@Garrett Travers

Thank you very much for responding to my questions. I'd also like you to comment on this:

The IIT's two major proponents, Koch and Tononi have both come out as panpsychists of a kind. They think that inanimate systems are conscious, for example simple molecules, atoms and thermostats. — bert1

But you cited the IIT as one of your respectable theories that shows consciousness only occurs in brains. But the IIT is expressly an panpsychic theory. It attributed consciousness to any system at all that integrates information. Have you blundered here? Or have I misunderstood you?

Where do you stand on multiple realisability? That gets you out of the brain doesn't it?

Functionalism of any kind suggests that any system that can replicate the function of a system we know (or believe) is conscious, is also conscious. So a faithful brain-simulator would be conscious like a brain, no?

But you cited the IIT as one of your respectable theories that shows consciousness only occurs in brains. But the IIT is expressly an panpsychic theory. It attributed consciousness to any system at all that integrates information. Have you blundered here? Or have I misunderstood you? — bert1

You have misunderstood, respectfully. IIT is among the the leading theories, and is actual among the functionalist theories. Which means, although it is posited that other states of consciousness could emerge from entities like the human brain, it is in fact the functions of the human brain themselves that produce it. It's a bit complicated, a little bit woo, and is suffering in the falsifiability area right now. I'll leave a link at the bottom with more info on it. However, that being said, I am currently a proponent of Global Workspace Theory, which is the leading theory in neuroscience that posits that consciousness is prodcued by the whole system of structures operating in symphony. The paper I posted is supporting the unification of all of the theories the have substance and support, including QTC.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lagnado-lab/lectures/neil/Integrated_Information_Theory_Part_1_Neil.pdf

Functionalism of any kind suggests that any system that can replicate the function of a system we know (or believe) is conscious, is also conscious. So a faithful brain-simulator would be conscious like a brain, no? — bert1

More like "could be conscious." They are currently working with what they call recurrent neural networks in computational neuroscience that is attempting to do just this. However, I think they'll find that one needs the proper structures along with the proper processes to produce consciousness. But, I do admit, computational neuroscience isn't my particular exploration at this time. I hope that will suffice. If not, I'll be glad to look around for some more stuff to help satisfy your curiosity or questions.

One topic that denizens of TPF seem to be under the impression that empirical research has left the door open for the discussion of philosophers to "speculate" about. — Garrett Travers

As one of the dissenting "denizens" of The Philosophy Forum, I'll reiterate my contention that empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers are interested in different kinds of "evidence". Some early philosophers, such as Aristotle, included both observational evidence, and speculative reasoning under the heading of Natural Science. Yet, he astutely separated his generalizations from the specific observations .

After the contentious divorce of Philosophy from Theology, the partition of Physics (science) from Meta-physics (philosophy) was made official. Hence, the focus of Natural Science was limited to A> objective evidence that can be replicated by any well-informed person. But that strict requirement eliminated from consideration any B> subjective evidence that is restricted to individual minds. And it's your narrow focus on type A evidence, that allows you to boast about the "unequivocal triumph of neuroscience". Admittedly, abstract rational Philosophy is still tarred with the same brush as spiritual revealed religion. There is some conceptual overlap, but they are not the same paradigm.

However, only a few modern philosophers are also practicing scientists. So their reasoned opinions, including those of Daniel Dennett, are easily dismissed as mere illusions or "speculations". Some mind-miners may do psychological or sociological studies to obtain statistical evidence of Ethical beliefs & behaviors. But few scientists would call their interpretations of such bell curves "empirical". And the philosophers don't consider their circumstantial evidence to be in competition with an empirical smoking gun. Instead, the role of Philosophy is not to reveal the structure of Reality, but to dissect our subjective beliefs-about and mental-models-of Reality. Mind-excavating Philosophers ask the hard questions -- e.g. about unknown-unknowns -- then speculate on possible answers, but ultimately leave the pragmatic spade-work to lab-laborers.

One example of that division of labor is Albert Einstein : he split no atoms, and looked through no telescopes, He merely used subjective imagination & mathematical logic to construct hypothetical experiments for others to carry out. He was, what we now call, a "Theoretical Scientist", not an Empirical Researcher. Likewise, those engaged in String Theory research, have no hard evidence of their own to crow about. Yet, they like to think of themselves as "real" scientists. However, you might reasonably describe their efforts as "mere speculation", unsupported by "unequivocal" evidence.

Consequently, my "impression" of the OP is that it is based on a typical Category Error, to hold the arguments on this Philosophy Forum to the same standards-of-proof as topics discussed on a Neuroscience Forum (see below). FWIW, I don't deny that it's possible for AI to eventually become Self-Aware. But I'm not aware of any current empirical evidence of computed Consciousness. Nevertheless, I take Neural & Computational research into account, as I pursue my own interests in the philosophical implications of Human Consciousness.

Moreover, I would caution anyone cognizant of the history of science from making "unequivocal" assertions. When scientists resort to exasperated use of such absolute categorical declarations, it's usually in cases of harsh political backlash, as in Global Warming. But, this is not a political forum, so the hyperbole is unnecessary. You won't convince anyone here by shouting "you're a pseudo-scientist, if you don't agree with my unequivocal worldview". :cool:


Philosophical Science :
Aristotle's contribution to science is perhaps best demonstrated by his classic description of the growth of a chick inside an egg.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/general-science-history/aristotle-man-who-relied-observed-facts

Neuroscience Readies for a Showdown Over Consciousness Ideas
“I don’t know of any philosophical reason why [it] should be inherently unsolvable” — but “humans seem nowhere close to solving it.” ___computer scientist Scott Aaronson
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neuroscience-readies-for-a-showdown-over-consciousness-ideas-20190306/

Philosophers use science in free will arguments :
Philosophy Professor Paul Davies and Associate Philosophy Professor Matt Haug both call upon scientific findings and research in their arguments, because both philosophy and science are concerned with some fundamental questions: What makes us act? Is it our intentions, or something else? What are our minds? Are they simply our brains? Or is there more beyond the physical structure?
https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2016/neuroscience-in-philosophy.php

The Neuroscience Forum :
http://www.neuroscienceforum.com/

If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong :
It can’t supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/

I have never encountered so many narcissists. Yes, of course, it is a Category Error because this is a philosophy forum. As if philosophical training isn't science intensive and focused. Unreal.

No, sir. When I say it is triumphant, I mean it has put to rest the OTHER claims about consciousness that are, in fact, NOT supported, whatsoever. Not that science has definitively proven that anything is specifically the case with absolute certainty, but that every bit of evidence extant suggests the opposite of what the philosophers have been saying. It is unequivocally triumphunt over those claims. There is no, none, not one modicum of evidence suggesting that the brain is not itself the source of consciousness. None at all.

This is a hubris-filled attempt to dismiss any requirement of assessing the claims made in the actual research I posted, as opposed to these news articles of yours.

One example of that division of labor is Albert Einstein — Gnomon

Complete nonsense. Albert Einstein was an open point of skepticism within the scientific strata until.... guess when.... Empirical assessment validated his claims. And then afterward, he acted just like you're acting right now toward Neils Bohr. Imagine those dragons. Theory isn't the issue here. What's the issue is having theories that contradict the science. Science which you have not even acknowledged, let alone addressed; because you think you're better than the data, you don't need it, it's beneath you. Pure fuckin narcissism.

Instead, the role of Philosophy is not to reveal the structure of Reality, but to dissect our subjective beliefs-about and mental-models-of Reality. Mind-excavating Philosophers ask the hard questions -- e.g. about unknown-unknowns -- then speculate on possible answers, but ultimately leave the pragmatic spade-work to lab-laborers. — Gnomon

Can't do that if you don't know where consciousness comes from and won't read the evidence. There's a reason Dan Dennett is a scientist, guy. And why he predicates his theory of consciousness on.....Evolution.... You know, that proven science theory thingy.

Moreover, I would caution anyone cognizant of the history of science from making "unequivocal" assertions. When scientists resort to exasperated use of such absolute categorical declarations, it's usually in cases of harsh political backlash, as in Global Warming. But, this is not a political forum, so the hyperbole is unnecessary. You won't convince anyone here by shouting "you're a pseudo-scientist, if you don't agree with my unequivocal worldview". — Gnomon

Hey, come back when you have something more like an argument, rather than six paragraphs of you bitching about not having one, and how badly science hurts your feelings.


Oh, and don't do this again:

Disregarding Known Science

This fallacy is committed when a person makes a claim that knowingly or unknowingly disregards well known science, science that weighs against the claim. They should know better. This fallacy is a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence.

The brain controls the heart; the heart controls the brain. Funny, the anus is the first thing to develop, so in a chicken or egg scenario. Sorry dude, our entire bodies are one codependent organism. We're not "just" brains.

The brain controls the heart; the heart controls the brain. Funny, the anus is the first thing to develop, so in a chicken or egg scenario. Sorry dude, our entire bodies are one codependent organism. We're not "just" brains. — theRiddler

No, just your consciousness.

One topic that denizens of TPF seem to be under the impression that empirical research has left the door open for the discussion of philosophers to "speculate" about. This would be the topic of consciousness, and the nature of its presence here on Earth, and in the human race. — Garrett Travers

No. It's actually that you have completely ignored the very nature of empiricism and how the way things are observed influences how we think about brains and their accompanying conscious. You seemed assert that brains and consciousness exists without having ever seen them, but only heard about them.

In the other thread I mentioned that neuroscience an QM need work together to provide a better explanation of consciousness, but you called that unscientific and woo mysticism, and then continued to berate others, so excuse me if I don't think you're intellectually honest enough to engage in this type of conversation.

No. It's actually that you have completely ignored the very nature of empiricism and how the way things are observed influences how we think about brains and their accompanying conscious. — Harry Hindu

No, if that were the case I'd be seeing arguments informed by some form of scientific research. Seeing as you've decided not to do so, again, you've merely described yourself. My position is thoroughly informed by the latest data on the subject, as I have demonstrated.

In the other thread I mentioned that neuroscience an QM need work together to provide a better explanation of consciousness, but you called that unscientific and woo mysticism, and then continued to berate others, so excuse me if I don't think you're intellectually honest enough to engage in this type of conversation. — Harry Hindu

That's because you said this was a topic that needed to be addressed from that level, it isn't, that's a reduction fallacy. QTC, which you didn't even clarify you were speaking about, you simply stated this was a question for quantum mechanics, is the least supported theoretical framework on the subject. And no, I berate those who berate, or insult me. Come back with an argument, and not and insult, and we'll talk more.

IIT is a functional theory, but is having some issues with falsification at the moment. Apart from that, it's very sound. — Garrett Travers

I read Christof Koch's book about IIT, and in my judgement it is a complete non-starter! Brains don't work by processing information, they work by ion exchanges at synapses and that sort of thing. Information is observer-dependent, in the sense that money and marriage are observer-dependent. Something is only money, marriage or information because we say so. Ion exchanges and that sort of thing are observer-independent, in the sense that mountains, metals and molecules are observer-independent.

I read Christof Koch's book about IIT, and in my judgement it is a complete non-starter! — Daemon

So, from what I can gather, the actual theoretical description of how the conscious process works from IIT is, in fact, sound, and accepted as a genuine theory in the field. However, I would actually second your opinion in many regards. I'm a proponent myself of Global Workspace Theory, I don't see how it could be anything else right now.

Brains don't work by processing information, they work by ion exchanges at synapses and that sort of thing. — Daemon

Now, yes, that's true. But, they process information in this manner. Information processing is not something that is disputed by researchers. Unless you have some data that would suggest otherwise that you and I could compare between others, I'm gonna have to dismiss that assertion as simply not true.

Information is observer-dependent, in the sense that money and marriage are observer-dependent. Something is only money, marriage or information because we say so. — Daemon

Sure, I can accept that. You want to expand on this and maybe you and I will discuss it?

Ion exchanges and that sort of thing are observer-independent, in the sense that mountains, metals and molecules are observer-independent. — Daemon

Yes, but it is the "observer" part that is important here. An observer has to have something to observe that can be computed in the mind in a manner that is both interpretable, as well as accurate in its representation. It wouldn't make sense to be seeing a mountain, when such is actually a table, right? The question is, how does the brain make sure of such things. The answer is numerous structures of data computation arrayed in a network of computation. But, I generally am aligned with your comments here. My thing about this topic is basically that we cannot actually address it as philosophers, until we understand things that are true about it. So, I'd like to address it from the perspective of established science up to this point. See what I mean?

Thanks for stopping by and being cool, man. I appreciate it.

So, from what I can gather, the actual theoretical description of how the conscious process works is, in fact, sound, and accepted as a genuine theory in the field. — Garrett Travers

Which field? And what does "accepted as a genuine theory" amount to? Is it still a "genuine theory" if it's demonstrably false?

Information processing is not something that is disputed by researchers. — Garrett Travers

That's one of the reasons the topic interests me: I think you're probably right, many researchers do believe that the brain works by doing information processing, and most people believe that computers work by doing information processing. But they are mistaken.

A PC for example works through electrical currents, and things like the microscopic bumps on a CD. When you've described the machine in terms of such things as electrical currents and microscopic bumps, you've said it all: there isn't anything left for "information" to do.

Similarly, a brain works through electrochemical processes, and suchlike, and when you've described the brain in those terms, again, there isn't anything for "information" to do.

Ion exchanges and that sort of thing are observer-independent, in the sense that mountains, metals and molecules are observer-independent. — Daemon


Yes, but it is the "observer" part that is important here. An observe has to have something to observe that can be computed in the mind in a manner that is both interpretable, as well as accurate in its representation. It wouldn't make sense to be seeing a mountain, when such is actually a table, right? — Garrett Travers

Your response here is not relevant to my point.

Which field? And what does "accepted as a genuine theory" amount to? Is it still a "genuine theory" if it's demonstrably false? — Daemon

Cognitive Neuroscience? And, it isn't demonstrably false, it's one of the leading theories.

Similarly, a brain works through electrochemical processes, and suchlike, and when you've described the brain in those terms, again, there isn't anything for "information" to do. — Daemon

Right, and that's really the direction they're going in now, especially in the branch of computational neuroscience, specifically.

Your response here is not relevant to my point. — Daemon

Oh, then you'll need to clear up whatever the point is you were making.

Cognitive Neuroscience? And, it isn't demonstrably false, it's one of the leading theories. — Garrett Travers

Do you think that the leading theories can't be false?

Do you think that the leading theories can't be false? — Daemon

No, that's why I said they're having a falsification problem right now, and that I'm a proponent pof Global Work Space, which is where ALL the support is right now, except for in a couple places that would also indicate complimentary roles in IIT and QCT.

Similarly, a brain works through electrochemical processes, and suchlike, and when you've described the brain in those terms, again, there isn't anything for "information" to do. — Daemon


Right, and that's really the direction they're going in now, especially in the branch of computational neuroscience, specifically. — Garrett Travers

I don't see how that can be. For the same reason the brain doesn't work through "information", it doesn't work through "computation" either. And neither does a computer.

That was my point about the observer-dependence of computation and the observer-independence of brain processes and consciousness.

Consciousness can't be produced by something that only exists because we say so.

I don't see how that can be. For the same reason the brain doesn't work through "information", it doesn't work through "computation" either. And neither does a computer.

That was my point about the observer-dependence of computation and the observer-independence of brain processes and consciousness.

Consciousness can't be produced by something that only exists because we say so. — Daemon

I see your assertion, friend. But, where is your evidence? What exactly are you proposing is going on that the science is supporting? Because, that was the point of this thread. You see, I've discussed this issue with numerous people on this sight, and nobody has been able to clearly articulate to me what they think consciousness is, and then back up the claim with some research. It's just been disagreement with me and the science, and that isn't acceptable as philosophers. I don't want to dismiss what you're saying, you may be on to something. But, do me the solid of explaining to me what you are postulating. Is that cool?

You see, I've discussed this issue with numerous people on this sight, and nobody has been able to clearly articulate to me what they think consciousness is — Garrett Travers

I've said a few times that it are not the physical processes situated in the interest me "brainy" world, un-untieably connected with us and the physical world, that explain consciousness, but, rather, the contents of those processes that lay at base of consciousness.

I've said a few times that it are not the physical processes situated in the interest me "brainy" world, un-untieably connected with us and the physical world, that explain consciousness, but, rather, the contents of those processes that lay at base of consciousness. — EugeneW

Eugene, I didn't mean you, I meant generally nobody, I should have been more clear. My apologies. You and I are seeing eye to eye now. I just don't know how to validate your position.

What do you want evidence for, from me?

Consciousness can't be produced by something that only exists because we say so. — Daemon

This assertion is going to need some support.

the brain doesn't work through "information" — Daemon

This assertion is going to need some support.


Or, I'm technically just going to have to dismiss it as opinion. Which, again, opinions are fine. But, here we'll need evidence.

Consciousness can't be produced by something that only exists because we say so. — Daemon


This assertion is going to need some support. — Garrett Travers

Other animals, such as chimpanzees, were conscious before there was anybody around capable of saying anything at all.

the brain doesn't work through "information" — Daemon


This assertion is going to need some support. — Garrett Travers

I've already provided that support, concisely: the brain works through such things as electro-chemical impulses. When you've described all those processes, there isn't anything left for "information" to do.

As a concrete example, take the optic nerve. "The optic nerve carries sensory nerve impulses from the more than one million ganglion cells of the retina toward the visual centres in the brain. The vast majority of optic nerve fibres convey information regarding central vision. Encyclopedia Britannica"

Now suppose you're a scientist looking at the optic nerve. You are able to identify those nerve impulses. But you can't identify "information" in addition to the impulses.

I see my phone made a mistake. I wrote "interest me brainy world" while intended to write "inner brainy world". Like I said, I'm with you partially. I'm interested too in neurosciene. But I don't think "We Are Our Brain" (book). I think the brain helps us.

How would you explain this experience: get used to the dark of night. Then turn a bright lightbulb on and off fast while holding your arm beside of it. There is an bright after image and moving your arm seems like pulling it out of yourself. Weird... The image endures and changes color. Now this can all be explained by processes. But still... The experience is not explained.

"The optic nerve carries sensory nerve impulses from the more than one million ganglion cells of the retina toward the visual centres in the brain. The vast majority of optic nerve fibres convey information regarding central vision. Encyclopedia Britannica" — Daemon

I think the EP confabulates here like a noctambule at daylight. The parallel flow of photons is projected, via the retina and optic nerves into the V regions of the cortex and other areas. If the flow was there before, or in a comparable form at least, the projection locks into the memory trails engraved before by the comparable flows before (synaps widenings, giving stronger connections between neurons). The scene is recognized. All neurons can be involved in almost an infinity of possible memmories.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying or why.

Other animals, such as chimpanzees, were conscious before there was anybody around capable of saying anything at all. — Daemon

Relevance?

As a concrete example, take the optic nerve. "The optic nerve carries sensory nerve impulses from the more than one million ganglion cells of the retina toward the visual centres in the brain. The vast majority of optic nerve fibres convey information regarding central vision. Encyclopedia Britannica"

Now suppose you're a scientist looking at the optic nerve. You are able to identify those nerve impulses. But you can't identify "information" in addition to the impulses. — Daemon

This is making my point, friend. The brain computes data, biologically, different than we do from the point of executive function. What you are highlighting is merely a gap in knowledge as far as what 'kind' of data it processes. Not that it does not.

But I don't think "We Are Our Brain" (book). I think the brain helps us. — EugeneW

Again, that's a fine opinion. It's just, the data that has been gathered is currently indicating the opposite. That research is here in the thread posted around.

But still... The experience is not explained. — EugeneW

I get that, but gaps in knowledge are not arguments against what the data currently indicate, nor is it an argument for the position that you are trying to argue. That's an argument from ignorance, and it is merely an attempt to negate an assertion through a lack of knowledge that the evidence implies, but cannot verify as if yet.

Something is only money, or a marriage, because we say so. Therefore there was no money or marriage before humans arrived on the scene. Money and marriage are observer-dependent.

Consciousness was there before humans arrived on the scene. Therefore it can't be dependent on human observations (and chimps, though conscious, lack the language and concepts to make such observations). That's the relevance.

Give it some thought. I'm off to play badminton, back in 4 hours or so.

It's just, the data that has been gathered is currently indicating the opposite — Garrett Travers

Point is, the data you refer to can't indicate what I conjecture to exist. You can call that a dark tower lord fantasy, but the conjectured internal is very real, though non-explicable. Well... a scream explains what I mean.

I get that, but gaps in knowledge are not arguments against what the data currently indicate, nor is it an argument for the position that you are trying to argue. That's an argument from ignorance, and it is merely an attempt to negate an assertion through a lack of knowledge that the evidence implies, but cannot verify as if yet — Garrett Travers

It's not about gaps, it's about lack.

It's not about gaps, it's about lack. — EugeneW

Same thing, same fallacy.