No biology, no thoughts! — Raul

No biology, no "biological thoughts" (thoughts strictly characterised by/and in biased reference to, biological organisms.)

If thought (storage and processing/modulation of information) can be manifested in a non biological way, and we are biological, then perhaps we will never see it through the veil of our own biological thought bias.

We can't assume that consciousness is "human-centric".
"because I said so" (humans projecting human notions on reality) is not a rational nor reasonable means to exclude other possibilities.

If we can created artificial sentience, which I believe we can, then we cannot assume consciousness is restricted to the human concept of it.

We must then "put ourselves in the shoes of others" so to speak. And try to imagine what consciousness may be like for a dog, for a plant, for a bacterium, for a robot, perhaps even for large self organising systems of matter in the universe.

Only then are we not being inherently biased towards our personal conscious perception but considering more or all possible concepts of awareness.

:up:

I'm a fan of Paul and Patricia Churchland, who are in fact "eliminative materialists" which involves an even more extreme view - that we should reject all folk psychology terminology. I don't personally see the need for that, but I do believe consciousness will be explained scientifically. — GLEN willows

I agree, but I'd moved past the eliminativists nearly two decades ago when I'd come across a masterwork on the neuroscience of 'consciousness' titled Being No One by Thomas Metzinger (here's a good summary in this old video lecture). By the way, I very much recommend his more accessible, less technical synopsis The Ego Tunnel. Studying Metzinger's highly counter-intuitive empirical work on 'mind' had reoriented me from an underdetermiined conception of 'consciousness' with his robust phenomenal self model which had then lead me further to read more broadly other 'materialist neurophilosophets' such as, to mention a few,
• Stanislas Dehaene
• Max Velmans
• Peter Robin Hiesinger
• Sebastian Seung
• R.S. Bakker (online blog "Three Pound Brain")
whom most 'anti-materialists' and those without any background in either neuroscience, cognitive science or cognitive psychology (the latter two I did graduate work in during the early 90s) are wholly ignorant of. I still keep up with Patricia Churchland's and Daniel Dennett's work but not as intensely as I once had decades ago. The so-called 'philosophy of mind' lags significantly behind scientific developments in 'consciousness studies' but these are still early days I think.

Yes I agree I think science will make much headway in explaining consciousness. I think it will likely come from quantum physics tbh.

But because consciousness (sentient beings) can believe in non scientific beliefs I imagine it will be hard for science to explain them without putting them in direct explanatory connection with science which contradicts the non scientific belief they hold.

Its a contradiction. All it takes is one person who is absolutely against science, for a scientific description of consciousness to fail to describe why such a person holds anti-scientific views.

"For science to describe all things, it must also describe those things that contradict its explanation".

:up:

quantum physics — Benj96

You won't need quantum physics to explain consciousness the same way you don't need it to explain many other physical or biological phenomena. Consciousness is a macroscopic phenomena...

manifested in a non biological — Benj96

Yes, consciousness and even the self could be one day created artificially by us... But we re far from that.
So far consciousness requires a brain, full stop.
The rest is wishful or religious thinking full of naif intuitions... Intellectual massages... However you want to call them..

Consciousness is a macroscopic phenomena... — Raul

Is it? Can you provide proof of that?

I think he fact that quantum physics shows us that observation has an influence on the outcome demonstrates that consciousness is more pervasive than we think, and influences both the microscopic and macroscopic

Yes, consciousness and even the self could be one day created artificially by us... But we re far from that. — Raul

I'm not sure sure we are that far from it, given the pace of technology and the advancements in AI.

So far consciousness requires a brain, full stop. — Raul

And what is a brain? How do you define the characteristics of a brain?

I think electronic brains are entirely possible, I also think rudimentary artificial brains are already developed, and ever improving.

Yes I agree I think science will make much headway in explaining consciousness. I think it will likely come from quantum physics tbh. — Benj96

Nope.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/638903

Nope — 180 Proof

Oh interesting. I assume you're a quantum physicist then, having given such a definitive answer as "nope". I'm Sorry I didn't realise you were a professional in that discipline.

What are the limitations of your area of expertise? What are the intricacies of quantum physics that deem it impossible as a contributor to consciousness?

I look forward to your insights. Its been a while since I talked to an expert in the field.

Have you ever taken a single university physics course? or read any substantial work on quantum theory by a (popularizing) working physicist? Expertise is not required to refute 'quantum pseudo science' as I point out in the links above. I stand confidently by my "nope". :wink:

Have you ever taken a single university physics course? or read any substantial work on quantum theory by a (popularizing) working physicist? Expertise is not required to refute 'quantum pseudo science' as I point out in the links above. I stand confidently by my "nope". :wink: — 180 Proof

Yes I have.

And apparently you haven't. Yet jump to conclusions despite that fact. Are all experts talking trash in that case? Should they just assume you're right despite not committing to the field?

Or maybe you're open to entertaining expert opinions and the people who've learned of them, in the potential to elucidate mechanisms of conscious behaviour?

If not, please provide your explanation as to why quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness.

Okay. :lol:

Okay — 180 Proof

Well that seems reasonable. Theres no shame in assessing your own current limits of exploration of a topic. No harm no foul. We can't study everything.

I only have issue with people that pretend they do know with no credible evidence to support the claim. I'm always down to discuss though. That's (discussion is) open to anyone.

Whatever floats your boat, Ben. The brain is a wholly classical physical object in which the smallest neuronal structures are three orders of magnitude greater than planck scale and too hot for quantum actions to cohere, so no "quantum consciousness", etc. Anti-Pseudo-science 101. Basic physics and neuroscience literacy – and critical thinking – is required, not "expertise".

What are the intricacies of quantum physics that deem it impossible as a contributor to consciousness? — Benj96

Many people, like you, puts their hopes on quantum physics to explain anything that is misterios today, it has a kind of exotic attraction because it is complicated (no one really understand it well) but quantum is about the super small and microscopic world that works in a conter-intuitive way .... you don't need it to understand consciousness the same way you don't need it to understand how an airplane works.

No one is saying quantum physics is not contributing, I'm saying it is not needed to explain consciousness because consciousness is a macro-phenomena already fairly well explained by people like Dehaene and Tononi. They re quite exhaustive in their explanations and studies, still a lot to be done but they have shown the way that is far from quantum mechanics...
Chalmers and the nobel price Roger Penrose could not agree maybe but they tried already to seriously related consciousness to quantum physics and scientific community is not agreeing with them...

:up:

I only have issue with people that pretend they do known with no credible evidence to support the claim. — Benj96

Like you claiming consciousness requires quantum physics to be explained?

Like you claiming consciousness requires quantum physics to be explained? — Raul

Well now in fairness you didn't ask more about it did you?
I'll oblige you with an explanation but only if asked for. I can't force feed views down someone's throat, they have to be willing to entertain them in the first place.

That willingness being demonstrated through asking more about the topic.

(no one really understand it well — Raul

Speak for yourself. Haha. I do understand to well. And can explain that if you want me to.

No one is saying quantum physics is not contributing, I'm saying it is not needed to explain consciousness because consciousness is a macro-phenomena — Raul

First of all you just contradicted yourself saying "no one is saying quantum physics is not contributing" and then said "it is not needed".

Surely consciousness as the product of physics has a link to the quantum. Nothing exists in isolation. If it did that would violate information theory, that all information is connected and un-isolatable.

So instead of bombarding one with arbitrary impenetrable walls of disbelief, perhaps it's better to entertain others, gosh you might actually learn something you didn't know already.

I do understand to well. — Benj96

Whatever!

First of all you just contradicted yourself saying "no one is saying quantum physics is not contributing" and then said "it is not needed". — Benj96

are you saying we need now a quantum physicist to explain everything?

So instead of bombarding one with arbitrary impenetrable walls of disbelief, perhaps it's better to entertain others, gosh you might actually learn something you didn't know already. — Benj96

Right, this comment is perfect for you.
Read the people I mentioned in my posts, from what you write it is clear that you will learn a lot.
Take it easy my friend.

Read the people I mentioned in my posts, from what you write it is clear that you will learn a lot — Raul

Perhaps I will. I'll do that to satisfy your whims. Im open to having my opinions swayed by reason. If I wasn't open to that, I guess I would just be arrogant.

I look forward to learning from others. As I'm sure their experiences/insights have value, as perhaps do mine. It will be determined on the basis of agreement or rejection of such notions.

So far consciousness requires a brain, full stop. — Raul

These kind of strong statements interest me. What is it that makes you so confident of this? Is it that alterations in brain function alter what we experience? And too much disruption of brain function leads to loss of consciousness? Is that what convinces you so strongly?

I'm still struggling with the issues involved with consciousness. The most pressing for me is how - if consciousness isn't entirely a function of the brain, and is somehow outside the brain - that wouldn't invoke the mind-body problem? — GLEN willows

There is no mind body problem.

Consciousness is a state. It's not a thing. It's a state of a thing. It's a state minds - and minds alone - can be in.

That is, if something is in a state of consciousness, then it is a mind. For that is a defining feature of a mind: a mind is an object that has consciousness as a state it can be in (some would say that it is always in it).

So, first, let's not make category errors: consciousness is something minds 'have'.

Brains do not have it. Or at least, there is no evidence they have it and plenty that they do not.

Therefore, minds are not brains and brains are not minds.

If anyone thinks that there is evidence that brains are minds - that is, that brains have consciousness - then all they will do (for to date, this is all they have ever done when I have asked for evidence) is point out something that no one seriously denies. Namely, that brain states seems to be causally responsible for our mental states.

But only someone incredibly thick would think one can go from A causes B to A 'is' B. Yet that is how thick these people are. For that is precisely how they get to the conclusion that the mind is the brain.

It goes like this "dur...doing things to brain does things in mind....hit head, causes ow, ow is in mind. Therefore mind is brain. Neurscience. Sam Harris. Mind is brain. Dennett. Mind is brain. Take away bit of brain, person go dumb dumb. Therefore mind is brain."

Consciousness is a state of mind. And minds are not brains. They - some of them, namely our ones - are in causal relations with them.

Is there a mind body problem? No. What would it be? What problem?

The only people who think there is a mind body problem are those who are unable to accept that minds are not brains and so then wonder 'but how can a brain be conscious?'.

It's like supposing cheese has consciousness and so is a mind, and then wondering how that could be and calling such wonderings 'the cheese/mind problem'.

There's a sparrow outside. Let's imagine it isn't outside, but is in fact inside my locked cupboard. And now I have something to wonder about - how on earth did a sparrow get inside my locked cupboard? It could not have opened the doors and shut them behind it. So how did it get in there? That is contemporary philosophy of mind. It's a bunch of people who have decided that something is the case that clearly isn't the case, and now they're wondering how it could be the case. A truly spectacular waste of time.

Some panpsychists (like myself) might say that consciousness is a basic property of matter, like charge, spin or mass. That way it's inside your brain without being a function. — bert1

Be honest, you're a panpsychist because you like the word and want to belong to a gang.

So, to be clear, you think your consciousness is the state of what - an atom? You think you're an atom, do you? And presumably you think that your body contains billions upon billions of other persons? And that everything around you is teeming with billions of persons.....why are you not in a straightjacket?

And to be clear some more: you think the way to solve the problem of how consciousness - which is clearly not a property of matter - could be a property of matter, is to make all matter have it? How does that work? How does that explain anything? You think if you multiply the problem enough times, it goes away?

Why not just say that some things are conscious - such as complex arrangements of meat - and some things, such as sandwiches, are not? That'd still be false and not solve anything, but at least it wouldn't be totally mental.

The problem with thinking anything material is conscious is that consciousness is not a property of material things and everything our reason says confirms this. That's why there is a 'problem ' confronting those who choose to ignore what our reason says and insist that material can be conscious.

But you do not solve that 'problem' by attributing consciousnes to everything or to little things rather than big things. You solve it by listening to reason and concluding that the mind is not a material thing. Jesus. You people.

Bartricks - Thanks for the lengthy response. I recall talking to you here before - and let me say you are a man of very firm opinions, you are angry, and you rely on ad hominem attacks.

This is my polite way of telling you to go f**k yourself.

This is my polite way of telling you to go f**k yourself. — GLEN willows

That wasn't polite at all and so now you deserve to be spoken to with outright contempt - do you see that?

You also do not know what an ad hominem attack is.

So, you know, this wouldn't have been a profitable debate. Snowflake.