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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Intelligent life is that which is aware, can adapt, problem solve and make choices. — kindred

Amoebas can be aware of the type of water and depth of water they are in, can adapt for different temperatures of the water, and can solve problems in their navigating to different places in the water making choices which way to move to. Are Amoebas intelligent life?

I never claimed otherwise. When one level of organization emerges from another, they aren’t the same thing. Living organisms are not the same thing as the chemicals that make them up. — T Clark

And one more thing. I have no access to your subatomic structure for your consciousness. I doubt if anyone else does. The only way I can access your consciousness is by your mind expressed in the statements you are making. If you were in front of me while making the statements, I would also be able to see your facial expressions too for accessing your consciousness. That's all there is to it.

Nothing to do with the chemicals in your head or subatomic structure of the brain. All I know is that you have the biological living body, and nothing more I know further apart from your statements on the state of your mind. It is the most honest and realistic analysis on the consciousness of humans.

In general, that’s true, but I’m not interested in taking it up right now. — T Clark

I have absolutely no idea what is in your mind, apart from a telltale sign of your unwillingness for further discussions on this topic. Happy days. :smirk:

I’ve already told him I disagree with him. Now it appears I disagree with you too. — T Clark

Science is based on observation and experiments for their laws and theories. When science is working and claiming their own metaphysical views on the invisible or non-existent objects, often it turns to alchemy and magic with the devious pretense, hence it is sensible we keep our minds open with investigative motives on these topics, and keep the traditional philosophical traditions alert with analytic methods.

I don't know what else to make of this comment, Corvus, but to simply say if an opinion could be marked "Fail", this is it. — L'éléphant

It is up to you how you read and understand others opinions and interpretations on the point. No one can dictate how you feel and understand it. That is the exact point about consciousness too.

And what does "You will only observe the telltale signs...from the conscious living people and animals" mean? Our whole constitution is conscious! It is certainly not just telltale signs. — L'éléphant

Your comment sounds like a pretense just like what the politicians do and say. There is no logical or factual content in it.

We are fully in the realm of "the hard problem of consciousness." We've discussed it here on the forum many times. Some people think it's a big deal. Others, including me, just don't get why it's considered a problem at all. Never the twain shall meet. I'm not particularly interested in taking it up now. — T Clark

There is no problem in revisiting already discussed topic in the past, if new truths could come out from it. After all, many folks are still discussing the topics in discussion over 2000 years ago in philosophy.

Sez you. — T Clark

If you care to read about consciousness, you will notice that it is a vast subject. There are range of different views on the topic from the hard materialism to psychologism, idealism, functionalism and even spans to religious spritualism.

One thing that is common with the topic is that they all view consciousness as "awareness" based on the biological living body and brain. The point you must remember is that awareness is NOT the same thing as matter or brain itself.

Awareness and consciousness is the word describing aspects, operations, states and functions of mind, not the physical matter.

The only one I know of is the one we are discussing. — T Clark

If you keep reading the OP's post, he has not been talking about science or matter. Rather he means consciousness must have come from something that you put into the mind, not from nothing.

I think what he means is, that when you see physical objects (input into your mind), your consciousness must be also physical in nature (output), because the physical matter input cannot come out in any other form than physical matter.

So it appears that you are not reading the OP accurately.

Yes. Just as studying the motion of galaxies might suggest the existence of what we call dark matter, it is not a study of dark matter. — Patterner

:up: :fire:

I don’t think it’s true that any aspect of consciousness or the mind in general cannot be studied effectively by science. — T Clark

You can study consciousness by science. But the problem is, you will not see or observe actual consciousness itself, no matter what you dissect and look into. It is not in the form of matter.

You will only observe the telltale signs, functions and behavior of consciousness from the conscious living people and animals.

There’s no reason it can’t be a function of living biological agents and also emerge from matter. — T Clark

I disagree with that. Matter cannot give birth to consciousness. Could you give some examples of consciousness emerged from matter?

I strongly disagree. The problem isn't that it can't be defined, it's that it hasn't been in this discussion. Note that in my original post I wrote " — T Clark

You cannot understand the problem of consciousness without understanding what consciousness means and implies. My point was consciousness is function and ability of the living biological agents, not something emerges from matter. Do you still disagree on the point?

the term was well defined — T Clark

Revisiting your point here, I don't believe that consciousness is something which can be defined clearly.
Does it cover only being awake with the knowledge of self identity?, or seeing objects too?, what about intelligence?, how about characters and personality, will power?, creativity?, thinking? etc etc.

One thing for sure is that consciousness is not something that "emerges" from physical entity. Of course, it starts in the biological body, but it evolves into very complex abstract ability and functions of the biological body which has foundation in the lived experience with the social and cultural back ground.

It doesn't belong in the category of physical force or mechanical nature.

I wasn’t finding fault with anything you said. I was pointing out that the term was well defined in the OP. That is a common problem with discussions about consciousness. — T Clark

I wasn't saying you were. I was just reiterating the point that philosophy doesn't deal with atoms and particles in physical or biological science. Only thing it deals with is the meaning of words and sentences one uses and makes in communication and statements for clarity and logical coherence.

This is not typically what people who believe in the hard problem of consciousness mean when they say “consciousness.” For them, it means an awareness of subjective experience. That type of consciousness is not limited to humans or other animals with near-human intelligence. This discussion has a problem which is common to this type of discussion— they fail to define what they mean by “consciousness.” — T Clark

Sure. But if you think where the meaning of consciousness comes from, it is just a word describing awareness of biological being. It has little to do with subatomic particles. Stretching the meaning of the word that far sounds like seeing a rainbow and saying - there must be a divine being up there somewhere doing some painting.

Here in the U.S., we've become fatter. — Ecurb

I appreciate what you mean. But it is not a result of evolution. Could it be the effect of bad diet, no exercise and too much television watching?

Life could not have developed at all which leads me to think it had a helping hand to get it kickstarted. — kindred

You need to define what intelligent life is. You also need to clarify the origin and nature of the divine being who pushed intelligent life into being.

First, I take it that 'problems' of consciousness only arise if you assume that physical things are what ultimately exist, such that consciousness has to be found a home in that picture (a project that is then problematic). — Clarendon

Consciousness means that you are awake, and able to see things around you, and respond to others in rational linguistic manner in interpersonal communication. You are also able to do things for you in order to keep your well being eating drinking good food, and sleeping at right times caring for your own health, your family folks and friends.

It is not something in atoms and particles of physical existence of some spooky nature.

Humans have evolved. It's just not very noticeable. Evolution is a gradual process. — Ecurb

If you care to look closely into ancient Greek art objects such as sculptures drawings of humans, you will notice there is no changes in the human physical body compared to folks in recent times. If evolution were true, humans should have wings to fly around the cities and some other physical features combating environmental pollution. No such things can be noticed.

It would entail providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen at earliest stage and then let evolution do the rest. — kindred

So, what is the nature and origin of some sort of divine who pushed to get things started i.e. where does the divine itself come from, and how did he find out the right conditions and chemistry for life? What was the divine's intention / motive for providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen?

If evolution is true, then why humans have not evolved since Socrates and Buddha were alive?

I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ? — kindred

You need to define what divine push is, and list the range of actions he/she can/does perform.

ADDED: One day, AI, due to its original programming, and it's [free] development/evolution over time, will come to "believe" in its own "sentience," and most of us, although like anything else, debated, will come to "believe" it too. We are conditioned to. — ENOAH

Belief in something means that the believer will respond in the way that the belief is leading the believer to act, make statements or decide ... etc. What responses can you list from the belief you are referring to?

What really is 1+1=2? — ENOAH

What is number system, counting and math?  They are just conceptual language to describe objects, movements, changes and events in the external world.  They don't exist as physical objects.  They are the conceptual tools for human intelligence.   

If there were no objects in the universe, then there would be no numbers, counting system or math, hence the reason why no other animals, but only humans have math and numbering system in their mental world. All other animals can live without numbers and math quite comfortably and with no problems, but humans need them for their more complex life style.

1+1=2 can describe many real objects in the world such as you picked up 1 apple from the tree, and 1 apple from the shop.  How many apples do you have?  You will say you have 2 apples, because you can count, add, and you know the numbers. Likewise, I bought 1x book from Amazon, and 1x book from eBay. How many books did I buy? 2x books. and so on so forth so fifth .... to infinity.

That is what numbers, counting and adding, subtracting multiplying and dividing are about.
So if you talk about infinity, it is just a description of any thing - objects, time or space that keeps expanding or adding or rotating forever without stopping.  That is all there is to it.  You don't need the irrelevant math formulas to prove it.  You just know what infinity is by understanding the concept.

You write a computer program which asks the computer keep adding a number forever by

x=0, y=0
Do While x < y;
x= y+1x:=y
End

The program will fail with overflow error, and halt.  Because it knows that it is invalid instruction for the real world application.

Computer program also knows that when IF statements were input, they would check for the validity and truth value for the premises (IF statements), and when invalid or false, they would refuse to process further instructions.   Some dim humans cannot do that, insisting that you cannot deny premises in logic.   This sad fact is perhaps due to their blind worshiping on what they read on some shady internet sites rather than thinking clearly on the points with their own mind.

In that respect, the computer program is smarter than some human intelligence.
However, I don't believe AI or computer programs are sentient.  As I said before, they lack feelings and emotions, which are the basic perceptual abilities for all biological existence.

I don't say AI is really sentient in nature, or befoe "God", nor that "I' am really sentient. But in the "reality" where mind and human history call the shots, where I am sentient, AI sentience will be real. — ENOAH

AI can do many intelligent stuff, answering your questions on the technical problems etc. However, they lack emotional side of sentience. Machines cannot feel or show emotions due to lack of biological bodily structure, and also lived experience like humans.

AI and robots will never be able to feel elated, joyous, angry or jealous or depressed like humans do.
We don't hear about any AI killed himself due to depression, or got into fight with his boss out of frustration being treated unfairly.

If some folks believe AI is fully sentient, then wouldn't it be out of some illusion? Not saying you believe it, because you said you don't.

I do not mean believing makes things Real. Only being real is real; not knowing/believing. What I mean is believing brings a thing into our unique "reality" the narrative of mind/history. — ENOAH

Reasonable beliefs require reasonable reasons / grounds for believing. Without them, it becomes false and blind beliefs which lead to confusion and illusion. Could you reiterate your reasons / grounds for the belief?

I’d like to better understand the argument that intelligibility cannot arise through purely naturalistic processes. Some naturalists will react to this idea, and I fear the discussion may end up in the somewhat tedious “how is consciousness related to a physical world?” type of threads. — Tom Storm

Intelligibility is not just knowing things, but also understanding and solving the problems in practicality of life. There is limit of human knowledge on the world and even human mind, and knowing the boundary of intelligibility is also an intelligibility.

We must admit that not only there is clear boundary of our knowledge, but also there exists large part of the unknown universe. The limitation is due to lack of data on the type of abstract existence such as space and time, the origin of the universe, and God rather than human intelligence itself or naturalism.

Positing that they would not be in sync is preposterous (try it). So given correlation, yes, you have indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind. — noAxioms

The only way you could demonstrate your access (be it direct or indirect) to a person's song playing in his/her mind would be, if you could tell what song the person is playing without him/her telling you anything about the song, and if you could sing along the song in the person's mind as it plays along.

It really doesn't matter. All neural activity is subject to physical time treatment of relativity. — noAxioms

What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate with philosophical language?

Not directly, sure, but you still have indirect access. Supposedly a person could be doing the Macarena dance to the music playing only in their mind. Positing that they would not be in sync is preposterous (try it). So given correlation, yes, you have indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind. — noAxioms

The only way you can have access to person's music playing in their mind is let them sing out the tune, or play the instrument the tune in their mind in front of you. Your claim that indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind is possible sounds like some black magic or telepathy stuff.

isn't the firing of neurons, which constitutes the playing of the song in the mind, something physical as well? It doesn't happen at the speed of light, because it occurs through a physical medium. So wouldn't time dilation slow down that activity? — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is we don't know if the firing of neurons are the playing of the songs in the mind. If they are, still we don't know which neurons and what type of firing are related to the song playing, in what manner and ways.

and you observe the corresponding neural activity. Then, whenever you see an exact replication of that physical activity you know the person plays that song. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, there is no concrete evidence or working details proving the observed neural activity is the person's playing the song. Isn't it your imagination which links the neural activity to the song in your friend's mind? It is possible to imagine it of course, but it is not demonstrable or provable with intelligible evidence, is it?

Why not? it's like when you play a 45 at 33 1/3. — Metaphysician Undercover

Replayed songs are physical - the speed of the motor regulates it. Unless you change the speed of the record player or digital sampling speed (in case the music is replayed digitally), the song doesn't appear stretched in time.

You can hear the song stretched in time in your mind, if your imagination can do it. But you cannot access the other folks mind, hence you wouldn't know what song is being played in his/her mind.

Suppose I could somehow observe their inner mental activity directly. Imagine they’re playing a song in their head — RogueAI

Not possible thing to do. The premise is false. Not accepted.

From my frame, would that mental “song” appear stretched out in time? — RogueAI

No.

I’m trying to understand how (or whether) relativity meaningfully applies to subjective mental events like imagined music, not just external physical actions. — RogueAI

Time dilation is possible within mental level. You can even travel to the past in your mental world using your own memory and imagination. But it is impossible to do so in external physical world.

The "up to now" is in contrast with the statement you're making. So it doesn't save it from being logically fallacious. — Hallucinogen

The statement All swans are white is based on the past observations, hence it doesn't say anything about now or future observations. If it does, then it would have been a prediction, not a scientific statement.

The critical words you seem to miss here is "up to now".
Don't forget the statement was made based on the past event, not now or future.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're joking. — Hallucinogen

No joking. Common sense.