I explain what's in my backyard, isn't that most likely a good explanation of what's in my yard, or do you need to test it. — Sam26

What if your life somehow depended on guessing correctly that there is a tree in my yard? Would you just take my word for it if I said there wasn't, and my answer would get you killed? Wouldn't you want to verify my answer?

What if your life somehow depended on guessing correctly that there is a tree in my yard? Would you just take my word for it if I said there wasn't, and that answer would get you killed? Wouldn't you want to verify my answer? — RogueAI

But my life doesn't depend on guessing correctly, if it did then things would be much different in terms of what we know.

But my life doesn't depend on guessing correctly, if it did then things would be much different in terms of what we know. — Sam26

I was pointing out that in certain circumstances, just telling someone what's in your back yard doesn't cut it as a good explanation. As the stakes go up, the need for verification increases.

The self-reflection, reflexive relation, the mind is capable of solves the hard problem of consciousness. A mind is capable of studying itself à la Barry Marshall (Nobel Prize winner), famous for self-experimentation. A blend of first-person & third-person perspective is doable!

I was pointing out that in certain circumstances, just telling someone what's in your back yard doesn't cut it as a good explanation. As the stakes go up, the need for verification increases. — RogueAI

Of course there are exceptions where we need to verify someone's account of things, but my point is, that there are many instance of knowing that don't involve the perspective of science.

Of course there are exceptions where we need to verify someone's account of things, but my point is, that there are many instance of knowing that don't involve the perspective of science. I'm saying that sometimes I have verification apart from science or experiment. — Sam26

That's true, but not applicable here. If I tell you I've solved the hard problem, you wouldn't just take my word for it.

What about chess programs that are superior to humans? Do they have minds?
— RogueAI

Certainly not. — apokrisis

I missed this. How do you know chess computers don't have minds?

I now think that asking why consciousness exists is like asking why does the number 2 exists. — Flaw

Totally different! Numbers are created by Man. Consciousness is not. Numbers are mathematical objects used to count, measure, etc. Consciousness is a state.

our conscious experience is like asking how when we put 1 + 1 in the calculator, it creates* the number 2. — Flaw

Totally different! We are asking how, calculate etc., using our mind. Conscious experience means that we are aware of that.

What is everyone's thought on this subject? — Flaw

I cannot be sure what the subject is after some point in your description of your topic. For one thing, I cannot see anything referring to "Solution to the hard problem of consciousness", which is the title of your topic. What kind of solution are you referring to or aiming at?

Totally different! Numbers are created by Man. Consciousness is not. Numbers are mathematical objects used to count, measure, etc. Consciousness is a state. — Alkis Piskas

This is not true. Numbers are not created by man. As you saw in my original post, "create" means to bring into existence. If man did not exist, the abstract concept of numbers would still exist, just not the word. Also to point out that numbers as a mathematical object is different than consciousness as a state doesn't change anything. Both can be viewed as mathematical objects in which operations or events can be performed. In fact, in computers, numbers, states, and even rasterized images all come in the same form (bits).

Totally different! We are asking how, calculate etc., using our mind. Conscious experience means that we are aware of that. — Alkis Piskas

I was trying to make an analogy with A) a calculator adding 1 + 1 to get 2 and B) physical material creating consciousness. I am sure nobody believes that the number 2 gets "created" when we add 1 + 1 in a calculator. It seems obvious. However some people believe that physical material can "create" consciousness. My argument is that both numbers and consciousness are abstract.

I cannot see anything referring to "Solution to the hard problem of consciousness", which is the title of your topic. What kind of solution are you referring to or aiming at — Alkis Piskas

There isn't any "solution" proposed in my post. It was really meant to be click-bait. Rather the approach that I take to the "hard problem of consciousness" is that our understanding of consciousness might be lacking something. The question on how the physical can "create" consciousness is absurd to me. It is like asking how when we put 1 + 1 in a physical calculator, we "create" the number 2. Because we know that's now how "creation" and "existence" works.

I hope that clarifies my argument

That's true, but not applicable here. If I tell you I've solved the hard problem, you wouldn't just take my word for it. — RogueAI

Ya, you're right, it isn't applicable to the hard problem. I was just addressing something Janus said as a side issue.

I think I was being kind of nitpicky. A lot of what makes up our knowledge comes from casual conversations with people and casual reading of books without any testing or verification. That's a fair point.

No harm done.

This is not true. Numbers are not created by man. As you saw in my original post, "create" means to bring into existence. If man did not exist, the abstract concept of numbers would still exist, just not the word. — Flaw

Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being.

nobody believes that the number 2 gets "created" when we add 1 + 1 in a calculator — Flaw

I do. And I believe other people do too. Number 2 is created (produced, calculated) by the calculator, which has been programmed by us to do that. Then it is created a second time, as it is displayed on a LED or other display.
(BTW, do not abuse the words "nobody" and "everyone" so easily.)

There isn't any "solution" proposed in my post. It was really meant to be click-bait. — Flaw

Well, you succedded. I took the bait! :grin:

I hope that clarifies my argument — Flaw

True.

Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being. — Alkis Piskas

True, but the referents of those concepts may well exist without us. The universe seems to count (conservation laws, quantum field theory) without a concept of mathematics. There are an exact number of atoms in the universe right now that does not depend on some of those atoms being arranged to make humans.

Mathematics, even in its basic counting-on-fingers variety, was developed to describe features of our environment. It's generalised and abstract now, but in application still refers to quantities of actual things that exist, not just thoughts we have. It's unlikely we'd have developed an original mathematics that did not reflect the world: it's a pragmatic language.

BTW, do not abuse the words "nobody" and "everyone" so easily — Alkis Piskas

Yeah, that's my mistake.

Number 2 is created (produced, calculated) by the calculator, which has been programmed by us to do that. Then it is created a second time, as it is displayed on a LED or other display — Alkis Piskas

I don't disagree with this at all, depending on how we define "create" and "2". I am guessing my usage of create is just different - bringing something into existence that did not exist before.

Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being — Alkis Piskas

Agreed, but when the number 2 is displayed on an LED, it is no longer a concept of "2". This is by definition.

Overall, I think language/semantics can provide barriers in us understanding each other. Yet ofc we wouldn't be able to understand each other without it. Dissecting your post (and others as well) just helped broaden my way of looking at things. So thanks for sharing.

Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being.
— Alkis Piskas
True, but the referents of those concepts may well exist without us. — Kenosha Kid

True.

The universe seems to count (conservation laws, quantum field theory) without a concept of mathematics. — Kenosha Kid

Not true. The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. It's us who do. There are three trees in a garden, but the garden does not know about that. It doesn't even know it is a "garden" with trees. If we cut one of them, there will remain two trees. The garden will not say, "Oh my, they have cut one of my trees! Now I have only two!". Well, except maybe in poetry and storytelling! :smile:

Physics and its laws (conservation laws, quantum field theory) do not exist without us. Physics is a science created by us in an attempt to understand how the physical universe "works" ("works", as a figure of speech, of course).

Mathematics, even in its basic counting-on-fingers variety, was developed to describe features of our environment. It's generalised and abstract now, but in application still refers to quantities of actual things that exist — Kenosha Kid

True, except one thing, if we want to be precise: Mathematics do not refer to quantities or anything else. It's created and used by us to refer to these things. :smile:

The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. It's us who do. — Alkis Piskas

I agree. Do you think simulations can exist without anyone observing them?

Not true. The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. — Alkis Piskas

I was referring to physical laws, like conservation laws, second law of thermodynamics, etc. The mathematics we invent that deal with quantity are to describe laws that deal with quantity. Nature "knows" how much energy and momentum to give a body after collision. (Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.)

If he's right that the physical universe doesn't count (and I think that's true), then presumably brains can't count (I also agree).

I am guessing my usage of create is just different - bringing something into existence that did not exist before. — Flaw

This is the way I also use the word myself. :smile:

when the number 2 is displayed on an LED, it is no longer a concept of "2". This is by definition. — Flaw

Right. It's an object (consisting of pixels on the LED). Only that the part of the calculator (machine) that does the computing does not even know that the number "2" is displayed, There's another part of the calculator that gets the result of the calculation and displays it on the LED. Moreover, the result "2" means aboslutely nothing to either the computing or the displaying parts of the machine. They are just constructed (H/W) and instructed (S/W and F/W) to do their jobs! :grin:

So thanks for sharing. — Flaw

Thank you too!

If he's right that the physical universe doesn't count (and I think that's true), then presumably brains can't count (I also agree). — RogueAI

Don't count on it!

I see what you did there!

Do you think simulations can exist without anyone observing them? — RogueAI

I suppose you are referring to computer simulations ... I also suppose that such a simulation is "playing" right now w/o anyone watching (observing) it. Well, for one thing the simulation does not exist (by itself, as such), anyway. What exists is a computer "playing" a simulation and w/o knowing it plays a simulation. It is us who call it a "simulation". As TV can "play a program" w/o anyone watching. It is us you call it a program

But this is too obvious.So you maybe mean something else?

suppose you are referring to computer simulations ... I also suppose that such a simulation is "playing" right now w/o anyone watching (observing) it. Well, for one thing the simulation does not exist (by itself, as such), anyway. What exists is a computer "playing" a simulation and w/o knowing it plays a simulation. It is us who call it a "simulation". As TV can "play a program" w/o anyone watching. It is us you call it a program

But this is too obvious.So you maybe mean something else? — Alkis Piskas

I think it's obvious, but I've seen raging arguments between people who think computers can simulate things with no one observing the computer vs. people who think that without an observer, a computer simulation is just a bunch of pixels and sounds. I fall in the latter category.

Nature "knows" how much energy and momentum to give a body after collision. (Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.) — Kenosha Kid

Well, nature has no mind and conscience so that it can know anything. So I can't see how else this "knows" can be interpreted. If you remove this feature and just say that the nature is "constrained by forces, etc.", then yes, it works for me. :smile:

How to read a jellyfish's mind
by Lori Dajose , California Institute of Technology

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, making 100 trillion connections. Understanding the precise circuits of brain cells that orchestrate all of our day-to-day behaviors—such as moving our limbs, responding to fear and other emotions, and so on—is an incredibly complex puzzle for neuroscientists. But now, fundamental questions about the neuroscience of behavior may be answered through a new and much simpler model organism: tiny jellyfish.

Caltech researchers have now developed a kind of genetic toolbox tailored for tinkering with Clytia hemisphaerica, a type of jellyfish about 1 centimeter in diameter when fully grown. Using this toolkit, the tiny creatures have been genetically modified so that their neurons individually glow with fluorescent light when activated. Because a jellyfish is transparent, researchers can then watch the glow of the animal's neural activity as it behaves naturally. ...

With a new genetic toolbox, researchers can view jellyfish neurons as they light up in real time. ...

Rather than being centralized in one part of the body like our own brains, the jellyfish brain is diffused across the animal's entire body like a net. The various body parts of a jellyfish can operate seemingly autonomously, without centralized control; for example, a jellyfish mouth removed surgically can carry on "eating" even without the rest of the animal's body.

This decentralized body plan seems to be a highly successful evolutionary strategy, as jellyfish have persisted throughout the animal kingdom for hundreds of millions of years. But how does the decentralized jellyfish nervous system coordinate and orchestrate behaviors?

After developing the genetic tools to work with Clytia, the researchers first examined the neural circuits underlying the animal's feeding behaviors. When Clytia snags a brine shrimp in a tentacle, it folds its body in order to bring the tentacle to its mouth and bends its mouth toward the tentacle simultaneously. The team aimed to answer: How does the jellyfish brain, apparently unstructured and radially symmetric, coordinate this directional folding of the jellyfish body?

..., though the network of jellyfish neurons originally seemed diffuse and unstructured, the researchers found a surprising degree of organization that only became visible with their fluorescent system.

"Our experiments revealed that the seemingly diffuse network of neurons that underlies the circular jellyfish umbrella is actually subdivided into patches of active neurons, organized in wedges like slices of a pizza," explains Anderson. "When a jellyfish snags a brine shrimp with a tentacle, the neurons in the 'pizza slice' nearest to that tentacle would first activate, which in turn caused that part of the umbrella to fold inward, bringing the shrimp to the mouth. Importantly, this level of neural organization is completely invisible if you look at the anatomy of a jellyfish, even with a microscope. You have to be able to visualize the active neurons in order to see it—which is what we can do with our new system."

Weissbourd emphasizes that this is only scratching the surface of understanding the full repertoire of jellyfish behaviors. "In future work, we'd like to use this jellyfish as a tractable platform to understand precisely how behavior is generated by whole neural systems," he says. "In the context of food passing, understanding how the tentacles, umbrella, and mouth all coordinate with each other lets us get at more general problems of the function of modularity within nervous systems and how such modules coordinate with each other. The ultimate goal is not only to understand the jellyfish nervous system but to use it as a springboard to understand more complex systems in the future." ...

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-jellyfish-mind.html

Well, nature has no mind and conscience so that it can know anything. So I can't see how else this "knows" can be interpreted. If you remove this feature and just say that the nature is "constrained by forces, etc.", then yes, it works for me. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

It "knows" kind of like a computer would know, but without a programmer (that we know of, unless you're a creationist). And what we know about it, how we encode that in mathematics, derives from nature. We count, but only because nature does, in that it accounts for quantity, which is what counting is.

As an example, let's say energy, information, momentum, and other properties weren't conserved. You couldn't count anything. You go to count your fingers... 1... 2... None, because your fingers are gone... Start again, although now your fingers are spoons... 1... 2... 3. That's it, three spoons. Except now they're pencils, and there's 127 of them. Oh, now you don't exist. Start again should you re-exist. 1... 2... 2 and a quarter... 1...

It's in this sense that arithmetic reflects reality's accounting for quantity -- it's conservation laws -- it's counting.

You could find the law though to which the non-conserved energy obeys. There has to be some law of this kind of energy as the non-conserved energy develops deterministic. Also non-conserved entities count, but it's us who do the counting. Computers don't know anything. They are just structures of zeros and ones derived from a physical memory, from the outside pushed around on straight conducting wires, by the same kind of memory-based structures of zeros and ones on a physical memory (quantum computers are not fundamentally different). The computer clock determines the time between successive pushes. Leading to the desired final state of zeros and ones on a physical structure. This is not how nature works. There are no zeros and ones, no programs, no initial and final states. It's one process going on from time zero. Hence computers can never be consciousness by definition.

It "knows" kind of like a computer would know, but without a programmer (that we know of, unless you're a creationist). — Kenosha Kid

Can a collection of electronic switches be said to know anything? Doesn't that seem absurd?

If I explain what's in my backyard, isn't that most likely a good explanation of what's in my yard, or do you need to test it. There are plenty of good explanation we use everyday that don't need testing. This gets back to the notion that somehow if science can't do experiments to confirm one's claim, then it can't be knowable, or it's somehow not real knowledge. — Sam26

Sorry, I missed your response earlier. If I am inclined to take your word for what's in your backyard, then I would count your explanation as a good one, and would probably not require that i see for myself. The point is that such an explanation is testable; whereas claims about NDEs and their implications for the postmortem existence of consciousness are not. If you report an NDE and I am inclined to believe you are not only telling the truth about what you experienced, but that you are also free of any confirmation bias, then I might accept your report as a good explanation; but I could not test it even if I wanted to.