I would define "mind" as the sum total of an entities mental processes which include thinking, feeling, perceiving, knowing, remembering, being aware, being self-aware, proprioception, and lots of stuff I'm leaving out. I think all of those things are observable from the outside (third person observation) and many are observable from the inside (introspection). — T Clark

So mind is a thing, not a process? Or both?

And Bernie hung on way too long, needlessly damaging Clinton and preventing her from pivoting to the genera election.

What definition of “consciousness” can you present here such that it could be subject to experimental investigation? — apokrisis

Suppose we discovered the perfectly preserved corpse of an alien in one of their spaceships. For any definition of "conscious", what experiments could we do to ascertain whether the alien was ever conscious when it was alive?

You sound like the kid in the back seat. “Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”

You have failed to engage with the points I made and I don’t feel I need to run you through it again. — apokrisis

"Do Insects Have Consciousness and Ego?
The brains of insects are similar to a structure in human brains, which could show a rudimentary form of consciousness"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/do-insects-have-consciousness-ego-180958824/

What say you? Do you think it's significant that Smithsonian Magazine is taking insect consciousness seriously? Would a simulation of a working brain be conscious? Are functional equivalents of working brains conscious, no matter what the substrate? And why did you put "consciousness" in quotes?

Hey, you're the one who brought up evolution. Instead of getting defensive, just answer the questions.

If you can... :grin:

A theory of “consciousness” is just the pursuit of a ghostly spirit stuff. Or can you frame the task in a way that is scientific rather than a search for immaterial being? — apokrisis

Science should be able to explain something as fundamental as consciousness, shouldn't it? And why is "consciousness" in quotes?

There really do seem go be good guys and bad guys in this conflict. Russia, China, and Iran are the Axis powers, while U.S. and other democracies are the Allies.

:100:

Panpsychism is a gateway philosophy. It eventually leads to idealism.

Progress is about the generality of showing how consciousness is just the result of the evolutionary elaboration of biosemiosis — apokrisis

When did consciousness first show up? Are insects conscious? Can machines become conscious?

People like Koch, Kastrup, and Tononi have PhD's in science. The idea that only philosophers worry about consciousness is decades out of date.

Maybe there is more of focus now than thirty years ago...I don't really know. Maybe it's a category mistake to expect neuroscience to explain consciousness as we intuitively understand it. Maybe that understanding itself is due to reifications of linguistically generated ideas. I don't think it's a problem which really matters much to how we live our lives—there are far more pressing problems facing us right now. — Janus

That's true for much of science. The JWST gives us pretty pictures, but doesn't have much impact on the problems facing us. Should we not have spent billions on it?

You can only paper over problems for so long. Eventually the shut up-and-calculate approach fails, and the hard problems become more and more embarrassing.

I don't think the so-called "hard problem" is the main, or even a significant, focus of neuroscience. It's mostly the philosophers who worry about it. — Janus

I think there's more of a focus now than there was thirty years ago, don't you? Science seeks to explain phenomena, correct? So I ask again: what should we do if neuroscience still hasn't explained consciousness 1,000 years from now?

Neuroscience may not have explained first person experience, but it has discovered plenty about the workings of the brain. — Janus

Sure, but it's come up empty on the hard problem. If there's still no solution in 1,000 years, what should we do?

I don't see any alternative for science than the Galilean approach — Janus

That approach doesn't seem to be working. How long do you think we should stick with it?

Every time we think it's aliens, it's never aliens.

That doesn't change the fact that Nader was a decisive factor that led to Gore's defeat. No Nader, Gore most likely wins.

There were a lot of factors that led to Gore losing, but had Nader not run, Gore probably would have won Florida handily.

I remember when Ralph Nader, who I admire, cost Gore the election, and then we had the Iraq war. West needs to sit this one out.

Why do you think there are four black CEO's in the Fortune 500? — NOS4A2

Because there are still black people alive who remember when de jure discrimination existed (separate but equal). Racism is still alive and well in 2023. Your explanation that of a lack of talent causes black people to be underrepresented in the Fortune 500 by an order of magnitude is absurd, and I think you know that.

There are four black CEO's in the Fortune 500. Why do you think that it is?

That's true, but what would we do differently (in regards to gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating)?

Everyone knows the dangers of gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating. The marketing and lying about opioids should have resulted in a lot of people going to jail for a long time. People trust their doctors, and their doctors and the medical industry totally failed them. I would say the pharmaceutical and quasi-legal recreational drug business needs to be heavily regulated. Social media too, as far as kids are concerned.

I have a philosophy degree, but you need to dumb it down for me. I have trouble understanding that. My position is that we can know a few things about reality. Cartesian truths. Mind, thought and consciousness exist. We can't be wrong about that.

I hope so, but this stupid country is totally capable of electing Trump again.

a language presence of inner auditory qualities — Astrophel

When you visualize a sunset, how is that a "language presence of inner auditory qualities"?

Aren't you as certain that thinking/mind/thought exists as you are about the truths of logic?

Hi, Rogue AI

For what it's worth, I assure you that I'll continue to live my life as if I'm in a real world, not a simulation.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. — Torus34

Can you address the point I made about consciousness emerging from switching actions? Do you think that's possible?

Suppose there is a scientist alive today who fully understands how consciousness emerges in the brain.

Do you think that you would be able to understand that scientist's explanation without having studied the relevant science yourself?

A more accurate and nuanced statement than yours above is that scientists have developed and are continuing to develop more accurate understanding of aspects of how consciousness emerges from brains. Criticisms arising out of anti-scientific ignorance don't even reach the threshold of mildly interesting after awhile. — wonderer1

I posted just this sort of thing the other day: suppose aliens or an advanced machine intelligence figured out consciousness. Would we be able to understand the explanation, or at least be able to ask a bunch of questions that would give us the gist of the answer? For example, we could ask the aliens/machine intelligence "Does consciousness come from matter? Does the type of matter make any difference? Is consciousness related to information processing?" Etc.

In short, yes, I think we could understand a great deal about the explanation. If that's the case, there's nothing stopping us from figuring out those answers ourselves, so I think mysterianism is a copout.

*sigh!* OK goddoneit — Vera Mont

Pointing out materialism/physicalism's failure to explain consciousness doesn't entail "goddoneit". Mysterianism has been gaining in popularity lately.

Obviously, my point is that science hasn't explained how consciousness/minds come from matter.

"Decades-long bet on consciousness ends — and it’s philosopher 1, neuroscientist 0"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8

If science can't explain something as fundamental as our own experience, why should we think it can explain whether consciousness can arise from computers? Why should we even entertain the notion that we're living in a simulation?

process that information and turn into an experience — Vera Mont

How does the information get "turned into an experience"?

Keep in mind that "one thinking mind" is a language construct. How, it may be asked, did one get this? And where does its authority find its basis? — Astrophel

"If A then B; A, therefore B" is also a language construct. Are you a radical skeptic?

"I think" is epistemic. — Astrophel

Isn't the following necessarily true: there exists at least one thinking mind?

Not quite true (e.g. vide T. Metzinger), but even if you're right, philosophy has only folk fantasy (i.e. folk psychology), not even an "idea". — 180 Proof

I don't want to derail the thread. Just pointing out some problems with Simulation Theory. Imo, they're insurmountable, but who knows.

At least in h. sapiens it does. — 180 Proof

Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. You would think, after all this time, we would have some idea, but the theories are all over the place. Eventually, people are going to question basic assumptions, such as "matter is real" and "brains cause consciousness".

To tie this back to the OP, if there's no explanation for how our own brains make us conscious, why should we even consider the idea that consciousness can come from an entirely different substrate? Why is that even taken seriously? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

"For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?"

If you knew for certain you were in a simulation, wouldn't you want to try and get in touch with the simulation creator?

How are "conscious experiences" "created" without "nerve impulses"? — 180 Proof

Consciousness requires nerve impulses??? No possibility of machine consciousness? No possibility that this is a simulation?

Yes, that's pretty much how nerve impulses work. — Vera Mont

How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences?

Do you think your consciousness and mind can be reduced to a bunch of switching actions? Can the pain of a stubbed toe emerge from flipping enough light switches on and off in some pattern? To me, these possibilities do not merit consideration, so we are not living in a simulation.

Why do you prefer Trump over DeSantis?

Why?