My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Ron_Tomkins]

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Since the issue of Artificial Intelligence has been argued here before, and dualists have argued that you can't explain the "magical" process of consciousness through science and math; it occurs to me that maybe we haven't been fair to the process and appeared too simplistic with our explanations, and we have not fully reviewed in what way is it that consciousness can be approached (And the way Penrose suggest is Quantum Mechanics).

(And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

And that includes people who have read Penrose's book and can give their layman version of what's more or less addressed in such book (Trying not to spoil us the surprises too much )

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure how Quantum Mechanics would help with the study of consciousness.

The best research is in the field of neuroscience. We really do have measures that correlate very reliably with self-reports of consciousness. (And dualists have nothing to support the idea that consciousness can exist without a normally functioning human mind or vice versa--that is there's zero evidence of P-zombies and disembodied consciousness.)

I mentioned a pretty cool experiment done at the California Neuroscience Institute that I saw described on PBS' Science Frontiers with Alan Alda. The subject is put in a chair such that his entire visual field is a monitor. The monitor displays an alternating pattern of two images: horizontal red stripes and vertical blue stripes. In normal vision, the subjective experience is a sort of purple plaid pattern (that is you see them both at the same time). If you put filters that make the red only visible to one visual field and blue only visible to the other, the subjective experience is that you only see one or the other at a time, and they switch every once in a while.
(Nothing in the objective world is changing, just the subjective experience, much like optical illusions where there is an ambiguity--you only see the silhouette spinning clockwise or counterclockwise, but not both at the same time.) Meanwhile, the subject is attach to a sophisticated sort of EEG. The EEG is attached to a computer program that can be taught to recognize the brain scans that match the experience of seeing one or the other of the two patterns. That is, before long the computer can tell by the brains can what the subject is experiencing.

I think we will continue to learn which structures and functions in the brain are "the seats of consciousness". I don't understand how quantum mechanics will have anything to do with this.

[Hux]

I tried to read Penrose' book years ago. Not a frikkin' clue. Totally baffled. So I put it to one side.

You might get somewhere by reading some books by Stephen Pinker and Daniel Dennett. They are more approachable and do not suggest unsupported processes. I wonder how we could ever get to the bottom of consciousness by utilising a process we understand so poorly? Consciousness is not unusual. Our level of consciousness is. Its still however a natural biological process and I'm sure will be explained from that standpoint.

[Maia]

I don't know, but it always seems to me that some other variety of argument is always lurking behind the scenes when these kinds of concepts are brought out. All right, so if quantum mechanics actually provided a model for the process of consciousness somehow in some way not yet fully understood, then I guess... it would. What's really the point here?

Quote:

And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

But what exactly is being referred to by the usage of the phrase "apparent mystery"? If this "mystery" was resolved, what would that mean? If it wasn't resolved, what would that mean? Again, what exactly is the point?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Don't bother "investigating" Penrose. It's wrong, his theories are drivel, and the popularity of The Emperor's New Mind has arguably set cognitive science back by five years.

Basically, his entire argument can be summed up as follows:

1) I am a brilliant mathematician.
2) I don't understand consciousness at all.
3) I don't understand quantum mechanics at all
4) Therefore, quantum mechanics must explain consciousness.

Quote:

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

It can't. Ask any practicing physicist whether or not Penrose actually gets the physics correct. You will almost certainly learn that, no, he doesn't.

Similarly, any cognitive scientist will tell you that he gets the fundamentals of cognitive science completely wrong. Indeed, any neurologist will tell you that he can't get neuroanatomy correct.

It's one huge tower of ignorance. A very well-written tower, but fundamentally wrong.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Maia

I don't know, but it always seems to me that some other variety of argument is always lurking behind the scenes when these kinds of concepts are brought out. All right, so if quantum mechanics actually provided a model for the process of consciousness somehow in some way not yet fully understood, then I guess... it would. What's really the point here?


But what exactly is being referred to by the usage of the phrase "apparent mystery"? If this "mystery" was resolved, what would that mean? If it wasn't resolved, what would that mean? Again, what exactly is the point?

I guess I have no problem with the overall point (understanding consciousness is fascinating).

I just don't understand how QM could possibly prove a model for consciousness.
And consciousness emerges at the level brain structure (if not the entire organ). It certainly isn't a property of tissue, cell, molecule or atom, much less anything that QM tells us about.

I would say the interesting stuff starts at the level of cell function. QM really doesn't have anything to say even about regular chemistry.

Given the responses of those familiar with Penrose (I'm not), it sounds like it's just a typical invocation of "quantum" to explain some New Age idea (like The Secret or What the Bleep or The Tao of Physics or some such). "Aha! QM tells us that observation has an effect on the thing being measured, so that must tell us something about consciousness!" As drkitten says, it's more a lack of understanding of the physics than it is anything actually about consciousness.

I also think it's like using terms that have real meaning (energy, vibration, resonance, etc.) to refer to fuzzy, possibly supernatural ideas.

What bugs me most is that there are pretty exciting advances in neuroscience, and invoking QM seems to say that physics (or a misunderstanding of physics) will tell us more about consciousness than the science that actually has told us a great deal about it.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Don't bother "investigating" Penrose. It's wrong, his theories are drivel, and the popularity of The Emperor's New Mind has arguably set cognitive science back by five years.

Basically, his entire argument can be summed up as follows:

1) I am a brilliant mathematician.
2) I don't understand consciousness at all.
3) I don't understand quantum mechanics at all
4) Therefore, quantum mechanics must explain consciousness.



It can't. Ask any practicing physicist whether or not Penrose actually gets the physics correct. You will almost certainly learn that, no, he doesn't.

Similarly, any cognitive scientist will tell you that he gets the fundamentals of cognitive science completely wrong. Indeed, any neurologist will tell you that he can't get neuroanatomy correct.

It's one huge tower of ignorance. A very well-written tower, but fundamentally wrong.

And if you want more information about why it is fundamentally wrong, go ahead and google "lucas penrose argument".

Note that the vast majority of hits have to do with explaining why it is invalid. That is why it is also known as the lucas penrose fallacy.

[Maia]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I guess I have no problem with the overall point (understanding consciousness is fascinating).

I just don't understand how QM could possibly prove a model for consciousness.
And consciousness emerges at the level brain structure (if not the entire organ). It certainly isn't a property of tissue, cell, molecule or atom, much less anything that QM tells us about.

I would say the interesting stuff starts at the level of cell function. QM really doesn't have anything to say even about regular chemistry.

I have no idea how QM could really do that either, but I do have to say that I'd love to read Gustav Bernroider. (I haven't yet. Has anybody else?) The reason is that his theories are based on what happens in the ion channels of neurons; now, that I do know a bit about because of the relationship to the actions of psychopharmacological drugs. Most of the newer classes of anticonvulsants work on the ionic channels in some way, and he specifically studied the potassium (K+) ion channel. (Retigabine is one that modulates activity there.)

It might be worth reading what other scientists have done who aren't primarily mathematicians-- Bernroider definitely does not seem to have any New-Agey ax to grind. But...

Quote:

The Secret or What the Bleep or The Tao of Physics or some such).

No! NO! Horrible memories of being trapped at friends' houses and forced to watch unspeakably bad movies while served tofu...

[Zalbik]

Originally Posted by drkitten

3) I don't understand quantum mechanics at all

So you're saying the guy who has won the Wolfe prize for mathematical physics and the Dirac prize for theoretical physics doesn't understand quantum mechanics at all?

Any evidence for this remarkable remark?

I can't find any references / quotes from physicists who disparage his opinions on quantum mechanics.

That being said, I will agree that is cognitive science arguments are very weak in Emperor's New Mind. I have no idea if any of his subsequent works did any better...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I believe that Penrose and Hameroff proposed 20 experiments to test Orch-OR, their "theory" behind their QM proposals. If you can find a single paper about any of these experiments, please let me know.

Also, try searching on <Orch-OR> at Pubmed. You'll get about seven hits, four of which are irrelevant, two by Penrose and Hameroff, and one titled "Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible."

~~ Paul

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Maia

I have no idea how QM could really do that either, but I do have to say that I'd love to read Gustav Bernroider. (I haven't yet. Has anybody else?) The reason is that his theories are based on what happens in the ion channels of neurons; now, that I do know a bit about because of the relationship to the actions of psychopharmacological drugs. Most of the newer classes of anticonvulsants work on the ionic channels in some way, and he specifically studied the potassium (K+) ion channel. (Retigabine is one that modulates activity there.)

Yup. As I said, the interesting stuff starts at the level of cell functions. Ion channels, synapses, neurotransmitters, etc. That's pretty much the lowest level of organization that has to do with consciousness.

Quote:

No! NO! Horrible memories of being trapped at friends' houses and forced to watch unspeakably bad movies while served tofu...

Hey, now! There's nothing wrong with tofu!

[blobru]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

... I mentioned a pretty cool experiment done at the California Neuroscience Institute that I saw described on PBS' Science Frontiers with Alan Alda. The subject is put in a chair such that his entire visual field is a monitor. The monitor displays an alternating pattern of two images: horizontal red stripes and vertical blue stripes. In normal vision, the subjective experience is a sort of purple plaid pattern (that is you see them both at the same time). If you put filters that make the red only visible to one visual field and blue only visible to the other, the subjective experience is that you only see one or the other at a time, and they switch every once in a while.
(Nothing in the objective world is changing, just the subjective experience, much like optical illusions where there is an ambiguity--you only see the silhouette spinning clockwise or counterclockwise, but not both at the same time.) Meanwhile, the subject is attach to a sophisticated sort of EEG. The EEG is attached to a computer program that can be taught to recognize the brain scans that match the experience of seeing one or the other of the two patterns. That is, before long the computer can tell by the brains can what the subject is experiencing.

Here's a 60 minutes report from about a year ago where researchers are able to identify subjects' thoughts such as "screwdriver", "hammer", "igloo", "castle", "addition" or "subtraction", solely from brainscan pattern (the first half is relevant; the second is mostly ethical considerations and Lesley Stahl wetting her pants that her brain is "just molecules").

Quote:

I think we will continue to learn which structures and functions in the brain are "the seats of consciousness". I don't understand how quantum mechanics will have anything to do with this.

I agree. I'm not sure where the pessimism comes from among some philosophers / researchers, that consciousness may be an insoluble paradox. The computational model for the mind is so suggestive -- all knowledge based on nets of comparison functions (x is A, y is not-A), consciousness the highest-level comparison function, likely recursive (I was I, now I'm not) -- that even if it's not the whole story, the gaps that remain should only offer even more knowledge about the nature of the brain and body and their relation to consciousness, not insuperable barriers to understanding.

Until we're sure those gaps even exist, like you, I don't see the point of invoking QM to explain them.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Since the issue of Artificial Intelligence has been argued here before, and dualists have argued that you can't explain the "magical" process of consciousness through science and math; it occurs to me that maybe we haven't been fair to the process and appeared too simplistic with our explanations, and we have not fully reviewed in what way is it that consciousness can be approached (And the way Penrose suggest is Quantum Mechanics).

(And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

And that includes people who have read Penrose's book and can give their layman version of what's more or less addressed in such book (Trying not to spoil us the surprises too much )

Why in the name of the FSM would ANYBODY think any form of MECHANICS could explain "conciousness". "Now here we see the electron cloud helping Joe recognize his mental image of himself as valid!"

[Ron_Tomkins]

Interesting responses. I pretty much started this thread to read people's opinion on the matter, before I launch myself into Penrose's book. Now I'm having doubts as to wether or not I should make the investment.

[Dancing David]

Um, here is the deal neurotansmitters are above the QM level, as are neurons.

[Wowbagger]

QM might not provide the answer, but perhaps something else, that we know nothing about (yet) will. I can't tell you what that something else is (yet), but no matter what that thing is: Consciousness won't ever be simple until we find out what it is (eventually).

That's my take, as nebulous and uhelpful though it may be (for now).

[Apathia]

Ah! This thread reminds me of one I started back when.
DrKitten intervened and so became one of my favorite JREF people.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59996

[!Kaggen]

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.
It therefore can only be recognized by itself.
The question for me is not how does consciousness arise, which is answered above, but why does consciousness create itself?

Consciousness creation by matter assumes that matter is conscious.
Clearly a form of dualism in the light of the above.
Penrose's honest mistake is making this dualism explicit by hypothesizing that consciousness is created by matter through QM.

To avoid this dualism I believe the why of consciousness can only be explained within its borders using its substance, thought.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.

And you know this - how?

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Robin

And you know this - how?

I think

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:

It therefore can only be recognized by itself.

Unsupported assertion and non sequitur

Quote:

The question for me is not how does consciousness arise, which is answered above, but why does consciousness create itself?

House of cards is getting a little wobbly now

Quote:

Consciousness creation by matter assumes that matter is conscious.

Only if we allow your unsupported assertion above

Quote:

Clearly a form of dualism in the light of the above.

Since you have assumed a non-materialist axiom, duh!

Quote:

Penrose's honest mistake is making this dualism explicit by hypothesizing that consciousness is created by matter through QM.

To avoid this dualism I believe the why of consciousness can only be explained within its borders using its substance, thought.

But this is still dualism. If there is matter and there is thought then that is dualism and we're back at the old "Which great opponent of Cartesian dualism resists the reduction of psychological phenomena to a physical state and insists there is no point of contact between the extended and the unextended?"

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.

Originally Posted by Wudang

Unsupported assertion.

Yes, the only one we can make "I think"

Quote:

Consciousness creation by matter assumes that matter is conscious.

Originally Posted by Wudang

Only if we allow your unsupported assertion above

So you agree then.

Quote:

Clearly a form of dualism in the light of the above.

Originally Posted by Wudang

Since you have assumed a non-materialist axiom, duh!

What gives you reason to believe it is a non-materialist axiom?

Quote:

Penrose's honest mistake is making this dualism explicit by hypothesizing that consciousness is created by matter through QM.
To avoid this dualism I believe the why of consciousness can only be explained within its borders using its substance, thought.

Originally Posted by Wudang

But this is still dualism. If there is matter and there is thought then that is dualism and we're back at the old "Which great opponent of Cartesian dualism resists the reduction of psychological phenomena to a physical state and insists there is no point of contact between the extended and the unextended?"

I do not assume a thought, only thought. Perhaps I should have used the word thinking instead. I am not differentiating between the matter and thoughts/ideas as this differentiation results from consciousness. I am saying we will only understand consciousness by examining that which we cannot avoid, thinking.

[Hux]

It is a biological expression. It will be explained in terms of biology. It will and does take some explaining but since it arose naturally, there is no reason to suppose we cannot come upon a satisfying explanation. After all, its not really a question of consciousness; it is the level that requires explanation. We look at the animal Kingdom and see varying levels of consciousness and we do not seem to have a problem understanding animal response - but we know it is limited, often instinctual - so if we work from that we should get close to the real answers. So what if it turns out we are creatures running millions if not billions of algorithms per sec? So what if it gives us the impression that we are something apart from nature, if all we are doing is reacting to it with infinitesimally large options? There appears to be no inner self. What will be bruised other than our ego's?

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Hux

It is a biological expression. It will be explained in terms of biology. It will and does take some explaining but since it arose naturally, there is no reason to suppose we cannot come upon a satisfying explanation. After all, its not really a question of consciousness; it is the level that requires explanation. We look at the animal Kingdom and see varying levels of consciousness and we do not seem to have a problem understanding animal response - but we know it is limited, often instinctual - so if we work from that we should get close to the real answers. So what if it turns out we are creatures running millions if not billions of algorithms per sec? So what if it gives us the impression that we are something apart from nature, if all we are doing is reacting to it with infinitesimally large options? There appears to be no inner self. What will be bruised other than our ego's?

thanks for your thoughts

[Hux]

You cant guess what I'm thinking right now. Thanks also for your input.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Hux

You cant guess what I'm thinking right now.

No, but if I could guess why you are thinking then I would understand consciousness.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I think

Which then begs the question, how do you know that?

Now phenomenology is a part of philosophy now, but nweuroscience has come a long way.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Since the issue of Artificial Intelligence has been argued here before, and dualists have argued that you can't explain the "magical" process of consciousness through science and math; it occurs to me that maybe we haven't been fair to the process and appeared too simplistic with our explanations, and we have not fully reviewed in what way is it that consciousness can be approached (And the way Penrose suggest is Quantum Mechanics).

(And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

And that includes people who have read Penrose's book and can give their layman version of what's more or less addressed in such book (Trying not to spoil us the surprises too much )

You wanted a reasonable, balanced response to that question? You posted your question on the wrong board. You might just as well have asked a bunch of Christians for their opinions on evolution.

The bottom line is that most of the people who post on this board (a) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about consciousness, (b) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about quantum mechanics, (c) aren't actually interested in understanding (a) or (b) because (d) they have an agenda which involves the denial that there could be anything about either subject which could possibly challenge that dogmatic, anti-religious, anti-"woo" agenda.

Ask proper scientists, ask philosophers, but don't bother asking a bunch of knee-jerk-responding, ignorant, arrogant "skeptics", because you should already know in advance what sort of response you will get. If there is a deep connection between the problems concerning QM and consciousness, this board is home to about the last people on Earth which would be willing to admit it. In short, most people here already believe they understand enough about these issues to be reasonably certain that any talk connecting consciousness and QM is woo-woo nonsense, but, if past experience is anything to go by, very few of them actually do understand those issues. It's their gut instinct which drives their opinions on this subject, not reason or scientific knowledge. Woo-woos talk about "quantum consciousness", therefore it must be nonsense.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Yes, the only one we can make "I think"

I observe and experience something I call thought.

That does not say what the experiece actaully is.

Quote:

...


I do not assume a thought, only thought. Perhaps I should have used the word thinking instead. I am not differentiating between the matter and thoughts/ideas as this differentiation results from consciousness. I am saying we will only understand consciousness by examining that which we cannot avoid, thinking.

Well, the differentiation comes about because of the use of language, which is an idiomatic and self refential system of communication that takes place between communicants with the appearnce of existance.

that does not give validity to the actual label usage of the underlying phenomena.

We can also understand more about consciousness through biology than phenomenology.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

You wanted a reasonable, balanced response to that question? You posted your question on the wrong board. You might just as well have asked a bunch of Christians for their opinions on evolution.

The bottom line is that most of the people who post on this board (a) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about consciousness, (b) don't understand the deep philosophical problems and issues raised by questions about quantum mechanics, (c) aren't actually interested in understanding (a) or (b) because (d) they have an agenda which involves the denial that there could be anything about either subject which could possibly challenge that dogmatic, anti-religious, anti-"woo" agenda.

Ask proper scientists, ask philosophers, but don't bother asking a bunch of knee-jerk-responding, ignorant, arrogant "skeptics", because you should already know in advance what sort of response you will get. If there is a deep connection between the problems concerning QM and consciousness, this board is home to about the last people on Earth which would be willing to admit it.

Ah, that is nice, and a great spin.

You can't present your ideas in a defensible fashion, so you blame everyone else.

Bravo UCE!

Some of us do care, we just don't agree with you.

So what 'problems' concerning QM ?
Maybe you could also say what problems there are with 'consciousness' ?


Please be sure to use some rigor in the defintions.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Ah, that is nice, and a great spin.

You can't present your ideas in a defensible fashion, so you blame everyone else.

Bravo UCE!

Some of us do care, we just don't agree with you.

Sorry, DD, but I've been posting on this board a long time too and I do not believe that this subject is approached by most people here with a sufficiently open mind.

Quote:

So what 'problems' concerning QM ?
Maybe you could also say what problems there are with 'consciousness' ?

Please be sure to use some rigor in the defintions.

As I have explained on numerous occasions in the past, these two problematic areas are connected because both of them require us to consider the distinction between the physical world we are directly aware of and the physical world of the external realists or hard physicalists. The "hard problem" of consciousness and the conundrums posed by Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment both end up being curve-balls for materialistic scientists because in both cases, unlike any other areas that we would like mainstream science to tackle, we cannot ignore the conceptual, metaphysical distinction between the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself. The denialists on this board try to claim that in neither case is there any need for scientists to turn to metaphysics. They are wrong. Bottom line: both subjects cause serious problems for naive materialists, and most of the people here are naive materialists who are unwilling to admit there is any reason for them to question their unacknowledged metaphysical commitments. It is a threat to the foundation of a belief system which, in this case, most adherents aren't even willing to admit is a belief system at all, let alone that there might be a serious problem with it.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Which then begs the question, how do you know that?

Like I said, consciousness is self-referential.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Now phenomenology is a part of philosophy now, but nweuroscience has come a long way.

Yes it it should be supported to go further as an exact empirical science.
However it does not exist in a vacuum and thus far still needs to be thought about and interpreted by humans.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I observe and experience something I call thought.

That does not say what the experiece actaully is.

That is until you start thinking about your observations and experience of thought.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Well, the differentiation comes about because of the use of language, which is an idiomatic and self refential system of communication that takes place between communicants with the appearnce of existance.

that does not give validity to the actual label usage of the underlying phenomena.

Sure, using language to describe thoughts about thinking is hard. That is why much of phenomenology is incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

We can also understand more about consciousness through biology than phenomenology.

We will understand more from using both methods together.
I do not believe they are exclusive.
I am of the opinion that biologists in particular will only benefit if they were also trained in phenomenology.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Sorry, DD, but I've been posting on this board a long time too and I do not believe that this subject is approached by most people here with a sufficiently open mind.

Translation: nobody accepts my bluster as truth

Quote:

As I have explained on numerous occasions in the past, these two problematic areas are connected because both of them require us to consider the distinction between the physical world we are directly aware of and the physical world of the external realists or hard physicalists. The "hard problem" of consciousness and the conundrums posed by Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment both end up being curve-balls for materialistic scientists because in both cases, unlike any other areas that we would like mainstream science to tackle, we cannot ignore the conceptual, metaphysical distinction between the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself. The denialists on this board try to claim that in neither case is there any need for scientists to turn to metaphysics. They are wrong. Bottom line: both subjects cause serious problems for naive materialists, and most of the people here are naive materialists who are unwilling to admit there is any reason for them to question their unacknowledged metaphysical commitments. It is a threat to the foundation of a belief system which, in this case, most adherents aren't even willing to admit is a belief system at all, let alone that there might be a serious problem with it.

Translation: the HPC sounds weird, QM sounds weird, anyone who watches Buffy knows that weird things go together.

"the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself" Classic misunderstanding - the QM world is part of the world as it is at a very small scale - a scale we find it hard to visualize. The macrocosmic world that we experience is not made any less real because the world acts counter to our intuition at a small scale.

By the way - when you can say "as I have demonstrated" instead of "I have explained" the debate can probably move on further.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Yes, the only one we can make "I think"

I'm not interested in discussing opinions.

Quote:

So you agree then.

Hardly

Quote:

I do not assume a thought, only thought. Perhaps I should have used the word thinking instead. I am not differentiating between the matter and thoughts/ideas as this differentiation results from consciousness. I am saying we will only understand consciousness by examining that which we cannot avoid, thinking.

But when you start by making unfounded assumptions about what consciousness is then you may already be excluding the correct answer. You may wish to consider the history of introspection in the development of psychology to understand some of the wrong paths you can go down. Freudianism anyone?

[Aepervius]

I do not see quantum de-coherence spoken of in the thread so i guess it was not mentioned. The problem with Penrose idea is that quantum de-coherence happens at the nanosecond or so level, whereas neuron function are in the millisecond level. So I hardly see how a quantum effect can explain anything at all in the neuron function or even of the emerging behavior called consciousness.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Sorry, DD, but I've been posting on this board a long time too and I do not believe that this subject is approached by most people here with a sufficiently open mind.

fair enough

Quote:

As I have explained on numerous occasions in the past, these two problematic areas are connected because both of them require us to consider the distinction between the physical world we are directly aware of and the physical world of the external realists or hard physicalists.

Well, I can agree with that, because all assumptions are false.

the world acts as though it is real, regardless of what it is made of.

Quote:

The "hard problem" of consciousness

I still don't agree with the HPC, there may be a lack of detail in current models, but that is what they are, models. What is the problem, that models are incomplete?

Quote:

and the conundrums posed by Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that, it one one possible interpretation of QM, the 'thing' exists as a waveform, before during and after any interaction. That is sort of a superposition if you want to conceptualise it that way.

But really superposition is a classical framework for interpreting QM. A wave exists in the possible space of the Scrodinger wave form.

So, also the cat is a macro object and therefore also does not have QM effects.

Quote:

both end up being curve-balls for materialistic scientists because in both cases, unlike any other areas that we would like mainstream science to tackle, we cannot ignore the conceptual, metaphysical distinction between the-world-as-we-experience-it and the-world-as-it-is-in-itself.

Well I don't think we should ever ingnore that, models are models, and they are accurate but not reality. they are ways of describing reality. (Whatever that may be.)

Quote:

The denialists on this board try to claim that in neither case is there any need for scientists to turn to metaphysics.

Um, why should they in the case of consciousness or QM?

I don't understand, i ask sincerely.

Quote:

They are wrong. Bottom line: both subjects cause serious problems for naive materialists, and most of the people here are naive materialists who are unwilling to admit there is any reason for them to question their unacknowledged metaphysical commitments. It is a threat to the foundation of a belief system which, in this case, most adherents aren't even willing to admit is a belief system at all, let alone that there might be a serious problem with it.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Wudang

I'm not interested in discussing opinions.


Hardly


But when you start by making unfounded assumptions about what consciousness is then you may already be excluding the correct answer. You may wish to consider the history of introspection in the development of psychology to understand some of the wrong paths you can go down. Freudianism anyone?

The question is are you able to make any of the above statements without thinking?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Like I said, consciousness is self-referential.

that might be an assumption, how do you show it in phenomenology?

Quote:

Yes it it should be supported to go further as an exact empirical science.
However it does not exist in a vacuum and thus far still needs to be thought about and interpreted by humans.

that is already part of science, what are you thinking? I don't understand.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

That is until you start thinking about your observations and experience of thought.


Sure, using language to describe thoughts about thinking is hard. That is why much of phenomenology is incomprehensible.

We will understand more from using both methods together.
I do not believe they are exclusive.
I am of the opinion that biologists in particular will only benefit if they were also trained in phenomenology.

Well, there may be something you can demonstrate, what benefit is there to phenomenology? It seems to some of us to be dead end, that does not produce an effective/pragmatic model.

Unless you want to include cognitive behaviorism.