Consciousness...

kelly1

Hello, long time no speak

Let me start by saying I'm not sure how exactly to formulate the question I'm trying to ask...

My question concerns how consciousness/sentience is a property of matter.

At what level is matter self-aware? Is it a proper of quarks, protons/neutrons and/or electrons?

A brain, in the materialistic view, is nothing more than a complex arrangement of molecules which in turn are composed of atoms, electrons, protons/neutrons etc. Is the brain essentially an organic computer? If so, who/what programs the computer?

How is choice possible? It's clear (to me) that we all have the ability to make choices. Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Is it possible for matter to be self-aware?

Thoughts welcome.

Thanks,
Noel.

lostexpectation

function programs it,its construction programs it, reacting to its surroundings programs it and reprograms its, it doesn't start finished.

kelly1

lostexpectation wrote: »

function programs its,its construction programs it, reacting to its surroudnngs programs it and reprograms its, it doesn't start finished.

Can you please decipher that?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

At what level is matter self-aware? Is it a proper of quarks, protons/neutrons and/or electrons?

I don't believe that there are any neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically. It's far too large to be related to quarkish things.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is the brain essentially an organic computer?

It appears so.

kelly1 wrote: »

If so, who/what programs the computer?

It's "programmed" by evolution, but the analogy is inappropriate, since there's no evidence that any external agency has had any input in its design. It appears to be an entirely natural phenomenon, cool and all as it is.

kelly1 wrote: »

Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Because brains are computing devices which use massively parallel multilevel neural networks, not the (mostly) non-hierarchical sequential, procedural programming that you're thinking of, and that comprises what I suppose is 99.9% of the software development that one meets day to day. Neural networks don't "crash" in the sense that Windows crashes. They simply give the wrong answer, in the same way thta the brain comes up with bad answers quite often.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is it possible for matter to be self-aware?

We are made of matter, and we are self-aware, so your answer is a trivial "yes".

Bottle_of_Smoke

kelly1 wrote: »

How is choice possible? It's clear (to me) that we all have the ability to make choices. Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Well there is catatonia, or post-traumatic stress. Not exactly the same thing but the human brain isn't a exactly the same thing as a Dell laptop.

Zillah

We don't know what the explanation for subjective conciousness is. Neither do you. "The soul" or "magic" is not an explanation.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that there are any neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically. It's far too large to be related to quarkish things.

When it comes to science, belief doesn't mean a whole lot. How does complexity produce consciousness?

robindch wrote: »

We are made of matter, and we are self-aware, so your answer is a trivial "yes".

It doesn't follow that matter is self-aware just because we are self-aware. What property of matter makes it sentient? At what level of complexity does consciousness emerge? Isn't is reasonable to assume that all matter is either sentient or it isn't? Why does complexity matter?

AtomicHorror

The nature of the rational agent, the observer consciousness, that self aware watcher (that should not be needed for our survival), is an open question in science. There's a whole load of hypotheses, but no theories and no real answers.

If you feel like sticking God in this gap, I reckon it's a safe one for the foreseeable future.

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

We don't know what the explanation for subjective conciousness is.

Do you think it's possible that matter could be self-aware or even aware of its self-awareness?

Zillah wrote: »

Neither do you.

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

Until we can observe it, why assume it exists? That opens the door for assuming the truth of more or less anything. Come on, you know how we roll here.

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Come on, you know how we roll here.

You mean with loaded dice (i.e. bias)?

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you think it's possible that matter could be self-aware or even aware of its self-awareness?

I don't know, maybe? All we can observe is matter and energy, and we are self-aware, hence it would appear that matter and energy can be self aware.

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

How can immaterial things be self-aware?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Also, can't imagine we're the only animals who aren't self aware.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

You mean with loaded dice (i.e. bias)?

Yes. Failing to assume that something exists on the basis of non-testable authority (ie because you say so) is biased. If I didn't hate the eye-rollie emote so much I'd stick one here.

AtomicHorror

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Also, can't imagine we're the only animals who aren't self aware.

But ultimately we are unable to test whether other humans, let alone animals, are self-aware in the "observer" sense that we (or is it just I) are. For survival purposes, they technically need only appear to be so.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

How can immaterial things be self-aware?

My imaginary friend Bobo finds your comments hurtful.

dioltas

Typed a reply, and it got deleted, so annoying. Anyway...

I saw a documentary once that went through how life *may* have begun millions of years ago, and how intelligence could have evolves, can't remember what it was called though.

In my opinion the human brain is very like a computer, a very complex one though. It makes decisions, has storage, input / output etc.

kelly1 wrote: »

How is choice possible? It's clear (to me) that we all have the ability to make choices. Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

The human brain makes decisions based mainly on some basic pre-programmed instructions and past events (learning). You are unlikely to put your hand into a flame as you probably did so before and your brain learned that it hurt. Or maybe somebody told you it would hurt. In other words your brain makes a decision based on a past event.

Even a basic computer program can make decisions in this way. For example if you had a computer program that had to find a way out of a maze, if it took a wrong path it would turn around and try another path. It would continue this until it found an exit.
The pre-programmed instructions could be to:

1) go forward until you find a split in the path, Try one path
2) If path is a dead end, turn around and try another path
3) Don't try any paths twice
etc

The past event would be finding a dead end and knowing not to check that path again. The programmer would not have any knowledge of the maze. Therefore the program is making it's own decisions, though very basic ones.


The human brain is extremely complex, much more complex than a computer. But imho the way it works is comparable. If we were intelligent enough to make computers "intelligent" enough, then their decision making could be as good as ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Sci-Fi stuff you know!

And the human brain does crash sometimes. When people freeze with fear, fail to react under pressure etc. I don't think you can just look at the human brain either. You have to look at the whole system. I think we're just freaks of nature, and a result of evolution. Not much stranger than anything else in this universe if you ask me. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Sorry for the length of my waffle...

--amadeus--

Humans aren't the only animals who are self aware - using mirrors they have proved that chimps are also aware of a "self".

Bit of a subterfuge going on here - asking if matter is self aware is another straw man. It's a bit like saying Notre Dame cathedral cannot exist because pebbles don't have turrets. Matter is a building block and in that same way that a collection of shaped stones properly assembled becomes a cathedral so a collection of matter evolved over millennia assumes properties that the component parts alone couldn't have.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Brains have been known to crash into skyscrapers as a result of faulty programming.

aidan24326

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Humans aren't the only animals who are self aware - using mirrors they have proved that chimps are also aware of a "self"

As are dolphins apparently.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

No you aren't, you are trying to find a "gap" that your god can live in.

Because biologists don't understand how consciousness arises in the brain has got nothing to do with God, because God doesn't explain how consciousness arises in the brain either. Again, like so many of these god of the gaps discussions, it is just an excuse to stop asking the question.

If we are going to just start guessing as to how consciousness arises I've got quite a few guesses that don't involve the supernatural

pclancy

I don't think matter is self aware regardless of whether its in the format of a brain or a plank of timber. As said above its just building blocks to bigger things.

I'm slightly confused as I thought the origonal question was about consciousness. Us, chimps, dolphins and however many other lifeforms appear to be self aware, is that how you define consciousness?

I fear the need to find a creator for this organic computer is what this is about. I think we've just managed to get lucky and expand our conciousness above just exisiting like other animals.

F.A.

aidan24326 wrote: »

As are dolphins apparently.

Even magpies recognise themselves in a mirror as new studies have found.

seamus

This is more of a philosophical question than anything.

As others have said - how do you define "consciousness"? I would consider a vast array of other animals to be "self-aware", to be capable of making choices and decision based on past experiences and to be capable of using current events to predict future ones. I've witness animals, "discover" things, just like when a cat figures out that it can open a door by turning the handle. The cat doesn't know "why" it works, but that's no indicator of consciousness either - for thousands of years man didn't know "why" rubbing one stick against another produced heat, they just knew that it did.

So I don't think that we can marvel at ourselves and go, "why are we unique"? We are, but then every other animal has its uniqueness too. Other animals have superior hearing, or superior strength, or superior stamina to humans. Humans just happen to have superior intellect to other animals. It's just how we differ, it's not an indicator of us having been "chosen".

But as I say, it's a philosphical question. The zombie theory says that we can only prove to ourselves that we are conscious. I can't prove to you that I'm conscious and you can't prove to me that you're conscious. In other words, I could be the only conscious person the planet and everyone else is just a mindless zombie, acting in a defined way so as to give the illusion of the consciousness.

Other philosophies propose that we don't have any choice - that every single action by everyone has been predetermined since the big bang, that every single interaction between every single atom is inevitable. We have the illusion of making choices, but in reality we make choices based on the configuration of the chemicals in our brain and the configuration of the world in front of us, both of which were predetermined to happen for the last 11 (?) billion years.
Quantum theory somewhat destablises that philosophy, but it's still an interesting one.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that there are any neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically.

When it comes to science, belief doesn't mean a whole lot.

Well, let me rephrase: "I know of no neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically."

kelly1 wrote: »

How does complexity produce consciousness?

I didn't say that "complexity" (however you define that) produces consciousness. I said that consciousness is something that seems to happen when you connect billions of neurons together and let them communicate electrically and chemically. As AtomicHorror points out, nobody currently knows how this happens, but we do know that it happens, and a lot of people are doing a lot of work attempting to understand how it happens.

If you want to claim that our consciousness is animated by a Platonic "soul" or by "puppet strings" controlled by one deity or another then that's fine, but it's a claim that doesn't advance the argument, and doesn't increase our understanding of what's actually going on.

kelly1 wrote: »

What property of matter makes it sentient?

What does "sentient" mean? This isn't hair-splitting, but as with the last time that this topic came up, I don't believe that you have a clear and concise idea of the question you're asking.

.

Zombrex

It is the major problem with this type of discussion, it isn't a question of science not being able to explain how consciousness arises, it is a question of humans not being able to explain what consciousness actually is in the first place, let alone where it comes from.

And again "God did it" provides no increase in understanding what so ever. It is simply an excuse to stop.

Dave!

Wicknight wrote: »

No you aren't, you are trying to find a "gap" that your god can live in.

Because biologists don't understand how consciousness arises in the brain has got nothing to do with God, because God doesn't explain how consciousness arises in the brain either. Again, like so many of these god of the gaps discussions, it is just an excuse to stop asking the question.

If we are going to just start guessing as to how consciousness arises I've got quite a few guesses that don't involve the supernatural

I agree

I think it's a good discussion to have in general, but I find kelly1's OP so laden with disingenuity that I'm not arsed entering into a debate where there is someone positively salivating at the opportunity to shout "SO GOD DID IT THEN!" whenever we inevitably reach the point where we concede -- none of being neuroscientists (and also because neuroscience hasn't explained it yet anyway) -- that we don't have the answer.

At least Gareth was up front with his contempt for science

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

My imaginary friend Bobo finds your comments hurtful.

I'm sorry

Would you like us to reference Bobo in the Constitution? We could let you and your Bobo friends run most of our schools if you like?

Sounds crazy doesn't it?

lostexpectation

dolphins vs robots, vs monkeys fight

AtomicHorror

lostexpectation wrote: »

dolphins vs robots, vs monkeys fight

Put them up against the swarms of self aware magpies and crows. I know who I'm putting my money on in that fight.

leaba

Jeff Hawkins wrote a brilliant book entitled "On intelligence" where he discusses and theorises on how the brain works.

IF you are really interested in this area, I really recommend this book. He even discusses why human brains seem "better" than other animals. He theorises that more neo-cortex equals better pattern recognition.

pH

Other books in this area that I thought were good are "Freedom Evolves" by Daniel Dennett and "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker (Although "The Blank Slate which covers similar area is a better book in my opinion). Great stocking fillers this Winterval season.

kelly1

All, sorry I'm up to my eyes in work today, will post later.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Is it possible for matter to be self-aware?

Thoughts welcome.

Thanks,
Noel.

I think some parallels can be drawn with the evolution of the eye. Something simple, becomes something complex after millions of years of evolution.

Matter arranges into lifeforms which react to external conditions, even if the reactions are very simple and predictive. After a few more millions years, we have brains, then more complex brains which make more complicated decisions and that's all it is.

Goduznt Xzst

kelly1 wrote: »

All, sorry I'm up to my eyes in work today, will post later.

It's ok I'll post for you

kelly1 - "AH HA!!! So God must exist because science doesn't yet fully understand Consciousness. I'll go one step further and let you's know that this God is clearly the Christian God... pwnt, ktnxbye :pac:"

on another note, Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender approaches him and askes, "Ah, good evening sir, shall I get you the usual drink?" Descartes replies "I think not..." and promptly vanishes.

Myksyk

I think Robin's points are well made. The fact is that matter in and of itself is not 'sentient'. Dawkins and Pinker talk about this quite a bit. Individual cells are mindless biobots. However, when evolved over millions of years, some collections of these biobots have been seen to produce an emergent property of consciousness. In the same way, no individual cells see in three dimensions but the experience of sight is a result of millions of these cells working together. There are endless amounts of human experience which are ALL mediated and controlled by collections of cells (and reducing downward ... by collections of atoms). These are wondrous in themselves (e.g. sight, hearing, facial recognition, humour, language, music etc etc etc) yet no-one would argue they are not the result of brain activity. I think consciousness is unlikely to be any different.

stevencarrwork

kelly1 wrote: »

How is choice possible? It's clear (to me) that we all have the ability to make choices. Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

It often does.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is it possible for matter to be self-aware?

I have never known anything else to be self-aware.

Why do you think you have a brain?

Why do you think people who have their brains blown out with a bullet seem to be not as capable of self-awareness as they were before their stream of consciousness was interrupted?

deleriumtremens

Like everybody else in here, I would imagine, I believe that conscious thought and (in my opinion, the illusion of) choice arises from the physical activity of the brain.

I believe that our thoughts, and, therefore, our actions are the result of a long chain of causality, and as a result are unchangeable. Even if you suddenly jerk your elbow right now, you were always going to do that!

Also, I dont think we should act as though there are distinct unconscious and conscious parts of our brains. These are, after all, only words invented by man to try to describe something. Clear boundaries are rare in nature.

Just as other animals work off instincts so do we. Our brains were obviously pre-programmed to have a certain nature to begin with eg. the universality of the concept of what tastes nice, whats beautiful etc.

I think consciousness is just the mental image that the brain keeps re-updating for itself, the information used to produce these images being extracted either from sensory information taken from the enviroment or taken from the bank of information already present in the brain (ie.memory). I think until the brain has acquired enough information in its "memory bank", the person/ other animal will simply work off the instincts ingrained into it's nervous systen during the processes of embryology. This is why children are entirely selfish and why they appear to work off instinct :pac:
Also, I think that because the retrieval of information from the brain itself is not something that "seems physical" to us, we attach some kind of indeterminism to it...ah its hard to say what im trying to say, so i'l stop!!:cool:

kelly1

dioltas wrote: »

In my opinion the human brain is very like a computer, a very complex one though. It makes decisions, has storage, input / output etc.

A computer though, can only follow instructions, it's can't actually think for itself and question the programmer. No computer has awareness of anything. It blindly follows instructions.

dioltas wrote: »

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Sorry for the length of my waffle...

Thanks for the reply.

robindch wrote: »

Well, let me rephrase: "I know of no neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically."

Isn't that just a theory?

robindch wrote: »

I didn't say that "complexity" (however you define that) produces consciousness.

Clearly the brain is complex and we know of no other organism which supposedly produces consciousness. Presumably nobody believes cells to be conscious?

robindch wrote: »

What does "sentient" mean? This isn't hair-splitting, but as with the last time that this topic came up, I don't believe that you have a clear and concise idea of the question you're asking.

Isn't sentient very similar to conscious but with more emphasis on the senses?

I stated at the outset that I wasn't sure how best to formulate my question. I'm not sure if I'm asking the correct question.

In simple language, I'm saying that I don't see how it's possible that matter, regardless of its complexity or form, can produce such things as consciouness, awareness of its surroundings and itself, intelligence, creativity, decision-making or love. I just can't get my head around it and never could. This reductionist view has always gone against the grain for me.

Do any athiests here see where I'm coming from? Does everyone really believe that science will some day answer these questions? I know I'm not being rigorous at all, but I think I'm making a fair point.

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

A computer though, can only follow instructions, it's can't actually think for itself and question the programmer. No computer has awareness of anything. It blindly follows instructions.

In terms of complexity and sophistication, modern computers/software are to the brain as a pendulum is to a BMW.

Even with that in mind, they have already begun designing computers that have rudimentary decision making abilities, learning, planning and creativity.

Have you actually done any reading on the subject? Here is a good start.

In simple language, I'm saying that I don't see how it's possible that matter, regardless of its complexity or form, can produce such things as consciouness, awareness of its surroundings and itself, intelligence, creativity, decision-making or love. I just can't get my head around it and never could. This reductionist view has always gone against the grain for me.

What I don't get is what kind of answer you would give? I say human sentience is a result of the complex interactions of the brain. You say...it's magic? It's the soul? God did it? How are these answers any more satisfactory?

How can an immaterial thing be self-aware?

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

Even with that in mind, they have already begun designing computers that have rudimentary decision making abilities, learning, planning and creativity.

Do these computers ask why they're doing what they do?

Zillah wrote: »

Have you actually done any reading on the subject? Here is a good start.

I know very little about AI, thanks.

Zillah wrote: »

What I don't get is what kind of answer you would give? I say human sentience is a result of the complex interactions of the brain. You say...it's magic? It's the soul? God did it? How are these answers any more satisfactory?

Yes, naturally I'd say it's the spirit which produces will, reason, intellect, consciousness etc. I find that to be a satisfactory explanation but obviously not on a scientific level.

Zillah wrote: »

How can an immaterial thing be self-aware?

Because self-awareness is a property of spirit just as mass is a property of matter.

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

Do these computers ask why they're doing what they do?

Not yet.

Yes, naturally I'd say it's the spirit which produces will, reason, intellect, consciousness etc. I find that to be a satisfactory explanation but obviously not on a scientific level.

I'd argue that it's not satisfactory on any level. You're not explaining the origin of sentience at all, you're just saying it's magic. That's not an explanation.

Because self-awareness is a property of spirit just as mass is a property of matter.

That's a baseless assertion. I could just as easily assert that sentience is a property of complex systems of matter in the same way mass is a property of matter. At least I can prove that matter exists and can form complex systems, whereas you are not only claiming that spirit exists without evidence, but also baselessly dictating the inherent qualities of this...stuff.

We don't know yet. Sure you make up an answer that satisfies you but it is just that; made up. You haven't answered the question, you've just found an excuse to stop asking it.

Dave!

kelly1 wrote: »

A computer though, can only follow instructions, it's can't actually think for itself and question the programmer. No computer has awareness of anything. It blindly follows instructions.

Yes, a computer has limited capabilities, and only responds appropriately in certain circumstances/given specific stimuli. But if you programme it with millions of different reactions to millions of stimuli, then it's capabilities become less limited, you agree?

Well guess what! The mind only has limited capabilities too! A few examples... Humans can hear sound right? Any sound? NO! Our range of hearing is between roughly 20Hz and 20,000Hz. Beyond those ranges, we can't hear the sound even though it's there. So there's one limitation.

What about vision? Humans can only see EM radiation of wavelength 400-700 nanometers. We can't see microwaves, radiowaves, x-rays, etc. We only see a teeny tiny range of the waves that are zooming around the world. There's another limitation on our brains.

Our brains are also easily tricked and manipulated. Check out any visual illusions for evidence of this. Our brains f*ck up all the time, and it can affect us in the real world. check out www.dothetest.co.uk . Another limitation.

I'm sure you're aware that driving whilst on the phone is more dangerous than without. This is because the brain finds it difficult to concentrate on the road whilst having a conversation. It's a very real limitation on our perception.


Point being -- you seem to write off the computational view of the mind because you know that computers are limited and finite, but you think that the brain is not. Well it is, as I have just shown you. There are lots and lots of situations where our brains (a) don't work as they should, (b) don't work at all, or (c) crash/f*ck up.

Computers have only been around in any significant way for 40 years or so. So whatever programming was put into the computer has to have been done in that time, which means it obviously has a very limited range of capabilities. Even if someone spent the last 40 years just giving a computer different reactions to specific stimuli, it would still have a finite amount.

Well try millions of years via evolution. You'll find the capabilities of the computer increase exponentially, though they'll still be finite.

kelly1 wrote: »

In simple language, I'm saying that I don't see how it's possible that matter, regardless of its complexity or form, can produce such things as consciouness, awareness of its surroundings and itself, intelligence, creativity, decision-making or love. I just can't get my head around it and never could. This reductionist view has always gone against the grain for me.

Well you really have to accept the theory of evolution for it to make any sense... AFAIK you don't.

Do you accept that plants can come about organically through evolution? They have their own various specific 'skills' (for want of a better word) such as photosynthesis, etc. Plants react to their environment in their own ways. For example some plants curl around whatever they touch, e.g.:


They can climb all the way up a building:


And what about the Venus fly trap?

THIS IS WITHOUT A NERVOUS SYSTEM!!!!!

Bacteria are capable of locomotion too. These are really primitive lifeforms compared to humans. No nervous system, no brains, etc.

Again you have to accept evolution for it to make any sense really, so I don't know why the hell I'm bothering.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do any athiests here see where I'm coming from? Does everyone really believe that science will some day answer these questions? I know I'm not being rigorous at all, but I think I'm making a fair point.

I'm fairly confident that neuroscience will be able to explain consciousness eventually, yeah. It's still a relatively young field, but with all the fancy technology being used now, there's been a tonne of research done.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Because self-awareness is a property of spirit just as mass is a property of matter.

Says who? According to what?

You might as well say peanut butter is a property of the spirit...

You have absolutely no idea what is or what isn't a property of the "spirit", nor do you have any proper definition of what the "spirit" is nor how it is actually supposed to work. The Bible doesn't even discuss these matters (not a science book as we keep being reminded on the Christian forum), so where you got the above statement from I've no idea.

You can certainly tell us all the things that you would like to be true, that you guess are true, but that is as pointless as someone saying it is little imps in our brains talking to each other that control consciousness.

Again all this is simple an excuse to stop asking the questions, rather than an answer. Saying the spirit does it tells you nothing since you don't know what the spirit is, what it is actually supposed to do or how it is actually supposed to do it.

stevencarrwork

kelly1 wrote: »

Because self-awareness is a property of spirit just as mass is a property of matter.

How come during my operation my 'spirit' lost self-awareness, when it was my brain that was being given chemicals?

Would you like to tell me what you use your brain for?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

A computer though, can only follow instructions, it's can't actually think for itself and question the programmer. No computer has awareness of anything. It blindly follows instructions.

No computer yet.

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't that just a theory?

Isn't that enough?

kelly1 wrote: »

Clearly the brain is complex and we know of no other organism which supposedly produces consciousness. Presumably nobody believes cells to be conscious?

Dophins, whales and monkeys.

kelly1 wrote: »

I stated at the outset that I wasn't sure how best to formulate my question. I'm not sure if I'm asking the correct question.

Let me try:
"How come you can't accept God into your hearts? Don't you know your consciousness is a result of your immortal soul?"

Thats probably what you wanted to ask?

kelly1 wrote: »

In simple language, I'm saying that I don't see how it's possible that matter, regardless of its complexity or form, can produce such things as consciouness, awareness of its surroundings and itself, intelligence, creativity, decision-making or love. I just can't get my head around it and never could. This reductionist view has always gone against the grain for me.

Thats because you have closed your eyes and outsourced your reason to someone else real or imaginary.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do any athiests here see where I'm coming from? Does everyone really believe that science will some day answer these questions? I know I'm not being rigorous at all, but I think I'm making a fair point.

No you're not you are completely biased towards the hope that we have a non material soul.

CerebralCortex

stevencarrwork wrote: »

How come during my operation my 'spirit' lost self-awareness, when it was my brain that was being given chemicals?

Would you like to tell me what you use your brain for?

I have had the same experience twice (had my nose broken needed two ops )
and for all intensive purposes I was brain dead 4 hours of my life with absolutely no consciousness completely lights out. What a rush!!!!!

dioltas

That spirit comment was a bit ridiculous tbh. Just because you don't understand how you are self-aware you explain it by saying it's the spirit that produces will and reason. I don't want to question your beliefs, but I though we were having a semi-scientific discussion.

Thats like thousands of years ago when people didn't know what the sun was, so they explained it by a god travelling accross the sky. I could just as easily say "we were created by super-aliens who programmed us to be able to think and have self awareness" or " there's a little bit of god in in all of us and that's where we get our reason".

I heard before that if we ever became intelligent enough to properly understand the human brain, it would need to be that more complex, so that we could never really understand it. Something along those lines anyway. Don't know if there's any truth to that though!

kelly1

Dave! wrote: »

Yes, a computer has limited capabilities, and only responds appropriately in certain circumstances/given specific stimuli. But if you programme it with millions of different reactions to millions of stimuli, then it's capabilities become less limited, you agree?

Yes but it still has no consciousness.

Dave! wrote: »

Point being -- you seem to write off the computational view of the mind because you know that computers are limited and finite, but you think that the brain is not.

I never said the brain or mind wasn't finite! It clearly is finite in its powers.

Dave! wrote: »

Well you really have to accept the theory of evolution for it to make any sense... AFAIK you don't.

I do accept evolution.

Dave! wrote: »

Again you have to accept evolution for it to make any sense really, so I don't know why the hell I'm bothering.

What gave you the idea that I don't accept evolution? I certainly don't reject it, I believe man could have evolved from apes but I'm not totally convinced.

Dave! wrote: »

I'm fairly confident that neuroscience will be able to explain consciousness eventually, yeah. It's still a relatively young field, but with all the fancy technology being used now, there's been a tonne of research done.

You have a lot of faith in science!

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes but it still has no consciousness.

How would you test that I have consciousness rather than merely behaving as if I do?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

A computer though, can only follow instructions

Neural networks don't follow instructions, per se. Instead, they receive complex multi-channel input, and produce various kinds of output. It is not procedural or instruction-based.

kelly1 wrote: »

Clearly the brain is complex and we know of no other organism which supposedly produces consciousness. Presumably nobody believes cells to be conscious?

There are plenty of other organisms which, for very good reasons, are believed to be conscious in the same manner that we humans are.

kelly1 wrote: »

In simple language, I'm saying that I don't see how it's possible that matter, regardless of its complexity or form, can produce such things as consciouness, awareness of its surroundings and itself, intelligence, creativity, decision-making or love. I just can't get my head around it and never could. This reductionist view has always gone against the grain for me.

I suggest that you try to think of the problem of consciousness in terms other than the "reductionist" model that you're currently assuming we use. We don't assert reductionism. Instead, we start at the bottom -- cells, electrical impulses, chemicals moving back and forth -- and try to work our way up from there. It's slow as hell, but it's produced some remarkable findings over the last thirty years or so.

Not the least of which is the observation that certain primitive parts of the brain seem to know about upcoming actions before the higher-level stuff is aware of it. In short, that something in the brain is fooling itself into thinking that the higher-level conscious controls something, when in fact it doesn't. This brain-fooling-itself is see in other places too, especially in the brain's visual processing.

BTW, neurons not being conscious does not mean that they cannot contribute to consciousness -- as I said it seems to be an emergent property of billions of them interacting. But exactly how this interaction produces what appears to be the illusion of what we refer to as "consciousness" is currently unknown.

Perhaps you would understand the viewpoint better if you considered that, depending on how you look at it, a Bach cantata could be seen as a bunch of paper and some black marks, or a large collection of vibrating air molecules. But that doesn't mean that's it's something a whole lot more than that too.

The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.